I recommend a Safari subscription. It provides online access to everthing by O'Reilly and a number of other publishers. My subscription has saved me huge amounts of time, since I can search and find useful information on all sorts of topics without leaving my desk.
Catholic college? Are you presently Catholic? What denomination was this professor, out of curiosity?
I am not Catholic; I believe the professor teaching the class was. I'm not sure that either point is relevant.
Well, those are really touching words. Great way to encourage healthy dialogues and understanding!
Yea, I don't really care. My take on it is this - intelligent design is old news, and it hasn't become any more interesting over the years. Let's move on to something else.
You got it wrong. Please try again, or better yet don't.
If your claim is that intelligent design is a scientific hypothesis, then your problem is that there is no way to show it may be false. This means that it can't be a scientific hypothesis.
If your claim is that intelligent design is a religious belief, then it's subject to being debunked on religious grounds. So, for example, when I went to a Catholic university some years ago, I was taught that intelligent design is poorly reasoned, and thus a pretty shaky religious belief.
If Microsoft, or anybody else, wants to release its software under its own license, that's their business. And if the license satisfies the OSI's or the FSF's free/open source definitions, that's great. However, I'm not interested in reading more license texts, so I'm going to pass on the software. There are already enough free software licenses out there to satisfy nearly any reasonable requirements.
The article's author is just spouting more of his standard nonsense. Lyons doesn't get free software and he's pissed at those of us who do get it. Clicking on a link to a Lyons article never seems to justify the effort spent on the click.
I like Magnatune, and I would definitely check with them. I don't think they distribute cd's; they're download only. They do, however, meet all of your other criteria, and they would still allow your brother's band to distribute cd's themselves.
On the receiving end, DRM'd media doesn't do anything for me, so I'm not interested and I won't waste my time, even if the protocol is open.
As a distributor of media, DRM doesn't do anything for me - it just makes my stuff less accessible, so I'm not interested and I won't waste my time, even if the protocol is open.
Other distributors of media may want to use DRM, and that's fine. They are within their rights to do so. To me, it's a way for them to put a big red flag on their stuff telling me to avoid it, and I assume that's what they want.
The solution to the DRM problem is pretty simple. Don't buy/borrow/download/play/touch the stuff. Send a clear message to the producers and distributors of media that you don't want DRM'd stuff. The smart ones will adapt, and the dumb ones don't matter.
I've got some extra time. I've used Windows briefly a few times in my career, but I'm certainly not experienced with it. If somebody wants to loan me a suitable box with Windows on it, I'll try it for ten days and report back to everyone. What do you say?
There's another point you're leaving out. While the shills are busy slagging Linux, people in the know are steadily and quietly rolling out Linux systems that just work. When a Tommy Hilfiger - sized company adopts Linux, it's not news anymore.
Let's let the WSJ print whatever it wants to while the rest of us get back to work.
Perhaps artists will always need marketing, but it doesn't follow that a record label is the only or best way to do that. The internet make it possible to market with less capital, and it makes it easier to make connections. It also changes the kind of connections that are valuable. If record companies want to stay relevant, they need to adapt, and they need to realize that their cut of the pie will probably shrink since their services are less valuable to everyone else involved.
Recording companies don't care about consumers; they're scared as hell that the artists will decide that they don't need record companies any more. The artists will quit signing with them, or they will insist on better terms.
Recording companies stay in business because they control artists' access to listeners. The Internet is threatening this, and the recording companies are going apeshit over it.
Here's an argument I heard RMS make on TLLTS, and I think it's a good one:
Suppose you're running MS or other non-free software. Sooner or later a student is going to start asking about how it works, and you're going to have to say, "I don't know, and according to the license agreement, you're not allowed to find out." As an educator, is that what you want to tell your students?
With free software like OOo, you'll have access to everything, and teachers and students will be free to explore every aspect of the software. That's the kind of thing that should be happening in schools.
They provide a service, and if you don't like it you are free to use another.
True, and I think you should use another. This program benefits itunes, even though they screwed up. They offer a service I don't want, but this program turns it into a service I might want.
The reason for a DRM is so you don't pass on the music to someone else for free, because once 1000 people get copies of the song you bought for $.99 the artist only gets 1 royalty payment - and that is unfair.
I don't like DRM because, once I buy a recording of some music, I want to be able to make copies of it for my own use. I do not think it's ok to distribute copyrighted material without permission of the recipient of the legislated monopoly.
Also, I would love to see artists get more money in return for their work. That's one reason why I don't buy from RIAA labels, because they have convinced me that they don't really care about the artists.
Slashdot Mirror
...so what reasons do I have to buy Vista?
Why don't we just lock the whiny bastard up?
Maybe we could get Sony to include it on some new CD's...
What's the problem? The studio wanted to prevent people from seeing this film, and they succeeded. Kudos to all involved!
I recommend a Safari subscription. It provides online access to everthing by O'Reilly and a number of other publishers. My subscription has saved me huge amounts of time, since I can search and find useful information on all sorts of topics without leaving my desk.
Catholic college? Are you presently Catholic? What denomination was this professor, out of curiosity?
I am not Catholic; I believe the professor teaching the class was. I'm not sure that either point is relevant.
Well, those are really touching words. Great way to encourage healthy dialogues and understanding!
Yea, I don't really care. My take on it is this - intelligent design is old news, and it hasn't become any more interesting over the years. Let's move on to something else.
You got it wrong. Please try again, or better yet don't.
If your claim is that intelligent design is a scientific hypothesis, then your problem is that there is no way to show it may be false. This means that it can't be a scientific hypothesis.
If your claim is that intelligent design is a religious belief, then it's subject to being debunked on religious grounds. So, for example, when I went to a Catholic university some years ago, I was taught that intelligent design is poorly reasoned, and thus a pretty shaky religious belief.
That's cool and all, but I'm not missing out on any cartoons for this. A guy's got to have his priorities.
Can we get a law like this in my state now?
If Microsoft, or anybody else, wants to release its software under its own license, that's their business. And if the license satisfies the OSI's or the FSF's free/open source definitions, that's great. However, I'm not interested in reading more license texts, so I'm going to pass on the software. There are already enough free software licenses out there to satisfy nearly any reasonable requirements.
The article's author is just spouting more of his standard nonsense. Lyons doesn't get free software and he's pissed at those of us who do get it. Clicking on a link to a Lyons article never seems to justify the effort spent on the click.
Maybe the RIAA should just list everyone they don't plan on suing, since that should be a short, easily compiled list.
I like Magnatune, and I would definitely check with them. I don't think they distribute cd's; they're download only. They do, however, meet all of your other criteria, and they would still allow your brother's band to distribute cd's themselves.
On the receiving end, DRM'd media doesn't do anything for me, so I'm not interested and I won't waste my time, even if the protocol is open.
As a distributor of media, DRM doesn't do anything for me - it just makes my stuff less accessible, so I'm not interested and I won't waste my time, even if the protocol is open.
Other distributors of media may want to use DRM, and that's fine. They are within their rights to do so. To me, it's a way for them to put a big red flag on their stuff telling me to avoid it, and I assume that's what they want.
The solution to the DRM problem is pretty simple. Don't buy/borrow/download/play/touch the stuff. Send a clear message to the producers and distributors of media that you don't want DRM'd stuff. The smart ones will adapt, and the dumb ones don't matter.
I've got some extra time. I've used Windows briefly a few times in my career, but I'm certainly not experienced with it. If somebody wants to loan me a suitable box with Windows on it, I'll try it for ten days and report back to everyone. What do you say?
There's another point you're leaving out. While the shills are busy slagging Linux, people in the know are steadily and quietly rolling out Linux systems that just work. When a Tommy Hilfiger - sized company adopts Linux, it's not news anymore.
Let's let the WSJ print whatever it wants to while the rest of us get back to work.
I used to go to the office on Saturday too. It was my most productive time, since there were no interupptions from coworkers.
Now I work from home, and every day is like that.
Beer and liquor work well also. Tequila would be a good choice in this case.
If you spent a lot of money on Windows software, I'd say you already threw it away.
In fact, I think I'll take it a step further and boycott Windows as well.
Perhaps artists will always need marketing, but it doesn't follow that a record label is the only or best way to do that. The internet make it possible to market with less capital, and it makes it easier to make connections. It also changes the kind of connections that are valuable. If record companies want to stay relevant, they need to adapt, and they need to realize that their cut of the pie will probably shrink since their services are less valuable to everyone else involved.
Recording companies don't care about consumers; they're scared as hell that the artists will decide that they don't need record companies any more. The artists will quit signing with them, or they will insist on better terms.
Recording companies stay in business because they control artists' access to listeners. The Internet is threatening this, and the recording companies are going apeshit over it.
What is this "reboot" of which you speak?
Here's an argument I heard RMS make on TLLTS, and I think it's a good one:
Suppose you're running MS or other non-free software. Sooner or later a student is going to start asking about how it works, and you're going to have to say, "I don't know, and according to the license agreement, you're not allowed to find out." As an educator, is that what you want to tell your students?
With free software like OOo, you'll have access to everything, and teachers and students will be free to explore every aspect of the software. That's the kind of thing that should be happening in schools.
They provide a service, and if you don't like it you are free to use another.
True, and I think you should use another. This program benefits itunes, even though they screwed up. They offer a service I don't want, but this program turns it into a service I might want.
The reason for a DRM is so you don't pass on the music to someone else for free, because once 1000 people get copies of the song you bought for $.99 the artist only gets 1 royalty payment - and that is unfair.
I don't like DRM because, once I buy a recording of some music, I want to be able to make copies of it for my own use. I do not think it's ok to distribute copyrighted material without permission of the recipient of the legislated monopoly.
Also, I would love to see artists get more money in return for their work. That's one reason why I don't buy from RIAA labels, because they have convinced me that they don't really care about the artists.
Music is not open source.
Don't try to change the subject.