Try as I might, I can't make heads or tails out of your alleged logic, or your assertions that I've articulated fallacies. Making sense would be a better tactic. Simply asserting that I'm wrong isn't very convincing.
Sounds like you've recently taken Logic 101. Good luck with that.
Good luck with that "false dilemma" stuff in court. And citing Wikipedia as a credible source.
Look, I did not set out that only two shades of privacy exist. I clearly asserted that by establishing that the owners had allowed others to use that road -- for any purpose -- or that they had received direct or indirect public support for the road, that Google would weaken the owners claim to absolute privacy.
In addition, a sign that reads "Private Road" clearly does not read "No Trespassing". The two phrases have different meanings and it would be left to a court to decide if members of the public should be held liable for failing to interpret "Private Road" to mean "No Trespassing". (And, after that, it is up to a court to determine what, if any, authority a "No Trespassing" sign conveys. Mere placement of a sign directing some form of behavior does not imply legal sanction.)
The primary reason yahoos like you are angry with Google is that it is big and domineering. If this was a story about some acne-scarred adolescent geek trying to take photos of Google with a Linux-powered rig, you'd be up in arms to support the guy.
Google's submission discussed "complete privacy", not mere "privacy".
Clearly, we have rights to photograph private property if we do it from a public vantage point. The fact that this house is privately held has no bearing here.
The issue, it seems, is the impact of the "private road" sign. Does it mean permission must be granted before anyone, at any time, can use that road? Does the law argue that the "private road" sign compels all others to stay off that road?
And, if I was Google, I'd look into the degree to which that "private road" and that property receive any kind of public support. Are police allowed on it to provide protection? The fire department? Are there beneficial tax consequences involved for someone maintaining a private road? Are any public monies used in any way in relation to that road?
And, can the road's owners prove that they have maintained their privacy claim by prohibiting all others from using the road?
BTW, a driveway with a "no trespassing" sign is not the same as a "private road" with no such sign. You may call the police and your lawyer, but asserting a privacy claim is not the same as proving it.
Yes, and that just highlights the advisability of having someone other than developers review bug reports and feature requests. It's those people who should parse the poorly worded complaints, reroute those that were misdirected, etc., etc.
And, yes, commercial developers only pursue bugs that are believed to promise a net return. The flip side is that commercial developers pursue bugs believed to promise a net return, and that benefits the widest range of users. When returns are based on sales, anything that drags down sales gets moved to the top of the list. Free software developers also expect a return on their efforts. It's not just, usually, increased sales. They make a parallel calculation matching the cost of fixing a bug versus the value that will return to them.
Commercial vendors also do not need to deal with developer egos getting in the way. When a bug report goes straight to that code's developer -- who either didn't catch the bug or did and ignored it -- it's human nature to interpret that report as criticism.
Bottom line, I guess: The Linux community has ample evidence that allowing users to feed bug reports/feature requests directly to developers does not result in more widespread acceptance of Linux.
There is no PC way to say "I don't care." If developer mailing lists accept bug reports, then developers are going to get bug reports.
Remember, users do not consider Linux and associated software to be privileged developer territory, into which mere users are sometimes allowed to peer. When developers give the impression that Linux is their special toy, users justifiably get angry. That anti-user attitude is one of the reasons I walked away from Linux after a decade of use.
But, creating popular software has little to do with bug reports. If people want to use a program, they will put up with a surprising number of bugs. (See Microsoft.) If they don't want to use a program, they won't bother complaining about bugs. They just won't use it. Developers who get no complaints should worry.
Commercial vendors have an advantage because bug fixing decisions, as well as design and development decisions, can be controlled by a very small number of people. Linux distributions can emulated the former, but not the latter.
You're right about programs that are little more than a bag of stubs. Far too many half-baked programs are released by lazy developers who expect users to be unwitting testers.
Criticism garnered at professional focus groups isn't likely to differ from that garnered in the typical online Linux gripe session.
Gripes from users may strike developers as something less than sane, but all of those people are saying something that matters to them. However silly or pointless a complaint might seem, it is something that may very probably keep someone from using Linux.
In the commercial world, developers are not the only people with a voice in deciding which complaints are addressed and which are not. If management believes a complaint is hurting sales, I suspect it will be addressed, no matter how trivial or inane. Given their nature, many Linux development efforts may or may not mirror that behavior.
(Anecdote: Once upon a time, I led a number of requirements gathering efforts for some software efforts as well as overseeing testing each iteration with users. At least 8 of 10 of their comments were repetitive, cosmetic, silly, etc. But, they established the baseline for the software's acceptability. Whatever I thought, or the developers thought, the users would have rejected the product if we had not addressed their complaints.)
Finally, I think I have a reasonable view of the purpose of Free Software, but I'm convinced that the only users who take that into consideration are already Free Software converts. I.e., judging Linux from a Free Software point of view assures Linux remains a Free Software enthusiasm.
Linux lovers should be grateful that anyone bothers to provide free criticism. Commercial vendors spend big bucks on focus sessions to acquire the same information.
One troubling trait exhibited by some Linux devotees is their insistence on responding to any criticism of the software by touting it's free software/open source roots. Frankly, that's little consolation to someone who's pointing out why they're unhappy with the software. Why should the model used to develop and distribute software mollify users when they see inadequacies in that software?
Of course, linked to that is the really annoying challenge to "Just fix it yourself! You've got the source!" That's an absurd claim. It's either premised on a wish to rid the Linux community of anyone who is not a bona fide developer, or it is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of what it takes to be a competent developer.
Linux is a great OS and the best desktop distributions have nothing to hide. But, nothing ever gets better when people deliberately turn a blind eye to complaints.
The poster was clearly arguing that he had rights to something I made. Those rights cannot exist before the object exists. Those rights come into existence simultaneously with the thing I make. The thing and rights associated with me belong to me at that point. I, therefore, am the origin of any rights subsequently acquired by others, because the only way they can acquire those rights is by transfer from me.
Your argument does not hold. For example, the electricity you use belongs to the power company, even though it is sent to your residence. You have agreed to pay them for the amount of electricity used in your residence. You have not agreed to pay them for electricity sent to your neighbor's house. If you steal that electricity, you will be cited for violating the law because you have no right to that electricity, even though you possess it.
Nor can you take the electricity that legally enters your house and sell it to others. You cannot do this because the agreement you have made with the power company did not transfer that right to you. I.e., the electricity, and all rights to it, originated with the power company. They sold you some of that electricity, and some rights associated with it, to you. The rest they retain.
Parallel logic applies elsewhere. Physical possession does not give you carte blanche to do with something as you please.
As I said, ideas cannot be copied. They cannot be written down, seen, heard or smelled. Your post is an organized collection of symbols intended to express ideas, but it is not a bunch of ideas. The difference between the two concepts is significant. I'm not talking about ideas.
And, by following you're argument, we'd conclude that no one ever can own anything, since none of us made atoms.
Also, as you perhaps have noted, having a right does not prevent someone from thwarting your exercise of that right. People have a right to live, but that does not stop murderers. By your logic, that means the right to live does not exist.
Your ranting graf about copyright is irrelevent, since I am not talking about copyright. Copyright is part of the legal code. It could disappear tomorrow with no impact on my argument. Laws, in fact, while they can thwart or enable the exercise of our rights, can neither create or destroy them.
I'm not talking about ideas. A created work is not an idea. Ideas are incorporeal. They cannot be transferred from one human to another.
I'm not talking about copyright law, or its benefits or its abuses.
I am simply that rights to something -- anything -- do not exist when that thing does not exist. When I create something, the rights inherent in it come into existence. I own the thing I've made and I own all rights associated with it. The only way anyone else can obtain any of those rights is by transfer from me, and I may place any conditions and restraints on those transferred rights.
Talk of ideas, copyright, intellectual property, creativity, etc., is just noise and irrelevant. Those issues have no bearing on reality.
1. No one can have rights to something that does not exist. This refutes the argument that the public has rights to something I make. Those rights come into existence when I make the object and no way exists for the public to simultaneously acquire those rights.
2. When I make something, all rights to it belong to me. Since no one had rights to it before I made it, no one other than myself can have rights to it unless I transfer those rights.
3. If or when i transfer those rights is solely my decision.
4. Among those rights are the right to copy and redistribute my creation.
5. If I make copies of my work and distribute them, I and I alone determine if the recipients have any rights to do anything at all with their copy. For example, I may say they have no right to make any additional copies, or I may say they do.
6. The fundamental difference between an original work and a copy is that all rights to that work were created by and controlled by the work's creator. Possession of a copy does not create rights; only creation of an original work creates rights. Possession of a copy only includes the rights transferred, and as proscribed, by the work's creator. The public has no rights to a copy of an original work other than those transferred by the work's creator.
7. All of the above exists with or without copyright law. Copyright is simply a legal mechanism intended to recognize an existing reality. As such, copyright law, whatever its fairness or unfairness, has no bearing on any of the points I've outlined.
Wrong. The right to copy something I make is one of the rights I control exclusively. You don't have any right to make that copy until I give you that right. And i determine how many copies you can make and what you can do with them.
Don't be silly. If I make something, I own it. No one has any rights to it unless and until I say so. Then, I decide how and when some or all of those rights are transferred, not you. Copyright didn't create those rights, it just recognizes and protects something that has always existed.
The examples you cite from ancient Rome and Asia, etc., are specious. One might as well justify slavery by arguing that the Romans were quite happy with it. Human behavior is no arbiter of right and wrong.
Prove to me how you magically have a right to anything I make and don't want you to have.
Windfarm Support for Late-Model iMac G5?
on
Linux 2.6.26 Out
·
· Score: 1
I see that windfarm support for the PowerMac 12,1 series has been added.
Does this mean I can finally run Linux on this late-model iMac G5 without the fans exploding?
Why would anyone risk hiring products of Louisiana's education system?
Go to New Orleans and spend lots of money, but boycott the rest of the state. Tell you boss and your HR people that Louisiana schools are deliberately turning out dummies and that you don't want them working with you. Pull your contracts out of Louisiana.
Tell them you'll come back when the current idiots in the legislature and the governor's office are replaced by rational human beings.
The size of a booster isn't all that important. The Brits put a satellite up in 1971 with a homebrew booster. The UK's small footprint in space is the result of policy decisions, not capabilities.
You answered your own question: Write better torrent clients and better games for Linux than you get on Windows.
By believing Linux must enable Windows users to bring some of their software with them, projects like WINE explicitly position Windows as a superior product and the standard by which Linux should be measured..
For all that it was and was not, Win95 was the platform most of us were using the first time we logged on to the Internet and used a browser (probably Netscape). The web would have developed differently and more slowly without it.
Slashdot Mirror
Try as I might, I can't make heads or tails out of your alleged logic, or your assertions that I've articulated fallacies. Making sense would be a better tactic. Simply asserting that I'm wrong isn't very convincing.
Sounds like you've recently taken Logic 101. Good luck with that.
Good luck with that "false dilemma" stuff in court. And citing Wikipedia as a credible source.
Look, I did not set out that only two shades of privacy exist. I clearly asserted that by establishing that the owners had allowed others to use that road -- for any purpose -- or that they had received direct or indirect public support for the road, that Google would weaken the owners claim to absolute privacy.
In addition, a sign that reads "Private Road" clearly does not read "No Trespassing". The two phrases have different meanings and it would be left to a court to decide if members of the public should be held liable for failing to interpret "Private Road" to mean "No Trespassing". (And, after that, it is up to a court to determine what, if any, authority a "No Trespassing" sign conveys. Mere placement of a sign directing some form of behavior does not imply legal sanction.)
The primary reason yahoos like you are angry with Google is that it is big and domineering. If this was a story about some acne-scarred adolescent geek trying to take photos of Google with a Linux-powered rig, you'd be up in arms to support the guy.
Google's submission discussed "complete privacy", not mere "privacy".
Clearly, we have rights to photograph private property if we do it from a public vantage point. The fact that this house is privately held has no bearing here.
The issue, it seems, is the impact of the "private road" sign. Does it mean permission must be granted before anyone, at any time, can use that road? Does the law argue that the "private road" sign compels all others to stay off that road?
And, if I was Google, I'd look into the degree to which that "private road" and that property receive any kind of public support. Are police allowed on it to provide protection? The fire department? Are there beneficial tax consequences involved for someone maintaining a private road? Are any public monies used in any way in relation to that road?
And, can the road's owners prove that they have maintained their privacy claim by prohibiting all others from using the road?
BTW, a driveway with a "no trespassing" sign is not the same as a "private road" with no such sign. You may call the police and your lawyer, but asserting a privacy claim is not the same as proving it.
>>"The couple's house is on a private road clearly marked as private property."
Do mail carriers blindfold themselves before stopping there? Are firetrucks allowed in?
Does putting up a "private road" sign mean no one can drive down that road? Did these people put a locked gate at the entrance to that road?
Absolute privacy would mean invisibility.
Yes, and that just highlights the advisability of having someone other than developers review bug reports and feature requests. It's those people who should parse the poorly worded complaints, reroute those that were misdirected, etc., etc.
And, yes, commercial developers only pursue bugs that are believed to promise a net return. The flip side is that commercial developers pursue bugs believed to promise a net return, and that benefits the widest range of users. When returns are based on sales, anything that drags down sales gets moved to the top of the list. Free software developers also expect a return on their efforts. It's not just, usually, increased sales. They make a parallel calculation matching the cost of fixing a bug versus the value that will return to them.
Commercial vendors also do not need to deal with developer egos getting in the way. When a bug report goes straight to that code's developer -- who either didn't catch the bug or did and ignored it -- it's human nature to interpret that report as criticism.
Bottom line, I guess: The Linux community has ample evidence that allowing users to feed bug reports/feature requests directly to developers does not result in more widespread acceptance of Linux.
There is no PC way to say "I don't care." If developer mailing lists accept bug reports, then developers are going to get bug reports.
Remember, users do not consider Linux and associated software to be privileged developer territory, into which mere users are sometimes allowed to peer. When developers give the impression that Linux is their special toy, users justifiably get angry. That anti-user attitude is one of the reasons I walked away from Linux after a decade of use.
But, creating popular software has little to do with bug reports. If people want to use a program, they will put up with a surprising number of bugs. (See Microsoft.) If they don't want to use a program, they won't bother complaining about bugs. They just won't use it. Developers who get no complaints should worry.
Commercial vendors have an advantage because bug fixing decisions, as well as design and development decisions, can be controlled by a very small number of people. Linux distributions can emulated the former, but not the latter.
You're right about programs that are little more than a bag of stubs. Far too many half-baked programs are released by lazy developers who expect users to be unwitting testers.
And...?
Yes, but...
Criticism garnered at professional focus groups isn't likely to differ from that garnered in the typical online Linux gripe session.
Gripes from users may strike developers as something less than sane, but all of those people are saying something that matters to them. However silly or pointless a complaint might seem, it is something that may very probably keep someone from using Linux.
In the commercial world, developers are not the only people with a voice in deciding which complaints are addressed and which are not. If management believes a complaint is hurting sales, I suspect it will be addressed, no matter how trivial or inane. Given their nature, many Linux development efforts may or may not mirror that behavior.
(Anecdote: Once upon a time, I led a number of requirements gathering efforts for some software efforts as well as overseeing testing each iteration with users. At least 8 of 10 of their comments were repetitive, cosmetic, silly, etc. But, they established the baseline for the software's acceptability. Whatever I thought, or the developers thought, the users would have rejected the product if we had not addressed their complaints.)
Finally, I think I have a reasonable view of the purpose of Free Software, but I'm convinced that the only users who take that into consideration are already Free Software converts. I.e., judging Linux from a Free Software point of view assures Linux remains a Free Software enthusiasm.
Linux lovers should be grateful that anyone bothers to provide free criticism. Commercial vendors spend big bucks on focus sessions to acquire the same information.
One troubling trait exhibited by some Linux devotees is their insistence on responding to any criticism of the software by touting it's free software/open source roots. Frankly, that's little consolation to someone who's pointing out why they're unhappy with the software. Why should the model used to develop and distribute software mollify users when they see inadequacies in that software?
Of course, linked to that is the really annoying challenge to "Just fix it yourself! You've got the source!" That's an absurd claim. It's either premised on a wish to rid the Linux community of anyone who is not a bona fide developer, or it is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of what it takes to be a competent developer.
Linux is a great OS and the best desktop distributions have nothing to hide. But, nothing ever gets better when people deliberately turn a blind eye to complaints.
The chances of a deer being in front of you are miniscule compared with the chances of a car being front of you.
Your logic would have us avoid dealing with the commonplace to prepare for the rare.
The poster was clearly arguing that he had rights to something I made. Those rights cannot exist before the object exists. Those rights come into existence simultaneously with the thing I make. The thing and rights associated with me belong to me at that point. I, therefore, am the origin of any rights subsequently acquired by others, because the only way they can acquire those rights is by transfer from me.
Your argument does not hold. For example, the electricity you use belongs to the power company, even though it is sent to your residence. You have agreed to pay them for the amount of electricity used in your residence. You have not agreed to pay them for electricity sent to your neighbor's house. If you steal that electricity, you will be cited for violating the law because you have no right to that electricity, even though you possess it.
Nor can you take the electricity that legally enters your house and sell it to others. You cannot do this because the agreement you have made with the power company did not transfer that right to you. I.e., the electricity, and all rights to it, originated with the power company. They sold you some of that electricity, and some rights associated with it, to you. The rest they retain.
Parallel logic applies elsewhere. Physical possession does not give you carte blanche to do with something as you please.
As I said, ideas cannot be copied. They cannot be written down, seen, heard or smelled. Your post is an organized collection of symbols intended to express ideas, but it is not a bunch of ideas. The difference between the two concepts is significant. I'm not talking about ideas.
And, by following you're argument, we'd conclude that no one ever can own anything, since none of us made atoms.
Also, as you perhaps have noted, having a right does not prevent someone from thwarting your exercise of that right. People have a right to live, but that does not stop murderers. By your logic, that means the right to live does not exist.
Your ranting graf about copyright is irrelevent, since I am not talking about copyright. Copyright is part of the legal code. It could disappear tomorrow with no impact on my argument. Laws, in fact, while they can thwart or enable the exercise of our rights, can neither create or destroy them.
Rights do not depend on someone "saying so", but... the burden of the question falls to you: How do you acquire rights that do not exist?
I'm not talking about ideas. A created work is not an idea. Ideas are incorporeal. They cannot be transferred from one human to another.
I'm not talking about copyright law, or its benefits or its abuses.
I am simply that rights to something -- anything -- do not exist when that thing does not exist. When I create something, the rights inherent in it come into existence. I own the thing I've made and I own all rights associated with it. The only way anyone else can obtain any of those rights is by transfer from me, and I may place any conditions and restraints on those transferred rights.
Talk of ideas, copyright, intellectual property, creativity, etc., is just noise and irrelevant. Those issues have no bearing on reality.
1. No one can have rights to something that does not exist. This refutes the argument that the public has rights to something I make. Those rights come into existence when I make the object and no way exists for the public to simultaneously acquire those rights.
2. When I make something, all rights to it belong to me. Since no one had rights to it before I made it, no one other than myself can have rights to it unless I transfer those rights.
3. If or when i transfer those rights is solely my decision.
4. Among those rights are the right to copy and redistribute my creation.
5. If I make copies of my work and distribute them, I and I alone determine if the recipients have any rights to do anything at all with their copy. For example, I may say they have no right to make any additional copies, or I may say they do.
6. The fundamental difference between an original work and a copy is that all rights to that work were created by and controlled by the work's creator. Possession of a copy does not create rights; only creation of an original work creates rights. Possession of a copy only includes the rights transferred, and as proscribed, by the work's creator. The public has no rights to a copy of an original work other than those transferred by the work's creator.
7. All of the above exists with or without copyright law. Copyright is simply a legal mechanism intended to recognize an existing reality. As such, copyright law, whatever its fairness or unfairness, has no bearing on any of the points I've outlined.
Wrong. The right to copy something I make is one of the rights I control exclusively. You don't have any right to make that copy until I give you that right. And i determine how many copies you can make and what you can do with them.
You haven't answered my question.
Don't be silly. If I make something, I own it. No one has any rights to it unless and until I say so. Then, I decide how and when some or all of those rights are transferred, not you. Copyright didn't create those rights, it just recognizes and protects something that has always existed.
The examples you cite from ancient Rome and Asia, etc., are specious. One might as well justify slavery by arguing that the Romans were quite happy with it. Human behavior is no arbiter of right and wrong.
Prove to me how you magically have a right to anything I make and don't want you to have.
I see that windfarm support for the PowerMac 12,1 series has been added.
Does this mean I can finally run Linux on this late-model iMac G5 without the fans exploding?
Anyone running it now?
Why would anyone risk hiring products of Louisiana's education system?
Go to New Orleans and spend lots of money, but boycott the rest of the state. Tell you boss and your HR people that Louisiana schools are deliberately turning out dummies and that you don't want them working with you. Pull your contracts out of Louisiana.
Tell them you'll come back when the current idiots in the legislature and the governor's office are replaced by rational human beings.
The size of a booster isn't all that important. The Brits put a satellite up in 1971 with a homebrew booster. The UK's small footprint in space is the result of policy decisions, not capabilities.
It's FOX News. They've all had their frontal lobes removed. Be happy they didn't ask if the plane could get close to heaven.
You answered your own question: Write better torrent clients and better games for Linux than you get on Windows.
By believing Linux must enable Windows users to bring some of their software with them, projects like WINE explicitly position Windows as a superior product and the standard by which Linux should be measured..
Fifteen years? Geez, wouldn't the time have been better spent writing Linux apps that are better than anything in the Windows universe?
This guy should get one. And, meanwhile, insure no one touchs that laptop.
For all that it was and was not, Win95 was the platform most of us were using the first time we logged on to the Internet and used a browser (probably Netscape). The web would have developed differently and more slowly without it.