"keep on using your existing vocabulary and just don't hire niggers or bitches. Voila! nobody at the office gets offended, guaranteed!"
Mmm hmm. Or, I'll just not hire people like you, I won't use words that can reasonably cause pain to others and try, as best I can to live in an imperfect world.
"This Politically Correct crap has done nothing towards making work environments better for the 'oppressed' (ie, blacks, latins, women) and has done quite a bit towards making hiring managers very, very biased against hiring any of those and being very, very subtle about working towards that effect. I will give you a 100% written guarantee that none of the above are ever getting past zillions of employment screenings in corporate America, and the hiring managers know better than to admit my true motives in which candidate gets chosen."
And you have hit very succinctly on the problem with institutional racism. They would rather hire some white asshole because he looks like he's part of the clan than "take a chance" on some "minority". First of all, look around, white people are the minority on this planet. Second, why the hell is it so hard for people to have a little empathy, especialy when their own history practicaly dictates that they should.
Just because the person who is grandstanding on a soap box may be a jackass does not mean that the issue at hand is not worth concidering. Maybe tempered by your own sensabilities, if you have any.
For those of us that did not experience slavery, or have familay members who experienced it, or feel the economic ramifications of having been decended from slaves, or live in a country that only recently ( 30 years ago ) recognised my color as being equal, at least in law to every other human being in the country, this may seem farsical.
The US has still to this day not come fully to grips with the absolutly horrific cultural of racism and slavery in it's not so distant past. Racism is still prevalent in the US even today. A look at inner city projects and the penal system is just the most visible testament to the level of racism that persists.
It seems almost grotesk that a nation that engaged so fully in the slave trade and still has the very people who have decended from that enslavement living within it's national boundries would except and use langauge that could so clearly salt wounds that, frankly, have never been properly dressed.
So maybe an IDE subsystem is not the best place to make a stand against racism. But if I am working with a black technition who was perhaps decended from a slave that was raped by one of the USA's founding fathers and states that they would prefer that I not use the term "master/slave", F it, I'll use another term.
"Actually, more defacements occur every year on Apache-run sites than IIS-run sites. Normally I'd be surprised that you didn't read the/. article on this... err... I guess even normally, I wouldn't be surprised."
Key word is "defacement". Try reading "root exploit". With all the shared hosting and free web accounts that are run under apache it is not a surprise but I hardly suspect that it is because Apache is more exploitable than IIS, more like passwords are bad.
"Stupid people don't breeze through a Math degree at an Ivy League school."
Yes, they do. Doing what's expected and being smart are two very different things.
"Don't pick on the guy 'cause he's sweaty, energetic, and rich... It makes you look bad."
I pick on him because he is an asshole. As for why he is so rich, well, this world of ours is made for greedy psychotic bastards.
As for why MS is dominating you are just being an idiot, McDonalds is not fine cusine.
"I think at this point, most people expect an anti-MS slant on ol'/. Congratulations. You've won."
At least I can go somewhere for it.
Finally, the only question you need to be answering is where one can go for "unslanted" news. Right, nowhere. So use your head and carry on.
Oh those MS guys are'nt bad people their just misunderstood!
For some reason you wrote:
"Realisticly, what is the point of trying to exploit linux? Why exploit the little guy when you can go after the big fish?"
Apache is the single most prevalent web server on the internet. Why then is it that hackers "target" IIS? Maybe because it's easier?
and decided to continue:
" they do employ some of the best and brightest in the world. I imagine some of you may not believe that, but I do."
Have you seen Balmer lately? The problem with working for MS is that, even though you may be smart your just wasting your time. Who cares that you can give a lecture on some brilliant way to link corporate data to business users if your entire architecture needs to fit into a proprietary MS 5 year plan for the enterprise?
MS has had 20 years and billions in funding and the best they can come up with is Windows XP. XP solves problems that Unix, Apple, X, NeXT, Amiga, et als. solved a decade ago. MS produces over architected under engineered gaming consoles that are'nt even compatable with themselves.
If your looking for "fair and balanced" where are you going to go? Read a frigin Windows rag if you want to "balance" Slashdot. I'm sure there are plenty of fine articles on.NET just waiting to provide you with hour of fun filled and objective learning experiences.
"Please refer to "Two wrongs do not make a right"
You are again arguing that since the RIAA is immoral, it must, by logical extension, be morally just to defy them."
The RIAA, through copyrites that last longer than the life expectancy of a human being have committed the largest theft of musical heritage here. Just because this behaviour is encouraged rather than criminalized does not make it right. Add to the theft the fact that the RIAA has been found guilty of price fixing and we can construct the following scenario. A 15 year old girl who does not have the economic resources to partake fully in here generations musical culture uses her generations social tools to "steal back" what should be hers to begin with. Given the motives of the RIAA I think this girl is in fact moraly correct to do as she does. In fact, it is our moral obligation as a soceity to resist corruption at the level of the RIAA's. Look at the copyrights on old movies for a marginaly related analogy. They remain unaccesable to the public domain longer than the life of the celluloid on which they are printed!
Also, please note that the RIAA is engaging in a type of theft more closely related to their own analogies of p2p. Works copyrited by he RIAA are not accesable, i.e. have been physicaly stolen from the public. Works "thefted" by p2p "criminals" are in fact more accesable to anyone who would use them. Now tell me in each instaince, who is being hurt here?
"I suspect you've unintentionally built yourself a straw man for my argument"
Perhaps you are confused because I reject the "two wrongs" argument rather than attempt to resolve it.
If this 15 year old girl had written the laws I suspect that they would be a tad bit different. But she did not. The RIAA, MPAA and Disney did. But like I said, we the people do not exist for the pleasue of these companies. The RIAA may, at one point, have served a purpose that was valuable to soceity. The advent of the internet and p2p has destroyed or at least strongly questioned that value. So soceity moves on even if the laws do not. If the RIAA can not find a place in this new world that is somewhere outside of the court rooms, I say good riddance.
Finally, note that through price fixing the RIAA has themselves created the climate for piracy. This is well documented and accepted economic theory. To turn around and punish those who react in the expected and natural fasion to extortive pressures is just diabolical.
"The absolute bottom line is it results in you gaining something you have no legal or moral right to."
Morality does not enter into it. The RIAA can sue anyone they like, it does'nt mean the defendant is a bad person or has actually done anything "wrong". The moral argument falls flat especially when you concider the moral framework that the RIAA opporates under. Their PR about "artists rights" is cynical and hypocritical to the extreme. If you think that the RIAA is some bastion of moral fortatude, setting by example a brave a righteous vision for the soceity of the 21st century the I am afraid for you. So if you don't mind I'll just discount the "moral" argument against p2p sharing.
"If you dispute that, please explain how this is different from the people who download full version warez under the premise 'I need it to fully evaluate it' - despite the existence of a fully or almost fully functional trial version - and having these "evaluations" last.. well.. permanently."
Both software and music costs are inflated beyond what market forces would otherwise dictate. These inflated costs directly cause the "piracy" that you describe. These are simple economic forces at work. The market system exists ostensibly to benefit soceity as a whole, not to make a few people wealthy beyond reason. If the system starts to break down than people will start to develop a new system. It's no wounder that the people who were benefitting most from the corrupted system would try to frame the dissenters as criminals. You, and I mean you the original poster, can only call this 15 year old a criminal if you can defend institution of the RIAA as a just and socially equitable company. We, as people do not exist to fullfill the wishes and needs of the RIAA.
"The 'Information wants to be free' argument invariably falls down when a person who'll quite glibly throw out that catchphrase suddenly falls quiet when asked to "free" their full address and credit card number."
The argument is that dispite our best efforts to contain information, it will become free. with respect to your quote above, just check any marketing database to verify this. the "Information wants to be free" argument is that if this is so, it is counter productive to develop a soceity that requires information to be restricted.
"Finally, I am NOT trying to justify the actions of the RIAA here."
No, I don't think you are. But I also think that you are not concidering the deeper implications of what we are witnessing here and that puts you in the dangerous position of an unknowing pawn for the RIAA PR machine. you read Slashdot, so I doubt I have to remind you of the ridiculus state of copyrite in the United States.
" If you notice in my post, I don't mention iPods. It was a general staement about Apple. And true."
But your original post says:
"we are talking about a piece of software written by Apple, breaking a piece of hardward built by Apple."
Sounded to me like you were talking about iTunes and the iPod concidering that is what the article and the thread you posted in happen to be about about.
Maybe Apple can not detect the difference between iPods and so a dialog was not possible. Instead they just said it was unsupported. I dunno. As for history, Apple is usually quite good about this kind of thing.
...you would realise that nothing is being "broken". It comes down to a simple fact of reality: Windows and Apple iPods have differently formatted HDs. Apple has a restore utility that will reformat the iPod to work with a Mac.
However, this 5gig iPod is from the "when hell freezes over" days when Apple was clear that there would be no Windows version. So unless Apple has some time travel gear ( and they may, there just that cool ) I guess they can't really be expected to "fix" this old hardware. Instead they just say that it's unsupported, i.e. your on your own.
Yes, well, are'nt you smart. You could however actually contribute to the cause of human progress by stating that they were, in fact, convicted in a US court of law as being a monopoly for Christ's sake. Which if you really care to think about it, I won't push here, does carry opporational restrictions on how Microsoft can behave in the market place. Which is exactly what we are seeing here.
Israel receives around 8 billion in US aid. Lets see, China's population accounts for 1/4 the population of the world. Israels accounts for what?.04% of the population. Frankly I'd rather have China spending millions on a space program than Israel spending billions on weapons research ( and use ).
Also, not the other posters comments on how the "aid" money ends up in the pockets of big business interests ( same with Israels billions ).
Let me ask you this: did the resolution pass? You see, the UN is actually a fairly good example of world democracy in action ( excepting the security councils patently undemocratic veto power ). Any one can propose any kind of resolution or program they want, it just needs to get enough votes to succeed.
"The UN is an organization that does things like putting Libya in charge of its commission on human rights."
Libya has more of a right to sit on the council than the USA. The USA has been the number one supporter of crimes against humanity since the end of WWII. You can simply count the civilian bodies from the Korean war on up if you wan't the proof. And it's not like the USA's record is exactly stellar pre WWII either, concidering they exterminated the Native Americans to found their country and have been terrorising South America for hundreds of years.
"The UN is in no way, shape or form dedicated to the idea of democracy and individual rights."
That is a pretty bold statement and in no way does it follow from anything you have previously stated.
"Putting the UN in chaarge of the Internet would be an unmittigated disaster for freedom. "
Well having the US in charge of the Internet is proving to be less than ideal as well. Especialy with the recent attempted land grabs by the likes of Verisign and SCO. I expect more to follow, too.
"But guess what, if you want me to take action, you have to show me why I should and convince me"
Well I understand your perspective on a personal level, however, we all have to live on the same round sphere and it is simply not fair that if the majority of the world wants to limit atmospheric emissions that a single major polutor be allowed to degrade the whole thing. There is such a thing as shared responsibilty when it comes to the use and enjoyement of the commons, and the atmosphere is a large part of the commons.
As far as proving things, well, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. The world has clearly looked at the evidence that is available and, conclusive or not, has decided that it is best to play it safe and just try and reduce emissions. It's not like emissions are good for us anyway.
Fact is, the USA likes to give lip service to democracy but when the world votes in a way that the US does not approve it simply acts unilateraly. Not in the democractic spirit at all.
"...the zealous belief of many governments in these conclusions."
Now there is a loaded statement. Do you think that the data is so conclusivly against global warming that nothing should be done? These Governments ( and the populace who comprise them ) are upset because they are attempting to effect an altruistic preference for the cautionary preservation of the future of our planet. This goes against the desires of the loby that is on the other side of the argument, namely big business. It's little wounder that the one country who is most visibly against Kyoto is the one country where business interests regularly trump the public wellfare (the US).
The situation is such that most of the signitories of the Kyoto protocol have, in fact, ratified it with one major notable exception, the USA. So here the world is on the brink of implementing prudent cationary limits on the emmissions of gases and we have one rich brat who is pissing on the playing feild. Damn strait their going to get ruffed up in the media and well they should. The world has voted and the US has decided, unilateraly , that the opinions of the majority of the world do not matter.
I think your confusing them with the "first" world.
It might also help if the "first" world would stop overthowing democratic trends by installing and funding tirents in these countries in order to open up thier resources to private companies that ultimatly funnel money out of said country to spend on private jets, pointless capital projects and armies.
While I'm not sure what to make of this article I am not able to completely dismiss it as bunk for a few reasons.
1. You say that the weapon could not be used without world out-cry. Well, Nazi Genmany got away with quite a lot before it was revealed to the world what was really going on. The USA got away with numerous "tests" in Vietnam and surrounding countries until the rest of the world realized what was going on. The reporters in Vietnam were not "embedded" either, they were free .
2. During the USA's invasion of Panama, I remember a terrified civilian going on about an American weapon that fits this description. I actually saw the man on TV and he made a deep impression on me for some reason. Humans, when faced with one another are fairly adept at detecting BS. This guy in Panama seemed to be describing real events.
" privatization is NOT the answer to every problem.
though in this case THERE ISN'T EVEN A PROBLEM, for christ's sake."
If there were actual problems with the Internet than it would be less likely that business would want to privatize.
What we are witnessing with this privatization push is something that has been happening with the military for decades, i.e. public money in the form of taxes subsidizing private profit. Now that the Internet works, and it does work, Mr. Scalvos is making noise that it requires privatization in order to succeed in the future, for consumers of course. What Salvos can't stand is the allure of greed. If there is a chance for something to make a nickel then it is only a matter of time until business begins it's relentless push to take it over.
It's no coincidence that the Internet started as a military project that now is facing privatization. It's one of the many ways the business sector has been ripping off the public for a long time.
Nice rant. I'm glad it does'nt reflect my life nor my experiences in ther world.
I have met loads of greedy people though. One of the common threads between them is that they are bought into this "capitalist", "privitized", "not on my dollar", "bomb the hell out of 'em", "Western Culture ( read USA )". Unfortunatly it's the dominant trend, which is why if you just look around without asking any questions you might get to thinking that the whole world was simply filled with a bunch of greedy blood lusting fuck wads.
Alas, with a little self integrity and a willingness to have less then you might be able to grab you will find people who are really quite generous and pleasent, few as they may be.
I don't look for cultural or social inovation in the "developed" world, I look for it in the third world. If you take a close look at some of the governments that are trying to rise up out of the ruins of colonization by "Western Culture" you will find some very inovative ideas as to how to structure a society.
"The reason they ask for registration is to provide statistics for advertisers, which is how they pay their costs."
You keep using this example, but are you sure that that is the real and only reason? How do you know that they don't sell our personal info into slavery at information clearing houses around the world? That would be a pretty steep price to pay simly to read something "on the web".
Whatever they do with the personal info I agree that if they don't want to share their "information of record" than screw 'em. The NYT's is a rag anyway. I can't say this "interview" with Linus is really worth all the fus. They did'nt ask any quetion I did'nt already know the answer to, nothing insightfull.
By the way, boston.com does just fine without requireing registration and they were purchased by NYT. They don't even have a print edition ( no, they are not the online Boston Globe ).
"The google toolbar does this yet nobody complains that it updates without authorization."
Exactly. So what was your point again? Do you think that a person must complain about everything in order to maintain the rite to complain about anything? Like maybe the things that actually bother them?
No, I do not want MS doing anything to my property without my express permission. I might let a friend of mine monkey around with my things, I may even let Google do it. This however does not give anyone else the same permission.
>Yes, and? The author's point is that you do not and/should not/ choose, say, GPL in advance of knowing what the project is.
Well thanks for stating the obvious then. How can you license anything you don't even know about yet? But assuming you have the slightest inclinking of what the project may be, you might concider what license to use and if you do you should take serious stock of what is happening in the industry today in your concideration of BSD vs. GPL. Is GPL good for everything? Certainly not. But it appears it may be the most compatable with nurturing an OS community for the future. The culture differences between BSD and GPL are just to much to get into right now but you should not ignore the ramifications.
>Ah, you have a different definition of "successful".
Bingo. If you are a proprietary software developer and love your job then we need not continue our discusion. BSD wins for you hands down.
If on the other hand you are a developer of Open Source software then it would be wise to take a long hard look at the current mess SCO, et als. has created for the OS community, step back and look at the larger picture.
>"If PNG had been released under the GPL, it would have died a quiet death from lack of use. Since it wasn't, it gets a little more widely used than that."
Unsubstantiated claims. Nice. As for MacOS and Windows, I'd hardly draw the line of victory at having your code buried in these OS's. But then it does come down to our, and every developers, definition of success.
"The viral nature of the GPL makes even more of a hassel--I can't write source I even want non-GPL Open Source codecs to be able use."
Right, and thats *the point* of this license. If you are not an OS developer you need not apply. It's worked great for both the community and business world wide.
"1) Only misguided ideologues pick one license and refuse to use any other, no matter what the project is."
This statement seems misguided. A project, in the singular as you state it, will more likely then not have a single license, maybe 2 if a duel licensing model is appropriate but most have just one. In choosing an Open Source license the original poster was claiming that the GPL is supperior to BSD for the types of development that are now under attack by SCO/MS/Sun/et. als. I infer this from the actual topic for the thread.
The reason, I beleive, they are making these claims is because there is no legal mechanism for keeping BSD code out of propriatary closed source software and because of this your legal position ( should something such as an SCO type law suit ever be in your future ) is far weaker than if you GPL'd your code.
For your point #2, just look at the brilliant success of PNG vs. Linux and BSD'd code vs. GPL's code in general. Now I am not tryin g to slam BSD , BSD coders or anything like that but there is something about the GPL that makes it a stronger force for development than BSD'd code. Perhaps because it is not possible for a closed source company to grab code and bury it deep in there products without ever giving anything back to the people who developed it or the community at large.
For point #3, come on! It's legal to bury BSD code in your product, the GPL is incompatable with code burying, so thats how it's easier. It may be illiegal in both cases but with the GPL your position as the original copyrite holder is much stronger and the potential risks to the accused are much greater ( GPL'ing of there entire code base as remedy for instaince).
And as McBride recently pointed out they found the code during the 30 day extention IBM filed for. So it clearly does'nt take an army.
I would bet that IBM has in fact been doing a massive internal audit, both in development process and on the code base. Their decision to go to court is hopefully based on the results.
IBM has been absolutey quite about this and I think that it's the still before the storm. They are not playing this out in the Media like SCO is. My gut tells me this is because SCO has no case and is trying to slander/pressure/etc IBM ( et. alls ) into a settlement. What they have done is given IBM's legal team additional ammo while IBM has revealed none of it's cards.
"...because it will be the easiest thing for everybody to just sit back and enjoy the free, readily available goods that they get by replication."
This sounds like a pretty good quality of life issue, especially since this discussion is about the moral implications of tech.
What is so wrong about people sitting back and enjoying freely available creations? Would you rather spend your days working 9-5 in order to pay for "The Next Big Thing", only to find that it's not so different from the last "Big Thing" and does it really make you happy anyway?
The problem with the argument the states that it is neccesary to compensate the "original creator" ( A highly suspect term in it's self ) is that they assume an economic model where that makes sense, i.e. the current US model.
Slashdot Mirror
Mmm hmm. Or, I'll just not hire people like you, I won't use words that can reasonably cause pain to others and try, as best I can to live in an imperfect world.
"This Politically Correct crap has done nothing towards making work environments better for the 'oppressed' (ie, blacks, latins, women) and has done quite a bit towards making hiring managers very, very biased against hiring any of those and being very, very subtle about working towards that effect. I will give you a 100% written guarantee that none of the above are ever getting past zillions of employment screenings in corporate America, and the hiring managers know better than to admit my true motives in which candidate gets chosen."
And you have hit very succinctly on the problem with institutional racism. They would rather hire some white asshole because he looks like he's part of the clan than "take a chance" on some "minority". First of all, look around, white people are the minority on this planet. Second, why the hell is it so hard for people to have a little empathy, especialy when their own history practicaly dictates that they should.
Just because the person who is grandstanding on a soap box may be a jackass does not mean that the issue at hand is not worth concidering. Maybe tempered by your own sensabilities, if you have any.
Kind Regards
The US has still to this day not come fully to grips with the absolutly horrific cultural of racism and slavery in it's not so distant past. Racism is still prevalent in the US even today. A look at inner city projects and the penal system is just the most visible testament to the level of racism that persists.
It seems almost grotesk that a nation that engaged so fully in the slave trade and still has the very people who have decended from that enslavement living within it's national boundries would except and use langauge that could so clearly salt wounds that, frankly, have never been properly dressed.
So maybe an IDE subsystem is not the best place to make a stand against racism. But if I am working with a black technition who was perhaps decended from a slave that was raped by one of the USA's founding fathers and states that they would prefer that I not use the term "master/slave", F it, I'll use another term.
How 'bout "primary/secondary".
Kind Regards
Key word is "defacement". Try reading "root exploit". With all the shared hosting and free web accounts that are run under apache it is not a surprise but I hardly suspect that it is because Apache is more exploitable than IIS, more like passwords are bad.
"Stupid people don't breeze through a Math degree at an Ivy League school."
Yes, they do. Doing what's expected and being smart are two very different things.
"Don't pick on the guy 'cause he's sweaty, energetic, and rich... It makes you look bad."
I pick on him because he is an asshole. As for why he is so rich, well, this world of ours is made for greedy psychotic bastards.
As for why MS is dominating you are just being an idiot, McDonalds is not fine cusine.
"I think at this point, most people expect an anti-MS slant on ol' /. Congratulations. You've won."
At least I can go somewhere for it.
Finally, the only question you need to be answering is where one can go for "unslanted" news. Right, nowhere. So use your head and carry on.
Kind Regards
For some reason you wrote:
"Realisticly, what is the point of trying to exploit linux? Why exploit the little guy when you can go after the big fish?"
Apache is the single most prevalent web server on the internet. Why then is it that hackers "target" IIS? Maybe because it's easier?
and decided to continue:
" they do employ some of the best and brightest in the world. I imagine some of you may not believe that, but I do."
Have you seen Balmer lately? The problem with working for MS is that, even though you may be smart your just wasting your time. Who cares that you can give a lecture on some brilliant way to link corporate data to business users if your entire architecture needs to fit into a proprietary MS 5 year plan for the enterprise?
MS has had 20 years and billions in funding and the best they can come up with is Windows XP. XP solves problems that Unix, Apple, X, NeXT, Amiga, et als. solved a decade ago. MS produces over architected under engineered gaming consoles that are'nt even compatable with themselves.
If your looking for "fair and balanced" where are you going to go? Read a frigin Windows rag if you want to "balance" Slashdot. I'm sure there are plenty of fine articles on .NET just waiting to provide you with hour of fun filled and objective learning experiences.
Kind Regards
The RIAA, through copyrites that last longer than the life expectancy of a human being have committed the largest theft of musical heritage here. Just because this behaviour is encouraged rather than criminalized does not make it right. Add to the theft the fact that the RIAA has been found guilty of price fixing and we can construct the following scenario. A 15 year old girl who does not have the economic resources to partake fully in here generations musical culture uses her generations social tools to "steal back" what should be hers to begin with. Given the motives of the RIAA I think this girl is in fact moraly correct to do as she does. In fact, it is our moral obligation as a soceity to resist corruption at the level of the RIAA's. Look at the copyrights on old movies for a marginaly related analogy. They remain unaccesable to the public domain longer than the life of the celluloid on which they are printed!
Also, please note that the RIAA is engaging in a type of theft more closely related to their own analogies of p2p. Works copyrited by he RIAA are not accesable, i.e. have been physicaly stolen from the public. Works "thefted" by p2p "criminals" are in fact more accesable to anyone who would use them. Now tell me in each instaince, who is being hurt here?
"I suspect you've unintentionally built yourself a straw man for my argument"
Perhaps you are confused because I reject the "two wrongs" argument rather than attempt to resolve it.
If this 15 year old girl had written the laws I suspect that they would be a tad bit different. But she did not. The RIAA, MPAA and Disney did. But like I said, we the people do not exist for the pleasue of these companies. The RIAA may, at one point, have served a purpose that was valuable to soceity. The advent of the internet and p2p has destroyed or at least strongly questioned that value. So soceity moves on even if the laws do not. If the RIAA can not find a place in this new world that is somewhere outside of the court rooms, I say good riddance.
Finally, note that through price fixing the RIAA has themselves created the climate for piracy. This is well documented and accepted economic theory. To turn around and punish those who react in the expected and natural fasion to extortive pressures is just diabolical.
Kind Regards
Morality does not enter into it. The RIAA can sue anyone they like, it does'nt mean the defendant is a bad person or has actually done anything "wrong". The moral argument falls flat especially when you concider the moral framework that the RIAA opporates under. Their PR about "artists rights" is cynical and hypocritical to the extreme. If you think that the RIAA is some bastion of moral fortatude, setting by example a brave a righteous vision for the soceity of the 21st century the I am afraid for you. So if you don't mind I'll just discount the "moral" argument against p2p sharing.
"If you dispute that, please explain how this is different from the people who download full version warez under the premise 'I need it to fully evaluate it' - despite the existence of a fully or almost fully functional trial version - and having these "evaluations" last.. well.. permanently."
Both software and music costs are inflated beyond what market forces would otherwise dictate. These inflated costs directly cause the "piracy" that you describe. These are simple economic forces at work. The market system exists ostensibly to benefit soceity as a whole, not to make a few people wealthy beyond reason. If the system starts to break down than people will start to develop a new system. It's no wounder that the people who were benefitting most from the corrupted system would try to frame the dissenters as criminals. You, and I mean you the original poster, can only call this 15 year old a criminal if you can defend institution of the RIAA as a just and socially equitable company. We, as people do not exist to fullfill the wishes and needs of the RIAA.
"The 'Information wants to be free' argument invariably falls down when a person who'll quite glibly throw out that catchphrase suddenly falls quiet when asked to "free" their full address and credit card number."
The argument is that dispite our best efforts to contain information, it will become free. with respect to your quote above, just check any marketing database to verify this. the "Information wants to be free" argument is that if this is so, it is counter productive to develop a soceity that requires information to be restricted.
"Finally, I am NOT trying to justify the actions of the RIAA here."
No, I don't think you are. But I also think that you are not concidering the deeper implications of what we are witnessing here and that puts you in the dangerous position of an unknowing pawn for the RIAA PR machine. you read Slashdot, so I doubt I have to remind you of the ridiculus state of copyrite in the United States.
Kind Regards
" If you notice in my post, I don't mention iPods. It was a general staement about Apple. And true."
But your original post says:
"we are talking about a piece of software written by Apple, breaking a piece of hardward built by Apple."
Sounded to me like you were talking about iTunes and the iPod concidering that is what the article and the thread you posted in happen to be about about.
Maybe Apple can not detect the difference between iPods and so a dialog was not possible. Instead they just said it was unsupported. I dunno. As for history, Apple is usually quite good about this kind of thing.
Kind Regards
Kind Regards
However, this 5gig iPod is from the "when hell freezes over" days when Apple was clear that there would be no Windows version. So unless Apple has some time travel gear ( and they may, there just that cool ) I guess they can't really be expected to "fix" this old hardware. Instead they just say that it's unsupported, i.e. your on your own.
Kind Regards
Kind Regards
Also, not the other posters comments on how the "aid" money ends up in the pockets of big business interests ( same with Israels billions ).
Kind Regards
Maybe you are talking about statements like the ones stated in this interview?
http://www.unesco.org/webworld/observatory/in_focu s/cailliau_141299.html
Let me ask you this: did the resolution pass? You see, the UN is actually a fairly good example of world democracy in action ( excepting the security councils patently undemocratic veto power ). Any one can propose any kind of resolution or program they want, it just needs to get enough votes to succeed.
"The UN is an organization that does things like putting Libya in charge of its commission on human rights."
Libya has more of a right to sit on the council than the USA. The USA has been the number one supporter of crimes against humanity since the end of WWII. You can simply count the civilian bodies from the Korean war on up if you wan't the proof. And it's not like the USA's record is exactly stellar pre WWII either, concidering they exterminated the Native Americans to found their country and have been terrorising South America for hundreds of years.
"The UN is in no way, shape or form dedicated to the idea of democracy and individual rights."
That is a pretty bold statement and in no way does it follow from anything you have previously stated.
"Putting the UN in chaarge of the Internet would be an unmittigated disaster for freedom. "
Well having the US in charge of the Internet is proving to be less than ideal as well. Especialy with the recent attempted land grabs by the likes of Verisign and SCO. I expect more to follow, too.
Kind Regards
Well I understand your perspective on a personal level, however, we all have to live on the same round sphere and it is simply not fair that if the majority of the world wants to limit atmospheric emissions that a single major polutor be allowed to degrade the whole thing. There is such a thing as shared responsibilty when it comes to the use and enjoyement of the commons, and the atmosphere is a large part of the commons.
As far as proving things, well, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. The world has clearly looked at the evidence that is available and, conclusive or not, has decided that it is best to play it safe and just try and reduce emissions. It's not like emissions are good for us anyway.
Fact is, the USA likes to give lip service to democracy but when the world votes in a way that the US does not approve it simply acts unilateraly. Not in the democractic spirit at all.
Kind Regards
Now there is a loaded statement. Do you think that the data is so conclusivly against global warming that nothing should be done? These Governments ( and the populace who comprise them ) are upset because they are attempting to effect an altruistic preference for the cautionary preservation of the future of our planet. This goes against the desires of the loby that is on the other side of the argument, namely big business. It's little wounder that the one country who is most visibly against Kyoto is the one country where business interests regularly trump the public wellfare (the US).
The situation is such that most of the signitories of the Kyoto protocol have, in fact, ratified it with one major notable exception, the USA. So here the world is on the brink of implementing prudent cationary limits on the emmissions of gases and we have one rich brat who is pissing on the playing feild. Damn strait their going to get ruffed up in the media and well they should. The world has voted and the US has decided, unilateraly , that the opinions of the majority of the world do not matter.
Kind Regards
It might also help if the "first" world would stop overthowing democratic trends by installing and funding tirents in these countries in order to open up thier resources to private companies that ultimatly funnel money out of said country to spend on private jets, pointless capital projects and armies.
Kind Regards
1. You say that the weapon could not be used without world out-cry. Well, Nazi Genmany got away with quite a lot before it was revealed to the world what was really going on. The USA got away with numerous "tests" in Vietnam and surrounding countries until the rest of the world realized what was going on. The reporters in Vietnam were not "embedded" either, they were free .
2. During the USA's invasion of Panama, I remember a terrified civilian going on about an American weapon that fits this description. I actually saw the man on TV and he made a deep impression on me for some reason. Humans, when faced with one another are fairly adept at detecting BS. This guy in Panama seemed to be describing real events.
Kind Regards
What Salvos can't withstand is the allure of greed.
coffee time!
though in this case THERE ISN'T EVEN A PROBLEM, for christ's sake."
If there were actual problems with the Internet than it would be less likely that business would want to privatize.
What we are witnessing with this privatization push is something that has been happening with the military for decades, i.e. public money in the form of taxes subsidizing private profit. Now that the Internet works, and it does work, Mr. Scalvos is making noise that it requires privatization in order to succeed in the future, for consumers of course. What Salvos can't stand is the allure of greed. If there is a chance for something to make a nickel then it is only a matter of time until business begins it's relentless push to take it over.
It's no coincidence that the Internet started as a military project that now is facing privatization. It's one of the many ways the business sector has been ripping off the public for a long time.
Kind Regards
I have met loads of greedy people though. One of the common threads between them is that they are bought into this "capitalist", "privitized", "not on my dollar", "bomb the hell out of 'em", "Western Culture ( read USA )". Unfortunatly it's the dominant trend, which is why if you just look around without asking any questions you might get to thinking that the whole world was simply filled with a bunch of greedy blood lusting fuck wads.
Alas, with a little self integrity and a willingness to have less then you might be able to grab you will find people who are really quite generous and pleasent, few as they may be.
I don't look for cultural or social inovation in the "developed" world, I look for it in the third world. If you take a close look at some of the governments that are trying to rise up out of the ruins of colonization by "Western Culture" you will find some very inovative ideas as to how to structure a society.
Kind Regards
You keep using this example, but are you sure that that is the real and only reason? How do you know that they don't sell our personal info into slavery at information clearing houses around the world? That would be a pretty steep price to pay simly to read something "on the web".
Whatever they do with the personal info I agree that if they don't want to share their "information of record" than screw 'em. The NYT's is a rag anyway. I can't say this "interview" with Linus is really worth all the fus. They did'nt ask any quetion I did'nt already know the answer to, nothing insightfull.
By the way, boston.com does just fine without requireing registration and they were purchased by NYT. They don't even have a print edition ( no, they are not the online Boston Globe ).
Kind Regards
Exactly. So what was your point again? Do you think that a person must complain about everything in order to maintain the rite to complain about anything? Like maybe the things that actually bother them?
No, I do not want MS doing anything to my property without my express permission. I might let a friend of mine monkey around with my things, I may even let Google do it. This however does not give anyone else the same permission.
Good Day
>Yes, and? The author's point is that you do not and /should not/ choose, say, GPL in advance of knowing what the project is.
Well thanks for stating the obvious then. How can you license anything you don't even know about yet? But assuming you have the slightest inclinking of what the project may be, you might concider what license to use and if you do you should take serious stock of what is happening in the industry today in your concideration of BSD vs. GPL. Is GPL good for everything? Certainly not. But it appears it may be the most compatable with nurturing an OS community for the future. The culture differences between BSD and GPL are just to much to get into right now but you should not ignore the ramifications.
>Ah, you have a different definition of "successful".
Bingo. If you are a proprietary software developer and love your job then we need not continue our discusion. BSD wins for you hands down.
If on the other hand you are a developer of Open Source software then it would be wise to take a long hard look at the current mess SCO, et als. has created for the OS community, step back and look at the larger picture.
>"If PNG had been released under the GPL, it would have died a quiet death from lack of use. Since it wasn't, it gets a little more widely used than that."
Unsubstantiated claims. Nice. As for MacOS and Windows, I'd hardly draw the line of victory at having your code buried in these OS's. But then it does come down to our, and every developers, definition of success.
"The viral nature of the GPL makes even more of a hassel--I can't write source I even want non-GPL Open Source codecs to be able use."
Right, and thats *the point* of this license. If you are not an OS developer you need not apply. It's worked great for both the community and business world wide.
Kind Regards
This statement seems misguided. A project, in the singular as you state it, will more likely then not have a single license, maybe 2 if a duel licensing model is appropriate but most have just one. In choosing an Open Source license the original poster was claiming that the GPL is supperior to BSD for the types of development that are now under attack by SCO/MS/Sun/et. als. I infer this from the actual topic for the thread.
The reason, I beleive, they are making these claims is because there is no legal mechanism for keeping BSD code out of propriatary closed source software and because of this your legal position ( should something such as an SCO type law suit ever be in your future ) is far weaker than if you GPL'd your code.
For your point #2, just look at the brilliant success of PNG vs. Linux and BSD'd code vs. GPL's code in general. Now I am not tryin g to slam BSD , BSD coders or anything like that but there is something about the GPL that makes it a stronger force for development than BSD'd code. Perhaps because it is not possible for a closed source company to grab code and bury it deep in there products without ever giving anything back to the people who developed it or the community at large.
For point #3, come on! It's legal to bury BSD code in your product, the GPL is incompatable with code burying, so thats how it's easier. It may be illiegal in both cases but with the GPL your position as the original copyrite holder is much stronger and the potential risks to the accused are much greater ( GPL'ing of there entire code base as remedy for instaince).
Kind Regards
And as McBride recently pointed out they found the code during the 30 day extention IBM filed for. So it clearly does'nt take an army.
I would bet that IBM has in fact been doing a massive internal audit, both in development process and on the code base. Their decision to go to court is hopefully based on the results.
IBM has been absolutey quite about this and I think that it's the still before the storm. They are not playing this out in the Media like SCO is. My gut tells me this is because SCO has no case and is trying to slander/pressure/etc IBM ( et. alls ) into a settlement. What they have done is given IBM's legal team additional ammo while IBM has revealed none of it's cards.
This is going to be one for the history books!
Kind Regards
This sounds like a pretty good quality of life issue, especially since this discussion is about the moral implications of tech.
What is so wrong about people sitting back and enjoying freely available creations? Would you rather spend your days working 9-5 in order to pay for "The Next Big Thing", only to find that it's not so different from the last "Big Thing" and does it really make you happy anyway?
The problem with the argument the states that it is neccesary to compensate the "original creator" ( A highly suspect term in it's self ) is that they assume an economic model where that makes sense, i.e. the current US model.
Kind Regards