we had full radio communication with this plane until after it had landed, and I'm SURE that the pilot would have said something if he had been forced to land
Yes, but the "we" in that sentence is the US military command, NOT CNN. So even if "we" heard they were shot at, the white house might not be advertising the fact in hopes of avoiding a full-scale war. Once the US personell get home, I'm sure we'll hear many more details that were forgotten for the sake of diplomacy...
I'm sure those people were on the payroll of the NSA, but they are in the military and that's the rules everyone agreed
Why would they be on the payroll of the NSA? They're already paid by the military -- do you really think the US payroll is so bloated we'll voluntarily pay people twice for the same job? These are just pilots and techs, not cryptographers...
. I sure wish those who would label him a right winger, would find a quote of his, any quote, which displays any of the values that are advocated by the political right
Like his feelings on states' rghts, reducing the federal government, abortion, gun laws, taxes, military spending, etc? Or did you mean something OTHER than every major republican platform?
I must have missed his staunch support of universal healthcare and public education.
Please not, I don't lump conservatives/republicans in with McVeigh (he is clearly an extremist) but to suggest he WASN'T a conservative extremist is mind-boggling to say the least.
The energy is not. The enthropy is. The second law of thermodynamics is about enthropy. It's much easier to mix oil and other stuff than to separate them
The second law of thermodynamics applies to CLOSED systems.
The first poster was suggesting that we would constantly lose energy in the processing of oil (which is true) and that therefore we could not use oil power to process more oil (which is not true).
The potential energy is not put in the oil by the processing. The processing occurs so that we can RELEASE the potential energy that is already in the oil.
This is not a closed system, there is sunlight and organic matter and blah blah blah adding energy to the process over millions of years. It's not a perpetual motion machine, and the laws of thermodynamics have NO BEARING whatosever on the practicality of using oil as fuel for oil processing.
What is the opinion of China flying recon planes around the US? No problem, with that, right?
What, you mean like the russian submarines that have spent the last few decades cruising up and down our coasts? I don't recall us ever sinking one, or taking its crew hostage.
And, god forbid they had an emergency, we would certainly let the crew members see their own ambassador in less than a few days, and return them home pretty quickly. The sub we'd probably hang onto for a while and eventually give it back (as I fully expect the chinese to do with our plane -- yes, it's our property, landed in an emergency, but they can just "keep an eye on it" for a few weeks). Did american subs ever play chicken with russina subs? Probably, but you know if they had crashed the whole damn world would be bitching us out about it -- we would have had a coast guard cutter out there in minutes to rescue both crews.
There is no excuse for holding hostages of people who make an emergency landing, an even less than none for not letting a foreign citizen even see their own ambassadors. People and property are two different things.
The energy from oil isn't put in it by the refinery or processing. If it were, we wouldn't bother having engines in the first place -- we'd just build a refineryin every car and cut out the wasteful step in the middle.
So yes, we can use food oil to process food oil in the future -- same as we use petrochemicals to power all the petrochemical processing plants (and still have enough left over for stuff like cars)...
I mean, if I'm preparing a server and some laptops for, like, a trade show or something, I'm making sure everything's setup, working, and that all that has to be done on site is plugging the buggers in
They're not going to a trade show -- they're in outer space. The pressure in the ISS is normalized to approximately 19,000 ft (WAY outside the specs for most harware), the atmospheric content is different, the heat buildup is much more substantial, etc.
Stuff just plain stops working, when it should by all measures be fine. This is part of the drawback of using off-the-shelf tech instead of building everything custom within NASA. Much cheaper, but also more likely to fail...
I would fall asleep playing, wake up, and play some more.
Ha, that's so funny and true its sad. Its also part, I think, of why it's getting harder to sell games to adults. I know I still love video games, but I just can't justify spending 40 hours a week playing/learning them (or god forbid 120 hours like I used to). Today's games all brag about how they have "80 hours of play time" -- well, damn that pretty much guarantees I won't play it because I know going in I don't have that much time to spend.
I played Diablo 2 for a week straight, every night, then thankfully I forgot the disk at my brother-in-law's house and haven't played since. I remember having a great deal of fun playing, yet somehow my life does not feel less full since I stopped.
It's nice to play a good RTS or something every now and then, because you can play for just an hour (or three) and stop without having just "one more level"...
Uh uh.. The record companies buy all the rights to the song from the artist
I'm not talking about record companies. Regardless, they don't buy the rights to a song, they own the rights in the first place -- there is no sale of anything.
Musical works are "created" by the recording company, not the artist (legally speaking -- thanks to the RIAA's wonderful congressional lobbying). So the recording company owns the copyright, period.
In most other creative industries, non-staff creators license rights by the use (or sell more rights for a LOT more money). Except freelance newspaper writers, who seem to get screwed a lot more, and generally deal with onerous work-for-hire contracts that are legally fishy (the IRS doesn't consider it work for hire just because you say it is -- the courts seem less certain).
It's HIGHLY unlikely that someone is going to make a killing selling absolutely perfect recreations of your paintings
I don't know of many calendars or magazines that publish reproductions of sheet music or code. Visual works are very valuable, and much easier to make money off of because they are instantly recognizable and easy to repurpose (calendar to ad campaign to magaine cover, etc).
And, no, there are no perfect reproductions of paintings, but that doesn't stop people from making decent money off of Mona Lisa posters or American Gothic.
Paintings aren't the issue when it comes to copyright
I'd suspect you haven't paid much attention to the number of commercial paintings you run across in your daily life. From product boxes, to magazines, posters, greeting cards, t-shirts, wallpaper, cartoons, and book covers; paintings and illustrations are right up there with the written word and audio recordings in terms of how widespread they are. Certainly a lot more so than reproductions of sheet music or code, and far more valuable for it.
No, dude, having the length of the copyright be longer helps YOU. NOW. It makes the copyright worth more. So, assuming someone wanted to reproduce your painting, they'd pay you more for the copyright if it lasted 50 years than if it lasted 5 years.
I wish more people took economics classes
No, it doesn't work like that -- you don't (generally) sell or buy a copyright. You buy limited reproduction rights, for example "first north american serial rights", depending on the use.
Yes, if a copyright was expiring next month, they might be willing to just wait to get it for free, but no one is willing to pay more for a magazine cover because the copyright you have is good for another 100 years instead of 10. In fact, they'd rather it wasn't that long because every time they reprint that cover, they have to send you another check.
The economics of publishing don't assign much of a time value other than a relative period of exclusivity, because 99.9% of the material is dated.
Yes, having an infinity length of copyright might directly benefit me, but it would also rob me and the rest of the world of the use of the commons, of which ultimately there is a far greater economic value to society -- we have to balance the legitimate exclusivity with the need for culture to grow by adopting creative works as shared resources. 10 years is too short, 120 years after death is too long. I'd like to just make it death+20 or something like that, so that the immediate "reflections" after passing benefit the estate. Corporations, maybe 75 years total so that you'd have to live to be a hundred to see work you created as a new employee disappear from your control.
See if you can find all the places Linux in it's present form is being used
Um, it's being used by sysadmins, hackers, geeks, and hobbyists, like I said. Or do you know of some huge cache of desktop business and home users that aren't showing up in any OS surveys?
If there is no standard, then companies will not waste their time writing linux software that may or may not be compatible with a given distro
Well looks like I'll be calling a lot of companies tonight giving them the bad news. Can I quote you as a source?
Yes, you can. Please, tell me where the huge cache of commercial software for Linux is? Software that is guranteed linux compatible, regardless of distro, and doesn't say somewhere on the box "Only tested on Red Hat 6.x" or somesuch?
It'll probably cost you about 25 cents to call all the multi-distro commercially successful Linux software companies, and you'll have money left over for a cup of coffee when you're done...
The fee starts at one dollar and triples each year, for as long as you continue to pay
This actually isn't a bad idea at all, though we'd have to do a lot more work on the details, because its pretty unfair to the small guys.
Yes, you can say "oh, it's only $250 your sixth year", but you have to realize that professional writers and artists and musicians make hundreds or thousands of works every year.
While paying $250 for every song is no big deal to the RIAA members, if I had to pay $250 for every single painting I have ever made in my life just to keep the copyright, well frankly that sucks.
I make hundreds of paintings a year, and thousands of drawings. It would cost me literally millions of dollars a year just to own my own drawings for more than a year or two, and believe me I'm not making millions off of reproduction rights, but it puts food on the table.
I would be better off working at McDonalds than putting paint on canvas, because in a year or two someone else could come along and sell all my work as a calendar without me getting a single nickle.
That said, the idea that my copyrights should last for decades after i die is just asinine. I would hope my kids have jobs and won't be depending on work I did 50 years ealier to feed themselves. While I expect to get paid for my work and not have other people profit off of it without my approval or permission, I also expect that my work contribute to the collective library of humanity for free when I die.
The trick is for someone to create a nice little distro that only HAS one of those hundreds - if you want a different one (as so many people will) then get a different distro
Okay, maybe this is just not clear enough -- we should not PREVENT people from using a different interface (as Windows does not PREVENT someone from replacing explorer with another shell), but make no mistake that different distributions having different window managers will permanently prevent Linux from ever competing with MS. Having a different WM for different distros means that there is NO STANDARD. If there is no standard, then companies will not waste their time writing linux software that may or may not be compatible with a given distro.
I don't have a problem with other people wanting their choices made for them. I do have a problem with those people forcing that choice upon me
Please, this isn't an issue of personal freedom, this is an issue of commercial reality. If linux wants to stay as merely a sysadmin OS, server OS, or for hobby users, then by all means it should continue to leave every single decision unmade until the first boot.
If you want to compete with MS for the desktop (which makes sense, otherwise no one would give a damn about what MS thinks or does) then you have to realize that we are not talking about "forcing" choices on users, but rather making actual design decisions. If the right mouse button functions differently on every computer a secretary sits down at, she will NEVER learn how to use the computer. This isn't about restricting power users, its about making systems work consistently out of the box. It's about making it easy to program for an OS because you know ahead of time what interface conventions a user is expecting.
I repeat: feel free to develop a hobby or power user OS any way you like, those groups are willing to learn anything because it is FUN for them to use the system and bend it to their will.
The is a distro responsibility, not the responsibility of Linux, or window manager coders, or anythign else
Well truly its no ones responsibility, so I guess thats why linux will never succeed on the desktop. I'm not saying linux is bad for not having these things, only that Doug and MS are correct that Linux will not succeed on the desktop until users and developers can expect the system to function in a certain reproducable manner. Windows has its quirks between versions, but in all honesty the typical user would have trouble telling the difference between Win95, Win98, Win98se, and Win2k.
Again, if Linux developers are happy having the system only used/usable by those willing and able to make these configuration decisions, more power to them. But then please stop complaining about Microsoft owning the desktop, because they have made a product that is usable by both power users AND people who search for the "any" key...
This seems to be the pervailing attitude among those at Microsoft and elsewhere: users are stupid, so stupid that we must make all their decisions for them.
No, users are trying to USE their computers for something. Unlike kernel hackers, geeks, and your general/. crowd, most people WANT TO GET WORK DONE on their computers. They really don't give a damn about pushing the envelope on new OS technology, upgrading their file system, or taking positions in a religious war.
I'm beginning to think that Microsoft really will continue to kick Linux's ass around the block, because no one seems to want to actually figure out why their products sell so well. MS woke up, and they clearly understand how and why people use Linux, and are incorporating that knowledge in their development and sales goals.
Linux folks seem content to just say "oh, they're just sucky, so pooh on them" rather than actually learn something frm their success.
NORMAL USERS DO NOT WANT A HUNDRED DIFFERENT WINDOW MANAGERS! THEY WANT TO GET WORK DONE AND GO HOME.
I do not know how much more clearly this can possibly be stated, but it doesn't seem to be getting through to Linux developers. You would think that 95%+ of desktop systems using a single interface would give the hint. We're not talking about developers or power users, who DO like to customize for power, we're talking about actual users who write reports, run spreadsheets, and download porn. They do not give a rat's ass about KDE vs GNome, and if you tell them the first thing they have to do to use the system is decide on a freaking window manager, forgetaboutit.
There rarely is One Right Way
That is true. But there usually is one standard way. Regardless of the inefficiency of the QWERTY keyboard, MOST people don't have trouble with it because its pretty much the same everywhere.
I'm sure NASA is thrilled that their engineers can "choose" between english and metric units -- it gives them more power! So what if it leads to the occassional incompatibility and loss of millions of dollars in equipment. We'd hate to take away the power of choice.
Most people are not seeking the "perfect operating system" (otherwise known as One Right Way). People are looking to get work done, and Microsoft excels at meeting the PERCIEVED needs of their customers. Whether Linux or some other system would be better if properly customized and learned is a whole 'nother topic, but Microsoft sells a solution that is Good Enough (and in business, Good Enough is usually more cost-effective than One Right Way).
The first thing Apple did when they moved to OSX was standardize the interface. They didn't REMOVE the ability to customize it (or to run X with Gnome or whatever), but the truth is the VAST majority of users have no desire whatsoever to customize their interface beyond wallpaper and icons and sounds, etc.
Please, the world isn't that stupid. Don't insult the people who fund the very survival of your company.
MS is the single most successful company in the history of the world, pretty much. As long as they stay paranoid, I don't think they need to worry about going bankrupt any time soon.
People are not stupid, and for you to take "standardization" as an assusation of stupidity is an interesting mischaracterization of Doug's statements. People have enough complexity in their lives, we hardly need to be forcing more on them just to send an email. If they want to customize, they'll find out how, but Linux forces the issue from the first boot, and that turns off a lot of people just looking to get work done.
Editing the windows registry is no harder or easier than editing unix config files, the difference is that you don't HAVE to edit the registry just to use the system. You don't even have to know that the registry exists...
As the AC who posted the initial reply to Terri Rolle, I have to jump in again (I expected way more flames quite frankly).
Geeks tend to believe that they could treat women better, if only they had the chance. This is absurd, the guys that are getting laid are the guys that do know how to treat a woman.
You're absolutely right. I agree with you completely. I was trying to point out to Terri Rolle that, in fact, women are sleeping with exactly the men they desire -- women can SAY they HATE "stone age attitudes" all they like, but so long as they keep rutting with the frat boys, men will keep acting like frat boys.
My greatest regret in life is that it took me so long to stop listening to what women SAID they wanted and start paying attention to what they actually ACTED on.
Being intelligent is far from the most critical component in how you treat a woman.
I'd recommend looking for a good dancer and a pet owner, that'll tell you more than intelligence about how someone will be in a relationship. (yes, I'm a good dancer, no I'm not a pet owner, so I'm not just making up rules that I fulfill!)
He said the first world, which does not include any communist regime, by definition
That depends on your classification system somewhat (there are several political or economic ones). regardless, Canada and Britain, as well as France, Germany and the rest of the "first world" are constantly stymied by our annoying predeliction for free speech (see Yahoo France, Compuserve Germany, etc). Its not limited to undeveloped countries, I just didn't feel like being as obnoxious to Europe in my first post as everyone else is being towards the US.
And believe me, we're all laughing at people like you
We know, we're just too busy running the world and keeping people out of our borders to much care. We've been laughed at pretty consistently ever since the first folks here said we didn't need a King anymore (shocking!). Quite frankly, its a lot like people on/. ridiculing Microsoft -- I'm sure Bill Gates can console himself somehow at being such a "loser" in the eyes of the GNU community.
And don't go off spouting about Freedom of Speech when the American people so blatantly use it to bludgeon the rest of the world
Huh? How can speech be used to bludgeon? We like to think of it as opening eyes. But I guess this is just one of those differences between us -- we believe that the more someone knows and faces, the smarter and better they'll be. You believe, I guess, that maybe people should just not have to hear some ideas that people find distatseful (like the idea we shouldn't have a king?).
dude, say bye bye to legal flag burning in the US. #43 is pro flag burning amendment. I'm sure he and the republican dominated congress will get around to it
You'll never get 3/4 of the states to ratify such an amendment. At most they can have a symblic vote in congress and get a majority, but not enough to actually amend the constitution...
but in an urban population with a decent sized police force, there should be no good reason for people to have to carry around weapons.
Why have a first aid kit in the home? After all, you can call 911 and get an ambulance ten times faster than any police will show up.
if the number of bears in the forest surrounding your log cabin outnumber the number of children in your family
Guns have always been more useful against people than animals. Most animals will stay away from humans by themselves, if you're living in the middle of nowhere your greatest danger is and always has been the threat from other human beings. That hasn't changed in the least, which is why we still have guns (and armies and missiles and other wasteful things).
Go ahead, mod me down. I don't care. But this is one of the reasons the rest of the first worls looks upon America with bafflement and disbelief.
Along with freedom of speech and religion, yes it is. The Chinese are amazed when we insult our president, burn our flag, and get away with it. The Taliban thinks it is foolish to allow other religions to coexist with the official one (heck, they think its foolish not to have an officil religion!).
Indeed, we are odd ducks and always have been.
That said, i agree with you that population density is probably the single greatest factor that has changed. Density and mobility -- which cut down on the amount of respect and discipline, and the familiarity people used to have with their neighbors...
If they really kill themselves, THEN kill others, it speaks well of the next generation's ability to get things done when they set their mind to it!...
The rubber duck (as well as the badminton birdie and most of the other icons) are stock photos. You can buy the same set of images (plus 25,000 more!) and use them for your interface for about $49.95 on a six CD set....
Intel starts making chips that have copyright protection built-in, it only opens up a market to a chip manufacturer that won't.
Yeah, 'cause anyone can build a chip fab in their basement and compete with intel. Anyone who doesn't like it can just build their own damn multi-gigaherz CPUs, and develop their own instruction sets that are 100% compatible with x86 yet don't infringe on a single Intel patent.
Isn't it a bit hypocritical of us to complain about the high rate of failure of artificial creation of life when the natural rate may not be all that much better?
What i was referring to was the high rate of failed development in growing clones. You have a lot who grow to a certain point before horrible deformities and such render it incapable of life anymore.
Natural fertilization has a low success rate, but the failure is right up front with the sperm and egg 99.9% of the time, not 6 weeks down the line after something has been growing (its more like a miscarriage, which of course we DO see as tragic)...
In any case, cloning will NOT be the end of the world, nor will genetic engineering, as so many on Slashdot predict.
My impression is that the general slashdot population has no problem with cloning whatsoever. We (being non-geneticists) know just enough to understand that really you're just talking about twins, not identical copies of adult humans with all your memories and desires. Its not the creation of a person who could "replace" you, which is the concern of those who don't know anything more than what they see in the movies.
Hearing this more detailed information on the negative effects of cloning on the clone (shorter lifespan, greater suceptibility to disease) is really the first time that i've been "worried" about cloning in any way whatsoever (other than the obviously high initial failure rate, which would not really be acceptable when you're talking about human beings)...
Slashdot Mirror
we had full radio communication with this plane until after it had landed, and I'm SURE that the pilot would have said something if he had been forced to land
Yes, but the "we" in that sentence is the US military command, NOT CNN. So even if "we" heard they were shot at, the white house might not be advertising the fact in hopes of avoiding a full-scale war. Once the US personell get home, I'm sure we'll hear many more details that were forgotten for the sake of diplomacy...
---------------------------------------------
I'm sure those people were on the payroll of the NSA, but they are in the military and that's the rules everyone agreed
Why would they be on the payroll of the NSA? They're already paid by the military -- do you really think the US payroll is so bloated we'll voluntarily pay people twice for the same job? These are just pilots and techs, not cryptographers...
---------------------------------------------
. I sure wish those who would label him a right winger, would find a quote of his, any quote, which displays any of the values that are advocated by the political right
Like his feelings on states' rghts, reducing the federal government, abortion, gun laws, taxes, military spending, etc? Or did you mean something OTHER than every major republican platform?
I must have missed his staunch support of universal healthcare and public education.
Please not, I don't lump conservatives/republicans in with McVeigh (he is clearly an extremist) but to suggest he WASN'T a conservative extremist is mind-boggling to say the least.
---------------------------------------------
The energy is not. The enthropy is. The second law of thermodynamics is about enthropy. It's much easier to mix oil and other stuff than to separate them
The second law of thermodynamics applies to CLOSED systems.
The first poster was suggesting that we would constantly lose energy in the processing of oil (which is true) and that therefore we could not use oil power to process more oil (which is not true).
The potential energy is not put in the oil by the processing. The processing occurs so that we can RELEASE the potential energy that is already in the oil.
This is not a closed system, there is sunlight and organic matter and blah blah blah adding energy to the process over millions of years. It's not a perpetual motion machine, and the laws of thermodynamics have NO BEARING whatosever on the practicality of using oil as fuel for oil processing.
---------------------------------------------
What is the opinion of China flying recon planes around the US? No problem, with that, right?
What, you mean like the russian submarines that have spent the last few decades cruising up and down our coasts? I don't recall us ever sinking one, or taking its crew hostage.
And, god forbid they had an emergency, we would certainly let the crew members see their own ambassador in less than a few days, and return them home pretty quickly. The sub we'd probably hang onto for a while and eventually give it back (as I fully expect the chinese to do with our plane -- yes, it's our property, landed in an emergency, but they can just "keep an eye on it" for a few weeks). Did american subs ever play chicken with russina subs? Probably, but you know if they had crashed the whole damn world would be bitching us out about it -- we would have had a coast guard cutter out there in minutes to rescue both crews.
There is no excuse for holding hostages of people who make an emergency landing, an even less than none for not letting a foreign citizen even see their own ambassadors. People and property are two different things.
---------------------------------------------
Thermodynamics, Law 2.
The energy from oil isn't put in it by the refinery or processing. If it were, we wouldn't bother having engines in the first place -- we'd just build a refineryin every car and cut out the wasteful step in the middle.
So yes, we can use food oil to process food oil in the future -- same as we use petrochemicals to power all the petrochemical processing plants (and still have enough left over for stuff like cars)...
---------------------------------------------
I mean, if I'm preparing a server and some laptops for, like, a trade show or something, I'm making sure everything's setup, working, and that all that has to be done on site is plugging the buggers in
They're not going to a trade show -- they're in outer space. The pressure in the ISS is normalized to approximately 19,000 ft (WAY outside the specs for most harware), the atmospheric content is different, the heat buildup is much more substantial, etc.
Stuff just plain stops working, when it should by all measures be fine. This is part of the drawback of using off-the-shelf tech instead of building everything custom within NASA. Much cheaper, but also more likely to fail...
---------------------------------------------
I would fall asleep playing, wake up, and play some more.
Ha, that's so funny and true its sad. Its also part, I think, of why it's getting harder to sell games to adults. I know I still love video games, but I just can't justify spending 40 hours a week playing/learning them (or god forbid 120 hours like I used to). Today's games all brag about how they have "80 hours of play time" -- well, damn that pretty much guarantees I won't play it because I know going in I don't have that much time to spend.
I played Diablo 2 for a week straight, every night, then thankfully I forgot the disk at my brother-in-law's house and haven't played since. I remember having a great deal of fun playing, yet somehow my life does not feel less full since I stopped.
It's nice to play a good RTS or something every now and then, because you can play for just an hour (or three) and stop without having just "one more level"...
---------------------------------------------
Uh uh.. The record companies buy all the rights to the song from the artist
I'm not talking about record companies. Regardless, they don't buy the rights to a song, they own the rights in the first place -- there is no sale of anything.
Musical works are "created" by the recording company, not the artist (legally speaking -- thanks to the RIAA's wonderful congressional lobbying). So the recording company owns the copyright, period.
In most other creative industries, non-staff creators license rights by the use (or sell more rights for a LOT more money). Except freelance newspaper writers, who seem to get screwed a lot more, and generally deal with onerous work-for-hire contracts that are legally fishy (the IRS doesn't consider it work for hire just because you say it is -- the courts seem less certain).
---------------------------------------------
It's HIGHLY unlikely that someone is going to make a killing selling absolutely perfect recreations of your paintings
I don't know of many calendars or magazines that publish reproductions of sheet music or code. Visual works are very valuable, and much easier to make money off of because they are instantly recognizable and easy to repurpose (calendar to ad campaign to magaine cover, etc).
And, no, there are no perfect reproductions of paintings, but that doesn't stop people from making decent money off of Mona Lisa posters or American Gothic.
Paintings aren't the issue when it comes to copyright
I'd suspect you haven't paid much attention to the number of commercial paintings you run across in your daily life. From product boxes, to magazines, posters, greeting cards, t-shirts, wallpaper, cartoons, and book covers; paintings and illustrations are right up there with the written word and audio recordings in terms of how widespread they are. Certainly a lot more so than reproductions of sheet music or code, and far more valuable for it.
---------------------------------------------
No, dude, having the length of the copyright be longer helps YOU. NOW. It makes the copyright worth more. So, assuming someone wanted to reproduce your painting, they'd pay you more for the copyright if it lasted 50 years than if it lasted 5 years.
I wish more people took economics classes
No, it doesn't work like that -- you don't (generally) sell or buy a copyright. You buy limited reproduction rights, for example "first north american serial rights", depending on the use.
Yes, if a copyright was expiring next month, they might be willing to just wait to get it for free, but no one is willing to pay more for a magazine cover because the copyright you have is good for another 100 years instead of 10. In fact, they'd rather it wasn't that long because every time they reprint that cover, they have to send you another check.
The economics of publishing don't assign much of a time value other than a relative period of exclusivity, because 99.9% of the material is dated.
Yes, having an infinity length of copyright might directly benefit me, but it would also rob me and the rest of the world of the use of the commons, of which ultimately there is a far greater economic value to society -- we have to balance the legitimate exclusivity with the need for culture to grow by adopting creative works as shared resources. 10 years is too short, 120 years after death is too long. I'd like to just make it death+20 or something like that, so that the immediate "reflections" after passing benefit the estate. Corporations, maybe 75 years total so that you'd have to live to be a hundred to see work you created as a new employee disappear from your control.
---------------------------------------------
See if you can find all the places Linux in it's present form is being used
Um, it's being used by sysadmins, hackers, geeks, and hobbyists, like I said. Or do you know of some huge cache of desktop business and home users that aren't showing up in any OS surveys?
If there is no standard, then companies will not waste their time writing linux software that may or may not be compatible with a given distro
Well looks like I'll be calling a lot of companies tonight giving them the bad news. Can I quote you as a source?
Yes, you can. Please, tell me where the huge cache of commercial software for Linux is? Software that is guranteed linux compatible, regardless of distro, and doesn't say somewhere on the box "Only tested on Red Hat 6.x" or somesuch?
It'll probably cost you about 25 cents to call all the multi-distro commercially successful Linux software companies, and you'll have money left over for a cup of coffee when you're done...
---------------------------------------------
The fee starts at one dollar and triples each year, for as long as you continue to pay
This actually isn't a bad idea at all, though we'd have to do a lot more work on the details, because its pretty unfair to the small guys.
Yes, you can say "oh, it's only $250 your sixth year", but you have to realize that professional writers and artists and musicians make hundreds or thousands of works every year.
While paying $250 for every song is no big deal to the RIAA members, if I had to pay $250 for every single painting I have ever made in my life just to keep the copyright, well frankly that sucks.
I make hundreds of paintings a year, and thousands of drawings. It would cost me literally millions of dollars a year just to own my own drawings for more than a year or two, and believe me I'm not making millions off of reproduction rights, but it puts food on the table.
I would be better off working at McDonalds than putting paint on canvas, because in a year or two someone else could come along and sell all my work as a calendar without me getting a single nickle.
That said, the idea that my copyrights should last for decades after i die is just asinine. I would hope my kids have jobs and won't be depending on work I did 50 years ealier to feed themselves. While I expect to get paid for my work and not have other people profit off of it without my approval or permission, I also expect that my work contribute to the collective library of humanity for free when I die.
---------------------------------------------
The trick is for someone to create a nice little distro that only HAS one of those hundreds - if you want a different one (as so many people will) then get a different distro
Okay, maybe this is just not clear enough -- we should not PREVENT people from using a different interface (as Windows does not PREVENT someone from replacing explorer with another shell), but make no mistake that different distributions having different window managers will permanently prevent Linux from ever competing with MS. Having a different WM for different distros means that there is NO STANDARD. If there is no standard, then companies will not waste their time writing linux software that may or may not be compatible with a given distro.
I don't have a problem with other people wanting their choices made for them. I do have a problem with those people forcing that choice upon me
Please, this isn't an issue of personal freedom, this is an issue of commercial reality. If linux wants to stay as merely a sysadmin OS, server OS, or for hobby users, then by all means it should continue to leave every single decision unmade until the first boot.
If you want to compete with MS for the desktop (which makes sense, otherwise no one would give a damn about what MS thinks or does) then you have to realize that we are not talking about "forcing" choices on users, but rather making actual design decisions. If the right mouse button functions differently on every computer a secretary sits down at, she will NEVER learn how to use the computer. This isn't about restricting power users, its about making systems work consistently out of the box. It's about making it easy to program for an OS because you know ahead of time what interface conventions a user is expecting.
I repeat: feel free to develop a hobby or power user OS any way you like, those groups are willing to learn anything because it is FUN for them to use the system and bend it to their will.
The is a distro responsibility, not the responsibility of Linux, or window manager coders, or anythign else
Well truly its no ones responsibility, so I guess thats why linux will never succeed on the desktop. I'm not saying linux is bad for not having these things, only that Doug and MS are correct that Linux will not succeed on the desktop until users and developers can expect the system to function in a certain reproducable manner. Windows has its quirks between versions, but in all honesty the typical user would have trouble telling the difference between Win95, Win98, Win98se, and Win2k.
Again, if Linux developers are happy having the system only used/usable by those willing and able to make these configuration decisions, more power to them. But then please stop complaining about Microsoft owning the desktop, because they have made a product that is usable by both power users AND people who search for the "any" key...
---------------------------------------------
This seems to be the pervailing attitude among those at Microsoft and elsewhere: users are stupid, so stupid that we must make all their decisions for them.
/. crowd, most people WANT TO GET WORK DONE on their computers. They really don't give a damn about pushing the envelope on new OS technology, upgrading their file system, or taking positions in a religious war.
No, users are trying to USE their computers for something. Unlike kernel hackers, geeks, and your general
I'm beginning to think that Microsoft really will continue to kick Linux's ass around the block, because no one seems to want to actually figure out why their products sell so well. MS woke up, and they clearly understand how and why people use Linux, and are incorporating that knowledge in their development and sales goals.
Linux folks seem content to just say "oh, they're just sucky, so pooh on them" rather than actually learn something frm their success.
NORMAL USERS DO NOT WANT A HUNDRED DIFFERENT WINDOW MANAGERS! THEY WANT TO GET WORK DONE AND GO HOME.
I do not know how much more clearly this can possibly be stated, but it doesn't seem to be getting through to Linux developers. You would think that 95%+ of desktop systems using a single interface would give the hint. We're not talking about developers or power users, who DO like to customize for power, we're talking about actual users who write reports, run spreadsheets, and download porn. They do not give a rat's ass about KDE vs GNome, and if you tell them the first thing they have to do to use the system is decide on a freaking window manager, forgetaboutit.
There rarely is One Right Way
That is true. But there usually is one standard way. Regardless of the inefficiency of the QWERTY keyboard, MOST people don't have trouble with it because its pretty much the same everywhere.
I'm sure NASA is thrilled that their engineers can "choose" between english and metric units -- it gives them more power! So what if it leads to the occassional incompatibility and loss of millions of dollars in equipment. We'd hate to take away the power of choice.
Most people are not seeking the "perfect operating system" (otherwise known as One Right Way). People are looking to get work done, and Microsoft excels at meeting the PERCIEVED needs of their customers. Whether Linux or some other system would be better if properly customized and learned is a whole 'nother topic, but Microsoft sells a solution that is Good Enough (and in business, Good Enough is usually more cost-effective than One Right Way).
The first thing Apple did when they moved to OSX was standardize the interface. They didn't REMOVE the ability to customize it (or to run X with Gnome or whatever), but the truth is the VAST majority of users have no desire whatsoever to customize their interface beyond wallpaper and icons and sounds, etc.
Please, the world isn't that stupid. Don't insult the people who fund the very survival of your company.
MS is the single most successful company in the history of the world, pretty much. As long as they stay paranoid, I don't think they need to worry about going bankrupt any time soon.
People are not stupid, and for you to take "standardization" as an assusation of stupidity is an interesting mischaracterization of Doug's statements. People have enough complexity in their lives, we hardly need to be forcing more on them just to send an email. If they want to customize, they'll find out how, but Linux forces the issue from the first boot, and that turns off a lot of people just looking to get work done.
Editing the windows registry is no harder or easier than editing unix config files, the difference is that you don't HAVE to edit the registry just to use the system. You don't even have to know that the registry exists...
---------------------------------------------
As the AC who posted the initial reply to Terri Rolle, I have to jump in again (I expected way more flames quite frankly).
Geeks tend to believe that they could treat women better, if only they had the chance. This is absurd, the guys that are getting laid are the guys that do know how to treat a woman.
You're absolutely right. I agree with you completely. I was trying to point out to Terri Rolle that, in fact, women are sleeping with exactly the men they desire -- women can SAY they HATE "stone age attitudes" all they like, but so long as they keep rutting with the frat boys, men will keep acting like frat boys.
My greatest regret in life is that it took me so long to stop listening to what women SAID they wanted and start paying attention to what they actually ACTED on.
Being intelligent is far from the most critical component in how you treat a woman.
I'd recommend looking for a good dancer and a pet owner, that'll tell you more than intelligence about how someone will be in a relationship. (yes, I'm a good dancer, no I'm not a pet owner, so I'm not just making up rules that I fulfill!)
---------------------------------------------
Could it be that the average slashdotter is actually *reading* the article for once? :-)
Hey, this is REAL news for nerds...
---------------------------------------------
He said the first world, which does not include any communist regime, by definition
/. ridiculing Microsoft -- I'm sure Bill Gates can console himself somehow at being such a "loser" in the eyes of the GNU community.
That depends on your classification system somewhat (there are several political or economic ones). regardless, Canada and Britain, as well as France, Germany and the rest of the "first world" are constantly stymied by our annoying predeliction for free speech (see Yahoo France, Compuserve Germany, etc). Its not limited to undeveloped countries, I just didn't feel like being as obnoxious to Europe in my first post as everyone else is being towards the US.
And believe me, we're all laughing at people like you
We know, we're just too busy running the world and keeping people out of our borders to much care. We've been laughed at pretty consistently ever since the first folks here said we didn't need a King anymore (shocking!). Quite frankly, its a lot like people on
And don't go off spouting about Freedom of Speech when the American people so blatantly use it to bludgeon the rest of the world
Huh? How can speech be used to bludgeon? We like to think of it as opening eyes. But I guess this is just one of those differences between us -- we believe that the more someone knows and faces, the smarter and better they'll be. You believe, I guess, that maybe people should just not have to hear some ideas that people find distatseful (like the idea we shouldn't have a king?).
---------------------------------------------
dude, say bye bye to legal flag burning in the US. #43 is pro flag burning amendment. I'm sure he and the republican dominated congress will get around to it
You'll never get 3/4 of the states to ratify such an amendment. At most they can have a symblic vote in congress and get a majority, but not enough to actually amend the constitution...
---------------------------------------------
but in an urban population with a decent sized police force, there should be no good reason for people to have to carry around weapons.
Why have a first aid kit in the home? After all, you can call 911 and get an ambulance ten times faster than any police will show up.
if the number of bears in the forest surrounding your log cabin outnumber the number of children in your family
Guns have always been more useful against people than animals. Most animals will stay away from humans by themselves, if you're living in the middle of nowhere your greatest danger is and always has been the threat from other human beings. That hasn't changed in the least, which is why we still have guns (and armies and missiles and other wasteful things).
Go ahead, mod me down. I don't care. But this is one of the reasons the rest of the first worls looks upon America with bafflement and disbelief.
Along with freedom of speech and religion, yes it is. The Chinese are amazed when we insult our president, burn our flag, and get away with it. The Taliban thinks it is foolish to allow other religions to coexist with the official one (heck, they think its foolish not to have an officil religion!).
Indeed, we are odd ducks and always have been.
That said, i agree with you that population density is probably the single greatest factor that has changed. Density and mobility -- which cut down on the amount of respect and discipline, and the familiarity people used to have with their neighbors...
---------------------------------------------
I'm impressed at the determination of these kids!
If they really kill themselves, THEN kill others, it speaks well of the next generation's ability to get things done when they set their mind to it!...
Copy editor?
---------------------------------------------
The rubber duck (as well as the badminton birdie and most of the other icons) are stock photos. You can buy the same set of images (plus 25,000 more!) and use them for your interface for about $49.95 on a six CD set....
---------------------------------------------
Intel starts making chips that have copyright protection built-in, it only opens up a market to a chip manufacturer that won't.
Yeah, 'cause anyone can build a chip fab in their basement and compete with intel. Anyone who doesn't like it can just build their own damn multi-gigaherz CPUs, and develop their own instruction sets that are 100% compatible with x86 yet don't infringe on a single Intel patent.
Rah, rah, Ayn Rand...
---------------------------------------------
Isn't it a bit hypocritical of us to complain about the high rate of failure of artificial creation of life when the natural rate may not be all that much better?
What i was referring to was the high rate of failed development in growing clones. You have a lot who grow to a certain point before horrible deformities and such render it incapable of life anymore.
Natural fertilization has a low success rate, but the failure is right up front with the sperm and egg 99.9% of the time, not 6 weeks down the line after something has been growing (its more like a miscarriage, which of course we DO see as tragic)...
---------------------------------------------
In any case, cloning will NOT be the end of the world, nor will genetic engineering, as so many on Slashdot predict.
My impression is that the general slashdot population has no problem with cloning whatsoever. We (being non-geneticists) know just enough to understand that really you're just talking about twins, not identical copies of adult humans with all your memories and desires. Its not the creation of a person who could "replace" you, which is the concern of those who don't know anything more than what they see in the movies.
Hearing this more detailed information on the negative effects of cloning on the clone (shorter lifespan, greater suceptibility to disease) is really the first time that i've been "worried" about cloning in any way whatsoever (other than the obviously high initial failure rate, which would not really be acceptable when you're talking about human beings)...
---------------------------------------------