Ah, but you see, the word "censorware" is really a misnomer. You see, although it can be used for censorship, it usually isn't. The primary market for these products is for parents to use in their homes, and for schools to use on their private computer systems. That's not really censorship, because the people using it are completely within their rights (Parents can decide what their kids see, same with the school system), and, more to the point, they're only controlling a certain computer or set of computers. It's no more censored than, say, a newspaper article that only gives one side of the story. Information may be missing, but you can always get to it.
Censorware is flawed, in that it doesn't work. I don't think it ever will, given that everyone's definition of inappropriate is different, but if someone decides a certain product is 'good enough,' then they might as well go for it -- it won't destroy your precious constitutional rights.
The thing I think we ought to watch out for is federally-mandated censorware. That's where the possibility of actual censorship comes up.
Really, if I was going to pick any agency to set up a national e-mail system and maintain it, the USPS seems like a great choice.
I'm finding it hard to believe all the negative comments about the postal system that we're getting here. Think about how efficient and quick they usually are -- the prices are very low, and they'll usually get letters and packages across the country in two or three days. Out of thousands or maybe tens of thousands of pieces of mail I've recieved, only a small handful has gotten lost. Their performance record is stellar.
There are very few places in the world that have a postal system anywhere near as good as ours. Most governmental agencies are monsters that do more harm than good, but the USPS really works. I think that it's great that the government is realizing that having an e-mail account should be just as natural as having your own snail-mail box. Maybe it'll turn out well, and maybe it won't -- but it certainly can't hurt you, and has the potential to do a lot of good.
It seems logical that there is a significant amount of "fair use" involved in the downloading of music.
How so? Quoting part of an article or making a personal copy of a tape is not analogous at all to making copies of songs for someone else. If you want to argue that copying music for your friends is fine, that's great, but you're not going to be able to hide behind fair use as precedent.
If you want precedent, I think you ought to look at the fact that copyrights have been extended again and again, until they're much more powerful than they were a century ago. In the other article, they have somebody saying that they make their money from songs they wrote 50 years ago. Now, doesn't that seem a little silly to everyone? If copyrights on music expired after, say, 5 or 10 years, there would be plenty of music in the public domain, and artists would have to keep creating music.
It seems that a large part of the problem is that there isn't any entertainment material in the public domain. Does anyone else think that reverting to sane copyright laws might help eliminate some of these problems?
Well, even more important is the assumption that each one of those people would refuse to buy 1 cd. First, a lot of these people _don't_ buy cd's any more -- that's why they use napster. And second, I'd be willing to bet that a lot of the people who signed the petition have no intention of following through with it... a lot of these people are annoyed and want to yell at the record industry, but don't actually have the willpower to avoid the next britney spears CD or whatever.
Yeah, maybe the record industry will lose some money over it; just realize that they pulled the $1 million figure out of their butts.
Sorry for my ranting, but at the end of the day evolution is nothing more than a myth with only circumstantial "facts" to back it up, and it doesn't deserve to be taught to children who are blinded to this important difference. There are plenty more worthwhile projects we can do in space, ones with real scientific value.
And studying a theory has absolutely no value at all? We should only conduct experiments based on hard facts, right? For some reason, this logic seems to present a problem. If anything, I would say that you fanatics would want more work done on evolution, if you're so sure it can be proven wrong.
Yeah, I know, you're just a troll, but it's crap like this that gives people who really do believe in creation a bad name. You're just using a purposefully weak argument as a way to start a war, and dragging lots of intelligent people down with you.
If you really feel the need to speak out against evolution, at least accquaint yourself with the facts first, and approach it with a dose of common sense.
Interestingly, the raging.com search site that altavista recently opened, used to be off-limits to text browsers (Even though forging the header revealed that it worked just fine.) I sent them an e-mail requesting that the restriction be lifted, and never heard back, although I just checked a few minutes ago and apparently they've opened it at least to Lynx. If anyone of you text-only people use it, make sure to drop them an e-mail to let them know that we really do exist and appreciate it.
A bit... although that only works if the limiting factor on gun ownership is the price of the gun. However, in general, it isn't -- whoever wants a gun pretty much gets one, the limit is simply how many people want to own firearms. So I doubt we're going to see gun prices plummeting anytime soon...
Funny. I've always thought that we killed animals for food, and killed fruit and vegetables for their taste. After all, it comes down to essentially the same thing.
The point being that, unless you accept the argument that killing animals is inherently wrong (which the majority of people won't agree with) it doesn't much matter whether you can get food from other sources. No reason to make 'that choice.'
It wasn't much of a point. Perhaps it would have been a little more relevant if the meat industry brought in kids for a field trip, passed out guns, and let them into the fields. I somehow don't think parents would like that, either... but that's not what the meat industry does. The essay made no sense at all.
Although the authentication issues are a problem (I live in AZ, so I get bombarded with editorials and so forth about the issue), it's not the problem that the critics really go after. After all, most people don't know anything about computers, so they can't say whether it's safe or not. It's hard to say whether an online system would really be more prone to abuse.
What they really say is that it 'discriminates' against people who can't use the internet. Supposedly this favors those who have net access at home. (I don't buy it, since people who are apathetic won't vote anyway, and everyone can go to a polling place, but that's what many, including this Voting Integrity Project, say.) Personally, I think that all the arguments at this point are just political maneuvers and fear of change, not really motivated by real concern.
...conspiracy of some kind. Or at least, maybe MS already expects other people to port some of the existing emulators over to XBox. Although I don't know much about emulation in general, considering that the thing's supposed to be pretty much like a PC, how hard would it be? And if people are already emulating things on dreamcast... well, I'm sure somebody there has already considered the possiblility. Great reason to buy an X-Box, and MS would have kept their dirty hands out of it...
Just as an aside, MS really could get by selling X-Box versions of games for other platforms. What if they wrote the emulator, but only made it work with ROMS that they had made? Then they could advertise that their system can play all those playstation games and so on, and not have to worry about entanglement because of illegal ROMs. Not to mention the profit margin in selling already developed games at standard console game prices.
It depends if you're using a Mac because of the hardware or because of your principles. After all, if the machine works, and you're not into the politics, why complain?
I used to dislike Apple, but to be honest, they're good machines. In many (most) ways, better than your standard Windows box. I don't use one, but I'd happily recommend one for people who do your standard word processing / web browsing. And I've got to admit, the screenshots that we've seen of the new OS look beautiful.
Some people may refuse to use something on moral grounds, but I say, go for the best machine for the job. Whether it's an Apple or a programmable wristwatch...
Right. If you showed up stoned, and got fired for it, you'd be right there arguing that you weren't, or that they have to prove it first (can you say 'drug test'?), or that it should be allowed anyway. The problem with people who try to defend their 'rights' in this manner is that they generally don't care so much about their privacy -- they just want convenience.
Reality check. Drugs cause problems. Companies don't want to deal with it. There's no reason they should have to do so. As long as you accept money from them, you'll have to play by their rules.
Well, this doesn't look so helpful after all. What I need is insurance against when some barbarian waltzes into my store and distracts me while his pet kitten Idefix steals all my magic lamps...
But there's a difference between drug tests and DNA tests. The result of a drug test depends on what you do, while the only use of a DNA test is for identification or discrimiation of some sort.
Companies have the right to not allow people using drugs into their workplace. Rightly, they realize that it can be disruptive. If everyone would be honest and upfront about using drugs, they wouldn't have to bother -- but this isn't an ideal world.
If you really don't like it, you can go somewhere else, of course. But don't go yelling about your 'rights' just because a company wants to keep its workplace safe.
I'd be happy to admit -- or at least consider -- that my musical taste is (partly) determined by what there is offered. After all, part of the appeal of the mass-produced music is the illusion that you get to choose from everything created... even though there are thousands of artists not represented, walk into any music store and you'll find more music, some good and more bad, than you'll listen to in a lifetime. And no, I wouldn't change my taste in music because I think I've been manipulated. That's what marketing and advertising are all about.
That doesn't change the fact that there's an awful lot of music around that is, not to put too fine a point on it:), total crap. No matter what culture you belong to. Some of it gets into the stores, but as a few people have said, the labels do make fairly decent crap-filters. The point being, that although it's nice to think of a world where all the no-name artists would get more recognition, I'm not sure it would help that much. Some, yes, and we ought to look into it, but I'm not holding my breath for computer-distributed music to cause a revolution in musical tastes.
It isn't because it's "better music" either; do you really think Kenny G, Brittney Spears, and the Backstreet Boys make better music than the typical garage band? How about Milli Vanilli? It's all about promotion and image, about training a captive audience to like something, then telling them to pay for it.
Maybe. I don't like them, true, but believe it or not, a substantial number of people actually do. Maybe it's due to marketing and so forth, but since people's tastes obviously don't rely on musical talent, there's no real way to back it up. And, though I hate to say it, I've had real trouble finding music by incredibly skilled but unknown musicians. In fact, they're pretty rare, and major, well-promoted bands create my favorite music.
Some people can hear it, some can't; some people care, some don't. I can hear the lower quality, even at fairly high bitrates, but most of the time, I don't care. I'm doing other things while I listen to music, and so it doesn't stick out.
Of course, if I want to hear it right, I can get out my cds and listen to them. (Except for a few songs, which I wouldn't be able to get ahold of here anyway.) Maybe those people who don't actually own their music have more of a reason to dislike the lossy compression -- so I can see why they complain about it.
If only the people who really, truly believed that music should be free used Napster and the like, I don't think there would be any problems. Much as I think RMS is a nut, I respect the fact that he really means what he says. Same with a few other people. But the vast majority of those who priate MP3s are just greedy. People who claim that there's a revolution going on, which involves them being able download an entire CD for nothing. Remember, the bulk of the Napster crowd isn't even idealistic Slashdotters. It's those people who previously only knew how to type a letter and connect to the internet. (Also known as AOL). Now they can type, connect to the internet, and open Napster.
Maybe this is how it'll be, eventually. I don't look forward to it. Without a source of income (guess what, internet music distribution certainly has not been shown to make big profits)...surprise! Most (not all, but the majority) artists will stop making music. The system's screwed up now, but if 'free' (read: stolen, pirated, copied, shared, or favorite word for it) music becomes the norm, it's going to get worse.
"1. You can't just go to CompUSA, buy a PC and put it in space. Space has lots of environmental problems, extremes in temperature, radiation and other forces. How do you tell your boss "the server went down because a small piece of space debris hit it, it will be approximately 3-12 months before we can bring it back up."? "
Why not? It'll be just like a server running Windows.
First off, I have to say that the idea of Iraq going to the trouble of bombing a tiny island, and perhaps throwing in a little nerve gas, to boot, is rather amusing. Somehow, I don't think that military pressure is likely to be much of a problem. Even from Iraq. But, the good point is that they need network access. It seems that this might hold up for a little while...but if songs and movies start appearing there (as the blurb suggests), you can bet that all sorts of corporations will scream bloody murder. You think that won't be enough to get a quick law passed, forming a commitee to take some hedge clippers and cut their lines (which I would assume would be on that "other island.")?
One thing that annoys me to no end when using the web is sites that have all their information put up as PDFs. I use a text console; I can't read these documents. HTML was created for a reason, people...yet some page designers seem to think that the fact that you are forced to use an external program to view them makes them better.
Usually I simply ignore pages that insist on using PDFs instead of HTML, but sometimes I don't have the choice. (For instance, several of my clueless professors put up things we have to read as PDFs.) Similarily, if this was only available as a PDF, I wouldn't bother reading it. I appreciate that it takes a little more effort to convert things to a more versatile format, but them's the breaks.
To be honest, I really can't see where he's coming from when he claims that the DMCA 'limits innovation,' and that it's a frontal assault on creativity. As far as I can tell, these corporations really couldn't care less if you're creative or not...they're interested in having a nice wad of bills in their pockets, and that's about it.
We shouldn't be opposing this act because of what it supposedly attempts to do...prevent _illegal_ copying of music and other copyrighted material. If anything, we should uphold that 'ideal.'
What we should really be opposing is its ultimate effect -- that these laws will end up placing unwanted restrictions on our use of the net. Yes, that's sort of what the article was getting at, but claiming that it's some kind of conspiracy by the corporations is just an attempt to get everyone angry.
As much as I like Perl, it seems poorly suited for an introduction to programming. Really, if you take a bunch of kids who are just learning how to code and drop them into a mess of Perl, it's much more likely to frighten them than anything else. More often than not, it still manages to scare me. Really, a more 'standard' introduction to programming, leading into the actual useful stuff (such as perl) might be more appropriate.
Contrary to whatever a lot of people think, a "better interface" is not the "thing linux needs to take over the world." It certainly might be nice, and would probably attract a few more users, but if the linux community reimplements windows, average joe is going to stick with what was preinstalled on his hard drive.
It seems very unlikely that Linux will ever replace Windows on the desktop. Yes, the popularity will grow, but eventually our numbers will reach some sort of equilibrium. There's always going to be a large group of users who are more comfortable with windows, or find it reassuring that there's an enormous company behind it, or whatever.
On the other hand, saying that Linux isn't ready for the desktop is silly. For the people who aren't comfortable with windows, it's wonderful. Pandering to those who don't want to switch isn't the way to make it better; working on the things that current linux users need is.
this includes making things easier to install, etc. But anything that would be worth something to Bill probably isn't what we want.
Looking at what a patent is supposed to do -- protect the interests of an 'inventor' who comes up with a novel idea, it seems that although an 'idea' shouldn't be able to be patented, any novel mechanism (whether it's a device, a procedure, or whatever) should be patentable. Under that, I would say that legally, things like software patents for a truly new algorithm, or even perhaps a novel business approach should be patentable.
Much of the debate over what patents are legal seems to focus on ones that don't fall under that standard...they're not new ideas, and therefore patenting them is equivalant to stealing. (for instance, the whole amazon patent thing that's been going on.) In those cases, the patents most certainly should not be awarded.
I for one don't really like software patents and the like, however, i think that releasing those ideas is really an ethical issue for the programmer or company that created it, and they should still have the oppertunity to patent their ideas and use them how they wish.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, but you see, the word "censorware" is really a misnomer. You see, although it can be used for censorship, it usually isn't. The primary market for these products is for parents to use in their homes, and for schools to use on their private computer systems. That's not really censorship, because the people using it are completely within their rights (Parents can decide what their kids see, same with the school system), and, more to the point, they're only controlling a certain computer or set of computers. It's no more censored than, say, a newspaper article that only gives one side of the story. Information may be missing, but you can always get to it.
Censorware is flawed, in that it doesn't work. I don't think it ever will, given that everyone's definition of inappropriate is different, but if someone decides a certain product is 'good enough,' then they might as well go for it -- it won't destroy your precious constitutional rights.
The thing I think we ought to watch out for is federally-mandated censorware. That's where the possibility of actual censorship comes up.
Really, if I was going to pick any agency to set up a national e-mail system and maintain it, the USPS seems like a great choice.
I'm finding it hard to believe all the negative comments about the postal system that we're getting here. Think about how efficient and quick they usually are -- the prices are very low, and they'll usually get letters and packages across the country in two or three days. Out of thousands or maybe tens of thousands of pieces of mail I've recieved, only a small handful has gotten lost. Their performance record is stellar.
There are very few places in the world that have a postal system anywhere near as good as ours. Most governmental agencies are monsters that do more harm than good, but the USPS really works. I think that it's great that the government is realizing that having an e-mail account should be just as natural as having your own snail-mail box. Maybe it'll turn out well, and maybe it won't -- but it certainly can't hurt you, and has the potential to do a lot of good.
How so? Quoting part of an article or making a personal copy of a tape is not analogous at all to making copies of songs for someone else. If you want to argue that copying music for your friends is fine, that's great, but you're not going to be able to hide behind fair use as precedent.
If you want precedent, I think you ought to look at the fact that copyrights have been extended again and again, until they're much more powerful than they were a century ago. In the other article, they have somebody saying that they make their money from songs they wrote 50 years ago. Now, doesn't that seem a little silly to everyone? If copyrights on music expired after, say, 5 or 10 years, there would be plenty of music in the public domain, and artists would have to keep creating music.
It seems that a large part of the problem is that there isn't any entertainment material in the public domain. Does anyone else think that reverting to sane copyright laws might help eliminate some of these problems?
Well, even more important is the assumption that each one of those people would refuse to buy 1 cd. First, a lot of these people _don't_ buy cd's any more -- that's why they use napster. And second, I'd be willing to bet that a lot of the people who signed the petition have no intention of following through with it ... a lot of these people are annoyed and want to yell at the record industry, but don't actually have the willpower to avoid the next britney spears CD or whatever.
Yeah, maybe the record industry will lose some money over it; just realize that they pulled the $1 million figure out of their butts.
And studying a theory has absolutely no value at all? We should only conduct experiments based on hard facts, right? For some reason, this logic seems to present a problem. If anything, I would say that you fanatics would want more work done on evolution, if you're so sure it can be proven wrong.
Yeah, I know, you're just a troll, but it's crap like this that gives people who really do believe in creation a bad name. You're just using a purposefully weak argument as a way to start a war, and dragging lots of intelligent people down with you.
If you really feel the need to speak out against evolution, at least accquaint yourself with the facts first, and approach it with a dose of common sense.
Interestingly, the raging.com search site that altavista recently opened, used to be off-limits to text browsers (Even though forging the header revealed that it worked just fine.) I sent them an e-mail requesting that the restriction be lifted, and never heard back, although I just checked a few minutes ago and apparently they've opened it at least to Lynx. If anyone of you text-only people use it, make sure to drop them an e-mail to let them know that we really do exist and appreciate it.
A bit ... although that only works if the limiting factor on gun ownership is the price of the gun. However, in general, it isn't -- whoever wants a gun pretty much gets one, the limit is simply how many people want to own firearms. So I doubt we're going to see gun prices plummeting anytime soon ...
Funny. I've always thought that we killed animals for food, and killed fruit and vegetables for their taste. After all, it comes down to essentially the same thing.
The point being that, unless you accept the argument that killing animals is inherently wrong (which the majority of people won't agree with) it doesn't much matter whether you can get food from other sources. No reason to make 'that choice.'
It wasn't much of a point. Perhaps it would have been a little more relevant if the meat industry brought in kids for a field trip, passed out guns, and let them into the fields. I somehow don't think parents would like that, either ... but that's not what the meat industry does. The essay made no sense at all.
Although the authentication issues are a problem (I live in AZ, so I get bombarded with editorials and so forth about the issue), it's not the problem that the critics really go after. After all, most people don't know anything about computers, so they can't say whether it's safe or not. It's hard to say whether an online system would really be more prone to abuse.
What they really say is that it 'discriminates' against people who can't use the internet. Supposedly this favors those who have net access at home. (I don't buy it, since people who are apathetic won't vote anyway, and everyone can go to a polling place, but that's what many, including this Voting Integrity Project, say.) Personally, I think that all the arguments at this point are just political maneuvers and fear of change, not really motivated by real concern.
...conspiracy of some kind. Or at least, maybe MS already expects other people to port some of the existing emulators over to XBox. Although I don't know much about emulation in general, considering that the thing's supposed to be pretty much like a PC, how hard would it be? And if people are already emulating things on dreamcast... well, I'm sure somebody there has already considered the possiblility. Great reason to buy an X-Box, and MS would have kept their dirty hands out of it...
Just as an aside, MS really could get by selling X-Box versions of games for other platforms. What if they wrote the emulator, but only made it work with ROMS that they had made? Then they could advertise that their system can play all those playstation games and so on, and not have to worry about entanglement because of illegal ROMs. Not to mention the profit margin in selling already developed games at standard console game prices.
It depends if you're using a Mac because of the hardware or because of your principles. After all, if the machine works, and you're not into the politics, why complain?
I used to dislike Apple, but to be honest, they're good machines. In many (most) ways, better than your standard Windows box. I don't use one, but I'd happily recommend one for people who do your standard word processing / web browsing. And I've got to admit, the screenshots that we've seen of the new OS look beautiful.
Some people may refuse to use something on moral grounds, but I say, go for the best machine for the job. Whether it's an Apple or a programmable wristwatch...
Right. If you showed up stoned, and got fired for it, you'd be right there arguing that you weren't, or that they have to prove it first (can you say 'drug test'?), or that it should be allowed anyway. The problem with people who try to defend their 'rights' in this manner is that they generally don't care so much about their privacy -- they just want convenience.
Reality check. Drugs cause problems. Companies don't want to deal with it. There's no reason they should have to do so. As long as you accept money from them, you'll have to play by their rules.
Well, this doesn't look so helpful after all. What I need is insurance against when some barbarian waltzes into my store and distracts me while his pet kitten Idefix steals all my magic lamps...
But there's a difference between drug tests and DNA tests. The result of a drug test depends on what you do, while the only use of a DNA test is for identification or discrimiation of some sort.
Companies have the right to not allow people using drugs into their workplace. Rightly, they realize that it can be disruptive. If everyone would be honest and upfront about using drugs, they wouldn't have to bother -- but this isn't an ideal world.
If you really don't like it, you can go somewhere else, of course. But don't go yelling about your 'rights' just because a company wants to keep its workplace safe.
That doesn't change the fact that there's an awful lot of music around that is, not to put too fine a point on it :), total crap. No matter what culture you belong to. Some of it gets into the stores, but as a few people have said, the labels do make fairly decent crap-filters. The point being, that although it's nice to think of a world where all the no-name artists would get more recognition, I'm not sure it would help that much. Some, yes, and we ought to look into it, but I'm not holding my breath for computer-distributed music to cause a revolution in musical tastes.
Maybe. I don't like them, true, but believe it or not, a substantial number of people actually do. Maybe it's due to marketing and so forth, but since people's tastes obviously don't rely on musical talent, there's no real way to back it up. And, though I hate to say it, I've had real trouble finding music by incredibly skilled but unknown musicians. In fact, they're pretty rare, and major, well-promoted bands create my favorite music.
Of course, if I want to hear it right, I can get out my cds and listen to them. (Except for a few songs, which I wouldn't be able to get ahold of here anyway.) Maybe those people who don't actually own their music have more of a reason to dislike the lossy compression -- so I can see why they complain about it.
If only the people who really, truly believed that music should be free used Napster and the like, I don't think there would be any problems. Much as I think RMS is a nut, I respect the fact that he really means what he says. Same with a few other people. But the vast majority of those who priate MP3s are just greedy. People who claim that there's a revolution going on, which involves them being able download an entire CD for nothing. Remember, the bulk of the Napster crowd isn't even idealistic Slashdotters. It's those people who previously only knew how to type a letter and connect to the internet. (Also known as AOL). Now they can type, connect to the internet, and open Napster.
Maybe this is how it'll be, eventually. I don't look forward to it. Without a source of income (guess what, internet music distribution certainly has not been shown to make big profits) ...surprise! Most (not all, but the majority) artists will stop making music. The system's screwed up now, but if 'free' (read: stolen, pirated, copied, shared, or favorite word for it) music becomes the norm, it's going to get worse.
"1. You can't just go to CompUSA, buy a PC and put it in space. Space has lots of environmental problems, extremes in temperature, radiation and other forces. How do you tell your boss "the server went down because a small piece of space debris hit it, it will be approximately 3-12 months before we can bring it back up."? "
Why not? It'll be just like a server running Windows.
First off, I have to say that the idea of Iraq going to the trouble of bombing a tiny island, and perhaps throwing in a little nerve gas, to boot, is rather amusing. Somehow, I don't think that military pressure is likely to be much of a problem. Even from Iraq. But, the good point is that they need network access. It seems that this might hold up for a little while...but if songs and movies start appearing there (as the blurb suggests), you can bet that all sorts of corporations will scream bloody murder. You think that won't be enough to get a quick law passed, forming a commitee to take some hedge clippers and cut their lines (which I would assume would be on that "other island.")?
Usually I simply ignore pages that insist on using PDFs instead of HTML, but sometimes I don't have the choice. (For instance, several of my clueless professors put up things we have to read as PDFs.) Similarily, if this was only available as a PDF, I wouldn't bother reading it. I appreciate that it takes a little more effort to convert things to a more versatile format, but them's the breaks.
We shouldn't be opposing this act because of what it supposedly attempts to do...prevent _illegal_ copying of music and other copyrighted material. If anything, we should uphold that 'ideal.'
What we should really be opposing is its ultimate effect -- that these laws will end up placing unwanted restrictions on our use of the net. Yes, that's sort of what the article was getting at, but claiming that it's some kind of conspiracy by the corporations is just an attempt to get everyone angry.
As much as I like Perl, it seems poorly suited for an introduction to programming. Really, if you take a bunch of kids who are just learning how to code and drop them into a mess of Perl, it's much more likely to frighten them than anything else. More often than not, it still manages to scare me. Really, a more 'standard' introduction to programming, leading into the actual useful stuff (such as perl) might be more appropriate.
It seems very unlikely that Linux will ever replace Windows on the desktop. Yes, the popularity will grow, but eventually our numbers will reach some sort of equilibrium. There's always going to be a large group of users who are more comfortable with windows, or find it reassuring that there's an enormous company behind it, or whatever.
On the other hand, saying that Linux isn't ready for the desktop is silly. For the people who aren't comfortable with windows, it's wonderful. Pandering to those who don't want to switch isn't the way to make it better; working on the things that current linux users need is.
this includes making things easier to install, etc. But anything that would be worth something to Bill probably isn't what we want.
Much of the debate over what patents are legal seems to focus on ones that don't fall under that standard...they're not new ideas, and therefore patenting them is equivalant to stealing. (for instance, the whole amazon patent thing that's been going on.) In those cases, the patents most certainly should not be awarded.
I for one don't really like software patents and the like, however, i think that releasing those ideas is really an ethical issue for the programmer or company that created it, and they should still have the oppertunity to patent their ideas and use them how they wish.