... coming from the corporation with the most obscene business model in the IT industry? Doesn't that come across as just a tiny bit redundant? *[For those still unaware of Microsoft's obscenities, you just have to hop over to boycottnovell.com or groklaw.com]
Being concerned about non-free frameworks such as.NET is almost as important as supporting Open Document Format as opposed to.doc and other proprietary formats. Many software users are very aware of the freedom-limiting and encumbering nature of proprietary software solutions, such as avi, flash, jpeg,.NET and so on. I never quite understood why so many people never give a damn about being on the legal side of things; they actually prefer, say, a pirated copy of MS Office as opposed to the free equivalent, OpenOffice. Maybe because in the Windows world, there is hardly any distinction, since most of the time "free" means "warez" anyway? This semi-legal attitude is supported by the industry: I am virtually prevented from converting all my CD's to.ogg for listening to on-the move, because hardly any portable music player supports.ogg! Of course, on certain players you can install a software player that supports.ogg, but the fact is nevertheless severely limiting to people who prefer legality as opposed to the patent-encumbered mp3's. Moreover, the.NET framework is superfluous not only because of its "legal" status, but also from the bloatware point of view: having to run yet another slow, bloated, RAM- and CPU-hungry runtime at every boot -- and for what: just for being able to run a tiny yellow sticky-notes applet? No, thanx. The Java runtime is enough. And free. And better.
Which really IS strange, considering that 300% of world population is North American, of which 320% have English as their first language. What the heck, why don't you simply NUKE the rest of us? You've got the means, and God knows you've got the attitude too... Or, if nuking is not viable, what about modding us all Trolls?
Not legally, but for all practical purposes it is. For instance, it is a popular practice in Slovenia for local businesess to use pop songs as background music in their advertising without ever paying for the copyright. Most recent case in point: a TV ad running on all Slovenian TV stations uses Orbison's song "You Got It" not only as background music, but it actually builds its message on it. The ad, advertising Merkure -- a major Slovenian superstore chain -- suggests that "anything you need, anything you want," you just come to their store and "You Got It"! I could bet they never even asked if they should pay the copyright holder anything before (ab)using the song. In ex-socialist states, this phenomenon is still endemic, it's like a sort of folklore.
"from 60,000 to 100,000 keyboard users are injured every year"? WTF? They get bitten by their keyboards or what? I always treat my keyboard and mouse with respect, feed them and clean them regularly, and they have never turned against me.
I'm sure you could even patent "An apparatus and method for making farts noiseless", there's a wealth of prior (f)art in the US Patent system. Oops -- it's already patented as US47263879273672? I should have thought so.
They should make the license viral, so that anyone publishing their content may only do so without charging for it. If newspapers' business model is obsolete, who are we to hinder their natural extinction?
Which is not necessarily bad, as long as its users were savvy enough to grasp that. According to recent surveys, they are not (for instance, they seldom check out the article sources). Users generally forget that Wikipedia is quite biased as it is (the relative lengths of the articles are actually a type of bias, since greater lengths suggest greater "relevance"). Getting paid for editing articles would actually merely shift the bias from a "random" one to a more "one-sided" bias of "what you get is what you pay for". Is that desirable? Well, it certainly is to people and corporations that have money to spend. But to the rest of us?
What the news snippet actually claims is that a certain branch of science operates according to the same mechanisms as science at large does (that is, if computer programming may be considered a branch of science). This is basically what R M Stallman has been saying for at least twenty odd years. Namely, that computer programming is about sharing, about getting to see the source code, about modifying and improving it. Not only are there philosophical analogies between science and programming, there are also very important sociological and social ones, especially wrt how the open research model benefits the research community. I could go on about the Cathedral and the Bazaar models here (proprietary/patented research versus open/cooperative science), but such analogies are certainly quite obvious to the savvy crowd of Slashdot readers.
...from me being completely silent, mouth shut and all, like my wife does!
And she never had a single reboot in 43 years! Then again... maybe that's precisely the problem?
Probably, at least some of the cops/prosecutors/judges prosecuting them would have downloaded the stuff illegally, thus opening some interesting possibilities for an out-of-court settlement or, better still, a full-fledged countersuit. With any luck, the copyright infringing cops/prosecutors/judges would soon end behind bars and compelled to pay tens of millions to the gang when they come out.
I've heard of this fast, sleek, free browser called IceWeasel. Apparently, it gets installed in mere minutes, including all its accompanying dll's and stuff (the bundle is called Debian Lenny or something like that). And, purely as a bonus, it makes your system seem twice as fast!
Everyone knows these are just mob wars, plain and simple. The Sopranos get to control real-life casinos, and the Obamos get to control virtual casinos. Government is just a form of mafia, only the more so.
"what practical research do you think the US government should embark upon to get the most return for its citizens and the world?"
What about: Why US is failing epically as a world leader and what can be done to expedite the process?
I'm starting a new project on SourceForge.net, with the aim of writing a bot/worm/rootkit or similar piece of code to accomplish the following:
1) the code installs itself automatically on all public/government computers (meaning court computers, police computers, school computers, military computers and the like)
2) it creates a subfolder named PedophilePr0n somewhere deep down the directory tree
3) it populates the abovesaid subfolder with thousands of child porn photos from the Internet
4) it induces a software error in any mounted CD/DVD drives in order to warrant a visit to the repair shop
5) it does so inadvertently and undetectably, in the sense that there must be no way of determining that all the above steps have not been accomplished by the human user. Preferably, upon completing the above steps, the bot/worm/rootkit should delete all traces of its presence from the computer.
The aim of the project is to subvert any government at will, without the need to use obsolete methods and means such as bombs, planes, biochemical weaponry, bomb cars etc. All submissions/ideas welcome! Submit to sourceforge.net, project name "Forget Al-Qaeda!"
Frankly, I have yet to be persuaded why the law should give special privileges to third-rate innovators while at the same time giving almost no protection to first-rate geniuses. So, if I make a really important scientific breaktrough, such as, say Watson and Crick did, I must be content with a lousy Nobel prize and a mention in some dusty encyclopaedias, but if I'm just a third-rate leech and put their discovery to practical use, say, by "discovering" the asthmatic gene in rats - which would not be possible without their discovery in the first place - I get to make heaps of money off it. Sounds perverted to me. I have yet to see that the total abolition of the patent system would bring about a decline in scientific/technical discovery, as claimed by some. If minds such as Einstein's could work "for glory and peer respect", I honestly can't see why lesser minds shouldn't. There are better ways for making money off scientific discoveries than by having a patent system in place. The current problems with software and business model patents are just a symptom that there's something inherently wrong with the concept of intellectual "property" as such. The point of being a scientific genius (or of writing War and Peace, for that matter) has always been in the fame and glory and reputation department, it was never about "how much money can I make off this". Money - if any - was just "collateral damage".
Businesses should be required by law to exert a "zero-impact" on the environment (and on the community). Meaning: if their business method produces any changes on the environment, such as polluting the air, slowing down automotive traffic, making excessive noise, stinking up neighborhoods, wearing out roads, or killing geese, the law should require them to revert the environment and the community to their previous state (status quo ante). As it is, these "hidden" expenses are now either paid by the society at large, generally through taxes (such as refurbishing roads etc.) or not taken care of at all, resulting in a progressive deterioration of our planet and our society (such as, say, for the killed geese). If businesses were required to actually leave the environment exactly as it was before - or, alternatively, to pay public services to do that for them, such as paying for killed geese to be replaced by new animals brought in from elsewhere - their actual "profits" would quickly dwindle, forcing many businesses to shut down. There are presently MANY businesses which are only able to survive because they make society at large cover the "hidden" damages they produce. If society was to withhold such payments and businesses were forced to pay them themselves, they would instantly go out of business. Apparently, civil aviation is one of them, but I strongly suspect the car industry, the chemical industry, nuclear plants and many many other branches would have to go as well. Personally, I would not shed one single tear for them. I'd prefer it that way than having to pay THEIR profits from MY pocket as I'm forced to do now.
Slashdot Mirror
... coming from the corporation with the most obscene business model in the IT industry? Doesn't that come across as just a tiny bit redundant? *[For those still unaware of Microsoft's obscenities, you just have to hop over to boycottnovell.com or groklaw.com]
... "viral" marketing! Oh, honey, trust me, I'm not infected. I'll lick your abs if you click my ads!
Being concerned about non-free frameworks such as .NET is almost as important as supporting Open Document Format as opposed to .doc and other proprietary formats. Many software users are very aware of the freedom-limiting and encumbering nature of proprietary software solutions, such as avi, flash, jpeg, .NET and so on. I never quite understood why so many people never give a damn about being on the legal side of things; they actually prefer, say, a pirated copy of MS Office as opposed to the free equivalent, OpenOffice. Maybe because in the Windows world, there is hardly any distinction, since most of the time "free" means "warez" anyway? This semi-legal attitude is supported by the industry: I am virtually prevented from converting all my CD's to .ogg for listening to on-the move, because hardly any portable music player supports .ogg! Of course, on certain players you can install a software player that supports .ogg, but the fact is nevertheless severely limiting to people who prefer legality as opposed to the patent-encumbered mp3's. Moreover, the .NET framework is superfluous not only because of its "legal" status, but also from the bloatware point of view: having to run yet another slow, bloated, RAM- and CPU-hungry runtime at every boot -- and for what: just for being able to run a tiny yellow sticky-notes applet? No, thanx. The Java runtime is enough. And free. And better.
Which really IS strange, considering that 300% of world population is North American, of which 320% have English as their first language. What the heck, why don't you simply NUKE the rest of us? You've got the means, and God knows you've got the attitude too... Or, if nuking is not viable, what about modding us all Trolls?
Not legally, but for all practical purposes it is. For instance, it is a popular practice in Slovenia for local businesess to use pop songs as background music in their advertising without ever paying for the copyright. Most recent case in point: a TV ad running on all Slovenian TV stations uses Orbison's song "You Got It" not only as background music, but it actually builds its message on it. The ad, advertising Merkure -- a major Slovenian superstore chain -- suggests that "anything you need, anything you want," you just come to their store and "You Got It"! I could bet they never even asked if they should pay the copyright holder anything before (ab)using the song. In ex-socialist states, this phenomenon is still endemic, it's like a sort of folklore.
"from 60,000 to 100,000 keyboard users are injured every year"? WTF? They get bitten by their keyboards or what? I always treat my keyboard and mouse with respect, feed them and clean them regularly, and they have never turned against me.
I'm sure you could even patent "An apparatus and method for making farts noiseless", there's a wealth of prior (f)art in the US Patent system. Oops -- it's already patented as US47263879273672? I should have thought so.
They should make the license viral, so that anyone publishing their content may only do so without charging for it. If newspapers' business model is obsolete, who are we to hinder their natural extinction?
Which is not necessarily bad, as long as its users were savvy enough to grasp that. According to recent surveys, they are not (for instance, they seldom check out the article sources). Users generally forget that Wikipedia is quite biased as it is (the relative lengths of the articles are actually a type of bias, since greater lengths suggest greater "relevance"). Getting paid for editing articles would actually merely shift the bias from a "random" one to a more "one-sided" bias of "what you get is what you pay for". Is that desirable? Well, it certainly is to people and corporations that have money to spend. But to the rest of us?
What the news snippet actually claims is that a certain branch of science operates according to the same mechanisms as science at large does (that is, if computer programming may be considered a branch of science). This is basically what R M Stallman has been saying for at least twenty odd years. Namely, that computer programming is about sharing, about getting to see the source code, about modifying and improving it. Not only are there philosophical analogies between science and programming, there are also very important sociological and social ones, especially wrt how the open research model benefits the research community. I could go on about the Cathedral and the Bazaar models here (proprietary/patented research versus open/cooperative science), but such analogies are certainly quite obvious to the savvy crowd of Slashdot readers.
... there's a -- quite widespread -- subspecies of HUMANS actually living up their bosses' asses...
...from me being completely silent, mouth shut and all, like my wife does! And she never had a single reboot in 43 years! Then again ... maybe that's precisely the problem?
Probably, at least some of the cops/prosecutors/judges prosecuting them would have downloaded the stuff illegally, thus opening some interesting possibilities for an out-of-court settlement or, better still, a full-fledged countersuit. With any luck, the copyright infringing cops/prosecutors/judges would soon end behind bars and compelled to pay tens of millions to the gang when they come out.
...but can't really say which of the multiple personalities established the diagnose. Does this still count as "self-diagnose"?
... filing for Chapter 7. Oops, I meant following with Windows 7.
I've heard of this fast, sleek, free browser called IceWeasel. Apparently, it gets installed in mere minutes, including all its accompanying dll's and stuff (the bundle is called Debian Lenny or something like that). And, purely as a bonus, it makes your system seem twice as fast!
How long till the electrical power lobby buys out the patent and buries it?
Everyone knows these are just mob wars, plain and simple. The Sopranos get to control real-life casinos, and the Obamos get to control virtual casinos. Government is just a form of mafia, only the more so.
"what practical research do you think the US government should embark upon to get the most return for its citizens and the world?" What about: Why US is failing epically as a world leader and what can be done to expedite the process?
I'm starting a new project on SourceForge.net, with the aim of writing a bot/worm/rootkit or similar piece of code to accomplish the following: 1) the code installs itself automatically on all public/government computers (meaning court computers, police computers, school computers, military computers and the like) 2) it creates a subfolder named PedophilePr0n somewhere deep down the directory tree 3) it populates the abovesaid subfolder with thousands of child porn photos from the Internet 4) it induces a software error in any mounted CD/DVD drives in order to warrant a visit to the repair shop 5) it does so inadvertently and undetectably, in the sense that there must be no way of determining that all the above steps have not been accomplished by the human user. Preferably, upon completing the above steps, the bot/worm/rootkit should delete all traces of its presence from the computer. The aim of the project is to subvert any government at will, without the need to use obsolete methods and means such as bombs, planes, biochemical weaponry, bomb cars etc. All submissions/ideas welcome! Submit to sourceforge.net, project name "Forget Al-Qaeda!"
Frankly, I have yet to be persuaded why the law should give special privileges to third-rate innovators while at the same time giving almost no protection to first-rate geniuses. So, if I make a really important scientific breaktrough, such as, say Watson and Crick did, I must be content with a lousy Nobel prize and a mention in some dusty encyclopaedias, but if I'm just a third-rate leech and put their discovery to practical use, say, by "discovering" the asthmatic gene in rats - which would not be possible without their discovery in the first place - I get to make heaps of money off it. Sounds perverted to me. I have yet to see that the total abolition of the patent system would bring about a decline in scientific/technical discovery, as claimed by some. If minds such as Einstein's could work "for glory and peer respect", I honestly can't see why lesser minds shouldn't. There are better ways for making money off scientific discoveries than by having a patent system in place. The current problems with software and business model patents are just a symptom that there's something inherently wrong with the concept of intellectual "property" as such. The point of being a scientific genius (or of writing War and Peace, for that matter) has always been in the fame and glory and reputation department, it was never about "how much money can I make off this". Money - if any - was just "collateral damage".
Businesses should be required by law to exert a "zero-impact" on the environment (and on the community). Meaning: if their business method produces any changes on the environment, such as polluting the air, slowing down automotive traffic, making excessive noise, stinking up neighborhoods, wearing out roads, or killing geese, the law should require them to revert the environment and the community to their previous state (status quo ante). As it is, these "hidden" expenses are now either paid by the society at large, generally through taxes (such as refurbishing roads etc.) or not taken care of at all, resulting in a progressive deterioration of our planet and our society (such as, say, for the killed geese). If businesses were required to actually leave the environment exactly as it was before - or, alternatively, to pay public services to do that for them, such as paying for killed geese to be replaced by new animals brought in from elsewhere - their actual "profits" would quickly dwindle, forcing many businesses to shut down. There are presently MANY businesses which are only able to survive because they make society at large cover the "hidden" damages they produce. If society was to withhold such payments and businesses were forced to pay them themselves, they would instantly go out of business. Apparently, civil aviation is one of them, but I strongly suspect the car industry, the chemical industry, nuclear plants and many many other branches would have to go as well. Personally, I would not shed one single tear for them. I'd prefer it that way than having to pay THEIR profits from MY pocket as I'm forced to do now.