Why is that, that good code quality somehow is opposite of passion and creativity? I agree that pointless process is killing that, but good practice can be good.
I for myself like writing tests, like having easy code that have low complexity. That is why I can be creative in the first place. With my tests in place I can write my code and be sure I won't break anything and with low complexity I always have the overview over my code. Both are making sure that I can be creative.
The real question is why developers are not writing testable and low complexity code in the first place. Why is nobody teaching them how to write good code? Nobody is arguing that in the architecture or machine design, because if you not following good practice there the building will collapse or your machine will blow up.
Please define "passionate programmers" and "great code". If by that you mean people that just code away and leaving behind a mess of a code that only them can understand and maintain, then nobody wants that kind of programmers anyway.
True, there was a lot of stupid things in the past, like the Waterfall Model. But this is why the software industry is still a very young industry. Other industries have over 500 years of experience, like architecture or machine building. But the software industry is only about 50 or 60 years old.
You mean like the trains, the roads, the airplanes, the military, the police, the schools and universities, the hospitals, electricity, social security, health care, houses, firefighters? But you are right, besides that what ever have the government ever done useful with our taxes?
I'm sure that such a warning system would be useful if it's really restricted to real emergencies. I'm sure you would appreciate it if there was a message 24 hours before a major hurricane hits your city.
BS. With the JVM I can just use JRube, JPython, Groovy, Scala, Closure, and many more. All those languages are build on top of the JVM, meaning I can continue to use the tools and the libraries from Java and I can mix Java with any of those languages for free.
At least with Java I can use a ton of free, open source tools, like Eclipse, Netbeans, and Java have a way more active open source community, meaning I have much more libraries and frameworks.
"Basically Java is frozen in stone and will never be updated with anything worthwhile." In the enterprise world that is a very good thing. If you want something "worthwhile" you can still choose of the 100s of new languages developed on top the JVM.
"And if by some miracle Java includes something C# did first, it will introduce incompatible syntax just to be a dick. " That is was C# is about. Clone Java but introduce slightly different syntax and SDK to be just a "dick".
Why not? There is no risk at all with the Linux package manager, because you can restrict the repositories to your own. That way users can install only the applications you allow. The user can't have root access to the computer so he can't change the apt/yum repositories. Don't know if it's practical but with Linux you at least have to option to do it.
Should be useful if one computer goes down and the user can just use a different computer with was not designated for the task. The user can just install the applications he needs and continue with his work. No need to setup a computer from scratch, just create a new user account, install your application and continue with your work.
Is it just me or the summary don't make any sense at all? I'm pretty tech savvy but I just red it three times and I'm still don't know what the article is all about.
"pushed users requiring plenty of fast I/O towards the Mac Pro" What does it mean? That the user have fast I/O hard disks(?) with the Mac Pro or does it require user to have fast hard disks(?) for the Mac Pro?
"Quad-core Sandy Bridge CPUs and faster ATI Radeon HD GPUs are welcomed" I thought we are talking about I/O like a hard disk but now we are talking about CPUs and graphic cards?
"Thunderbolt ports" What? Ports that zap lighting out?
"one in the 21.5-inch and two in the 27-inch" laptops or monitors?
"that really ups the ante for a number of professional users." if they post comments on slashdot it will zap them?
Don't want to spoil your cheering, but do you know how many civilians the USA milliary killed in the Iraq and in Afghanistan? Also, that most of the people in the world think that the USA is the number one terrorist country of the world? You invaded two countries because one terrorist organization blow up some airplanes and you hunt down people in other countries with drones, killing not only those people without any trial or jurisdiction but 100s of civilians as well. The US just declared "war on terrorism" and take the step to kill non military people in other countries with the means of the military. What was earlier the duty of the CIA or FBI (aka civilian police) to hunt down criminals and terrorist and put them before a trial is now the duty of the army and soldiers to hunt them down and kill them all. There is a difference, the CIA and FBI don't have tanks, kill-drones and apache helicopter, but the army can use every means possible, even a nuclear bomb. The CIA and FBI have oversight with civilian trials but the army don't.
Maybe you right but than the patent should not be granted. "An information storage and retrieval system" is just too broad. That covers everything from a computer to the human brain to paper and pen. It's like a patent on an automobile which just needs "a horseless power that can move a carriage". Or a television with just needs "a screen that can display images".
So patent claim should be specific to one device. You can't just say "something+human interface device" and claim a patent for it. That's just my logic as a normal citizen, I'm sure the law about that is twisted enough to employ all the lawyers.
How is bringing together material and build something is math? Do you know what it means to build something? You have get a hammer and screwdriver in your hand and put nails or screws into holes and you have to cut metal or wood. In the end you have some device, a product, which either works or not.
Math is just a bunch of formula on the paper with freely defined meaning. There is no device, no product at the end. It doesn't work and it can't work because it's just formula on the paper. The same is with software. Only if you run the software on a device you have a product. But how can you patent a general purpose computer that the whole point is to run software? You can't.
So what do you want to get a patent for in a software patent? The software is no product unless it's run on a computer. So you can't patent the software and you can't patent the computer.
If you build a special device that only runs your software and that device is your device (meaning it's not a general embedded computer, like the ARMs) sure you can get a patent on that device.
Such a patent should be valid if the device's only function is to perform the software and nothing more (or the device is performing the software to archive one goal). But if the software is run by a general computer, than you can't patent the computer.
The lawyers try to tell then the computer is somehow magically transformed by the running software into a device that can be patented. And that is the main problem with software patents that you get a patent that covers every possible devices, existing and future devices, that run the software. And that is why a software patent is a patent on an idea, not a device. It's the same as if someone patented the idea of a horseless carriage, which covers a car, a bus, a motorcycle, and any future automobile.
You really should learn that taste is different. There are a lot of Gnome users but for me I can't use anything else but KDE. I try Gnome, Xfce, and other, but I can't use them and go every time back to KDE. At least for me KDE improves my productivity big time. If anything else, KDE would be the only reason I would stay with Linux.
For me MacOS looks like eye candy with no functionality. You complain about bad UI but MacOS have the split-view in their file manager, the top menu bar and the dock down below. Further it has only one mouse button and the horrible keyboard. That and the mirror-like monitors for the Macs makes for me Linux >>> Windows > MacOS.
KDE and Gnome have a common UI with Windows, because that is the common denominator. Only MacOS have the "think different" UI. With is good for some, but not for me and not for the millions of Linux and Windows users out there.
Further, I have to yet encounter really bad UI design in Open Source projects. Most of the time the UI may lack eye candy but it is highly functional and you tent not to fight the UI but the UI is supporting the work flow. It is much better than some commercial projects, for the reason that usually the developers are using their own application. Actually, my desktop contains 99% open source applications and I wouldn't say that any of them have a bad UI.
What is your problem dude? The program is for free and you can use it or not. Nobody is forcing you to use it.
If you really have a problem with the name or the UI than create a bug report (http://www.kdenlive.org/mantis/my_view_page.php) and let see if the developers like your change. If you still insist of a new name than by all means, just fork the project and release it under a new name. You can even sell it with a new name and if you redesign the UI you can sell it with a new UI.
"And that's one of the main reasons that the "year of the Linux desktop" has never come. Mainstream people don't want to put up with that shit, they don't use their computer in order to gloat about technology, they use to get stuff done."
Interesting, because that's the reason why I don't bother to use Windows anymore. Because I want my stuff just be done and I don't want to bother with technology. Linux enables me just to do that. You just grab a Linux CD like Fedora, install it on the computer and it will run for the years to come. Everything you will need can be installed by the package manager and I don't need to be bothered with drivers or anti-virus crap. Even if you get a new computer, just swap out the hard disk and you have your old system on the new computer.
Everything just runs smooth, no trouble at all. The "year of the Linux desktop" won't come because you have to install a distribution yourself and because all the games are for Windows only. If you could just go to Mediamarkt and get a Fedora 14 laptop or desktop (with all stuff installed like Mp3 and Dvd read), I guarantee you, you will have less trouble with it than the crap Windows 7 you get.
Now the DOJ and the FBI do the job to secure Windows. Must really suck to live in a country where the government is run for cooperations paid by tax money. (If anyone wonder, it's the job of Microsoft to secure their system not the DOJ or the FBI to do that for them).
"FBI field offices would be notifying affected people, companies and organizations."
yeah, that's why you have the FBI. Not to hunt for criminals like murders, raper or the organized crime, but to go to people and companies and secure their computers.
What a BS. Free speech have nothing to do to be able to speak only to annoy other people. It's the same if you invite someone inside your house and that person only annoys you. After a few times you kick the person out of your house. Are you now against free speech?
Your rights always are limited if you overstep other people rights.
You are talking about the US government. The US government is not the best government out there. It was a failure of government, but for different reasons. The reasons was that the US (federal) government is very right wing. It is controlled by the cooperation. Any government should not be controlled by the cooperation but by the people. Like for example the German government (at least it's not so very right wing as the US government, because we have many different political parties, also every party in the US is so very right wing, even the left wing party is right wing compared to for example the German political parties).
"The simple fact is you dont seem to respect artists' right to profit from their work because you think society as a whole would do better. Is that correct? Fine. You have no basis for that comparision and no way to even measure it, but fine. And again historically, we know that artists have struggled under such conditions. So the evidence is against you. Do you apply this to all professions? No one should profit, all should share everything? It's not an un-heard-of position to hold. But let's be clear, if you dont believe in property at all, then the argument about the finer points here serve little purpose because you'll keep telling us that the elephant is not in the room. "
Not sure about the parent poster, but I think he will agree that an artist have every right to profit from his work, like every other. But I don't see the need or the moral right to lock down culture for a whole generation. That is what the current copyright law is.
In order for an artist to profit from his work, his work must become a part of the current culture. Because if people are not watching a movie, not reading a book, not listening to music, you can't charge the people for it. But after the people have watched/red/listened the work have became a part of the current culture. How can you now have any moral to forbid the people to share their culture? You, as the artist, have showed your work, charged money for it and now you think you have the moral to forbid me to share it with others?
It's funny how America is all about free market, capitalism and against "a Libertarian or Communist or Capitalist or Socialist utopia" but in the same way you have the most draconian copyright law in the world. Because copyright protection is "a Libertarian or Communist or Capitalist or Socialist utopia" and is anti free market and is anti capitalism.
Copyright laws grands a monopoly right over a piece of culture. The monopoly right is protected from the state and is for a whole generation (almost 100 years).
Culture is not property, culture is by definition shared by many people. Culture are the books, the movies, the music enjoyed by the people. The artist should profit from their work but like any other worker. A worker is paid by the work he have done and not in perpetually. An artist is paid for 100 years, even if he doesn't do anything. Even after the artist is long dead he is paid for his work. How is that not a "Socialist utopia"? Lets see a carpenter which is not only paid after he crafted a chair but every time somebody sitting on this chair.
I agree that with digitalization we have now somewhat difficult rule set for artists, because now everyone can just copy their work and share it with others. But on the other side, it's so much easier for the creator to monetize his work, because he can share it with others for very low cost. What the printing press was for the book, is the internet for every other work. It lower the cost of publication.
Maybe a copyright law now is a good idea, but not for a whole generation. First, copyright law should be only after a registration, like it was before. That way orphaned works would not be lost. Second, the copyright term should be 5 years, expendable to another 5 years and should terminate with the dead of the creator.
The only question I have is does it affect me in any way? I'm using Fedora 14 with FF3. It would be very nice to ditch the flash plugin, which I'm only using for Youtube and other video content.
Are those people disagree with my opinion or with the stuff Robert Pollin have to say?
To look for people with greater knowledge on topics in which I'm not an expert is not a sign of less intelligence. I'm just looking in countries where the government have less and less control over the economy and it always leads to disaster. It leads to disaster because every member of the economy or "free market" is an egoist and only looks for his advantage. Such behavior always leads to disaster. The government should have control in such that everyone is playing fair and to protect the weaker members of society.
What you don't see is that the USA government is not the perfect government. It is very right wing and as such makes such decisions on decreasing taxes, bailing out banks with no strings attached, and just plain ignore the reality.
What the USA government should have done is to punish cooperation that export jobs to China and India, control the Wall Street and the banks, demand harsh commitments from the bailed out banks and cooperation. But what the president is now doing is the exact opposite what I'm argue for. He is bailing out the banks but he is not increasing control. The outcome is that the banks have now money but not the economy. He expanded the tax decrease for the rich and he will decrease government help for the poor. The rich getting richer, the poor will get poorer. That is not how you get out of a recession. In addition, the USA government is wasting a lot of money on wars. That is also because the government is very right wing.
How about you start to argue with Robert Pollin? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Pollin "Robert Pollin is an American economist and activist. He is a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst and founding co-director of its Political Economy Research Institute (PERI). He was the economic spokesperson in Jerry Brown's 1992 campaign for President of the United States."
Your comments are still idiotic. I just red the first 4 but it's always the same tone: government is bad, economy should be free of government. What you ignore is this: the USA have the lowers government interference with the economy, because your politic is very much right wing, even you left wing is more right than the rest of the world.
The USA government relaxed all controls of the economy, decreased taxes, decreased control. Now you have the bill for it with the people (aka the government) have to pay: high unemployment, high national dept, "too large to fail" syndrome, high military spending, high dependency on oil, bubbles after bubbles.
Why you have such problems now? Because the control of the Wall Street and the banks are non existent, the government is controlled by cooperation. You still believe in the mantra that a "free market" will solve all issues and the government should be minimal.
The government should enforce a "free market", but not an American "free market". The American "free market" is a market without government control with leads to the problems the USA now have. With a "free market" I mean a market with many members and competitors, which needs strong government control.
The government should enforce the "free market" and it should redistribute wealth so that the difference between the very rich and the poor is not so sharp. The government should support the citizens with infrastructure, police, health care, educations, the richer citizens should have a greater burden than the less richer. The government should have strict control of the banks and should break down monopolies and encourage competition in a market.
Did you ever asked yourself why you live in such a rich country? Because your government was strong and because your government did all that mentioned above in the first 100 years. Why did the USA became from 0 to a world largest power in such short time? A little bit history: Because the northern states have protected the American industry from England.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism#Protectionism_in_the_United_States "Under free trade the trader is the master and the producer the slave. Protection is but the law of nature, the law of self-preservation, of self-development, of securing the highest and best destiny of the race of man. [It is said] that protection is immoral. Why, if protection builds up and elevates 63,000,000 [the U.S. population] of people, the influence of those 63,000,000 of people elevates the rest of the world. We cannot take a step in the pathway of progress without benefiting mankind everywhere. Well, they say, ‘Buy where you can buy the cheapest'. Of course, that applies to labor as to everything else. Let me give you a maxim that is a thousand times better than that, and it is the protection maxim: ‘Buy where you can pay the easiest.' And that spot of earth is where labor wins its highest rewards."
If your first presidents believed in a free market without any government control, the USA would have had a much harder time to be the leading country.
Also don't forget that it's the government who is building schools, high schools and universities, pays the teachers for your kids. Thus enable you to be the high technology country you are. Is it the private sector that will build the schools and universities? And don't forget that many technologies are invented because of direct government spending in research. Like medicine, airplanes, space exploration, the Internet, computer, and many more.
You Sir are just an idiot. It's no wonder your country goes downhill. Your arguments are just straw man and smoke screens.
Taxes are buying culture, taxes are improve the life of every citizen. Without taxes and state you would not have the high living standard you take for granted. Without taxes there would only be 1% of super rich and the 99% of super poor people, just like in the industrial revolution in the 19th century England. If you argue against it, please go to a country in which you don't have a solid government that can tax people, can hire police and firefighters, can build schools and hospitals. Please go to North Korea, Somalia and other so called "third world countries" where there is no government and the people are ruled by clans.
Do you know why your country goes downhill? It's because the lack of government. The government relaxed all control on the Wall Street and on the banks. They drove bubble after bubble and now the people are paying for it with their tax money. The government bailed all banks out, bailed GM out, and you argue that we should have less taxes and the government should spend less? It's because the top cooperation and individuals are paying minimum taxes allowing to concentrate capital in the hands of a few.
Why should the top cooperation and individuals pay for other people, like health care, streets, police, teachers, social security? No, it's the government that pays with tax money.
You know how to go out of the current recession and get the economy back on track? Increase taxes for cooperation and the top income individuals and increase government spending. Increase the control of Wall Street and the banking sector. Increase the deficit. After you got out of the current recession then you can decrease government spending again because now the "market" can provide services again. Than you can work on decreasing the state deficit.
What about the people who thinks that the current copyright laws are immoral and should not be accepted as a form of civil protest? Like the people who demonstrate in Egypt. Not that I make the situation in Egypt the same as the situation in Germany, but copyright law is of high concern to me because it invades my privacy and restricts my freedom unnecessary.
And after 5 years or so EA will shut down the servers because they are bankrupt/bought out/waste money and all your games are worthless. There is an easy solution to this: Don't buy DRM'd games. There are plenty of games with don't have DRM and they cost much less, too. Like in http://gog.com/ Or just buy a older game for 10$ and apply a no-cd crack. You won't miss much, I just saw Crysis for just 5 Euro.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is that, that good code quality somehow is opposite of passion and creativity? I agree that pointless process is killing that, but good practice can be good.
I for myself like writing tests, like having easy code that have low complexity. That is why I can be creative in the first place. With my tests in place I can write my code and be sure I won't break anything and with low complexity I always have the overview over my code. Both are making sure that I can be creative.
The real question is why developers are not writing testable and low complexity code in the first place. Why is nobody teaching them how to write good code? Nobody is arguing that in the architecture or machine design, because if you not following good practice there the building will collapse or your machine will blow up.
Please define "passionate programmers" and "great code". If by that you mean people that just code away and leaving behind a mess of a code that only them can understand and maintain, then nobody wants that kind of programmers anyway.
True, there was a lot of stupid things in the past, like the Waterfall Model. But this is why the software industry is still a very young industry. Other industries have over 500 years of experience, like architecture or machine building. But the software industry is only about 50 or 60 years old.
You mean like the trains, the roads, the airplanes, the military, the police, the schools and universities, the hospitals, electricity, social security, health care, houses, firefighters? But you are right, besides that what ever have the government ever done useful with our taxes?
I'm sure that such a warning system would be useful if it's really restricted to real emergencies. I'm sure you would appreciate it if there was a message 24 hours before a major hurricane hits your city.
BS. With the JVM I can just use JRube, JPython, Groovy, Scala, Closure, and many more. All those languages are build on top of the JVM, meaning I can continue to use the tools and the libraries from Java and I can mix Java with any of those languages for free.
At least with Java I can use a ton of free, open source tools, like Eclipse, Netbeans, and Java have a way more active open source community, meaning I have much more libraries and frameworks.
"Basically Java is frozen in stone and will never be updated with anything worthwhile." In the enterprise world that is a very good thing. If you want something "worthwhile" you can still choose of the 100s of new languages developed on top the JVM.
"And if by some miracle Java includes something C# did first, it will introduce incompatible syntax just to be a dick. " That is was C# is about. Clone Java but introduce slightly different syntax and SDK to be just a "dick".
Why not? There is no risk at all with the Linux package manager, because you can restrict the repositories to your own. That way users can install only the applications you allow. The user can't have root access to the computer so he can't change the apt/yum repositories. Don't know if it's practical but with Linux you at least have to option to do it.
Should be useful if one computer goes down and the user can just use a different computer with was not designated for the task. The user can just install the applications he needs and continue with his work. No need to setup a computer from scratch, just create a new user account, install your application and continue with your work.
Last I heart the EU forced Microsoft to release documentation to the Samba team so I don't think they can just sue Samba now anyway. http://www.digitalcitizen.info/2007/12/22/samba-team-gains-tech-docs-from-eu-microsoft-antitrust-suit/
Is it just me or the summary don't make any sense at all? I'm pretty tech savvy but I just red it three times and I'm still don't know what the article is all about.
"pushed users requiring plenty of fast I/O towards the Mac Pro" What does it mean? That the user have fast I/O hard disks(?) with the Mac Pro or does it require user to have fast hard disks(?) for the Mac Pro?
"Quad-core Sandy Bridge CPUs and faster ATI Radeon HD GPUs are welcomed" I thought we are talking about I/O like a hard disk but now we are talking about CPUs and graphic cards?
"Thunderbolt ports" What? Ports that zap lighting out?
"one in the 21.5-inch and two in the 27-inch" laptops or monitors?
"that really ups the ante for a number of professional users." if they post comments on slashdot it will zap them?
Btw, to put my post more in perspective, here are some numbers: http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html
"At least 919,967 people have
been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq
since the U.S. and coalition attacks, based on lowest credible estimates."
Don't want to spoil your cheering, but do you know how many civilians the USA milliary killed in the Iraq and in Afghanistan?
Also, that most of the people in the world think that the USA is the number one terrorist country of the world?
You invaded two countries because one terrorist organization blow up some airplanes and you hunt down people in other countries with drones, killing not only those people without any trial or jurisdiction but 100s of civilians as well.
The US just declared "war on terrorism" and take the step to kill non military people in other countries with the means of the military. What was earlier the duty of the CIA or FBI (aka civilian police) to hunt down criminals and terrorist and put them before a trial is now the duty of the army and soldiers to hunt them down and kill them all. There is a difference, the CIA and FBI don't have tanks, kill-drones and apache helicopter, but the army can use every means possible, even a nuclear bomb. The CIA and FBI have oversight with civilian trials but the army don't.
Maybe you right but than the patent should not be granted. "An information storage and retrieval system" is just too broad. That covers everything from a computer to the human brain to paper and pen. It's like a patent on an automobile which just needs "a horseless power that can move a carriage". Or a television with just needs "a screen that can display images".
So patent claim should be specific to one device. You can't just say "something+human interface device" and claim a patent for it. That's just my logic as a normal citizen, I'm sure the law about that is twisted enough to employ all the lawyers.
How is bringing together material and build something is math? Do you know what it means to build something? You have get a hammer and screwdriver in your hand and put nails or screws into holes and you have to cut metal or wood. In the end you have some device, a product, which either works or not.
Math is just a bunch of formula on the paper with freely defined meaning. There is no device, no product at the end. It doesn't work and it can't work because it's just formula on the paper. The same is with software. Only if you run the software on a device you have a product. But how can you patent a general purpose computer that the whole point is to run software? You can't.
So what do you want to get a patent for in a software patent? The software is no product unless it's run on a computer. So you can't patent the software and you can't patent the computer.
If you build a special device that only runs your software and that device is your device (meaning it's not a general embedded computer, like the ARMs) sure you can get a patent on that device.
Such a patent should be valid if the device's only function is to perform the software and nothing more (or the device is performing the software to archive one goal). But if the software is run by a general computer, than you can't patent the computer.
The lawyers try to tell then the computer is somehow magically transformed by the running software into a device that can be patented. And that is the main problem with software patents that you get a patent that covers every possible devices, existing and future devices, that run the software. And that is why a software patent is a patent on an idea, not a device. It's the same as if someone patented the idea of a horseless carriage, which covers a car, a bus, a motorcycle, and any future automobile.
You really should learn that taste is different. There are a lot of Gnome users but for me I can't use anything else but KDE. I try Gnome, Xfce, and other, but I can't use them and go every time back to KDE. At least for me KDE improves my productivity big time. If anything else, KDE would be the only reason I would stay with Linux.
For me MacOS looks like eye candy with no functionality. You complain about bad UI but MacOS have the split-view in their file manager, the top menu bar and the dock down below. Further it has only one mouse button and the horrible keyboard. That and the mirror-like monitors for the Macs makes for me Linux >>> Windows > MacOS.
KDE and Gnome have a common UI with Windows, because that is the common denominator. Only MacOS have the "think different" UI. With is good for some, but not for me and not for the millions of Linux and Windows users out there.
Further, I have to yet encounter really bad UI design in Open Source projects. Most of the time the UI may lack eye candy but it is highly functional and you tent not to fight the UI but the UI is supporting the work flow. It is much better than some commercial projects, for the reason that usually the developers are using their own application. Actually, my desktop contains 99% open source applications and I wouldn't say that any of them have a bad UI.
What is your problem dude? The program is for free and you can use it or not. Nobody is forcing you to use it.
If you really have a problem with the name or the UI than create a bug report (http://www.kdenlive.org/mantis/my_view_page.php) and let see if the developers like your change. If you still insist of a new name than by all means, just fork the project and release it under a new name. You can even sell it with a new name and if you redesign the UI you can sell it with a new UI.
"And that's one of the main reasons that the "year of the Linux desktop" has never come. Mainstream people don't want to put up with that shit, they don't use their computer in order to gloat about technology, they use to get stuff done."
Interesting, because that's the reason why I don't bother to use Windows anymore. Because I want my stuff just be done and I don't want to bother with technology. Linux enables me just to do that. You just grab a Linux CD like Fedora, install it on the computer and it will run for the years to come. Everything you will need can be installed by the package manager and I don't need to be bothered with drivers or anti-virus crap. Even if you get a new computer, just swap out the hard disk and you have your old system on the new computer.
Everything just runs smooth, no trouble at all. The "year of the Linux desktop" won't come because you have to install a distribution yourself and because all the games are for Windows only. If you could just go to Mediamarkt and get a Fedora 14 laptop or desktop (with all stuff installed like Mp3 and Dvd read), I guarantee you, you will have less trouble with it than the crap Windows 7 you get.
Now the DOJ and the FBI do the job to secure Windows. Must really suck to live in a country where the government is run for cooperations paid by tax money. (If anyone wonder, it's the job of Microsoft to secure their system not the DOJ or the FBI to do that for them).
"FBI field offices would be notifying affected people, companies and organizations."
yeah, that's why you have the FBI. Not to hunt for criminals like murders, raper or the organized crime, but to go to people and companies and secure their computers.
What a BS. Free speech have nothing to do to be able to speak only to annoy other people. It's the same if you invite someone inside your house and that person only annoys you. After a few times you kick the person out of your house. Are you now against free speech?
Your rights always are limited if you overstep other people rights.
You are talking about the US government. The US government is not the best government out there. It was a failure of government, but for different reasons. The reasons was that the US (federal) government is very right wing. It is controlled by the cooperation. Any government should not be controlled by the cooperation but by the people. Like for example the German government (at least it's not so very right wing as the US government, because we have many different political parties, also every party in the US is so very right wing, even the left wing party is right wing compared to for example the German political parties).
"The simple fact is you dont seem to respect artists' right to profit from their work because you think society as a whole would do better. Is that correct? Fine. You have no basis for that comparision and no way to even measure it, but fine. And again historically, we know that artists have struggled under such conditions. So the evidence is against you. Do you apply this to all professions? No one should profit, all should share everything? It's not an un-heard-of position to hold. But let's be clear, if you dont believe in property at all, then the argument about the finer points here serve little purpose because you'll keep telling us that the elephant is not in the room. "
Not sure about the parent poster, but I think he will agree that an artist have every right to profit from his work, like every other. But I don't see the need or the moral right to lock down culture for a whole generation. That is what the current copyright law is.
In order for an artist to profit from his work, his work must become a part of the current culture. Because if people are not watching a movie, not reading a book, not listening to music, you can't charge the people for it. But after the people have watched/red/listened the work have became a part of the current culture. How can you now have any moral to forbid the people to share their culture? You, as the artist, have showed your work, charged money for it and now you think you have the moral to forbid me to share it with others?
It's funny how America is all about free market, capitalism and against "a Libertarian or Communist or Capitalist or Socialist utopia" but in the same way you have the most draconian copyright law in the world. Because copyright protection is "a Libertarian or Communist or Capitalist or Socialist utopia" and is anti free market and is anti capitalism.
Copyright laws grands a monopoly right over a piece of culture. The monopoly right is protected from the state and is for a whole generation (almost 100 years).
Culture is not property, culture is by definition shared by many people. Culture are the books, the movies, the music enjoyed by the people. The artist should profit from their work but like any other worker. A worker is paid by the work he have done and not in perpetually. An artist is paid for 100 years, even if he doesn't do anything. Even after the artist is long dead he is paid for his work. How is that not a "Socialist utopia"? Lets see a carpenter which is not only paid after he crafted a chair but every time somebody sitting on this chair.
I agree that with digitalization we have now somewhat difficult rule set for artists, because now everyone can just copy their work and share it with others. But on the other side, it's so much easier for the creator to monetize his work, because he can share it with others for very low cost. What the printing press was for the book, is the internet for every other work. It lower the cost of publication.
Maybe a copyright law now is a good idea, but not for a whole generation. First, copyright law should be only after a registration, like it was before. That way orphaned works would not be lost. Second, the copyright term should be 5 years, expendable to another 5 years and should terminate with the dead of the creator.
The only question I have is does it affect me in any way? I'm using Fedora 14 with FF3. It would be very nice to ditch the flash plugin, which I'm only using for Youtube and other video content.
Are those people disagree with my opinion or with the stuff Robert Pollin have to say?
To look for people with greater knowledge on topics in which I'm not an expert is not a sign of less intelligence. I'm just looking in countries where the government have less and less control over the economy and it always leads to disaster. It leads to disaster because every member of the economy or "free market" is an egoist and only looks for his advantage. Such behavior always leads to disaster. The government should have control in such that everyone is playing fair and to protect the weaker members of society.
What you don't see is that the USA government is not the perfect government. It is very right wing and as such makes such decisions on decreasing taxes, bailing out banks with no strings attached, and just plain ignore the reality.
What the USA government should have done is to punish cooperation that export jobs to China and India, control the Wall Street and the banks, demand harsh commitments from the bailed out banks and cooperation. But what the president is now doing is the exact opposite what I'm argue for. He is bailing out the banks but he is not increasing control. The outcome is that the banks have now money but not the economy. He expanded the tax decrease for the rich and he will decrease government help for the poor. The rich getting richer, the poor will get poorer. That is not how you get out of a recession. In addition, the USA government is wasting a lot of money on wars. That is also because the government is very right wing.
How about you start to argue with Robert Pollin?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Pollin
"Robert Pollin is an American economist and activist. He is a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst and founding co-director of its Political Economy Research Institute (PERI). He was the economic spokesperson in Jerry Brown's 1992 campaign for President of the United States."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUIRpVLaAS4
I think he will tell you exactly what I did, and then you can start to argue with him.
Your comments are still idiotic. I just red the first 4 but it's always the same tone: government is bad, economy should be free of government. What you ignore is this: the USA have the lowers government interference with the economy, because your politic is very much right wing, even you left wing is more right than the rest of the world.
The USA government relaxed all controls of the economy, decreased taxes, decreased control. Now you have the bill for it with the people (aka the government) have to pay: high unemployment, high national dept, "too large to fail" syndrome, high military spending, high dependency on oil, bubbles after bubbles.
Why you have such problems now? Because the control of the Wall Street and the banks are non existent, the government is controlled by cooperation. You still believe in the mantra that a "free market" will solve all issues and the government should be minimal.
The government should enforce a "free market", but not an American "free market". The American "free market" is a market without government control with leads to the problems the USA now have. With a "free market" I mean a market with many members and competitors, which needs strong government control.
The government should enforce the "free market" and it should redistribute wealth so that the difference between the very rich and the poor is not so sharp. The government should support the citizens with infrastructure, police, health care, educations, the richer citizens should have a greater burden than the less richer. The government should have strict control of the banks and should break down monopolies and encourage competition in a market.
Did you ever asked yourself why you live in such a rich country? Because your government was strong and because your government did all that mentioned above in the first 100 years. Why did the USA became from 0 to a world largest power in such short time? A little bit history: Because the northern states have protected the American industry from England.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism#Protectionism_in_the_United_States
"Under free trade the trader is the master and the producer the slave. Protection is but the law of nature, the law of self-preservation, of self-development, of securing the highest and best destiny of the race of man. [It is said] that protection is immoral. Why, if protection builds up and elevates 63,000,000 [the U.S. population] of people, the influence of those 63,000,000 of people elevates the rest of the world. We cannot take a step in the pathway of progress without benefiting mankind everywhere. Well, they say, ‘Buy where you can buy the cheapest'. Of course, that applies to labor as to everything else. Let me give you a maxim that is a thousand times better than that, and it is the protection maxim: ‘Buy where you can pay the easiest.' And that spot of earth is where labor wins its highest rewards."
If your first presidents believed in a free market without any government control, the USA would have had a much harder time to be the leading country.
Also don't forget that it's the government who is building schools, high schools and universities, pays the teachers for your kids. Thus enable you to be the high technology country you are. Is it the private sector that will build the schools and universities? And don't forget that many technologies are invented because of direct government spending in research. Like medicine, airplanes, space exploration, the Internet, computer, and many more.
You Sir are just an idiot. It's no wonder your country goes downhill. Your arguments are just straw man and smoke screens.
Taxes are buying culture, taxes are improve the life of every citizen. Without taxes and state you would not have the high living standard you take for granted. Without taxes there would only be 1% of super rich and the 99% of super poor people, just like in the industrial revolution in the 19th century England. If you argue against it, please go to a country in which you don't have a solid government that can tax people, can hire police and firefighters, can build schools and hospitals. Please go to North Korea, Somalia and other so called "third world countries" where there is no government and the people are ruled by clans.
Do you know why your country goes downhill? It's because the lack of government. The government relaxed all control on the Wall Street and on the banks. They drove bubble after bubble and now the people are paying for it with their tax money. The government bailed all banks out, bailed GM out, and you argue that we should have less taxes and the government should spend less? It's because the top cooperation and individuals are paying minimum taxes allowing to concentrate capital in the hands of a few.
Why should the top cooperation and individuals pay for other people, like health care, streets, police, teachers, social security? No, it's the government that pays with tax money.
You know how to go out of the current recession and get the economy back on track? Increase taxes for cooperation and the top income individuals and increase government spending. Increase the control of Wall Street and the banking sector. Increase the deficit. After you got out of the current recession then you can decrease government spending again because now the "market" can provide services again. Than you can work on decreasing the state deficit.
What about the people who thinks that the current copyright laws are immoral and should not be accepted as a form of civil protest? Like the people who demonstrate in Egypt. Not that I make the situation in Egypt the same as the situation in Germany, but copyright law is of high concern to me because it invades my privacy and restricts my freedom unnecessary.
And after 5 years or so EA will shut down the servers because they are bankrupt/bought out/waste money and all your games are worthless. There is an easy solution to this: Don't buy DRM'd games. There are plenty of games with don't have DRM and they cost much less, too. Like in http://gog.com/ Or just buy a older game for 10$ and apply a no-cd crack. You won't miss much, I just saw Crysis for just 5 Euro.
There are many more treaties that the USA refuse to ratify. For example the USA is not a member of the International Criminal Court, I think as the only western country, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court
The Kyoto Protocol, I think the USA is the only country world wide not signed it, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol