So I went to look at libranet's product because I like debian but would like something with a better installer and hardware detection. I thought to myself that I could just download the ISO from linuxiso.org but that maybe I should help support them and pay for a real copy. So I decided to look at the prices.
They offer 4 different prices, one for past customers, one for new customers, one for students, and one for corporate users. There is not an immediately obvious difference between any of these releases and I can still download the ISO's from linuxiso.org. A student discount makes sense, fine, but then why does a corporation have to pay more per copy than a home user?
It seems like a much better model to offer two levels of product. The first is a retail model (possibly with an available student discount) with instructions, limited technical support, etc. Then you offer corporate contracts where you agree to provide a higher grade support (24 hour service, increased response time, etc) and you provide that at a higher rate. I see no evidence that as a corportate customer I would get anything better for my extra $40/copy, especially when I can just download an ISO.
When it comes to legislation it mostly boils down to what the congress critters believe will keep them in their jobs. If they believe that enough of public opinion is going to come down on them for going one way or another with a vote, they'll follow the opinions most of the time. In the absense of a clear public mandate they will go toward that which tends to promote their long term job stability, that being the big piles of cash from lobbyists.
Given that, in an environment where we've got an economy in the toilet, an active war on terrorism, and a soon to be war against Iraq, people as a whole have much better things to worry about than DRM. If you have to pick your next congressman based on their stand on war in Iraq vs. their stand on DRM, which is the higher priority? So, in the absense of a direct link between a congress critter's stand on DRM and their job security they'll go where the money is.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that congress critters do acutally make ethical decisions based on their personal belief. That sometimes in spite of money and public opinion they'll make a choice because they believe it to be the right one. But in order for legislation to make any real headway, you need more than just the ethical stand of a conscience possessing minority.
Okay look, I LOVE the simpsons, but I find it very hard to imagine it translating to the big screen well. The problem is that most of the simpsons is small bits that fit well in a 30 minute time slot. When you try to drag something like that to 90+ minutes it tends to do just that, drag.
I'd love it if they made a simpsons movie and it was good but I'd bet heavily against it.
Yes, these are buzzwords, but frankly the J2EE framework is very useful even if it's a big buzzword. The funny thing is that most of the companies doing work with things like EJB's aren't little dot bombs, but rather large corporations. Banks, insurance companies, etc, are the things that need the huge transaction that make things like EJB useful.
The problem with such an idea is that, in all likelyhood, we, being the fallable species that we are, would screw it up. And in this case it wouldn't be a minor catastrophe like most of our other screwups. Messing with the very air we breath could cause any number of unforseen consequences or accidental problems.
No thanks, I'd rather we STOPPED tampering with it rather than tamper with it more
Lots of stories of people fighting dragons. It's a noble thing to fight a dragon but don't be surprised when you get singed. What I'm suggesting here isn't knuckling under, it's not doing things that might start a pointless fight that will only cost you.
Yes, he can drag it out. Why? Because he's rich and can afford excellent lawyers who can do that. The only risk he would expose himself is that of spending money and if he's go enough of it he can afford to do it.
Tht would be nice if the US did things that way but alas it does not. I've long argued in favor of that sort of system as a way to moderate frivolous lawsuits but I'm not expecting that kind of reform anytime soon. Too many lawyers would lose out.
Great, you've got a guy who's dumb and rich and a CEO. If he's a CEO he's probably got a decent sized ego. If he's got an ego and you drag his e-mails into the public spotlight, he's probably going to get pissed, especially if the context of the posting is to say "look at what an idiot this guy is". He'll sure for any of a number of reasons, from copyright infringement, to libel (that's the print one right?).
No, you disturbed a dragon. Leave the cave quietly and pray he doesn't wake up. He might never win in court but that doesn't mean you'll have to have six mortgages on your house before he's done with you.
For the record, no contract, no matter how legitimate it's means of delivery cannot consent a party to commit an act that is legal. Doing so renders the contract (or at least that clause depending on how the contract is worded) illegitimate. If that wasn't the case, they could add clauses in there to claim your first born male child in exchange for their service.
It impresses me though when I think about this. The P2P companies are now actually more obnxious than the MPAA/RIAA. I mean WOW, the RIMPAA is a giant bunch of whores, but at least they aren't actively trying to defraud charities.
You so need to tell me what you said to your boss to get hooked up with dual flat panels. I have to say the only thing out of that article that would be useful for me is the huge monitor. I can't count the number of times I have to sit their and flip between desktops and try to find that missing window that got burried. 6 feet of surround monitor would be awesome but 2-3 LCD displays would be a fine substitute:).
You know how happy I would be if our government adhered to the standard you suggest?:)
If we did look at the motives and methods of various organizations in a balanced way, that terrorist label wouldn't get thrown around as easily as it does. If you look at the FARC, for example, they are arguably no worse than the colombian government and the related milita groups. So, if we are going to label one terrorists, why are we labeling the other.
The big problem with throwing around these labels though is that, though they make excellent sound bites, they serve to over-simplify situations. By concealing the inherent complexity of a situation we risk making bad choices. So yes, I agree, let's look at motives (and I would add methods) of those that we would label "terrorists" and try to come up with some standard by which we can judge them.
Fine, just go ahead and start a political debate why don't ya?:)
It's real easy to tell that the FARC is a terrorist group. The US doesn't like them, thus they are a terrorist group. This seems to be about the only qualification to get labeled a terrorist by this government.
Genuinely I think you can say that the FARC is a terrorist organization because they have been responsible for military attacks on civilian targets. Having said that though, so's the columbian government and the militia groups that said government backs. And you might even imply, by extension, that the US government is a terrorist organization since they back the columbian government. But now I'm splitting hairs.
It all boils down to the fact that "terrorist" is the new version of "communist" which was itself a newer version of the term "witch". You apply it to anybody who interferes with the way you want the world to run and see how long you can get away with it.
I'm not sure which I find worse. The fact that they translated the USA patriot act to suggest that even linking to a website that supports a terrorist organization is illegal or that they might be right in their interpretation. In either case i'm sure the supreme court would have a few choice words for them such as "unconstitutional".
This is simple drug dealer tactics. Look, you can have the first one for free. You can quit anytime you want to, honest! Then down the road once Microsoft is firmly entrenched they can start playing hardball on licensing.
Out of curiosity, in what way is KDE being crippled by Redhat? I'm aware that they are making some interface tweaks to make Gnome and KDE look more similar (a good idea IMHO). Are they taking steps beyond this that are actually having a negative impact on KDE as a whole? I mean if Redhat is in fact doing something notibly detrimental to KDE, then I'd be more than happy to switch distros (seeing as KDE is what I use). But otherwise this sounds like an overreaction.
I continue to wonder how well windows would do if people were being charge for the real cost of the software up front when they bought a computer. That is, would a consumer pay $600 for a computer and then pay and addition $200 to get window or would they take the chance and save the money and go for $100 for a copy of Linux? As it now stands windows just comes with everything and people don't really think about how that impacts the price. Would be interesting to see how they'd react if they actually had to pay for it.
The thing to keep in mind here is that the business models of movies vs. the business model of music are vastly different up front. Most movies rely on theater ticket sales as their primary income and then the DVD market is just additional cream that comes aftewards. A movie that can't make back it's production costs in the theaters is considered a flop.
In the case of music, you have to make up all of your production and marketing costs on CD sales. It costs less to make a CD then it does to make a movie, but there's no up-front infusion of cash from an equivalent of a theatrical release to push down the per-unit price.
Remember, that to produce a DVD, the movie companies have several advantages going in. They know the appeal of the movie based on box-office take. They can decide based on that information whether to invest much in behind-the-scenes material or to just make some simple menu graphics and release it.
A DVD, in and of itself, is never released at a loss because the expensive part, the movie, is already paid for. Even on a crappy movie, it's worth it to make DVD's for it because a few people will buy it, and it's money they wouldn't have otherwise made.
Companies are rarely in a position that they are required to pay severance. Most of them do pay severance though as a legal butt covering maneuver. So, they hand you that piece of paper and ask you to sign it because they want to reduce their future risk of legal problems. Most people will just sign it because usually if you've lost your job you need the money they offer right away.
The first time I was laid-off, they offered severance and I ended up signing the piece of paper becuase I had nothing I could sue them for. They didn't owe me any money or anything so I didn't lose anything by signing the paper.
Whilst the point about non-IE browsers not being able to access the site is valid, the fact it takes 5.5 hours over a modem is not.
There's no reason that I'm aware of that Microsoft couldn't have released this little tool as a seperate application. Then people could download that small piece and not worry about the entire huge service pack.
The group's allegation regarding a sixth violation rapped Microsoft for failing to include in the middleware control an option to disable Microsoft's.Net Framework Common Language Runtime, an alternative to Sun's Java Virtual Machine. .Net is an application development architecture, just like Java, yes. The thing is though, the.Net architecture cannot run java applications and vice versa. The issue with IE vs. Netscape is that one directly replaces the functionality of the other. In this case, I'm not going to find my java applications suddenly launching in.Net instead of a sun JVM. No consumer is going to willingly cripple functionality on their system that doesn't have a direct replacement (like if there was a 3rd party implementation of.net).
Most of these issues are rather nitpicky and pointless. The only thing that's going to put microsoft in check is to eliminate the rules they attach to OEM versions of their software. Having the ability to received a Dell pre-installed to dual-boot windows and linux would be a big improvement.
I mean damn, how much more obvious do network admins need this to be. If you see war chalking symbols at your location you know that other people know you are wide open. So FIX it and stop yammering about theft of service. It's illegal to break into people's houses, but people still put locks on their doors. It's called common sense.
I mean really, they should be securing their network in the first place. Not doing so is simply irresponsible, and to get pissed off at people roaming onto their network is just passing the buck.
Slashdot Mirror
So I went to look at libranet's product because I like debian but would like something with a better installer and hardware detection. I thought to myself that I could just download the ISO from linuxiso.org but that maybe I should help support them and pay for a real copy. So I decided to look at the prices.
They offer 4 different prices, one for past customers, one for new customers, one for students, and one for corporate users. There is not an immediately obvious difference between any of these releases and I can still download the ISO's from linuxiso.org. A student discount makes sense, fine, but then why does a corporation have to pay more per copy than a home user?
It seems like a much better model to offer two levels of product. The first is a retail model (possibly with an available student discount) with instructions, limited technical support, etc. Then you offer corporate contracts where you agree to provide a higher grade support (24 hour service, increased response time, etc) and you provide that at a higher rate. I see no evidence that as a corportate customer I would get anything better for my extra $40/copy, especially when I can just download an ISO.
When it comes to legislation it mostly boils down to what the congress critters believe will keep them in their jobs. If they believe that enough of public opinion is going to come down on them for going one way or another with a vote, they'll follow the opinions most of the time. In the absense of a clear public mandate they will go toward that which tends to promote their long term job stability, that being the big piles of cash from lobbyists.
Given that, in an environment where we've got an economy in the toilet, an active war on terrorism, and a soon to be war against Iraq, people as a whole have much better things to worry about than DRM. If you have to pick your next congressman based on their stand on war in Iraq vs. their stand on DRM, which is the higher priority? So, in the absense of a direct link between a congress critter's stand on DRM and their job security they'll go where the money is.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that congress critters do acutally make ethical decisions based on their personal belief. That sometimes in spite of money and public opinion they'll make a choice because they believe it to be the right one. But in order for legislation to make any real headway, you need more than just the ethical stand of a conscience possessing minority.
Okay look, I LOVE the simpsons, but I find it very hard to imagine it translating to the big screen well. The problem is that most of the simpsons is small bits that fit well in a 30 minute time slot. When you try to drag something like that to 90+ minutes it tends to do just that, drag.
I'd love it if they made a simpsons movie and it was good but I'd bet heavily against it.
How does one become a capable System Administrator? By learning which involves, amongst many other things, reading books on the subject.
Yes, these are buzzwords, but frankly the J2EE framework is very useful even if it's a big buzzword. The funny thing is that most of the companies doing work with things like EJB's aren't little dot bombs, but rather large corporations. Banks, insurance companies, etc, are the things that need the huge transaction that make things like EJB useful.
The problem with such an idea is that, in all likelyhood, we, being the fallable species that we are, would screw it up. And in this case it wouldn't be a minor catastrophe like most of our other screwups. Messing with the very air we breath could cause any number of unforseen consequences or accidental problems.
No thanks, I'd rather we STOPPED tampering with it rather than tamper with it more
Lots of stories of people fighting dragons. It's a noble thing to fight a dragon but don't be surprised when you get singed. What I'm suggesting here isn't knuckling under, it's not doing things that might start a pointless fight that will only cost you.
Yes, he can drag it out. Why? Because he's rich and can afford excellent lawyers who can do that. The only risk he would expose himself is that of spending money and if he's go enough of it he can afford to do it.
... the country where I quite want to be :)
Tht would be nice if the US did things that way but alas it does not. I've long argued in favor of that sort of system as a way to moderate frivolous lawsuits but I'm not expecting that kind of reform anytime soon. Too many lawyers would lose out.
Great, you've got a guy who's dumb and rich and a CEO. If he's a CEO he's probably got a decent sized ego. If he's got an ego and you drag his e-mails into the public spotlight, he's probably going to get pissed, especially if the context of the posting is to say "look at what an idiot this guy is". He'll sure for any of a number of reasons, from copyright infringement, to libel (that's the print one right?).
No, you disturbed a dragon. Leave the cave quietly and pray he doesn't wake up. He might never win in court but that doesn't mean you'll have to have six mortgages on your house before he's done with you.
For the record, no contract, no matter how legitimate it's means of delivery cannot consent a party to commit an act that is legal. Doing so renders the contract (or at least that clause depending on how the contract is worded) illegitimate. If that wasn't the case, they could add clauses in there to claim your first born male child in exchange for their service.
It impresses me though when I think about this. The P2P companies are now actually more obnxious than the MPAA/RIAA. I mean WOW, the RIMPAA is a giant bunch of whores, but at least they aren't actively trying to defraud charities.
You so need to tell me what you said to your boss to get hooked up with dual flat panels. I have to say the only thing out of that article that would be useful for me is the huge monitor. I can't count the number of times I have to sit their and flip between desktops and try to find that missing window that got burried. 6 feet of surround monitor would be awesome but 2-3 LCD displays would be a fine substitute :).
You know how happy I would be if our government adhered to the standard you suggest? :)
If we did look at the motives and methods of various organizations in a balanced way, that terrorist label wouldn't get thrown around as easily as it does. If you look at the FARC, for example, they are arguably no worse than the colombian government and the related milita groups. So, if we are going to label one terrorists, why are we labeling the other.
The big problem with throwing around these labels though is that, though they make excellent sound bites, they serve to over-simplify situations. By concealing the inherent complexity of a situation we risk making bad choices. So yes, I agree, let's look at motives (and I would add methods) of those that we would label "terrorists" and try to come up with some standard by which we can judge them.
I would just like to point out my stringent lack of arguing with your analysis :).
Fine, just go ahead and start a political debate why don't ya? :)
It's real easy to tell that the FARC is a terrorist group. The US doesn't like them, thus they are a terrorist group. This seems to be about the only qualification to get labeled a terrorist by this government.
Genuinely I think you can say that the FARC is a terrorist organization because they have been responsible for military attacks on civilian targets. Having said that though, so's the columbian government and the militia groups that said government backs. And you might even imply, by extension, that the US government is a terrorist organization since they back the columbian government. But now I'm splitting hairs.
It all boils down to the fact that "terrorist" is the new version of "communist" which was itself a newer version of the term "witch". You apply it to anybody who interferes with the way you want the world to run and see how long you can get away with it.
And if so, would it thus be an act of patriotism to link to their website in the hopes of encouraging a slashdotting?
I'm not sure which I find worse. The fact that they translated the USA patriot act to suggest that even linking to a website that supports a terrorist organization is illegal or that they might be right in their interpretation. In either case i'm sure the supreme court would have a few choice words for them such as "unconstitutional".
This is simple drug dealer tactics. Look, you can have the first one for free. You can quit anytime you want to, honest! Then down the road once Microsoft is firmly entrenched they can start playing hardball on licensing.
RedHat should ignore them. If they wanted control over their product they shouldn't have released it under the GPL.
Out of curiosity, in what way is KDE being crippled by Redhat? I'm aware that they are making some interface tweaks to make Gnome and KDE look more similar (a good idea IMHO). Are they taking steps beyond this that are actually having a negative impact on KDE as a whole? I mean if Redhat is in fact doing something notibly detrimental to KDE, then I'd be more than happy to switch distros (seeing as KDE is what I use). But otherwise this sounds like an overreaction.
I continue to wonder how well windows would do if people were being charge for the real cost of the software up front when they bought a computer. That is, would a consumer pay $600 for a computer and then pay and addition $200 to get window or would they take the chance and save the money and go for $100 for a copy of Linux? As it now stands windows just comes with everything and people don't really think about how that impacts the price. Would be interesting to see how they'd react if they actually had to pay for it.
The thing to keep in mind here is that the business models of movies vs. the business model of music are vastly different up front. Most movies rely on theater ticket sales as their primary income and then the DVD market is just additional cream that comes aftewards. A movie that can't make back it's production costs in the theaters is considered a flop.
In the case of music, you have to make up all of your production and marketing costs on CD sales. It costs less to make a CD then it does to make a movie, but there's no up-front infusion of cash from an equivalent of a theatrical release to push down the per-unit price.
Remember, that to produce a DVD, the movie companies have several advantages going in. They know the appeal of the movie based on box-office take. They can decide based on that information whether to invest much in behind-the-scenes material or to just make some simple menu graphics and release it.
A DVD, in and of itself, is never released at a loss because the expensive part, the movie, is already paid for. Even on a crappy movie, it's worth it to make DVD's for it because a few people will buy it, and it's money they wouldn't have otherwise made.
Companies are rarely in a position that they are required to pay severance. Most of them do pay severance though as a legal butt covering maneuver. So, they hand you that piece of paper and ask you to sign it because they want to reduce their future risk of legal problems. Most people will just sign it because usually if you've lost your job you need the money they offer right away.
The first time I was laid-off, they offered severance and I ended up signing the piece of paper becuase I had nothing I could sue them for. They didn't owe me any money or anything so I didn't lose anything by signing the paper.
Whilst the point about non-IE browsers not being able to access the site is valid, the fact it takes 5.5 hours over a modem is not.
There's no reason that I'm aware of that Microsoft couldn't have released this little tool as a seperate application. Then people could download that small piece and not worry about the entire huge service pack.
The group's allegation regarding a sixth violation rapped Microsoft for failing to include in the middleware control an option to disable Microsoft's
Most of these issues are rather nitpicky and pointless. The only thing that's going to put microsoft in check is to eliminate the rules they attach to OEM versions of their software. Having the ability to received a Dell pre-installed to dual-boot windows and linux would be a big improvement.
If you see warchalking, SECURE YOUR NETWORK.
I mean damn, how much more obvious do network admins need this to be. If you see war chalking symbols at your location you know that other people know you are wide open. So FIX it and stop yammering about theft of service. It's illegal to break into people's houses, but people still put locks on their doors. It's called common sense.
I mean really, they should be securing their network in the first place. Not doing so is simply irresponsible, and to get pissed off at people roaming onto their network is just passing the buck.