If I could mod him down as "troll", I would. Anti-Slashdot-groupthink has been done better before, and cynicism for cynicism's sake can become its own form of groupthink, of a sort tired and whiny, not insightful.
There is no single "Slashdot-approved" stance, as is evidenced from the back and forth in this thread. What's more, even among Slashdot's anti-status quo group, there's considerable divergence in opinion, from the more extreme idea of abolishing all copyrights on principle to the "accept reality and change your business model" crowd to those in favor of lessening the period for copyrights to pre-Berne convention levels, or those who simply don't want that period to be extended any further than it already has. (Technically I suppose that last would be pro-status quo, except that they're against the prevailing status-quo legal framework of extend ad infinitum.)
If no one paid for ideas, then no one could make a living off coming up with those ideas. The only composers would be rich people who could live off of their savings.
You just "composed" the above comment. FOR FREE. Why?
The music industry would be tiny. Etc.
Here's the part where you're supposed to explain why that's a bad thing.
Did you read the whole post, even? He had his son ask the producer's permission, and then they respected the foolish choice the producer made. So what shit was done?
The moral of the anecdote, in case you missed it, is this: There's no denying that those who choose to disobey the law will hurt the artist in the short term, but the really bad news is that those who choose to obey the law may hurt the artist more in the long term.
I was half-kidding about him being an atheist, hence the winking emoticon. Only half-kidding because it's my experience that when someone refuses to straightfowardly confess their faith, they tend to be some sort of atheist/agnostic person. IOW "most religious, god-believing individuals" will unhesitatingly tell you their religion straight off instead of doing a "Universal Goodness" strip tease. And keep in mind it's in his FAQ, Khan went out of his way to be coy.
So no, I personally don't think that decent ethics are the sole province of atheists. But nor do I agree with Khan's assertion that all us 'good people' are essentially the same religion. I think that minimizing the differences in what we all believe does us no good in the end.
Having said that, I stand in awe of his secular accomplishments.
In his FAQ, Khan says about his religion, "If you believe in trying to make the best of the finite number of years we have on this planet (while not making it any worse for anyone else), think that pride and self-righteousness are the cause of most conflict and negativity, and are humbled by the vastness and mystery of the Universe, then I'm the same religion as you."
The reason I brought up refresh rate was to make it possible to even imagine playing an FPS on a Kindle-type screen. IOW to bring things to a ceteris paribus level so that we could consider whether low-contrast is better or worse. I'm not sure I agree with Google's collective wisdom, it seems to be mostly of the "it's true because I say so" sort, as opposed to some kind of documented studies.
But overall you're certainly more informed on this subject than I am so in the absence of a firm reason to question you, I'll defer to your expertise and thank you very much for the informative reply.
Popularity != better. Since IE has the largest fan base, you're saying that IE is the browser that is "all that?"
All other things being equal, the better software should be more popular. Why wouldn't that be the case? Arguably, IE's market share is no exception to that principle...IE has traditionally been "better" for the average person simply because it comes pre-loaded on the OS instead of them having to try to find a legitimate download site. And it seems to me to be quite difficult for most people to distinguish malware from legitimate freeware/shareware. [Side note, I don't actually agree that IE has the largest "fan base." ]
But Opera vs. Firefox or Chrome, where's the disadvantage? Why can't it gain traction? Instead of playing verbal sparring games and gotchas, consider pondering that issue.
No I don't realize this. Source? In fact, it seems nonsensical on its face. Picture playing an FPS on a Kindle display that refreshes at LCD speeds. Would it be less of a strain to see your targets, or more of one? And even if somehow lo-contrast is better, it's fairly easy to lower the contrast on a LCD using software and often possible to dim the backlight using hardware. So why isn't everyone running their monitors in low-contrast Kindle mode?
BTW, I own an iPod and a Kindle, and despite the legions of Kindle fans constantly insisting how much better the latter's screen is, I totally prefer reading on my little backlit iPod.
"This is nothing but a way for a specific race, to get someone elected. Special rules designed to benefit a certain race? That sounds like racism to me."
There's nothing about cumulative voting that is designed to benefit a certain race. But otherwise, yes I agree, if you pull out of your ass that A equals B, then it "sounds like" A=B. In an assy kind of way.
Translating what you're saying to the desktop, if someone makes a principled stand, or for any other reason decides not to develop for MS Windows, they're just stupid? End of story? Screw Linux and OSX, gotta go with the dominant OS, no matter what?
I missed the part where Walmart manufactures an item that millions of consumers carry around with them every day that only accepts add-ons they must also buy from Walmart. And where, as a manufactuer, the mere act of dropping Walmart as your retailer and moving to Target requires you to completely redesign your product line.
No matter how you spin it, Apple is veering closer and closer to illegal restraint of trade, and if it keeps on the same course it will get slapped down.
And the whole thing is, it doesn't have to be this way. Apple could easily sell kajillions of apps fair and square without all this heavy-handedness, but it seems almost destined to follow in MS's footsteps.
Not to say that there aren't going to be SOME people who decide to buy an iPad over a netbook (just like there are going to be some people who decide to buy a Livescribe smartpen over a netbook) but the graph of prospective "iPad cannibalization" shows that by far the iPad is more likely to "kill" sales of Apple's own notebook/iPod numbers. In any event, the fallacy in all of this killing talk is in assuming that every iPad sale must come at the expense of some other electronic tool that would've been bought. I know many people who are interested in an iPad who would have never bought a netbook in any case. And vice-versa, by the way.
More kitchen-sink argumentation? Look, if you had said from the outset that MS are evil incarnate, and even worse -- not friends of open source -- I'd have agreed with you. But your initial point, before bringing in Zune, Xbox, and what have you, was that Microsoft Windows and iPhoneOS are essentially the same in terms of dependence. It's on that point that I strongly disagree. Your other points are more or less true, or at least reasonable, but nobody was disputing them in the first place.
Your original comment specifically brought up "Microsoft Windows" as a direct comparison to the iPad (iPhone OS). My reply was, of course, to that remark, not to these new issues you are raising. However, if you want to move the goalposts to include the companies' strategies as a whole, then fine, in that case I agree with you in principle. Both companies are equally unfree. There's a crucial difference, however. In the market where it is most dominant, the desktop, Microsoft is restricted both by custom and the threat of government retribution from using the kind of strongarm tactics that Apple is getting away with in the market where it is most dominant, mobile "app" sales. Had the DMCA and similar laws existed in the 1970s, Microsoft might be likewise exploiting its dominant position with impunity.
If you own a Windows computer, you are free to write, use, sell or give away applications with zero involvement from Microsoft other than your initial purchase. If you own an iPod/iPad/iPhone, you are required to interact with Apple to do any of those things.
You need to use their tools to write an app. You need their permission to distribute an app. You even need their permission to receive an app.
Every manufacturer has the monopoly on his own products.
That's clearly not the case, at least, not in the way intended by the people raising the issue.
If you buy a Ford automobile, you don't have to buy Ford tires. If you buy an HP computer, you're not required to buy HP-branded software
It's one thing for Apple to have an app store. It's another thing entirely for them to artificially bar other methods of getting software on the iPhone. (And it's a third thing for them to use their "appopoly" to artificially limit the categories of software one can use.)
The fact of the matter is that Apple could appear much less heavy-handed simply by legitimizing jailbreaking. "Oh, you want install your own apps? Go right ahead. But 'for safety reasons' we will then disable your access to the app store and any apps you've installed from the app store. And you'll void your warranty and get no support from us." Most people would keep on using the app store anyway when faced with such a choice, but at least they would feel it was their own choice.
Do I think that Apple is doing something illegal, or should be forced to open up their product? No. But I do think they deserve to get hammered on this issue in the court of public opinion.
Problem with that little theory is that the "pull" is stronger in the other direction. If you're running XP and IE8, and you need SVG, instead of paying $100 to upgrade to IE9, you'll just download FF or Chrome and Microsoft loses more browser share.
No, they're not headquartered in Delaware. You're thinking about where they were incorporated. That has nothing to do with their official HQ which is located at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway in Mountain View, CA. I binged it!
I'm sorry, but do you mean to say that I may have to pay as much as $5-$10/month more in hard left socialist taxes for my broadband speed to increase by 1500%? Not gonna happen, America.
Members of the Fraunhofer Institute are regular contributors to the standard.
In that case, it's bound to be cool. And by cool, I mean patent encumbered.
BTW, {nitpick} it's not "the" Fraunhofer Institute, it's "Fraunhofer Society," within which are various institutes. Probably the most famous is on the internet is the Fraunhofer Institute for Integrated Circuits (Fraunhofer IIS) in Erlangen, whence came the mp3 standard. But the one responsible for Visible Light Communication is Fraunhofer HHI in Berlin. {/nitpick}
It may be "valid" to question it, but it is silly. Advertisers have already paid for the research on this. You can't click on newspaper ads or billboards either -- why do you think advertisers have paid for these things throughout the centuries? Because it's been shown, empirically, over and over again, that advertising works. Click-thru ads are a relatively recent phenomenon, and initially advertisers were excited by the prospect of only paying for advertising that could be tied to immediate results, but over the years they've learned 1) that most people, even if they might eventually have an interest in a product, don't really want to interrupt what they're doing at the moment to go off chasing an advertisement, which has caused click-thru rates to drop. And 2) that some people, who have no interest in buying a product, will engage in click fraud to cheat the advertiser, which causes click-thru rates to be not as reliable as initially hoped for. This doesn't mean cost per action based advertising is useless, but cost per impression advertising will remain part of the ad toolbox for the foreseeable future, as a tried and true, if less viscerally exciting, method of reaching consumers.
About your "screen cutoff" objection, well yes, obviously so, but this is why ad placement matters. Again, you're talking about something that's always been true. You're certainly going to pay more for an ad on page A1 of a national newspaper than on page D11.
I'll accept your admonishment with respect to the weakness of my analogy:), but I don't agree at all that Microsoft can be relegated to what you call "3rd party" status here. Microsoft is certainly not holding itself out as some kind of disinterested party, it is pursuing this matter in the role of plaintiff. Read the complaint. Isn't MS inconvenienced by spam (in terms of lost work time and IT costs) as much as any large public corporation? Above and beyond that, spam sent from hotmail.com or with fake hotmail.com headers could be argued to affect the reputation of its Hotmail service. Furthermore, Microsoft claims actual damages in the amount of at least $5000.00 as a result of Waledac. They've laid out their case, it's not the court's obligation to make a full determination at this stage. Let the defendants come in and move to dismiss the complaint, and if Microsoft has no standing, the case will get tossed.
Slashdot Mirror
If I could mod him down as "troll", I would. Anti-Slashdot-groupthink has been done better before, and cynicism for cynicism's sake can become its own form of groupthink, of a sort tired and whiny, not insightful.
There is no single "Slashdot-approved" stance, as is evidenced from the back and forth in this thread. What's more, even among Slashdot's anti-status quo group, there's considerable divergence in opinion, from the more extreme idea of abolishing all copyrights on principle to the "accept reality and change your business model" crowd to those in favor of lessening the period for copyrights to pre-Berne convention levels, or those who simply don't want that period to be extended any further than it already has. (Technically I suppose that last would be pro-status quo, except that they're against the prevailing status-quo legal framework of extend ad infinitum.)
You just "composed" the above comment. FOR FREE. Why?
Here's the part where you're supposed to explain why that's a bad thing.
Did you read the whole post, even? He had his son ask the producer's permission, and then they respected the foolish choice the producer made. So what shit was done?
The moral of the anecdote, in case you missed it, is this: There's no denying that those who choose to disobey the law will hurt the artist in the short term, but the really bad news is that those who choose to obey the law may hurt the artist more in the long term.
I was half-kidding about him being an atheist, hence the winking emoticon. Only half-kidding because it's my experience that when someone refuses to straightfowardly confess their faith, they tend to be some sort of atheist/agnostic person. IOW "most religious, god-believing individuals" will unhesitatingly tell you their religion straight off instead of doing a "Universal Goodness" strip tease. And keep in mind it's in his FAQ, Khan went out of his way to be coy.
So no, I personally don't think that decent ethics are the sole province of atheists. But nor do I agree with Khan's assertion that all us 'good people' are essentially the same religion. I think that minimizing the differences in what we all believe does us no good in the end.
Having said that, I stand in awe of his secular accomplishments.
In his FAQ, Khan says about his religion, "If you believe in trying to make the best of the finite number of years we have on this planet (while not making it any worse for anyone else), think that pride and self-righteousness are the cause of most conflict and negativity, and are humbled by the vastness and mystery of the Universe, then I'm the same religion as you."
In other words, he's an atheist. ;)
The reason I brought up refresh rate was to make it possible to even imagine playing an FPS on a Kindle-type screen. IOW to bring things to a ceteris paribus level so that we could consider whether low-contrast is better or worse. I'm not sure I agree with Google's collective wisdom, it seems to be mostly of the "it's true because I say so" sort, as opposed to some kind of documented studies.
But overall you're certainly more informed on this subject than I am so in the absence of a firm reason to question you, I'll defer to your expertise and thank you very much for the informative reply.
All other things being equal, the better software should be more popular. Why wouldn't that be the case?
Arguably, IE's market share is no exception to that principle...IE has traditionally been "better" for the average person simply because it comes pre-loaded on the OS instead of them having to try to find a legitimate download site. And it seems to me to be quite difficult for most people to distinguish malware from legitimate freeware/shareware. [Side note, I don't actually agree that IE has the largest "fan base." ]
But Opera vs. Firefox or Chrome, where's the disadvantage? Why can't it gain traction? Instead of playing verbal sparring games and gotchas, consider pondering that issue.
No I don't realize this. Source? In fact, it seems nonsensical on its face. Picture playing an FPS on a Kindle display that refreshes at LCD speeds. Would it be less of a strain to see your targets, or more of one? And even if somehow lo-contrast is better, it's fairly easy to lower the contrast on a LCD using software and often possible to dim the backlight using hardware. So why isn't everyone running their monitors in low-contrast Kindle mode?
BTW, I own an iPod and a Kindle, and despite the legions of Kindle fans constantly insisting how much better the latter's screen is, I totally prefer reading on my little backlit iPod.
"This is nothing but a way for a specific race, to get someone elected. Special rules designed to benefit a certain race? That sounds like racism to me."
There's nothing about cumulative voting that is designed to benefit a certain race. But otherwise, yes I agree, if you pull out of your ass that A equals B, then it "sounds like" A=B. In an assy kind of way.
iOS apps have only one publisher, one all-powerful gatekeeper. There's only one possible publisher for your book?
Translating what you're saying to the desktop, if someone makes a principled stand, or for any other reason decides not to develop for MS Windows, they're just stupid? End of story? Screw Linux and OSX, gotta go with the dominant OS, no matter what?
I missed the part where Walmart manufactures an item that millions of consumers carry around with them every day that only accepts add-ons they must also buy from Walmart. And where, as a manufactuer, the mere act of dropping Walmart as your retailer and moving to Target requires you to completely redesign your product line.
No matter how you spin it, Apple is veering closer and closer to illegal restraint of trade, and if it keeps on the same course it will get slapped down.
And the whole thing is, it doesn't have to be this way. Apple could easily sell kajillions of apps fair and square without all this heavy-handedness, but it seems almost destined to follow in MS's footsteps.
Um, it IS out of its misery, And soon to be in a Happy-Place.
Not to say that there aren't going to be SOME people who decide to buy an iPad over a netbook (just like there are going to be some people who decide to buy a Livescribe smartpen over a netbook) but the graph of prospective "iPad cannibalization" shows that by far the iPad is more likely to "kill" sales of Apple's own notebook/iPod numbers. In any event, the fallacy in all of this killing talk is in assuming that every iPad sale must come at the expense of some other electronic tool that would've been bought. I know many people who are interested in an iPad who would have never bought a netbook in any case. And vice-versa, by the way.
More kitchen-sink argumentation? Look, if you had said from the outset that MS are evil incarnate, and even worse -- not friends of open source -- I'd have agreed with you. But your initial point, before bringing in Zune, Xbox, and what have you, was that Microsoft Windows and iPhoneOS are essentially the same in terms of dependence. It's on that point that I strongly disagree. Your other points are more or less true, or at least reasonable, but nobody was disputing them in the first place.
Your original comment specifically brought up "Microsoft Windows" as a direct comparison to the iPad (iPhone OS). My reply was, of course, to that remark, not to these new issues you are raising. However, if you want to move the goalposts to include the companies' strategies as a whole, then fine, in that case I agree with you in principle. Both companies are equally unfree. There's a crucial difference, however. In the market where it is most dominant, the desktop, Microsoft is restricted both by custom and the threat of government retribution from using the kind of strongarm tactics that Apple is getting away with in the market where it is most dominant, mobile "app" sales. Had the DMCA and similar laws existed in the 1970s, Microsoft might be likewise exploiting its dominant position with impunity.
In what way is the FSF agenda "self-serving"?
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
If you own a Windows computer, you are free to write, use, sell or give away applications with zero involvement from Microsoft other than your initial purchase.
If you own an iPod/iPad/iPhone, you are required to interact with Apple to do any of those things.
You need to use their tools to write an app.
You need their permission to distribute an app.
You even need their permission to receive an app.
That's the difference.
That's clearly not the case, at least, not in the way intended by the people raising the issue.
If you buy a Ford automobile, you don't have to buy Ford tires.
If you buy an HP computer, you're not required to buy HP-branded software
It's one thing for Apple to have an app store. It's another thing entirely for them to artificially bar other methods of getting software on the iPhone. (And it's a third thing for them to use their "appopoly" to artificially limit the categories of software one can use.)
The fact of the matter is that Apple could appear much less heavy-handed simply by legitimizing jailbreaking. "Oh, you want install your own apps? Go right ahead. But 'for safety reasons' we will then disable your access to the app store and any apps you've installed from the app store. And you'll void your warranty and get no support from us." Most people would keep on using the app store anyway when faced with such a choice, but at least they would feel it was their own choice.
Do I think that Apple is doing something illegal, or should be forced to open up their product? No. But I do think they deserve to get hammered on this issue in the court of public opinion.
Problem with that little theory is that the "pull" is stronger in the other direction. If you're running XP and IE8, and you need SVG, instead of paying $100 to upgrade to IE9, you'll just download FF or Chrome and Microsoft loses more browser share.
No, they're not headquartered in Delaware. You're thinking about where they were incorporated. That has nothing to do with their official HQ which is located at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway in Mountain View, CA. I binged it!
I'm sorry, but do you mean to say that I may have to pay as much as $5-$10/month more in hard left socialist taxes for my broadband speed to increase by 1500%? Not gonna happen, America.
In that case, it's bound to be cool. And by cool, I mean patent encumbered.
BTW, {nitpick} it's not "the" Fraunhofer Institute, it's "Fraunhofer Society," within which are various institutes. Probably the most famous is on the internet is the Fraunhofer Institute for Integrated Circuits (Fraunhofer IIS) in Erlangen, whence came the mp3 standard. But the one responsible for Visible Light Communication is Fraunhofer HHI in Berlin. {/nitpick}
It may be "valid" to question it, but it is silly. Advertisers have already paid for the research on this. You can't click on newspaper ads or billboards either -- why do you think advertisers have paid for these things throughout the centuries? Because it's been shown, empirically, over and over again, that advertising works. Click-thru ads are a relatively recent phenomenon, and initially advertisers were excited by the prospect of only paying for advertising that could be tied to immediate results, but over the years they've learned 1) that most people, even if they might eventually have an interest in a product, don't really want to interrupt what they're doing at the moment to go off chasing an advertisement, which has caused click-thru rates to drop. And 2) that some people, who have no interest in buying a product, will engage in click fraud to cheat the advertiser, which causes click-thru rates to be not as reliable as initially hoped for. This doesn't mean cost per action based advertising is useless, but cost per impression advertising will remain part of the ad toolbox for the foreseeable future, as a tried and true, if less viscerally exciting, method of reaching consumers.
About your "screen cutoff" objection, well yes, obviously so, but this is why ad placement matters. Again, you're talking about something that's always been true. You're certainly going to pay more for an ad on page A1 of a national newspaper than on page D11.
I'll accept your admonishment with respect to the weakness of my analogy :), but I don't agree at all that Microsoft can be relegated to what you call "3rd party" status here. Microsoft is certainly not holding itself out as some kind of disinterested party, it is pursuing this matter in the role of plaintiff. Read the complaint. Isn't MS inconvenienced by spam (in terms of lost work time and IT costs) as much as any large public corporation? Above and beyond that, spam sent from hotmail.com or with fake hotmail.com headers could be argued to affect the reputation of its Hotmail service. Furthermore, Microsoft claims actual damages in the amount of at least $5000.00 as a result of Waledac. They've laid out their case, it's not the court's obligation to make a full determination at this stage. Let the defendants come in and move to dismiss the complaint, and if Microsoft has no standing, the case will get tossed.