Microsoft being forced to open the source to the Windows operating system? This could help solve the monopoly problem as Microsoft would lose it's strangle-hold on desktop software, and force them to make money by creating a superior product, not by controlling the means of production in the desktop space. This also would help eliminate XP's threat of "embracing and extending" portions of the internet (which was Microsoft's ultimate goal when it got into the browser wars in the first place). Plus you gotta love the irony factor of this solution, considering Microsoft's recent PR campaign against free software (yeah, yeah, I know, apples and oranges, but still).
Yeah, exactly how will people use the PS2 who DON'T have (and/or don't want to buy) the modem/broadband hardware be able to play any games? This seems a little much.
I'm just curious, but if God is so merciful why would He try to bait scientists like that? I mean, why would God go to such lengths just to fool and trick people? If God were any way rational, and He actually wanted people to believe in Him, why would He spread lots of evidence against His own existance. Besides, evolution doesn't mean God doesn't exist, just that perhaps EVERYTHING in the Bible shouldn't be taken as the complete literal truth!
An example, if God were merciful, why would he make Pharoh refuse Moses' request to free the Hebrew's in Exodus? It seems as if God were vindictively punishing the Egyptians who (as it is implied in the text) would have complied had he not intervened with Pharoh? Maybe you shouldn't believe everything you read....
Sadly, I kinda find this whole thing funny, after all the pro-Napster evangelization I read on this site, paired with the open source evangelization.
After all, blatantly stealing an artists work IS unethical (yeah, yeah, we've all done it, but still). An artist should have the right to be compensated for their work (or at least have a say in how their work is distributed). Perhaps artists like Metallica who sue their own fans are a bunch of $%*&$-heads, but a vast majority of the non-MTVophile artists haven't done that. Technically isn't that equivalent to violating the GPL? (Here's a really stupid example)Consider if Microsoft created Openster, where evil software corporations could openly trade open sourced pieces of software, then blantly violate the copywright. That would certainly suck.
I'm not saying that the RIAA is right in charging exorbitant prices and taking away an artists rights, but perhaps Napster should give an artist credit where credit is due.
(In a perfect world) Maybe if users paid a low low monthly fee for unlimited usage. All the fees are put into a central pot, and once Napster has paid off it's expenses/shareholders, the monies are distributed proportionally to artists based on a percentage of how many users have that artists songs. Just an idea, probably won't happen. Oh well.
And for all the evangelization, I wonder if Napster ever was about providing free content. Consider, exactly how DID Napster corp pay off expenses before it was bought by Bertslemann?
Maybe an old school union isn't the answer
on
The Jungle
·
· Score: 1
(Keeping in mind that IANAW), maybe a new kind of union would be the solution to the tech industry. Agreed, most true knowledge jobs don't involve alot of hazardous work and usually prefer to work hours that would make the traditional 9-5 man vomit.
However, in the history of unionization, it traditionally was the more skilled jobs that unionized first. In the beginning of the century, the AFL refused to unionize unskilled workers (whom unions are most closely identified with today).
A tech union which was run by tech workers would probably respect the demands of a tech job, such as long flex hours and wavering lunch breaks. Just because it's a union doesn't mean it will turn tech jobs into unskilled jobs. They would probably be more likely to fight for things such as unlimited LAN game time and increased stock options as opposed to a set work schedule. So long as the workers can manage to curtail a union and get it to represent them (as opposed to ittself), a union would be a valueable tool in any industry.
Is this a surprise? The modern media corporation's purpose is to provide information that makes people watch. The more people watch, the more ad dollars. What people don't realize is that alot of the time THERE ISN'T ANYTHING IMPORTANT TO REPORT! So, to keep the eyeballs glued to the set, the networks will embellish, overplay, overemphasize, or just make crap up in order to get people to find out about "the next big crisis". Without this opportunistic journalism style, the networks wouldn't be able to justify their size. The sad thing is, many small-time journalists (that I know) think that CNN still carries on the proud tradition of actually objectively reporting the news.
No, it is a valid arguement. The idea is, if the couple can't have kids the old fashioned way, there are a number of options available.
What's central to the arguement made is that if you want to have a child (but can't biologically produce one) you can adopt one of the many children who need parents, or you can spend loads of money on an unproven, possibly offensive technology, to pass on a few genes. I have to agree with the root poster of this thread. Why don't some people realize THEY AREN'T IMPORTANT! People seem to be oblivious to the fact that they get the right to utilize another of their 70-some years here is just a miracle consider all the things that can go wrong.
I'm just curious, but is it even possible to READ Nupedia content? I surfed around the site for twenty minutes and didn't find anything (but I'm dumb so it's okay).
Re:does this break the theory of relativity?
on
Stop, Light.
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, but the theorum says that everything else can't move as fast as the light. Does that mean in the medium, everything would stop?
I'm not being smart, it's just my special relativity is rusty at best. Cool experiment though.
What's up with listing "Linux" as the offending party? I didn't know intellectual property could handle an IPO.
Seriously, reading the Milberg suit, it alleges that VA and the financiers taking them IPO lied on the Prospectus saying that Credit Suisse (the bank doing VA's IPO) purposefully played the deal that was set up for the public by giving certain investors special, I guess illegal access, to what stock was to be sold (apparently certain parts of the stock were supposed to be off-limits and weren't), making a mint from the extra these certain investors payed for these illegal stocks. So apprantely they are alleging this some kind of fraud.
What I don't get is what this has to do with VA. The text of the suit seems to put the blame on the shoulders of Credit Suisse. How can VA be held for Credit Suisse's dirty deal other than VA published the prospectus that screwed people up. Keep in mind IANAL of course.
All of Microsoft's traditional approaches, even embrace and destroy, won't be destructive to Linux per se. Sure, companies that sell Linux products (Red Hat et al) might have problems, but the movement as a whole will always continue as long as a person can SOMEHOW get Linux without purchasing a pre-burned CD that has have the word "Micrsoft" on the cover (in other words, if Linux remains an open system). Besides, a core group of Linux users (for both personal and proffesional applications) has already been established, most of which who use Linux as opposed to a Microsoft product. To expect Microsoft to dominate the commercial Linux market now seems rather ubsurd. Perhaps Microsoft could use its marketing mass to put the word "Linux" in front of every sloth in America, buth anyone who actively looks into making an informed decision when purchasing a Linux product would never buy a Microsft version. Linux by definition is anti-Microsoft. It was developed by those who don't want an alternative to Microsoft, it's used by those who don't want an alternative to Micrsoft, and this fact will always play the biggest part in the identity of Linux. If the sloths run out and buy a Microsoft Linux, great, more power to them. Most sloths don't deserve to use Linux (yeah, yeah, flamebait, but I don't care). esides, even though past data seems to make it statistically impossible, if a MS Linux product managed to produce any good hacks or ideas, they would eventually be reverse engineered or have the proprietary functionality emulated in an open context, whcih would benefiting everyone else.
The only good tactic they have is to try and somehow get around the GPL(/BSD/Apache/whatever open license your code is under) in such a way that all the Linux intellectual property (Linus' kernel, the GNU utilities, etc) becomes the sole property of Microsoft. That is the possible "great threat". Is it possible? I don't know, IANAL, but I do know Microsoft has a whole army of well paid ones, and it's been stated by others on this website that the GPL does have its flaws. Flaws big enough to allow Microsoft to STEAL Linux in its entirety? I don't think so, but in my paranoid universe anything is possible.
Maybe they could do something outlandish like patenting any system that is organized around System V or BSD. It's possible.
Perhaps some of the companies who peddle open source or those who have a financial stake in them (Red Hat, Hanover, etc) could all chip into a common fund that would take care of legal representation.
Relalistically, a monetary award probably wouldn't be neccessary or applicable for this situation (as others have said, this is a free product). Perhaps simply suing to have the offensive parties abide by the license (or pay for the legal fees maybe) would suffice.
So this whole thing is an attempt to eliminate competition. Interesting. Couldn't that be used in an anti-trust move against the MPAA and RIAA (true, trying to talk the government into doing that would be probably be pointless, but hey, it's an idea). I wonder what kind of grassroots move would be needed to start something like that.
I think I'll sue the MPAA. Constantly hearing about how their sueing everyone is making me afraid I'll get sued, and that's lowering my quality of life.
But you forget that the United States was originally started under the pemise that strong governments are bad (Read the Declaration of Independance lately). Americans aren't big strong government people.
True, a strong government is key to stopping any minority of citizens with special interests from dictating will over the rest of us. But if there is no monitoring of strong governments, they can very easily come to be controlled by a minority acting ONLY in its own best interests.
After all, a strong government can be corrupted just as easily as a weak government. According to enlightenment ideas, government should be a kind of social insurance, stepping in to act according to the interests of the citizens, assisting with problems that are bigger than any one citizen to handle. So we're supposed to be able to pick leaders who will properly represent us. Strong or not, if our leaders DON'T represent the citizenship, that government cannot effectively do it's job, can it?
I would just like to note that the present journalistic condition of the day is the legacy of Woodward and Bernstein. After the Post broke the Nixon scandal, every reporter has been trying to break a similar story to make themselves famous. And sometimes the stories don't exist, or are too hard to get to (any reporters who want to give the masses information about Echelon would be greatly appreciated). So invasions of a famous persons life can sometimes be the only chance a reporter has to make a name for themselves, to be morally correct in this success driven society.
You are right Mr. Richards, when the government can't rule effectively, it can easily be overrun and ignored. However sir, you made several intellectual leaps in your statements that social problems such as crime can directly be attributed to the American citizenships lack of faith in elective government. Perhaps you could be as kind as to explain HOW you made such a conclusion. The last time I checked, most people didn't commit crimes just to piss off elected government. Perhaps a fear of retaliation by the state WOULD help stem the crime rate in this country, but would people really want to live in a country where the state can punish you quickly, easily, and brutally for breaking the law. And doesn't the amount of enforcement neccessary for a such a system require the destruction of many of the privacy rights that were originally the subject of this article?
What country are YOU from, anyway?
Oh, and Mr. Katz, (not to start a discussion on politics, we all know how those go) you're saying the Republican party had NOTHING to do with the invasion of President Clinton's personal life, that it was ONLY the D***ed corporate republic's media?
It's not a matter of the corporations holding a gun to your head. A monopoly is a company or corporation that is the ONLY seller of a specific product in a market. Now, all human beings have basic needs to be fulfilled. They have to eat, drink, breath, etc. Today, instead of providing for their own needs, most people work a single job that generates the money needed to buy whatever services they need. True, the example of a corporation monopolizing the production of music is not a good example. However, if a corporation holds a monopoly in whatever good or service you NEED to survive, you do basically depend on that corporation. If you can only buy food from Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart can charge whatever they like and you'd have to pay for it. The only alternative in this particular instance is producing the good or service yourself. If you didn't grow up on a farm, or have the time to learn to farm, that's not a very good option either. And if I had the choice between living in the USA and China, I think I'd definately pick the USA. A couple of competing monopolies is stil better than one single monopoly.
There is a regulon, it's the brain
on
The Regulon
·
· Score: 1
I would disagree with this article. Perhaps information does exist in the mind in the way Katz describes, as a type of codfish trying to survive. However, it does have competition, mainly from the prior knowledge and experiences a person has. This can be the basis for a regulon. When I was reading the political propoganda of the last election, did I believe everything one candidate said about another? NO, because it is my past experience that there is significant bias in those statements. For the same reason, I don't find myself going to Slate or MSNBC too much, because I'm pretty sure what I'll find there, and my regulon's get tired of dealing with the crap.
Perhaps Katz has a point in that an uninformed, impressionable reader could take in two peices of completely opposite information presented in the same fashion and not know how to deal with it. However, you can't have an "official" truth, that would be too easy to manipulate to fool the masses. The power of the internet is that you can find anything on anything. True, the boundless amount of information is both a strength and a weakness. However, the "sanitized" version this article seems to point to has much resemblence to mediums such as television, which have been very well compromised and controlled.
If you're really bothered by the vomit that some of the larger information companies have began spewing these days, stop paying attention to it. Turn off your TV, and tell others to do the same. Be a culture jammer. Do something.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft being forced to open the source to the Windows operating system? This could help solve the monopoly problem as Microsoft would lose it's strangle-hold on desktop software, and force them to make money by creating a superior product, not by controlling the means of production in the desktop space. This also would help eliminate XP's threat of "embracing and extending" portions of the internet (which was Microsoft's ultimate goal when it got into the browser wars in the first place). Plus you gotta love the irony factor of this solution, considering Microsoft's recent PR campaign against free software (yeah, yeah, I know, apples and oranges, but still).
Yeah, exactly how will people use the PS2 who DON'T have (and/or don't want to buy) the modem/broadband hardware be able to play any games? This seems a little much.
Just a pragmatic Christian thought....
I'm just curious, but if God is so merciful why would He try to bait scientists like that? I mean, why would God go to such lengths just to fool and trick people? If God were any way rational, and He actually wanted people to believe in Him, why would He spread lots of evidence against His own existance. Besides, evolution doesn't mean God doesn't exist, just that perhaps EVERYTHING in the Bible shouldn't be taken as the complete literal truth!
An example, if God were merciful, why would he make Pharoh refuse Moses' request to free the Hebrew's in Exodus? It seems as if God were vindictively punishing the Egyptians who (as it is implied in the text) would have complied had he not intervened with Pharoh? Maybe you shouldn't believe everything you read....
Sadly, I kinda find this whole thing funny, after all the pro-Napster evangelization I read on this site, paired with the open source evangelization.
After all, blatantly stealing an artists work IS unethical (yeah, yeah, we've all done it, but still). An artist should have the right to be compensated for their work (or at least have a say in how their work is distributed). Perhaps artists like Metallica who sue their own fans are a bunch of $%*&$-heads, but a vast majority of the non-MTVophile artists haven't done that. Technically isn't that equivalent to violating the GPL? (Here's a really stupid example)Consider if Microsoft created Openster, where evil software corporations could openly trade open sourced pieces of software, then blantly violate the copywright. That would certainly suck.
I'm not saying that the RIAA is right in charging exorbitant prices and taking away an artists rights, but perhaps Napster should give an artist credit where credit is due.
(In a perfect world) Maybe if users paid a low low monthly fee for unlimited usage. All the fees are put into a central pot, and once Napster has paid off it's expenses/shareholders, the monies are distributed proportionally to artists based on a percentage of how many users have that artists songs. Just an idea, probably won't happen. Oh well.
And for all the evangelization, I wonder if Napster ever was about providing free content. Consider, exactly how DID Napster corp pay off expenses before it was bought by Bertslemann?
(Keeping in mind that IANAW), maybe a new kind of union would be the solution to the tech industry. Agreed, most true knowledge jobs don't involve alot of hazardous work and usually prefer to work hours that would make the traditional 9-5 man vomit.
However, in the history of unionization, it traditionally was the more skilled jobs that unionized first. In the beginning of the century, the AFL refused to unionize unskilled workers (whom unions are most closely identified with today).
A tech union which was run by tech workers would probably respect the demands of a tech job, such as long flex hours and wavering lunch breaks. Just because it's a union doesn't mean it will turn tech jobs into unskilled jobs. They would probably be more likely to fight for things such as unlimited LAN game time and increased stock options as opposed to a set work schedule. So long as the workers can manage to curtail a union and get it to represent them (as opposed to ittself), a union would be a valueable tool in any industry.
Is this a surprise? The modern media corporation's purpose is to provide information that makes people watch. The more people watch, the more ad dollars. What people don't realize is that alot of the time THERE ISN'T ANYTHING IMPORTANT TO REPORT! So, to keep the eyeballs glued to the set, the networks will embellish, overplay, overemphasize, or just make crap up in order to get people to find out about "the next big crisis". Without this opportunistic journalism style, the networks wouldn't be able to justify their size. The sad thing is, many small-time journalists (that I know) think that CNN still carries on the proud tradition of actually objectively reporting the news.
No, it is a valid arguement. The idea is, if the couple can't have kids the old fashioned way, there are a number of options available.
What's central to the arguement made is that if you want to have a child (but can't biologically produce one) you can adopt one of the many children who need parents, or you can spend loads of money on an unproven, possibly offensive technology, to pass on a few genes. I have to agree with the root poster of this thread. Why don't some people realize THEY AREN'T IMPORTANT! People seem to be oblivious to the fact that they get the right to utilize another of their 70-some years here is just a miracle consider all the things that can go wrong.
I'm just curious, but is it even possible to READ Nupedia content? I surfed around the site for twenty minutes and didn't find anything (but I'm dumb so it's okay).
Yeah, but the theorum says that everything else can't move as fast as the light. Does that mean in the medium, everything would stop? I'm not being smart, it's just my special relativity is rusty at best. Cool experiment though.
What's up with listing "Linux" as the offending party? I didn't know intellectual property could handle an IPO.
Seriously, reading the Milberg suit, it alleges that VA and the financiers taking them IPO lied on the Prospectus saying that Credit Suisse (the bank doing VA's IPO) purposefully played the deal that was set up for the public by giving certain investors special, I guess illegal access, to what stock was to be sold (apparently certain parts of the stock were supposed to be off-limits and weren't), making a mint from the extra these certain investors payed for these illegal stocks. So apprantely they are alleging this some kind of fraud.
What I don't get is what this has to do with VA. The text of the suit seems to put the blame on the shoulders of Credit Suisse. How can VA be held for Credit Suisse's dirty deal other than VA published the prospectus that screwed people up. Keep in mind IANAL of course.
Screw Microsoft.
All of Microsoft's traditional approaches, even embrace and destroy, won't be destructive to Linux per se. Sure, companies that sell Linux products (Red Hat et al) might have problems, but the movement as a whole will always continue as long as a person can SOMEHOW get Linux without purchasing a pre-burned CD that has have the word "Micrsoft" on the cover (in other words, if Linux remains an open system). Besides, a core group of Linux users (for both personal and proffesional applications) has already been established, most of which who use Linux as opposed to a Microsoft product. To expect Microsoft to dominate the commercial Linux market now seems rather ubsurd. Perhaps Microsoft could use its marketing mass to put the word "Linux" in front of every sloth in America, buth anyone who actively looks into making an informed decision when purchasing a Linux product would never buy a Microsft version. Linux by definition is anti-Microsoft. It was developed by those who don't want an alternative to Microsoft, it's used by those who don't want an alternative to Micrsoft, and this fact will always play the biggest part in the identity of Linux. If the sloths run out and buy a Microsoft Linux, great, more power to them. Most sloths don't deserve to use Linux (yeah, yeah, flamebait, but I don't care). esides, even though past data seems to make it statistically impossible, if a MS Linux product managed to produce any good hacks or ideas, they would eventually be reverse engineered or have the proprietary functionality emulated in an open context, whcih would benefiting everyone else.
The only good tactic they have is to try and somehow get around the GPL(/BSD/Apache/whatever open license your code is under) in such a way that all the Linux intellectual property (Linus' kernel, the GNU utilities, etc) becomes the sole property of Microsoft. That is the possible "great threat". Is it possible? I don't know, IANAL, but I do know Microsoft has a whole army of well paid ones, and it's been stated by others on this website that the GPL does have its flaws. Flaws big enough to allow Microsoft to STEAL Linux in its entirety? I don't think so, but in my paranoid universe anything is possible.
Maybe they could do something outlandish like patenting any system that is organized around System V or BSD. It's possible.
Perhaps some of the companies who peddle open source or those who have a financial stake in them (Red Hat, Hanover, etc) could all chip into a common fund that would take care of legal representation.
Relalistically, a monetary award probably wouldn't be neccessary or applicable for this situation (as others have said, this is a free product). Perhaps simply suing to have the offensive parties abide by the license (or pay for the legal fees maybe) would suffice.
So this whole thing is an attempt to eliminate competition. Interesting. Couldn't that be used in an anti-trust move against the MPAA and RIAA (true, trying to talk the government into doing that would be probably be pointless, but hey, it's an idea). I wonder what kind of grassroots move would be needed to start something like that.
I think I'll sue the MPAA. Constantly hearing about how their sueing everyone is making me afraid I'll get sued, and that's lowering my quality of life.
But you forget that the United States was originally started under the pemise that strong governments are bad (Read the Declaration of Independance lately). Americans aren't big strong government people.
True, a strong government is key to stopping any minority of citizens with special interests from dictating will over the rest of us. But if there is no monitoring of strong governments, they can very easily come to be controlled by a minority acting ONLY in its own best interests.
After all, a strong government can be corrupted just as easily as a weak government. According to enlightenment ideas, government should be a kind of social insurance, stepping in to act according to the interests of the citizens, assisting with problems that are bigger than any one citizen to handle. So we're supposed to be able to pick leaders who will properly represent us. Strong or not, if our leaders DON'T represent the citizenship, that government cannot effectively do it's job, can it?
I would just like to note that the present journalistic condition of the day is the legacy of Woodward and Bernstein. After the Post broke the Nixon scandal, every reporter has been trying to break a similar story to make themselves famous. And sometimes the stories don't exist, or are too hard to get to (any reporters who want to give the masses information about Echelon would be greatly appreciated). So invasions of a famous persons life can sometimes be the only chance a reporter has to make a name for themselves, to be morally correct in this success driven society.
You are right Mr. Richards, when the government can't rule effectively, it can easily be overrun and ignored. However sir, you made several intellectual leaps in your statements that social problems such as crime can directly be attributed to the American citizenships lack of faith in elective government. Perhaps you could be as kind as to explain HOW you made such a conclusion. The last time I checked, most people didn't commit crimes just to piss off elected government. Perhaps a fear of retaliation by the state WOULD help stem the crime rate in this country, but would people really want to live in a country where the state can punish you quickly, easily, and brutally for breaking the law. And doesn't the amount of enforcement neccessary for a such a system require the destruction of many of the privacy rights that were originally the subject of this article?
What country are YOU from, anyway?
Oh, and Mr. Katz, (not to start a discussion on politics, we all know how those go) you're saying the Republican party had NOTHING to do with the invasion of President Clinton's personal life, that it was ONLY the D***ed corporate republic's media?
It's not a matter of the corporations holding a gun to your head. A monopoly is a company or corporation that is the ONLY seller of a specific product in a market. Now, all human beings have basic needs to be fulfilled. They have to eat, drink, breath, etc. Today, instead of providing for their own needs, most people work a single job that generates the money needed to buy whatever services they need. True, the example of a corporation monopolizing the production of music is not a good example. However, if a corporation holds a monopoly in whatever good or service you NEED to survive, you do basically depend on that corporation. If you can only buy food from Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart can charge whatever they like and you'd have to pay for it. The only alternative in this particular instance is producing the good or service yourself. If you didn't grow up on a farm, or have the time to learn to farm, that's not a very good option either. And if I had the choice between living in the USA and China, I think I'd definately pick the USA. A couple of competing monopolies is stil better than one single monopoly.
I would disagree with this article. Perhaps information does exist in the mind in the way Katz describes, as a type of codfish trying to survive. However, it does have competition, mainly from the prior knowledge and experiences a person has. This can be the basis for a regulon. When I was reading the political propoganda of the last election, did I believe everything one candidate said about another? NO, because it is my past experience that there is significant bias in those statements. For the same reason, I don't find myself going to Slate or MSNBC too much, because I'm pretty sure what I'll find there, and my regulon's get tired of dealing with the crap.
Perhaps Katz has a point in that an uninformed, impressionable reader could take in two peices of completely opposite information presented in the same fashion and not know how to deal with it. However, you can't have an "official" truth, that would be too easy to manipulate to fool the masses. The power of the internet is that you can find anything on anything. True, the boundless amount of information is both a strength and a weakness. However, the "sanitized" version this article seems to point to has much resemblence to mediums such as television, which have been very well compromised and controlled.
If you're really bothered by the vomit that some of the larger information companies have began spewing these days, stop paying attention to it. Turn off your TV, and tell others to do the same. Be a culture jammer. Do something.