No, but market share helps with future cash flow. Think of all the people who, when you say Linux, think of a red hat. I know we all think of Tux, but Joe Public IT Guy sees the hat.
When they eventually decide to try out Linux, they go to PC World (or it's equivalent stateside) and seek the hat.
In the long run (or sooner), they need to develop business models that do not depend on us geeks being nice to them. I've bought redhat, suse and mandrake boxed sets in the past, to show support more than anything else, but they cannot depend on this.
I would encourage people NOT to pay where they do not feel the service is worth it. If they want to make money from free software, it's up to them to come up with the business models.
Good on them if this works, I won't grudge them success, though I'll be sticking with Debian!
This looks nothing like Napster. They are talking about 'on-demand streams' and 'limited downloads', where the latter becomes unusable after a set time period or number of plays.
This is exactly what we would expect from the RIAA, not surprising at all.
Also, it's old:
RIAA Petition to Copyright Office.
Re: Request for Rulemaking and to Convene Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel.
Date: November 29, 2000.
The properties of groups of human beings, such as governments and companies, are different from the properties of human beings.
One of the properties which is different is the decision making process. Human beings do not make decisions like governments and companies do.
Human beings, in fact, make different decisions than those which are made by governments and companies.
The priniciple is that systems of component parts have different properties than the individual component parts. A transistor won't run the slashcode, but a computer will.
I just said you didn't describe software in any of your listed items.
And your various patterns of light etc. on various media, no that's not patentable, because they're just patterns. Now, a system for recording software on a disk using patterns of light, that's patentable.
Sorry, but both you and your moderator and rather fsking stupid.
You have references or evidence for this statement of course... explain in depth where in particular I went wrong?
I should have thought logic would suffice where the argument is logical. I don't need references or evidence to back up the statement that two plus two is four. Especially when I've seen the addition for myself.
Unless you're proposing a *massive* increase in taxation, then people will just speed on roads that don't have GATSOs. Also magazines, like Max Power print information on hidden speed cameras - plot forward a couple of years and this information will probably be combinable with route generating software...
If they're hidden, how can people decide what road they're on? It's a small percentage of people who read Max Power, and simple measures, like rotating false and real cameras, and just moving them about, can make such information useless.
Picture the scene, you're driving from $STARTING_POINT to $DESTINATION, with your GPS-linked laptop giving spoken directions... then it starts going "warning, GATSO 1 mile... warning, GATSO 0.5 mile"... (Or for a more low-tech solution, locally placed signs by the road side... !)
Think about it. That's exactly the effect brightly painted GATSOs have! Granted, the warning period is shorter but it's still plenty of time. Believe me, I'm a driver and I exceed the limits regularly, watching for cameras as I go. I have had one accident, seven years ago, because of oil and water on the road. I had stopped when the other car hit me.
Picture the scene... you know exactly where all the speed cameras are... you see them from a mile off... you drive hell-for-leather when they're not around... you slow down as soon as you see them.. you never get caught.
Alternatively, picture the scene... the country's full of speeding cameras... you don't know where they are.. you've been fined in the past and so have your friends... are you going to speed?
As I've said, I prefer the first scene, because I don't believe speed kills. Combine speed with stupidity and it can of course be lethal, but then, stupid people should not be wielding heavy machinery.
I've read posts suggesting that CCTV is OK as long as your not shoplifting, etc. Sounds reasonable, while we have a reasonable government (I'm in the UK).
However, the problem arises when your government is not reasonable. I'm thinking of China or Afghanistan, for example. And to all those that think we could never end up with opressive regimes in the west, well, all I need to say is DMCA.
I'm no fan of proprietary software, but I give credit to Adobe for opening up this format to the extent they have. You could be damn sure that if M$ had managed to capture the defacto "standard" for formated document transfer (others tried, remember envoy?), then you probably wouldn't even be able to open a.msd (or what ever they would have called it) on Linux, never mind being able to write your own app to do it.
But the irony is, it's Joe User who loses out, because he has to make what, for him, is a big change, to solve a rare inconvenience, while malicious copyright abusers can still make the change just once and rip off many authors work many times.
This type of copyright protection protects nothing and irritates people unnecessarily. People need to be educated so they understand that there is no real protection in a digital world. Or perhaps they'll just evolve that way.
I really don't know what Debian should do, it's a tough call.
Ownership is too meaningless for me.
Think of it more like freedom.
The freedom to go where you want, when you want, is very important to many people. Sometimes we call it 'convenience' but it is truly a freedom. Cars give you this freedom that todays public transport cannot provide.
And we all know the freedom that free software brings. It doesn't feel anything like 'ownership' to me, but I do feel free.
Nobody rants endlessly because the Urantia Foundation holds a copyright on the Urantia Book (another Third Testament of the Bible that came out in the early 1900's, in case you're not keeping up.)
Slashdot Mirror
What fool moderated this up? The parent post was sarcastic...
It's not like market share == cash flow
No, but market share helps with future cash flow. Think of all the people who, when you say Linux, think of a red hat. I know we all think of Tux, but Joe Public IT Guy sees the hat.
When they eventually decide to try out Linux, they go to PC World (or it's equivalent stateside) and seek the hat.
Anyway, sensible people use Debian.
In the long run (or sooner), they need to develop business models that do not depend on us geeks being nice to them. I've bought redhat, suse and mandrake boxed sets in the past, to show support more than anything else, but they cannot depend on this.
I would encourage people NOT to pay where they do not feel the service is worth it. If they want to make money from free software, it's up to them to come up with the business models.
Good on them if this works, I won't grudge them success, though I'll be sticking with Debian!
I've had no trouble with Thawte. It disturbs me that they see fit to list their employees' star signs, though.
How do you pronounce that name, anyway? It looks like "thought" to me but everyone here says "thwaite" like the English surname. Who is correct?
don't sign the petition
ahem, it's not that kind of petition.
This looks nothing like Napster. They are talking about 'on-demand streams' and 'limited downloads', where the latter becomes unusable after a set time period or number of plays.
This is exactly what we would expect from the RIAA, not surprising at all.
Also, it's old:
RIAA Petition to Copyright Office.
Re: Request for Rulemaking and to Convene Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel.
Date: November 29, 2000.
Heh, I thought you said:
Professors have been made faster
and I laughed...
I'm pretty sure those were Gameboys issued by Vader before he turned to the Dark Side.
The properties of groups of human beings, such as governments and companies, are different from the properties of human beings.
One of the properties which is different is the decision making process. Human beings do not make decisions like governments and companies do.
Human beings, in fact, make different decisions than those which are made by governments and companies.
The priniciple is that systems of component parts have different properties than the individual component parts. A transistor won't run the slashcode, but a computer will.
This was moderated up??
I didn't even mention patents in my post.
I just said you didn't describe software in any of your listed items.
And your various patterns of light etc. on various media, no that's not patentable, because they're just patterns. Now, a system for recording software on a disk using patterns of light, that's patentable.
Sorry, but both you and your moderator and rather fsking stupid.
Hmmm.. yes, precisely.
You have references or evidence for this statement of course ... explain in depth where in particular I went wrong?
...
... then it starts going "warning, GATSO 1 mile ... warning, GATSO 0.5 mile" ... (Or for a more low-tech solution, locally placed signs by the road side ... !)
I should have thought logic would suffice where the argument is logical. I don't need references or evidence to back up the statement that two plus two is four. Especially when I've seen the addition for myself.
Unless you're proposing a *massive* increase in taxation, then people will just speed on roads that don't have GATSOs. Also magazines, like Max Power print information on hidden speed cameras - plot forward a couple of years and this information will probably be combinable with route generating software
If they're hidden, how can people decide what road they're on? It's a small percentage of people who read Max Power, and simple measures, like rotating false and real cameras, and just moving them about, can make such information useless.
Picture the scene, you're driving from $STARTING_POINT to $DESTINATION, with your GPS-linked laptop giving spoken directions
Think about it. That's exactly the effect brightly painted GATSOs have! Granted, the warning period is shorter but it's still plenty of time. Believe me, I'm a driver and I exceed the limits regularly, watching for cameras as I go. I have had one accident, seven years ago, because of oil and water on the road. I had stopped when the other car hit me.
Picture the scene... you know exactly where all the speed cameras are... you see them from a mile off... you drive hell-for-leather when they're not around... you slow down as soon as you see them.. you never get caught.
Alternatively, picture the scene... the country's full of speeding cameras... you don't know where they are.. you've been fined in the past and so have your friends... are you going to speed?
As I've said, I prefer the first scene, because I don't believe speed kills. Combine speed with stupidity and it can of course be lethal, but then, stupid people should not be wielding heavy machinery.
It's spinning round and round in my head.
apt-get... apt-get... apt-get... apt-get... apt-get... apt-get... apt-get... apt-get... apt-get... apt-get... apt-get... apt-get... apt-get... apt-get... apt-get... apt-get... apt-get... apt-get... apt-get... apt-get... apt-get... apt-get... apt-get... apt-get... apt-get... apt-get... apt-get... apt-get... apt-get... apt-get... apt-get... apt-get... apt-get... apt-get... apt-get... apt-get...
Whatever anyone else tells you, this is actually an interface to a Network User Environment, according to Nautilus' site.
They plan to use the client as a service point for system administration, by the looks of it.
Your analysis of speed cameras is completely incorrect.
High-profile speed cameras slow drivers down at the speed camera and if anything, they go faster than ever elsewhere because they feel safe.
Speed cameras, to be effective, should be invisible, and penalties should be issued strictly, so that people go slow all the time.
Myself, I'm convinced that it isn't speed that kills, but stupdity on the part of both drivers and pedestrians.
I've read posts suggesting that CCTV is OK as long as your not shoplifting, etc. Sounds reasonable, while we have a reasonable government (I'm in the UK).
However, the problem arises when your government is not reasonable. I'm thinking of China or Afghanistan, for example. And to all those that think we could never end up with opressive regimes in the west, well, all I need to say is DMCA.
You just don't care do you?
I would say that the design approaches software as the marginal cost of duplication approaches zero.
:)
Not to imply that it never actually becomes software
Anyway, you are describing entire physical systems, software isn't an entire physical system, so no, none of your options are software.
If real-life decisions were made on Slashdot, perhaps people would think more about what they posted :)
yeah, it's a scary thought....
But the irony is, it's Joe User who loses out, because he has to make what, for him, is a big change, to solve a rare inconvenience, while malicious copyright abusers can still make the change just once and rip off many authors work many times.
This type of copyright protection protects nothing and irritates people unnecessarily. People need to be educated so they understand that there is no real protection in a digital world. Or perhaps they'll just evolve that way.
I really don't know what Debian should do, it's a tough call.
Ownership is too meaningless for me.
Think of it more like freedom.
The freedom to go where you want, when you want, is very important to many people. Sometimes we call it 'convenience' but it is truly a freedom. Cars give you this freedom that todays public transport cannot provide.
And we all know the freedom that free software brings. It doesn't feel anything like 'ownership' to me, but I do feel free.
I wasn't talking about ideas, I was talking about the technology, the code.
Remember, we're talking about: setting cookies.
Show me cookie setting experts.
Please read before you post. I was talking about:
Nobody rants endlessly because the Urantia Foundation holds a copyright on the Urantia Book (another Third Testament of the Bible that came out in the early 1900's, in case you're not keeping up.)
If it came out in the early 1900s, hasn't the copyright expired?