The hijackers were Saudis - we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan.
That's only part of the story. If you look at Sept. 11 it was conceived in Afghanistan, it was planned in Germany, it was funded in Dubai, it was executed in America and they used Saudis.
15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, and of those, 10 were persona non-grata in the Kingdom.
Say whatever you want about whatever else, but you make it sound like the hijackers were working on orders from the Saudi kingdom. They were following orders from an expelled citizen. They were largely already known to be criminals in the kingdom, and had all expatriated.
There is a difference between "copying" and "mimicking" in the sense we are talking about. These people aren't claiming to be Charlie Parker, or attempting to replace him by cloning his music note for note.
Of course a person couldn't copy a Picasso exactly, but in our digital world, they can clearly take something like "Confessions of Teenage Drama" queen and copy exactly precisely in a manner such that you can't tell one from the next.
If copyright lasted 14 or 28 years I'd be happy. That's what copyrights were until the latter half of the 20th century.
Ditto. But your argument has nothing to do with anything.
People aren't widescale copying Charlie Parker's recorded works. People are widescale copying yesterday's episode of Apprentice. That has nothing to do with who owns it, or whatever.
What you are talking about is building from someone's else work, which is entirely legal and very heavily done. That's fine. Ideas and "works" are not the same thing, and I suspect you know it. We aren't talking about ideas, themes, styles, or movements. We are talking about wholesale, widespread, automated, mindless total infringement.
I agree copyrights are too long, but I defy you to find me an MPAA or RIAA lawsuit suing someone for copying something 15 or 29 years old. It just doesn't happen. People are copying stuff that is to be released in the future, or stuff a few years old or less.
The TCP stacks are the same. And FYI, the stack was completely rewritten after the initial version that was released almost unmodified from BSD. Since NT4 its been all MS code for the stack.
On the non-server versions though, it is #1, rate limited and #2 connection limited for incoming traffic.
False. We are not the only species which can think, almost all complex lifeforms can and are therefore capable of questioning their own existance. Hell we aren't even the most intelligent species we are aware of. The only thing unique to humans that I am aware of is our combination of traits and that we are manually capable.
I did not claim we were exclusive thinkers. It does not follow that complex thought proves questioniong of existance. There is no proof of any other species pondering the "larger" macro-special questions. There is no proof, for example, that any other specifies has any type of intergenerational or multigenerational large scale planning - ie, preparing something bigger than now needed knowing that in the future generations it will be useful.
We are, in fact, by far the most intelligent species known to man. In terms of cognitive ability, in terms of brain capacity, in terms of problem solving skills and talent, ability to trained, ability for language, ability for critical thinking, in terms of manual dexterity. By far, without question, humans are the most advanced and intelligent species on the earth.
Humans are the "general purpose machines" of Earth - not specifically excelling ant any task - we aren't the fast, nor the strongest, nor the longest lived, nor the tallest nor the most studly built, etc. However, we as humans are the most advanced at the most number of things.
There really is no scientific basis for suggesting that we are anything but the most intelligent species on Earth.
Odd that you choose that one item to comment on, out of that whole post. You are really not faring well against me today.
Wht other unsubstantited claim will you try to pass off today?
No, no institute which recieves federal funding FOR ANYTHING can conduct such research. There are not many research facilities that aren't recieving federal funding for at least ONE project. This is effectively a ban.
That's and out and out lie.
Fact: Virtually all embryonic stem research going on in the country currently operates in partically federally funded scenarios. There is no "effective ban".
Fact: The Bush administration is the only administration to fund any embryonic stem cell research. Period.
As far as the rest of your post, you are using classic red herrings which is not surprising.
Scientifically the cells are alive before they ever join to become a fertilized egg. Scientifically each of the millions of skin cells each of us has die everyday are life. We kill living cells when we mow our lawns or take anti-biotics.
Yes, however, none of those killed cells are capable of developing into a fully seperate heathly human life. They are *part* of our body, but they are not *our entire body*. Embryo's are entirely capable of developing into fully heathly living beings, while skin cells, liver cells, and blood cannot.
Scientifically moral and ethical issues do not exist, it is people who create these artifical constructs. Humans attribute a uniqueness or addional value to their own lifeform.
Yes, of course they. We are the only species who can question our own existenance. Provably, we are a unique lifeform within our realm of knowledge. It is at least reasonable to *think* and *question* what makes us unique, and whether that is worth protecting.
It is called birth. Of course if something is raised entirely artifically (which we can't do now with humans) we can roughly call it at a full development term (9months for humans).
Finally, this is extremely poor reasoning. A baby child can live without life support outside the womb well before 9 months. It depends on the baby, but some premature babies have survived as early as 30 weeks (7 1/2 months) and others with life support as early as 26 weeks (6 1/2 months). Scientifically, there is no difference between a baby that is two days from delivery from one that is two days past delivery. As a lifeform, each is equally developed. Science coldly is incapable of handling the emotional difference between the unborn and born.
I am not arguing one or another, but you are clearly distoring the facts and ignoring complex non-religious facts that science is incapable of addressing.
Iraq invading Kuwait had *nothing* to do with ancient ties, or ancient fueds, or any of that.
Those lines are simple sophistry and revisionism.
Fact #1. Pre-Invasion, Iraq was $13-14B in debt to Kuwait.
Fact #2. Pre-Invasion, Iraq was heavily in debt to other OPEC nations, including Saudia Arabia.
Fact #3. Iraq wanted to pay off its debt by raising oil prices through OPEC. Kuwait thwarted this attempt, and fought for increaed production and thus lower prices.
Fact #4. Most of Iraqs useful ports had been damaged or destroyed during the Iran-Iraq war. Much of Iraq's ability to ship oil was reduced. Kuwait held valuable undamaged ports away from hostile Iran along the valuable Persian Gulf coast.
Fact #5. Hussein publically called his move an attempt to re-assembly the Bablyonian empire. It was imperialism by his own definition.
Regardless of what you think about anything else, the Kuwait invasion was not justified in any sense whatsoever. It also appears likely now that Hussein was high on narcotics during the run up to the invasion of Kuwait.
Regarding your claim about the US killing more Iraqis than Hussein, it's virtually utter tripe.
For one thing, his pure neglect of his people in the fact of vast wealth is astounding. Beyond that though, his virtual single-handed instigation of the Iran-Iraq war cost no less than 1.5 million lives directly and perhaps millions more indirectly.
The nature of ideas that they are not physical and once the idea spreads to other minds you cannot take it back
That is not the nature of works of art however. They are works. You can show them to others or not, at your discretion, and that's the whole idea. If you charged a person to see your work of art and then that person dutifully copied it to the last stroke of a brush, then we are all harmed in the long-run, because that creative person no longer has control of his work and he has very much less incentive to produce new creative works. Especially if the person who first paid goes and gives away copies of that painting for everyone to have on their mantlepiece. Now, all we have is copies of *one* piece of artwork, a person who copies for a living, and one less creative person interested in being creative. Now, next time the creative person decides to be creative, he or she is going to be onerus to protect his or work from copiers. He may search you. He may require you to only view the art in one room for one period of time.
Copyright, fundamentall is good.
As I said, copyright may have implementation flaws.
For one, copyright owners do not want to have complete control over thoughts or any of that BS you just made up. When they try to go to far, they get slappd down. Again and again. So don't overdo your attempts on that argument.
Second, the creator selling his copyright changes nothing. Its the concept of authorized representative. An individual artist cannot protect his work effectively. That's the point of the MPAA. To pool resources. It's not the problem.
Third, copyright, is in my view, too long. However, that's irrelevant. People are not out there copying only stuff that's 20 years old. They are copying stuff that hasn't even been released yet. It's not an issue of copyright age or length, or even scope. People are blantly taking stuff that isn't even done being made yet, and trading copies of it, in an attempt to have something without paying for it.
It's not theft, but let's be clear. It's not ethical.
True, but it is under (anti-trust) obligation to not exclude a person running an emulator from getting updates to their MS software (like office), even it that obligation hasn't been court tested, yet.
I haven't seen that claimed anywhere with some evidence. Can you cite this with any backup, or a portion of the decree that called for this?
MS says that someone running an emulator can get the updates somewhere else, but it is still a practical exclusion.
There is a differnce between being pratically excluded and jumping through a hoop. Browsing to a website, selecting a link, and downloading the file is not an exclusion in any sense of the word. That is *the industry standard* for downloading software updates. How many Linux products are updated this way? Mac products? Dozens or thousands. Most patches are distributed this way. A much smaller percentage do something like Office Update. Much smaller. It is a value-added way to update.
Why should that be illegal?
The fundamental theory in play is that, as people, we have the right to control the product of our work and intellectual exertion. If I create something, then, because I created it, it is my right to decide what to do with that thing. I can sell it to my employer in the form of wages, I can give it away as a street performer, I can sell it on eBay to the highest bidder, or I can lock it up in my basement and never let it see the light of day. It's the concept that the creators of capital shall have control of that capital.
What are you suggesting is that the creator of capital should not have control of the capital, so long as the creator doesn't require absolute control over the thing, other people can use that capital however they want, without restriction. This is a perspective that has been tossed about.
So the question comes down to this. What are we trying to do, with copyright? We are trying to promote the arts. The fundamental issue is that people don't like to do something unless it benefits them. True, there is altruism, but altruism alone is not enough to inspire a continued effort that costs time and money.
Copyright, as a paradigm, is just fine. There is good balance between creator rights and societal improvement. Individuals
Maybe what you are trying to say is that the implementation of copyright has gone out of balance, to far into the realm creator rights. That's probably true in my view, and that's worth discussing.
Without copyright however, what you will find is not more downloading of data, but rather, less. All digital media will be locked up totally tight, and everything will phone home. Every bit, every file, every movie, every "DVD", everything. Right now, copyright is a guarantee. It is a guarantee that the creator has legal recourse against those who violate his/her wishes regarding the thing. Without that guarantee, the MPAA will simply require all DVD players to phone home, before playing every movie, to work. Everything will be like this. You'll probably have to sign a contract before buying a DVD or anything digital. And it'll be far, far worse than what we have now.
Copyright is more relevant than ever. Producing movies and music and books and whatnot are still vastly expensive. If there was no copyright, than quite literally, you'd stop getting expernsive movies, and start getting movies that filmed by one or two people. That may work for some people, but it would make a whole realm of music and movies unmakeable in a practical sense.
You should spend some time thinking about what you'll miss in a copyright free world. I know for one thing, my first act would be to setup a website that mirrors Slashdot, but without any advertising, and link all the comments and articles and users back to Slashdot. Go through in your mind what that would accomplish. I would be using *my* computer and *my* bandwidth to do something that doesn't cost them any money. It'd be alright in your view as expressed before, right? Well, then what. Slashdot would have to lock down the site. No access unless you are logged in. So I'd create a login. They'd ban me, I'd make a new one. Etc etc. The bottom line is that now, all of the sudden, you've gotta have a subscription just to read Slashdot, just to see the frontpage. It'd be like this - and worse - all over the landscape.
I was forced to telephone Microsoft for activation since the computer had not yet figured out networking before barking for activation
This doesnt' add up. You never are forced right away to activate. You have either 30 or 45 days to activate before you are forced to. Something here sound suspiciously wrong.
With the manager I typed in the valid and legal product key to generate an activation id. We did this twice, with the second time involving a complete cd restore.
Yeah, again, I am not calling you a liar, but are you sure you were on the phone with MS, and not the computer manufacturer? MS has written policy for its tech and activation people to never ever ask the customer to restore from disc. I've seen a copy of the training manual, it's highly emphasized.
The MS activation center manager informed me that the activation ID my machine was generating was invalid and referred me to technical support for which they required $35.
If you drop me an e-mail with your Case ID, I'll forward on to a contact at MS I can count on. This is definately improper on several levels. First, the policy is that activation issues are always free, period. Second, every copy of XP has two free support incidents included with it, even most OEMs copys.
I can tell you, from my experience, of activating ~1500 copies of XP by phone over the years, that MS never wants money to deal with activation, and that something in your post just doesn't add up. If you want to satisfy your curosity, drop me a line, this is an issue I am very interested in!
The point remains however that from MS's perspective they are built from the same source, with only config changes or minor source code changes to get the versions.
Before it was several code bases to support.
Now it's one code base, one driver model, one network stack, one browser, etc. Very much more unified.
MS has done a surpringly good job of maintaining compatibility and migrating people to an entirely new platform without people even knowing it.
The average time-to-replac a PC is about 3 years, but, that old PC doesn't go away, the kids or grandkids, or parents or whoever get it. That's why you see alot of 9x and ME machines still around. You dont just throw out that old PC - load it up with games and stick in the kids room.
This is very, very common. When that PC finally dies or gets to slow or old or whatever, then it gets tossed eventually.
I can tell of many a friend who bought XP and later reformatted back to 2K.
Sure, that's fine.
There are also lot of people running cracked copies of 2K who swear they will never "upgrade" to "XP". These are dead-enders who will eventually end up on Linux.
It will definitly raise the cost of reinstalling Windows
Not if done properly first of all. If the install is done by a tech shop then they will know that you can easily backup the activation file, and restore it after re-install, and have a nice clean system with no re-activation. The vast majority of tech shops probably already do this, all the ones I am familiar with do this already.
I just can't imagine that paying all these people to handle activations is worth the money. Especially when this punishes the customers, and does little to help track down the copiers.
I am sure it's well worth it. It establishes the idea of Windows Has Value in peoples mind, which is key to the long term MS strategy. You can't just copy it willy nilly, like other OS's they non-informed people view as "knock-offs".
Windows XP - especially with SP2 - is fairly resilient. Sometimes it is easier to revert to factory install - much it is rarely if ever truly *necessary*. Regardless, the average user will never face this. Even most users will never face it. And when they do, it'll be a minor inconvience, if any at all. For a good number of people they already have to call anyways, this isn't that big of a deal.
Umm.. I seriously doubt that. I urge you to try it sometime. It is very easy. Lookup the appropriate number from the activation wizard. I'd estimate, in my experience, I've activated 1500 copies XP by phone, and not once - never once - did it take more than 5 minutes flat.
Maybe they had an actual problem with the activation - aka messed with copy or maybe they were calling from a foreign country? I have no idea, but clearly, it's not typical from my experience.
I am saying on average people will use a machine, and when it stops working right either (1) buy a new one or (2) get a friend or geek to fix it. If they call support, they'll probably have it reset back to factory standards.
But yes, in general, the average user never re-installs Windows XP.
Yes, it is now theoretically possible, but hardly practical unless you go Apple or Pegasos etc.
It is entirely practical. Go online, look to any PC seller other than HP or Dell and you will find such hardware.
Disabling online MS-Windows Product Activation could be a real windfall for Linux service providers and distributors if they play their cards right.
No, not really. Most people don't care. It's a 2 minute phone. It only applies if you are *reinstalling*. It will really essentially never affect most users.
XP has a fantastic penetration rate for MS. There are very few users not in a corporate setting using Windows 2000. Most users before XP were on 98, 98SE, or ME. As those users replace their computers, they got a big dose of XP. The die hard Windows-fanboys upgraded legally or not - to XP a long time ago.
MS sells Windows by attrition - those PII and PIII boxes out there have been replaced by newer PCs running XP.
MS hasn't released much in the way of sales numbers, but XP is very well represented in the total slice of Windows users. I the most recent PDC (Professional Developer Conference), an MS VP of Sales suggested that XP was about 60% of all Windows users. XP or 2K represented almost 75% of all Windows users. That means that the really legacy products - 95, 98, and NT4 represent less than 1 in 4. That's a damn good rate for any business.
MS is rapidly consilidating its users on the same platform. Before XP, you had two entire different product lines. MS has finally merged them into one line, and the userbase is very happily consolidating.
Make no mistake, MS is generally very happy with XP adoption rates.
What the catcher is, you calling them to activate is technically a support call.
Not, that is blantantly untrue.
Product Activation is it's own group at Microsoft, seperately administered and staffed from all other units, including technical support. The call centers of PA are completely seperate from all other functions.
There is never, and has never been a charge associated with activation.
Additionally, Microsoft does not charge per minute technical support rates, and as far as I can tell, never has.
For desktop products, like Windows XP and Office for example, the fee is $0, $25, $245. Most are free, additional support - like programming a macro or something of that nature, costs $25. Dealing with server-technologies, company wide networking, or other business technologies generally cost $245. These fees are per incident, regardless of how long it takes or how many people you have to talk to. I worked with an MS support person once for 4 days, 9-5 pm, 8 hrs a day, to solve a critical problem with networking. Fee? $245.
I suggest you learn a little bit more about MS and thier support services before you go spouting off about what you remember.
Crooked, deceptive or not... Would you want your software uninstalled by other software that claimed yours was "Bad"?
I write software for a living, and sell it for a living, and support it, etc.
I am not the least bit worried about other people's software uninstalling mine.
Why?
Because, it's ultimately the end-users decision. The owner or owners of a PC get to decide what to do with it. Would I be pissed if a competitor was targetting my stuff and auto-breaking/disabling it? Yes. Are there legal remedies available to me? You bet.
I am I pissed if an end-user decides to install some software that decides my software is bad? NO, not at all. Why is it bad? For disk space reasons, performance, or some bogus false-flag? What can I do to make my software better, that's what I am interested in.
Citizens have final total dominion over their private property, and that's how it should be. If someone wants to install something that breaks one of "my" products, well then, too bad for me.
I've read the Campbell report in detail previously. It is based on data from the mid-1990's regarding exploration and usuable oil. We have not peaked for world oil production in 1999, since each year since 2000 has seen increased production over 1999. Why exclude OPEC?
Bush was incapable of planning 18 months ahead, and yet, somehow, he is masterminding a 10 year plan?
Well, then, I have no problem with your post. I think history will show that Bush had no ulterior motives for war with Iraq. He's just a simple man, who believes his own lines. He's not deep for me to subscribe ulterior motives to.
Slashdot Mirror
The hijackers were Saudis - we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan.
That's only part of the story. If you look at Sept. 11 it was conceived in Afghanistan, it was planned in Germany, it was funded in Dubai, it was executed in America and they used Saudis.
15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, and of those, 10 were persona non-grata in the Kingdom.
Say whatever you want about whatever else, but you make it sound like the hijackers were working on orders from the Saudi kingdom. They were following orders from an expelled citizen. They were largely already known to be criminals in the kingdom, and had all expatriated.
There is a difference between "copying" and "mimicking" in the sense we are talking about. These people aren't claiming to be Charlie Parker, or attempting to replace him by cloning his music note for note.
Of course a person couldn't copy a Picasso exactly, but in our digital world, they can clearly take something like "Confessions of Teenage Drama" queen and copy exactly precisely in a manner such that you can't tell one from the next.
If copyright lasted 14 or 28 years I'd be happy. That's what copyrights were until the latter half of the 20th century.
Ditto. But your argument has nothing to do with anything.
People aren't widescale copying Charlie Parker's recorded works. People are widescale copying yesterday's episode of Apprentice. That has nothing to do with who owns it, or whatever.
What you are talking about is building from someone's else work, which is entirely legal and very heavily done. That's fine. Ideas and "works" are not the same thing, and I suspect you know it. We aren't talking about ideas, themes, styles, or movements. We are talking about wholesale, widespread, automated, mindless total infringement.
I agree copyrights are too long, but I defy you to find me an MPAA or RIAA lawsuit suing someone for copying something 15 or 29 years old. It just doesn't happen. People are copying stuff that is to be released in the future, or stuff a few years old or less.
That's untrue, actually.
The TCP stacks are the same. And FYI, the stack was completely rewritten after the initial version that was released almost unmodified from BSD. Since NT4 its been all MS code for the stack.
On the non-server versions though, it is #1, rate limited and #2 connection limited for incoming traffic.
However, it is still one fundamental code base.
False. We are not the only species which can think, almost all complex lifeforms can and are therefore capable of questioning their own existance. Hell we aren't even the most intelligent species we are aware of. The only thing unique to humans that I am aware of is our combination of traits and that we are manually capable.
I did not claim we were exclusive thinkers. It does not follow that complex thought proves questioniong of existance. There is no proof of any other species pondering the "larger" macro-special questions. There is no proof, for example, that any other specifies has any type of intergenerational or multigenerational large scale planning - ie, preparing something bigger than now needed knowing that in the future generations it will be useful.
We are, in fact, by far the most intelligent species known to man. In terms of cognitive ability, in terms of brain capacity, in terms of problem solving skills and talent, ability to trained, ability for language, ability for critical thinking, in terms of manual dexterity. By far, without question, humans are the most advanced and intelligent species on the earth.
Humans are the "general purpose machines" of Earth - not specifically excelling ant any task - we aren't the fast, nor the strongest, nor the longest lived, nor the tallest nor the most studly built, etc. However, we as humans are the most advanced at the most number of things.
There really is no scientific basis for suggesting that we are anything but the most intelligent species on Earth.
Odd that you choose that one item to comment on, out of that whole post. You are really not faring well against me today.
Wht other unsubstantited claim will you try to pass off today?
No, no institute which recieves federal funding FOR ANYTHING can conduct such research. There are not many research facilities that aren't recieving federal funding for at least ONE project. This is effectively a ban.
That's and out and out lie.
Fact: Researchers at mixed funding facilities only have to properly account for federal funds according to normal guidelines. There is no extra baggage at all. Here is a link for you to read, from the NIH, who is responsible for this policy.
Fact: Virtually all embryonic stem research going on in the country currently operates in partically federally funded scenarios. There is no "effective ban".
Fact: The Bush administration is the only administration to fund any embryonic stem cell research. Period.
As far as the rest of your post, you are using classic red herrings which is not surprising.
Scientifically the cells are alive before they ever join to become a fertilized egg. Scientifically each of the millions of skin cells each of us has die everyday are life. We kill living cells when we mow our lawns or take anti-biotics.
Yes, however, none of those killed cells are capable of developing into a fully seperate heathly human life. They are *part* of our body, but they are not *our entire body*. Embryo's are entirely capable of developing into fully heathly living beings, while skin cells, liver cells, and blood cannot.
Scientifically moral and ethical issues do not exist, it is people who create these artifical constructs. Humans attribute a uniqueness or addional value to their own lifeform.
Yes, of course they. We are the only species who can question our own existenance. Provably, we are a unique lifeform within our realm of knowledge. It is at least reasonable to *think* and *question* what makes us unique, and whether that is worth protecting.
It is called birth. Of course if something is raised entirely artifically (which we can't do now with humans) we can roughly call it at a full development term (9months for humans).
Finally, this is extremely poor reasoning. A baby child can live without life support outside the womb well before 9 months. It depends on the baby, but some premature babies have survived as early as 30 weeks (7 1/2 months) and others with life support as early as 26 weeks (6 1/2 months). Scientifically, there is no difference between a baby that is two days from delivery from one that is two days past delivery. As a lifeform, each is equally developed. Science coldly is incapable of handling the emotional difference between the unborn and born.
I am not arguing one or another, but you are clearly distoring the facts and ignoring complex non-religious facts that science is incapable of addressing.
Iraq invading Kuwait had *nothing* to do with ancient ties, or ancient fueds, or any of that.
Those lines are simple sophistry and revisionism.
Fact #1. Pre-Invasion, Iraq was $13-14B in debt to Kuwait.
Fact #2. Pre-Invasion, Iraq was heavily in debt to other OPEC nations, including Saudia Arabia.
Fact #3. Iraq wanted to pay off its debt by raising oil prices through OPEC. Kuwait thwarted this attempt, and fought for increaed production and thus lower prices.
Fact #4. Most of Iraqs useful ports had been damaged or destroyed during the Iran-Iraq war. Much of Iraq's ability to ship oil was reduced. Kuwait held valuable undamaged ports away from hostile Iran along the valuable Persian Gulf coast.
Fact #5. Hussein publically called his move an attempt to re-assembly the Bablyonian empire. It was imperialism by his own definition.
Regardless of what you think about anything else, the Kuwait invasion was not justified in any sense whatsoever. It also appears likely now that Hussein was high on narcotics during the run up to the invasion of Kuwait.
Regarding your claim about the US killing more Iraqis than Hussein, it's virtually utter tripe.
For one thing, his pure neglect of his people in the fact of vast wealth is astounding. Beyond that though, his virtual single-handed instigation of the Iran-Iraq war cost no less than 1.5 million lives directly and perhaps millions more indirectly.
as far as I know, such research cannot be done in ANY FACILITY THAT RECEIVES FEDERAL FUNDING at all whatsoever.
Did you spend any time thinking about what you were saying before you made that up out of the thinnest air?
Where exactly did you hear that from? Did you synthesize it from nothing or does it have some basis in reality?
1500 * 5 minutes > 100 hours. I hope you or your company billed them for this time.
Billed the customer, absolutely.
The nature of ideas that they are not physical and once the idea spreads to other minds you cannot take it back
That is not the nature of works of art however. They are works. You can show them to others or not, at your discretion, and that's the whole idea. If you charged a person to see your work of art and then that person dutifully copied it to the last stroke of a brush, then we are all harmed in the long-run, because that creative person no longer has control of his work and he has very much less incentive to produce new creative works. Especially if the person who first paid goes and gives away copies of that painting for everyone to have on their mantlepiece. Now, all we have is copies of *one* piece of artwork, a person who copies for a living, and one less creative person interested in being creative. Now, next time the creative person decides to be creative, he or she is going to be onerus to protect his or work from copiers. He may search you. He may require you to only view the art in one room for one period of time.
Copyright, fundamentall is good.
As I said, copyright may have implementation flaws.
For one, copyright owners do not want to have complete control over thoughts or any of that BS you just made up. When they try to go to far, they get slappd down. Again and again. So don't overdo your attempts on that argument.
Second, the creator selling his copyright changes nothing. Its the concept of authorized representative. An individual artist cannot protect his work effectively. That's the point of the MPAA. To pool resources. It's not the problem.
Third, copyright, is in my view, too long. However, that's irrelevant. People are not out there copying only stuff that's 20 years old. They are copying stuff that hasn't even been released yet. It's not an issue of copyright age or length, or even scope. People are blantly taking stuff that isn't even done being made yet, and trading copies of it, in an attempt to have something without paying for it.
It's not theft, but let's be clear. It's not ethical.
True, but it is under (anti-trust) obligation to not exclude a person running an emulator from getting updates to their MS software (like office), even it that obligation hasn't been court tested, yet.
I haven't seen that claimed anywhere with some evidence. Can you cite this with any backup, or a portion of the decree that called for this?
MS says that someone running an emulator can get the updates somewhere else, but it is still a practical exclusion.
There is a differnce between being pratically excluded and jumping through a hoop. Browsing to a website, selecting a link, and downloading the file is not an exclusion in any sense of the word. That is *the industry standard* for downloading software updates. How many Linux products are updated this way? Mac products? Dozens or thousands. Most patches are distributed this way. A much smaller percentage do something like Office Update. Much smaller. It is a value-added way to update.
Why should that be illegal?
The fundamental theory in play is that, as people, we have the right to control the product of our work and intellectual exertion. If I create something, then, because I created it, it is my right to decide what to do with that thing. I can sell it to my employer in the form of wages, I can give it away as a street performer, I can sell it on eBay to the highest bidder, or I can lock it up in my basement and never let it see the light of day. It's the concept that the creators of capital shall have control of that capital.
What are you suggesting is that the creator of capital should not have control of the capital, so long as the creator doesn't require absolute control over the thing, other people can use that capital however they want, without restriction. This is a perspective that has been tossed about.
So the question comes down to this. What are we trying to do, with copyright? We are trying to promote the arts. The fundamental issue is that people don't like to do something unless it benefits them. True, there is altruism, but altruism alone is not enough to inspire a continued effort that costs time and money.
Copyright, as a paradigm, is just fine. There is good balance between creator rights and societal improvement. Individuals
Maybe what you are trying to say is that the implementation of copyright has gone out of balance, to far into the realm creator rights. That's probably true in my view, and that's worth discussing.
Without copyright however, what you will find is not more downloading of data, but rather, less. All digital media will be locked up totally tight, and everything will phone home. Every bit, every file, every movie, every "DVD", everything. Right now, copyright is a guarantee. It is a guarantee that the creator has legal recourse against those who violate his/her wishes regarding the thing. Without that guarantee, the MPAA will simply require all DVD players to phone home, before playing every movie, to work. Everything will be like this. You'll probably have to sign a contract before buying a DVD or anything digital. And it'll be far, far worse than what we have now.
Copyright is more relevant than ever. Producing movies and music and books and whatnot are still vastly expensive. If there was no copyright, than quite literally, you'd stop getting expernsive movies, and start getting movies that filmed by one or two people. That may work for some people, but it would make a whole realm of music and movies unmakeable in a practical sense.
You should spend some time thinking about what you'll miss in a copyright free world. I know for one thing, my first act would be to setup a website that mirrors Slashdot, but without any advertising, and link all the comments and articles and users back to Slashdot. Go through in your mind what that would accomplish. I would be using *my* computer and *my* bandwidth to do something that doesn't cost them any money. It'd be alright in your view as expressed before, right? Well, then what. Slashdot would have to lock down the site. No access unless you are logged in. So I'd create a login. They'd ban me, I'd make a new one. Etc etc. The bottom line is that now, all of the sudden, you've gotta have a subscription just to read Slashdot, just to see the frontpage. It'd be like this - and worse - all over the landscape.
You have several problems with your post.
I was forced to telephone Microsoft for activation since the computer had not yet figured out networking before barking for activation
This doesnt' add up. You never are forced right away to activate. You have either 30 or 45 days to activate before you are forced to. Something here sound suspiciously wrong.
With the manager I typed in the valid and legal product key to generate an activation id. We did this twice, with the second time involving a complete cd restore.
Yeah, again, I am not calling you a liar, but are you sure you were on the phone with MS, and not the computer manufacturer? MS has written policy for its tech and activation people to never ever ask the customer to restore from disc. I've seen a copy of the training manual, it's highly emphasized.
The MS activation center manager informed me that the activation ID my machine was generating was invalid and referred me to technical support for which they required $35.
If you drop me an e-mail with your Case ID, I'll forward on to a contact at MS I can count on. This is definately improper on several levels. First, the policy is that activation issues are always free, period. Second, every copy of XP has two free support incidents included with it, even most OEMs copys.
I can tell you, from my experience, of activating ~1500 copies of XP by phone over the years, that MS never wants money to deal with activation, and that something in your post just doesn't add up. If you want to satisfy your curosity, drop me a line, this is an issue I am very interested in!
Yes, it is a toll free call if you call from just about anywhere in North America.
The point remains however that from MS's perspective they are built from the same source, with only config changes or minor source code changes to get the versions.
Before it was several code bases to support.
Now it's one code base, one driver model, one network stack, one browser, etc. Very much more unified.
MS has done a surpringly good job of maintaining compatibility and migrating people to an entirely new platform without people even knowing it.
Right, one line. XP in all flavors.
The average time-to-replac a PC is about 3 years, but, that old PC doesn't go away, the kids or grandkids, or parents or whoever get it. That's why you see alot of 9x and ME machines still around. You dont just throw out that old PC - load it up with games and stick in the kids room.
This is very, very common. When that PC finally dies or gets to slow or old or whatever, then it gets tossed eventually.
I can tell of many a friend who bought XP and later reformatted back to 2K.
Sure, that's fine.
There are also lot of people running cracked copies of 2K who swear they will never "upgrade" to "XP". These are dead-enders who will eventually end up on Linux.
It will definitly raise the cost of reinstalling Windows
Not if done properly first of all. If the install is done by a tech shop then they will know that you can easily backup the activation file, and restore it after re-install, and have a nice clean system with no re-activation. The vast majority of tech shops probably already do this, all the ones I am familiar with do this already.
I just can't imagine that paying all these people to handle activations is worth the money. Especially when this punishes the customers, and does little to help track down the copiers.
I am sure it's well worth it. It establishes the idea of Windows Has Value in peoples mind, which is key to the long term MS strategy. You can't just copy it willy nilly, like other OS's they non-informed people view as "knock-offs".
Windows XP - especially with SP2 - is fairly resilient. Sometimes it is easier to revert to factory install - much it is rarely if ever truly *necessary*. Regardless, the average user will never face this. Even most users will never face it. And when they do, it'll be a minor inconvience, if any at all. For a good number of people they already have to call anyways, this isn't that big of a deal.
Umm.. I seriously doubt that. I urge you to try it sometime. It is very easy. Lookup the appropriate number from the activation wizard. I'd estimate, in my experience, I've activated 1500 copies XP by phone, and not once - never once - did it take more than 5 minutes flat.
Maybe they had an actual problem with the activation - aka messed with copy or maybe they were calling from a foreign country? I have no idea, but clearly, it's not typical from my experience.
I am saying on average people will use a machine, and when it stops working right either (1) buy a new one or (2) get a friend or geek to fix it. If they call support, they'll probably have it reset back to factory standards.
But yes, in general, the average user never re-installs Windows XP.
If you use the same machine, you do not have re-activate.
Here you go with a link.
Also, a 2 minute phone call is not insult to injury. It's a phone call. Of approximately 120 seconds in length. Maybe 3 minutes.
Yes, it is now theoretically possible, but hardly practical unless you go Apple or Pegasos etc.
It is entirely practical. Go online, look to any PC seller other than HP or Dell and you will find such hardware.
Disabling online MS-Windows Product Activation could be a real windfall for Linux service providers and distributors if they play their cards right.
No, not really. Most people don't care. It's a 2 minute phone. It only applies if you are *reinstalling*. It will really essentially never affect most users.
This is, in reality, a total non-issue.
Actually, you are really, really, really wrong.
XP has a fantastic penetration rate for MS. There are very few users not in a corporate setting using Windows 2000. Most users before XP were on 98, 98SE, or ME. As those users replace their computers, they got a big dose of XP. The die hard Windows-fanboys upgraded legally or not - to XP a long time ago.
MS sells Windows by attrition - those PII and PIII boxes out there have been replaced by newer PCs running XP.
MS hasn't released much in the way of sales numbers, but XP is very well represented in the total slice of Windows users. I the most recent PDC (Professional Developer Conference), an MS VP of Sales suggested that XP was about 60% of all Windows users. XP or 2K represented almost 75% of all Windows users. That means that the really legacy products - 95, 98, and NT4 represent less than 1 in 4. That's a damn good rate for any business.
MS is rapidly consilidating its users on the same platform. Before XP, you had two entire different product lines. MS has finally merged them into one line, and the userbase is very happily consolidating.
Make no mistake, MS is generally very happy with XP adoption rates.
What the catcher is, you calling them to activate is technically a support call.
e n-us&x=12&y=15&c1=509&prid=3518&gprid=185522
Not, that is blantantly untrue.
Product Activation is it's own group at Microsoft, seperately administered and staffed from all other units, including technical support. The call centers of PA are completely seperate from all other functions.
There is never, and has never been a charge associated with activation.
Additionally, Microsoft does not charge per minute technical support rates, and as far as I can tell, never has.
For desktop products, like Windows XP and Office for example, the fee is $0, $25, $245. Most are free, additional support - like programming a macro or something of that nature, costs $25. Dealing with server-technologies, company wide networking, or other business technologies generally cost $245. These fees are per incident, regardless of how long it takes or how many people you have to talk to. I worked with an MS support person once for 4 days, 9-5 pm, 8 hrs a day, to solve a critical problem with networking. Fee? $245.
I suggest you learn a little bit more about MS and thier support services before you go spouting off about what you remember.
Here are some links:
http://support.microsoft.com/oas/default.aspx?ln=
Crooked, deceptive or not... Would you want your software uninstalled by other software that claimed yours was "Bad"?
I write software for a living, and sell it for a living, and support it, etc.
I am not the least bit worried about other people's software uninstalling mine.
Why?
Because, it's ultimately the end-users decision. The owner or owners of a PC get to decide what to do with it. Would I be pissed if a competitor was targetting my stuff and auto-breaking/disabling it? Yes. Are there legal remedies available to me? You bet.
I am I pissed if an end-user decides to install some software that decides my software is bad? NO, not at all. Why is it bad? For disk space reasons, performance, or some bogus false-flag? What can I do to make my software better, that's what I am interested in.
Citizens have final total dominion over their private property, and that's how it should be. If someone wants to install something that breaks one of "my" products, well then, too bad for me.
I've read the Campbell report in detail previously. It is based on data from the mid-1990's regarding exploration and usuable oil. We have not peaked for world oil production in 1999, since each year since 2000 has seen increased production over 1999. Why exclude OPEC?
Bush was incapable of planning 18 months ahead, and yet, somehow, he is masterminding a 10 year plan?
Absurd.
Well, then, I have no problem with your post. I think history will show that Bush had no ulterior motives for war with Iraq. He's just a simple man, who believes his own lines. He's not deep for me to subscribe ulterior motives to.