Also: you can customize your copy by laying down selected tracks in any sequence, or you can only copy a couple of tracks for friends to encourage them to buy the rest of the CD.
I dislike telemarketer calls as much as the next guy, but is this something the govt. should really step into?/. is the place that seems to be a champion for freedoms except when it is one you don't like. I don't think this is a 1st amendment issue, but nonetheless it is limiting communication.
It's no different than limiting my ability to transmit over an FM frequency alloted to a commercial station. By the way, not all freedoms are equal. I value freedom from soliciting much higher than freedom to solicit. No one bans you from hanging a "No Soliciting" sign on your front gate. Why should your phone be any different?
Again, something about the govt. telling others who can and cannot call my phone doesn't sit well with me.
Actually, it's you telling others (solicitors) not to call you; the government merely facilitates and enforces your wish.
BTW, no one is forcing you to listen to a telemarket call. At any time you can hang up, or not even answer your phone to begin with.
But you can't prevent being interrupted, at least without blocking other callers. If given a choice between opting out of all telemarketing calls or taking a moment for each and every call to discern whether or not the caller is a telemarker, no one in his right mind would choose the latter.
Also, while resources are being they are not being wasted. The telemarketing company is paying someone to make that call to your phone number.
Yes, the best way to induce people to interrupt others and convince them to buy things they don't need is to pay them. The best way to keep people from doing this is to stop paying them.
This reeks of Seventies-style sensitivity training. So what happens when students create their mock album, and direct their energies toward exploiting P2P instead of resisting it? Would they get graded as fairly as students reaching the programmed conclusion that free downloads are works of the devil? I doubt it. A classroom may be a captive audience, but not passive one like the RIAA is banking on.
Actually, this may be exactly what the P2P movement needs: a thousand little focus groups developing, critiquing and refining ways bypass the RIAA through direct distribution. And they're the right age: only a few years away from forming their own bands (and, more importantly, their own labels). Before long, an artist affliated with the RIAA, no matter how talented, will be viewed with the same ambivalence we feel for the likes of Martin Heidegger or Leni Reifenstahl.
Most cab drivers play the radio for their pleasure, not the passenger's. I can't remember the last time a driver asked me what I'd like to hear; and their tastes always differ from mine. So we already know that they aren't "adding value" to their facilities.
Intellectual property is self-maximizing: if something can be charged for, it will be charged for; and property holders will always seek out more opportunities for extortion (e.g., Licensing 6).
What the media cartels are trying to do here is look for every venue where licensing could conceivably apply, regardless of how absurd. Cafés, I'm sure, will be next (Starbucks already licenses the tracks on their playlists, then redistribute/resell them as compilations; other coffeehouses subscribe to satellite radio. The way I see it, every place of business that plays something other than Muzak will be charged for the privilege of advertising the cartel's content.
I don't think Don understands that the Linux kernel is "dictated" by Linus Torvalds and Perl is "dictated" by Larry Wall, etc.
Those aren't UI standards, though. The main problem is that coding and UI design are orthogonal disciplines. A good programmer doesn't equal a good interface designer.
And the problem isn't particular to OSS. Most shareware is equally rough around the edges. OSS doesn't necessarily even mean "designed by committee"; it just means the code is available for use, inspection and redistribution by the commons. On the contrary, the very fact that Apple and MS have the resources to throw an entire corps of UI specialists (from QA testers to psychologists) to iron out usability issues demonstrates that committee is essential to interface development. OSS developers often simply have far fewer resources.
I know people argue that since nothing is "physically" stolen there's no harm.
Like RMS, we should actually be putting the shoe on the other foot. The harm comes from media cartels profiting inordinately on artificial scarcity, which is extortion. At least with art in the realm of physical property, e.g. a Van Gogh painting, there's a free market and room for price negotiation instead of the price fixing we see with the take-it-or-leave-it retail system.
If I create a piece of software or music and expect to be paid in return for allowing you to use it, what gives you the right to tell me "I don't agree with your licensing terms so I'll just rip it"... or "I can't afford it so I'll use it anyway without paying for it because you wouldn't have had my sale anyway"... or "it's not worth paying for so I'll just conveniently infringe on your copyright protections anyway"... or "if they made the price cheaper I'd buy it"... yeah, that's why people copy Windows ($199) and Office ($349-600) and copy and locate serial generators for WinZip ($29) as well... because ($29) is too expensive, huh?... "It's my PC so I should be able to rip your legally protected all I want"
The copyright protections you speak of, particularly the DMCA, were created and lobbied for by the rich, for the rich, not by and for the people. It doesn't take Larry Lessig to figure out that valuation based on imputed scarcity is a scam. Ordinary people see right through this crap, and won't ignore their instincts and common sense just because of some lobbied fiat.
Comparing Windows/Office with WinZip is disingenuous. They're two different orders of functionality, comparable only by the fact that they are both vastly overpriced (yes, at $29) for what they do.
I've met people who were going to go purchase a CD until someone else comes along and says "I'll make you a coyp of the MP3's" so they get that "copy" and don't purchase the CD because they already have it (and can burn it to a real CD if they choose).
I've seen people (usually me) who were going to purchase a CD right up until seeing the $17.95 sticker. Sorry, no sale. Of course, if these same people then buy it at a reasonable price (under $10 , used), the sale falls under the RIAA radar and feeds right into their "piracy" statistics.
I've also met people who were about to go to the movie theatre to watch a movie (Episode I) and someone gives them a rip of a prerelease downloaded from the net and then in the end they didn't go to the theatre and instead watched it over and over again on the PC.
Frankly, I don't believe you. Not buying the DVD, sure, but missing the theatrical release of a Big Event? Can't give you the benefit of the doubt there.
The fact is, piracy does cost. And even if they didn't lose a sale because they wouldn't have the sale in the first place, it's still not your right (constitutionally or legally) to tell the copyright owner to go shove it.
Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the First Amendment.
The same atttitude you carry for the large copyright owners you'll pass on to the smaller independant or individual copyright holders, also. Because when you want to infringe for then you will and nothing will stop you and only your endless justifications will manipulate you into thinking you are Doing The Right Think (TM).
Even if your presumption weren't, well, presumptuous, it's wrong. The reason that independents subsist at all, in spite of the RIAA blockade against retail placement of non-RIAA CDs, is that people instictively know that the money is actually going to the artists, the overhead, and a non-obscene profit margin -- and are buying their CDs.
You make this arguement all you want. Until you actually want to make money off something you do you and only find everyone takes it in a free for all, you'll never understand and will always make your excuses.
News flash: for every Elvis Costello, there are 10 Courtney Loves; for every Lars Ulrich, their are 10 Chuck D's. I'm a web designer and like getting paid for what I do, but if someone want to View Source on my pages, godspeed. That's how I learned. I want to get paid for my work, not for reselling its artifacts.
To set the record straight, I'm against DRM. I'm against stupid legislation. I'm against the ever expanding rights of large monolithic corporations and decreasing concern from the consumer. I'm not an affiliate of anything supporting thier cause.
No, just an incredible simulation;)
But I'm sick of all the lies and excuses of the people who deliberately infringe and act like there's nothing wrong. If it was meant for you to use for free they would have provided it that way.
And if it was meant to sell, it would have been priced that way. Markets are conversations, not communiqués to the Great Unwashed. Our media cartels have laid the groundwork for the Great Refusal.
Of course, I agree, that to purchase the CD then have to pay to listen to it in a PC is nothing more than greedy, by ripping it isn't making a statement. It just feeds their agenda and gives them justification.
Why would I deny myself the ability to copy a CD on the fiat of IP Gestapos? You yourself imply that you don't agree with the point of the parent AC; I certaint don't agree -- especially if it's because someone else has the CD I paid for. Besides, someone else find your CD is just one contingency. Damaging CDs is a more likely.
It would be worse if you dropped your cd, didn't notice, and someone else picked it up and listened to it without paying the author their due royalties.
The author was paid "their" due royalties at the time of purchase, just like the jewlery company already made its money when someone stumbled on the diamond ring you dropped. Artists deserve to be paid once, not twice.
If this techology makes it into everyday homes, then he's changed the world, for the better.
Better for whom? This is yet another case of a solution looking for a problem through more consumption. Truly superior technology would reduce our material needs and wants, not increase them.
The Jones Residence is pretty boring: wall-recessed media and computerized home automation technologies were passé 20 years ago. General Electric used to showcase non-digital automation for the "Home of the Future" in the 1950s. Frankly, even His Billness' home is more appealing by geek standards.
Clearly you don't. Your handwringing relfects the mentality of a spousal abuser: "Yeah, I know I shouldn't beat my wife, but at least I feel like shit about it, so every now and then I might still get carried away."
Piracy is the Red Scare if the Information Age. If you really thought "pirating" MP3s was downloading Communism, and if you really thought it was wrong, you wouldn't do it.
The reason you do it is because your instincts haven't caught up with the propaganda of our media cartels. After all, if it were really stealing, would tens of millions of Americans openly download MP3s, burn overpriced (per FTC ruling) CDs for friends, and not think twice about it, even openly discussing it with their friends? When's the last time you heard someone openly discuss the last item he or she shoplifted in a store?
The sense of guilt doesn't carry over because people instinctively know that with CDs, like bottled water, they're paying for the media, not the content. They know without having to be told by the RIAA, and in spite of the RIAA, that digital content has no a priori value; and while some markup is permissible, $17.95 is a scandal. Or to put it another way:
I'll buy these songs if they release the single but I don't want an album of pricey crap because there's one song on it I like - I can't wait for services where a comprehensive list of songs can be bought at a reasonable price, individually.
While I agree that the government needs a certain level of transparency, I don't think that this transparency should filter down to every level of their orgainization. Does the public have a RIGHT to know the government's network infrastructure?
Certain types of information, witheld for purposes of national security, are what we call classified. Beyond that category, the answer is yes. Otherwise there's no accountability for state expenditures, which is precisely what happened in California with the Oracle debacle.
Does the public have a RIGHT to know what data is on every civil servant's hard drive? I think not.
You may think not, but try getting a job at the DOD and then try telling your boss that the data on your hard drive is sovereign. Your straw man argument aside, we're talking about the technology of the government's IT infrastructure, not its contents. The occasional pr0n on someone's PC is less obscene than its storage in vendor-controlled file formats.
Requiring complete transparency is not only highly impractical (think of the cost to the taxpayer)), but it is also unnecessary.
Being forced to upgrade software every two years to make the most of Microsoft's annuity licensing is practical? Paying arbitrary subscription fees every year is no cost to the taxpayer? Those upgrades (and the hardware need to support the bloatware) are necessary?
Within the bounds of law the government should be able to do what they need to do to get their job done.
That's the point of the proposed legislation: to set the bounds of the law. And your right: need should dictate state purchases, not frivolous spending on the most pervasively marketed products, which by nature tend to be sold well above any legitimate market value due to the artificial scarcity imposed on the customer. If the private sector if free to establish whatever policies it chooses for selling products and services, certainly the public sector should be free to set whatever policies it chooses for buying them.
If that means using Windows or Office or some other proprietary software so be it.
If a goverment agency needs compatibility with Windows or Office, it should contract developers to refine the filters for OpenOffice, improve the API compliance in Wine, or fund some similar free software project. This would be more responsible use of taxpayer funds than buying the same software every to years.
I'm with michael on this one. The state is accountable to the public, and should use that belongs to the public. Opaque, proprietary software cannot be reviewed by any citizen to guarantee security, robustness, or freedom from unrequested transmission of information to companies.
"Software Choice" is a campaign by the private sector to intervene in the internal procurement policies of the state via lobbying and propaganda. If proprietary software companies can create licenses which dictate the legal terms under which their products may or may not be sold and used, certainly the government should have the right to dictate the legal terms under which it will buy software.
IANAL, but I would assume that the government already has laws in place which would prevent certain frivolous purchases such as buying products or services obviously well above market value. Otherwise we could only hope that $600 hammers and toilets seats are anomalies. The same principle should apply to proprietary software, which by its nature tends to be priced well above its market value.
Where a mature free software solution is not available (arguably the case in RDBMS's), a staged migration path could be mandated, and the development could be contracted, sold once, and secure maintenance and support by the best bid. This is what Dr. Villanueva's bill has in mind. Selling software in widgets is an enormous waste of taxpayers' money, as in the Flordia DOT's purchase of M$' Licensing 6 contract.
Open file formats and protocols are not sufficient to avoid vendor lock-in. Without full access to the code (for use and modification, not just audit), the customer is put in the position to solve problems in current versions of software by purchasing upgrades -- at the customer's own expense.
No one is force to sell proprietary software. If a company wants to sell software to the government, it can sell a non-proprietary version that respects basic democratic principles, and hawk its privately-controlled wares to the private sector.
I would think that any changes the US Government (or its agencies) made to GPL code would have to fall into the Public Domain. By the same token, if the NSA were to make an UltraSecure Windows OS, then their modifications would not be assignable (as US Government works do not enjoy copyright protection) to Microsoft and would also fall into the Public Domain (just their diffs, not the whole work).
Only distributed GPL'ed works require redistribution of the modified source. The NSA or any other organization is free to modify the code without redistributing the source as long as it doesn't redistrubute the software to the public. For instance, a Hollywood postproduction house can soup up The Gimp, but if it were to resell it or even offer their version as a free download without including the complete source, that would be a GPL violation.
The GPL is actually a copyright that licenses software to the public, under its copyleft terms. Thus it's not public domain. The Linux kernel is the under the copyright of Linus, which is why the "Linux" trademark must be applied to all derivative works -- and why that can be enforced. If the NSA wants to make a super-secure version of Linux, it's under no obligation to release the code to the public unless it releases the binaries to the public. But the copyright would still be Linus', just as UltraSecure Windows would still fall under the copyright of Micros??t, even under its "Shared Source" strategems.
The license may be general, but the copyright is quite specific. That even goes for the BSD license, with its similar attribution clause.
You have part of the answer already, but there are at least two other motives.
First, there's the simple fact that IBM/GNU/Linux is legitimate competition. MS might not be losing money, but the mere existence of a free alternative as a bargaining chip is flattenting their growth potential. It's not every day that you see His Billness personally closing sales like he's doing in Peru.
The other factor is that for years Ballmer & Co. are always claiming that this year is full of unique challenges that spell gloom and doom for Microsoft. Then when they hit their usual 20% growth benchmark, they beat "industry" expectations, driving up the value of MS stock.
Apple MUST file patents for everything they can. And this is a GOOD THING.
I agree, as long as the PTO doesn't grant them.
Apple learned its lesson by having its competitive advantage taken away from it by Microsoft copying its technology. Apple was refuesed a patent for the Mac UI (and this is a LEGITIMATE PATENT CLAIM) and thus lost their ability to protect it when windows ripped it off.
Apple licensed Xerox's GUI technology after Steve saw the divine light at PARC. Prior art invalidated 90% of Apple's claims, but they did manage to restrict Microsoft some what. MS had to remove the Trash Can icon from Windows, which later re-emerged as the Recycle Bin. As has been pointed out innumerable times and been studiously ignored by revisionists, the real credit for the GUI goes to Alan Kay and Douglas Engelbardt. It's unfortunate that so many people choose to glorify Apple at the expense of two men that made such a priceless contribution to HCI research.
Now that the patent office is once again allowing patents for novel processes (the definition of what's patentable) apple should patent all of their novel processes.
Don't worry, they will -- just like Forgent, Rambus, Unisys and other gratuitous IP litigators.
Not being allowed to do so is what led to the Microsoft monopoly in the first place.
Tell that to Xerox. Besides, DOS was the de facto OS for x86, even at the height of the Macs popularity in the 1980s. It wasn't just that DOS/x86 was cheaper; it ran way faster. Apple just didn't offer a decent price/performance value proposition for office computing, except for desktop publishing.
The thing is, Apple, by nature is not a draconian company. All this fearmongering is silly.
You have the luxury of saying that because you probably weren't a licensee of their OS like Umax was. Umax was at least diversified enough to survive, unlike other Mac clone makers that were destroyed when Apple rescinded their license without warning. Or maybe you didn't have a Newton. Apple isn't perceived as draconian because they impact too few consumers to matter.
Only Apple could release the first commercial OS into Open Source, go to great lengths to support it, support it in competition with *itself* and be accused of not supporting open source by open source "advocates".
Taking an open source Mach kernel and adding a closed GUI, whatever aesthetic or technical merit that GUI might have, is nothing to claim as a victory for freedom. And you have it backwards: Apple didn't open source a commercial OS; they commercialized an open source OS.
XWindows runs fine under OSX. Apple has consistently gone to significant lengths to support the Darwin project--- hell the branch was created so that darwin can get "more wild" not so that Apple has more control. Sheesh, the point was to let darwin get more expirmental and go in directions that would undermine the stability of OS X, while still sharing code back and forth. This was a movement for MORE FREEDOM, not LESS.
As we all know by now, OS X = Aqua. Apple is happy to let the open source community hack Darwin to its heart's content, ignoring the proprietary UI. Or as Henry Ford would say, you can choose any color so long as it's black.
To quote from "The Patriot": "Your sense of freedom is as pale as your skin."
Never even use the Aqua UI if you don't want. Plus, on top of all that, you get to run it on those really cool, innovative Mac hardware- IF YOU WANT. If you don't want, run it on x86 Hardware.
Hmm. I don't want to run unfree software, which eliminates Aqua. I don't want to pay for "really cool" overpriced hardware, which eliminates G4s. That doesn't leave much of a value proposition for using Apple technologies, speaking from a vendor-independence perspective.
Supporting Darwin is supporting FREE SOFTWARE, to the detriment of Microsoft.
I'm sure Microsoft recoils in horror every time they sell another copy of MS Office on an ostensibly competing platform.
There is no such thing as an "Apple Tax"
If you believe that Apple hardware is priced at its true market value, then we'll just agree to disagree, but I would hope you'd be at least a little skeptical about having to pay full retail for an OS upgrade or having to pay $100 a year for a vanity email address.
Darwin is Open Source and so it could never be a "Tax" that you have to pay against your will. IF you want to buy apple software too, like the Aqua UI, or.Mac, then you can-- but you don't have too.
Let's be honest. Who the hell cares about Darwin? It's hardly at the cutting edge of BSD development. Read any rave about OS X, and invariably it dwells on Aqua.
It is disingenuous to compare this to a company that charges people for its software whether they want it, use it or buy it, or not. Apple only charges people who freely choose to buy its software. Calling it an "apple tax" only undermines your creditability.
You define free choice differently than the free software community. We can freely choose to pay Red Hat for their software, or simply download it for free, which compels them to add enough value to motivate us to opt for the purchase. Apple offers two choices: take it or leave it. We don't worry about our "credibility" with Apple users. At this point the shoe's on the other foot.
And the important point is that by charghing for their UI and their software, and by making hardware, Apple is able to fund desktop unix in a way that nobody has been able to for Linux.
Apple is funding Apple, taking a free kernel while giving back an unfree GUI to "desktop unix." Should we conclude that M$ is "funding" BSD by integrating its TCP/IP stack?
Therefore, if you really believe in choice and freedom, you MUST support Apple and Darwin. Doesn't mean you have to buy their software or hardware-- but opposing it is opposing freedom.
It would be in everyone's interest, especially Apple users', to campaign for Apple to free Aqua. The code for Aqua would have infinitely more impact than any amount of dollars to fund "desktop unix."
Apple is no longer a closed system. They have a proprietary GUI, true, but how is that different from a Linux distributor bundling in their proprietary software?
It's different in that Linux users typically ignore the proprietary software that comes with their distros, which is precisely why Caldera gets so much flack, or why pre-GPL KDE got flamed so hard.
Virtually every rave about OS X I've read comes down to the GUI, not the kernel. So if the one desirable element is unfree, its only benefit is to serve as an aesthetic touchstone for free software developers.
Also, I highly doubt anyone (not even Apple) intends for Apple to take over Microsoft's monopoly. Apple is meant to show you Linux types how to get to the desktop, and give you time to get there. As long as Apple+Linux+others gets over 50% of the desktop, and Microsoft gets a life, I will be happy.
Free software doesn't go away. As long as the source code is out there and people have an active interest in it, marketshare is an extraneous issue -- with or without Macs.
The "Microsoft Tax" refers to paying for Windows on a new PC that you want to run Linux on. Apple throws their OS on a new Mac for free. You pay for the hardware you get, and if you want to run Linux on it, Apple doesn't mind at all.
The only difference between the MS Tax and the Apple Tax is that with MS and its OEMs generate two seperate invoices, so there's no question of what's being subsidized. With Apple you're taking it on faith that the OS is free. Given that Apple's charging full price for OS X 10.2 to current OS X users, I seriously doubt that the OS is free. And if you're not paying for the OS, you're paying for.mac, etc.
If Microsoft has their way, you won't have the freedom to use or modify your software as you see fit.
True. Mac clone makers like Umax found out what a doomsday scenario that could be.
This isn't about commercialism, it is about keeping a company from becoming the absolute ruler of all computers.
It's about keeping any company from being the absolute ruler of your computer. Don't like WPA or DRM? Too bad. Don't like a company's outrageous upgrade pricing? Too bad. Such is the world of unfree software. At some point, Apple will have to mean more to the free software community than being "The Good Microsoft."
If Microsoft had their way, the GPL would be gone tomorrow. Get on the desktop, get in the trenches, and start fighting for your freedom now!
Relax. Microsoft doesn't have their way. Yes, they're a monopoly and a scourge, but there's only such much that even the biggest company on Earth can do. Sure, they can buy presidents, unleash the BSA, spread FUD, etc. -- but they can't take free code out of the commons. That's why I feel much safer using Linux than I ever would have using BeOS or OS/2. Use an OS whose fate is tied to any private entity, and you have only yourself to blame when you're on the receiving end of its demise or bonehead policies. So enjoy Aqua while Apple lets you.
I never understood why people are so obsessed with COLOR displays on their handhelds. Anyone who has owned a COLOR handheld knows that your Li-Ion or Ni-MH batteries (which are quite large) will be drained in about 3 hours.
I get 5-6 hours on my Prism, which goes back in its HotSynch cradle each night, so battery life is a non-issue. And don't give me any crap about "what if I go camping for four days?"
What's the benefit of COLOR anyways? You can view pictures in B&W and still understand fully what you are looking at.
This sounds like a diatribe again color media in general, rather than color PDAs in particular. Yes, you can fully understand what your looking at, but color's more enjoyable -- which is an important factor in a photo album, to name one example.
The only advantage of COLOR is the ability to watch videos.
You already alluded to another advantage, which was to look at pictures. People always love it when I show them my latest Eyemodule 2 pictures. The Prism also has adaptor modules for CompactFlash and SmartMedia, so you can take you digital "film" straight from your standalone digicam and pop it right into the Prism for instant gratification.
As far as videos, I can use the Eyemodule 2 for shooting Quicktime, which shoots 5-second lengths (1 mb) by default, but can also shoot to memory capacity. I've actually been surprised by how much I use the video feature. Last night I shot a jazz band playing (no sound) as a short loop, and the motion adds another dimension to still photo: you're capturing a reprentative behavior, so the loop's entirely adequate; you don't need long lengths of video in many cases.
Yes, it's largely a novelty, but a fun novelty. I also play games with the Prism. Can we still be friends?
In other words... COLOR on a handheld is just another of the bells and whistles. Just like MP3 players, you have such a small ammount of storage and short battery life, it's completely useless.
The main reason I upgraded to color is that the Prism, in conjuction with the Stowaway keyboard, is now my primary mobile writing instrument. I can now go a couple of weeks without ever turning on my laptop. When I'm out, most of the lighting conditions I'm in (cafés, for instance) are inadequate on mono PDAs -- at least, when looking at the screen for long intervals. And I don't want to use the backlight all the time. The best contrast on a monochrome handheld is no match for the worst true black-on-white text on a color handheld. Text on color screens is much, much more readable.
All the Windows CE and Palm handhelds are just toys. For people that really need a device which fits in your pocket, and still does everything your desktop can (short of watch videos) buy a Psion 5mx. Fully featured Word processor, agenda, database, spreadsheet, terminal, and tons of great freeware for astronomy, chemistry, xpdf, calculators, encryption, electronics and more.
You should get a job in marketing at Psion -- oh, that's right, they don't do marketing. Psion lets it customers do the legwork.
I have a word processor (WordSmith), spreadsheet (TinySheet) and database (HandDBase) on the Prism. There's terminal software available, as well as tons of freeware in all the categories you mentioned.
I would think the main objective in this mandate would be to maximize the "@aol.com" domain in all email correspondence. So wouldn't it be less painful and more efficient to just assign aol.com aliases to all employees and make that compulsory instead? Granted, it doesn't have the indoctrination value of having everyone use the same mail system, but at least it's a policy that can be deployed instantly with a miminum of backlash and dissent.
I went to Arcosanti about a year ago and had mixed feelings. I didn't dislike it, but I had logistical reservations which might account for the fact that the bulk of the project's construction was completed in the mid-seventies (orginally, Arcosanti was slated to house 5,000 residents on completion; the goal has been scaled to, IIRC, to 500; there are currently around 60 residents working and living full-time on the grounds).
Walking around the grounds was somewhat exhausting for a 30-year-old like myself; seniors have often complained about same thing. Because an arcology as Soleri defines it emphasizes vertical integration, Arcosanti employs more staircases than even most urban dwellers are used to. Elevators exist at Arcosanti, but the premium that's put on low energy consumption makes them few and far between. The exercise is heathly, but it's also uncomfortable, especially for visitors expecting Utopia. And Arcosanti's location, the desert, isn't attractive for a lot of people.
It was also difficult to envision any sort of economy of diversity. Being a centrally planned and deployed "city" (a misnomer, according to Soleri), it has all the drawbacks of socialism with none of its merits. Residents are required to develop and maintain (mostly construction work) the project 40 hours a week, and make minimum wage doing so (but the cost of living -- sans cars, shopping malls, rent, etc. -- is dramatically lower). Most of Arcosanti's funding comes from the Soleri bells residents and workshoppers make in the city's foundry, effectively making it a monoculture. And because Arcosanti is designed (and redesigned several times) as a complete, integrated structure, there's little or no space for the growth of commerce. I think that's by design rather than by accident, and Soleri would probably agree, but the lack of career prospects for many potential residents is too limited to make it an attractive proposition that can critical mass into the "urban effect" that Soleri hopes to acheive.
Having said that, I did still enjoy my tour of Arcosanti enough to consider taking a five-week workshop there later this year. By the way, Arcosanti's site appears to be having hosting issues at the moment, but when it's back online, check out the link for the Hyper Building: it's Soleri's commissioned proposal to the Japanese government, which definitely looks as though it inspired the Bionic Building.
Re:Ok, Dvorak is a spank but...
on
Calling Out TiVo
·
· Score: 1
Advertisements DO pay for network TV and subsidize even cable TV, at least for the channels that aren't full blown "premium" channels.
Advertising revenue pays and subsidizes network and cable TV. That's not a pedantic distinction. An advertiser pays so much money for so many seconds for so many projected viewers of a particular program. Once the spot is paid for and broadcast, the transaction's complete. The fact is, we have no idea is people are watching ads, with or without TiVo. Since TV demographics are based on random samples rather than networked feedback (without TiVo, at least), who's to say that people skipping commercials with TiVo exceed the number of viewers who go grab a Heineken during the commercial break? It's pure conjecture.
When these devices become commonplace and nobody is watching TV commercials, that IS a problem...The money is going to have to come from somewhere...If the dot-bomb economy proved anything its that advertisements that nobody pays attention to aren't going to pay the bills. So where does the money come from?
Take a step back and reexamine your presupposition: that a technology that allows viewers to skip commercials is actually exploited enough to impact advertising revenues. I'm not aware of any data to indicate that VCRs have impacted ad rates at all. And the dot-bombs only proved that banner ads won't float economies of scale. Once entrepreneurs grasp the elusive concept that cash in must exceed cash out, they might actually consider scaling up from more modest nucleus, like Slashdot did before Andover.
Will all TV channels be "premium" in the future? Will the networks mix the advertisements & the programming together (ie. even more gratituous product placements..say one every 1.5 minutes?)
Probably, but only to maximize profits, not for survival. Remember when the whole point of cable was that premium programming was commercial-free?
Its easy to dismiss Dvorak as a loon, but there are some tough economic/cultural questions that will need to be answered some day soon
Slashdot Mirror
Also: you can customize your copy by laying down selected tracks in any sequence, or you can only copy a couple of tracks for friends to encourage them to buy the rest of the CD.
Mod me up. First Python-is-better post . . .
I dislike telemarketer calls as much as the next guy, but is this something the govt. should really step into? /. is the place that seems to be a champion for freedoms except when it is one you don't like. I don't think this is a 1st amendment issue, but nonetheless it is limiting communication.
It's no different than limiting my ability to transmit over an FM frequency alloted to a commercial station. By the way, not all freedoms are equal. I value freedom from soliciting much higher than freedom to solicit. No one bans you from hanging a "No Soliciting" sign on your front gate. Why should your phone be any different?
Again, something about the govt. telling others who can and cannot call my phone doesn't sit well with me.
Actually, it's you telling others (solicitors) not to call you; the government merely facilitates and enforces your wish.
BTW, no one is forcing you to listen to a telemarket call. At any time you can hang up, or not even answer your phone to begin with.
But you can't prevent being interrupted, at least without blocking other callers. If given a choice between opting out of all telemarketing calls or taking a moment for each and every call to discern whether or not the caller is a telemarker, no one in his right mind would choose the latter.
Also, while resources are being they are not being wasted. The telemarketing company is paying someone to make that call to your phone number.
Yes, the best way to induce people to interrupt others and convince them to buy things they don't need is to pay them. The best way to keep people from doing this is to stop paying them.
This reeks of Seventies-style sensitivity training. So what happens when students create their mock album, and direct their energies toward exploiting P2P instead of resisting it? Would they get graded as fairly as students reaching the programmed conclusion that free downloads are works of the devil? I doubt it. A classroom may be a captive audience, but not passive one like the RIAA is banking on.
Actually, this may be exactly what the P2P movement needs: a thousand little focus groups developing, critiquing and refining ways bypass the RIAA through direct distribution. And they're the right age: only a few years away from forming their own bands (and, more importantly, their own labels). Before long, an artist affliated with the RIAA, no matter how talented, will be viewed with the same ambivalence we feel for the likes of Martin Heidegger or Leni Reifenstahl.
Most cab drivers play the radio for their pleasure, not the passenger's. I can't remember the last time a driver asked me what I'd like to hear; and their tastes always differ from mine. So we already know that they aren't "adding value" to their facilities.
Intellectual property is self-maximizing: if something can be charged for, it will be charged for; and property holders will always seek out more opportunities for extortion (e.g., Licensing 6).
What the media cartels are trying to do here is look for every venue where licensing could conceivably apply, regardless of how absurd. Cafés, I'm sure, will be next (Starbucks already licenses the tracks on their playlists, then redistribute/resell them as compilations; other coffeehouses subscribe to satellite radio. The way I see it, every place of business that plays something other than Muzak will be charged for the privilege of advertising the cartel's content.
From the Reg:
Windows 2000 servers are cheaper to run than Linux ones, sometimes, says an IDC study which was by strange coincidence sponsored by Microsoft.
'Nuff said
I don't think Don understands that the Linux kernel is "dictated" by Linus Torvalds and Perl is "dictated" by Larry Wall, etc.
Those aren't UI standards, though. The main problem is that coding and UI design are orthogonal disciplines. A good programmer doesn't equal a good interface designer.
And the problem isn't particular to OSS. Most shareware is equally rough around the edges. OSS doesn't necessarily even mean "designed by committee"; it just means the code is available for use, inspection and redistribution by the commons. On the contrary, the very fact that Apple and MS have the resources to throw an entire corps of UI specialists (from QA testers to psychologists) to iron out usability issues demonstrates that committee is essential to interface development. OSS developers often simply have far fewer resources.
I know people argue that since nothing is "physically" stolen there's no harm.
;)
Like RMS, we should actually be putting the shoe on the other foot. The harm comes from media cartels profiting inordinately on artificial scarcity, which is extortion. At least with art in the realm of physical property, e.g. a Van Gogh painting, there's a free market and room for price negotiation instead of the price fixing we see with the take-it-or-leave-it retail system.
If I create a piece of software or music and expect to be paid in return for allowing you to use it, what gives you the right to tell me "I don't agree with your licensing terms so I'll just rip it"... or "I can't afford it so I'll use it anyway without paying for it because you wouldn't have had my sale anyway"... or "it's not worth paying for so I'll just conveniently infringe on your copyright protections anyway"... or "if they made the price cheaper I'd buy it"... yeah, that's why people copy Windows ($199) and Office ($349-600) and copy and locate serial generators for WinZip ($29) as well... because ($29) is too expensive, huh?... "It's my PC so I should be able to rip your legally protected all I want"
The copyright protections you speak of, particularly the DMCA, were created and lobbied for by the rich, for the rich, not by and for the people. It doesn't take Larry Lessig to figure out that valuation based on imputed scarcity is a scam. Ordinary people see right through this crap, and won't ignore their instincts and common sense just because of some lobbied fiat.
Comparing Windows/Office with WinZip is disingenuous. They're two different orders of functionality, comparable only by the fact that they are both vastly overpriced (yes, at $29) for what they do.
I've met people who were going to go purchase a CD until someone else comes along and says "I'll make you a coyp of the MP3's" so they get that "copy" and don't purchase the CD because they already have it (and can burn it to a real CD if they choose).
I've seen people (usually me) who were going to purchase a CD right up until seeing the $17.95 sticker. Sorry, no sale. Of course, if these same people then buy it at a reasonable price (under $10 , used), the sale falls under the RIAA radar and feeds right into their "piracy" statistics.
I've also met people who were about to go to the movie theatre to watch a movie (Episode I) and someone gives them a rip of a prerelease downloaded from the net and then in the end they didn't go to the theatre and instead watched it over and over again on the PC.
Frankly, I don't believe you. Not buying the DVD, sure, but missing the theatrical release of a Big Event? Can't give you the benefit of the doubt there.
The fact is, piracy does cost. And even if they didn't lose a sale because they wouldn't have the sale in the first place, it's still not your right (constitutionally or legally) to tell the copyright owner to go shove it.
Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the First Amendment.
The same atttitude you carry for the large copyright owners you'll pass on to the smaller independant or individual copyright holders, also. Because when you want to infringe for then you will and nothing will stop you and only your endless justifications will manipulate you into thinking you are Doing The Right Think (TM).
Even if your presumption weren't, well, presumptuous, it's wrong. The reason that independents subsist at all, in spite of the RIAA blockade against retail placement of non-RIAA CDs, is that people instictively know that the money is actually going to the artists, the overhead, and a non-obscene profit margin -- and are buying their CDs.
You make this arguement all you want. Until you actually want to make money off something you do you and only find everyone takes it in a free for all, you'll never understand and will always make your excuses.
News flash: for every Elvis Costello, there are 10 Courtney Loves; for every Lars Ulrich, their are 10 Chuck D's. I'm a web designer and like getting paid for what I do, but if someone want to View Source on my pages, godspeed. That's how I learned. I want to get paid for my work, not for reselling its artifacts.
To set the record straight, I'm against DRM. I'm against stupid legislation. I'm against the ever expanding rights of large monolithic corporations and decreasing concern from the consumer. I'm not an affiliate of anything supporting thier cause.
No, just an incredible simulation
But I'm sick of all the lies and excuses of the people who deliberately infringe and act like there's nothing wrong. If it was meant for you to use for free they would have provided it that way.
And if it was meant to sell, it would have been priced that way. Markets are conversations, not communiqués to the Great Unwashed. Our media cartels have laid the groundwork for the Great Refusal.
Of course, I agree, that to purchase the CD then have to pay to listen to it in a PC is nothing more than greedy, by ripping it isn't making a statement. It just feeds their agenda and gives them justification.
Yeah, as if they needed any.
Why would I deny myself the ability to copy a CD on the fiat of IP Gestapos? You yourself imply that you don't agree with the point of the parent AC; I certaint don't agree -- especially if it's because someone else has the CD I paid for. Besides, someone else find your CD is just one contingency. Damaging CDs is a more likely.
It would be worse if you dropped your cd, didn't notice, and someone else picked it up and listened to it without paying the author their due royalties.
The author was paid "their" due royalties at the time of purchase, just like the jewlery company already made its money when someone stumbled on the diamond ring you dropped. Artists deserve to be paid once, not twice.
If this techology makes it into everyday homes, then he's changed the world, for the better.
Better for whom? This is yet another case of a solution looking for a problem through more consumption. Truly superior technology would reduce our material needs and wants, not increase them.
The Jones Residence is pretty boring: wall-recessed media and computerized home automation technologies were passé 20 years ago. General Electric used to showcase non-digital automation for the "Home of the Future" in the 1950s. Frankly, even His Billness' home is more appealing by geek standards.
And yes, I do consider my MP3 use to be wrong
Clearly you don't. Your handwringing relfects the mentality of a spousal abuser: "Yeah, I know I shouldn't beat my wife, but at least I feel like shit about it, so every now and then I might still get carried away."
Piracy is the Red Scare if the Information Age. If you really thought "pirating" MP3s was downloading Communism, and if you really thought it was wrong, you wouldn't do it.
The reason you do it is because your instincts haven't caught up with the propaganda of our media cartels. After all, if it were really stealing, would tens of millions of Americans openly download MP3s, burn overpriced (per FTC ruling) CDs for friends, and not think twice about it, even openly discussing it with their friends? When's the last time you heard someone openly discuss the last item he or she shoplifted in a store?
The sense of guilt doesn't carry over because people instinctively know that with CDs, like bottled water, they're paying for the media, not the content. They know without having to be told by the RIAA, and in spite of the RIAA, that digital content has no a priori value; and while some markup is permissible, $17.95 is a scandal. Or to put it another way:
I'll buy these songs if they release the single but I don't want an album of pricey crap because there's one song on it I like - I can't wait for services where a comprehensive list of songs can be bought at a reasonable price, individually.
While I agree that the government needs a certain level of transparency, I don't think that this transparency should filter down to every level of their orgainization. Does the public have a RIGHT to know the government's network infrastructure?
Certain types of information, witheld for purposes of national security, are what we call classified. Beyond that category, the answer is yes. Otherwise there's no accountability for state expenditures, which is precisely what happened in California with the Oracle debacle.
Does the public have a RIGHT to know what data is on every civil servant's hard drive? I think not.
You may think not, but try getting a job at the DOD and then try telling your boss that the data on your hard drive is sovereign. Your straw man argument aside, we're talking about the technology of the government's IT infrastructure, not its contents. The occasional pr0n on someone's PC is less obscene than its storage in vendor-controlled file formats.
Requiring complete transparency is not only highly impractical (think of the cost to the taxpayer)), but it is also unnecessary.
Being forced to upgrade software every two years to make the most of Microsoft's annuity licensing is practical? Paying arbitrary subscription fees every year is no cost to the taxpayer? Those upgrades (and the hardware need to support the bloatware) are necessary?
Within the bounds of law the government should be able to do what they need to do to get their job done.
That's the point of the proposed legislation: to set the bounds of the law. And your right: need should dictate state purchases, not frivolous spending on the most pervasively marketed products, which by nature tend to be sold well above any legitimate market value due to the artificial scarcity imposed on the customer. If the private sector if free to establish whatever policies it chooses for selling products and services, certainly the public sector should be free to set whatever policies it chooses for buying them.
If that means using Windows or Office or some other proprietary software so be it.
If a goverment agency needs compatibility with Windows or Office, it should contract developers to refine the filters for OpenOffice, improve the API compliance in Wine, or fund some similar free software project. This would be more responsible use of taxpayer funds than buying the same software every to years.
I'm with michael on this one. The state is accountable to the public, and should use that belongs to the public. Opaque, proprietary software cannot be reviewed by any citizen to guarantee security, robustness, or freedom from unrequested transmission of information to companies.
"Software Choice" is a campaign by the private sector to intervene in the internal procurement policies of the state via lobbying and propaganda. If proprietary software companies can create licenses which dictate the legal terms under which their products may or may not be sold and used, certainly the government should have the right to dictate the legal terms under which it will buy software.
IANAL, but I would assume that the government already has laws in place which would prevent certain frivolous purchases such as buying products or services obviously well above market value. Otherwise we could only hope that $600 hammers and toilets seats are anomalies. The same principle should apply to proprietary software, which by its nature tends to be priced well above its market value.
Where a mature free software solution is not available (arguably the case in RDBMS's), a staged migration path could be mandated, and the development could be contracted, sold once, and secure maintenance and support by the best bid. This is what Dr. Villanueva's bill has in mind. Selling software in widgets is an enormous waste of taxpayers' money, as in the Flordia DOT's purchase of M$' Licensing 6 contract.
Open file formats and protocols are not sufficient to avoid vendor lock-in. Without full access to the code (for use and modification, not just audit), the customer is put in the position to solve problems in current versions of software by purchasing upgrades -- at the customer's own expense.
No one is force to sell proprietary software. If a company wants to sell software to the government, it can sell a non-proprietary version that respects basic democratic principles, and hawk its privately-controlled wares to the private sector.
I would think that any changes the US Government (or its agencies) made to GPL code would have to fall into the Public Domain. By the same token, if the NSA were to make an UltraSecure Windows OS, then their modifications would not be assignable (as US Government works do not enjoy copyright protection) to Microsoft and would also fall into the Public Domain (just their diffs, not the whole work).
Only distributed GPL'ed works require redistribution of the modified source. The NSA or any other organization is free to modify the code without redistributing the source as long as it doesn't redistrubute the software to the public. For instance, a Hollywood postproduction house can soup up The Gimp, but if it were to resell it or even offer their version as a free download without including the complete source, that would be a GPL violation.
The GPL is actually a copyright that licenses software to the public, under its copyleft terms. Thus it's not public domain. The Linux kernel is the under the copyright of Linus, which is why the "Linux" trademark must be applied to all derivative works -- and why that can be enforced. If the NSA wants to make a super-secure version of Linux, it's under no obligation to release the code to the public unless it releases the binaries to the public. But the copyright would still be Linus', just as UltraSecure Windows would still fall under the copyright of Micros??t, even under its "Shared Source" strategems.
The license may be general, but the copyright is quite specific. That even goes for the BSD license, with its similar attribution clause.
You have part of the answer already, but there are at least two other motives.
First, there's the simple fact that IBM/GNU/Linux is legitimate competition. MS might not be losing money, but the mere existence of a free alternative as a bargaining chip is flattenting their growth potential. It's not every day that you see His Billness personally closing sales like he's doing in Peru.
The other factor is that for years Ballmer & Co. are always claiming that this year is full of unique challenges that spell gloom and doom for Microsoft. Then when they hit their usual 20% growth benchmark, they beat "industry" expectations, driving up the value of MS stock.
Apple MUST file patents for everything they can. And this is a GOOD THING.
I agree, as long as the PTO doesn't grant them.
Apple learned its lesson by having its competitive advantage taken away from it by Microsoft copying its technology. Apple was refuesed a patent for the Mac UI (and this is a LEGITIMATE PATENT CLAIM) and thus lost their ability to protect it when windows ripped it off.
Apple licensed Xerox's GUI technology after Steve saw the divine light at PARC. Prior art invalidated 90% of Apple's claims, but they did manage to restrict Microsoft some what. MS had to remove the Trash Can icon from Windows, which later re-emerged as the Recycle Bin. As has been pointed out innumerable times and been studiously ignored by revisionists, the real credit for the GUI goes to Alan Kay and Douglas Engelbardt. It's unfortunate that so many people choose to glorify Apple at the expense of two men that made such a priceless contribution to HCI research.
Now that the patent office is once again allowing patents for novel processes (the definition of what's patentable) apple should patent all of their novel processes.
Don't worry, they will -- just like Forgent, Rambus, Unisys and other gratuitous IP litigators.
Not being allowed to do so is what led to the Microsoft monopoly in the first place.
Tell that to Xerox. Besides, DOS was the de facto OS for x86, even at the height of the Macs popularity in the 1980s. It wasn't just that DOS/x86 was cheaper; it ran way faster. Apple just didn't offer a decent price/performance value proposition for office computing, except for desktop publishing.
The thing is, Apple, by nature is not a draconian company. All this fearmongering is silly.
You have the luxury of saying that because you probably weren't a licensee of their OS like Umax was. Umax was at least diversified enough to survive, unlike other Mac clone makers that were destroyed when Apple rescinded their license without warning. Or maybe you didn't have a Newton. Apple isn't perceived as draconian because they impact too few consumers to matter.
Only Apple could release the first commercial OS into Open Source, go to great lengths to support it, support it in competition with *itself* and be accused of not supporting open source by open source "advocates".
Taking an open source Mach kernel and adding a closed GUI, whatever aesthetic or technical merit that GUI might have, is nothing to claim as a victory for freedom. And you have it backwards: Apple didn't open source a commercial OS; they commercialized an open source OS.
XWindows runs fine under OSX. Apple has consistently gone to significant lengths to support the Darwin project--- hell the branch was created so that darwin can get "more wild" not so that Apple has more control. Sheesh, the point was to let darwin get more expirmental and go in directions that would undermine the stability of OS X, while still sharing code back and forth. This was a movement for MORE FREEDOM, not LESS.
As we all know by now, OS X = Aqua. Apple is happy to let the open source community hack Darwin to its heart's content, ignoring the proprietary UI. Or as Henry Ford would say, you can choose any color so long as it's black.
To quote from "The Patriot": "Your sense of freedom is as pale as your skin."
Well said for a slaveowner, indeed.
Never even use the Aqua UI if you don't want. Plus, on top of all that, you get to run it on those really cool, innovative Mac hardware- IF YOU WANT. If you don't want, run it on x86 Hardware.
.Mac, then you can-- but you don't have too.
Hmm. I don't want to run unfree software, which eliminates Aqua. I don't want to pay for "really cool" overpriced hardware, which eliminates G4s. That doesn't leave much of a value proposition for using Apple technologies, speaking from a vendor-independence perspective.
Supporting Darwin is supporting FREE SOFTWARE, to the detriment of Microsoft.
I'm sure Microsoft recoils in horror every time they sell another copy of MS Office on an ostensibly competing platform.
There is no such thing as an "Apple Tax"
If you believe that Apple hardware is priced at its true market value, then we'll just agree to disagree, but I would hope you'd be at least a little skeptical about having to pay full retail for an OS upgrade or having to pay $100 a year for a vanity email address.
Darwin is Open Source and so it could never be a "Tax" that you have to pay against your will. IF you want to buy apple software too, like the Aqua UI, or
Let's be honest. Who the hell cares about Darwin? It's hardly at the cutting edge of BSD development. Read any rave about OS X, and invariably it dwells on Aqua.
It is disingenuous to compare this to a company that charges people for its software whether they want it, use it or buy it, or not. Apple only charges people who freely choose to buy its software. Calling it an "apple tax" only undermines your creditability.
You define free choice differently than the free software community. We can freely choose to pay Red Hat for their software, or simply download it for free, which compels them to add enough value to motivate us to opt for the purchase. Apple offers two choices: take it or leave it. We don't worry about our "credibility" with Apple users. At this point the shoe's on the other foot.
And the important point is that by charghing for their UI and their software, and by making hardware, Apple is able to fund desktop unix in a way that nobody has been able to for Linux.
Apple is funding Apple, taking a free kernel while giving back an unfree GUI to "desktop unix." Should we conclude that M$ is "funding" BSD by integrating its TCP/IP stack?
Therefore, if you really believe in choice and freedom, you MUST support Apple and Darwin. Doesn't mean you have to buy their software or hardware-- but opposing it is opposing freedom.
It would be in everyone's interest, especially Apple users', to campaign for Apple to free Aqua. The code for Aqua would have infinitely more impact than any amount of dollars to fund "desktop unix."
Apple is no longer a closed system. They have a proprietary GUI, true, but how is that different from a Linux distributor bundling in their proprietary software?
.mac, etc.
It's different in that Linux users typically ignore the proprietary software that comes with their distros, which is precisely why Caldera gets so much flack, or why pre-GPL KDE got flamed so hard.
Virtually every rave about OS X I've read comes down to the GUI, not the kernel. So if the one desirable element is unfree, its only benefit is to serve as an aesthetic touchstone for free software developers.
Also, I highly doubt anyone (not even Apple) intends for Apple to take over Microsoft's monopoly. Apple is meant to show you Linux types how to get to the desktop, and give you time to get there. As long as Apple+Linux+others gets over 50% of the desktop, and Microsoft gets a life, I will be happy.
Free software doesn't go away. As long as the source code is out there and people have an active interest in it, marketshare is an extraneous issue -- with or without Macs.
The "Microsoft Tax" refers to paying for Windows on a new PC that you want to run Linux on. Apple throws their OS on a new Mac for free. You pay for the hardware you get, and if you want to run Linux on it, Apple doesn't mind at all.
The only difference between the MS Tax and the Apple Tax is that with MS and its OEMs generate two seperate invoices, so there's no question of what's being subsidized. With Apple you're taking it on faith that the OS is free. Given that Apple's charging full price for OS X 10.2 to current OS X users, I seriously doubt that the OS is free. And if you're not paying for the OS, you're paying for
If Microsoft has their way, you won't have the freedom to use or modify your software as you see fit.
True. Mac clone makers like Umax found out what a doomsday scenario that could be.
This isn't about commercialism, it is about keeping a company from becoming the absolute ruler of all computers.
It's about keeping any company from being the absolute ruler of your computer. Don't like WPA or DRM? Too bad. Don't like a company's outrageous upgrade pricing? Too bad. Such is the world of unfree software. At some point, Apple will have to mean more to the free software community than being "The Good Microsoft."
If Microsoft had their way, the GPL would be gone tomorrow. Get on the desktop, get in the trenches, and start fighting for your freedom now!
Relax. Microsoft doesn't have their way. Yes, they're a monopoly and a scourge, but there's only such much that even the biggest company on Earth can do. Sure, they can buy presidents, unleash the BSA, spread FUD, etc. -- but they can't take free code out of the commons. That's why I feel much safer using Linux than I ever would have using BeOS or OS/2. Use an OS whose fate is tied to any private entity, and you have only yourself to blame when you're on the receiving end of its demise or bonehead policies. So enjoy Aqua while Apple lets you.
Shouldn't that be the WokPad?
/. article without the obligatory IABCWT post!
I get 5-6 hours on my Prism, which goes back in its HotSynch cradle each night, so battery life is a non-issue. And don't give me any crap about "what if I go camping for four days?"
What's the benefit of COLOR anyways? You can view pictures in B&W and still understand fully what you are looking at.
This sounds like a diatribe again color media in general, rather than color PDAs in particular. Yes, you can fully understand what your looking at, but color's more enjoyable -- which is an important factor in a photo album, to name one example.
The only advantage of COLOR is the ability to watch videos.
You already alluded to another advantage, which was to look at pictures. People always love it when I show them my latest Eyemodule 2 pictures. The Prism also has adaptor modules for CompactFlash and SmartMedia, so you can take you digital "film" straight from your standalone digicam and pop it right into the Prism for instant gratification.
As far as videos, I can use the Eyemodule 2 for shooting Quicktime, which shoots 5-second lengths (1 mb) by default, but can also shoot to memory capacity. I've actually been surprised by how much I use the video feature. Last night I shot a jazz band playing (no sound) as a short loop, and the motion adds another dimension to still photo: you're capturing a reprentative behavior, so the loop's entirely adequate; you don't need long lengths of video in many cases.
Yes, it's largely a novelty, but a fun novelty. I also play games with the Prism. Can we still be friends?
In other words... COLOR on a handheld is just another of the bells and whistles. Just like MP3 players, you have such a small ammount of storage and short battery life, it's completely useless.
The main reason I upgraded to color is that the Prism, in conjuction with the Stowaway keyboard, is now my primary mobile writing instrument. I can now go a couple of weeks without ever turning on my laptop. When I'm out, most of the lighting conditions I'm in (cafés, for instance) are inadequate on mono PDAs -- at least, when looking at the screen for long intervals. And I don't want to use the backlight all the time. The best contrast on a monochrome handheld is no match for the worst true black-on-white text on a color handheld. Text on color screens is much, much more readable.
All the Windows CE and Palm handhelds are just toys. For people that really need a device which fits in your pocket, and still does everything your desktop can (short of watch videos) buy a Psion 5mx. Fully featured Word processor, agenda, database, spreadsheet, terminal, and tons of great freeware for astronomy, chemistry, xpdf, calculators, encryption, electronics and more.
You should get a job in marketing at Psion -- oh, that's right, they don't do marketing. Psion lets it customers do the legwork.
I have a word processor (WordSmith), spreadsheet (TinySheet) and database (HandDBase) on the Prism. There's terminal software available, as well as tons of freeware in all the categories you mentioned.
I would think the main objective in this mandate would be to maximize the "@aol.com" domain in all email correspondence. So wouldn't it be less painful and more efficient to just assign aol.com aliases to all employees and make that compulsory instead? Granted, it doesn't have the indoctrination value of having everyone use the same mail system, but at least it's a policy that can be deployed instantly with a miminum of backlash and dissent.
Walking around the grounds was somewhat exhausting for a 30-year-old like myself; seniors have often complained about same thing. Because an arcology as Soleri defines it emphasizes vertical integration, Arcosanti employs more staircases than even most urban dwellers are used to. Elevators exist at Arcosanti, but the premium that's put on low energy consumption makes them few and far between. The exercise is heathly, but it's also uncomfortable, especially for visitors expecting Utopia. And Arcosanti's location, the desert, isn't attractive for a lot of people.
It was also difficult to envision any sort of economy of diversity. Being a centrally planned and deployed "city" (a misnomer, according to Soleri), it has all the drawbacks of socialism with none of its merits. Residents are required to develop and maintain (mostly construction work) the project 40 hours a week, and make minimum wage doing so (but the cost of living -- sans cars, shopping malls, rent, etc. -- is dramatically lower). Most of Arcosanti's funding comes from the Soleri bells residents and workshoppers make in the city's foundry, effectively making it a monoculture. And because Arcosanti is designed (and redesigned several times) as a complete, integrated structure, there's little or no space for the growth of commerce. I think that's by design rather than by accident, and Soleri would probably agree, but the lack of career prospects for many potential residents is too limited to make it an attractive proposition that can critical mass into the "urban effect" that Soleri hopes to acheive.
Having said that, I did still enjoy my tour of Arcosanti enough to consider taking a five-week workshop there later this year. By the way, Arcosanti's site appears to be having hosting issues at the moment, but when it's back online, check out the link for the Hyper Building: it's Soleri's commissioned proposal to the Japanese government, which definitely looks as though it inspired the Bionic Building.
Advertising revenue pays and subsidizes network and cable TV. That's not a pedantic distinction. An advertiser pays so much money for so many seconds for so many projected viewers of a particular program. Once the spot is paid for and broadcast, the transaction's complete. The fact is, we have no idea is people are watching ads, with or without TiVo. Since TV demographics are based on random samples rather than networked feedback (without TiVo, at least), who's to say that people skipping commercials with TiVo exceed the number of viewers who go grab a Heineken during the commercial break? It's pure conjecture.
When these devices become commonplace and nobody is watching TV commercials, that IS a problem...The money is going to have to come from somewhere...If the dot-bomb economy proved anything its that advertisements that nobody pays attention to aren't going to pay the bills. So where does the money come from?
Take a step back and reexamine your presupposition: that a technology that allows viewers to skip commercials is actually exploited enough to impact advertising revenues. I'm not aware of any data to indicate that VCRs have impacted ad rates at all. And the dot-bombs only proved that banner ads won't float economies of scale. Once entrepreneurs grasp the elusive concept that cash in must exceed cash out, they might actually consider scaling up from more modest nucleus, like Slashdot did before Andover.
Will all TV channels be "premium" in the future? Will the networks mix the advertisements & the programming together (ie. even more gratituous product placements..say one every 1.5 minutes?)
Probably, but only to maximize profits, not for survival. Remember when the whole point of cable was that premium programming was commercial-free?
Its easy to dismiss Dvorak as a loon, but there are some tough economic/cultural questions that will need to be answered some day soon
Yes, it is easy to dismiss Dvorak as a loon.