This reminds me of what a parent said at my high-school, when a teacher commited the crime of forcing students to read complex, interesting books.
In astonishingly lucid stupidity, she complained (quite angrily) that his kid (a previously lousy student) didn't go outside anymore, and spent all day reading. What was worse, he WANTED to stay reading at home.
For centuries books have been informally blamed for creating anti-social, non-interacting kids (bookworms, nerds, geeks). Now computers are being blamed, but since they do not carry the prestige of being a basic tenet of civilization for millenia, professional psychiatrists who should know better validate those criticisms.
Computers do not make people more antisocial than any other technology, such as printed media. It's people who do not like those technologies that much who isolate the kids, unless they adapt and become more "normal".
On the other hand, there are people who are just naturally anti-social, with or without "geeky interests". I cannot understand the psychiatric obsession with treating people who find typical superficial conversation boring as if the problem is on their side.
It would be nice to actually wait for the speech before judging content.
Sure, maybe everyone knows what they're going to say anyway, but it seems to me that on "Microsoft's opinion on Open Source", the camp is divided in three groups:
A) Those who know MS is obviously biased
B) Those who don't care what they say
C) Both A) and B).
With the majority on C. Those who already support Open-Source will still do so, those who don't will not, and those who are considering it will ask other people (IBM, Sun, even Apple) about it.
So, in the end the speech will either be as expected and have no real impact whatsoever (positive or negative) or it will be a different attack on Open-Source, in which case it's pointless to post defenses right now.
Here's an example of fair use that would require high-quality from the original:
If I want to research whether there was a second sniper at Kennedy's murder, or whether there was a UFO (or not) over New York last night, or I want to prove that I was at the Superbowl, somewhere along the thousands of spectators, I need the greatest possible detail to zoom in or out at pleasure, and accesible in digital format, to do whatever manipulations increase the quality of the tiny screen area I'm interested in.
I also think that the compromise in general is not a good idea for either part. It separates the difference between fair use and copyright infringement from the idea of content, and it goes over to quality.
What is copyright infringement and what is fair use, then? Is it "fair use" to go to a movie theater and film the whole movie with a handycam, because the quality is poor?
For some good points on how code can be interpreted as a form of expression, I suggest someone submits some excerpts from Donald Knuth's books to the judges (specifically "Literate Programming", and the introduction to "The Art of Programming"). It may not be too explicit, but he's an authorative figure so it would work as antecedent that the concept of mixing code, aesthetics and expression is not "far out". Of course, more contemporary and explicit examples would be obligatory (Perl haikus or something like that?).
Personally, I find it strange that it's so hard to see code as expression. Long rant on a particular way to see them as expression follows:
From the literal point of view, if mathematics can be seen as expression, then code by extension has to be expression. But I'm not sure if the law sees mathematics as non-functional expression.
From a "paradigmatical" point of view, languages have a lot of expression on the mode of thought of those who create them, and those who use them.
Object-oriented languages are Platonic paradigms: everything descends from "Object" in java (just an example), which is the primal Form, from which all other Forms descent, and instances are only beautiful in that they participate in such Forms. Instances, on the realm of appearance, are irrelevant except as a function of the beauty of design.
An assembler programmer is a materialist. Everything is matter/energy and can be reduced to their fundamental manifestation (1 and 0); but for practical reasons we deal with them in the fundamental particle level. The designs are just collections of these particles, which are collections of 1s and 0s, and there is no reality to them.
A non-structured program would be more similar to the pre-Socratics greeks, with different elements making up substance, the difference being only in quantity. A program is made of loops, assignments, comparisons and jumps (lots of jumps), and there is no theory about how they're supposed to be together.
Procedual programming would be more similar to Medieval Alchemy, where there were some recipes to create new substances from the basic elements, and it was by combining these different substances that even more complex substances were obtained.
I don't know enough about functional programming (or philosophy) to figure out what the analogy would be like, but I would really like to know if anyone has an idea.
In the end, though, Plato still wins. It's still about building abstract models and pretending they're real, even more real than what they model, even if the model doesn't follow that concept recursively in its design.
I bet there are lots of different ways to give unnecessary significance to code, just like for pictures, writing, film or speech. That's the whole point of art/expression.
The fact that letters are used in formularies and photos in IDs doesn't stop writing and photograph from being considered expression. Why should code be put to a harder test?
Everyone has their favorite distribution, as well as those they totally hate (which are the favorites of someone else).
The best way to figure out whether to upgrade or not and to what is to try them out in a new partition. Focus on the ones which promise the simpler and faster installations, if only because they're faster to try and check out.
Installing MINIMAL options in Mandrake, Suse, RedHat (for example) should allow you to check them out in a couple of days. Whatever catches your eye would be worth an actual trial. Whatever has problems in such a short time is not worth it.
Of course, you could want to go for more customizable, powerful, less user-friendly distributions that require some plumbing work, but I'm assuming that's not the case.
Obligatory useless recommendations that should not be paid attention at all follow:
I like SuSe and Mandrake. Mandrake won me over from RH with equivalent technical quality and superior desktop features. I just haven't seen any advantage to RedHat since I upgraded from RH6.0. SuSe won me over from Mandrake with superior technical quality and equivalent desktop features.
By your argument Physics is not a science because it deals with how to build levers, heat things, electrocute people or send radio signal.
The answer, of course, is that Physics doesn't deal with that, it deals with the underlying rules of those phenomena. In the same way, Computer Science deal with the underlying rules of information processing.
Both sciences (and practically any science) concern themselves with applications because experiments are a vital part of that "science" concept.
But programming is not the main focus of a CS just like building machinery is not the focus of a Physicist. That's what Engineers are for, in both fields.
It doesn't surprise me to see the confusion, since even many CS students make that mistake, but you may take a look at that sig on another message in the thread: "Real Computer Scientists don't use computers".
It should be "Real Computer Scientists don't JUST use computers" but the point is valid. "Real Mathematicians don't use calculators". Of course they actually do, but the real work has nothing to do with that.
>The problem that I've always seen is that humans >have stopped evolving. At least according to >this scheme. Sure, we keep attaining more >knowlege, but for the most part the biological >(and this includes mental) aspect of humanity is >not changing (at least in no way that is caused >by the strictest sense of evolution).
Two things: - Evolution is slow. Humankind is ridiculously young as a species; I would not expect radical changes for a while, and there are small changes. - We do keep evolving; "survival of the fittest" is not restricted to anathomical means. A species is a whole containing the body, the mental tools and the social structures it has evolved... for humans that includes teachable skills.
Since techno-social change is faster and more adaptive, it will obviously be prefered by evolution to biological change.
>Sure, just because someone is smarter / stronger >/ etc than most gives him/her a huge advantage >in life, but doesn't necessarily affect the >outcome of survival
Nor does it necessarily affect the survival of an animal "in the wild". If it were a matter only of survival and "not passing the weak genes", there would be no monkeys, reptiles, or other branches of species that evolved into something else at one time or another.
>Personally, I don't think the question is if we >ever are able to control our own evolution, how >to we stop it, but, when we are able to control >our own evolution, how will we mold it?
In the same way evolution always has: as necessity or convenience dictates. It works. And ironically, it puts our "guidance" in perspective.
>Actually, your post is hideously contrived in >many areas, but I'll limit myself to the
You have no idea... (I am agreeing, just in case).
>You claim that a longer lifespan in western >society, as opposed to a shorter lifespan in a >strictly laissez faire "animal" society is >restricted strictly to medicinal benefits.
First, There is nothing more "animal" in laissez faire society than in a structured society. Bees are no less animals than bears, wolves or humans.
Second, I did not mean lifespan difference is strictly because of medicinal benefits. That is only accurate if your only other factor is government, which makes no qualitative difference.
>What you fail to recognize is that the >government protects both individuals and groups, >through the rule of law, to prevent them from >competing in what our society considers >inapproporiate ways.
What you fail to see is that social animals obey their unwritten laws before any governments, and it is the nature of the social animal what defines the appropiate or inappropiate way to compete. Government is only tolerated if it facilitates that without undue overhead.
What your baboons are doing is no different from a modern coup d'etat. The very arguments that make a government legitimate are used as a justification for coup d'etats, including the "authority to take from the priviledged and give to the unpriviledged" which you have cited before.
As a sidenote, governments have the right and duty of protecting themselves from coup d'etats, but that is not their function (as your use of the baboon example would suggest).
>Your second point is that "Nature considers some >unworthy". Ah, yes. You're one of those "Kill >the 'tards" people, aren't you?
No. On the "objective side", judgement of what is 'tard is not for us to make; intelligence has no evolutionary value in many environments, for example, not to mention we don't know what it is or how to analyze it precisely.
I was stating a fact, not an opinion. Notice that the subject was "Nature", not I. It is my opinion that that is a fact, but it doesn't mean I consider it "moral". Nature doesn't have morals to share, it doesn't care.
On the "subjective side", I'm a myopic unambitious weakling with no sense of economics and a lack of social skills; success would be very unlikely for me. I'm no "winner" that looks down on the weak, I'm weak myself.
You're still missing the main point here: People do not live longer because of government; more people live. It is a quantitive, not a qualitative difference. You missed a valid point pursuing an invalid one.
>Perhaps if you grew up with a brain damaged >brother or sister, you might have more >compassion, but your inability to project your
Is that the only reason for compassion? I had my share of close victims who have suffered unduly. That doesn't change how the world works, we become irrelevant unless we know the world we want to change and understand why.
Is compassion the only "reason" that validates your argument? What makes different in that case the argument for government from "wishful thinking"? If only the world were compassionate, everything would work wonderfully!
You already know you are right, you only have to find why. What's the point of thinking it through in that case?
An animalist? Maybe I am. I don't know. Is that supposed to be "bad"?
>I'm cheering for the first baboon with the guts >to take a swing at you, and I hope the rest join >in bravely.
How utterly compassionate of you. I'm glad you can project your existence into those who are uncapable of seeing what you see!
>geez...i can't believe you slept through BOTH >your history classes and your philosophy >classes...
Maybe I did too. Or maybe not all history/philosophy/sociology/anthropology faculties are sworn enemies of Adam Smith.
>anyway, when you control the medium, you control >the content. that's history. soviet union, >china, nazi germany...in fact, that's why we >have laws (strong laws)
And that's precisely the point libertarians use for deregulation: monopolistic control of the medium leads to complete control of the content, and the entity that has (or gives) monopoly of control of the medium is the government.
>You would probably no be a happy camper if none >of your network cards would talk to each other.
Probably not me either. Probably that's why I use a SoundBlaster-compatible card, which became a de facto standard way too long ago, even when it wasn't the only or strictly superior technology.
Probably the card is SB-compatible for the same reason all cars would be Honda-compatible: it can be done, it makes sense, and people will buy it over yet-another-propietary-standard.
Would they care that the standard was made by Honda to corner the market? Not really. Would it make a difference? Only if Honda were stupid enough to come up with the PS/2 and try again.
(Now that's an incoherent mix of metaphors!)
>And what of philosophy? We're stronger together >than apart. One of the basics of philosophy, and
Basics of philosophy?! There is no such thing as a "basic of philosophy" in that sense! That's like saying "fundamentals of religion".
Not all philosophies follow that precept, and to pretend that it is part of the essential structure of philosophy only gives the impression that you slept through your philosophy classes too.
I have to guess you mean its basic for your philosophy, or for those that appear more convincing to you, or that it is "evidently obvious" for you. People can differ on that.
>why government exists. Forgot about that, eh? >You must have been too busy calling me names to >think about any of this.
Er... I think the one who called you a communist was someone else on another post. The only one who's has called names on this particular thread is you.
>Probable result : discrimination that would be >very hard to prove.
Discrimination?!
Nope. The probable result is that you would be required to use MS when you work at home and the company would have to cover the cost it if they want to use the program, or you would have to if the company is not covering software/equipment.
That's not discrimination any more than against those who don't have computers at home. Now if you don't WANT to use MS, then that is quite simply not the problem of the company. You may not WANT to use that silly uniform in McDonalds, just don't work there.
>When a gang of thugs starts breaking down your >door to get at your wife and daughters, guess >who will be calling the 911 line "Oh, help, >nanny help
That would be because he wanted to pay his taxes for the government to protect him from thugs. What he didn't want was to pay taxes for the government to protect him from incompatible standards. The cops would still have to come with compatible or incompatible cars.
If he argued for zero-taxes, no-government or no-law-enforcement you would have a point. He didn't, therefore there is no point here.
>so your toaster doesn't have to be made by the >same company that made the power generation >plant).
That's not the reason there is a standard there; electric energy companies would be stupid to try to monopolize electric appliances (they couldn't feed as much energy consumption a competitive market).
Electric standards exist for safety, so that your toaster doesn't kill you for no reason.
It is curious that you ignored one of the strongest points for government endorsed standards here: safety of personnel, safety of data, etc.
Where industry is much more willing to take risks on that side, government usually has stricter minimum safety standards which the commercial alternatives in the end have to surpass.
Particularly in the health area, that's a good reason to have government put annoying pressure on industries.
>the government sometimes dictates free speech >takes place over the majority view. i want that >to continue.
That's part of being a democracy indeed, as opposed to fascism et al, but that's a self-limitation of the government, which ends up representing and imposing majority views.
Great if you want it to continue, but remember that any organized imposition of a majority requires a de facto government. Protection of minority opinion is not inherent to government, not even to good government, it's a compromise of government based on limits that were imposed on it with the invention of modern democracy, so that "the government of the people wouldn't run rampant". (Maybe I'm preaching the obvious, but you would be surprised how whole countries take "democracy" literally).
My point is that government is needed to protect minority opinion only because to systematically attack minorities government is necessary. It is therefore not the best argument for government.
>in the animal world, you would have a much >shorter life than you have in our modern, >western society.
Points for medicine, not government. A strong individual could live as long without government as with government, assuming he can get the medical benefits (by force, if necessary). A smart one probably as long, if he can make others dependent on him (as a medic, for example).
A weaker individual without saleable talents or the social skills to market them would die, Nature considers him/her not worthy. I think that's your point, but you didn't make it, I have to guess.
>when the government fails, it's because people >like you turned their back on it and let the >system run rampant.
When government fails, the system did not "run rampant". It dissolves because of structural defects. If the government runs rampant it doesn't fail: it is very successful. It's goals may or may not become different from their citizens, but that's another matter.
When the government fails SOMEONE is because they didn't make sure the government defended their interests, that is true. Or because other people with other interests were more successful. Government will always fail a lot of people.
Government obeys the citizens that make their interests known and press for them. Citizens do that in direct proportion to the benefits they reap from defending their interests. Corporate entities defend their interests earnestly because they can benefit greatly, and obviously. Individual citizens do not, unless the interests are very, very important for them.
Therefore, corporate entities are at advantage within the government because they are citizens who defend their interests. Government helps corporations because they are citizens (lots of them, and with unified interests to boot), and helping citizens is their job.
That is not failure of the government, if there is conflict between corporate interest and individual interest, it's failure of the individuals on two grounds: - Not defending their individual interests in the government - Fighting constantly with themselves because their corporate interests (job, stocks, organizations, etc) are at conflict with their personal interests.
Both are problems of not taking responsabilities, not of a lack or excess of government. Precisely what the poster you replied to was criticizing.
Now, the examples you use of wrong corporate behavior are all criminal acts (fraud, to be specific). Since no one argued for dissolution of law enforcement, they are irrelevant.
I don't know that anyone argued that free markets protect from fraud. Not even that fraud is not an effective business strategy in the free market (I happen to think that in the end it backfires), which still would not make it legal. Fraud was simply not dealt with here that I know.
And invoking history to invalidate "free markets" doesn't work, because there has never been a significant "free market" as we know it or may come to know it in the future. Scale is a BIG difference.
>by the way, as much as i hate correcting you >monkeys,
>if you still don't understand, your brain is >defective.
I think you lost the moral ground here.
>you are an unthinking name-caller
I assume that would make you a "thinking name-caller", then? Now, all the "communist" crap was way out of line, but this seems worse to me (mainly because the "anti-communist" didn't pretend argumentative superiority, but you do).
>If your opinion is that KDE should have the >right-click menu attached to the middle mouse >button instead of the right one, is that a bug? >Do you report it? >No, you do not (I hope not, at least). You're an >adult (or close enough, at least). You can just >change the code.
So the definition of an adult is now "you can just change the code"? Hmm... gotta check my ID...
It might just happen that not everybody who uses a computer wants to be an adult in that case. It might just happen that not everybody who uses complicated software wants to be a computer scientist... that's good: it helps bring hardware prices down. A lot.
>If Corel wants to change KDE's >interface to conform to their expectations, they >should do it themselves instead of trying to >force the world to change along with them.
And therefore they would be seen as forcing their GUI concepts down the throats of their users... I'm not sure it would even be because they are a Big Evil Corporation. If I were in a team designing a product, I would find it a major problem if all the other members of the team duplicated and constantly replaced the user interface because of differing ideas. User interface happens to be a very important part of anything: it's the link to actual functionality. If you can't agree on a UI, you can't agree on the finished product, therefore it is never finished (or worse, it is said to be "finished" and sold that way).
Schizophrenic GUIs are BAD GUIs, better no GUIs at all (and then what would be the point of KDE?).
Maybe GUI consistency is not that important if you view the software as a hobbyst's toy or a free hack, maybe then all the sophisticated users can code their personal preferences in; but if you want Linux et al to be used by more people, it is extremely important.
Maybe you don't want other, uneducated, non-computer savvyy people to use that software, but I suspect KDE was created precisely for that reason. It would be oxymoronic to consider that "dumbing-down" the system.
On the side, I'm no GUI guru (or anything guru for that matter) but some of those remarks actually seem like bugs to me: inconsistent menu buttons are as much a bug as I would imagine in GUI design, it certainly shouldn't be deliberate. Other remarks, of course, belong elsewhere, but they still should not be implemented until discussed and agreed upon as a "desirable change" for the GUI.
Bodrius
"I can't understand how some people that consider UIs superfluous can complain so much about idiosyncratic APIs." - Related comment from unrelated event, about unrelated people.
Sell your soul to pay for retirement
on
Too Old To Code?
·
· Score: 1
>Am I alone in wondering whether GNOME is truly >worthy of so much recent coverage on Slashdot? >Is GNOME really the final word in GUI usability? >GNOME still feels to be very much emulating the >look and feel of Windows 95, and GNOME even >seems to emulate much of Windows' bloat and >instability.
Although I do not think Gnome has had the "greatest thinkers" collaborating on it (don't take it the wrong way, but there is a big difference between smart people and "humanity's greatest thinkers"), I have to agree: I find it dissapointing.
Stability issues aside, GNOME's UI seems to me an imitation of Win/Mac/predecessors, which is not entirely bad, except that KDE does a better job at imitating them.
Maybe it provides greater control over the aesthetic components as someone wrote, but what are the choices? Mac-like? Amiga-like? Isn't that a problem with Linux GUIs? ("We not only imitate Win95, we also imitate any other OS's idea of a GUI!)
I love the idea of changing GUIs to whatever I feel like, it's one of the reasons I use Linux, but the GUIs are far from the pinnacle of intuition and natural-feel.
Maybe I'm not looking where I should, but there seems to be little experimentation in new UIs precisely in a community with the greater potential: propietary OSes has more to lose (changing their popular GUIs is risky and expensive, although some are wise to take risks) and perhaps more limited influx of ideas (marketing research does not a good design create, it can only show how bad an existing one is).
Currently I use Enlightenment all by itself (not as an addendum), and I like it (a lot, in spite of the hiccups) over my "stable" KDE desktop.
A non-technical person said of Enlightenment "It looks like game." as if it were bad, because he felt disoriented outside the Win-paradigm, so I can see why there is a need to duplicate it.
Still, that statement protests exactly what I find promising: games are about the only sector in the consumer software that seems willing to reinvent GUIs and come up with good ones, or the game just doesn't sell. So I guess Enlightenment is doing something right, and it's not just me.
But is it the only not-an-homage GUI project for Linux/*NIX? (and treated as add-on usually, to boot) Why the main support seems to be for imitative projects? And why the main opposition to the Win-GUI is based on "learn the others, it's not that hard!"? If Linux is to take over the consumer/business markets, it shouldn't expect users to educate themselves in computers anymore than courts expect citizens to understand legalese. It shouldn't even expect users to learn as much as for Windows (or even Mac)... it should be much easier than that.
The irony is that while Linux has the most to gain, the least to lose, and the best chances to have a lot of designers try different and wacky ideas of a natural GUI, all the effort seems focused on replicating the first, quirky attempts at an intuitive GUI.
>Windows NT 4.0 Ntdetect locks up tighter than a >virgin at bible camp. After I ripped every card >except
I have to say, that is the most appealing and politically incorrect description of Windows stability. I'm surprised it hasn't been used by MS marketing department to describe it as a "feature".
>I some cases Napster is Piracy, worse than the >High seas. They did try to turn a profit by >facilitating theft and violations of the law. >This theft can easily hurt someone who is >creative and inteligent. Geeks arn't the only >ones who are smart or make a living off the >sweat of the mind.
True. And not all Geeks despise the concept of Intellectual Property either (precisely because they can make a living out of it).
But I don't think Napster tried to turn a profit by facilitating theft and violations of the law. I don't think I can make that assumption. Regardless of Napster's intentions, the idea is not intrinsically linked to violations of the law.
In some cases, Napster is piracy. In some cases, laser printers are piracy. In some cases the Internet is piracy (got warez ftps to share?). Hey, Gutemberg's print made pirating profitable in the first place. Want to outlaw them?
In some cases the telephone and the mail have been used for numerous crimes, not to mention cars, which give bank robbers the ability to escape quickly and unpunished!
Each one of those cases should be dealt with as it is: an individual's violation of the law, and an individual's act of piracy. Napster is not piracy just because pirates use Napster, and the reverse is even less true (I'm not a pirate if I use Napster).
On the same vein, copyright is not wrong because Metallica wants to sue me over downloading material I already own. What is wrong, harrassment and probably illegal, is Metallica trying to take away the right for which I already paid: the right to "own" their music as long as I don't transfer that right.
I don't allow my car manufacturer to say which route should I take to work, or my PC maker which progams I can use and for what. Why should it be different with music?
>For your reading enjoyment, I give you the ninth >amendment to the Constitution of the United >States of America:
>The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain >rights, shall not be construed to deny or >disparage others retained by the people.
Thanks. I enjoyed it. Was it good for you too?:-)
>The right to privacy is a generally accepted >principle in this country. Just because it isn't >explicitly spelled out in the Constitution >doesn't mean it's any less valid.
Which is exactly my point, except that I wanted to make clear that the reason for that is not that the Constitution of the United States of America recognizes the reason for that.
>While I personally feel that some degree of >control over one's ideas for a very limited >period of time can be beneficial, it is hardly a >natural sort of right in the same vein as the >right to privacy. If you really want to control >your ideas, you simply don't disseminate them.
That is the most radical and most effective kind of control over information, but it is not, nor should it be, the only one.
>control them. Now, once you've told your idea to >others, it becomes theirs as well. You cannot >remove it from their brain and you should not be >able to prohibit them from acting on it, writing >it down, copying it, or repeating or >disseminating it to others. That is exactly what >"intellectual property" laws attempt to do.
Do you realize that you have invalidated the very concept of "right of privacy" along with intellectual property in that interpretation? Once you give the information, you can't control it, therefore everyone can do whatever they want with your information... you cannot reclaim any right over the use of your personal data.
And since you'll have to give different pieces of information to different people, and it will be disseminated, the profitable act of collecting, centralizing and selling information is as legitimate as the first authorized use.
Unless I can own information per se, I cannot own my personal information.
About "what intellectual property laws attempt to do", they attempt to protect two things: the ability for the author to benefit from his intellectual work, which depends on minimizing the "inflation of the idea", and the inability for others to benefit from it without his authorization, which would "inflate the idea".
So it is a matter of inflation, after all... and honor/prestige, I guess (it is frustrating when someone steals credit for your only two or three good ideas). Information has value, therefore he who has that with value should be able to protect it; and that which decreases its value is inflation, just like it does to anything with value.
The stupid thing about the implementation of IP laws is, pun unintended, its inflexibility with implementations. Again I submit to the literary example: to equal every piece analogous to another to plagiarism would kill literature on the spot, that judgement should be reserved for the most drastic and obvious cases, giving a living chance to improved "inspired on" copies and despising the mediocre as the clones they are.
>This seems to be a pretty decent idea and would >probably work pretty well. Unfortunately people >and corporations got greedy and began lobbying >our government to extend the period of time they >could control these works. In most cases it >wasn't even the creators themselves that wanted >the extensions, it was the heirs of the creator >or a corporation that had purchased the work or >idea.
I would see some sense in a lenghty control period over IP, since now dissemination is almost instantaneous, and the author can have his own reasons and agenda to keep control of the IP (sometimes that is why he created it). However, you are completely right in that the system is broken right now in that aspect. Indefinite periods should be out of the question, and right now the time is too lenghty for some IP. It is tailored (and extended) for literary works, which claim no real property over the semantics of the data (you can use the same plot of whatever you read, if you rewrite it). It makes sense in that case to control your material during your lifetime, but it is ridiculous to control "all systems of addition using pen and paper" during 50 years.
I'm not sure whether the creators would be so willing to share freely their intellectual property. It is property, and no matter how much the artist talks about creating "for the public", seeing your property become public domain is not always nice. (Perhaps it's because I don't buy the "for the public" idea of art, I believe one creates for himself/herself, not usually to communicate with others)
But that is beside the point, whether it is corporations, heirs or authors, it is natural for them to get greedy. It not "unfortunate", it is to be expected, and it should be expected for the public to get equally "greedy" about their own rights as consumers of information.
They have been "greedy" enough to defend their rights to own guns, or even a Betamax, and they should defend themselves from such abuses without, necessarily, resenting the attempt.
When you go buy a car, you do not expect the seller to try to give you the best deal, but you expect to be able to negotiate the best deal out of him, or at least a good one. If you ask him to draw the price and the contract, complaining about how he betrayed your trust won't help... it will only encourage your mindset to depend on the "niceness" of the salesman the next time too.
Their job is protecting their interests, the consumers job is protecting their own.
>but by doing some of our own lobbying and >protesting. We need to get people who have the >ears of our congresscritters to explain to them >that we're tired of Congress continuing to aid >these corporations in their attempts to screw >the public. I'm just afraid that corporate money >speaks a lot louder than anything we can say.
Right. I completely agree with you on those points. Except that you're not recognizing that is corporate by definition. Governments are corporate, churches are corporate, profit-free organizations are corporate.
I'm not playing lexicologist here, what I mean is that for anyone to be heard by the government, they have to convince them they represent enough shareholders and their corporate interests... that demands corporate money, corporate organization and some corporate talking (in their government or private business versions, you choose). And it implies alliances with whoever shares those interests, as long as the motif behind the alliance is clear.
I'm sure lots of private corporations and organizations have interests in conflict with the current trend... but their role is to please and follow society, that's how they make money or get votes.
Society seems to be pleased with the abuse of IP, therefore everyone supports it. If society shows that they want more freedom with their IP, vendors will change their attitudes before their competitors take over the market.
The problem I see is that people are just catching up with the technology, they are not prepared to engage in a debate about how they can use it. The number of people downloading MP3s and trying to get snapshots from their expensive DVDs for wallpaper are peanuts to the industry, and the other billions of people are just learning to use the remote. Yet they all seem to understand why outlawing personal use of photocopiers would infringe on their rights, even though they can see where it can be used wrongly. Currently, there is no time to educate people, and that is a problem.
>I'd say that the term, "Intellectual Property" >is also propaganda, since the Consitution only >mentions securing "authors" (not "owners") the >temporary right to exclusive use of the work. >Copyrights and patents are more an exclusive >license than an inherent right of the author, >but some people keep portraying it that way.
The Constitution does not mention privacy as a right either, yet many of us consider it a fundamental right. I'm sure that's not the only "right" the Constitution does not explicitely define.
This might be hard to understand for some people, but the Constitution of the United States of America is not the only, nor the best, list of "fundamental rights", nor will there ever be one.
The validity of rights is what gives value to that Constitution, and rights are valid if they make sense, not if they are backed by a document. If you wish to invalidate a right, argument against it. Otherwise, one can just invalidate the Constitution on the grounds of Treason to the Crown.
Intellectual Property makes sense as a right. I consider I have the right to not-share what I think, know or invent with you, the government, or society in general. I also consider I have the right to benefit or not benefit from it, no matter how great or how little effort was necessary to create it.
If that selfishness "deprives society", so be it, I have the most fundamental right to be selfish, perhaps that is where Intellectual Property rests as a right.
If someone wants to take away the right to not give to charity, to try to get more of anything than others, to not be nice and to generally be a jerk whenever one wants to, they should expect some oposition. In that sense, there is no reason to be less selfish about Intellectual Property than with normal Property.
What may or may not make sense is the current protections of Intellectual Property. But that's like arguing against television because of the lack of quality programming: it may make it problematic and almost useless, but the problem is the programming, not the TV set (yep, bad analogy, but what the heck).
IMNSHO, we have spent more than a couple of centuries refining the solutions for books, we might as well use them for a guide.
If I buy a book, I'm paying for its Intellectual Property (plus the paper), and I demand what I buy. I have a right to that Intellectual Property, as a consumer. That includes reading it however I want, scribbling on it as I like, arguing about it, criticize it, quote it within "fair use", photocopy it for personal use, or loan my original copy (as long as I'm not duplicating its users). I may not have the right to redistribute it (unless it was given to me), but I have the right to use it (because it was given to me), and to restrict that use is to take away that right... fraud, or at least a breach of contract.
As far as I know, no author can be put in jail for quoting a paragraph of another book if it is shown as a quote (credit), and is not unquestionably superflous... that is, as long as it is a valid part of the new work.
The extent of valid appropiation of material varies with the kind of content, but people develop an intuitive "sense" of what is right or wrong. It doesn't take an expert to know what kind of content is quotable in a novel, and what is quotable for a scientific paper. One can write a legitimate "novel about a novel", valid because it gives new meaning or exposition to the material, where in the second a greater semantic difference would be required. But one doesn't need to know that to know if it's right or wrong when one reads it; and usually with greater leniancy than the legal letter which is there to deal with transgressions noticeable enough to end up in court in the first place.
The point is Intellectual Property is valid as a right, per se, but it requires sensible systems and some flexibility by nature.
It works on some instances because most people had time, trials and errors to develop a sense of how it should be; in younger media, that sense is not as developed, and some people try to protect their rights as owners by interpreting obsolete laws in the most restrictive manner (and make newer ones based on those interpretations). They argue that the ease of duplication of material encourages illegal redistribution, but decades of Xerox copy machines with a booming book market proves the argument wrong. That attitude is to be expected, the problem is that people do not defend their rights as buyers of that property. Without the conflict the solution is not negotiated. Actually, I would be surprised if the attitude was not at first a bluff because they expected conflict and negotiation... it just became unexpectedly easy to go for the jackpot.
And here I cut the disgression before I break the 640K barrier.
Slashdot Mirror
This reminds me of what a parent said at my high-school, when a teacher commited the crime of forcing students to read complex, interesting books.
In astonishingly lucid stupidity, she complained (quite angrily) that his kid (a previously lousy student) didn't go outside anymore, and spent all day reading. What was worse, he WANTED to stay reading at home.
For centuries books have been informally blamed for creating anti-social, non-interacting kids (bookworms, nerds, geeks). Now computers are being blamed, but since they do not carry the prestige of being a basic tenet of civilization for millenia, professional psychiatrists who should know better validate those criticisms.
Computers do not make people more antisocial than any other technology, such as printed media. It's people who do not like those technologies that much who isolate the kids, unless they adapt and become more "normal".
On the other hand, there are people who are just naturally anti-social, with or without "geeky interests". I cannot understand the psychiatric obsession with treating people who find typical superficial conversation boring as if the problem is on their side.
You don't.
Read Derrida.
It would be nice to actually wait for the speech before judging content.
Sure, maybe everyone knows what they're going to say anyway, but it seems to me that on "Microsoft's opinion on Open Source", the camp is divided in three groups:
A) Those who know MS is obviously biased
B) Those who don't care what they say
C) Both A) and B).
With the majority on C. Those who already support Open-Source will still do so, those who don't will not, and those who are considering it will ask other people (IBM, Sun, even Apple) about it.
So, in the end the speech will either be as expected and have no real impact whatsoever (positive or negative) or it will be a different attack on Open-Source, in which case it's pointless to post defenses right now.
Moderate up the parent of this message.
Here's an example of fair use that would require high-quality from the original:
If I want to research whether there was a second sniper at Kennedy's murder, or whether there was a UFO (or not) over New York last night, or I want to prove that I was at the Superbowl, somewhere along the thousands of spectators, I need the greatest possible detail to zoom in or out at pleasure, and accesible in digital format, to do whatever manipulations increase the quality of the tiny screen area I'm interested in.
I also think that the compromise in general is not a good idea for either part. It separates the difference between fair use and copyright infringement from the idea of content, and it goes over to quality.
What is copyright infringement and what is fair use, then? Is it "fair use" to go to a movie theater and film the whole movie with a handycam, because the quality is poor?
For some good points on how code can be interpreted as a form of expression, I suggest someone submits some excerpts from Donald Knuth's books to the judges (specifically "Literate Programming", and the introduction to "The Art of Programming"). It may not be too explicit, but he's an authorative figure so it would work as antecedent that the concept of mixing code, aesthetics and expression is not "far out". Of course, more contemporary and explicit examples would be obligatory (Perl haikus or something like that?).
Personally, I find it strange that it's so hard to see code as expression. Long rant on a particular way to see them as expression follows:
From the literal point of view, if mathematics can be seen as expression, then code by extension has to be expression. But I'm not sure if the law sees mathematics as non-functional expression.
From a "paradigmatical" point of view, languages have a lot of expression on the mode of thought of those who create them, and those who use them.
Object-oriented languages are Platonic paradigms: everything descends from "Object" in java (just an example), which is the primal Form, from which all other Forms descent, and instances are only beautiful in that they participate in such Forms. Instances, on the realm of appearance, are irrelevant except as a function of the beauty of design.
An assembler programmer is a materialist. Everything is matter/energy and can be reduced to their fundamental manifestation (1 and 0); but for practical reasons we deal with them in the fundamental particle level. The designs are just collections of these particles, which are collections of 1s and 0s, and there is no reality to them.
A non-structured program would be more similar to the pre-Socratics greeks, with different elements making up substance, the difference being only in quantity. A program is made of loops, assignments, comparisons and jumps (lots of jumps), and there is no theory about how they're supposed to be together.
Procedual programming would be more similar to Medieval Alchemy, where there were some recipes to create new substances from the basic elements, and it was by combining these different substances that even more complex substances were obtained.
I don't know enough about functional programming (or philosophy) to figure out what the analogy would be like, but I would really like to know if anyone has an idea.
In the end, though, Plato still wins. It's still about building abstract models and pretending they're real, even more real than what they model, even if the model doesn't follow that concept recursively in its design.
I bet there are lots of different ways to give unnecessary significance to code, just like for pictures, writing, film or speech. That's the whole point of art/expression.
The fact that letters are used in formularies and photos in IDs doesn't stop writing and photograph from being considered expression. Why should code be put to a harder test?
Everyone has their favorite distribution, as well as those they totally hate (which are the favorites of someone else).
The best way to figure out whether to upgrade or not and to what is to try them out in a new partition. Focus on the ones which promise the simpler and faster installations, if only because they're faster to try and check out.
Installing MINIMAL options in Mandrake, Suse, RedHat (for example) should allow you to check them out in a couple of days. Whatever catches your eye would be worth an actual trial. Whatever has problems in such a short time is not worth it.
Of course, you could want to go for more customizable, powerful, less user-friendly distributions that require some plumbing work, but I'm assuming that's not the case.
Obligatory useless recommendations that should not be paid attention at all follow:
I like SuSe and Mandrake. Mandrake won me over from RH with equivalent technical quality and superior desktop features. I just haven't seen any advantage to RedHat since I upgraded from RH6.0. SuSe won me over from Mandrake with superior technical quality and equivalent desktop features.
By your argument Physics is not a science because it deals with how to build levers, heat things, electrocute people or send radio signal. The answer, of course, is that Physics doesn't deal with that, it deals with the underlying rules of those phenomena. In the same way, Computer Science deal with the underlying rules of information processing. Both sciences (and practically any science) concern themselves with applications because experiments are a vital part of that "science" concept. But programming is not the main focus of a CS just like building machinery is not the focus of a Physicist. That's what Engineers are for, in both fields. It doesn't surprise me to see the confusion, since even many CS students make that mistake, but you may take a look at that sig on another message in the thread: "Real Computer Scientists don't use computers". It should be "Real Computer Scientists don't JUST use computers" but the point is valid. "Real Mathematicians don't use calculators". Of course they actually do, but the real work has nothing to do with that.
>The problem that I've always seen is that humans
>have stopped evolving. At least according to
>this scheme. Sure, we keep attaining more
>knowlege, but for the most part the biological
>(and this includes mental) aspect of humanity is
>not changing (at least in no way that is caused
>by the strictest sense of evolution).
Two things:
- Evolution is slow. Humankind is ridiculously young as a species; I would not expect radical changes for a while, and there are small changes.
- We do keep evolving; "survival of the fittest" is not restricted to anathomical means. A species is a whole containing the body, the mental tools and the social structures it has evolved... for humans that includes teachable skills.
Since techno-social change is faster and more adaptive, it will obviously be prefered by evolution to biological change.
>Sure, just because someone is smarter / stronger
>/ etc than most gives him/her a huge advantage
>in life, but doesn't necessarily affect the
>outcome of survival
Nor does it necessarily affect the survival of an animal "in the wild". If it were a matter only of survival and "not passing the weak genes", there would be no monkeys, reptiles, or other branches of species that evolved into something else at one time or another.
>Personally, I don't think the question is if we
>ever are able to control our own evolution, how
>to we stop it, but, when we are able to control
>our own evolution, how will we mold it?
In the same way evolution always has: as necessity or convenience dictates. It works.
And ironically, it puts our "guidance" in perspective.
Bodrius
That's why the pet industry is so excited.
>Actually, your post is hideously contrived in
>many areas, but I'll limit myself to the
You have no idea... (I am agreeing, just in case).
>You claim that a longer lifespan in western
>society, as opposed to a shorter lifespan in a
>strictly laissez faire "animal" society is
>restricted strictly to medicinal benefits.
First, There is nothing more "animal" in laissez faire society than in a structured society. Bees are no less animals than bears, wolves or humans.
Second, I did not mean lifespan difference is strictly because of medicinal benefits. That is only accurate if your only other factor is government, which makes no qualitative difference.
>What you fail to recognize is that the
>government protects both individuals and groups,
>through the rule of law, to prevent them from
>competing in what our society considers
>inapproporiate ways.
What you fail to see is that social animals obey their unwritten laws before any governments, and it is the nature of the social animal what defines the appropiate or inappropiate way to compete. Government is only tolerated if it facilitates that without undue overhead.
What your baboons are doing is no different from a modern coup d'etat. The very arguments that make a government legitimate are used as a justification for coup d'etats, including the "authority to take from the priviledged and give to the unpriviledged" which you have cited before.
As a sidenote, governments have the right and duty of protecting themselves from coup d'etats, but that is not their function (as your use of the baboon example would suggest).
>Your second point is that "Nature considers some
>unworthy". Ah, yes. You're one of those "Kill
>the 'tards" people, aren't you?
No. On the "objective side", judgement of what is 'tard is not for us to make; intelligence has no evolutionary value in many environments, for example, not to mention we don't know what it is or how to analyze it precisely.
I was stating a fact, not an opinion. Notice that the subject was "Nature", not I. It is my opinion that that is a fact, but it doesn't mean I consider it "moral". Nature doesn't have morals to share, it doesn't care.
On the "subjective side", I'm a myopic unambitious weakling with no sense of economics and a lack of social skills; success would be very unlikely for me. I'm no "winner" that looks down on the weak, I'm weak myself.
You're still missing the main point here: People do not live longer because of government; more people live. It is a quantitive, not a qualitative difference. You missed a valid point pursuing an invalid one.
>Perhaps if you grew up with a brain damaged
>brother or sister, you might have more
>compassion, but your inability to project your
Is that the only reason for compassion? I had my share of close victims who have suffered unduly. That doesn't change how the world works, we become irrelevant unless we know the world we want to change and understand why.
Is compassion the only "reason" that validates your argument? What makes different in that case the argument for government from "wishful thinking"? If only the world were compassionate, everything would work wonderfully!
You already know you are right, you only have to find why. What's the point of thinking it through in that case?
An animalist? Maybe I am. I don't know. Is that supposed to be "bad"?
>I'm cheering for the first baboon with the guts
>to take a swing at you, and I hope the rest join
>in bravely.
How utterly compassionate of you. I'm glad you can project your existence into those who are uncapable of seeing what you see!
(Now here is where I lose my moral ground!)
Bodrius
>geez...i can't believe you slept through BOTH
>your history classes and your philosophy
>classes...
Maybe I did too. Or maybe not all history/philosophy/sociology/anthropology faculties are sworn enemies of Adam Smith.
>anyway, when you control the medium, you control
>the content. that's history. soviet union,
>china, nazi germany...in fact, that's why we
>have laws (strong laws)
And that's precisely the point libertarians use for deregulation: monopolistic control of the medium leads to complete control of the content, and the entity that has (or gives) monopoly of control of the medium is the government.
>You would probably no be a happy camper if none
>of your network cards would talk to each other.
Probably not me either. Probably that's why I use a SoundBlaster-compatible card, which became a de facto standard way too long ago, even when it wasn't the only or strictly superior technology.
Probably the card is SB-compatible for the same reason all cars would be Honda-compatible: it can be done, it makes sense, and people will buy it over yet-another-propietary-standard.
Would they care that the standard was made by Honda to corner the market? Not really. Would it make a difference? Only if Honda were stupid enough to come up with the PS/2 and try again.
(Now that's an incoherent mix of metaphors!)
>And what of philosophy? We're stronger together
>than apart. One of the basics of philosophy, and
Basics of philosophy?! There is no such thing as a "basic of philosophy" in that sense! That's like saying "fundamentals of religion".
Not all philosophies follow that precept, and to pretend that it is part of the essential structure of philosophy only gives the impression that you slept through your philosophy classes too.
I have to guess you mean its basic for your philosophy, or for those that appear more convincing to you, or that it is "evidently obvious" for you. People can differ on that.
>why government exists. Forgot about that, eh?
>You must have been too busy calling me names to
>think about any of this.
Er... I think the one who called you a communist was someone else on another post. The only one who's has called names on this particular thread is you.
>Probable result : discrimination that would be
>very hard to prove.
Discrimination?!
Nope. The probable result is that you would be required to use MS when you work at home and the company would have to cover the cost it if they want to use the program, or you would have to if the company is not covering software/equipment.
That's not discrimination any more than against those who don't have computers at home. Now if you don't WANT to use MS, then that is quite simply not the problem of the company. You may not WANT to use that silly uniform in McDonalds, just don't work there.
>When a gang of thugs starts breaking down your
>door to get at your wife and daughters, guess
>who will be calling the 911 line "Oh, help,
>nanny help
That would be because he wanted to pay his taxes for the government to protect him from thugs. What he didn't want was to pay taxes for the government to protect him from incompatible standards. The cops would still have to come with compatible or incompatible cars.
If he argued for zero-taxes, no-government or no-law-enforcement you would have a point. He didn't, therefore there is no point here.
>so your toaster doesn't have to be made by the
>same company that made the power generation
>plant).
That's not the reason there is a standard there; electric energy companies would be stupid to try to monopolize electric appliances (they couldn't feed as much energy consumption a competitive market).
Electric standards exist for safety, so that your toaster doesn't kill you for no reason.
It is curious that you ignored one of the strongest points for government endorsed standards here: safety of personnel, safety of data, etc.
Where industry is much more willing to take risks on that side, government usually has stricter minimum safety standards which the commercial alternatives in the end have to surpass.
Particularly in the health area, that's a good reason to have government put annoying pressure on industries.
Bodrius
>the government sometimes dictates free speech
>takes place over the majority view. i want that
>to continue.
That's part of being a democracy indeed, as opposed to fascism et al, but that's a self-limitation of the government, which ends up representing and imposing majority views.
Great if you want it to continue, but remember that any organized imposition of a majority requires a de facto government. Protection of minority opinion is not inherent to government, not even to good government, it's a compromise of government based on limits that were imposed on it with the invention of modern democracy, so that "the government of the people wouldn't run rampant". (Maybe I'm preaching the obvious, but you would be surprised how whole countries take "democracy" literally).
My point is that government is needed to protect minority opinion only because to systematically attack minorities government is necessary. It is therefore not the best argument for government.
>in the animal world, you would have a much
>shorter life than you have in our modern,
>western society.
Points for medicine, not government. A strong individual could live as long without government as with government, assuming he can get the medical benefits (by force, if necessary). A smart one probably as long, if he can make others dependent on him (as a medic, for example).
A weaker individual without saleable talents or the social skills to market them would die, Nature considers him/her not worthy. I think that's your point, but you didn't make it, I have to guess.
>when the government fails, it's because people
>like you turned their back on it and let the
>system run rampant.
When government fails, the system did not "run rampant". It dissolves because of structural defects. If the government runs rampant it doesn't fail: it is very successful. It's goals may or may not become different from their citizens, but that's another matter.
When the government fails SOMEONE is because they didn't make sure the government defended their interests, that is true. Or because other people with other interests were more successful. Government will always fail a lot of people.
Government obeys the citizens that make their interests known and press for them.
Citizens do that in direct proportion to the benefits they reap from defending their interests.
Corporate entities defend their interests earnestly because they can benefit greatly, and obviously. Individual citizens do not, unless the interests are very, very important for them.
Therefore, corporate entities are at advantage within the government because they are citizens who defend their interests. Government helps corporations because they are citizens (lots of them, and with unified interests to boot), and helping citizens is their job.
That is not failure of the government, if there is conflict between corporate interest and individual interest, it's failure of the individuals on two grounds:
- Not defending their individual interests in the government
- Fighting constantly with themselves because their corporate interests (job, stocks, organizations, etc) are at conflict with their personal interests.
Both are problems of not taking responsabilities, not of a lack or excess of government. Precisely what the poster you replied to was criticizing.
Now, the examples you use of wrong corporate behavior are all criminal acts (fraud, to be specific). Since no one argued for dissolution of law enforcement, they are irrelevant.
I don't know that anyone argued that free markets protect from fraud. Not even that fraud is not an effective business strategy in the free market (I happen to think that in the end it backfires), which still would not make it legal. Fraud was simply not dealt with here that I know.
And invoking history to invalidate "free markets" doesn't work, because there has never been a significant "free market" as we know it or may come to know it in the future. Scale is a BIG difference.
>by the way, as much as i hate correcting you
>monkeys,
>if you still don't understand, your brain is
>defective.
I think you lost the moral ground here.
>you are an unthinking name-caller
I assume that would make you a "thinking name-caller", then?
Now, all the "communist" crap was way out of line, but this seems worse to me (mainly because the "anti-communist" didn't pretend argumentative superiority, but you do).
Bodrius
>If your opinion is that KDE should have the
>right-click menu attached to the middle mouse
>button instead of the right one, is that a bug?
>Do you report it?
>No, you do not (I hope not, at least). You're an
>adult (or close enough, at least). You can just
>change the code.
So the definition of an adult is now "you can just change the code"? Hmm... gotta check my ID...
It might just happen that not everybody who uses a computer wants to be an adult in that case. It might just happen that not everybody who uses complicated software wants to be a computer scientist... that's good: it helps bring hardware prices down. A lot.
>If Corel wants to change KDE's
>interface to conform to their expectations, they
>should do it themselves instead of trying to
>force the world to change along with them.
And therefore they would be seen as forcing their GUI concepts down the throats of their users... I'm not sure it would even be because they are a Big Evil Corporation.
If I were in a team designing a product, I would find it a major problem if all the other members of the team duplicated and constantly replaced the user interface because of differing ideas. User interface happens to be a very important part of anything: it's the link to actual functionality. If you can't agree on a UI, you can't agree on the finished product, therefore it is never finished (or worse, it is said to be "finished" and sold that way).
Schizophrenic GUIs are BAD GUIs, better no GUIs at all (and then what would be the point of KDE?).
Maybe GUI consistency is not that important if you view the software as a hobbyst's toy or a free hack, maybe then all the sophisticated users can code their personal preferences in; but if you want Linux et al to be used by more people, it is extremely important.
Maybe you don't want other, uneducated, non-computer savvyy people to use that software, but I suspect KDE was created precisely for that reason. It would be oxymoronic to consider that "dumbing-down" the system.
On the side, I'm no GUI guru (or anything guru for that matter) but some of those remarks actually seem like bugs to me: inconsistent menu buttons are as much a bug as I would imagine in GUI design, it certainly shouldn't be deliberate. Other remarks, of course, belong elsewhere, but they still should not be implemented until discussed and agreed upon as a "desirable change" for the GUI.
Bodrius
"I can't understand how some people that consider UIs superfluous can complain so much about idiosyncratic APIs." - Related comment from unrelated event, about unrelated people.
The scary thing is the option: Management.
Oh, yeah, it's the same think...
Bodrius
>Am I alone in wondering whether GNOME is truly
>worthy of so much recent coverage on Slashdot?
>Is GNOME really the final word in GUI usability?
>GNOME still feels to be very much emulating the
>look and feel of Windows 95, and GNOME even
>seems to emulate much of Windows' bloat and
>instability.
Although I do not think Gnome has had the "greatest thinkers" collaborating on it (don't take it the wrong way, but there is a big difference between smart people and "humanity's greatest thinkers"), I have to agree: I find it dissapointing.
Stability issues aside, GNOME's UI seems to me an imitation of Win/Mac/predecessors, which is not entirely bad, except that KDE does a better job at imitating them.
Maybe it provides greater control over the aesthetic components as someone wrote, but what are the choices? Mac-like? Amiga-like? Isn't that a problem with Linux GUIs? ("We not only imitate Win95, we also imitate any other OS's idea of a GUI!)
I love the idea of changing GUIs to whatever I feel like, it's one of the reasons I use Linux, but the GUIs are far from the pinnacle of intuition and natural-feel.
Maybe I'm not looking where I should, but there seems to be little experimentation in new UIs precisely in a community with the greater potential: propietary OSes has more to lose (changing their popular GUIs is risky and expensive, although some are wise to take risks) and perhaps more limited influx of ideas (marketing research does not a good design create, it can only show how bad an existing one is).
Currently I use Enlightenment all by itself (not as an addendum), and I like it (a lot, in spite of the hiccups) over my "stable" KDE desktop.
A non-technical person said of Enlightenment "It looks like game." as if it were bad, because he felt disoriented outside the Win-paradigm, so I can see why there is a need to duplicate it.
Still, that statement protests exactly what I find promising: games are about the only sector in the consumer software that seems willing to reinvent GUIs and come up with good ones, or the game just doesn't sell. So I guess Enlightenment is doing something right, and it's not just me.
But is it the only not-an-homage GUI project for Linux/*NIX? (and treated as add-on usually, to boot)
Why the main support seems to be for imitative projects? And why the main opposition to the Win-GUI is based on "learn the others, it's not that hard!"?
If Linux is to take over the consumer/business markets, it shouldn't expect users to educate themselves in computers anymore than courts expect citizens to understand legalese. It shouldn't even expect users to learn as much as for Windows (or even Mac)... it should be much easier than that.
The irony is that while Linux has the most to gain, the least to lose, and the best chances to have a lot of designers try different and wacky ideas of a natural GUI, all the effort seems focused on replicating the first, quirky attempts at an intuitive GUI.
Bodrius
>Windows NT 4.0 Ntdetect locks up tighter than a
>virgin at bible camp. After I ripped every card
>except
I have to say, that is the most appealing and politically incorrect description of Windows stability.
I'm surprised it hasn't been used by MS marketing department to describe it as a "feature".
Bodrius
>I some cases Napster is Piracy, worse than the
>High seas. They did try to turn a profit by
>facilitating theft and violations of the law.
>This theft can easily hurt someone who is
>creative and inteligent. Geeks arn't the only
>ones who are smart or make a living off the
>sweat of the mind.
True. And not all Geeks despise the concept of Intellectual Property either (precisely because they can make a living out of it).
But I don't think Napster tried to turn a profit by facilitating theft and violations of the law. I don't think I can make that assumption. Regardless of Napster's intentions, the idea is not intrinsically linked to violations of the law.
In some cases, Napster is piracy. In some cases, laser printers are piracy. In some cases the Internet is piracy (got warez ftps to share?). Hey, Gutemberg's print made pirating profitable in the first place. Want to outlaw them?
In some cases the telephone and the mail have been used for numerous crimes, not to mention cars, which give bank robbers the ability to escape quickly and unpunished!
Each one of those cases should be dealt with as it is: an individual's violation of the law, and an individual's act of piracy. Napster is not piracy just because pirates use Napster, and the reverse is even less true (I'm not a pirate if I use Napster).
On the same vein, copyright is not wrong because Metallica wants to sue me over downloading material I already own. What is wrong, harrassment and probably illegal, is Metallica trying to take away the right for which I already paid: the right to "own" their music as long as I don't transfer that right.
I don't allow my car manufacturer to say which route should I take to work, or my PC maker which progams I can use and for what. Why should it be different with music?
Bodrius
>For your reading enjoyment, I give you the ninth >amendment to the Constitution of the United >States of America:
:-)
>The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain >rights, shall not be construed to deny or >disparage others retained by the people.
Thanks. I enjoyed it. Was it good for you too?
>The right to privacy is a generally accepted >principle in this country. Just because it isn't >explicitly spelled out in the Constitution >doesn't mean it's any less valid.
Which is exactly my point, except that I wanted to make clear that the reason for that is not that the Constitution of the United States of America recognizes the reason for that.
>While I personally feel that some degree of
>control over one's ideas for a very limited
>period of time can be beneficial, it is hardly a
>natural sort of right in the same vein as the
>right to privacy. If you really want to control
>your ideas, you simply don't disseminate them.
That is the most radical and most effective kind of control over information, but it is not, nor should it be, the only one.
>control them. Now, once you've told your idea to
>others, it becomes theirs as well. You cannot
>remove it from their brain and you should not be
>able to prohibit them from acting on it, writing
>it down, copying it, or repeating or
>disseminating it to others. That is exactly what
>"intellectual property" laws attempt to do.
Do you realize that you have invalidated the very concept of "right of privacy" along with intellectual property in that interpretation?
Once you give the information, you can't control it, therefore everyone can do whatever they want with your information... you cannot reclaim any right over the use of your personal data.
And since you'll have to give different pieces of information to different people, and it will be disseminated, the profitable act of collecting, centralizing and selling information is as legitimate as the first authorized use.
Unless I can own information per se, I cannot own my personal information.
About "what intellectual property laws attempt to do", they attempt to protect two things: the ability for the author to benefit from his intellectual work, which depends on minimizing the "inflation of the idea", and the inability for others to benefit from it without his authorization, which would "inflate the idea".
So it is a matter of inflation, after all... and honor/prestige, I guess (it is frustrating when someone steals credit for your only two or three good ideas).
Information has value, therefore he who has that with value should be able to protect it; and that which decreases its value is inflation, just like it does to anything with value.
The stupid thing about the implementation of IP laws is, pun unintended, its inflexibility with implementations. Again I submit to the literary example: to equal every piece analogous to another to plagiarism would kill literature on the spot, that judgement should be reserved for the most drastic and obvious cases, giving a living chance to improved "inspired on" copies and despising the mediocre as the clones they are.
>This seems to be a pretty decent idea and would
>probably work pretty well. Unfortunately people
>and corporations got greedy and began lobbying
>our government to extend the period of time they
>could control these works. In most cases it
>wasn't even the creators themselves that wanted
>the extensions, it was the heirs of the creator
>or a corporation that had purchased the work or
>idea.
I would see some sense in a lenghty control period over IP, since now dissemination is almost instantaneous, and the author can have his own reasons and agenda to keep control of the IP (sometimes that is why he created it).
However, you are completely right in that the system is broken right now in that aspect. Indefinite periods should be out of the question, and right now the time is too lenghty for some IP.
It is tailored (and extended) for literary works, which claim no real property over the semantics of the data (you can use the same plot of whatever you read, if you rewrite it).
It makes sense in that case to control your material during your lifetime, but it is ridiculous to control "all systems of addition using pen and paper" during 50 years.
I'm not sure whether the creators would be so willing to share freely their intellectual property. It is property, and no matter how much the artist talks about creating "for the public", seeing your property become public domain is not always nice. (Perhaps it's because I don't buy the "for the public" idea of art, I believe one creates for himself/herself, not usually to communicate with others)
But that is beside the point, whether it is corporations, heirs or authors, it is natural for them to get greedy. It not "unfortunate", it is to be expected, and it should be expected for the public to get equally "greedy" about their own rights as consumers of information.
They have been "greedy" enough to defend their rights to own guns, or even a Betamax, and they should defend themselves from such abuses without, necessarily, resenting the attempt.
When you go buy a car, you do not expect the seller to try to give you the best deal, but you expect to be able to negotiate the best deal out of him, or at least a good one. If you ask him to draw the price and the contract, complaining about how he betrayed your trust won't help... it will only encourage your mindset to depend on the "niceness" of the salesman the next time too.
Their job is protecting their interests, the consumers job is protecting their own.
>but by doing some of our own lobbying and
>protesting. We need to get people who have the
>ears of our congresscritters to explain to them
>that we're tired of Congress continuing to aid
>these corporations in their attempts to screw
>the public. I'm just afraid that corporate money
>speaks a lot louder than anything we can say.
Right. I completely agree with you on those points. Except that you're not recognizing that is corporate by definition. Governments are corporate, churches are corporate, profit-free organizations are corporate.
I'm not playing lexicologist here, what I mean is that for anyone to be heard by the government, they have to convince them they represent enough shareholders and their corporate interests... that demands corporate money, corporate organization and some corporate talking (in their government or private business versions, you choose).
And it implies alliances with whoever shares those interests, as long as the motif behind the alliance is clear.
I'm sure lots of private corporations and organizations have interests in conflict with the current trend... but their role is to please and follow society, that's how they make money or get votes.
Society seems to be pleased with the abuse of IP, therefore everyone supports it. If society shows that they want more freedom with their IP, vendors will change their attitudes before their competitors take over the market.
The problem I see is that people are just catching up with the technology, they are not prepared to engage in a debate about how they can use it. The number of people downloading MP3s and trying to get snapshots from their expensive DVDs for wallpaper are peanuts to the industry, and the other billions of people are just learning to use the remote.
Yet they all seem to understand why outlawing personal use of photocopiers would infringe on their rights, even though they can see where it can be used wrongly. Currently, there is no time to educate people, and that is a problem.
Bodrius
>I'd say that the term, "Intellectual Property"
>is also propaganda, since the Consitution only
>mentions securing "authors" (not "owners") the
>temporary right to exclusive use of the work.
>Copyrights and patents are more an exclusive
>license than an inherent right of the author,
>but some people keep portraying it that way.
The Constitution does not mention privacy as a right either, yet many of us consider it a fundamental right. I'm sure that's not the only "right" the Constitution does not explicitely define.
This might be hard to understand for some people, but the Constitution of the United States of America is not the only, nor the best, list of "fundamental rights", nor will there ever be one.
The validity of rights is what gives value to that Constitution, and rights are valid if they make sense, not if they are backed by a document. If you wish to invalidate a right, argument against it. Otherwise, one can just invalidate the Constitution on the grounds of Treason to the Crown.
Intellectual Property makes sense as a right. I consider I have the right to not-share what I think, know or invent with you, the government, or society in general. I also consider I have the right to benefit or not benefit from it, no matter how great or how little effort was necessary to create it.
If that selfishness "deprives society", so be it, I have the most fundamental right to be selfish, perhaps that is where Intellectual Property rests as a right.
If someone wants to take away the right to not give to charity, to try to get more of anything than others, to not be nice and to generally be a jerk whenever one wants to, they should expect some oposition. In that sense, there is no reason to be less selfish about Intellectual Property than with normal Property.
What may or may not make sense is the current protections of Intellectual Property.
But that's like arguing against television because of the lack of quality programming: it may make it problematic and almost useless, but the problem is the programming, not the TV set (yep, bad analogy, but what the heck).
IMNSHO, we have spent more than a couple of centuries refining the solutions for books, we might as well use them for a guide.
If I buy a book, I'm paying for its Intellectual Property (plus the paper), and I demand what I buy. I have a right to that Intellectual Property, as a consumer. That includes reading it however I want, scribbling on it as I like, arguing about it, criticize it, quote it within "fair use", photocopy it for personal use, or loan my original copy (as long as I'm not duplicating its users). I may not have the right to redistribute it (unless it was given to me), but I have the right to use it (because it was given to me), and to restrict that use is to take away that right... fraud, or at least a breach of contract.
As far as I know, no author can be put in jail for quoting a paragraph of another book if it is shown as a quote (credit), and is not unquestionably superflous... that is, as long as it is a valid part of the new work.
The extent of valid appropiation of material varies with the kind of content, but people develop an intuitive "sense" of what is right or wrong. It doesn't take an expert to know what kind of content is quotable in a novel, and what is quotable for a scientific paper.
One can write a legitimate "novel about a novel", valid because it gives new meaning or exposition to the material, where in the second a greater semantic difference would be required. But one doesn't need to know that to know if it's right or wrong when one reads it; and usually with greater leniancy than the legal letter which is there to deal with transgressions noticeable enough to end up in court in the first place.
The point is Intellectual Property is valid as a right, per se, but it requires sensible systems and some flexibility by nature.
It works on some instances because most people had time, trials and errors to develop a sense of how it should be; in younger media, that sense is not as developed, and some people try to protect their rights as owners by interpreting obsolete laws in the most restrictive manner (and make newer ones based on those interpretations). They argue that the ease of duplication of material encourages illegal redistribution, but decades of Xerox copy machines with a booming book market proves the argument wrong.
That attitude is to be expected, the problem is that people do not defend their rights as buyers of that property. Without the conflict the solution is not negotiated. Actually, I would be surprised if the attitude was not at first a bluff because they expected conflict and negotiation... it just became unexpectedly easy to go for the jackpot.
And here I cut the disgression before I break the 640K barrier.
Bodrius