Actually that's exactly the job of the legal system, and that's exactly why you get paid for services rendered and hours worked. It's a staple of our society, but let's put that hyperbole "the laws are paying artists" (sounds bad doesn't it?) aside for a moment.
The simple fact is you dont seem to respect artists' right to profit from their work because you think society as a whole would do better. Is that correct? Fine. You have no basis for that comparision and no way to even measure it, but fine. And again historically, we know that artists have struggled under such conditions. So the evidence is against you. Do you apply this to all professions? No one should profit, all should share everything? It's not an un-heard-of position to hold. But let's be clear, if you dont believe in property at all, then the argument about the finer points here serve little purpose because you'll keep telling us that the elephant is not in the room.
Law is not smallpox. Drawing black and white analogies does not demonstrate that there is no middle ground, it just shows there is just no middle ground in your analogies. If 10 years is good, it does not follow that 100 years is better and we're all gonna die tomorrow of mad cow disease. You're arguing in non-sequiters with assumed premises. Dividing lines doen't need to be "safe" they need to be reasonable, which is something I think you keep missing. It seems like it's not even worth getting into that I think copyright has no use beyond the life of the author/artist. And that 15-30 years is reasonable.
Because, instead, you've moved the argument into the lofty abstract realm of "privatized culture" versus "free cultre" and which is more "valuble". Except here's the problem with that: I don't measure culture the same way you do. Nor does the next slashdotter, we each have our own idea of such an abstract concept. Nor do I believe that the debate has to fall under the terms of which side of the pendulum is more valueble. Society has to eat too. We can't just sit around and think up lofty ideas. There's more at stake here than abstract ideas of the value of culture. And I don't know about you, but I have faith that we can think up reasonable nuanced solutions to complex problems. But we have to keep working at it because extremists (such as IP lawyers and yourself) will keep trying to pull us in one direction or another. This is the responsibility of democracy.
As I said above, I agree that there are very serious problems and we've moved much too far in one direction, but I can't subscribe to your extreme interpretation of "free culture for all." You have a nice dramatic flare with you're writing style, and it's fun to read, but the logic and evidence just isn't there.
I dont want to live in a Libertarian or Communist or Capitalist or Socialist utopia. I want the best ideas from each.
Not going to debate a philisophical rhetoric, but fashion has tangible goods. It's not a good analogy. Nor is historical precedence where most artists died in poverty. I fully agree that patents and copyright are severely broken and laws are meant to serve the priveleged, but this kind of "all culture should be free" nonsense is bordering on fantasy land. There has to be a reasonable middle.
That was a fun read, you have a nice eloqunce to your words, but you seem to have equated startup and copyright infringer. I'm not sure that's a leap in logic I'm willing to take.
This does seem like it will disproportionally affect torrent users though, unless they are doing some type of deep packet inspection of all TCP/IP traffic and matching it against a databse of signatures, which sounds logistically insane.
If they bring down P2P, they are just going to find it moving offshore to Megaupload clones in China. Interestingly too, this will hit specific media (movies/tv especially) and do little to protect indie stuff or anything of smaller file size (software, books). I guess that could be part of your connection. Big rights holders are being protected while the indies lose out?
Huh? Isnt x86 the arcitecture they know best? And agreed with the other poster, what does Adobe have to do with this? heh. I'm generally a fan of their products (even though./ isn't) but kinda off topic, no?
Which is also not the default, Skype set them this way on purpose. According to a comment in TFA, they use some native libraries to access those DBs that run under a different user than the app does because they are trying to obsfucate the Skype protocol. I'm not sure how true all that it but it seems logical/feasible enough.
It's never in the best interest of the consumer to have a company kill off a technology by artificially limiting choice. If Steve was correct, then there isn't a need to kill Flash, it can be replaced by better alternatives. Or it can find it's niche where it belongs among other competiting technologies. Cheering the death of a technology instead of cheering it's replacement is just as irrational as the claims you lay at the feet of the "Android crowd." Competition is good, having technology decided by one guy is not.
Deciding if a permission is needed requires context. There is no algorithm that can figure that out. And, sans automation, you've landed squarely into human filtering & approval of apps.
Anyways, I wrote a guide about all the permissions that might be a worthwhile read for some here, and I'm always glad to get feedback/corrections/suggestions. (You can email me on the contact page).
What is the advantage of IR v WiFi (if any)? XBMC would seem like a relatively natural thing for a smartphone to control, no? I think Boxee has an API for WiFi remotes you can use. There is some code explaining some of it here: http://code.google.com/p/boxeeremote/wiki/AndroidUDP
What good is a privacy feature when it rests on the compliance of those who have conflicted interests in the matter? I'm scratching my head a bit as to why Mozilla went down this road at all. I know everyone is pushing for the Web-2.0-cloud-service-based-thin-client-web-app-with-local-storage and video embeded in buttons, but there has to be some kind of gatekeeper. If our gatekeepers (the browser makers/W3C) are merely going to add a "please be nice" button, what chances are there that the web will continue to be a medium of information excahnge, and not turn into a see of potentially dangerous apps? I know that's a bit chicken little sounding but this was one advantage the plugin model afforded. Don't want Flash/Java? Easily blocked. Don't want HTML privacy invasion? Ask the advertisers nicely to comply? Something seems seriously broken with this philosophy. It's arleady diffucult to browse a lot of sites sans-javascript, and it seems only to be getting worse. Personally, I've always thought one of the advantages of the web, one of the things that caused it to grow so rapidly, is that sites were sanboxed away from the user via the limitations of the browser.
How would someone prove a compnay stifled innovation? Sure they created inventions for themselves and their customers. But it seems that it's a generally accepted tennent of captialism that multiple companies fighting each other would reach those goals much faster. There clearly is evidence of them hurting some innovation in the phone market as well (CarterPhone). But how do you judge the sum total of these things? I don't think competeting lists of inventions vs anti-consumer behavoir on an internet forum is sufficient to justify anything.
So yeah, this is not directed at you, but this conversation got off topic fast.
Bell Labs is great, but is it worth it at the cost of having only one company control it? Is it worth not having 10 smaller labs? Is it worth the price gouging of the consumers? Isn't hogging innovation sort of like stifling it?
Anyways, as a T-mobile customer, it looks to me like they are poised to stifle competition, especially with how they have dealt with Android devices and considering their plans to kill-off T-mobile's 3G spectrum block to put LTE on there.
Slashdot Mirror
Wasn't there video of water ice sublimation?
Actually that's exactly the job of the legal system, and that's exactly why you get paid for services rendered and hours worked. It's a staple of our society, but let's put that hyperbole "the laws are paying artists" (sounds bad doesn't it?) aside for a moment.
The simple fact is you dont seem to respect artists' right to profit from their work because you think society as a whole would do better. Is that correct? Fine. You have no basis for that comparision and no way to even measure it, but fine. And again historically, we know that artists have struggled under such conditions. So the evidence is against you. Do you apply this to all professions? No one should profit, all should share everything? It's not an un-heard-of position to hold. But let's be clear, if you dont believe in property at all, then the argument about the finer points here serve little purpose because you'll keep telling us that the elephant is not in the room.
Law is not smallpox. Drawing black and white analogies does not demonstrate that there is no middle ground, it just shows there is just no middle ground in your analogies. If 10 years is good, it does not follow that 100 years is better and we're all gonna die tomorrow of mad cow disease. You're arguing in non-sequiters with assumed premises. Dividing lines doen't need to be "safe" they need to be reasonable, which is something I think you keep missing. It seems like it's not even worth getting into that I think copyright has no use beyond the life of the author/artist. And that 15-30 years is reasonable.
Because, instead, you've moved the argument into the lofty abstract realm of "privatized culture" versus "free cultre" and which is more "valuble". Except here's the problem with that: I don't measure culture the same way you do. Nor does the next slashdotter, we each have our own idea of such an abstract concept. Nor do I believe that the debate has to fall under the terms of which side of the pendulum is more valueble. Society has to eat too. We can't just sit around and think up lofty ideas. There's more at stake here than abstract ideas of the value of culture. And I don't know about you, but I have faith that we can think up reasonable nuanced solutions to complex problems. But we have to keep working at it because extremists (such as IP lawyers and yourself) will keep trying to pull us in one direction or another. This is the responsibility of democracy.
As I said above, I agree that there are very serious problems and we've moved much too far in one direction, but I can't subscribe to your extreme interpretation of "free culture for all." You have a nice dramatic flare with you're writing style, and it's fun to read, but the logic and evidence just isn't there.
I dont want to live in a Libertarian or Communist or Capitalist or Socialist utopia. I want the best ideas from each.
Not going to debate a philisophical rhetoric, but fashion has tangible goods. It's not a good analogy. Nor is historical precedence where most artists died in poverty. I fully agree that patents and copyright are severely broken and laws are meant to serve the priveleged, but this kind of "all culture should be free" nonsense is bordering on fantasy land. There has to be a reasonable middle.
That was a fun read, you have a nice eloqunce to your words, but you seem to have equated startup and copyright infringer. I'm not sure that's a leap in logic I'm willing to take.
This does seem like it will disproportionally affect torrent users though, unless they are doing some type of deep packet inspection of all TCP/IP traffic and matching it against a databse of signatures, which sounds logistically insane.
If they bring down P2P, they are just going to find it moving offshore to Megaupload clones in China. Interestingly too, this will hit specific media (movies/tv especially) and do little to protect indie stuff or anything of smaller file size (software, books). I guess that could be part of your connection. Big rights holders are being protected while the indies lose out?
Are you serious?
Huh? Isnt x86 the arcitecture they know best? And agreed with the other poster, what does Adobe have to do with this? heh. I'm generally a fan of their products (even though ./ isn't) but kinda off topic, no?
Nonsense, Apple clearly invented the cloud. And backup. And turtlenecks.
So is that a good thing? Just an honest question. Personally, I think there is a value in thin clients actually being thin and limited.
didn't think you were, I was just adding to the info :)
I Libre'd out Loud...
errr....
Which is also not the default, Skype set them this way on purpose. According to a comment in TFA, they use some native libraries to access those DBs that run under a different user than the app does because they are trying to obsfucate the Skype protocol. I'm not sure how true all that it but it seems logical/feasible enough.
6. RIAs. Flash runs The Weather Channel's interactive map among a bunch of other cool desktop and web apps: http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplatformruntimes/gallery/
It's certainly not for everything, but as a technology it is really powerful despite being used for advertising mostly.
It's never in the best interest of the consumer to have a company kill off a technology by artificially limiting choice. If Steve was correct, then there isn't a need to kill Flash, it can be replaced by better alternatives. Or it can find it's niche where it belongs among other competiting technologies. Cheering the death of a technology instead of cheering it's replacement is just as irrational as the claims you lay at the feet of the "Android crowd." Competition is good, having technology decided by one guy is not.
Clearly you've never actually encountered a bus full of nuns. They can be quite dangerous. Or sexy, depending on where you download the video from.
Novell is selling 800ish patents: http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2011/04/08/apple_oracle_novell_patents/ There are numerous other articles on it if your not an el reg fan too: http://www.google.com/search?q=novell+patent
Actually bonuses haven't been shown to be all that effective. That well known good idea is a well known fallacy:
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html
I think the implications go beyond email too. Imagine the RIAA not needing a subpoena to have a look at your Amazon-hosted music collection
Deciding if a permission is needed requires context. There is no algorithm that can figure that out. And, sans automation, you've landed squarely into human filtering & approval of apps.
Anyways, I wrote a guide about all the permissions that might be a worthwhile read for some here, and I'm always glad to get feedback/corrections/suggestions. (You can email me on the contact page).
How to be safe, avoid viruses, and find trusted apps A guide for those new to Android
Actually a user here (Thanks R* ) found my guide and dropped me an email pointing out just how dangerous the read logs permission is.
*not sure he wants his name posted
What is the advantage of IR v WiFi (if any)? XBMC would seem like a relatively natural thing for a smartphone to control, no? I think Boxee has an API for WiFi remotes you can use. There is some code explaining some of it here: http://code.google.com/p/boxeeremote/wiki/AndroidUDP
Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
#doh #sorry #yerscrewed #citibankisanawardwinningbankforexcellencyincustomerservice We value your bit.ly/
A lot of email marketing companies provide "landing page" coding as well. Though you may be right in this case.
just look at the satanism going on here:
>=)
What good is a privacy feature when it rests on the compliance of those who have conflicted interests in the matter? I'm scratching my head a bit as to why Mozilla went down this road at all. I know everyone is pushing for the Web-2.0-cloud-service-based-thin-client-web-app-with-local-storage and video embeded in buttons, but there has to be some kind of gatekeeper. If our gatekeepers (the browser makers/W3C) are merely going to add a "please be nice" button, what chances are there that the web will continue to be a medium of information excahnge, and not turn into a see of potentially dangerous apps? I know that's a bit chicken little sounding but this was one advantage the plugin model afforded. Don't want Flash/Java? Easily blocked. Don't want HTML privacy invasion? Ask the advertisers nicely to comply? Something seems seriously broken with this philosophy. It's arleady diffucult to browse a lot of sites sans-javascript, and it seems only to be getting worse. Personally, I've always thought one of the advantages of the web, one of the things that caused it to grow so rapidly, is that sites were sanboxed away from the user via the limitations of the browser.
How would someone prove a compnay stifled innovation? Sure they created inventions for themselves and their customers. But it seems that it's a generally accepted tennent of captialism that multiple companies fighting each other would reach those goals much faster. There clearly is evidence of them hurting some innovation in the phone market as well (CarterPhone). But how do you judge the sum total of these things? I don't think competeting lists of inventions vs anti-consumer behavoir on an internet forum is sufficient to justify anything.
So yeah, this is not directed at you, but this conversation got off topic fast.
Bell Labs is great, but is it worth it at the cost of having only one company control it? Is it worth not having 10 smaller labs? Is it worth the price gouging of the consumers? Isn't hogging innovation sort of like stifling it?
Anyways, as a T-mobile customer, it looks to me like they are poised to stifle competition, especially with how they have dealt with Android devices and considering their plans to kill-off T-mobile's 3G spectrum block to put LTE on there.