I've used WindowsME and there's NO WAY to cover up the START menu with an icon. That's fucking bullshit. I don't know why people let these lying pricks get away with saying that. Even if it were true, you can ALWAYS press the start menu button (now available on all Keyboards that come w/ OEMs).
I love the part about, "even allowing a competing operating system like Linux to start up instead of Windows". Please, there's no reason to think that's bad except from MS' exclusive point of view where good means it makes them money. There is no impairment of function by allowing users to start up into another OS.
When MS says they're doing this stuff to benefit the consumer, its pure fucking bullshit.
As a forenote, I'm the one who submitted this story.
To me, as a undergrad majoring in molecular biology, this is interesting but not a disaster.
All of us are for the most part almost completely identical at the genetic level. More than 99.99% of our DNA is probably the same. Most of the variation in our DNA is likely due to selfish elements and "junk DNA" where variation is irrelevant. When it comes down to what separates you from me from Dr. Venter, you'd be surprised that it might come down to a relatively few locations on the genome, and very subtle changes.
Of course, for those few areas where there is some variation in the human genome, this may be important. But how important? So his genome is *most* of Celera's database, as opposed to the genome of 5 randomly selected people. Having a sample of 5 individual's hardly gives due account to diversity in the genome anyways. Besides, much of our diversity is in things which don't matter from a medical point of view: what makes our eyes and hair different colors, our faces different shapes, and other superficial largely irrelevant differences.
An interesting benefit to Dr. Venter's bypassing Celera's random selection process may be that we may in some cases see how phenotype relates to genotype. For example, what exactly is it in Dr. Venter's genome which gives him that most hideous smile which makes him look like a poster for the movie, "The Clowns"? Seriously, there may be some interesting studies to be done, provided Venter is willing.
I'm not saying he did this for all the right reasons. It was, of courses, a selfish act. I think he did this out of eccentricism and curiousity about himself. Richard Dawkin's book is titled, "The Selfish Gene," not "The Benevolent Gene".
I'm not saying I particularly like Venter, or Celera. Celera indeed leached off of the public project, and could've never accomplished what they did without doing so. Also, the public project was headed by Crick. When Waston and Crick discovered the structure of DNA, they didn't hide it and make the world pay for it; they showed it to the world. That was the attitude of true scientists: Even Rosaline Franklin, who's work was used without her permission to determine the structure of DNA by Watson/Crick, wasn't bitter, and wanted the work to be published. I believe she said something along the lines of, "It doesn't matter. It's beuatiful." The discovery of the structure of DNA was made available to us all -- because that's the attitude of true scientists, and because its something that belongs to us all. Celera and Venter, however, have abandoned that tradition. On the bright side, Celera does offer public access to their database with a free registration. The payed-for access gives you a superior genome browser which allows you to find material much easier.
I believe that the essay in the beginning of Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton about the biotechnology revolution captures the essence of what I'm thinking of.
That song is really great. Makes ya wanna get up and dance. I like the part in Purple Rain where Day and crew are on stage and all hopping or whatever to the left then to the right...it really goes along with those drum beats or whatever they are in the song.
Imo, M-Day got a bad reputation by the movie "Purple Rain". People my age who saw that movie thought M-Day was a freakin' jerk, because in the movie he was such a prick to Prince; but in real life, they were friends.
Typical of people like you to post as anonymous cowards. What's the matter, afraid to lose a few points out of paranoia that people will judge your post based on its position not its reasoning? Is your dick really that small? Or is it that you yourself think you don't have a well-reasoned point? I think this is more probable.
Lets see, its obvious you've completely ignored my post and went on some rant about what is basically "a matter of principle".
Bullshit. The artist/author (unless he's an anal prick like yourself who's concerned about the "principle of things") doesn't give a ****. To them, if I wasn't going to have bought it anyways, it doesn't matter if I downloaded their music for free. In fact, as I said before, it benefits them as it gains them audience and reputation (if they're good, the word spreads faster). Btw, moron, how much does the avg. artist get when I guy a $14 dollar CD? Its a few cents. So please don't tell me the rational artists gives a flying fuck about my individual actions.
"Stealing music", you say? Abuse of the English language. To steal necessarily means to gain something by unjustly depriving it of another. Now, have I deprived Day of his music? No. Have I deprived him of his profit? As I wouldn't have bought his songs anyways, no. Thus, its not stealing.
Btw, how the fuck is what I'm doing any different from digitally recording stuff that comes off the radio?
Also, why the fuck should I pay 14 dollars for an album which only has one good song on it? A notable example is Paula Abdul, with a few good songs, but mostly sucking songs. And don't tell me that crap, "buy a single". Single's overcharge you for one song.
Hint to you and artists: pissing off the consumer is not a good way to make money. Refer to DESADE's "A consumer's rant", one place above my post if the posts are sorted by score, for an explanation of that.
The IP system, at least in the US, is broken. Whether or not its broken beyond repair is a matter of conjecture.
Of course, as Stallman states, using the phase IP is in fact dangerous and supportive of the system. But its the only word which collectively refers to patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, and so on and so forth: all of which have essentially one thing in common -- controlling information.
Anyways, here's my solution to the current IP problems: (1) Reduce both the scope and duration of IP laws; (2) Give innovators the choice between "control without compensation" or "compensation without control," but not both. This allows MS to be compensated, but does not allow them to control; it also allows FSF to control (to ensure freedom) but not be compensated (which is basically the way the situation is now). Also, an option should be given for an intermediate between control or compensation; in such an intermediate, there would be less control and less compensation than in either extreme, however.
Btw, in regards to AIDS drugs, to those of you defending companies not giving poor people in Africa drugs at the cost of protection, I hope that you people find yourself sick with some disease and too poor to pay some greedy corporation for the cure.
AIDS "treatments" are NOT useful for very long. HIV adapts rapidly; by the time the 20-year patent on HIV treatments has expired, the "treatment" will completely useless. Thus, the PUBLIC is NEVER EVER compensated for their support of patent owners to HIV-treatments.
Some countries which I praise have chosen to IGNORE drug patents for the GOOD OF THEIR CITIZENS. This is what countries SHOULD do if they need to, as drug companies can't sue a government (sure, they could sue a gov't in that gov'ts own courts, but that would be unwinnable).
I'm a young guy (20 years old). When Prince (aka, "The Purple One," "The Artist Formally Known As Prince," etc) was just getting started up, I was very young and not too interested in music. I knew who Prince was, however, and I remembered that.
However, I didn't know who Morris Day was -- an artist who, in my view having heard him, is superior to Prince.
Now, about a year ago, I saw the movie "Purple Rain". In that movie, I saw the story of Prince and Morris Day competing at a local club. They showed several songs of each artist. As it turns out, in reality, Prince and Morris Day were actually in the same band and good friends, but the movie is a dramatization which sets them up as being enemies.
Anyways, in this movie, they showed Morris Day performing the song called "The Bird". I thought that song was really fun and great, so I looked it up on Amazon, and looked for Morris Day on Google. So I found out this was a real guy, and he had a alot of songs before he unexplicably quit the music industry.
I thought cool. But I'm not going to buy an album by a guy just because he had one good song. So I downloaded Day's album's off from Grokster and LimeWire. Turns out, almost all of the guys music is good -- some real great songs, like Jungle Love, Fishnet (Black Pantyhoes), Color of Success, Get It Up, The Walk, 777-9311, etc.
That's how I found out about Morris Day. And that's how I found out his songs were good. And that's why I've bought a few of his albulms. In short, he made money because of file-sharing. Of course, if he had sucked, he wouldn't have made money; but he also wouldn't have lost any either.
The general point that can be taken here is that almost all people who download tons of stuff from LimeWire/Kazaa wouldn't have bought it anyways. I have about 40Gigs of songs. Do you really think I would have actually gone out and bought 40Gigs worth of songs if it weren't for file-sharing? Of course not, that's absurd. So in short, the artists who's songs I've downloaded haven't lost anything because I wouldn't have paid them anyways. Some gain alot, because I like them enough to buy their albums.
In fact, everyone gains. Before file-sharing I wasn't an avid fan of music. Now, I am. All kinds of music too. I even watch M-TV once in a while, something which I never did before.
In fact, I'd venture to say that the interest in music today is higher than its EVER EVER BEEN. And that's accounting for the size of the population.
So, how exactly is it that artists and the music industry loses from this?
(1) Tell the BSA to fuck off. You're a university, and likely have professors of law teaching there. Thus, no need to pay expensive legal fees, just ask your professors. They might not be able to win the case, but they sure can stall and drag it on at minimal cost to you while you take other measures.
(2) Archive all raw data.
(3) Wipe all of your machines -- that is, write over all data with zero's. To be safe, wipe the hard-drives a few times.
(4) Install GNU/Linux or *BSD on all of your systems, using all Office/spreadsheet/etc equivalents.
"1.To take (the property of another) without right or permission. "
Yes, asshole, as in M$ STEALING US tax dollars by forcing schools to submit to audits and prove their innocence, when such is impossible; as in forcing schols to pay money to MS for machines which don't even have MS OS on them, or which can't (as in iMacs and PowerMacs).
Not to mention, this article is old news. I remember reading this a while back. Is Cmd Taco getting amnesia? Because most stories about the superiority of GNU/Linux, I get as references from/. JJ.
Anyways, I love MS' section in their reasons on why to use Win2k that says "MS' license is better, and simpler".
LOL, yea right. The EULA, a more desireable license than the GPL? Laugh out fucking loud. One section from MS' page on why to use MS stuff says, "an Nvidia developer wrote drivers for GNU/Linux using some free code, w/c he didn't know was GPL'ed; then they had to redevelop, incurring extra costs." First, good for Nvidia, doing what's right. If they make something, and it -- either unintentionally or intentionally -- includes GPL'ed code, they have a moral and legal obligation to either not publish that, or re-write without the GPL'ed code. Second, notice how its MS that was whining, not Nvidia. No one forced Nvidia to re-write the drivers. They could've released them under the GPL.
So what? 87% of its peak, constantly? Sustained 87% peak performance? I don't think so.
Probably more like for a specific problem, and not for a very long time, and under specific conditions.
Pensa FGPA chips are near peak performance CONSTANTLY, on a WIDE VARIETY OF PROBLEMS -- not just the one's they're designed to solve, like this Japanese machine.
Even if this machine sustained 87% peak performance, that's ONLY for the problems it was designed to solve. Try to apply it to something else, and it will sink like a rock.
Where as FGPA processors can dynamically adjust to solve any number of problems optimally.
Remember, when they give you TFLOPS or TOPS values, they're giving you PEAK values.
In reality, most of the time, performance is way below peak values, even for the algorithms for which the computer was designed to handle. IBM's pacific blue has a peak TFLOPS value around 3.6TFLOPS...but in reality, its usually around 1.2TFLOPS.
There's no reason to believe this machine will be any different.
Furthermore, the performance of this machine is likely to sink like a rock when its used outside the area it was specially designed for.
In other words, the best supercomputers in the world are still the ones made by starbridge systems, which were bought by NASA (I believe the one NASA bought was called HAL 15, or something like that).
"There's a faction against that, the so-called general GPL source license free software foundation, that says that these other countries other than the U.S. should devote R&D dollars in the so-called open approach, that means you can never commercialize that software."
Yes, it means you can never commercialize it in the way MS wants to, to put it under the EULA. That's a good thing. Something which society creates should belong to us all, forever. It should not be allowed to be proprietized by the MS', Enron's, and Glogal Crossings' of the world. It should be forever in the commons. Just like MS, as a software developer, has, under the current system, the can control the distribution of its products, so can SOCIETY as a whole, which makes software through taxes. MS, Gates, don't like that? Fine, support an intellectual property system where the creator can't control their creation, but only be compensated.
"For customers who want source code -- universities, large customers -- we provide that. But 90-some percent of that time, that's more a -- okay, it's nice, I have it, you know, should I ever need it. That's fair. So source availability is not the big issue. That's -- you have got source availability from us and others, and it's not much needed in any case."
Really, they provide source? What he doesn't mention is that its at a huge price, and under draconian NDA agreements. Also, who's to say that individual's don't want the source code? MS Word 2000 wasn't compiled for MY computer. It may run faster if I compile it for my computer. Not only that, but witha LITTLE WEE bit of programming knowledge, I can even eliminate the useless annoying features I don't like (i.e., those stupid M&M help things, animation, etc). Source availability, not much needed? Nonsense. The entire biological community requires the source of most software packages as a bare minimum. There's only ONE major bio program which doesn't come with source, and that's PAUP; but PAUP faces stiff rivalry from PHYLIP, which does come with source.
"Then you get to the issue of who is going to be the most innovative. You know, will it be capitalism, or will it be just people working at night?"
I don't know, so far its been "the people working at night". Most major developments come from OPEN SOURCE or FREE software. More innovation has occured in Linux than any other OS, and that's Open Sourced. The world-wide-web as we know it is based on FREE OPEN SOURCED STANDARDS. What's more innovative than the net? Nothing. Nothing at all.
The simple fact of the matter is that established corporations like MS aren't good at innovation at all. Innovation is too risky for corporations. What corporations are good at is optimizing existing technologies. That makes solid business sense: its a sure bet. No technology is optimal as it is, and its a sure bet that if you pay good minds money to optimize it, it'll get optimized. Even this, however, is dubious. Has MS really optimized word processors? I've used MS Works 95 and MS Word 2000. MS Works 95 is overall better. Less annoying "correction", much faster.
Small time developers and individuals involved in open source are the most innovative.
Bill Gates: Spreading this knowledge is something that we are very passionate about.
ROTFL! LOL LOL LOL! Yea, thats fucking HILLARIOUS. Gates/MS, passionate about "spreading knowledge"? No, they're passionate about spreading disinformation about GPL and other free or open software. They're passionate about spreading their propaganda.
Businesses may pay taxes, but it DOES NOT COST THEM. Businesses just pass the cost of taxes on to their customers and employees. PEOPLE -- NOT BUSINESSES -- pay taxes. Any fuck who says otherwise is full of shit and just trying to find a way to rationalize corporate preferencialism.
By the way, anyone is free to USE GPL'd code. FIRST, they can use it as is, for their own needs -- with NO restrictions. SECOND, they can redevelop/improve it, provided they distribute it under the GPL license. MS is free to use GPL'ed code, so long as they distribute the prog under the GPL. *BSD is also free to do that, given they distribute under the GPL. Take note, there's NOTHING that prevents *BSD from distributing things under the GPL.
The gov't certainly should NOT fund any software or research that is not open (as in OSS) or free (as in GPL'ed software).
So the one simple rule should be that if you accept government money for your project, it MUST BE OPEN/FREE AS DEFINED BY A MINIMUM STANDARD. That is, it can either be public domain, GPL'ed, BSD'd, or any similar "license".
So, according to you, we should just let them win? We should let our internet become the tool of corporatization and exploitation?
"Innocent banner ads"? There is no such thing, as far as I've seen. Even ads on slashdot are a far cry from useful. Most ads are flashing banners, "Get Connected!" or rubbish like that.
Sorry, until ads start being non-graphic, informative, and TRUE, I'm going to block them out. I pay good money for my internet connection. 50% of what I download should NOT be ads.
The only ads systems that are acceptable are the one's used by google -- text based, and usually specifically targetted.
*And when I go to the news stand and purchase a copie of the Wall Street Journal, what do I find covering a lot of the pages? Ads. You are paying for access to the stories, not for a site with no ads.*
Yes, exactly, I'm paying for full access to those stories. So since I'm already supporting THEIR business by paying them good money, why should I have to endure bandwidth hogging ads which consume more of my bandwidth than the actual information? I'm not paying them money so I have to waste my time downloading extra, irrelevant crap.
Pages that use ads say, "we have to use them to maintain a profit, to stay afloat". That's a rationalization, but at least its rational. After all, its not like any intelligent person actually buys something becase of an ad. But, when we PAY to access the site, they shouldn't bombard us with ads, since we're giving them hard money, and a good deal of it.
What's even worse is that wsj.com actually charges its paying subscribers extra money (over what they would otherwise) so they can continue to support their ads system.
SORRY, you lame entreprenuing lazy fucks, if you don't like linking, get the fuck off the web.
Internet. World Wide Web. Net. Web. Network.
Do those words mean anything to you cheap entrepreneuing fucks? To me, they mean INTER-CONNECTED, like a spider web. If you don't like it, pack up your silk and get off our web.
Deep linking is one of the things that defines the web. Its a great benefit, which saves bandwidth and server space. Why should the same information be replicated elsewhere many times (I'm not talking about the typical 3 mirrors that exist), when it already exists on one site? Why should users have to use globs of bandwidth going through your 10MB front cover web page, when all they want is a 1KB file in your site?
The internet should be architectured to maximize the overall net performance, not to benefit an exclusive -- who are bandwagon parasites to the internet -- and small group, at the expense of the community -- who created, supported, and nurtured the internet.
The intenet is OURS. It doesn't belong to corporations. It is, and should be kept as, a complete commons. It is a utopia of information. The ideal of the internet is that some day, eventually, you would be able to find any information instantaneously. The goal is to make the internet into a giant perfect brain, in essence, a neural network so to speak. Its goal is to be a place where I can go and retrieve information almost as quickly as if I'd had that information memorized and locked away in my brain.
Anything which detracts from that goal is anti-internet and should be shunned.
Sorry, but the internet existed long before your company did.
Now, because you and your company came along -- and a bunch of others like you and your company -- and you've decided that you don't like the way things are done on the net -- the way they've always been done on the net, the way that was essential to the net's success -- you want to punish all of US and destroy the internet WE'VE worked so hard to create.
Corporations are ruining the internet with their corporatization, spam, pop-ups, pop-unders, banner ads (yes, that includes slashdot -- there's a reason I block these fucking ads), promotional materials, and high-glitter low content web-pages.
Even "respectable" sites like the Wall Street Journal (wsj.com) are sickening in their lack of ethics. I pay money to get access to the Wall Street Journal online. And for paying that good money to them, what do I get? ADS. Fucking ads. I have to use an ad-blocking hosts file for wsj.com, a site which I PAY TO HAVE FULL ACCESS TO!!!!
People act like companies have brought the internet to life. No, companies are to the internet as street-trash whores are to city-dwellers: sure, they're fun for a while; but then you get sick.
Corporate websites are a plague to the internet, a plague that comes in a candy-coated package. Companies are like the white man that came over to America and pretended to be nice-nice to the Native Americans while offering them virus-loaded blankets and "firewater".
We need to resist this corporatization of the net.
Well, for one thing, the most important thing, is that its NOT FREE. You have to pay for it eventually.
Another thing, is why should I spend my time working with a buggy piece of software when there's probably a better, more stable, faster, FREER alternative somewhere?
Unless its really cool -- i.e., 3DOSX, FSV -- I don't spend time with evaluation-ware.
Relegating all porno/hate-speech sites to go to a domain indicative of that doesn't bother me. They would still exist, but just would end in a different domain --.prn for porno sites,.qst for sites with hate-speech, etc.
What does bother me, however, is banning videotaping people without their consent. So that means I can't have a camera/recorder in my car so I can tape a cop if he pulls me over so I have proof if he abused his power?
I can't have a videocam/recorder in my house to ensure that anyone who breaks in an steals stuff or assaults me would be caught and held accountable?
Sorry, that's bullshit.
What the law should do is ban these things for certain purposes. If I record something for personal protection, that's fine. If I record it for blackmail or to publicize comments by somebody who wants their comments private, that's not as fine. But in these cases, its the subsequent action -- violating the persons privacy, or using it to blackmail them -- thats wrong, not the recording/videotaping. Sometimes videotaping/recording certain things is wrong in and of itself. There was some sick fuck of a priest who videotaped women changing in his house, women who trusted him. He further violated their privacy by placing videocams in their houses.
This is a dirty trick, what the German government's doing. Basically, it amounts to, "you can't win the case in the country where Google is based, so you try to win it through a German subsidary". In other words, they're side-stepping the US' 1st Amendments by suing the German subsidary. Thus, if they win in court in Germany, Google may be forced to take down its links to that website in the US too -- because if they didn't, any accounts they have in Germany could be impounded and their offices in Germany could be shut down.
I heard someone say, "when will we be able to talk about what the Germans do without also mentioning the Nazi's". Well, I'm German (but raised in US). But they still haven't cleared from their nazi and communist past.
Burned books, banned books, what's the difference? In Germany, "Mein Kampf" is a banned book. So are any other extremist books.
Who decides what is "bad" and "good"? By banning books, the German government is effectively burning them today.
I've never read Fahrenheit 451, but I did see the movie. One of my favorite lines was when the Captain says, "We must burn the books, Montag," and then, holding up a copy of Hitler's Mein Kampf, continues, "All of the books."
Slashdot Mirror
And how exactly does MS do this? They don't. They want to prevent anyone from using any other OS.
MS does nothing for the good of the consumer. All they care about is how deep their pockets are.
OSS/FS does things for the good of the consumer.
I've used WindowsME and there's NO WAY to cover up the START menu with an icon. That's fucking bullshit. I don't know why people let these lying pricks get away with saying that. Even if it were true, you can ALWAYS press the start menu button (now available on all Keyboards that come w/ OEMs).
I love the part about, "even allowing a competing operating system like Linux to start up instead of Windows". Please, there's no reason to think that's bad except from MS' exclusive point of view where good means it makes them money. There is no impairment of function by allowing users to start up into another OS.
When MS says they're doing this stuff to benefit the consumer, its pure fucking bullshit.
As a forenote, I'm the one who submitted this story.
To me, as a undergrad majoring in molecular biology, this is interesting but not a disaster.
All of us are for the most part almost completely identical at the genetic level. More than 99.99% of our DNA is probably the same. Most of the variation in our DNA is likely due to selfish elements and "junk DNA" where variation is irrelevant. When it comes down to what separates you from me from Dr. Venter, you'd be surprised that it might come down to a relatively few locations on the genome, and very subtle changes.
Of course, for those few areas where there is some variation in the human genome, this may be important. But how important? So his genome is *most* of Celera's database, as opposed to the genome of 5 randomly selected people. Having a sample of 5 individual's hardly gives due account to diversity in the genome anyways. Besides, much of our diversity is in things which don't matter from a medical point of view: what makes our eyes and hair different colors, our faces different shapes, and other superficial largely irrelevant differences.
An interesting benefit to Dr. Venter's bypassing Celera's random selection process may be that we may in some cases see how phenotype relates to genotype. For example, what exactly is it in Dr. Venter's genome which gives him that most hideous smile which makes him look like a poster for the movie, "The Clowns"? Seriously, there may be some interesting studies to be done, provided Venter is willing.
I'm not saying he did this for all the right reasons. It was, of courses, a selfish act. I think he did this out of eccentricism and curiousity about himself. Richard Dawkin's book is titled, "The Selfish Gene," not "The Benevolent Gene".
I'm not saying I particularly like Venter, or Celera. Celera indeed leached off of the public project, and could've never accomplished what they did without doing so. Also, the public project was headed by Crick. When Waston and Crick discovered the structure of DNA, they didn't hide it and make the world pay for it; they showed it to the world. That was the attitude of true scientists: Even Rosaline Franklin, who's work was used without her permission to determine the structure of DNA by Watson/Crick, wasn't bitter, and wanted the work to be published. I believe she said something along the lines of, "It doesn't matter. It's beuatiful." The discovery of the structure of DNA was made available to us all -- because that's the attitude of true scientists, and because its something that belongs to us all. Celera and Venter, however, have abandoned that tradition. On the bright side, Celera does offer public access to their database with a free registration. The payed-for access gives you a superior genome browser which allows you to find material much easier.
I believe that the essay in the beginning of Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton about the biotechnology revolution captures the essence of what I'm thinking of.
Really, someone suggested you're graduating class' banner should've been"Oh-ee-oh-ee-oh"? That's cool.
That song is really great. Makes ya wanna get up and dance. I like the part in Purple Rain where Day and crew are on stage and all hopping or whatever to the left then to the right...it really goes along with those drum beats or whatever they are in the song.
Imo, M-Day got a bad reputation by the movie "Purple Rain". People my age who saw that movie thought M-Day was a freakin' jerk, because in the movie he was such a prick to Prince; but in real life, they were friends.
Typical of people like you to post as anonymous cowards. What's the matter, afraid to lose a few points out of paranoia that people will judge your post based on its position not its reasoning? Is your dick really that small? Or is it that you yourself think you don't have a well-reasoned point? I think this is more probable.
Lets see, its obvious you've completely ignored my post and went on some rant about what is basically "a matter of principle".
Bullshit. The artist/author (unless he's an anal prick like yourself who's concerned about the "principle of things") doesn't give a ****. To them, if I wasn't going to have bought it anyways, it doesn't matter if I downloaded their music for free. In fact, as I said before, it benefits them as it gains them audience and reputation (if they're good, the word spreads faster). Btw, moron, how much does the avg. artist get when I guy a $14 dollar CD? Its a few cents. So please don't tell me the rational artists gives a flying fuck about my individual actions.
"Stealing music", you say? Abuse of the English language. To steal necessarily means to gain something by unjustly depriving it of another. Now, have I deprived Day of his music? No. Have I deprived him of his profit? As I wouldn't have bought his songs anyways, no. Thus, its not stealing.
Btw, how the fuck is what I'm doing any different from digitally recording stuff that comes off the radio?
Also, why the fuck should I pay 14 dollars for an album which only has one good song on it? A notable example is Paula Abdul, with a few good songs, but mostly sucking songs. And don't tell me that crap, "buy a single". Single's overcharge you for one song.
Hint to you and artists: pissing off the consumer is not a good way to make money. Refer to DESADE's "A consumer's rant", one place above my post if the posts are sorted by score, for an explanation of that.
The IP system, at least in the US, is broken. Whether or not its broken beyond repair is a matter of conjecture.
Of course, as Stallman states, using the phase IP is in fact dangerous and supportive of the system. But its the only word which collectively refers to patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, and so on and so forth: all of which have essentially one thing in common -- controlling information.
Anyways, here's my solution to the current IP problems: (1) Reduce both the scope and duration of IP laws; (2) Give innovators the choice between "control without compensation" or "compensation without control," but not both. This allows MS to be compensated, but does not allow them to control; it also allows FSF to control (to ensure freedom) but not be compensated (which is basically the way the situation is now). Also, an option should be given for an intermediate between control or compensation; in such an intermediate, there would be less control and less compensation than in either extreme, however.
Btw, in regards to AIDS drugs, to those of you defending companies not giving poor people in Africa drugs at the cost of protection, I hope that you people find yourself sick with some disease and too poor to pay some greedy corporation for the cure.
AIDS "treatments" are NOT useful for very long. HIV adapts rapidly; by the time the 20-year patent on HIV treatments has expired, the "treatment" will completely useless. Thus, the PUBLIC is NEVER EVER compensated for their support of patent owners to HIV-treatments.
Some countries which I praise have chosen to IGNORE drug patents for the GOOD OF THEIR CITIZENS. This is what countries SHOULD do if they need to, as drug companies can't sue a government (sure, they could sue a gov't in that gov'ts own courts, but that would be unwinnable).
Exactly, Morris Day is party/sex music. He's damn fun to listen to. Makes you want to get up and dance.
Btw, my prefs have nothing to do w/ costumes. I like the LOA (Lords of Acid) and they're as tacky as it gets.
Yes, Prince has better vocals. Yes, Prince may be more talented.
But Prince isn't as fun to listen to as Morris Day. What songs has Prince written that are as fun as Jungle Love or The Bird??
Here's my true story about how sharing is good.
I'm a young guy (20 years old). When Prince (aka, "The Purple One," "The Artist Formally Known As Prince," etc) was just getting started up, I was very young and not too interested in music. I knew who Prince was, however, and I remembered that.
However, I didn't know who Morris Day was -- an artist who, in my view having heard him, is superior to Prince.
Now, about a year ago, I saw the movie "Purple Rain". In that movie, I saw the story of Prince and Morris Day competing at a local club. They showed several songs of each artist. As it turns out, in reality, Prince and Morris Day were actually in the same band and good friends, but the movie is a dramatization which sets them up as being enemies.
Anyways, in this movie, they showed Morris Day performing the song called "The Bird". I thought that song was really fun and great, so I looked it up on Amazon, and looked for Morris Day on Google. So I found out this was a real guy, and he had a alot of songs before he unexplicably quit the music industry.
I thought cool. But I'm not going to buy an album by a guy just because he had one good song. So I downloaded Day's album's off from Grokster and LimeWire. Turns out, almost all of the guys music is good -- some real great songs, like Jungle Love, Fishnet (Black Pantyhoes), Color of Success, Get It Up, The Walk, 777-9311, etc.
That's how I found out about Morris Day. And that's how I found out his songs were good. And that's why I've bought a few of his albulms. In short, he made money because of file-sharing. Of course, if he had sucked, he wouldn't have made money; but he also wouldn't have lost any either.
The general point that can be taken here is that almost all people who download tons of stuff from LimeWire/Kazaa wouldn't have bought it anyways. I have about 40Gigs of songs. Do you really think I would have actually gone out and bought 40Gigs worth of songs if it weren't for file-sharing? Of course not, that's absurd. So in short, the artists who's songs I've downloaded haven't lost anything because I wouldn't have paid them anyways. Some gain alot, because I like them enough to buy their albums.
In fact, everyone gains. Before file-sharing I wasn't an avid fan of music. Now, I am. All kinds of music too. I even watch M-TV once in a while, something which I never did before.
In fact, I'd venture to say that the interest in music today is higher than its EVER EVER BEEN. And that's accounting for the size of the population.
So, how exactly is it that artists and the music industry loses from this?
(1) Tell the BSA to fuck off. You're a university, and likely have professors of law teaching there. Thus, no need to pay expensive legal fees, just ask your professors. They might not be able to win the case, but they sure can stall and drag it on at minimal cost to you while you take other measures.
(2) Archive all raw data.
(3) Wipe all of your machines -- that is, write over all data with zero's. To be safe, wipe the hard-drives a few times.
(4) Install GNU/Linux or *BSD on all of your systems, using all Office/spreadsheet/etc equivalents.
"1.To take (the property of another) without right or permission. "
Yes, asshole, as in M$ STEALING US tax dollars by forcing schools to submit to audits and prove their innocence, when such is impossible; as in forcing schols to pay money to MS for machines which don't even have MS OS on them, or which can't (as in iMacs and PowerMacs).
Fuckwit.
Windows sucks, Linux rocks...
/. JJ.
Is this anything we didn't know before?
Not to mention, this article is old news. I remember reading this a while back. Is Cmd Taco getting amnesia? Because most stories about the superiority of GNU/Linux, I get as references from
Anyways, I love MS' section in their reasons on why to use Win2k that says "MS' license is better, and simpler".
LOL, yea right. The EULA, a more desireable license than the GPL? Laugh out fucking loud. One section from MS' page on why to use MS stuff says, "an Nvidia developer wrote drivers for GNU/Linux using some free code, w/c he didn't know was GPL'ed; then they had to redevelop, incurring extra costs." First, good for Nvidia, doing what's right. If they make something, and it -- either unintentionally or intentionally -- includes GPL'ed code, they have a moral and legal obligation to either not publish that, or re-write without the GPL'ed code. Second, notice how its MS that was whining, not Nvidia. No one forced Nvidia to re-write the drivers. They could've released them under the GPL.
"Had reached 87 percent of peak"
So what? 87% of its peak, constantly? Sustained 87% peak performance? I don't think so.
Probably more like for a specific problem, and not for a very long time, and under specific conditions.
Pensa FGPA chips are near peak performance CONSTANTLY, on a WIDE VARIETY OF PROBLEMS -- not just the one's they're designed to solve, like this Japanese machine.
Even if this machine sustained 87% peak performance, that's ONLY for the problems it was designed to solve. Try to apply it to something else, and it will sink like a rock.
Where as FGPA processors can dynamically adjust to solve any number of problems optimally.
Remember, when they give you TFLOPS or TOPS values, they're giving you PEAK values.
In reality, most of the time, performance is way below peak values, even for the algorithms for which the computer was designed to handle. IBM's pacific blue has a peak TFLOPS value around 3.6TFLOPS...but in reality, its usually around 1.2TFLOPS.
There's no reason to believe this machine will be any different.
Furthermore, the performance of this machine is likely to sink like a rock when its used outside the area it was specially designed for.
In other words, the best supercomputers in the world are still the ones made by starbridge systems, which were bought by NASA (I believe the one NASA bought was called HAL 15, or something like that).
"There's a faction against that, the so-called general GPL source license free software foundation, that says that these other countries other than the U.S. should devote R&D dollars in the so-called open approach, that means you can never commercialize that software."
Yes, it means you can never commercialize it in the way MS wants to, to put it under the EULA. That's a good thing. Something which society creates should belong to us all, forever. It should not be allowed to be proprietized by the MS', Enron's, and Glogal Crossings' of the world. It should be forever in the commons. Just like MS, as a software developer, has, under the current system, the can control the distribution of its products, so can SOCIETY as a whole, which makes software through taxes. MS, Gates, don't like that? Fine, support an intellectual property system where the creator can't control their creation, but only be compensated.
"For customers who want source code -- universities, large customers -- we provide that. But 90-some percent of that time, that's more a -- okay, it's nice, I have it, you know, should I ever need it. That's fair. So source availability is not the big issue. That's -- you have got source availability from us and others, and it's not much needed in any case."
Really, they provide source? What he doesn't mention is that its at a huge price, and under draconian NDA agreements. Also, who's to say that individual's don't want the source code? MS Word 2000 wasn't compiled for MY computer. It may run faster if I compile it for my computer. Not only that, but witha LITTLE WEE bit of programming knowledge, I can even eliminate the useless annoying features I don't like (i.e., those stupid M&M help things, animation, etc). Source availability, not much needed? Nonsense. The entire biological community requires the source of most software packages as a bare minimum. There's only ONE major bio program which doesn't come with source, and that's PAUP; but PAUP faces stiff rivalry from PHYLIP, which does come with source.
"Then you get to the issue of who is going to be the most innovative. You know, will it be capitalism, or will it be just people working at night?"
I don't know, so far its been "the people working at night". Most major developments come from OPEN SOURCE or FREE software. More innovation has occured in Linux than any other OS, and that's Open Sourced. The world-wide-web as we know it is based on FREE OPEN SOURCED STANDARDS. What's more innovative than the net? Nothing. Nothing at all.
The simple fact of the matter is that established corporations like MS aren't good at innovation at all. Innovation is too risky for corporations. What corporations are good at is optimizing existing technologies. That makes solid business sense: its a sure bet. No technology is optimal as it is, and its a sure bet that if you pay good minds money to optimize it, it'll get optimized. Even this, however, is dubious. Has MS really optimized word processors? I've used MS Works 95 and MS Word 2000. MS Works 95 is overall better. Less annoying "correction", much faster.
Small time developers and individuals involved in open source are the most innovative.
Bill Gates: Spreading this knowledge is something that we are very passionate about.
ROTFL! LOL LOL LOL! Yea, thats fucking HILLARIOUS. Gates/MS, passionate about "spreading knowledge"? No, they're passionate about spreading disinformation about GPL and other free or open software. They're passionate about spreading their propaganda.
Businesses may pay taxes, but it DOES NOT COST THEM. Businesses just pass the cost of taxes on to their customers and employees. PEOPLE -- NOT BUSINESSES -- pay taxes. Any fuck who says otherwise is full of shit and just trying to find a way to rationalize corporate preferencialism.
By the way, anyone is free to USE GPL'd code. FIRST, they can use it as is, for their own needs -- with NO restrictions. SECOND, they can redevelop/improve it, provided they distribute it under the GPL license. MS is free to use GPL'ed code, so long as they distribute the prog under the GPL. *BSD is also free to do that, given they distribute under the GPL. Take note, there's NOTHING that prevents *BSD from distributing things under the GPL.
The gov't certainly should NOT fund any software or research that is not open (as in OSS) or free (as in GPL'ed software).
So the one simple rule should be that if you accept government money for your project, it MUST BE OPEN/FREE AS DEFINED BY A MINIMUM STANDARD. That is, it can either be public domain, GPL'ed, BSD'd, or any similar "license".
So, according to you, we should just let them win? We should let our internet become the tool of corporatization and exploitation?
"Innocent banner ads"? There is no such thing, as far as I've seen. Even ads on slashdot are a far cry from useful. Most ads are flashing banners, "Get Connected!" or rubbish like that.
Sorry, until ads start being non-graphic, informative, and TRUE, I'm going to block them out. I pay good money for my internet connection. 50% of what I download should NOT be ads.
The only ads systems that are acceptable are the one's used by google -- text based, and usually specifically targetted.
*And when I go to the news stand and purchase a copie of the Wall Street Journal, what do I find covering a lot of the pages? Ads.
You are paying for access to the stories, not for a site with no ads.*
Yes, exactly, I'm paying for full access to those stories. So since I'm already supporting THEIR business by paying them good money, why should I have to endure bandwidth hogging ads which consume more of my bandwidth than the actual information? I'm not paying them money so I have to waste my time downloading extra, irrelevant crap.
Pages that use ads say, "we have to use them to maintain a profit, to stay afloat". That's a rationalization, but at least its rational. After all, its not like any intelligent person actually buys something becase of an ad. But, when we PAY to access the site, they shouldn't bombard us with ads, since we're giving them hard money, and a good deal of it.
What's even worse is that wsj.com actually charges its paying subscribers extra money (over what they would otherwise) so they can continue to support their ads system.
The internet was created with OUR TAX DOLLARS.
The internet was created by OUR researchers.
Who were paid with OUR money.
SORRY, you lame entreprenuing lazy fucks, if you don't like linking, get the fuck off the web.
Internet. World Wide Web. Net. Web. Network.
Do those words mean anything to you cheap entrepreneuing fucks? To me, they mean INTER-CONNECTED, like a spider web. If you don't like it, pack up your silk and get off our web.
Deep linking is one of the things that defines the web. Its a great benefit, which saves bandwidth and server space. Why should the same information be replicated elsewhere many times (I'm not talking about the typical 3 mirrors that exist), when it already exists on one site? Why should users have to use globs of bandwidth going through your 10MB front cover web page, when all they want is a 1KB file in your site?
The internet should be architectured to maximize the overall net performance, not to benefit an exclusive -- who are bandwagon parasites to the internet -- and small group, at the expense of the community -- who created, supported, and nurtured the internet.
The intenet is OURS. It doesn't belong to corporations. It is, and should be kept as, a complete commons. It is a utopia of information. The ideal of the internet is that some day, eventually, you would be able to find any information instantaneously. The goal is to make the internet into a giant perfect brain, in essence, a neural network so to speak. Its goal is to be a place where I can go and retrieve information almost as quickly as if I'd had that information memorized and locked away in my brain.
Anything which detracts from that goal is anti-internet and should be shunned.
Sorry, but the internet existed long before your company did.
Now, because you and your company came along -- and a bunch of others like you and your company -- and you've decided that you don't like the way things are done on the net -- the way they've always been done on the net, the way that was essential to the net's success -- you want to punish all of US and destroy the internet WE'VE worked so hard to create.
Corporations are ruining the internet with their corporatization, spam, pop-ups, pop-unders, banner ads (yes, that includes slashdot -- there's a reason I block these fucking ads), promotional materials, and high-glitter low content web-pages.
Even "respectable" sites like the Wall Street Journal (wsj.com) are sickening in their lack of ethics. I pay money to get access to the Wall Street Journal online. And for paying that good money to them, what do I get? ADS. Fucking ads. I have to use an ad-blocking hosts file for wsj.com, a site which I PAY TO HAVE FULL ACCESS TO!!!!
People act like companies have brought the internet to life. No, companies are to the internet as street-trash whores are to city-dwellers: sure, they're fun for a while; but then you get sick.
Corporate websites are a plague to the internet, a plague that comes in a candy-coated package. Companies are like the white man that came over to America and pretended to be nice-nice to the Native Americans while offering them virus-loaded blankets and "firewater".
We need to resist this corporatization of the net.
Well, for one thing, the most important thing, is that its NOT FREE. You have to pay for it eventually.
Another thing, is why should I spend my time working with a buggy piece of software when there's probably a better, more stable, faster, FREER alternative somewhere?
Unless its really cool -- i.e., 3DOSX, FSV -- I don't spend time with evaluation-ware.
Interesting that an Open Sourced, Free as in freedom, piece of software is called "ClosedBSD".
Could they have marketed this one any worse?
Sorta like calling a tampon "Scratchatex".
"if your are going to do over a house, you cover you face, wear gloves etc."
Probably, for most intelligent criminals. However, most criminals aren't intelligent. If they were, they wouldn't need to be criminals.
"What you have done is stopped opertunists from seeing your house as an easy target."
Perhaps. Or perhaps I've better prepared them to steal things from my house by notifying them I have a security system.
The point is, I should be able to videotape anything for my own protection or for the public's protection/good.
Great...now I've just armed the criminals who want to break into my house with the knowledge that it has cameras in it.
Now, they can take appropriate cautions to avoid being caught/recognized (i.e., covering up their face).
Relegating all porno/hate-speech sites to go to a domain indicative of that doesn't bother me. They would still exist, but just would end in a different domain -- .prn for porno sites, .qst for sites with hate-speech, etc.
What does bother me, however, is banning videotaping people without their consent. So that means I can't have a camera/recorder in my car so I can tape a cop if he pulls me over so I have proof if he abused his power?
I can't have a videocam/recorder in my house to ensure that anyone who breaks in an steals stuff or assaults me would be caught and held accountable?
Sorry, that's bullshit.
What the law should do is ban these things for certain purposes. If I record something for personal protection, that's fine. If I record it for blackmail or to publicize comments by somebody who wants their comments private, that's not as fine. But in these cases, its the subsequent action -- violating the persons privacy, or using it to blackmail them -- thats wrong, not the recording/videotaping. Sometimes videotaping/recording certain things is wrong in and of itself. There was some sick fuck of a priest who videotaped women changing in his house, women who trusted him. He further violated their privacy by placing videocams in their houses.
This is a dirty trick, what the German government's doing. Basically, it amounts to, "you can't win the case in the country where Google is based, so you try to win it through a German subsidary". In other words, they're side-stepping the US' 1st Amendments by suing the German subsidary. Thus, if they win in court in Germany, Google may be forced to take down its links to that website in the US too -- because if they didn't, any accounts they have in Germany could be impounded and their offices in Germany could be shut down.
I heard someone say, "when will we be able to talk about what the Germans do without also mentioning the Nazi's". Well, I'm German (but raised in US). But they still haven't cleared from their nazi and communist past.
Burned books, banned books, what's the difference? In Germany, "Mein Kampf" is a banned book. So are any other extremist books.
Who decides what is "bad" and "good"? By banning books, the German government is effectively burning them today.
I've never read Fahrenheit 451, but I did see the movie. One of my favorite lines was when the Captain says, "We must burn the books, Montag," and then, holding up a copy of Hitler's Mein Kampf, continues, "All of the books."