Well, that's true. But that's not a good thing either. I want applications to work for me. I don't want to do things their way. That's a 1960's way of looking at things.
Which enviroments guidelines should it follow? Rember that Emacs is not only cross platform, but also predates all modern GUIs.
Windows, KDE, Gnome and Apple. No reason not to have some sort of configuration options to handle the (actually quite minor) differences between them. The latest version was created at a time when modern GUIs were pretty well established.
Learn to haggle. "Oh, that's a shame, I only have $X-reasonable discount". A lot of these places do work together, but they also have absolute authority to offer a discount.
Seems to be a pretty good platform for developing windows applications. What happens under X then? Does it suddenly become consistent with whatever environment I'm using?
Well, I'd like to see another editor with which I can read mail, news, rss-feeds or which builts wikis or which has superior LaTeX support. And this are only my needs.
I tend to use other applications to do these tasks. they tend to do a much better job. I have a multitasking OS. What I want is folding, syntax completion, and parenthesis matching that works in both directions.
Which UI guidelines? Text editor UI guidelines? Care to provide a link?
No. Guidelines for the OS. Applications are meant to be consistent. Even different versions of Emacs for windows aren't consistent with each other. Pressing alt should activate drop down menus. Quitting without saving should give a modal dialog asking if you want to save; not a drop down menu. Multiple buffers should be spearated by a split bar. Shortcuts for menus should be listed as Ctrl+X rather than (C_x). No drag and drop for selections... XEmacs sorts out the alt-menu issue, and close dialog, but has a hideous load dialog and assumes I'm using Windows' default colour scheme for the button bar. And the key bindings are totally different from every other windows editor.
What's so great about it that people insist on using it rather than any other editor? Seems all of the features are available for just about any other editor, and most of themare a lot easier to configure, and more compliant with UI guidelines.
Why ever forgive a company? They got caught in what I consider a dishonest act and don't deserve a second chance.
I might for pragmatic reasons. I want some of their stuff. But they'll have to convince me that they don't think I'm a thief first. I can do without until then.
The only way to be sure would be to do a scientific test, with drivers having a conversation while negotiating an obstacle course. Have them having a conversation on the phone then a conversation with a passenger. Speculating as to whether it would inductively relies way too much on speculation and generalisation. This is what the scientific method is for.
But it's rather inconvenient not to allow passengers. After all - all car accidents could be prevented by banning cars. However, it is rare that there is a pressing need to use a cellphone while driving.
Fingerprint scanners are rubbish. They're simply not that reliable. Even if they sound reliable - if you have a scanner that's 99.9% accurate, that means that one person in 1000 has a close enough fingerprint to pretend to be you. Or to put it another way, 10000 Belgians share your fingerprint.
And the best scanners are nowhere near that accurate.
Nationalized healthcare is a joke. If it were so great why do Canadians often jump the border to get healthcare here?
Because the Canadian legislation means that private healthcare is unprofitable. The legislation aimed at preventing a two tier system prevents Candian private doctors from gaining any benefit from the public sector.
Most of Europe provides adequate free health care to those who can't afford it, and allow those who can afford it to avoid the wait.
It's not about displaying this error. It's about displaying non errors. If you see too many dialogue boxes then they lose their significance, and people get lazy and click through them without reading them. I know I don't. I even had to close a window to find out what the buttons said when you do that. This is just human nature. UI design needs to cope with human nature.
How much yen do you want to bet that it's one of those stupid "Are you sure?" dialog boxes that everyone clicks "Yes" to without actually thinking about what it's asking? Ah, how I love ignoring those warnings, too.
It's a constant grip of mine. I hate unneccesary confirmation dialogs (the result being I hate alost all of them). I can just about tolerate "This will overwrite a file", or "Save before quit" ones, but I keep running across designers who think insist on using modal dialogs for feedback. "You have just pressed a key. OK/Cancel". I make a point of querying this behaviour any time a designer comes up with it.
Depends on context. This is where Fair use comes in. What is the nature of the work? Are you profitting for it? how much of the work did you copy? Are you losing them a sale? These are only rules of thumb (and only a rough paraphrase of the rules), but copying a few lines as an example, like you did, is clearly fair use. Copying all the lyrics to a song onto a free website may qualify as fair use, but it's not quite so clear cut.
Is sheet music still a major source of income for song writers? I thought most of the lyrics and music avaialable online were for popular songs, and surely the songwriters get almost all their money from the mechanical royalties from record sales.
Something tells me that if a few hundred engineers were constantly sending save data across that link, things wouldn't be looking so good. So, it is still very much a hit to system resources.
This can be dealt with by caching though. Save locally, and then write the data to the server at intervals. The original proposal does require a maore substantial change to methods and infrastructure than it might seem at first, but it's possible.
Forcing people to do anything (and that is what compulsory means) is pretty much a bad thing.
Compulsory licencing in this context does not mean someone is forcing you to licence. Don't get so hung up on dictionary definitions. Compulsory licencing just means you can't use legal threats to prevent people from distributing. As compensation, you get a per-use, or per copy fee (depending on the system designed).
Oh, you claim that " Nobody's forcing you to do anything. " and then turn around and state that something you create as a private work, if given to you, suddenly becomes publishable and YOU, not the person that created it, has the right to decide how it is to be treated, even though it is supposedly the content creator that gets paid for it.
That's about the size of it. People are permitted to make copies. The rights of copyright holders to prevent this would be taken away. If I have some information, why shouldn't I send it to someone else? Why does being the creator mean you're allowed to ration an infinite resource? People are going to share it anyway! This way, at least you get paid for it. If you don't want to share it, only distribute to people who you know will not share it. I'm not sure who'd being forced to do anything. Your creation gets shared without any effort on your part. The only obligation on you is to register it if you want to claim royalties. I don't see where coercion is involved.
Brilliant. Do you even hear the words that you're saying, or are you just trolling for responses? I'm starting to think the latter, because I have yet to figure out a single shread of logic that follows through your entire proposal.
The logic goes like this -
People will share music, videos and other media on the internet.
It is impractical to stop people from doing so.
In general, society benefits from being able to accerss media.
If we allow people to do so for free, then creators will not get compensation for the work they've done.
Hence, we need a means to allow sharing of data, whereby creators get compensated.
Society does not benefit from creators preventing access to their creations.
If we allow people to download an unlimited amount for a fixed fee, then they get more movies, music and other media for their money.
The rights holders get the same amount of money as they would with existing copyright.
Result is the consumers get more, the creators get as much. Everybody wins.
I've never really understood the GP's attitude. If people actually do like unsophisticated mass market stuff, and enjoy the music, why not let them? They're happy and it's not hurting anyone.
We're talking about compulsory licensing here. Not forced publication. You have no obligation to publish. Just to license. If you write a business strategy, you don't have to share it. If I get hold of it, I can share it, and if I do, then you get compensation for it. If you write a full length novel, you don't have to publish that online. But if it gets published as a book, someone else will publish it online. Compulsory licensing means that they have the license to do so.
If you write a song and don't want it in wide release then you're out of luck. The purpose of this system is to encourage people to share work. Why should you be rewarded for greedily wanting to hoard it? You would not have that right. Unless you can prevent the recipient from sharing it, then it will be shared.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that's true. But that's not a good thing either. I want applications to work for me. I don't want to do things their way. That's a 1960's way of looking at things.
Which enviroments guidelines should it follow? Rember that Emacs is not only cross platform, but also predates all modern GUIs.
Windows, KDE, Gnome and Apple. No reason not to have some sort of configuration options to handle the (actually quite minor) differences between them. The latest version was created at a time when modern GUIs were pretty well established.
For example, Emacs has a command to delete to the end of the line.
Shift+end; DEL. Works on KEdit, gedit, notepad, MS-DOS edit....
Isn't that like Shift-Alt-T on Windows visual studio, or Ctrl-T on Scite?
Learn to haggle. "Oh, that's a shame, I only have $X-reasonable discount". A lot of these places do work together, but they also have absolute authority to offer a discount.
Seems to be a pretty good platform for developing windows applications. What happens under X then? Does it suddenly become consistent with whatever environment I'm using?
Well, I'd like to see another editor with which I can read mail, news, rss-feeds or which builts wikis or which has superior LaTeX support. And this are only my needs.
I tend to use other applications to do these tasks. they tend to do a much better job. I have a multitasking OS. What I want is folding, syntax completion, and parenthesis matching that works in both directions.
Which UI guidelines? Text editor UI guidelines? Care to provide a link?
No. Guidelines for the OS. Applications are meant to be consistent. Even different versions of Emacs for windows aren't consistent with each other. Pressing alt should activate drop down menus. Quitting without saving should give a modal dialog asking if you want to save; not a drop down menu. Multiple buffers should be spearated by a split bar. Shortcuts for menus should be listed as Ctrl+X rather than (C_x). No drag and drop for selections... XEmacs sorts out the alt-menu issue, and close dialog, but has a hideous load dialog and assumes I'm using Windows' default colour scheme for the button bar. And the key bindings are totally different from every other windows editor.
What's so great about it that people insist on using it rather than any other editor? Seems all of the features are available for just about any other editor, and most of themare a lot easier to configure, and more compliant with UI guidelines.
Yep. I'm assuming the system has at least some sort of user ID. Relying entirely on fingerprints would be useless securitywise.
Why ever forgive a company? They got caught in what I consider a dishonest act and don't deserve a second chance.
I might for pragmatic reasons. I want some of their stuff. But they'll have to convince me that they don't think I'm a thief first. I can do without until then.
We alwasys get this tired argument.
The only way to be sure would be to do a scientific test, with drivers having a conversation while negotiating an obstacle course. Have them having a conversation on the phone then a conversation with a passenger. Speculating as to whether it would inductively relies way too much on speculation and generalisation. This is what the scientific method is for.
But it's rather inconvenient not to allow passengers. After all - all car accidents could be prevented by banning cars. However, it is rare that there is a pressing need to use a cellphone while driving.
Fingerprint scanners are rubbish. They're simply not that reliable. Even if they sound reliable - if you have a scanner that's 99.9% accurate, that means that one person in 1000 has a close enough fingerprint to pretend to be you. Or to put it another way, 10000 Belgians share your fingerprint.
And the best scanners are nowhere near that accurate.
Nationalized healthcare is a joke. If it were so great why do Canadians often jump the border to get healthcare here?
Because the Canadian legislation means that private healthcare is unprofitable. The legislation aimed at preventing a two tier system prevents Candian private doctors from gaining any benefit from the public sector.
Most of Europe provides adequate free health care to those who can't afford it, and allow those who can afford it to avoid the wait.
The same thing that gives us the right to insist you share our sense of humour.
Ah - okay. If it's distinct and unusual, then it does seem absolutely moronically incompetent.
It's not about displaying this error. It's about displaying non errors. If you see too many dialogue boxes then they lose their significance, and people get lazy and click through them without reading them. I know I don't. I even had to close a window to find out what the buttons said when you do that. This is just human nature. UI design needs to cope with human nature.
How much yen do you want to bet that it's one of those stupid "Are you sure?" dialog boxes that everyone clicks "Yes" to without actually thinking about what it's asking? Ah, how I love ignoring those warnings, too.
It's a constant grip of mine. I hate unneccesary confirmation dialogs (the result being I hate alost all of them). I can just about tolerate "This will overwrite a file", or "Save before quit" ones, but I keep running across designers who think insist on using modal dialogs for feedback. "You have just pressed a key. OK/Cancel". I make a point of querying this behaviour any time a designer comes up with it.
Indeed. If only the rest of the world could have perfect taste.
Depends on context. This is where Fair use comes in. What is the nature of the work? Are you profitting for it? how much of the work did you copy? Are you losing them a sale? These are only rules of thumb (and only a rough paraphrase of the rules), but copying a few lines as an example, like you did, is clearly fair use. Copying all the lyrics to a song onto a free website may qualify as fair use, but it's not quite so clear cut.
Is sheet music still a major source of income for song writers? I thought most of the lyrics and music avaialable online were for popular songs, and surely the songwriters get almost all their money from the mechanical royalties from record sales.
Something tells me that if a few hundred engineers were constantly sending save data across that link, things wouldn't be looking so good. So, it is still very much a hit to system resources.
This can be dealt with by caching though. Save locally, and then write the data to the server at intervals. The original proposal does require a maore substantial change to methods and infrastructure than it might seem at first, but it's possible.
Forcing people to do anything (and that is what compulsory means) is pretty much a bad thing.
Compulsory licencing in this context does not mean someone is forcing you to licence. Don't get so hung up on dictionary definitions. Compulsory licencing just means you can't use legal threats to prevent people from distributing. As compensation, you get a per-use, or per copy fee (depending on the system designed).
Oh, you claim that " Nobody's forcing you to do anything. " and then turn around and state that something you create as a private work, if given to you, suddenly becomes publishable and YOU, not the person that created it, has the right to decide how it is to be treated, even though it is supposedly the content creator that gets paid for it.
That's about the size of it. People are permitted to make copies. The rights of copyright holders to prevent this would be taken away. If I have some information, why shouldn't I send it to someone else? Why does being the creator mean you're allowed to ration an infinite resource? People are going to share it anyway! This way, at least you get paid for it. If you don't want to share it, only distribute to people who you know will not share it. I'm not sure who'd being forced to do anything. Your creation gets shared without any effort on your part. The only obligation on you is to register it if you want to claim royalties. I don't see where coercion is involved.
Brilliant. Do you even hear the words that you're saying, or are you just trolling for responses? I'm starting to think the latter, because I have yet to figure out a single shread of logic that follows through your entire proposal.
The logic goes like this -
People will share music, videos and other media on the internet.
It is impractical to stop people from doing so.
In general, society benefits from being able to accerss media.
If we allow people to do so for free, then creators will not get compensation for the work they've done.
Hence, we need a means to allow sharing of data, whereby creators get compensated.
Society does not benefit from creators preventing access to their creations.
If we allow people to download an unlimited amount for a fixed fee, then they get more movies, music and other media for their money.
The rights holders get the same amount of money as they would with existing copyright.
Result is the consumers get more, the creators get as much. Everybody wins.
I've never really understood the GP's attitude. If people actually do like unsophisticated mass market stuff, and enjoy the music, why not let them? They're happy and it's not hurting anyone.
It's not so much that the worm passes the Turing test, as the users fail the Gnirut test.
We're talking about compulsory licensing here. Not forced publication. You have no obligation to publish. Just to license. If you write a business strategy, you don't have to share it. If I get hold of it, I can share it, and if I do, then you get compensation for it. If you write a full length novel, you don't have to publish that online. But if it gets published as a book, someone else will publish it online. Compulsory licensing means that they have the license to do so.
If you write a song and don't want it in wide release then you're out of luck. The purpose of this system is to encourage people to share work. Why should you be rewarded for greedily wanting to hoard it? You would not have that right. Unless you can prevent the recipient from sharing it, then it will be shared.