Oh man, I am going to try and resist checking this thread later on...
Isn't that just saying that you want to hop on a soap box and say your piece and you really don't want to engage in actual conversation or have to defend your position?
Is that the entire problem with the current "debate" on global warming?
All the "big" titles used to be released as shareware, unlockable once you buy the full version. Doom, Terminal Velocity, etc. Even Wolfenstein, the first FPS that I am aware of, came as shareware, where you got to play the first part of the game to try it out, then you bought the full game for the other levels.
Some games are fun to play on the shareware level, but not really worth the cost to buy the full game. Others are worth the expense. Either way, at least the developer had their chance to get my dollars.
Shareware still works, the problem is that publishers are simply not using the method as much as they used to. This may be because most of the new titles coming out seem to be multiplayer only, which can't be restricted so easily. Steam sorta does, by having games that you can play for a weekend, or play for a few hours, then it expires.
I accidently discovered a bug (maybe fixed now) with their free trial of "The Ship". During the free weekend, I downloaded and started The Ship, then firewalled out steam on my computer so it couldn't talk to their servers (since I was already logged in, everything worked fine). I played The Ship for about two months for free in single player mode since it couldn't call back home and get deactivated, and played my steam games on another computer I had, that I just logged on to. I didn't play the game that much (games was good, but not great), I was just curious if the game would finally deactivate, which it didn't until I removed the firewall rule on Steam so I could play multiplayer games on that first computer. So Steam does have *some* ways to try before you buy, but not the same as good old fashioned shareware.
I would say the image is appropriate, as what really matters first is the life it saved. It gives the story a more tangigle viewpoint. While the hardhack is extremely cool in this circumstance, it still doesn't compare to the outcome.
You can buy computers pre-installed with Linux from Dell and Walmart. Hard to get "bigger" or more mainstream than that. Not very tricky at all, since you don't have to do the actual installing yourself.
Those kinds of places aren't designed to help people get better. Rich folks go to different places, to get better (sometimes). Poor folks go to institutions like he described as a way of warehousing them. It is simply to remove them from "respectable society" so "normal" people don't have to look at or deal with them.
In the 1980s, they shut down many of these institutions, which means most of the people who used to walk those halls are now walking the streets, which leads to a greater chance of involvement with alcohol abuse, drugs, prostitution, etc. Mental illnesses of all types have less of a stygma than they did 30 years ago, but we have a pretty far way to go before we can really say we are trying to "treat" everyone who suffers from mental illness and is poor.
Sorry, but you make no sense in your argument. Saying that patents are anti-capitalist is just misunderstanding capitalism.
Being able to patent "things" makes it worth while to invest millions in research. I was perfectly clear that patenting "ideas" is insane, but no independent inventor wants to spend 10 years and 70% of his salary to invent something if someone else can rip it off the next day. Patent protection was created specifically to FOSTER creative inventions, by allowing the inventor a brief period of monopoly in exchange for the invention entering the public domain thereafter. He gets 17 years to regain his investment and make a profit, we get it forever after. That is about as capitalistic as I can think of.
Capitalism is NOT anarchy. It is not socialism. It is an economic system, not a political one. "Normal market behavior" is a relative term. And the role of the government isn't to create "artificial scarcity", it is to encourage and promote investment and innovation. ENCOURAGE it, PROMOTE it, not take the leading role and do it for us.
Not true. Everytime you buy a product, you are "voting" for it. Refusing to buy a product is voting against that product. In capitalism, the product with enough "votes" to pay the bills, wins. The ones that don't, go away.
An example: I don't buy Sony products, hardware, games, music CDs, etc. Even if they are the best or have the best price, it doesn't matter. Part of this is to "send a signal". I don't wear anti-Sony shirts or really even talk about it (excepting this post). I just refuse to buy any of their products since the root scandal. That *is* me quietly voting against them, thus for their competition. My goal isn't to put them out of business, it is simply to *not* contribute toward their success. They forfeited any possibility of getting my votes (dollars) in the future, regardless of what you or anyone else does.
Seriously, what other methods do people have to voice discontent against a company? Letter writing? Voting with your dollars *is* democracy in action, as it is the only way to send a signal with the most important commodity in the capitalist world: money
If society wants to encourage innovation, they should simply come up with mechanisms to pool resources for funding applied research, and then make the results of that research available for any entrepreneurs who want to use it.
I think that is called socialism, at the least, or communism at the worst.
In a capitalistic system, there is a way to provide for persons to have a limited monopoly on "inventions", which is what the patent process is designed for. The purpose was to provide a limited monopoly on "things that use new ideas" in exchange for it going into the public domain after a fixed time. The original idea of patents is still valid, and would still work just fine *if* we would use the old system. The problem is that the current system is NOT the same as the original intent of copyright and patents. "Ideas" are not supposed to be patentable, only "inventions".
Cotton gin, steam engine, processor design, mouse trap, etc. are still valid inventions for patent protection and eventual entry into the public domain. Concepts or ideas are not.
I'm in a different camp of sorts. I have a DVR to record when I am not there, of course, but the main advantages are:
1. Skip commercials, so I can watch 3 30 minute shows in one hour. It's a better use of my time and it makes the shows flow better to not have the interuptions.
2. I let shows stack up on the drive, and watch a few in a row. I hate "to be continued" episodes without the next episode handy. I usually stay a couple episodes back just for this reason.
3. I like to watch runs of old programs. I can tear through a whole years worth of series in 2 to 4 weeks. Shows have better continuity when you watch them closer in time. Same reason I buy DVDs of TV shows. (Firefly comes to mind, and Futurama)
Pepsi tried it an it dramtically increased their market share, they retained most of it for years. Same with Wendy's. All persons running for office against an incumbant are using "comparitive advertising" by definition: they think they can do a better job. I don't think you CAN run a campaign against an incombant any other way.
I didn't say comparitive advertising is the most effective form of advertising, I just said it is effective in many circumstances. Since I have been in marketing for over 20 years, I will defer to my own experience on this one. I intentionally use comparitive advertising on our "cheap" stuff, and don't on our high end stuff, for the purpose of elevating the high end stuff, and making the competition look "ordinary". So far, so good.
explicitly mentioning your competitor usually does them more good than it does you.
No, it actually lets a small company ride the success of the bigger company. THAT is the biggest reason why a "smaller" brand compares itself to a bigger one.
If I say "Dr. Bob soda tastes like Dr. Pepper, but costs less", then I am riding the success and good will of the Dr. Pepper brand, using comparative advertising, in a perfectly legal way.
Because, as I understand it, they have permission from Coke to do so.
Then you understand it wrong. No company would "give" permission in this way. It is a right to be able to compare your product to a comparing product, and use their trademark as long as it is in a comparitive and responsible way. Saying "10% better" or "10% bigger" is exactly a form of comparitive advertising that is allowed.
Most company's that do "compare to brand x" are NOT the same company. They are simply exercising their right to use a trademark for the sole purpose of comparitive advertising.
Except that "fair use" of a trademark applies, as in, you have the right to use a trademark when comparing your product to another. Pepsi can use the trademarked term "Coke" when comparing the taste of their product to Coke, all perfectly legal. Even though the names are not similar, under this judge's (flawed) interpretation of the law, Pepsi couldn't use "compare taste of coke" or "coke vs pepsi" in their advertising tags, which would normally be considered a fair use of the term.
If the one company has the term trademarked, then yes, the other must tread lightly when using the term. As to using the negative in the ad terms, that is just insanely stupid. This will only serve to provide LESS comparisons of competition, instead of doing what the law was designed to do: clear up any confusion in the marketplace.
If it was planned downtime....why wouldn't you just post a story about it? That way we don't all panic when Slashdot won't load (and hit the site nonstop when it comes back).
And exactly HOW were we to read this story that was posted on the website, while that website was down? You have suggested yourself into a circular argument. Most normal people (which includes/. readers) don't check the site every 15 minutes, 24 hours a day, so the vast majority wouldn't have seen it.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed, who would pay for an aggregation of otherwise free software?
Everyone who has paid for a Linux or BSD distro.
Not really. Seen any steam engines lately?
Yes, I have. 80% of the electrity generated in the United States is done by steam engine. Coal and nuclear power both use steam engines.
Just because YOU are unfamiliar with a technology, that doesn't mean it isn't being used. And thank you for clearly demonstrating that point.
Oh man, I am going to try and resist checking this thread later on...
Isn't that just saying that you want to hop on a soap box and say your piece and you really don't want to engage in actual conversation or have to defend your position?
Is that the entire problem with the current "debate" on global warming?
... if you are Microsoft and you want to short your own stock.
Back in my day, we had green-on-black text. If you were really lucky, you had AMBER on black. Now, those were the days.
You forgot the reference about "you young kids and your fancy ANSI graphics and 16 colors".
I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time.
You misspelled slide rule, but point taken.
No, you missed the point. It was a Simpsons reference.
All the "big" titles used to be released as shareware, unlockable once you buy the full version. Doom, Terminal Velocity, etc. Even Wolfenstein, the first FPS that I am aware of, came as shareware, where you got to play the first part of the game to try it out, then you bought the full game for the other levels.
Some games are fun to play on the shareware level, but not really worth the cost to buy the full game. Others are worth the expense. Either way, at least the developer had their chance to get my dollars.
Shareware still works, the problem is that publishers are simply not using the method as much as they used to. This may be because most of the new titles coming out seem to be multiplayer only, which can't be restricted so easily. Steam sorta does, by having games that you can play for a weekend, or play for a few hours, then it expires.
I accidently discovered a bug (maybe fixed now) with their free trial of "The Ship". During the free weekend, I downloaded and started The Ship, then firewalled out steam on my computer so it couldn't talk to their servers (since I was already logged in, everything worked fine). I played The Ship for about two months for free in single player mode since it couldn't call back home and get deactivated, and played my steam games on another computer I had, that I just logged on to. I didn't play the game that much (games was good, but not great), I was just curious if the game would finally deactivate, which it didn't until I removed the firewall rule on Steam so I could play multiplayer games on that first computer. So Steam does have *some* ways to try before you buy, but not the same as good old fashioned shareware.
I would say the image is appropriate, as what really matters first is the life it saved. It gives the story a more tangigle viewpoint. While the hardhack is extremely cool in this circumstance, it still doesn't compare to the outcome.
Georgia also declared independence on January 19, 1861, but that one didn't work out quite so well.
You obviously don't understand filibustering. It prevents the majority from abusing the minority.
So 5% of their offerings come with Linux, which makes up maybe 5% of the demand. Sounds pretty reasonable.
You can buy computers pre-installed with Linux from Dell and Walmart. Hard to get "bigger" or more mainstream than that. Not very tricky at all, since you don't have to do the actual installing yourself.
Those kinds of places aren't designed to help people get better. Rich folks go to different places, to get better (sometimes). Poor folks go to institutions like he described as a way of warehousing them. It is simply to remove them from "respectable society" so "normal" people don't have to look at or deal with them.
In the 1980s, they shut down many of these institutions, which means most of the people who used to walk those halls are now walking the streets, which leads to a greater chance of involvement with alcohol abuse, drugs, prostitution, etc. Mental illnesses of all types have less of a stygma than they did 30 years ago, but we have a pretty far way to go before we can really say we are trying to "treat" everyone who suffers from mental illness and is poor.
But I thought they DIED after they spawned, which fed plankton, which their offspring ate. Not sure where mosquitoes come into the picture.
Sorry, but you make no sense in your argument. Saying that patents are anti-capitalist is just misunderstanding capitalism.
Being able to patent "things" makes it worth while to invest millions in research. I was perfectly clear that patenting "ideas" is insane, but no independent inventor wants to spend 10 years and 70% of his salary to invent something if someone else can rip it off the next day. Patent protection was created specifically to FOSTER creative inventions, by allowing the inventor a brief period of monopoly in exchange for the invention entering the public domain thereafter. He gets 17 years to regain his investment and make a profit, we get it forever after. That is about as capitalistic as I can think of.
Capitalism is NOT anarchy. It is not socialism. It is an economic system, not a political one. "Normal market behavior" is a relative term. And the role of the government isn't to create "artificial scarcity", it is to encourage and promote investment and innovation. ENCOURAGE it, PROMOTE it, not take the leading role and do it for us.
Buying stuff to send signal is ridiculous.
Not true. Everytime you buy a product, you are "voting" for it. Refusing to buy a product is voting against that product. In capitalism, the product with enough "votes" to pay the bills, wins. The ones that don't, go away.
An example: I don't buy Sony products, hardware, games, music CDs, etc. Even if they are the best or have the best price, it doesn't matter. Part of this is to "send a signal". I don't wear anti-Sony shirts or really even talk about it (excepting this post). I just refuse to buy any of their products since the root scandal. That *is* me quietly voting against them, thus for their competition. My goal isn't to put them out of business, it is simply to *not* contribute toward their success. They forfeited any possibility of getting my votes (dollars) in the future, regardless of what you or anyone else does.
Seriously, what other methods do people have to voice discontent against a company? Letter writing? Voting with your dollars *is* democracy in action, as it is the only way to send a signal with the most important commodity in the capitalist world: money
If society wants to encourage innovation, they should simply come up with mechanisms to pool resources for funding applied research, and then make the results of that research available for any entrepreneurs who want to use it.
I think that is called socialism, at the least, or communism at the worst.
In a capitalistic system, there is a way to provide for persons to have a limited monopoly on "inventions", which is what the patent process is designed for. The purpose was to provide a limited monopoly on "things that use new ideas" in exchange for it going into the public domain after a fixed time. The original idea of patents is still valid, and would still work just fine *if* we would use the old system. The problem is that the current system is NOT the same as the original intent of copyright and patents. "Ideas" are not supposed to be patentable, only "inventions".
Cotton gin, steam engine, processor design, mouse trap, etc. are still valid inventions for patent protection and eventual entry into the public domain. Concepts or ideas are not.
I'm in a different camp of sorts. I have a DVR to record when I am not there, of course, but the main advantages are:
1. Skip commercials, so I can watch 3 30 minute shows in one hour. It's a better use of my time and it makes the shows flow better to not have the interuptions.
2. I let shows stack up on the drive, and watch a few in a row. I hate "to be continued" episodes without the next episode handy. I usually stay a couple episodes back just for this reason.
3. I like to watch runs of old programs. I can tear through a whole years worth of series in 2 to 4 weeks. Shows have better continuity when you watch them closer in time. Same reason I buy DVDs of TV shows. (Firefly comes to mind, and Futurama)
Pepsi tried it an it dramtically increased their market share, they retained most of it for years. Same with Wendy's. All persons running for office against an incumbant are using "comparitive advertising" by definition: they think they can do a better job. I don't think you CAN run a campaign against an incombant any other way.
I didn't say comparitive advertising is the most effective form of advertising, I just said it is effective in many circumstances. Since I have been in marketing for over 20 years, I will defer to my own experience on this one. I intentionally use comparitive advertising on our "cheap" stuff, and don't on our high end stuff, for the purpose of elevating the high end stuff, and making the competition look "ordinary". So far, so good.
explicitly mentioning your competitor usually does them more good than it does you.
No, it actually lets a small company ride the success of the bigger company. THAT is the biggest reason why a "smaller" brand compares itself to a bigger one.
If I say "Dr. Bob soda tastes like Dr. Pepper, but costs less", then I am riding the success and good will of the Dr. Pepper brand, using comparative advertising, in a perfectly legal way.
Because, as I understand it, they have permission from Coke to do so.
Then you understand it wrong. No company would "give" permission in this way. It is a right to be able to compare your product to a comparing product, and use their trademark as long as it is in a comparitive and responsible way. Saying "10% better" or "10% bigger" is exactly a form of comparitive advertising that is allowed.
Most company's that do "compare to brand x" are NOT the same company. They are simply exercising their right to use a trademark for the sole purpose of comparitive advertising.
Except that "fair use" of a trademark applies, as in, you have the right to use a trademark when comparing your product to another. Pepsi can use the trademarked term "Coke" when comparing the taste of their product to Coke, all perfectly legal. Even though the names are not similar, under this judge's (flawed) interpretation of the law, Pepsi couldn't use "compare taste of coke" or "coke vs pepsi" in their advertising tags, which would normally be considered a fair use of the term.
If the one company has the term trademarked, then yes, the other must tread lightly when using the term. As to using the negative in the ad terms, that is just insanely stupid. This will only serve to provide LESS comparisons of competition, instead of doing what the law was designed to do: clear up any confusion in the marketplace.
If it was planned downtime....why wouldn't you just post a story about it? That way we don't all panic when Slashdot won't load (and hit the site nonstop when it comes back).
/. readers) don't check the site every 15 minutes, 24 hours a day, so the vast majority wouldn't have seen it.
And exactly HOW were we to read this story that was posted on the website, while that website was down? You have suggested yourself into a circular argument. Most normal people (which includes
In a follow up episode, they DID beat it with speed alone. Using a top fuel funny car, I think. At about 240mph. That was the point I was making.
NC (the topic of the current thread) doesn't have front plates either.