that there are real, non-evil people down in the trenches making and supporting products at Microsoft is inconvenient to those slashdotters who prefer to hate the company as an evil monolith
Hardly. I can't speak for anyone else, but I have no problem at all hating Microsoft as an "evil monolith," despite the fact that I'm sure there are many intelligent, hard-working "non-evil" people working there. One does not negate the other.
I enjoy wordplay too, and I'm not trying to take that away from you. But you have to admit, the two words sound a lot alike and - depending on where you use it - there is a pretty good chance that someone could misinterpret its meaning. I'm not advocating banning any words, just care in how we choose them. Some consideration should be given to how those who hear your words are likely to interpret what you are saying.
If you use a word like niggardly because it describes your thoughts more accurately than any other, and you are confident your listener will take the meaning you intended, fair enough. OTH, if you are choosing that word for the effect it has rather than the message it conveys, you are using words as a blunt instrument, rather than scalpel. I think language deserves more respect than that, and that's why I accused you - wrongly - of hiding behind it.
You are right. The answer is not to shun words, but rather shine light on their meaning so people can better understand each other. Just remember the power of the word, and wield it wisely.
Show me some examples of modern usage of that word.
Frankly if someone was so stupid they thought my use of 'niggardly' was racist then I'd use it just to piss them off
That was pretty much my point. Yes, the word has a completely different root and meaning from another word (which is used as a slur against a certain group of people) but choosing it does nothing to clarify your point further. So why choose that word instead of a different word - such as miserly - that has essentially the same meaning, unless the point you are really trying to get across has more to do with your choice of words than the content of your message. In which case, just tell us straight up what's on your mind and stop beating around the bush with your pedantic word choice.
Next I suppose you'll be telling us 'niggardly' is racist...
It isn't racist, but it isn't necessary in most instances either. There are other words that mean the same thing and don't cause confusion about the speaker's message or the motives behind his word choices.
My Nikon allows you to enter a comment in the metadata, like say your copyright notice. This doesn't seem any different. I have pics on my website taken with my buddy's Nikon, and they have his copyright notice.
If you could set the camera to not work unless it was your iris against the viewfinder, that would be pretty cool. This is just another watermark.
I no longer use the words "upgrade" and "downgrade" when discussing software. These are marketing euphemisms, used to convince the customer that the newer version of a piece of software is better by default. While that may be the case in most instances, I reserve the right to judge whether migrating to a different version is an "upgrade" or not.
Alas, as Linux has gotten bigger and more complex, it is also requiring more capital to sustain itself as well, and capital means corporate funding... I predict that within a few years, Linux will grow to the point that its advocates will quietly abandon the collaborative, libertarian rhetoric that drove it early on
I think it is great that we have the choice to go with a corporate-backed distro such as Red Hat or Novell if we need the support or enterprise features they offer, while still being able to choose a community-backed, "free" in every sense of the word distro like Debian if that is what suits us. The very existence of choice is the success of free and open source software.
I predict that the bazaar will continue to grow and expand and cater to all kinds of needs and tastes in the future. That really is the benefit of FOSS, isn't it? The freedom to choose (and use) the software that suits our needs, rather than being forced to take what the silo masters are pushing.
Well, here's what the blog CastrTroy linked to has to say on that:
More than a week after this story was published, Trent Reznor accused CNET News.com of misquoting him about the issue of a music tax on ISPs. We have posted an audio excerpt of the Reznor interview here. For the sake of full disclosure, we have also updated this story to include the text of what he said following his remarks about the ISP tax.
And here's the relevent quote, again according to the blog:
For me, I choose the battles I can fight. In my mind, I think if there was an ISP tax of some sort, we can say to the consumer, "All music is now available and able to be downloaded and put in your car and put in your iPod and put up your a-- if you want, and it's $5 on your cable bill or ISP bill."
Someone asked me recently whether I've used 4-1-1 lately. I said 'Not really." They said do you know you're paying for that every month? 'I am?' Yeah, X-amount of your money goes to a service that you don't even use.'
Is Trent saying that those are not his words? Because if they are, it sounds a lot to me like he's endorsing a tax on ISP use as a means of compensating artists, just like the tax Canadians pay on blank CDs.
The problem with these taxes is that they are levied against everyone, including people who don't "consume" Trent's music. They also penalize - and put at a disadvantage - those who use blank CDs or Internet connections in the running of their own small business or even the production of their own art.
It's great that Trent is out there talking about these issues, I just think he needs to take a more moderate point of view. Somewhere between stealing everything and taxing everyone, there is a solution.
I must say, he really swings from one extreme - "steal, steal... and steal some more" - to the other - ISP tax to do things normally covered by Fair Use. How bout we meet somewhere in the middle, Trent?
These guys made $140,000 in three months. If they used opportunities like the interview you linked to put out a positive message, those numbers could grow, maybe to the point where they could "cover the costs and perhaps make a living doing it." Hell, they could even partner with one of those evil record labels at a later data and release a physical CD ala In Rainbows.
Whining to interviewers that four fifths of the people who downloaded the album you put on your website "stole" it and proposing to tax everyone - even those who don't listen to pop music - doesn't entice me to buy - or steal - his album.
Despite what you may read on slashdot, all other evidence suggests that this simply isn't true.
Okay, I'll bite. Other than new systems preinstalled with Vista and Office 2007 (no choice available to the customer), which evidence suggests people are choosing to move from XP/Office 2003 to Vista/Office 2007?
It doesn't take a great leap to go from one to the other, especially now that we have these great general purpose machines at our disposal. I can do it now. The question is, will patents like this one make it illegal for me to do so using free software.
Also, DVR permits you to watch the program while taping it, in a way that allows you to "pause" it and continue later. This ability is included in TiVO's patent. There's no way to do this with a VCR, so it doesn't count as previous art for it.
Sounds a lot like "instant replay," the ability to pause, rewind and fast forward a live broadcast. They've been doing in sports broadcasts since the 60s. Using fancy video tape decks -"VCRs" if you will.
I wonder too - as others have - what the implications are for having mythtv or some other free pvr.
It's a pretty broad leap to go from the quote you mention to mistreatment of animals.
The mistreatment of animals I was referring to was strapping a dog's crate to the roof of a stationwagon for a 12-hour roadtrip during which the animal in question shat itself so badly it was running down the windows of the car. I thought he was mocking the other poster for caring about the animal, and pointed out that the way a person treats animals is often indicative of how they treat people.
I never said gb506 abuses animals, just that he shouldn't be so quick to dismiss abuse by others as irrelevant.
I suspect you are one of these people who equates a pet with a brother, sister, mother, father, son or daughter. If so, you're an imbecile of the highest order.
An early clue that someone may be a sociopath is mistreatment of animals. It points to a lack of empathy. How you treat a pet is a good indication of how you are likely to treat your brother, sister, mother, father, son, daughter or a stranger in the street.
Skill, talent, and training still count after all.
Sure, just like anyone can write a blog, but if you have nothing interesting to say nobody is going to read it.
All of this tech that is available to average Joe's simply means that the "gatekeepers" in Hollyweird no longer get to decide who gets an audience, or what that audience gets to see. For a fairly modest amount of money, anyone get buy a camera and some editing software and produce a technically acceptable film. If you are inclined to do so, you could put it up on Youtube, or host your own website, or burn your own DVDs and if people want to watch it, that's great. If not, too bad but at least you got to make your film.
By the same token, you coul buy a guitar for a few hundred dollars and play for anyone who will listen, but if you don't actually learn to play it and - more importantly - if you don't have music in your soul that's burning to get out, nobody is going to listen to you.
But at least you get to play to your heart's content, and for some people that's enough.
Pretty soon the tech will be sufficiently advanced that filmakers won't actually need those really expensive actor chappies. Yay:-)
Actors bring more than their physical presence to the movies they appear in. Computer-generated crowds are one thing; if you want to communicate a message to your viewer, you still need someone with the talent to do so.
As for the "expensive" ones, if they movies they appear in bring in large sums of money, the creative people involved in making it deserve significant portion of that.
The question is are "we" better off with less production, when we could have more?
Ah, but we do have more, and from more varied sources than we did a decade or two ago. A lot of the people posting their "whines and gripes" on Slashdot are also producing their own music, movies and games. As technology improves, so do production values. Those craving "Hollywood blockbusters" may find they can get them for a fraction of the "Hollywood budget," which has more to do with keeping the enormous machine grinding along than the actual quality of what is produced.
A key to this is that people need to be able to share and participate in their culture, so in a sense I agree with you. If laws are fixed to encourage this, I see no reason the current output can not be maintained and even exceeded.
when I bought an album, the very first play went onto tape
I still do that for my CDs and DVDs - rip 'em and put the originals away. Mostly for convenience - I like being able to access my media from anywhere in the house, but discs are just as easy to damage as LPs were, not to mention those crappy jewel cases!
Another thing people sometimes don't consider until it's too late: buy some of those plastic storage containers and store your CDs, DVDs, LPs, photos, love letters and other irreplaceable objects in them. People will often keep their most precious items in cardboard boxes in the basement. If you have a flood, guess where the water goes? Fires as well - they use a lot of water putting those things out, and smoke causes a great deal of damage too. Of course, if you house burns completely to the ground this isn't going to help, but the majority of "losses" in these instances are not total. Just that something is so badly water damaged, or stinks so badly from smoke, that it can no longer be enjoyed.
Just a word of advise from someone who has seen a lot of people lose things that may have had little monetary value, but were irreplaceable to them.
Slashdot Mirror
Works just fine in lynx, too
Hardly. I can't speak for anyone else, but I have no problem at all hating Microsoft as an "evil monolith," despite the fact that I'm sure there are many intelligent, hard-working "non-evil" people working there. One does not negate the other.
I know what I'd be doing if I was Mike 8^D
I enjoy wordplay too, and I'm not trying to take that away from you. But you have to admit, the two words sound a lot alike and - depending on where you use it - there is a pretty good chance that someone could misinterpret its meaning. I'm not advocating banning any words, just care in how we choose them. Some consideration should be given to how those who hear your words are likely to interpret what you are saying.
If you use a word like niggardly because it describes your thoughts more accurately than any other, and you are confident your listener will take the meaning you intended, fair enough. OTH, if you are choosing that word for the effect it has rather than the message it conveys, you are using words as a blunt instrument, rather than scalpel. I think language deserves more respect than that, and that's why I accused you - wrongly - of hiding behind it.
You are right. The answer is not to shun words, but rather shine light on their meaning so people can better understand each other. Just remember the power of the word, and wield it wisely.
That was pretty much my point. Yes, the word has a completely different root and meaning from another word (which is used as a slur against a certain group of people) but choosing it does nothing to clarify your point further. So why choose that word instead of a different word - such as miserly - that has essentially the same meaning, unless the point you are really trying to get across has more to do with your choice of words than the content of your message. In which case, just tell us straight up what's on your mind and stop beating around the bush with your pedantic word choice.
Oh, please. Stop hiding behind it.
It isn't racist, but it isn't necessary in most instances either. There are other words that mean the same thing and don't cause confusion about the speaker's message or the motives behind his word choices.
Interesting.
My Nikon allows you to enter a comment in the metadata, like say your copyright notice. This doesn't seem any different. I have pics on my website taken with my buddy's Nikon, and they have his copyright notice.
If you could set the camera to not work unless it was your iris against the viewfinder, that would be pretty cool. This is just another watermark.
I no longer use the words "upgrade" and "downgrade" when discussing software. These are marketing euphemisms, used to convince the customer that the newer version of a piece of software is better by default. While that may be the case in most instances, I reserve the right to judge whether migrating to a different version is an "upgrade" or not.
Excellent idea! Who knows, maybe we'll find out his own kids "stole" music and didn't get sued.
I think it is great that we have the choice to go with a corporate-backed distro such as Red Hat or Novell if we need the support or enterprise features they offer, while still being able to choose a community-backed, "free" in every sense of the word distro like Debian if that is what suits us. The very existence of choice is the success of free and open source software.
I predict that the bazaar will continue to grow and expand and cater to all kinds of needs and tastes in the future. That really is the benefit of FOSS, isn't it? The freedom to choose (and use) the software that suits our needs, rather than being forced to take what the silo masters are pushing.
Well, here's what the blog CastrTroy linked to has to say on that:
And here's the relevent quote, again according to the blog:
Is Trent saying that those are not his words? Because if they are, it sounds a lot to me like he's endorsing a tax on ISP use as a means of compensating artists, just like the tax Canadians pay on blank CDs.
The problem with these taxes is that they are levied against everyone, including people who don't "consume" Trent's music. They also penalize - and put at a disadvantage - those who use blank CDs or Internet connections in the running of their own small business or even the production of their own art.
It's great that Trent is out there talking about these issues, I just think he needs to take a more moderate point of view. Somewhere between stealing everything and taxing everyone, there is a solution.
I must say, he really swings from one extreme - "steal, steal
These guys made $140,000 in three months. If they used opportunities like the interview you linked to put out a positive message, those numbers could grow, maybe to the point where they could "cover the costs and perhaps make a living doing it." Hell, they could even partner with one of those evil record labels at a later data and release a physical CD ala In Rainbows.
Whining to interviewers that four fifths of the people who downloaded the album you put on your website "stole" it and proposing to tax everyone - even those who don't listen to pop music - doesn't entice me to buy - or steal - his album.
Okay, I'll bite. Other than new systems preinstalled with Vista and Office 2007 (no choice available to the customer), which evidence suggests people are choosing to move from XP/Office 2003 to Vista/Office 2007?
It doesn't take a great leap to go from one to the other, especially now that we have these great general purpose machines at our disposal. I can do it now. The question is, will patents like this one make it illegal for me to do so using free software.
Sounds a lot like "instant replay," the ability to pause, rewind and fast forward a live broadcast. They've been doing in sports broadcasts since the 60s. Using fancy video tape decks -"VCRs" if you will.
I wonder too - as others have - what the implications are for having mythtv or some other free pvr.
If it wasn't for their 'IP policy,' we wouldn't have half the problems we do with 'interoperability.'
Or dig up dirt with which to discredit the blogger. If you can't beat him with facts, get him with his own dirty laundry.
The mistreatment of animals I was referring to was strapping a dog's crate to the roof of a stationwagon for a 12-hour roadtrip during which the animal in question shat itself so badly it was running down the windows of the car. I thought he was mocking the other poster for caring about the animal, and pointed out that the way a person treats animals is often indicative of how they treat people.
I never said gb506 abuses animals, just that he shouldn't be so quick to dismiss abuse by others as irrelevant.
An early clue that someone may be a sociopath is mistreatment of animals. It points to a lack of empathy. How you treat a pet is a good indication of how you are likely to treat your brother, sister, mother, father, son, daughter or a stranger in the street.
Maybe Microsoft could purchase some more licenses
Sure, just like anyone can write a blog, but if you have nothing interesting to say nobody is going to read it.
All of this tech that is available to average Joe's simply means that the "gatekeepers" in Hollyweird no longer get to decide who gets an audience, or what that audience gets to see. For a fairly modest amount of money, anyone get buy a camera and some editing software and produce a technically acceptable film. If you are inclined to do so, you could put it up on Youtube, or host your own website, or burn your own DVDs and if people want to watch it, that's great. If not, too bad but at least you got to make your film.
By the same token, you coul buy a guitar for a few hundred dollars and play for anyone who will listen, but if you don't actually learn to play it and - more importantly - if you don't have music in your soul that's burning to get out, nobody is going to listen to you.
But at least you get to play to your heart's content, and for some people that's enough.
Actors bring more than their physical presence to the movies they appear in. Computer-generated crowds are one thing; if you want to communicate a message to your viewer, you still need someone with the talent to do so.
As for the "expensive" ones, if they movies they appear in bring in large sums of money, the creative people involved in making it deserve significant portion of that.
Ah, but we do have more, and from more varied sources than we did a decade or two ago. A lot of the people posting their "whines and gripes" on Slashdot are also producing their own music, movies and games. As technology improves, so do production values. Those craving "Hollywood blockbusters" may find they can get them for a fraction of the "Hollywood budget," which has more to do with keeping the enormous machine grinding along than the actual quality of what is produced.
A key to this is that people need to be able to share and participate in their culture, so in a sense I agree with you. If laws are fixed to encourage this, I see no reason the current output can not be maintained and even exceeded.
Whaaaat??? ;^)
I still do that for my CDs and DVDs - rip 'em and put the originals away. Mostly for convenience - I like being able to access my media from anywhere in the house, but discs are just as easy to damage as LPs were, not to mention those crappy jewel cases!
Another thing people sometimes don't consider until it's too late: buy some of those plastic storage containers and store your CDs, DVDs, LPs, photos, love letters and other irreplaceable objects in them. People will often keep their most precious items in cardboard boxes in the basement. If you have a flood, guess where the water goes? Fires as well - they use a lot of water putting those things out, and smoke causes a great deal of damage too. Of course, if you house burns completely to the ground this isn't going to help, but the majority of "losses" in these instances are not total. Just that something is so badly water damaged, or stinks so badly from smoke, that it can no longer be enjoyed.
Just a word of advise from someone who has seen a lot of people lose things that may have had little monetary value, but were irreplaceable to them.