Don't forget the free health care. Thats a pretty nice perk (for the company, and for the workers)
The "free health care" is a nice perk for Canadians, but keep in mind we pay for that "free health care" with our tax dollars, it is for basic medical services, so things like eye glasses and dental work are not covered (meaning employers still need to offer an "extended medical" benefits package to attract quality workers, just like in the US) and there is no shortage of Canadians who think there should be a parallel, for-profit system so people with the means can pay to jump the queue. But you are quite right, it is very nice to have access to medical care when you need it, even if you could not afford to pay the cost out of your pocket. You just might have to wait a little longer than you would like to, especially if you are rolling in dough and are used to spending your way out of trouble.
That's interesting. This comment mentions spelling errors being introduced in to the summary of an article he submitted as well. I guess it makes sense. Lot's of people submit the same article, and it must be tempting for the editors to cut a bit out of this one and graft it on to that one. Especially if it improves the quality of the summary. Of course, a user might object to his name being associated with the comments of another submitter, but I guess that's the risk you run submitting articles.
BTW, you're doing pretty well for a dyslexic non-english speaker. I couldn't even manage to spell "grammar" correctly in my subject line, and I've been speaking and writing english exclusively my whole life!
because ZFS has back-up and snapshots build right in to the filesystem
I think Slashdot would benefit from adopting some of K5's approach to story submissions. The Firehose is a great start, but instead of simply saying yes or no, users should be able to give feedback to the submitter. The summary for this article is a great example. The submitter typed "build" instead of "built," resulting in an annoying distraction in an otherwise concise description of the story.
Newspapers have Copy Editors (at least they used to; most seem not-too-bothered by spelling these days). It would be nice if interested Firehose users were given the opportunity to help make sure the summary was fit for publication before it hits the front page.
I guess this should have been a journal entry, but it seemed like an opportune time to bring this up.
Thanks for bringing up Carlin. The first thing I thought of when I read the summary was Carlin talking about the words piss and cunt.
"The reason piss and cunt are on the list is because a long time ago certain ladies said 'those are the two I'm not gonna say. I don't mind fuck and shit, but P and C are out!'
"Which lead to such stupid sentences as 'Okay, you fuckers, I'm going to tinkle now.'"
Always brings a grin. Hope we get a story about Muhammad Ali next.
That site may very well be a commercial enterprise. Other sites were communities of music lovers, who learned from and shared with each other. I have no doubt we are depriving some deserving collection of investors and speculators of their income by giving away our derivative works for free, just as I am no doubt stealing from someone by simply teaching my neice how to play the intro to Purple Haze.
So to expand on my last post, be careful what you whistle. Some day soon, someone may come along and tell you that you that you owe them a royalty for that performance of their intellectual property.
The basic idea behind the outcome of the DeCSS case (even though I don't believe it finished with an actual verdict) was that distributing the code was covered by free speech (hence the songs, poems, pictures, etc., with the DeCSS code in it), so by distributing only the source code to libdvdcss, they should be in the clear (even though they aren't in the US).
I believe in the MPAA vs 2600 case, the judge basically avoided the whole fair use issue by saying people could use other formats (ie VHS) to excercise fair use, so it doesn't matter that the DMCA conflicts with it. This completely ignores the fact that once all media is encumbered with DRM you won't be able to legally bypass CSS to make an excerpt for a review, for example, but Judge Kaplan was nonplussed by this.
I don't think he accepted the defense argument that DeCSS had significant non-infringing uses (watching DVDs on Linux systems) and ruled that linking to it violated the DMCA. He upheld the MPAA's injunction and 2600 was forced to remove the "links." Of course, they simply printed them in non-clickable text, thumbing their noses at the MPAA without further violating the injunction. If they had refused to remove the links, I'm pretty sure they would have paid a big penalty.
(IANAL, and it's been a while since I read the decision. I apologize in advance if I'm out to lunch on any of this).
For reference, for the 99% of us out here who have no frickin' clue what something like XBMC might stand for, it would be nice to spell out the whole abbreviation at least once in summaries
I used to tell myself this is a geek site, if I don't know what an acronym stands for I should look it up myself yada yada etc etc. Then I see this story yesterday about "altruism," and the submitter bothered to give us a definition of that word (I'm pretty sure it was the submitter; I didn't see the definition in the linked article).
Completely off topic with this but it struck me as funny that we're expected to know every obscure acronym under the Sun but apparently need to have the concept of altruism explained to us.
You raise an interesting point. The FSF does swing a big hammer, but ultimately the developer and user still have the choice to move on to something else, just like with commercial software. The advantage free software has over its commercial counterpart (and the reason I believe it does not conflict with capitalism) is that it provides opportunities for small businesses to fill a niche by adding something of value (training, support, implementation etc) to an existing project to differentiate themselves from the competition, or to use an existing tool to create something new. People can do this with commercial software too, but the price of admission is often too high, and there is less flexibility (freedom?) with regard to how the tools are used.
If you think about it, copyright itself is actually "anti-capitalist." It is an artificial restriction placed on the market to give an advantage to a particular entity (the copyright holder). But you won't hear proponents of commercial software arguing against copyright. And all software licenses are really just extensions of copyright (if you do this, you will get these additional benefits).
It's funny, the people who always talk about Capitalism and free markets seem to be more interested in maintaining the status quo, rather than creating conditions where entrepreneurs can actually thrive.
Someone needs to sit a few people from Novell down at some point and explain to them that a desire to ensure that businesses suffer harm was arguably one of the main motivations behind the GPL having been written at all. For once, I wish someone could actually give me a reasoned rebuttal on why they believe that I'm wrong in believing that (at least the intention behind) the GPL is largely anticapitalist
Please explain to me how a developer choosing to license software with the GPL is "anti-capitalist?" All the GPL does is grant additional rights to the user, provided they abide by the terms of the license. If they don't abide by those terms, they are not entitled to those additional rights.
How is this different from commercial software? It comes with a license as well, outlining the terms under which you may use it. If you do not wish to abide by the terms of the license, you are free to try another product with a different license (BSD, for example). Nobody is forcing you to use this particular software. And nobody is preventing another business from releasing software under the license of their choice.
What is "anti-capitalist" about users and developers having choice?
I love how whenever you start talking about "freedom" with certain types of people you get called a "communist."
I know the AC is just trolling (or he's a total ass-hat), but I've actually encountered this in real life with otherwise intelligent people. You start talking about openness and choice and they feel threatened by that for some reason. I guess the only freedom they care about is their freedom to amass wealth.
Actually, it appears some random ad agencey (i.e., a company that is directly threatened by customer-produced advertizing campaigns) is complaining the quality is crap. Big surprise.
I wonder what the MPAA thinks of user-produced videos on Youtube. (Oh, that's right. There are none. Youtube is just a repository of stolen intellectual property).
it's only a particularly rabid and vocal minority that gives the impression that Apple users are somehow 'different' (more creative).
Are you suggesting otherwise? Because "different, creative people" are very clearly a demographic Apple Computers aggressively markets to. Many of the creative people I know use them and like them, and lots of people I know want one. My girlfriend is using a little ibook I borrowed from a friend right now to check her email, and she loves it. Cause it doesn't look like some geeky piece of technology. It doesn't look like it came from my side of the bedroom. Asthetics are important to her, and I think they are important to creative people in general.
I think people who share common traits and interests would also share an interest in a particular tool that allows them to pursue their interests. I would be surprised if that were not the case. I know other tools will do the job also, and plenty of people will choose those other tools, but Apple Computers have that specific person (the "different, more creative one) in mind when they design, build and market their offering. The fact that they even care is enough for a lot of "creative" type people.
So back to the original point, I think Apple Computer customers would make better commercials than Heinz Ketchup customers.
I agree with that. Censorship can only be effective if practiced by someone in authority. Which is why I used examples like the Church. It doesn't matter whether that entity is the 'final authority' in your life (i.e. the US consitition), just that it is able to exercise some level of control over you.
Please, please do not tell me that the Wikipedia, established in 2k? is a more substanatial guideline than the US Constitution.
Hmmm. Never said anything of the sort.
I said the first sentence in that entry is a good description of censorship. If you don't agree, tell me what you don't agree with and why. I didn't declare Wikipedia a definative authority on anything. And on that subject:
the US Constitution
Ah, yes. The good ol' US Constitution. So that's the definative authority on censorship, is it?
Rise and shine, rosebud, and take a look around. There's a whole world out there beyond your garden.
I'll state my case, without refering to any authority.
If any entity takes steps to prevent the dissemination of knowledge, that entity is engaging in censorship. It doesn't matter whether it is a government, a business or a church. It doesn't matter whether you are trying to prevent your neighbor from expressing their viewpoint on an issue that only affects you two, or whether or not it is legal or morally correct to do it in this particular case. If you are trying to stop the spread of an idea you are censoring.
In this case, these two doofuses apologized on the Friday, then complained about it on Monday. That is why they were suspended, for whining about the boss to the customer. This is not a censorship issue, but that does not mean XM, CNN, your local paper or you yourself can not engage in censorship. It is your intent that counts.
XM issued a statement condemning the comments, and Cumia and Hughes apologized on the air Friday.
On Monday's show, Hughes and Cumia complained about "dumb rules" and an "umbrella of morality and decency" that led Imus and some other hosts to get fired. XM officials suspended the pair Tuesday, saying the comments "put into question whether they appreciate the seriousness of the matter."
So XM chastized them publicly, and Opie and Anthony apologized, then whined about it the following Monday. XM suspended them for complaining, not for what they originally said. If they had not apologized, and were then suspended, they could argue the "censorship" case. But they (fearing for their paycheques, no doubt) apologized on Friday, then whined about "dumb rules" on Monday.
So I agree: this is an HR matter, not a censorship issue.
This annoyed me for a second, too, until I remembered I have the bug-me-not extension installed on this machine. It worked beautifully this time: right-click, select "login in with bug-me-not" and I was logged in.
I'll create an account with a site I access frequently to repay them in a small way for their efforts. Sites I can't live without I support financially (which oddly doesn't include slashdot). But sites I need this one time and may never visit again can suck it. I use bug-me-not on them.
So if the local newspaper refuses to print every single editorial letter that comes their way, then they are censoring.
No. If the local newspaper refuses to print any editorial letter that represents a particular viewpoint, that is censorship.
The first line in the wikipedia article on the subject puts it quite succinctly:
"Censorship is the removal and withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body."
The local paper has a limited amount of space, and must make choices as to what gets published and what does not. If they make those choices based on the viewpoint they represent - as opposed to how effectively they make their point, for example - they are engaging in censorship. It's their intent that matters.
... Can't we just teach people to take colder showers?
NEVER!!!!
I spent a month in Europe when I was a teenager. They would save the hot water in the hostels for laundry, so you got a cold shower every morning. After a week or so, the cold shower was actually quite refreshing. Sure woke you up in a hurry. I was determined to continue having cold showers when I got back home.
Twenty-plus years later, I haven't (intentionally) had one since. Guess it's time to start.
let's see: one bunch of people who invade people's privacy for money suing another bunch of people who invaded that first bunch of people's privacy for money for money.
I'm sure if you put a little effort in to it you could recognize the difference between reporting on the activities of the board of directors of a publicly traded company vs. calling a business claiming to be someone you are not for the purpose of extracting information you are not legally entitled to possess from that business.
Slashdot Mirror
The "free health care" is a nice perk for Canadians, but keep in mind we pay for that "free health care" with our tax dollars, it is for basic medical services, so things like eye glasses and dental work are not covered (meaning employers still need to offer an "extended medical" benefits package to attract quality workers, just like in the US) and there is no shortage of Canadians who think there should be a parallel, for-profit system so people with the means can pay to jump the queue. But you are quite right, it is very nice to have access to medical care when you need it, even if you could not afford to pay the cost out of your pocket. You just might have to wait a little longer than you would like to, especially if you are rolling in dough and are used to spending your way out of trouble.
Twelve o'clock is using it?!?
That's interesting. This comment mentions spelling errors being introduced in to the summary of an article he submitted as well. I guess it makes sense. Lot's of people submit the same article, and it must be tempting for the editors to cut a bit out of this one and graft it on to that one. Especially if it improves the quality of the summary. Of course, a user might object to his name being associated with the comments of another submitter, but I guess that's the risk you run submitting articles.
BTW, you're doing pretty well for a dyslexic non-english speaker. I couldn't even manage to spell "grammar" correctly in my subject line, and I've been speaking and writing english exclusively my whole life!
I think Slashdot would benefit from adopting some of K5's approach to story submissions. The Firehose is a great start, but instead of simply saying yes or no, users should be able to give feedback to the submitter. The summary for this article is a great example. The submitter typed "build" instead of "built," resulting in an annoying distraction in an otherwise concise description of the story.
Newspapers have Copy Editors (at least they used to; most seem not-too-bothered by spelling these days). It would be nice if interested Firehose users were given the opportunity to help make sure the summary was fit for publication before it hits the front page.
I guess this should have been a journal entry, but it seemed like an opportune time to bring this up.
Where pointing out that the emperor has no clothes gets you modded "Offtopic."
Drink your Kook-Aid, YeeHaW_Jelte, and stop steering the conversation toward the truth.
You've been warned.
Thanks for bringing up Carlin. The first thing I thought of when I read the summary was Carlin talking about the words piss and cunt.
"The reason piss and cunt are on the list is because a long time ago certain ladies said 'those are the two I'm not gonna say. I don't mind fuck and shit, but P and C are out!'
"Which lead to such stupid sentences as 'Okay, you fuckers, I'm going to tinkle now.'"
Always brings a grin. Hope we get a story about Muhammad Ali next.
I'm pretty sure that was Bruce Hornsby playing the piano on that track. In fact, I seem to recall Henley put lyrics to Hornsby's music on that one.
Not nitpicking, just enjoy trivia. I agree with your point.
That site may very well be a commercial enterprise. Other sites were communities of music lovers, who learned from and shared with each other. I have no doubt we are depriving some deserving collection of investors and speculators of their income by giving away our derivative works for free, just as I am no doubt stealing from someone by simply teaching my neice how to play the intro to Purple Haze.
So to expand on my last post, be careful what you whistle. Some day soon, someone may come along and tell you that you that you owe them a royalty for that performance of their intellectual property.
Unfortuantely, they've already taken out the Online Guitar Archive, and more sites will go down now because of this.
If you enjoy downloading tabs off the net to learn new songs, this is not good news.
Shall we outlaw whistling next?
I believe in the MPAA vs 2600 case, the judge basically avoided the whole fair use issue by saying people could use other formats (ie VHS) to excercise fair use, so it doesn't matter that the DMCA conflicts with it. This completely ignores the fact that once all media is encumbered with DRM you won't be able to legally bypass CSS to make an excerpt for a review, for example, but Judge Kaplan was nonplussed by this.
I don't think he accepted the defense argument that DeCSS had significant non-infringing uses (watching DVDs on Linux systems) and ruled that linking to it violated the DMCA. He upheld the MPAA's injunction and 2600 was forced to remove the "links." Of course, they simply printed them in non-clickable text, thumbing their noses at the MPAA without further violating the injunction. If they had refused to remove the links, I'm pretty sure they would have paid a big penalty.
(IANAL, and it's been a while since I read the decision. I apologize in advance if I'm out to lunch on any of this).
I used to tell myself this is a geek site, if I don't know what an acronym stands for I should look it up myself yada yada etc etc. Then I see this story yesterday about "altruism," and the submitter bothered to give us a definition of that word (I'm pretty sure it was the submitter; I didn't see the definition in the linked article).
Completely off topic with this but it struck me as funny that we're expected to know every obscure acronym under the Sun but apparently need to have the concept of altruism explained to us.
You raise an interesting point. The FSF does swing a big hammer, but ultimately the developer and user still have the choice to move on to something else, just like with commercial software. The advantage free software has over its commercial counterpart (and the reason I believe it does not conflict with capitalism) is that it provides opportunities for small businesses to fill a niche by adding something of value (training, support, implementation etc) to an existing project to differentiate themselves from the competition, or to use an existing tool to create something new. People can do this with commercial software too, but the price of admission is often too high, and there is less flexibility (freedom?) with regard to how the tools are used.
If you think about it, copyright itself is actually "anti-capitalist." It is an artificial restriction placed on the market to give an advantage to a particular entity (the copyright holder). But you won't hear proponents of commercial software arguing against copyright. And all software licenses are really just extensions of copyright (if you do this, you will get these additional benefits).
It's funny, the people who always talk about Capitalism and free markets seem to be more interested in maintaining the status quo, rather than creating conditions where entrepreneurs can actually thrive.
Please explain to me how a developer choosing to license software with the GPL is "anti-capitalist?" All the GPL does is grant additional rights to the user, provided they abide by the terms of the license. If they don't abide by those terms, they are not entitled to those additional rights.
How is this different from commercial software? It comes with a license as well, outlining the terms under which you may use it. If you do not wish to abide by the terms of the license, you are free to try another product with a different license (BSD, for example). Nobody is forcing you to use this particular software. And nobody is preventing another business from releasing software under the license of their choice.
What is "anti-capitalist" about users and developers having choice?
I love how whenever you start talking about "freedom" with certain types of people you get called a "communist."
I know the AC is just trolling (or he's a total ass-hat), but I've actually encountered this in real life with otherwise intelligent people. You start talking about openness and choice and they feel threatened by that for some reason. I guess the only freedom they care about is their freedom to amass wealth.
Actually, it appears some random ad agencey (i.e., a company that is directly threatened by customer-produced advertizing campaigns) is complaining the quality is crap. Big surprise.
I wonder what the MPAA thinks of user-produced videos on Youtube. (Oh, that's right. There are none. Youtube is just a repository of stolen intellectual property).
Are you suggesting otherwise? Because "different, creative people" are very clearly a demographic Apple Computers aggressively markets to. Many of the creative people I know use them and like them, and lots of people I know want one. My girlfriend is using a little ibook I borrowed from a friend right now to check her email, and she loves it. Cause it doesn't look like some geeky piece of technology. It doesn't look like it came from my side of the bedroom. Asthetics are important to her, and I think they are important to creative people in general.
I think people who share common traits and interests would also share an interest in a particular tool that allows them to pursue their interests. I would be surprised if that were not the case. I know other tools will do the job also, and plenty of people will choose those other tools, but Apple Computers have that specific person (the "different, more creative one) in mind when they design, build and market their offering. The fact that they even care is enough for a lot of "creative" type people.
So back to the original point, I think Apple Computer customers would make better commercials than Heinz Ketchup customers.
I agree with that. Censorship can only be effective if practiced by someone in authority. Which is why I used examples like the Church. It doesn't matter whether that entity is the 'final authority' in your life (i.e. the US consitition), just that it is able to exercise some level of control over you.
Hmmm. Never said anything of the sort.
I said the first sentence in that entry is a good description of censorship. If you don't agree, tell me what you don't agree with and why. I didn't declare Wikipedia a definative authority on anything. And on that subject:
Ah, yes. The good ol' US Constitution. So that's the definative authority on censorship, is it?
Rise and shine, rosebud, and take a look around. There's a whole world out there beyond your garden.
I'll state my case, without refering to any authority.
If any entity takes steps to prevent the dissemination of knowledge, that entity is engaging in censorship. It doesn't matter whether it is a government, a business or a church. It doesn't matter whether you are trying to prevent your neighbor from expressing their viewpoint on an issue that only affects you two, or whether or not it is legal or morally correct to do it in this particular case. If you are trying to stop the spread of an idea you are censoring.
In this case, these two doofuses apologized on the Friday, then complained about it on Monday. That is why they were suspended, for whining about the boss to the customer. This is not a censorship issue, but that does not mean XM, CNN, your local paper or you yourself can not engage in censorship. It is your intent that counts.
I agree with you, based on this:
So XM chastized them publicly, and Opie and Anthony apologized, then whined about it the following Monday. XM suspended them for complaining, not for what they originally said. If they had not apologized, and were then suspended, they could argue the "censorship" case. But they (fearing for their paycheques, no doubt) apologized on Friday, then whined about "dumb rules" on Monday.
So I agree: this is an HR matter, not a censorship issue.
This annoyed me for a second, too, until I remembered I have the bug-me-not extension installed on this machine. It worked beautifully this time: right-click, select "login in with bug-me-not" and I was logged in.
I'll create an account with a site I access frequently to repay them in a small way for their efforts. Sites I can't live without I support financially (which oddly doesn't include slashdot). But sites I need this one time and may never visit again can suck it. I use bug-me-not on them.
No. If the local newspaper refuses to print any editorial letter that represents a particular viewpoint, that is censorship.
The first line in the wikipedia article on the subject puts it quite succinctly:
"Censorship is the removal and withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body."
The local paper has a limited amount of space, and must make choices as to what gets published and what does not. If they make those choices based on the viewpoint they represent - as opposed to how effectively they make their point, for example - they are engaging in censorship. It's their intent that matters.
I spent a month in Europe when I was a teenager. They would save the hot water in the hostels for laundry, so you got a cold shower every morning. After a week or so, the cold shower was actually quite refreshing. Sure woke you up in a hurry. I was determined to continue having cold showers when I got back home.
Twenty-plus years later, I haven't (intentionally) had one since. Guess it's time to start.
Excellent idea. Sarah Polley's "Away From Her" looks good.
I'm sure if you put a little effort in to it you could recognize the difference between reporting on the activities of the board of directors of a publicly traded company vs. calling a business claiming to be someone you are not for the purpose of extracting information you are not legally entitled to possess from that business.
Hint: one of those activities is illegal.