Holy crap do we have an M$ apologist running amok with moderator points today - all you have to do is think about the word "BSOD" and you get yourself a "Troll" moniker. Hopefully, people will metamoderate this tool so severely that they never get mod points again. I mean, Christ, how is parent post a troll? Get real, already.
Just to keep this on-topic - nowhere did I read in the article the most likely use for the X-Box, given the success of the Gamecube and the still-reignant PS-2: that of a $300 doorstop. Dreamcast, anybody?
Yipes - you just flamed a guy who's nick includes the phrase "bofh." Hope you're not calling tech support for awhile...
madopal - "Hi, the printer's down again...can you fix it?"
sympathetic BOFH - "Sure thing...lemme see what the problem is...ah yes, it appears that your machine's/home directory was too full and causing resonant frequency interference with the lpr command...this should take care of it..."*clickety click*
madopal - "WTF are you blathering about?"
sBOFH - "Oh, nothing, nothing at all. Have a nice day!" *click*
*quick look*
boxen:/home/madopal> ls -l
total 0
boxen:/home/madopal>
madopal - "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!"
Me, I flame with a bit more care. Moron.:)
Re:A monopoly by definition is not a free market
on
Broadband Obstacles
·
· Score: 1
Yikes, that was flame-a-rific. I apologize in advance - and if moderators wanna mod parent off the face of/., by all means. Sorry!
Re:A monopoly by definition is not a free market
on
Broadband Obstacles
·
· Score: 1
Unless you are trying to imply that the USA is uncivilized it may come to a shock to hear that monopolies are legal in the USA.
Yep, that's what the poster's implying, and you flat-out missed it. That was a minor-league troll - but on-topic, since the conversation in the last ten posts or so have been the relative merits of monopolies in the free-market system. There have been excellent posts debating lassaiz-faire capitalism, growth and decay of markets, economic cycles, and other info ad infinitum and apparently, you weren't reading any of them. All you stated was that monopolies were legal, which IIRC, was stated in the first post of the discussion. Get with the times, already.
But to reply to one of your marginal statements, here's a thought:
Also it shouldn't be illegal for a company to beat other inept companies, right?
Define inept. Did you read the post about the guy who runs a small ISP providing DSL service, and is going under because the monopoly on local phone service prevents him from getting lines installed into his customer's house? (hint: no, you didn't. Go back and read it.) Is this guy just running a rinky-dink ISP that takes forever in getting service up - and is therefore inept? But what if the telco drags their feet installing local phone lines for non-telco ISPs, thereby putting them out of business, while providing service lickety-split for their own ISP service? Isn't that an abuse of the free-market system? (hint: yes, it is.) And furthermore, it's an abuse that only a monopoly can employ. Which brings us back on-topic: are monopolies a good thing - despite the fact that they are technically legal, as you so cluefully have already mentioned.
if they include specific pictures of nude music superstars (*cough* Spears *cough* Twain *cough* Hill *cough*) as wallpaper then I think that the 15s attention span might actually go up to 17 - 20s instead.
I don't know about you, but I think the average geek's "attention span" *cough* *cough* when looking at n00d pix of Britney Spears would be somewhat longer than 17-20 sec. Maybe more like a few minutes, if you know what I mean (and I think you do:)
I love Slashdot - here we have an article that starts off with "If you want to read an intelligent article that doesn't end in a flamewar, read *blah*." And the first post on this article? Title: "Fucking Bullshit." Seems pretty clear that if we didn't want flamewars, we wouldn't read Slashdot.:)
I don't know whether to laugh or to cry about this...hehehehe
But remember: evil increases exponentially, not linearally, with the size of the corporation.
Amen, brother. And I never did get your email address...:)
cheers,
Re:Science fiction/Fantasy is not interesting anym
on
Hugo Award Voting Open
·
· Score: 5, Funny
*croaky voice* Aye, in my day, books were infinitely better! Plots were so strong, they not only carried the story, but water from the well, too! Characters were so real they occasionally reached out from the very pages they were bound in and poked you in the eye! These so-called 'novels' now-a-days can't hold a home-made candle to the exciting books I read in my fortunate youth! All you young whippersnappers out there should be humbled by the greatness of books you'll never get to read!!! Muahahahahahahaha!
Dang, there's a p-o'd moderator out there today...this is about the n-th funny post I've seen modded down as "offtopic." Maybe the dude needs to get laid or something...sheesh.
Since when have TI calculators used RPN? Troll much? I remember buying my first real calculator ten years ago or so - the guy at the store said "you can buy an HP, which uses this ancient, crufty notation, or the TI here, which uses straightforward notation." Being a moronic teenager, I went with the simple solution. And darn it if that TI-85 didn't work beautifully all the way into college, or at least until my chem partner dropped it off the table. Then I bought a TI-86, which saw me all the way through a physics degree, and still works fine today. And I never had problems doing computations with n steps to perform - I just kept on nesting, and life was great. Plus, while the other guys w/ HP calcs were spending hours figuring out how to do things like arcsin and nested exp()'s in integrals, I was solving problems and getting work done. And that suited me just fine, you know?
Besides, after that second year or so, calculators of any ilk were [forbidden|useless|not needed anymore] for everyday work in my classes. By then, it was all about derivations, and numbers gave way to symbols. But for the time I needed number crunching, the TI served admirably. Not bad for a "toy."
I submit that there's plenty of religious flamewars living around/. today - did you really mean to start another with the TI vs. HP crowd?:)
I defy you, oh clueless moderator, to point out the "troll" section of this informative post. What is the sound of one neuron firing? I submit it's the sound this guy's mouse made when the "-1, Troll" option got selected. Maybe the moderator sneezed when attempting to mod this up? One can only hope...
Not to be hyper-critical, but what's so bad about vim? I recall Slackware 3.4 using vim as vi, and it worked just as well as the ancient Sun-provided vi that I was using at work.
Okay, so I'm nitpicking, but isn't that what geeks do?:)
Heh, you're right, and I should say "oops, I was wrong" to follow up with this guy, thereby resulting in a flamewar. So, "oops, that was stoopid of me.":)
I'm glad this seems clear to you. It means I don't have to worry about what you think, once jamie finishes implementing killfiles.
Uh huh. All I said was, hey, it's no big deal to be wrong every so often. All the greats were wrong about something, and what made 'em great was the ability to suck it up like a man and say as much. But not only are you patently unable to say "oops, I made a boo-boo" you're so incredibly insecure about it that you have to killfile people who call you on it? Thirty minutes ago I just thought you were having a bad day - now I see that deep down, you're just an insecure, childish tool. Plonk away, lamer, you won't hurt my feelings any.
Wait...first you quote one sentence from the article to prove your point, then you claim another sentence from the article requires interpretation to prove your point? Seems pretty clear that you:
1.) Didn't actually read the whole article and posted a stupid-flame
2.) Got caught red-handed, and are now attempting to spin your way out of it.
Jesus Christ, man, it's just/. Is it so hard to say "D'oh, my bad" and move on?
What "internally consistent" means is that when I tell my computer I want to use CTRL-C for cut and you tell yours that you want to use that weird mouse gesture, the system and all applications obey our preferences.
Ahh, I see./me gets whacked with Clue-Stick. In that case, who says that open source OS's aren't already consistent? The OS is just fine - crappy apps that don't do this are not, IMHO, part of the OS. So is the writer of the article just blowing hot air, and I should STFU?:)
That's not what people mean by internal consistency.
Yeah, I'm having problems writing clearly today. I wish I hadn't written that sentence - what I meant to say was this:
1.) I can do everything I want to do on my Slackware/Gnome box with vi and the middle-mouse button. When I copy text, I select, and then middle-mouse it.
2.) Guy next cube over can do everything he wants on his Slackware/KDE box with endless GUI windows and CTRL-C, CTRL-V. When he copies text, he does it with a few keyboard commands.
What I've just described are two ways to copy text, embedded in the GUI of the OS. That's the kind of internal inconsistency that I like about Linux - I'm faster with my middle mouse than I would be with two CTRL commands, and vice versa for my officemate. You're right about your scrollbar analogy - you might take it a bit too far - but I think I've just demonstrated one example where inconsistency isn't such a bad thing, and helps productivity for the users involved.
IMO, the best way to handle this would be to allow the universal keystrokes to be definable so that I could make, say, CTRL-P be the "paste" shortcut in all of my applications. The OS (or it's GUI shell) would catch the preferred keystroke and pass on system-defined messages, which the applications would look for, instead of keystrokes.
Hey, now there's a good idea! It allows the user to define functionality the way they want it, while forcing every app being run to work the way the user decides! User gets TMTOWTDI capability without having to remember "oh yeah, gnotepad doesn't like middle-mouse as much as vi does." Now I know what I want for Christmas.:)
My only (hah!) beef with Windows/Mac-like OS's is that they are not as definable like Linux is, and I figured the price I have to pay for my DIY-ness is the occasional internal inconsistency problem. This, of course is a product of the open source development model - if this could be solved, then we would _both_ be happier. *sigh*
A lot of you are here to talk about free speech, yet/. does not support it!
No, we support free speech just fine - if you want to hear all opinions, just read/. at -1. Some of us tire quickly of racial epithets, goatse.cx first posters, and banal crap from ACs (hehehe) and prefer to filter our take. Note this is not censorship - the crapposts are not removed, but ignored. All the stuff you speak about are merely ways of making sure that the average reader can filter through the crapflood and get to the golden nuggets. Since nothing is deleted, nothing is censored - moderation just acts as a method of peer-reviewed criticism of commentary by/. users. If you hate criticism, then by all means, read at -1, and enjoy the relative benefits contained therein. Me, I like to skip the crap. But don't call me a censor for not wanting to read crap.
Internal consistency isn't about making your desktop look like the next guy's -- it's about making the way the user interface works consistent. Experts tend to overlook this, but it's important when introducing someone new to computers.
Right, I misspoke. Thanks for clearing me up.:) Your last point (new computer users want just one way to do it) is the heart of what I'm getting at - is "internal consistency" (using middle-mouse only or CTRL-C, CTRL-V only for cut-n-paste) something that users of an open-source OS really want?
You may or may not have used DOS systems, but every application in DOS that had a GUI looked (and worked) differently.
And boy, were they confusing, too.:) But then we made the Great Leap Forward from DOS 6.22/Win 3.1 to Windows 95, all of a sudden, my computer knowledge was useless, and my computer got really boring. You make an excellent point that the fractured approach to user program interfaces is confusing as heck to a newbie, and I agree wholeheartedly. I guess what I'm wondering about is this: is making Linux (or insert your favorite open-source OS here:) more "internally consistent" something that we, as its users, really want to do? I mean, if all you want is one way to do something, then Windows works just fine:)
Bio-diversity is both the greatest strength and the greatest weakness of open source software. It is what will keep Linux thriving no matter how depressed the tech industry gets (unlike Be), but it is also that which practically guarantees that the Linux experience will never feel internally consistent.
That last sentence was the one that intrigued me - is "internal consistency" something that people really look for in an OS? Speaking for myself (somebody who spends 90% of their time at the CLI) I've never really had a complaint in the "internal consistency" department - in fact, I've always liked the fact that Linux has kind of a TMTOWTDI feel - I can set my desktop up completely differently than the guy in the next WorkCube and be productive as hell.
Maybe "internal consistency" is something that a mass-marketed OS might want, but for the legions of DIY'ers out there, is this something to be worried about in an open-source OS?
Have you read any of my posts before replying to them? There's a common theme here, which for the benefit of the casual reader of the thread, I will re-re-iterate. But no more, since you make it apparent that you enjoy typing for the sole benefit of hearing your voice. My main points, yet again:
1. I have no problem with the RIAA/MPAA/WhoeverTheHeckAA becoming filthy rich. If people wanna give 'em billions of dollars to hear Britney, NSync and Mariah Carey, then yay for our side. That's capitalism bub, and it's okay in my book. And if they wanna get even richer, go for it - but don't step on my rights to do it. There's other ways to ensure and increase a revenue stream than stripping me of my fair use rights - better business models, creation of superior alternatives to the mp3 phenomenon, you know, fair and innovative marketplace activity becoming of honest businessmen. But please, get this through your head - if they wanna get richer, that's just fine, but not at the expense of my fair use rights.
2. My main point, which I may have mentioned a few times (hint: twice, three times, now) is this: we have a warped way of looking at "use" of digital media that is inconsistent with our way of looking at "use" of analog media. If you want to debate that, then fine. I'm talking about "use" and not "piracy". I'm talking about my ability to rip mp3s off of CDs that I bought so I can take 'em with me to work without lugging around a few dozen CDs or so. I'm talking about my old VHS copy of the Blues Brothers - if I'd been able to make a copy of it, I wouldn't have had to buy the DVD version when the tape wore out. That's twice I've paid for the same movie, and if the DVD gets scratched, I'm up the creek, because the DMCA has removed my right to make a fair use copy of that DVD and I'll have to buy it a third time. Tell me about "protecting revenue streams" again? How about "gouging customers to use media they've already bought?"
Finally, irksome quotes:
If you choose to denigrate them for not wanting to lose revenues, I respectfully ask you to go to your boss *right now* and ask for a pay cut.
Okay, see point one. And how exactly does my getting a pay cut affect xxAA revenue streams, anyways?
Finally, if you're so confident in human goodness, quit your job and live on the street. Try to live solely off human goodness for a while, then come back and tell me how much of it there is.
Eek, you're right - I forgot that "human goodness" is really just code for "social welfare" and not about mutual respect and friendship in an environment of personal responsibility to one's self and to others. Do you really feel like the world is lacking in goodness because nobody would act like your mommy if you stopped being a productive member of society? What exactly do you think the world owes you, man?
(rant mode off) Sorry guys, chalk this up to late night, long day, cranky poster.:) I just really, really, really hate repeating myself, especially when I feel like I'm talking to Play-Doh. Flame me if you want, but at least I tried, right?
It's rather the idea that in order to use such things as software it must be copied, hence there needs to be a licence.
That's absolutely it - we've defined (for digital media) that to use a work, it must be copied (RAM copies, etc.) It's a subtle, but very, very important difference, because if use of digital media requires copying, then content providers can effectively control the use, and not just the copying and distribution, of their works. I think this is at the heart of the discussion - and my standpoint is that the ability to control the use of a work is not the intent of copyright law. Copyright to me means the "right to copy", not the "right to use." As such, I'm not impressed with the argument that digital use requires copying - it seems a specious and contrived loophole to lead us into a world without the right to read. That is a world where free transmission of ideas and knowledge vanishes, and where education becomes the province of the fortunate few. Not a world I'm prepared to live in, and the fact that the only reason we're heading down this path is to enrich content holders is simply infuriating to me.
Thanks for the comment - lemme clarify what I mean by the statement you quoted:
1) Perhaps they are famously rich. So? Are they suddenly less-worthy as citizens, or as humans, if they are?
No, I don't have any problem with them being rich - it just seems like a silly excuse to chuck hundreds of years of fair use, to become more rich.
2) In the past, it was more difficult to distribute copies of a work
True. And now, it's not so difficult - for both digital and analog media. I can burn a compilation CD or photocopy a book with about the same amount of effort, and with a good enough photocopy machine (or better yet, a digital scanner) I get the same quality. I can get "genuine" copies, as you put them, almost trivially with modern technology. Yet we treat digital content differently than other content, even though it's not radically easier to copy than analog content. This seems inconsistent in my point of view.
3) Human goodness is remarkably scarce and short-lived when found. I don't care to depend on it too much.
Then I feel sorry for you, and I wish you would look harder. Goodness is what you're willing to find in other people, not in what you judge of people's actions.
Finally,
I only want to point out that the relative wealth of one of the parties is *NOT* a factor in the decision-making.
If increased wealth is the only justification of stripping me of my rights, then I respectfully disagree, as strongly as I know how. I hope you can understand, and maybe even respect that.
Slashdot Mirror
Holy crap do we have an M$ apologist running amok with moderator points today - all you have to do is think about the word "BSOD" and you get yourself a "Troll" moniker. Hopefully, people will metamoderate this tool so severely that they never get mod points again. I mean, Christ, how is parent post a troll? Get real, already.
Just to keep this on-topic - nowhere did I read in the article the most likely use for the X-Box, given the success of the Gamecube and the still-reignant PS-2: that of a $300 doorstop. Dreamcast, anybody?
Yipes - you just flamed a guy who's nick includes the phrase "bofh." Hope you're not calling tech support for awhile...
/home directory was too full and causing resonant frequency interference with the lpr command...this should take care of it..."*clickety click*
:)
madopal - "Hi, the printer's down again...can you fix it?"
sympathetic BOFH - "Sure thing...lemme see what the problem is...ah yes, it appears that your machine's
madopal - "WTF are you blathering about?"
sBOFH - "Oh, nothing, nothing at all. Have a nice day!" *click*
*quick look*
boxen:/home/madopal> ls -l
total 0
boxen:/home/madopal>
madopal - "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!"
Me, I flame with a bit more care. Moron.
Yikes, that was flame-a-rific. I apologize in advance - and if moderators wanna mod parent off the face of /., by all means. Sorry!
Unless you are trying to imply that the USA is uncivilized it may come to a shock to hear that monopolies are legal in the USA.
Yep, that's what the poster's implying, and you flat-out missed it. That was a minor-league troll - but on-topic, since the conversation in the last ten posts or so have been the relative merits of monopolies in the free-market system. There have been excellent posts debating lassaiz-faire capitalism, growth and decay of markets, economic cycles, and other info ad infinitum and apparently, you weren't reading any of them. All you stated was that monopolies were legal, which IIRC, was stated in the first post of the discussion. Get with the times, already.
But to reply to one of your marginal statements, here's a thought:
Also it shouldn't be illegal for a company to beat other inept companies, right?
Define inept. Did you read the post about the guy who runs a small ISP providing DSL service, and is going under because the monopoly on local phone service prevents him from getting lines installed into his customer's house? (hint: no, you didn't. Go back and read it.) Is this guy just running a rinky-dink ISP that takes forever in getting service up - and is therefore inept? But what if the telco drags their feet installing local phone lines for non-telco ISPs, thereby putting them out of business, while providing service lickety-split for their own ISP service? Isn't that an abuse of the free-market system? (hint: yes, it is.) And furthermore, it's an abuse that only a monopoly can employ. Which brings us back on-topic: are monopolies a good thing - despite the fact that they are technically legal, as you so cluefully have already mentioned.
if they include specific pictures of nude music superstars (*cough* Spears *cough* Twain *cough* Hill *cough*) as wallpaper then I think that the 15s attention span might actually go up to 17 - 20s instead.
:)
I don't know about you, but I think the average geek's "attention span" *cough* *cough* when looking at n00d pix of Britney Spears would be somewhat longer than 17-20 sec. Maybe more like a few minutes, if you know what I mean (and I think you do
I love Slashdot - here we have an article that starts off with "If you want to read an intelligent article that doesn't end in a flamewar, read *blah*." And the first post on this article? Title: "Fucking Bullshit." Seems pretty clear that if we didn't want flamewars, we wouldn't read Slashdot. :)
I don't know whether to laugh or to cry about this...hehehehe
But remember: evil increases exponentially, not linearally, with the size of the corporation.
:)
Amen, brother. And I never did get your email address...
cheers,
*croaky voice* Aye, in my day, books were infinitely better! Plots were so strong, they not only carried the story, but water from the well, too! Characters were so real they occasionally reached out from the very pages they were bound in and poked you in the eye! These so-called 'novels' now-a-days can't hold a home-made candle to the exciting books I read in my fortunate youth! All you young whippersnappers out there should be humbled by the greatness of books you'll never get to read!!! Muahahahahahahaha!
:)
Sheesh. Some people.
Dang, there's a p-o'd moderator out there today...this is about the n-th funny post I've seen modded down as "offtopic." Maybe the dude needs to get laid or something...sheesh.
Seriously, guys, lighten up!
Since when have TI calculators used RPN? Troll much? I remember buying my first real calculator ten years ago or so - the guy at the store said "you can buy an HP, which uses this ancient, crufty notation, or the TI here, which uses straightforward notation." Being a moronic teenager, I went with the simple solution. And darn it if that TI-85 didn't work beautifully all the way into college, or at least until my chem partner dropped it off the table. Then I bought a TI-86, which saw me all the way through a physics degree, and still works fine today. And I never had problems doing computations with n steps to perform - I just kept on nesting, and life was great. Plus, while the other guys w/ HP calcs were spending hours figuring out how to do things like arcsin and nested exp()'s in integrals, I was solving problems and getting work done. And that suited me just fine, you know?
/. today - did you really mean to start another with the TI vs. HP crowd? :)
Besides, after that second year or so, calculators of any ilk were [forbidden|useless|not needed anymore] for everyday work in my classes. By then, it was all about derivations, and numbers gave way to symbols. But for the time I needed number crunching, the TI served admirably. Not bad for a "toy."
I submit that there's plenty of religious flamewars living around
Holy cow, and I thought I had a bloated vim...
/usr/bin/vim
/usr/bin/vim
taipan:/home/rogers> du -k
720
taipan:/home/rogers>
How'd you get your vim up to nearly 2 meg? That's kind of cool, in a silly way.
I defy you, oh clueless moderator, to point out the "troll" section of this informative post. What is the sound of one neuron firing? I submit it's the sound this guy's mouse made when the "-1, Troll" option got selected. Maybe the moderator sneezed when attempting to mod this up? One can only hope...
vi=vim,
:)
Not to be hyper-critical, but what's so bad about vim? I recall Slackware 3.4 using vim as vi, and it worked just as well as the ancient Sun-provided vi that I was using at work.
Okay, so I'm nitpicking, but isn't that what geeks do?
Heh, you're right, and I should say "oops, I was wrong" to follow up with this guy, thereby resulting in a flamewar. So, "oops, that was stoopid of me." :)
I'm glad this seems clear to you. It means I don't have to worry about what you think, once jamie finishes implementing killfiles.
Uh huh. All I said was, hey, it's no big deal to be wrong every so often. All the greats were wrong about something, and what made 'em great was the ability to suck it up like a man and say as much. But not only are you patently unable to say "oops, I made a boo-boo" you're so incredibly insecure about it that you have to killfile people who call you on it? Thirty minutes ago I just thought you were having a bad day - now I see that deep down, you're just an insecure, childish tool. Plonk away, lamer, you won't hurt my feelings any.
Sheesh. Some people.
Wait...first you quote one sentence from the article to prove your point, then you claim another sentence from the article requires interpretation to prove your point? Seems pretty clear that you:
/. Is it so hard to say "D'oh, my bad" and move on?
1.) Didn't actually read the whole article and posted a stupid-flame
2.) Got caught red-handed, and are now attempting to spin your way out of it.
Jesus Christ, man, it's just
What "internally consistent" means is that when I tell my computer I want to use CTRL-C for cut and you tell yours that you want to use that weird mouse gesture, the system and all applications obey our preferences.
/me gets whacked with Clue-Stick. In that case, who says that open source OS's aren't already consistent? The OS is just fine - crappy apps that don't do this are not, IMHO, part of the OS. So is the writer of the article just blowing hot air, and I should STFU? :)
Ahh, I see.
That's not what people mean by internal consistency.
Yeah, I'm having problems writing clearly today. I wish I hadn't written that sentence - what I meant to say was this:
1.) I can do everything I want to do on my Slackware/Gnome box with vi and the middle-mouse button. When I copy text, I select, and then middle-mouse it.
2.) Guy next cube over can do everything he wants on his Slackware/KDE box with endless GUI windows and CTRL-C, CTRL-V. When he copies text, he does it with a few keyboard commands.
What I've just described are two ways to copy text, embedded in the GUI of the OS. That's the kind of internal inconsistency that I like about Linux - I'm faster with my middle mouse than I would be with two CTRL commands, and vice versa for my officemate. You're right about your scrollbar analogy - you might take it a bit too far - but I think I've just demonstrated one example where inconsistency isn't such a bad thing, and helps productivity for the users involved.
IMO, the best way to handle this would be to allow the universal keystrokes to be definable so that I could make, say, CTRL-P be the "paste" shortcut in all of my applications. The OS (or it's GUI shell) would catch the preferred keystroke and pass on system-defined messages, which the applications would look for, instead of keystrokes.
:)
Hey, now there's a good idea! It allows the user to define functionality the way they want it, while forcing every app being run to work the way the user decides! User gets TMTOWTDI capability without having to remember "oh yeah, gnotepad doesn't like middle-mouse as much as vi does." Now I know what I want for Christmas.
My only (hah!) beef with Windows/Mac-like OS's is that they are not as definable like Linux is, and I figured the price I have to pay for my DIY-ness is the occasional internal inconsistency problem. This, of course is a product of the open source development model - if this could be solved, then we would _both_ be happier. *sigh*
A lot of you are here to talk about free speech, yet /. does not support it!
/. at -1. Some of us tire quickly of racial epithets, goatse.cx first posters, and banal crap from ACs (hehehe) and prefer to filter our take. Note this is not censorship - the crapposts are not removed, but ignored. All the stuff you speak about are merely ways of making sure that the average reader can filter through the crapflood and get to the golden nuggets. Since nothing is deleted, nothing is censored - moderation just acts as a method of peer-reviewed criticism of commentary by /. users. If you hate criticism, then by all means, read at -1, and enjoy the relative benefits contained therein. Me, I like to skip the crap. But don't call me a censor for not wanting to read crap.
No, we support free speech just fine - if you want to hear all opinions, just read
Internal consistency isn't about making your desktop look like the next guy's -- it's about making the way the user interface works consistent. Experts tend to overlook this, but it's important when introducing someone new to computers.
:) Your last point (new computer users want just one way to do it) is the heart of what I'm getting at - is "internal consistency" (using middle-mouse only or CTRL-C, CTRL-V only for cut-n-paste) something that users of an open-source OS really want?
:) But then we made the Great Leap Forward from DOS 6.22/Win 3.1 to Windows 95, all of a sudden, my computer knowledge was useless, and my computer got really boring. You make an excellent point that the fractured approach to user program interfaces is confusing as heck to a newbie, and I agree wholeheartedly. I guess what I'm wondering about is this: is making Linux (or insert your favorite open-source OS here :) more "internally consistent" something that we, as its users, really want to do? I mean, if all you want is one way to do something, then Windows works just fine :)
Right, I misspoke. Thanks for clearing me up.
You may or may not have used DOS systems, but every application in DOS that had a GUI looked (and worked) differently.
And boy, were they confusing, too.
From the article:
Bio-diversity is both the greatest strength and the greatest weakness of open source software. It is what will keep Linux thriving no matter how depressed the tech industry gets (unlike Be), but it is also that which practically guarantees that the Linux experience will never feel internally consistent.
That last sentence was the one that intrigued me - is "internal consistency" something that people really look for in an OS? Speaking for myself (somebody who spends 90% of their time at the CLI) I've never really had a complaint in the "internal consistency" department - in fact, I've always liked the fact that Linux has kind of a TMTOWTDI feel - I can set my desktop up completely differently than the guy in the next WorkCube and be productive as hell.
Maybe "internal consistency" is something that a mass-marketed OS might want, but for the legions of DIY'ers out there, is this something to be worried about in an open-source OS?
Have you read any of my posts before replying to them? There's a common theme here, which for the benefit of the casual reader of the thread, I will re-re-iterate. But no more, since you make it apparent that you enjoy typing for the sole benefit of hearing your voice. My main points, yet again:
:) I just really, really, really hate repeating myself, especially when I feel like I'm talking to Play-Doh. Flame me if you want, but at least I tried, right?
1. I have no problem with the RIAA/MPAA/WhoeverTheHeckAA becoming filthy rich. If people wanna give 'em billions of dollars to hear Britney, NSync and Mariah Carey, then yay for our side. That's capitalism bub, and it's okay in my book. And if they wanna get even richer, go for it - but don't step on my rights to do it . There's other ways to ensure and increase a revenue stream than stripping me of my fair use rights - better business models, creation of superior alternatives to the mp3 phenomenon, you know, fair and innovative marketplace activity becoming of honest businessmen. But please, get this through your head - if they wanna get richer, that's just fine, but not at the expense of my fair use rights.
2. My main point, which I may have mentioned a few times (hint: twice, three times, now) is this: we have a warped way of looking at "use" of digital media that is inconsistent with our way of looking at "use" of analog media. If you want to debate that, then fine. I'm talking about "use" and not "piracy". I'm talking about my ability to rip mp3s off of CDs that I bought so I can take 'em with me to work without lugging around a few dozen CDs or so. I'm talking about my old VHS copy of the Blues Brothers - if I'd been able to make a copy of it, I wouldn't have had to buy the DVD version when the tape wore out. That's twice I've paid for the same movie, and if the DVD gets scratched, I'm up the creek, because the DMCA has removed my right to make a fair use copy of that DVD and I'll have to buy it a third time. Tell me about "protecting revenue streams" again? How about "gouging customers to use media they've already bought?"
Finally, irksome quotes:
If you choose to denigrate them for not wanting to lose revenues, I respectfully ask you to go to your boss *right now* and ask for a pay cut.
Okay, see point one. And how exactly does my getting a pay cut affect xxAA revenue streams, anyways?
Finally, if you're so confident in human goodness, quit your job and live on the street. Try to live solely off human goodness for a while, then come back and tell me how much of it there is.
Eek, you're right - I forgot that "human goodness" is really just code for "social welfare" and not about mutual respect and friendship in an environment of personal responsibility to one's self and to others. Do you really feel like the world is lacking in goodness because nobody would act like your mommy if you stopped being a productive member of society? What exactly do you think the world owes you, man?
(rant mode off) Sorry guys, chalk this up to late night, long day, cranky poster.
It's rather the idea that in order to use such things as software it must be copied, hence there needs to be a licence.
That's absolutely it - we've defined (for digital media) that to use a work, it must be copied (RAM copies, etc.) It's a subtle, but very, very important difference, because if use of digital media requires copying, then content providers can effectively control the use, and not just the copying and distribution, of their works. I think this is at the heart of the discussion - and my standpoint is that the ability to control the use of a work is not the intent of copyright law. Copyright to me means the "right to copy", not the "right to use." As such, I'm not impressed with the argument that digital use requires copying - it seems a specious and contrived loophole to lead us into a world without the right to read. That is a world where free transmission of ideas and knowledge vanishes, and where education becomes the province of the fortunate few. Not a world I'm prepared to live in, and the fact that the only reason we're heading down this path is to enrich content holders is simply infuriating to me.
Thanks for the comment - lemme clarify what I mean by the statement you quoted:
1) Perhaps they are famously rich. So? Are they suddenly less-worthy as citizens, or as humans, if they are?
No, I don't have any problem with them being rich - it just seems like a silly excuse to chuck hundreds of years of fair use, to become more rich.
2) In the past, it was more difficult to distribute copies of a work
True. And now, it's not so difficult - for both digital and analog media. I can burn a compilation CD or photocopy a book with about the same amount of effort, and with a good enough photocopy machine (or better yet, a digital scanner) I get the same quality. I can get "genuine" copies, as you put them, almost trivially with modern technology. Yet we treat digital content differently than other content, even though it's not radically easier to copy than analog content. This seems inconsistent in my point of view.
3) Human goodness is remarkably scarce and short-lived when found. I don't care to depend on it too much.
Then I feel sorry for you, and I wish you would look harder. Goodness is what you're willing to find in other people, not in what you judge of people's actions.
Finally,
I only want to point out that the relative wealth of one of the parties is *NOT* a factor in the decision-making.
If increased wealth is the only justification of stripping me of my rights, then I respectfully disagree, as strongly as I know how. I hope you can understand, and maybe even respect that.