There are instances where spreading control out between multiple groups can be a bad thing. Too many cooks and all that. When you're dealing with something so vital as The Internet is now, you don't necessarily want to turn it over to something like the UN, which is so full of infighting and maneuvering for power that simple decisions could take ages.
Yeah, ICANN is all about red tape, but then again all government-esque agencies are. Even the international ones... especially the international ones. It gets worse the more people are involved.
Many claim that it's not fair that the US maintains control of the root servers and the TLDs and so on... well, who invested a majority of the money that developed The Internet we know now? Who bought and installed and maintained those root servers? Yes, there were many simultaneous endeavours to invent brothers and sisters to the Internet, but well, the US kinda won out. Controlling the root servers and who can sell which TLD, to me, isn't really all that bad of a thing. It's one group, under one government ensuring smooth operation of arguably the most important computers in the world.
Fragmentation of DNS would be an absolutely horrible thing. You'd have sites available to some parts of the world, not available to the others, mismatches on records etc because you know if everyone wants to own their own root server, they probably won't sync up all that much (if at all)
Despite some shady dealings with TLD registrars, they've done their job reasonably well. Everything works, we've had relatively few problems overall.
Yes, students pay for room and board, and as a result they recieve dirt-cheap everything. lets do a breakdown of what you're paying...
1. A semester is about 4 months long. So at your figure of $2800 that's $700/mo.
2. Lets say that the average apartment is 800/mo in State College and you split it with another person. You pay $400 in rent.
3. In the dorm, you have unlimited power, water, heat. Lets say you pay $50 for usage in the apartment ($100 avg/2 people)
4. In the dorm package you get a meal plan. A set fee per entry to the dining commons, but unlimited food while you're in there. I'm going to estimate low here and assume if you lived in an apartment, you'd make all of your own meals and bring them with you onto campus during the day. Lets say you manage to keep it down to $10/day in food costs. That's $300/mo approx.
5. Ok, we'll assume water is included... but what about cleaning services? Aside from your room, everything gets cleaned for you. That's gotta be a pretty penny.
Basically, you're getting a huge value out of your dorm contract compared to what you get outside of it. Yeah, you're limited on choices, but it's still a hell of a lot cheaper.
You mention the knoppix dvd and the bandwidth limit... I think that is the first time I've heard a legitimate reason to go beyond the 2gb limit. That's something you probably could have gotten an exception on, or downloaded it to the CS Dept network.
When it comes to broadband in the dorms, you're actually getting more than you pay for overall considering how much you get for your individual fees.
Sadly you missed the overall point, that students have to SHARE the network with the rest of the University. That includes faculty and staff at UP, as well as the faculty and staff across the commonwealth campuses and county extension offices. When students have been given a free-hand in terms of network use, it's been crippling to the overall network. A 2gb limit is reasonable and fair when you're dealing with a limited resource and unlimited demand.
I know very few students that would pick a University based on dorm network connections. I always thought the first criteria should have been quality of education, maybe overall cost of tuition. If your main criteria is broadband, you need to rethink your educational priorities.
What you need to remember is that Univ Network Admins have to balance the needs of students, faculty and staff when it comes to network usage. I was at Penn State when Napster really took off and even lived in the dorms. I was also a computer lab student manager for one of the colleges at the time. One day we all woke up and the network was just slammed. It had been getting progressively slower for weeks leading up to this point as everyone and their brother was downloading off of Napster (and uploading a fair bit too). The traffic from the student housing network eventually flooded the entire state-wide University system.
Network traffic is like traffic in major city areas. You can keep adding capacity but people will just use up to that capacity no matter how large. We had a pretty big pipe to the net, but the student network segment alone saturated it, preventing faculty and staff from conducting research, using university systems related to classes etc... In short, students downloading music had managed to shut down any and all legitimate academic uses. The University could no longer operate.
The solution initially was to put an overall cap on the student segment, limiting all residence halls to one shared 20mbit connection. Needless to say that was a nightmare and students had faster connections dialing up to the Univ modem bank. Then they moved to bandwith caps. 1gig up, 1 gig down per week. A pretty reasonable limit if you ask me.
You want to cast blame at the admins, saying they're evil and uncaring and just out to screw the students, but you have to always remember that there are others who have just as much need for the network as students do. When it comes to downloading music and movies, I'd even say they have a more legitimate claim too. Giving students unlimited bandwidth has been proven to be a bad idea. Given limited resources, they have to portion everything off so the most people have usable access for legitimate purposes.
Cedega and bringing Windows games to Linux is essential. It's a key transition product to get people over to Linux that were holding out for their favorite games.
Developers don't develop for Linux right now because for the most part, the additional development time does not result in equal payback in terms of purchases. Developers and publishers have to target the largest audiences possible, and despite all the claims made on/. Linux on the desktop is very much a niche market. It's the same reason you don't see many games for Macs (yes there are some... and more than Windows, but even Macs have a larger install base).
To convince the companies that Linux is a worthwhile platform to develop for, you need to bring Linux to the Gamers, you need to show them that they can play their favorite titles on something aside from a Windows box. Once you have enough moved over, then you have numbers to show to publishers and devs and say "We've got X people gaming on Linux... It's worth your time now!"
Cedega is an olive branch extended to Gamers. It's a sign that says "Come on over, the people here are smart, funny... and we'll even let you play your games!"
You need gamers to shift over to Linux in fairly large numbers. To get gamers they have to be able to play their games. Once you have the gamers, only then will the big guys take notice and start developing for you.
This is something I wish more people would understand. The difference between a necessary utility and an entertainment service. Having a telephone is as much a safety device as a communications service. If you don't have a phone you could end up in a world of trouble. If you don't have cable, you're just really bored on a Saturday night.
And you're right, the establishemnt of the basic infrastructure with telephones was a partially public funded endeavour. They also got a government sanctioned monopoly for many years in exchange for guarantees of service and universal coverage. Cable was almost exclusively private.
Here's how they could play the fact that they call the GPL unconstitutional along side of including GPL code and products in their system...
1. GPL is unconstitutional. 2. GPL is therefore null and void 3. Thus GPL code has no copyright protection as it has no license or terms 4. CODE IS FREE! (100%) They can take it and use it however they want 5. Profit!
He's correct in his assessment of blame. The people who hack systems, break stuff, spread viruses and bot networks etc are 100% responsible for their actions. They are violating laws left and right with no regard for others.
Yes, insecure code, a lack of a firewall or antivirus software opens you up to potential attacks, or not having the latest security patches. However that doesn't excuse an actual attack.
By the reasoning of most of the posters here, unless your home is as secure as fort knox, anyone who breaks in and steals stuff isn't really to blame... I mean, come on, you could have protected your house better. Put in pressure plates and motion sensors. Try a laser grid on the floor. Armed guards, time sealed doors, attack dogs etc. Anything less and, geeze, you're practically inviting them in to take your stuff!
That's what the Internet is like. You really have to lock up your system like Fort Knox to keep yourself safe. Even then, the burglar could find a spot in the security system that isn't fully covered and get in that way.
The ONLY secure machine is one that is sitting in the corner, surrounded by a lead box, not connected to any network or power supply. A useless machine really.
Those who attempt to maliciously exploit vulnerabilities deserve every once of blame you can possibly assign to them. I personally want to kick the guy in the balls that did the Blaster worm... took weeks to get my old workplace cleared of that thing. Just because it is POSSIBLE to exploit something does not mean you SHOULD exploit it. Too many people online use the reasoning that if it's possible it should be allowed.
Evil, vile, lieing Dvorak! He'd sell his own mother into slavery to get an article published! He never gets his facts straight, and is owned by corporations! He is a blight upon the technology journalism landscape!
*Someone taps Mr. Joe Slashdot on the shoulder and whispers in his ear*
What?... Uh-huh.... really.... ah.... oh....
Wait, he said something I AGREE with? He's bashing Microsoft?
Dvorak is a prime example of how tech journalists should be! We should lift him up on our shoulders and parade him around the square! Never have I seen a more fair, balanced and well-researched article in my life!
I would argue the opposite for Slashdot in particular. This site has gotten increasingly biased, increasingly inflamatory. The comments under stories, even after moderation aren't a fair reflection of truth or reality. In fact, due to the overwhelming bias found here on many topics, what could be otherwise insightful commentary is moderated -1 Flamebait if it disagrees with the bias, whereas stuff that reenforces it gets tossed up to +5 Insightful.
Slashdot is NOT the site you should point to when you want to discuss the proper use of moderation in filtering out morons;)
Amazon is one of those "exception" places I mentioned. They exist, but they are far from the standard.
If you read the rest of my comment before throwing your little tantrum there you'd have picked up on the fact that "professional" is relative to the work environment. It just so happens that the majority of professional environments expect a conservative dress code. While most places don't require suits anymore, you at least have to show up in better than jeans and tshirts.
The standard is hardly arbitrary, as it's pretty darn wide-spread and long established. You may think it's stupid,but unless you're running a business yourself, the rules aren't yours to set. I personally would love a work environment like Amazon's, but I recognize that that's pretty rare. I also tried to step back and look at the dress code issue from the perspective of the people who run the workplace, not the trenches geek worker.
I am beginning to understand another side of the IT worker unemployment issue of the past few years... especially when it comes to slashdot readers.
Many of the more "hardcore" here got used to the kooshy jobs of the boom, got used to companies bending over backwards to give them anything they wanted. Now that reality has set in and we're not the rockstars we were 5 years ago, some are too spoiled to adapt.
Here's what I've gathered from reading a fair number of threads here... You sir have given me my latest entry to this list.
Many here won't take a job that: -Develops closed-source software.. Ethical issue ya know -Works with Microsoft products... Evil empire, ethics again -Does not run Linux/BSD/HURD on their servers... 100% F/OSS! -Has anything at all to do with SCO... Ethics again -Pays at least close to what they've grown used to from the dot-com days... Got a standard of living to keep up! -Has any sort of dress code/code of appearance.. Because, you should be able to do whatever you want.. always
If you want to be taken seriously and treated professionally where you work, unless it's a small company run by other geeks, you need to dress and look clean and professional. It's still a fact that people judge you based on how you look, and if you're in an office environment surrounded by people in slacks and shirts and other professional attire, you'll look very out of place with a bunch of piercings or tatoos. What it says to coworkers is that you don't care enough about the job to even APPEAR professional.
Now, I know some people here are going "Oh for the love of God! What century are we in that we still have to conform to such out-dated societal norms!? We must break free... blah blah blah" To those people I say "Grow up!" Your days as a rebellious member of some imagined counter-culture pretty much end when you're out on your own making your way in the world.
Yes, there are places still where there is no dress code... but they're the exception as opposed to the rule. If you want a professional job, you have to play by the professional rules set out by employers. Body mods, strange haircuts/colors etc. are a risk you may choose to take, but like all risks you have to realize there are consequences. You can't just run around and do whatever you want and expect everyone to be cool with it. When you work for someone else, you play by their rules.
Don't like it? Then I offer a modified stock Slashdot response for anyone who ever complains about a piece of software:
"If you don't like it, start your own company and set the rules how you like them! Otherwise, sit down"
Lets look at what OSX is primarily used on... Desktops used by anyone from Grandpa Smith to a high-end graphics designer or even some coders.
Now, lets look at what Linux is primarily used on... Servers. And most servers don't generally even require a GUI. You don't need a fancy interface to manage apache or an SQL Server. Chances are you won't even be directly working at the machine but connecting to it with some client application while using your desktop machine that can run ANY OS.
Ok... so we have two systems that target two completely different areas. Sure there's the Mac OSX Server... but that hasn't made serious inroads simply due to pricepoint and features. It's UNIX, with a fancy UI... but it costs way more than an equivalent from Dell running Linux.
If Linux were a serious contender on the desktop... maybe. But it's not, never has been, and honestly probably won't be. The advantages to an average desktop user just aren't there (don't try arguing ideology, to the normal user that's meaningless). The focus of the developer community has largely focused on the server anyway... that's where the cool stuff is.
Saying OS X will harm Linux is like saying that the Segway is going to harm bicycle sales. Apples and Oranges (or rather Apples and Penguins)
I tried this once upon a time... and honestly it was just too much of a hassle. I bounce back and forth between Internet, work and gaming constantly, having to reboot that much was driving me nuts.
Solution? My WinXP Box is now gaming-only with some web surfing (heavily patched, using FireFox, have a physical as well as a software firewall)... I do all my work now on my 15" Powerbook that sits to my right.
If you're not willing to pay for something, you shouldn't have it. By your reasoning any theft (copyright infringement or real theft) is justified because the person taking wouldn't have bought the item any way.
If you have something that you were supposed to pay for, but did not. The owner of that item is OWED one sale. There is a value attached to a song or to a piece of software that you are depriving the owner of, regardless of whether or not you intended to buy it. You have it, you owe them that value.
Taking a LOT of stuff doesn't clear you of responsibility. There isn't some magic number that once you pass it, you should be in the clear.
Actually, I'm sort of arguing natural rights too. It's established that you have no legal right to music or movies or software unless you pay for it. But also, do you have any natural right to said content? If I create a wonderful painting, do you have a right to view it if I don't want you to?
The problem here is that there are no natural rights to view or consume intellectual property. People think it isn't fair that it be restricted, but that's a far cry from an actual right. There only natural right to restrict consumption is the right of property. It's mine, I say who gets to see it, touch it, use it etc. We have a very strong sense of personal property and it's considered to be a natural right now. We don't want people invading our homes with cameras or wire taps etc...
At the very least there are no natural rights in either direction, so legal rights become the authority. In the case of downloading movies music and software, there isn't even much of a moral obligation because if you do not have access to the items in question, you are not deprived of any right either legal or natural.
There are moral objections to business tactics and scare tactics, but that is separate from the content itself.
You call me a troll, yet I manage to keep a civil tone... something you fail to do.
1. Viewing at a friend's house. Fair use. A copy was purchased, the purchaser can view it as much as he likes, let friends view it, lend it (the one copy) to another friend, make as many personal copies as he likes so long as they are not sold or distributed.
2. Percieved Loss If you have something you did not pay for, which you should have if determined by the owner of the work, then there is a loss. You owe the owner the cost of the item as you would have paid for it normally. The claim of percieved loss is a weak one for people who want to justify not paying for software, movies or music.
3. Violate the law, it's the RIGHT THING TO DO! Oh dear, we can't change the law, we just can't... the bad guys own the system. Well, with that attitude, yes they do. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
4. Definitions definitions definitions. Honestly, this one drives me nuts. It's a matter of people splitting hairs because the term existed before such a concept existed. The term theft embodies the sentiment of what's happening. You are obtaining something without paying for it. I clarified it intentionally to try and avoid this argument, but sadly it was to no avail. People who go nuts over this one are just trying to make the act sound better than it is. Theft sounds so harsh, copyright infringement sounds sophisticated and harmless.
In this thread, many have taken issue with items of definitions, niggling over political rules, argued against the vile evil of corporations... but one thing NO ONE has been able to do yet is provide an argument saying that you have any RIGHT whatsoever to the content in question.
You have no right to it period actually. There is nothing saying in any great document about our freedoms and rights that we have the right to anything beyond life, liberty and the persuit of happiness (i.e. the right to lead a life without oppression... copyright laws don't fir that).
People all too often think that if something exists, that they have some right to it, when in fact, unless it is something essential to their ability to live as a free person, they don't. Issues of property have gotten very fuzzy with the growth of The Internet. A lot of people think that if they can get it for free, that they should.
Arguing that copyright isn't a natural right doesn't really matter a whole lot since there are no "rights" that it really runs contrary to. It may run contrary to people's personal ideals on how they think intellectual property should work, but there's never been anything saying that you have an actual right to anyone elses creation.
At this point, I think we would still see this conflict, even if Copyright was still limited to the original 7 years (I think) because you'd still have people wanting the latest movie release or the latest song without having to pay, and you'd still have the RIAA and MPAA going nuts on anyone who touches the recent stuff.
I provided my definition of theft for the purposes of the discussion. Copyright Infringement is the electronic equivalent to theft. You obtain something without providing the required payment.
Yes, one deals with a physical object, but both achieve largely the same result. You have illegally obtained something by not paying for it.
Most of the leaders of the American Revolution were the land-owning wealthy. They were the businessmen, the owners of means in the colonies.
But you're talking about issues of unfair government representation, taxation, uneven application of all aspects of the law, quartering troops etc... Direct infringements on ones personal right to a free life. (well, a right once we got around to writing it)
Here we're talking about movies and music... items that you have no right to, that you do not need to survive. Just because someone else has something you really like doesn't mean you have a right to it as well.
I agree with your last bit, if you don't like it, don't buy anything from them. That's the solution I advocate. It's the only one you can do with any real justification.
Rights can only be claimed when it's over something you need. We need to live free, we need to not have the government control our thoughts and our speech. We need to be able to move about freely and explore opportunities without unfair discrimination.
We don't need to have the latest Britney Spears CD, or the latest DVD release. We'd like to have them maybe, but we don't need them. Our lives and our freedoms are not limited in any way if we don't have them.
Still doesn't negate the fact that you have no right to the content in question. If I write the world's best computer game, I don't have to let anyone play it, or I can be very selective in who plays it, or how much it costs to play. It's my right as creator/owner of said creative content.
This would be different if it weren't a luxury item, but because it is, you don't have much of a leg to stand on.
No, don't treat them with kid gloves, but you still don't have any valid argument to breaking the law. You have no right to music. You have no need to purchase it. You want it, so you have to play by the rules of those who control it. Don't like it? No one is forcing you to buy it. There's no gun to your head
I think of this issue like people who don't eat meat because of moral reasons. Discounting the fanatics, they don't go out and steal the cows away so they can be treated better.
Why should you buy it? Well, don't, but if you want to posess it, you have to cough up the cash.
What they are doing is down-right vile, but disagreeing with corporate practices doesn't justify theft (obtaining something without proper payment).
They don't have to convince anyone of anything, because they are the legal owners of the content. And since that content is by no means essential to your life in any way shape or form, they can control it as they like.
Don't like how someone does business? Don't like their tactics? Boycott, get others to boycott... Protest... Write angry letters about it... whatever, but you can't really use it as a justification for theft.
I think the University in this case is a lot more at fault, because the industry could try and pressure or threaten audits or whatever, but they should have stood up to it. If I was in the administration I would have recorded every bit of communication with the industry groups and would have said "You even TRY to nail us for exercising our academic freedoms, this will go out all over every major media outlet and we'll make sure to take you to court over it"
I graduated from college in 2003 with a general IT degree (no, not compsci, but better than MIS). This meant that I started college a bit before the dot com bust happened, which means so did all of my classmates. So when we entered college, the money was looking damn good with no end in sight.
Guess what? About 90% of the people in my major had 0 interest in technology. They couldn't troubleshoot the most simplistic problems. HTML was a very confusing and difficult concept to a lot of them (as evidenced by the fact that we had to create an entire semester class devoted to it). A majority of them were there because they thought it would make them rich overnight, that they could go out and say "I have a degree in this computer stuff!" and be snapped up for 6-figure salaries right out of college.
Now, those same people are moaning and bitching about the field they're in. They don't like the work, never did really, but now they realize that the money sucks too. Already I've talked to several who are moving towards business centric jobs, away from technology. Several have said they wouldn't have majored in anything computer related if they knew the jobs weren't going to be there like they thought.
In my mind, the downturn was a good thing. Yes, it was a complete pain in the arse to get a job after college, but I eventually managed it. Sure the pay isn't what they were advertising a few years ago, but it's still money that keeps me fed and with a roof over my head. But I'm still working with technology, which I love.
That's the big thing... I enjoy the whole IT thing, have since I was little. I think those that stick with it through the downturn, those that major in it DESPITE knowing the market is in the crapper, those are the people I want in this industry. I don't want someone who runs in when there's money but jumps ship when things look dicey. I want to work with people who want to work in the field because they love the work, not because they hope to get rich quick.
IT and CS/E programs would benefit immensely if they were able to get rid of all the students who are only in it for the money. Imagine your college classes, think about what they would have been like if they were filled with people who were interested in the material and actually wanted to learn it? Think about your job today and imagine everyone around you being that dedicated to tech (some of you are fortunate enough to work places like that... I'm not).
The slump is a bear to deal with in the short-term, but those who stick it out I think will definitely benefit in the long run. We'll be the ones with experience when the pendulum swings the other way.
Slashdot Mirror
There are instances where spreading control out between multiple groups can be a bad thing. Too many cooks and all that. When you're dealing with something so vital as The Internet is now, you don't necessarily want to turn it over to something like the UN, which is so full of infighting and maneuvering for power that simple decisions could take ages.
Yeah, ICANN is all about red tape, but then again all government-esque agencies are. Even the international ones... especially the international ones. It gets worse the more people are involved.
Many claim that it's not fair that the US maintains control of the root servers and the TLDs and so on... well, who invested a majority of the money that developed The Internet we know now? Who bought and installed and maintained those root servers? Yes, there were many simultaneous endeavours to invent brothers and sisters to the Internet, but well, the US kinda won out. Controlling the root servers and who can sell which TLD, to me, isn't really all that bad of a thing. It's one group, under one government ensuring smooth operation of arguably the most important computers in the world.
Fragmentation of DNS would be an absolutely horrible thing. You'd have sites available to some parts of the world, not available to the others, mismatches on records etc because you know if everyone wants to own their own root server, they probably won't sync up all that much (if at all)
Despite some shady dealings with TLD registrars, they've done their job reasonably well. Everything works, we've had relatively few problems overall.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Yes, students pay for room and board, and as a result they recieve dirt-cheap everything. lets do a breakdown of what you're paying...
1. A semester is about 4 months long. So at your figure of $2800 that's $700/mo.
2. Lets say that the average apartment is 800/mo in State College and you split it with another person. You pay $400 in rent.
3. In the dorm, you have unlimited power, water, heat. Lets say you pay $50 for usage in the apartment ($100 avg/2 people)
4. In the dorm package you get a meal plan. A set fee per entry to the dining commons, but unlimited food while you're in there. I'm going to estimate low here and assume if you lived in an apartment, you'd make all of your own meals and bring them with you onto campus during the day. Lets say you manage to keep it down to $10/day in food costs. That's $300/mo approx.
5. Ok, we'll assume water is included... but what about cleaning services? Aside from your room, everything gets cleaned for you. That's gotta be a pretty penny.
Basically, you're getting a huge value out of your dorm contract compared to what you get outside of it. Yeah, you're limited on choices, but it's still a hell of a lot cheaper.
You mention the knoppix dvd and the bandwidth limit... I think that is the first time I've heard a legitimate reason to go beyond the 2gb limit. That's something you probably could have gotten an exception on, or downloaded it to the CS Dept network.
When it comes to broadband in the dorms, you're actually getting more than you pay for overall considering how much you get for your individual fees.
Sadly you missed the overall point, that students have to SHARE the network with the rest of the University. That includes faculty and staff at UP, as well as the faculty and staff across the commonwealth campuses and county extension offices. When students have been given a free-hand in terms of network use, it's been crippling to the overall network. A 2gb limit is reasonable and fair when you're dealing with a limited resource and unlimited demand.
I know very few students that would pick a University based on dorm network connections. I always thought the first criteria should have been quality of education, maybe overall cost of tuition. If your main criteria is broadband, you need to rethink your educational priorities.
What you need to remember is that Univ Network Admins have to balance the needs of students, faculty and staff when it comes to network usage. I was at Penn State when Napster really took off and even lived in the dorms. I was also a computer lab student manager for one of the colleges at the time. One day we all woke up and the network was just slammed. It had been getting progressively slower for weeks leading up to this point as everyone and their brother was downloading off of Napster (and uploading a fair bit too). The traffic from the student housing network eventually flooded the entire state-wide University system.
Network traffic is like traffic in major city areas. You can keep adding capacity but people will just use up to that capacity no matter how large. We had a pretty big pipe to the net, but the student network segment alone saturated it, preventing faculty and staff from conducting research, using university systems related to classes etc... In short, students downloading music had managed to shut down any and all legitimate academic uses. The University could no longer operate.
The solution initially was to put an overall cap on the student segment, limiting all residence halls to one shared 20mbit connection. Needless to say that was a nightmare and students had faster connections dialing up to the Univ modem bank. Then they moved to bandwith caps. 1gig up, 1 gig down per week. A pretty reasonable limit if you ask me.
You want to cast blame at the admins, saying they're evil and uncaring and just out to screw the students, but you have to always remember that there are others who have just as much need for the network as students do. When it comes to downloading music and movies, I'd even say they have a more legitimate claim too. Giving students unlimited bandwidth has been proven to be a bad idea. Given limited resources, they have to portion everything off so the most people have usable access for legitimate purposes.
Cedega and bringing Windows games to Linux is essential. It's a key transition product to get people over to Linux that were holding out for their favorite games.
/. Linux on the desktop is very much a niche market. It's the same reason you don't see many games for Macs (yes there are some... and more than Windows, but even Macs have a larger install base).
Developers don't develop for Linux right now because for the most part, the additional development time does not result in equal payback in terms of purchases. Developers and publishers have to target the largest audiences possible, and despite all the claims made on
To convince the companies that Linux is a worthwhile platform to develop for, you need to bring Linux to the Gamers, you need to show them that they can play their favorite titles on something aside from a Windows box. Once you have enough moved over, then you have numbers to show to publishers and devs and say "We've got X people gaming on Linux... It's worth your time now!"
Cedega is an olive branch extended to Gamers. It's a sign that says "Come on over, the people here are smart, funny... and we'll even let you play your games!"
You need gamers to shift over to Linux in fairly large numbers. To get gamers they have to be able to play their games. Once you have the gamers, only then will the big guys take notice and start developing for you.
This is something I wish more people would understand. The difference between a necessary utility and an entertainment service. Having a telephone is as much a safety device as a communications service. If you don't have a phone you could end up in a world of trouble. If you don't have cable, you're just really bored on a Saturday night.
And you're right, the establishemnt of the basic infrastructure with telephones was a partially public funded endeavour. They also got a government sanctioned monopoly for many years in exchange for guarantees of service and universal coverage. Cable was almost exclusively private.
I'm just following the logic THEY'RE evidently using. And what they'll probably say if they get really pressed on the issue.
Here's how they could play the fact that they call the GPL unconstitutional along side of including GPL code and products in their system...
1. GPL is unconstitutional.
2. GPL is therefore null and void
3. Thus GPL code has no copyright protection as it has no license or terms
4. CODE IS FREE! (100%) They can take it and use it however they want
5. Profit!
He's correct in his assessment of blame. The people who hack systems, break stuff, spread viruses and bot networks etc are 100% responsible for their actions. They are violating laws left and right with no regard for others.
Yes, insecure code, a lack of a firewall or antivirus software opens you up to potential attacks, or not having the latest security patches. However that doesn't excuse an actual attack.
By the reasoning of most of the posters here, unless your home is as secure as fort knox, anyone who breaks in and steals stuff isn't really to blame... I mean, come on, you could have protected your house better. Put in pressure plates and motion sensors. Try a laser grid on the floor. Armed guards, time sealed doors, attack dogs etc. Anything less and, geeze, you're practically inviting them in to take your stuff!
That's what the Internet is like. You really have to lock up your system like Fort Knox to keep yourself safe. Even then, the burglar could find a spot in the security system that isn't fully covered and get in that way.
The ONLY secure machine is one that is sitting in the corner, surrounded by a lead box, not connected to any network or power supply. A useless machine really.
Those who attempt to maliciously exploit vulnerabilities deserve every once of blame you can possibly assign to them. I personally want to kick the guy in the balls that did the Blaster worm... took weeks to get my old workplace cleared of that thing. Just because it is POSSIBLE to exploit something does not mean you SHOULD exploit it. Too many people online use the reasoning that if it's possible it should be allowed.
Evil, vile, lieing Dvorak! He'd sell his own mother into slavery to get an article published! He never gets his facts straight, and is owned by corporations! He is a blight upon the technology journalism landscape!
*Someone taps Mr. Joe Slashdot on the shoulder and whispers in his ear*
What?... Uh-huh.... really.... ah.... oh....
Wait, he said something I AGREE with? He's bashing Microsoft?
Dvorak is a prime example of how tech journalists should be! We should lift him up on our shoulders and parade him around the square! Never have I seen a more fair, balanced and well-researched article in my life!
I would argue the opposite for Slashdot in particular. This site has gotten increasingly biased, increasingly inflamatory. The comments under stories, even after moderation aren't a fair reflection of truth or reality. In fact, due to the overwhelming bias found here on many topics, what could be otherwise insightful commentary is moderated -1 Flamebait if it disagrees with the bias, whereas stuff that reenforces it gets tossed up to +5 Insightful.
;)
Slashdot is NOT the site you should point to when you want to discuss the proper use of moderation in filtering out morons
Amazon is one of those "exception" places I mentioned. They exist, but they are far from the standard.
If you read the rest of my comment before throwing your little tantrum there you'd have picked up on the fact that "professional" is relative to the work environment. It just so happens that the majority of professional environments expect a conservative dress code. While most places don't require suits anymore, you at least have to show up in better than jeans and tshirts.
The standard is hardly arbitrary, as it's pretty darn wide-spread and long established. You may think it's stupid,but unless you're running a business yourself, the rules aren't yours to set. I personally would love a work environment like Amazon's, but I recognize that that's pretty rare. I also tried to step back and look at the dress code issue from the perspective of the people who run the workplace, not the trenches geek worker.
I am beginning to understand another side of the IT worker unemployment issue of the past few years... especially when it comes to slashdot readers.
Many of the more "hardcore" here got used to the kooshy jobs of the boom, got used to companies bending over backwards to give them anything they wanted. Now that reality has set in and we're not the rockstars we were 5 years ago, some are too spoiled to adapt.
Here's what I've gathered from reading a fair number of threads here... You sir have given me my latest entry to this list.
Many here won't take a job that:
-Develops closed-source software.. Ethical issue ya know
-Works with Microsoft products... Evil empire, ethics again
-Does not run Linux/BSD/HURD on their servers... 100% F/OSS!
-Has anything at all to do with SCO... Ethics again
-Pays at least close to what they've grown used to from the dot-com days... Got a standard of living to keep up!
-Has any sort of dress code/code of appearance.. Because, you should be able to do whatever you want.. always
If you want to be taken seriously and treated professionally where you work, unless it's a small company run by other geeks, you need to dress and look clean and professional. It's still a fact that people judge you based on how you look, and if you're in an office environment surrounded by people in slacks and shirts and other professional attire, you'll look very out of place with a bunch of piercings or tatoos. What it says to coworkers is that you don't care enough about the job to even APPEAR professional.
Now, I know some people here are going "Oh for the love of God! What century are we in that we still have to conform to such out-dated societal norms!? We must break free... blah blah blah" To those people I say "Grow up!" Your days as a rebellious member of some imagined counter-culture pretty much end when you're out on your own making your way in the world.
Yes, there are places still where there is no dress code... but they're the exception as opposed to the rule. If you want a professional job, you have to play by the professional rules set out by employers. Body mods, strange haircuts/colors etc. are a risk you may choose to take, but like all risks you have to realize there are consequences. You can't just run around and do whatever you want and expect everyone to be cool with it. When you work for someone else, you play by their rules.
Don't like it? Then I offer a modified stock Slashdot response for anyone who ever complains about a piece of software:
"If you don't like it, start your own company and set the rules how you like them! Otherwise, sit down"
Lets look at what OSX is primarily used on...
Desktops used by anyone from Grandpa Smith to a high-end graphics designer or even some coders.
Now, lets look at what Linux is primarily used on...
Servers. And most servers don't generally even require a GUI. You don't need a fancy interface to manage apache or an SQL Server. Chances are you won't even be directly working at the machine but connecting to it with some client application while using your desktop machine that can run ANY OS.
Ok... so we have two systems that target two completely different areas. Sure there's the Mac OSX Server... but that hasn't made serious inroads simply due to pricepoint and features. It's UNIX, with a fancy UI... but it costs way more than an equivalent from Dell running Linux.
If Linux were a serious contender on the desktop... maybe. But it's not, never has been, and honestly probably won't be. The advantages to an average desktop user just aren't there (don't try arguing ideology, to the normal user that's meaningless). The focus of the developer community has largely focused on the server anyway... that's where the cool stuff is.
Saying OS X will harm Linux is like saying that the Segway is going to harm bicycle sales. Apples and Oranges (or rather Apples and Penguins)
I tried this once upon a time... and honestly it was just too much of a hassle. I bounce back and forth between Internet, work and gaming constantly, having to reboot that much was driving me nuts.
Solution? My WinXP Box is now gaming-only with some web surfing (heavily patched, using FireFox, have a physical as well as a software firewall)... I do all my work now on my 15" Powerbook that sits to my right.
If you're not willing to pay for something, you shouldn't have it. By your reasoning any theft (copyright infringement or real theft) is justified because the person taking wouldn't have bought the item any way.
If you have something that you were supposed to pay for, but did not. The owner of that item is OWED one sale. There is a value attached to a song or to a piece of software that you are depriving the owner of, regardless of whether or not you intended to buy it. You have it, you owe them that value.
Taking a LOT of stuff doesn't clear you of responsibility. There isn't some magic number that once you pass it, you should be in the clear.
Actually, I'm sort of arguing natural rights too. It's established that you have no legal right to music or movies or software unless you pay for it. But also, do you have any natural right to said content? If I create a wonderful painting, do you have a right to view it if I don't want you to?
The problem here is that there are no natural rights to view or consume intellectual property. People think it isn't fair that it be restricted, but that's a far cry from an actual right. There only natural right to restrict consumption is the right of property. It's mine, I say who gets to see it, touch it, use it etc. We have a very strong sense of personal property and it's considered to be a natural right now. We don't want people invading our homes with cameras or wire taps etc...
At the very least there are no natural rights in either direction, so legal rights become the authority. In the case of downloading movies music and software, there isn't even much of a moral obligation because if you do not have access to the items in question, you are not deprived of any right either legal or natural.
There are moral objections to business tactics and scare tactics, but that is separate from the content itself.
You call me a troll, yet I manage to keep a civil tone... something you fail to do.
1. Viewing at a friend's house.
Fair use. A copy was purchased, the purchaser can view it as much as he likes, let friends view it, lend it (the one copy) to another friend, make as many personal copies as he likes so long as they are not sold or distributed.
2. Percieved Loss
If you have something you did not pay for, which you should have if determined by the owner of the work, then there is a loss. You owe the owner the cost of the item as you would have paid for it normally. The claim of percieved loss is a weak one for people who want to justify not paying for software, movies or music.
3. Violate the law, it's the RIGHT THING TO DO!
Oh dear, we can't change the law, we just can't... the bad guys own the system. Well, with that attitude, yes they do. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
4. Definitions definitions definitions.
Honestly, this one drives me nuts. It's a matter of people splitting hairs because the term existed before such a concept existed. The term theft embodies the sentiment of what's happening. You are obtaining something without paying for it. I clarified it intentionally to try and avoid this argument, but sadly it was to no avail. People who go nuts over this one are just trying to make the act sound better than it is. Theft sounds so harsh, copyright infringement sounds sophisticated and harmless.
In this thread, many have taken issue with items of definitions, niggling over political rules, argued against the vile evil of corporations... but one thing NO ONE has been able to do yet is provide an argument saying that you have any RIGHT whatsoever to the content in question.
Then we're screwed, democracy is lost and we should all just give up and go home.
It's this defeatist attitude that makes your prophecy of being unable to fix things self-fulfilling.
You have no right to it period actually. There is nothing saying in any great document about our freedoms and rights that we have the right to anything beyond life, liberty and the persuit of happiness (i.e. the right to lead a life without oppression... copyright laws don't fir that).
People all too often think that if something exists, that they have some right to it, when in fact, unless it is something essential to their ability to live as a free person, they don't. Issues of property have gotten very fuzzy with the growth of The Internet. A lot of people think that if they can get it for free, that they should.
Arguing that copyright isn't a natural right doesn't really matter a whole lot since there are no "rights" that it really runs contrary to. It may run contrary to people's personal ideals on how they think intellectual property should work, but there's never been anything saying that you have an actual right to anyone elses creation.
At this point, I think we would still see this conflict, even if Copyright was still limited to the original 7 years (I think) because you'd still have people wanting the latest movie release or the latest song without having to pay, and you'd still have the RIAA and MPAA going nuts on anyone who touches the recent stuff.
I provided my definition of theft for the purposes of the discussion. Copyright Infringement is the electronic equivalent to theft. You obtain something without providing the required payment.
Yes, one deals with a physical object, but both achieve largely the same result. You have illegally obtained something by not paying for it.
Most of the leaders of the American Revolution were the land-owning wealthy. They were the businessmen, the owners of means in the colonies.
But you're talking about issues of unfair government representation, taxation, uneven application of all aspects of the law, quartering troops etc... Direct infringements on ones personal right to a free life. (well, a right once we got around to writing it)
Here we're talking about movies and music... items that you have no right to, that you do not need to survive. Just because someone else has something you really like doesn't mean you have a right to it as well.
I agree with your last bit, if you don't like it, don't buy anything from them. That's the solution I advocate. It's the only one you can do with any real justification.
Rights can only be claimed when it's over something you need. We need to live free, we need to not have the government control our thoughts and our speech. We need to be able to move about freely and explore opportunities without unfair discrimination.
We don't need to have the latest Britney Spears CD, or the latest DVD release. We'd like to have them maybe, but we don't need them. Our lives and our freedoms are not limited in any way if we don't have them.
Still doesn't negate the fact that you have no right to the content in question. If I write the world's best computer game, I don't have to let anyone play it, or I can be very selective in who plays it, or how much it costs to play. It's my right as creator/owner of said creative content.
This would be different if it weren't a luxury item, but because it is, you don't have much of a leg to stand on.
No, don't treat them with kid gloves, but you still don't have any valid argument to breaking the law. You have no right to music. You have no need to purchase it. You want it, so you have to play by the rules of those who control it. Don't like it? No one is forcing you to buy it. There's no gun to your head
I think of this issue like people who don't eat meat because of moral reasons. Discounting the fanatics, they don't go out and steal the cows away so they can be treated better.
Why should you buy it? Well, don't, but if you want to posess it, you have to cough up the cash.
What they are doing is down-right vile, but disagreeing with corporate practices doesn't justify theft (obtaining something without proper payment).
They don't have to convince anyone of anything, because they are the legal owners of the content. And since that content is by no means essential to your life in any way shape or form, they can control it as they like.
Don't like how someone does business? Don't like their tactics? Boycott, get others to boycott... Protest... Write angry letters about it... whatever, but you can't really use it as a justification for theft.
I think the University in this case is a lot more at fault, because the industry could try and pressure or threaten audits or whatever, but they should have stood up to it. If I was in the administration I would have recorded every bit of communication with the industry groups and would have said "You even TRY to nail us for exercising our academic freedoms, this will go out all over every major media outlet and we'll make sure to take you to court over it"
I graduated from college in 2003 with a general IT degree (no, not compsci, but better than MIS). This meant that I started college a bit before the dot com bust happened, which means so did all of my classmates. So when we entered college, the money was looking damn good with no end in sight.
Guess what? About 90% of the people in my major had 0 interest in technology. They couldn't troubleshoot the most simplistic problems. HTML was a very confusing and difficult concept to a lot of them (as evidenced by the fact that we had to create an entire semester class devoted to it). A majority of them were there because they thought it would make them rich overnight, that they could go out and say "I have a degree in this computer stuff!" and be snapped up for 6-figure salaries right out of college.
Now, those same people are moaning and bitching about the field they're in. They don't like the work, never did really, but now they realize that the money sucks too. Already I've talked to several who are moving towards business centric jobs, away from technology. Several have said they wouldn't have majored in anything computer related if they knew the jobs weren't going to be there like they thought.
In my mind, the downturn was a good thing. Yes, it was a complete pain in the arse to get a job after college, but I eventually managed it. Sure the pay isn't what they were advertising a few years ago, but it's still money that keeps me fed and with a roof over my head. But I'm still working with technology, which I love.
That's the big thing... I enjoy the whole IT thing, have since I was little. I think those that stick with it through the downturn, those that major in it DESPITE knowing the market is in the crapper, those are the people I want in this industry. I don't want someone who runs in when there's money but jumps ship when things look dicey. I want to work with people who want to work in the field because they love the work, not because they hope to get rich quick.
IT and CS/E programs would benefit immensely if they were able to get rid of all the students who are only in it for the money. Imagine your college classes, think about what they would have been like if they were filled with people who were interested in the material and actually wanted to learn it? Think about your job today and imagine everyone around you being that dedicated to tech (some of you are fortunate enough to work places like that... I'm not).
The slump is a bear to deal with in the short-term, but those who stick it out I think will definitely benefit in the long run. We'll be the ones with experience when the pendulum swings the other way.