In other words, if I was a criminal in the past, does that mean I'll be one again? Or if I've never committed a crime, I will never commit one?
Given that a large percentage of those who go to prision return to prision, I would venture that there is a positive corelation between commiting a crime in the past and commiting one in the future.
Besides, its not like its illegal to discriminate against people for having criminal records (but I'm sure some of you will be more than willing to take this right away from us too)
...but I mean you can buy a Flash Memory Card -> PC Card adapter for about $10 and move you pics to your laptop (or if you are one of the 8 people who have a desktop with PC Card support). Or you can get a Flash Memory Reader with a USB interface for $50 these days which isn't quite a fast, but is nothing to sneeze at either...
As the RIAA itself has demonstrated, profit and economic gain rule the marketplace.
You make this sound like a bad thing.
This is not limited to corporations - call it "Trickle down morality" if you will, but people have taken their que from businesses and also seek out the best ways to maximize their profits. This is an excellent example of true capitalism.
I think most people would agree that if you are truly seeking to maximize your profits (not that people have profits, but lets assume you meant net worth or something that makes sense), you need to consider your downside risk. IF you consider the penalties for pirating music times the number of pirated napster - related tracks on your hard drive you are looking at a pretty nasty number. Sure, the odds of you being nailed are quite small, but you should consider this.
Of course, since you already said you have no morals, I'm sure that doesn't bother you...
If you use a piece of software that your business doesn't depend on, commercially, why not free it?
Maybe becuase it could be valuable in the future? If you think it is worth something to someone, why not license it to them and make a few bucks? If you don't think it is worth something to someone, why bother opening it up?
. And we can kid ourselves that we are too sophisticated or cynical to be manipulated by the aspirational aspect - but we do it every time we make a purchasing decision.
Speak for yourself...who are you to say what goes into my mental processes?
It is disheartening to me that kids of such a young age are (in a way) being programmed to associate something FUN (watching Big Bird or Arthur) with the SPONSORSHIP of a large corporation.
I don't understand what is scary about this. Should kids just thing the TV fairy produces TV shows, or that they just appear out of the aether? Or should they realize everybody has to pay for something?
1) Split up into two companies is based on what the two portions of the company were doing as of Apr 27, 2000. No saying "Hey, Office is part of the OS"
2) The 2 NewCo. may not recombine, enter into Joint Ventures, provide APIs to each other that are not available to other ISVs.. or basically collude.
3) The OS company cannot know OEMs for supporting other OS's, OEM's can change the boot up sequence.
4) Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, and OEMs in a Timely Manner, in whatever media Microsoft disseminates such information to its own personnel, all APIs
5) Microsoft shall not take any action that it knows will interfere with or degrade the performance of any non-Microsoft Middleware when interoperating with any Windows Operating System Product
6) MS has to create an internal position to monitor antitrust compliance within the company (boy, there's a sucky job...)
Very interesting stuff.... nothing too surprising though...
I didn't say he wants to revoke ALL IP legislation.
Read Why Sofware Should Be Free and its pretty clear what his philosophy is. All software should be free, ergo, you should have no rights to your software.
I have taken Jon's article, run it through Microsoft Word 97's Autosummarize feature, and posted the results here, so thatyou may enjoy, pure, distilled if you will JonKatz, in one-tenth of the normal time. The faint of heart and pregnant women should probably avoid this summary. Lets see what happens...
Culture isn't being destroyed online, but re-invented. The site offers breaking vid news, reviews, profiles of game heroes and heroines, and essays. Gaming, given the storytelling inherent in video and computer games, is perhaps the most vital new cultural form emanating from cyberspace. Many games have evolved far beyond mind games like chess and Scrabble. Murray's idea will remain bitterly controversial for some time, especially among the guardians of conventional culture. One of the most vigorous, rapidly expanding forms of popular culture, games are growing astonishingly inventive, creative, challenging and complex.
This type of attitude bothers me a lot. Romero poured his heart and soul into this game, and even though it was totally over-hyped and underachieving in the end, Daikatana made it to store shelves. I think this was an incredible learning experience for John Romero and I hate to see people criticize him non-constructively. Obviously the game did not turn out the way it should have ideally, but the least people could do for his time would be polite...
Please... there are cases when carring on in the face of adversity is admirable, and cases where it is stupid. This would obviously be one of the latter.
If you are going to be a hot shot, leave the best job you will probably ever have, start your own company, blow ~$20 Million of other people's money, take 4 years, and turn out a piece of shit you deserve whatever ribbing you get. If, on top of all this, little things like the majority of your developers quiting one day don't make you question things, well, it shows you are lacking something in the common sense department.
Someone poured their heart and soul into the Edsel too, and New Coke, and the Judge Dread movie, and they sucked too....
The original premise of the market economy is that customers would be smart enough to choose the best service over a weaker service. Now, that's not the case anymore.
What evidence do you have for this statement?
Nobody reads the license agreement before they hit 'OK'. Is this good for the consumer? No!
Oh really? Can you tell me any other instance where people act contrary to their own self interests? I can't think of any.
Is this what corporate america wants? Yes!
Ah, here we go.. the so insiteful, anything good for business is bad for us mentality.
Slashdot Mirror
In other words, if I was a criminal in the past, does that mean I'll be one again? Or if I've never committed a crime, I will never commit one?
Given that a large percentage of those who go to prision return to prision, I would venture that there is a positive corelation between commiting a crime in the past and commiting one in the future.
Besides, its not like its illegal to discriminate against people for having criminal records (but I'm sure some of you will be more than willing to take this right away from us too)
. I can't be bought. Can you?
Sure, if the price is right.
I wasn't saying people don't know how to use it. I was saying that unless you own a laptop you chances of having PCMCIA support are damn near 0.
...but I mean you can buy a Flash Memory Card -> PC Card adapter for about $10 and move you pics to your laptop (or if you are one of the 8 people who have a desktop with PC Card support). Or you can get a Flash Memory Reader with a USB interface for $50 these days which isn't quite a fast, but is nothing to sneeze at either...
Did I mention the concept is really cool though?
Fact: People have no morals.
Speak for yourself, pal.
As the RIAA itself has demonstrated, profit and economic gain rule the marketplace.
You make this sound like a bad thing.
This is not limited to corporations - call it "Trickle down morality" if you will, but people have taken their que from businesses and also seek out the best ways to maximize their profits. This is an excellent example of true capitalism.
I think most people would agree that if you are truly seeking to maximize your profits (not that people have profits, but lets assume you meant net worth or something that makes sense), you need to consider your downside risk. IF you consider the penalties for pirating music times the number of pirated napster - related tracks on your hard drive you are looking at a pretty nasty number. Sure, the odds of you being nailed are quite small, but you should consider this.
Of course, since you already said you have no morals, I'm sure that doesn't bother you...
...what, there seems to be something actually new in this implementation?
Slashdot groupthink had convinced me that MS never creates anything original... hmm... must think... *smoke* brian overheating...
*kaboom*
If you use a piece of software that your business doesn't depend on, commercially, why not free it?
Maybe becuase it could be valuable in the future? If you think it is worth something to someone, why not license it to them and make a few bucks? If you don't think it is worth something to someone, why bother opening it up?
That's not sad. If people are so stupid they can't set their priorities properly, whose fault is that?
. And we can kid ourselves that we are too sophisticated or cynical to be manipulated by the aspirational aspect - but we do it every time we make a purchasing decision.
Speak for yourself...who are you to say what goes into my mental processes?
It is disheartening to me that kids of such a young age are (in a way) being programmed to associate something FUN (watching Big Bird or Arthur) with the SPONSORSHIP of a large corporation.
I don't understand what is scary about this. Should kids just thing the TV fairy produces TV shows, or that they just appear out of the aether? Or should they realize everybody has to pay for something?
According to the ruling, they all go with the "applications" company.
The Operating Systems co, is just operating systems. Everything else goes the other way.
Some highlights:
From the Final Judgement
1) Split up into two companies is based on what the two portions of the company were doing as of Apr 27, 2000. No saying "Hey, Office is part of the OS"
2) The 2 NewCo. may not recombine, enter into Joint Ventures, provide APIs to each other that are not available to other ISVs.. or basically collude.
3) The OS company cannot know OEMs for supporting other OS's, OEM's can change the boot up sequence.
4) Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, and OEMs in a Timely Manner, in whatever media Microsoft disseminates such information to its own personnel, all APIs
5) Microsoft shall not take any action that it knows will interfere with or degrade the performance of any non-Microsoft Middleware when interoperating with any Windows Operating System Product
6) MS has to create an internal position to monitor antitrust compliance within the company (boy, there's a sucky job...)
Very interesting stuff.... nothing too surprising though...
So? There is more than one media company out there, you know.
I didn't say he wants to revoke ALL IP legislation.
Read Why Sofware Should Be Free and its pretty clear what his philosophy is. All software should be free, ergo, you should have no rights to your software.
I have taken Jon's article, run it through Microsoft Word 97's Autosummarize feature, and posted the results here, so thatyou may enjoy, pure, distilled if you will JonKatz, in one-tenth of the normal time. The faint of heart and pregnant women should probably avoid this summary. Lets see what happens...
Culture isn't being destroyed online, but re-invented. The site offers breaking vid news, reviews, profiles of game heroes and heroines, and essays. Gaming, given the storytelling inherent in video and computer games, is perhaps the most vital new cultural form emanating from cyberspace. Many games have evolved far beyond mind games like chess and Scrabble. Murray's idea will remain bitterly controversial for some time, especially among the guardians of conventional culture. One of the most vigorous, rapidly expanding forms of popular culture, games are growing astonishingly inventive, creative, challenging and complex.
This type of attitude bothers me a lot. Romero poured his heart and soul into this game, and even though it was totally over-hyped and underachieving in the end, Daikatana made it to store shelves. I think this was an incredible learning experience for John Romero and I hate to see people criticize him non-constructively. Obviously the game did not turn out the way it should have ideally, but the least people could do for his time would be polite...
Please... there are cases when carring on in the face of adversity is admirable, and cases where it is stupid. This would obviously be one of the latter.
If you are going to be a hot shot, leave the best job you will probably ever have, start your own company, blow ~$20 Million of other people's money, take 4 years, and turn out a piece of shit you deserve whatever ribbing you get. If, on top of all this, little things like the majority of your developers quiting one day don't make you question things, well, it shows you are lacking something in the common sense department.
Someone poured their heart and soul into the Edsel too, and New Coke, and the Judge Dread movie, and they sucked too....
Wow, who would have thought this thing would suck after spending so much money and time on it.
Everyone should read the story on Ion Storm that ran in the Dallas Observer (here is a link to it) for a picture of too much ego + too much money.
On the plus side, instead of saying "Oh, that's the Heaven's Gate of Computer Games", we can say "Oh, how Daikatana"
We are becoming a society that wants things easy and as cheap as possible...
What's wrong with that?
The original premise of the market economy is that customers would be smart enough to choose the best service over a weaker service. Now, that's not the case anymore.
What evidence do you have for this statement?
Nobody reads the license agreement before they hit 'OK'. Is this good for the consumer? No!
Oh really? Can you tell me any other instance where people act contrary to their own self interests? I can't think of any.
Is this what corporate america wants? Yes!
Ah, here we go.. the so insiteful, anything good for business is bad for us mentality.
The box (well, I guess if TiVo goes belly up before the box breaks, the lifetime of TiVo corp).
It's a good deal if you plan on using it for more than 20 months.
How can you say that? Most people know software piracy is wrong, etc, etc, etc...
Do you have any statistics to back your statement?
You can get a job making buggy whips if you don't want to move around as much.
We, as the technical class, should steer technology towards improving stability in our lives, not undermining it
We (whoever that is) should do no such thing. Your job is not to be a social engineer, nor is mine.
This is the ONE reason I will not buy a TiVo. I will NOT buy into their monthly service crap.
Lifetime service: $199. That's what I signed up for.
but the idea that that don't actually own what they paid for is lost on them
Hmmm, the video rental business seems to be doing fine on the basis of licensing and people not owning something they pay for.
Since when is it unethical to be rude?