I'm sorry you believe this. Who exactly told you this? Did you read this somewhere? Was it part of your history class in high school? PATENTS DO NOT FURTHER SCIENCE. Patents are a legal document that are claimed to exist for incentive purposes, but used more so as protection against competition. You have no idea what science is if you believe that patents are somehow directly involved in progress in science and technology. The idea that patents help progress is one of the largest myths about them. You could have your opinions about what patents HAVE accomplished, but as a realist, I don't give a shit about what you think, but what the inventor, the scientist, the researcher, the investor, the employees, the customers, the wealthy, and the various others involved with the progress of science and technology think. THEY ARE THE ONES THAT DO IT, NOT YOU. Do some reading about the progress of science and technology and the legal system behind it.
There is a reason for patents and copyrights, and various intellectual property laws. They served their purpose, but unfortunately have not changed with times. If the system were perfect, it would have slowly dissolved by now. There is no need for it today. If you would like I could explain why. Just ask.
Yes, there are nano particles that have existed naturally for a very long time, but now we are in the age of creating our very own man made nano particles. There is a problem though. That is that there is a possibility that we may cause unwanted damage to people, various organisms, and the environment. Nano particles are not well understood and some substances that are completely non-toxic can cause serious damage to a person who comes into contact with the nano sized version of the same substance. Where did this attitude come from that people are either against something or not? Why this attitude that we should completely stop with this technology or go head on with it? Can we not work with nanotech, but at the same work on preventing the industry from causing harm? Do not look for the black and white answers, there are far too few of those. Instead, understand the subject at hand. We will not accomplish much with the all or nothing attitude. Progress does not happen in an instant.
"And please don't compare him to Martin Luther King, Jr."
Never did, simply put out an example to refute the parents entire "go to jail you deserve it" stance.
"Also, you're completely wrong when you say that people who murder, steal, rape, molest, etc. are being penalized less than someone who uses a drug, shares a song, or bypasses DVD encryption."
Really? So why are laws against these victimless crimes being extended and penalties for the crime increased? Why are prison systems over half full of drug related offenses and reports of child molesters being released early so that room can be made for those with drug offenses? Am I really completely wrong here?
"In reality, most people who get caught for drug possession charges (unless it's with intent to distribute) get into diversion programs on a first offense."
According to constitution, this should not be illegal in the first place. Ethically, morally, even legally (except under drug laws) the government has no authority to take away our rights.
I don't disagree that this man violated a copyright law. I disagree with some of the laws. Why should copyright violators be punished so severely? The system works like this. Prices are high, people are upset, some decide to break law, law gets tougher and we still pay. What has happened is that there is essentially price fix in the industry. It isn't obvious, it is blatent, but it exists. Things are a little more complicated than I just stated, but that gives a rough idea of what is happening. Fortunately, things are changing that will increase competition. Some of the more intelligent people in the industry know this and are fighting it. I do not disagree with punishing obvious profit seeking criminals. I disagree with laws that are so broad that they give the powerful interests in the industry such powerful control over it, preventing competition and progress. Most people don't know what is to come though. They see the present. Laws being created today will have an incredible impact on the future that most don't realise. I could go on explaining some of this, but this is not the place for me to type an entire perspective of mine. I may not be right on everything I know, but I have a very keen eye on what is to possibly come. There needs to be a strict limit on our laws, but there isn't.
If you share your future electronic book with a friend and he doesn't pay the book licensing fee and your both in jail for 10 years, don't blame the publishers, it is obviously your fault. That has to be some ridiculous reasonining you have there. Who was upset when MLK went to jail? Why not? If the law is unjust, then of course we should be upset. You may be a boy scout now, but 10-20 years from now even you will be finding yourself breaking laws that you had no idea existed before. The problem with this law is that it is a pointless extension of a law that already exists. Consistantly increasing penalties for such small crimes while we still have bigger problems to solve. People that murder, steal, rape, molest, etc. are being penalized less than someon who uses a drug, shares a song, or bypasses the encryption on their DVD to play a movie they bought. Do you see the problem here? Did you know that child molesters have a better chance of being released from prison earlier than those with drug offenses? What do you know? Why should business interests worry about child molesters, it doesn't cost them any money (directly at least). It makes me even more sad that there those that moderate your post insightful. It has little insight, simply a bunch of remarks to defend the established law system that needs rewriting, NOT EXTENDING. How about the next law we put in place is 10 year minimum sentence to anyone caught downloading an mp3? Sound fair?
"After all, 3M's not stupid: they price things correctly. These are the guys behind the Post-It Note."
3M is not a person. "These guys"? The ones that created Post-It Notes? Suddenly because one person (did the person work for 3M, sell it to them, was there more than one, do they still work there, etc?) created Post-It Notes, the entire company is smart? Please, I'm tired of hearing people speak of corporations like they are people. Although the ones responsible for pricing this may be smart, it does not make an entire company (which is NOT a person) smart. I'm sure you work with people both competent and incompetent at their jobs. I don't label the company I work for smart or stupid. Decisions in a company are made by people. PEOPLE!!!!!! Sorry, and thank you for not treating companies like people in the future.
Consider the fact that patents were never as outragous as they are now. Now consider the fact that large corporations have the most influence on political decisions. Now imagine what your going against. By simply saying that patents are alright under certain circumstances you give them something to stand on. Who decides these circumstances? The ones with the money. We can not simply "fix" the patent system, because to do so would mean some force needs to cause this fix to happen. Where is this force going to come from? Scientists, engineers, teachers, etc? Not really, because it is already apparent that most of them believe that we just need some "fix" to the system. Well, maybe people will get together and say we need a fix. So what do we agree is the fix? Not everyone has the same idea on what a "fix" to the system should be. A lot of arguing amongst the common person, and the lawyers, companies, and wealthy investors make the final choice anyway. Patents are about control. Before communication had reached the level it is today, control did help in progressing science and technology due to reasons I will not go into because I do not have space or time for that. Today, it has a lot less effect on progress and instead hinders it. Go ahead, put some real thought into the effect of the patent. Consider the fact that it was originally created to help secure investment. Now think about what it means to invest in science and technology in todays world. More educated people today and better communication than ever before. Resources? This is the information age. Imagine two choices. The complete destruction of all of our technology, or the complete destruction of all of our knowledge. Which is more valuable? So why make the system of knowledge so complex that it is entangled in an entire web of legal and political arguments? Or maybe we can "fix" the system, but some level of control still creates problems, and therefore hinders progress. The question is, how much hindering are we willing to put up with? How many more lawyers do we need to argue the laws? How many more lawsuits until half our population is working on interpretting law?
"A small company doesn't need to spend more than..."
What small company? Seriously, what small company is going to try and break into the market and attempt to create DRM media? What other company besides some of the large guys (MS, Apple, Real, etc.) have any chance against a company that controls so much? Do you see the point? It does not make a difference if a small company would only have to pay less, but that there is no small company that can compete against a company as large and powerful as Microsoft. Possible? Maybe. Probable? Are you going to win the lottery this week?
"MS got to be market dominant (which is NOT a true monopoly) by making genuinely good programs."
False. Microsoft gained such enormous power by using both legal and illegal (hard to prove though in some cases) methods. Simple question, why is it that when you buy a computer from Dell, Gateway, or some of the other major brands that you can not get the system without a Microsoft operating system? Need I say more to show monopolistic dominance? No, they are not a 100% complete monopoly, but their control of the market of consumer operating systems is far too great to be considdered anything else but a monopoly.
"Wasted money can't be invested. Investment benefits everybody, by increasing opportunity. Investment in infrastructure is the reason you have a roof over your head instead of a cave. The theories of the anti-corp types would see all success dragged low, deliberate waste foisted upon the productive in the name of "fairness", and the result would be economic ruin. As it always has been in any country or group that embraced envy as a moral."
Did you learn economics from small phrases you heard on the side of cereal boxes? What are these theories of anti-corporate types? Problem is, no person can say for certain what any other system than the one we have now would produce. One thing is certain though, our current system is neither perfect nor sustainable for too much longer. We will see many consequences in the future to come as the system we now have in place begins to show its really ugly side. Envy? Do you REALLY believe that is the reason people are attacking Microsoft? You simplified this entire thing down to envy? So do we all envy Enron or SCO? Do we envy Martha Stewart? Is that why she is in court right now, fighting all the people envious of her?
Let us ask you, do YOU know any artists? How many? Now, how much of the propaganda from the RIAA do you believe? Most artists don't make a lot of their money from CD sales. These same artists are not generally the ones that are downloaded most often. The less known an artist is, the less downloads of music by that artist there will be. How much of the profit of CD sales do those artists that do receive money from CD sales receive? Not much. Technology advances and we make cuts. Music is not expensive as it used to be to record. Yes, some studios use really expensive equipment and cost a lot to record at. This is the high end of the spectrum. It is now cheap to record. Also, artists have a larger audience market because of the net and such and a really cheap distribution method, the net. RIAA and those between the customer and artist doing the recording, major paper work, suing kids for sharing, etc. are the major problem. Instead of realizing this sooner, the industry ignored these facts and instead pushed their old model based on pre-internet times. This creates problems. Their late response to the market is costing them and they are fighting brutally to the point of suing many individuals. It all also comes down to control. As technology helps toward a more equal society where the rich aren't so far from the poor, the wealthy use their control to fight this natural tendency. You also drew a back comparison between artists and programmers.
It is simply your opinion that violent videos desensitize people. There is no proof that this is true. No correlation exists. There is a wide held belief among certain people that violence in TV/Movies/etc. cause violence, but it isn't true. There are so many other factors that have a far greater influence on creating violence, that the connection, if there is one, between violent media and violent behavior would be too small to make a difference when taking into account all other factors combined. Look at all the wars fought on religios grounds. I don't conclude that religion induces violent behavior.
"Unions exist to distort the market, enrich the union bosses, violate property rights, and extort by means of threats of violence and murder."
Is that really what unions are for? Can we please stop with the blatent lies. True, there has been some corruption in unions. I will not deny this, but to outright say that all unions serve this purpose is very ignorant. Unions have a purpose. See, the problem is that companies have a specific purpose, and that is profit. Workers as individuals have a hard time fighting against these large companies all by themselves and so they created unions to help fight for them. The system is not perfect and problems do exist. One solution I had in mind was to force open more financial records of companies to disclose where the money is going. Why should certain people with more authority in a company be paid many more times than the average worker? I understand an increase in pay for certain positions, but when CEO's and various other figures of authority in a company are making millions a year, then something needs to be done. Receiving bonuses for cutting the pay of their workforce does not sound reasonable. Yes, some unions are corrupt, but so are some companies. Unfortunately, how do you put into effect such laws when they would directly threaten the wealthy in both unions and companies? The working class needs to work together to institute such a change by putting a lot of pressure on those that have the authority to make these changes.
Re:Just to show what professional really means
on
Why PHBs Fear Linux
·
· Score: 1
Also, to add to Mr Piddles comments. I went to Devry for just over a year (bad school btw) and I can assure you that most of those going there for various technology related degrees did little to no additional learning outside of their normal schoolwork. In fact, I don't remember more than maybe a few people in the entire school that even knew what Linux was (fortunately there were a few classes that went over Linux a little and only then did they learn some small facts about it). Now Devry isn't all schools, but it definitely pulls through a pretty substantial amount of students and there are plenty more schools like it. One can't really blame the students nor the schools, there are many factors that all contribute to these problems. Still, as a student studying a particular subject, one should be expected to spend some free time learning more than what is asked of them.
I don't believe the article to be true simply because it says so, but by all the reading I've done, everything I've experienced, and all those I've talked to, I know what I say is true. I don't claim any numbers or specific details beyond those I know, but I do know that the amount of students that do not spend extra time learning is substantial.
Another thing. You may know quite a few business people that do not fit the description I have put forth, but what about those you do not know. There are many businesses and government sectors where the ones making the decisions are far behind being up-to-date on technology. For large companies like Microsoft, they are an easy target. Microsoft has plenty of sales people to push their products. What Linux related company (until recently) had the resources to push their products like the giants do? Also, stating that "the article is most likely WRONG." Is wrong to begin with. Well, let us say it is wrong. What is wrong? The entire thing? Is it a fabricated lie? I assume that everything stated is not fabricated. It is simply one point of view. It is difficult to write an article and cover ALL points precisely. It is none-the-less an article which at least gives just a little more insight into the problems the IT industry (and many others actually) face. So those who didn't know it before, now are a little more educated.
Just to show what professional really means
on
Why PHBs Fear Linux
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
"Want to know why most business analysts and venture capitalists simply don't get it with respect to Unix? Take a look at the computer books they study while working toward their MBA, financial analysis certificate or accounting designation, and you'll understand that their ignorance isn't entirely their fault."
This is the first paragraph of the article. Now think about this. Basically what it says is that whatever the system (in this case educational institutions) feed them, that is what they believe. It is very sad to see that many professionals in fact do not spend the time to learn about their field outside of what is fed to them in the classroom. Their educational diet is pretty bad. If one really wants to know everything one can about a particular field, then one should take the time to read that which lies outside of the institution where they are learning it. Btw, this also shows how corporations are integrated with the education system. Never trust just one source for all your facts.
True, it isn't entirely the fault of the student, but what do we do about it? One idea comes to mind, find more sources for information besides just a book your school was encouraged to buy.
There is hope though. Linux is one very powerful example of how the internet has changed the way we find information and work together on common goals.
I believe I had a similar idea as well. Didn't really put much thought into it though, and I would have probably used a gerbil or mouse. Thanks for the info though, just incase I really do get the urge to make a living place for a future rodent. Now that I think about it, why not make a huge network of space for a rodent to move about. One could use many clear tubes moving from place to place around a room with a few large places such as a computer case or tank on top of a dresser or even another compartment on a shelf. As long as the right materials are used, and all scenarios are thought through, then it shouldn't be too much trouble. I would love to see how a few mice would live in such an environment.
Legacy eh? So if it is HIS legacy, why would it be up to his estate to deal with HIS legacy? So she sees what in his legacy? Is it the financial aspect? or is it for continuing his legacy? How will the act of making it harder for others to continue his legacy (in a way) be good for anyone besides her and her lawyers monetarily? There is already abuse. The second one believes that they have a right to have complete control over a work that is in the minds of others and acts on his impulse to control is abuse. I can only agree to one thing, and that is preventing lies. If someone is going around claiming authorship to a work by another or not giving credit where it is due, then it is completely undestandable when one brings the law down upon them.
Actually I believe number 7 should be Microsoft. Although actually the entire proprietary software industry could be all grouped into number 7. There is still a widely held belief that software is as much a product as the toothbrush you buy at the supermarket. Software on the other hand is NOT like a product we are used to. It is more a service than anything.
If a company wants a good IT department they will listen less to large companies like Microsoft and more to their IT staff, clients, engineers, educational institutions, and various employees throughout their own company. Why listen to a company that wants to take money away from your IT staff and your company to produce products that are made to work for ALL their clients? I pick on Microsoft for one main reason, they shattered the idea of what software really is. Treat software like just another process in a company, not a product that your company uses. This is an idea I bet Microsoft fears the most. Open source carries this idea, and therefore open source software is also their enemy. Another problem is only the educated really understand what open source software means. Microsofts strategy is now to reshape the idea of open source to the masses and the corporate world in their favor. In the end, its about control. One of the largest barriers to open source software is therefore Microsoft (and others, SCO etc.).
The question is then, did he do it twice to two camera's? How can he take pictures of modifications to his camera with the camera he is supposedly taking pictures of?
"My rule of thumb is that the jocks mature early, the nerds mature late."
Define mature! Physically mature, ethically mature, socially mature, financially mature, etc? Sure, there is a general definition we have for mature, which even then varies on who you ask. I'm sorry, but this statement means nothing to me. Simply put, there are people out there that are more interested in tinkering with things than others. These people are commonly less social, but that only makes sense since they spend less time socializing. This doesn't mean they are less mature, or then again by your definition, which we know not, maybe yes. Don't treat nerds as a seperate group of people. Label whomever you wish and your more likely to be immature when it comes to understanding people. Most people are, so I don't really blame you. Stereotyping is reinforced by certain aspects of our society.
"A nerd invests hugely in a technical subject and should, with time, be able to leverage that into a high value career. So it's quite normal that many men who were totally nerdy in their teens and twenties become relaxed, charming, social, and wealthy as they get older and more succesful."
It can and does happen, but for the most part being a "jock", "nerd", or other stereotypical label is only one small part of the equation when it comes to financial success or even becoming a better social person. It is apparent most teens are different, but by the time they reach their twenties they change. Labels only work when people wish to be a part of a particular group and so they tend to be someone they are not by making slight changes that fit that label.
What you said has some truth to it, but only if I see it that way. So some will disagree with what you said, some will agree, and some like me, will disect it, analyze it, think about it, interpret it, apply it, and/or talk/write about it.
I would label your comments as interesting, but to some people unfortunately, they would interpret every word literally and make it out as truth or lie. Do people see in grey anymore?
Your right. Storing *some* data about a real bill wouldn't be a problem. I didn't really think that one through. I did imagine some sort of pattern recognition though. Everything seems to come down to that type of method.
"Officials with the RCMP and the Bank of Canada refuse to identify or discuss the technology because they don't want to tip off would-be counterfeiters about ways of thwarting the system."
This won't prevent professional criminals from counterfeiting. At least they stated it correctly by saying "would-be counterfeiters". Still, someone with enough ambition and the resources and/or knowledge will still find a way. I'm simply stating the obvious here though.
I am curious though as to how the software prevents counterfeiting. I thought maybe one possibility was comparing a picture with data of an actual bill, but that would mean having data in the software that contained information of the real bill which presents a problem. If anyone has any ideas or information, please share.
Personally, I see major shifts in this area within the next few decades. Improved bills? Increase in amount of counterfeiting equipment? Some sort of digital verification system? Just some ideas.
"Let the big boys waste their time and money on copyrights and patents. When they control too much, everyone else will ignore them, just as they do with Kazaa, just as they do with this album. These big boys will go the way of all dinosaurs."
Well, it is our time and money. Not all of our time and money though. Think about it. We work (time) and spend our money to buy products from companies, whether it be music or just a cheeseburger. They in turn use some of that money to advertise which is using our time. They control a lot of it because they have the money to do it. When is too much control too much? If they see something not working, then they will spend more money on marketing. Most people don't have the time nor money to find alternatives or find out where the money is going. Even more so, they spend their time watching the media which is in a way controllled by them, because THEY pay for advertising with the money WE pay them. The "big boys" rarely ever die easily. They fight to stay in control. RIAA was finally losing out because of not changing fast enough, so what do they do, iTunes and others. The "big boys" are still in business. Sometimes it isn't so cut and clear and some few do fail eventually, but they all fight to the end using OUR time and OUR money. Do we deserve it because we don't know any better and only watch and listen to the major media? Or should we finally start watching the money and finally decide where it SHOULD go, to support those that bring us what we want, not those that simply control it?
These natural corrections you speak of take time, and in that time we pay for all of the problems. Why not correct the problems as soon as they arise? Why sit back and let others control and profit from these problems? The "big boys" in the RIAA understand these natural corrections (or maybe they don't, but that doesn't matter). They do what they can to stop it, slow it, or make it work for them. Welcome to profit for the wealthy RIAA. With the internet and all of the recording tech we have that makes it both easy and cheap, we could undermine them and finally get music straight, cheap, original, artistic, and pay the artists what they deserve.
"In fact, the projects that truly move at a glacial pace tend to be the free software projects. Sourceforge is full of these projects, gasping for attention, despite disclosing full source code. In the commercial world, when you throw money at a problem, code gets written from scratch pretty quickly."
First sentence, completely garbage. Neither true nor false. It all depends on the software. Second, you want software to be built extremely fast no matter how buggy, inefficient, or unorganized it is? Yes, MANY open sourced projects exist that have little to no audience. Now ask yourself this, what open source projects do have a large audience? The popular, important, and most used ones. These are developed at an alarming rate and with all the advantages. You can throw money at anything, but that doesn't always produce best results. Why would you want to throw a ton of money at a project that will have a small user base and/or little importance? Linux, GNOME/KDE, XFree, OpenOffice, Mozilla, Apache, Samba, and many more are arguably the strongest competition closed source projects have ever encountered. "Glacial" speed eh? Have you looked at the add-ons available for Mozilla lately? More features than any other browser. Sure, most are still in the infant stage, but in time the stronger ones win. How much money do you think Microsoft would have to throw at IE to produce as much output as the Mozilla project and sub-projects have produced? By your comments I strongly believe you know very little when it comes to education and progress. Although some of your facts do have some truth to them, your conclusions based on them just don't fit well.
Stop it already. Viol8, your arguments are pointless.
" XML is:
A) More bloated than a binary format
B) Harder to parse & hence less efficient that a binary format
C) Much easier to casually snoop on
Face it , XML is flavour of the month and trendy , it has zero advantages over formats."
This is what you said at first, LET US DISECT.
A, yes true, but does it really matter? As others have stated, you don't ALWAYS need to have extremely small, efficient, fast, etc. code/programs/information/etc. In the case of this protocol, your argument means NOTHING. There is a reason they did it this way. If you don't understand the reasons, then shut up and listen. Try and understand it before you make one liner remarks that help us in no way. Anyone that knows about XMPP already knows it is bloated, but for a REASON. Those that don't need to know why, not a simple yes or no. It is a grey world, NOT BLACK AND WHITE.
B. Harder? Ok, great job. Define harder. Again, there are reasons why XML was used. Efficiency? Again, WHY? Sure, other methods are more efficient, but they have major cons due to that as well. Your comparing apples to oranges.
C. You have just proved you know little on this subject. It would be just as easy to snoop on XMPP as it would be on any other plain text protocol. That is why encryption is there to save the day. Why else has AOL been working on putting encryption into AIM?
In conclusion, please stop with the flame wars. If you have nothing beneficial to say or even funny, then just don't.
"Gaim allows you to connect to all the services that Trillian supports (except possibly IRC)..."
Actually Gaim supports IRC as well. Or did you mean that Trillian does not support IRC? In that case, you should work on your grammar.
"...(because once people are using XMPP and Gaim/Trillian, they don't really need AIM or Yahoo! servers to communicate."
Hold on. To communicate with other AOL AIM users, you MUST connect to their servers. Most AOL AIM users do not use Gaim or Trillian. Also, if they did, it does not necessarily mean they use XMPP. So most users only connection to their Yahoo/AOL AIM/MSN/ICQ/etc. friends, is thru the servers running these protocols.
On the other hand. If the community can work together and distribute the load of IM users and share account info across the servers and also make account creation in Gaim, Trillian, and other clients painless, well, you got yourself a new IM net. It would be great if IM was similar to email (without the spam)...I'm going off thinking again, sorry. Anyway, basically what I'm saying is that the current state of IM clients will not make any near future migration to XMPP any quicker.
Slashdot Mirror
"...that only exist because of patents."
I'm sorry you believe this. Who exactly told you this? Did you read this somewhere? Was it part of your history class in high school? PATENTS DO NOT FURTHER SCIENCE. Patents are a legal document that are claimed to exist for incentive purposes, but used more so as protection against competition. You have no idea what science is if you believe that patents are somehow directly involved in progress in science and technology. The idea that patents help progress is one of the largest myths about them. You could have your opinions about what patents HAVE accomplished, but as a realist, I don't give a shit about what you think, but what the inventor, the scientist, the researcher, the investor, the employees, the customers, the wealthy, and the various others involved with the progress of science and technology think. THEY ARE THE ONES THAT DO IT, NOT YOU. Do some reading about the progress of science and technology and the legal system behind it.
There is a reason for patents and copyrights, and various intellectual property laws. They served their purpose, but unfortunately have not changed with times. If the system were perfect, it would have slowly dissolved by now. There is no need for it today. If you would like I could explain why. Just ask.
Yes, there are nano particles that have existed naturally for a very long time, but now we are in the age of creating our very own man made nano particles. There is a problem though. That is that there is a possibility that we may cause unwanted damage to people, various organisms, and the environment. Nano particles are not well understood and some substances that are completely non-toxic can cause serious damage to a person who comes into contact with the nano sized version of the same substance. Where did this attitude come from that people are either against something or not? Why this attitude that we should completely stop with this technology or go head on with it? Can we not work with nanotech, but at the same work on preventing the industry from causing harm? Do not look for the black and white answers, there are far too few of those. Instead, understand the subject at hand. We will not accomplish much with the all or nothing attitude. Progress does not happen in an instant.
"And please don't compare him to Martin Luther King, Jr."
Never did, simply put out an example to refute the parents entire "go to jail you deserve it" stance.
"Also, you're completely wrong when you say that people who murder, steal, rape, molest, etc. are being penalized less than someone who uses a drug, shares a song, or bypasses DVD encryption."
Really? So why are laws against these victimless crimes being extended and penalties for the crime increased? Why are prison systems over half full of drug related offenses and reports of child molesters being released early so that room can be made for those with drug offenses? Am I really completely wrong here?
"In reality, most people who get caught for drug possession charges (unless it's with intent to distribute) get into diversion programs on a first offense."
According to constitution, this should not be illegal in the first place. Ethically, morally, even legally (except under drug laws) the government has no authority to take away our rights.
I don't disagree that this man violated a copyright law. I disagree with some of the laws. Why should copyright violators be punished so severely? The system works like this. Prices are high, people are upset, some decide to break law, law gets tougher and we still pay. What has happened is that there is essentially price fix in the industry. It isn't obvious, it is blatent, but it exists. Things are a little more complicated than I just stated, but that gives a rough idea of what is happening. Fortunately, things are changing that will increase competition. Some of the more intelligent people in the industry know this and are fighting it. I do not disagree with punishing obvious profit seeking criminals. I disagree with laws that are so broad that they give the powerful interests in the industry such powerful control over it, preventing competition and progress. Most people don't know what is to come though. They see the present. Laws being created today will have an incredible impact on the future that most don't realise. I could go on explaining some of this, but this is not the place for me to type an entire perspective of mine. I may not be right on everything I know, but I have a very keen eye on what is to possibly come. There needs to be a strict limit on our laws, but there isn't.
If you share your future electronic book with a friend and he doesn't pay the book licensing fee and your both in jail for 10 years, don't blame the publishers, it is obviously your fault. That has to be some ridiculous reasonining you have there. Who was upset when MLK went to jail? Why not? If the law is unjust, then of course we should be upset. You may be a boy scout now, but 10-20 years from now even you will be finding yourself breaking laws that you had no idea existed before. The problem with this law is that it is a pointless extension of a law that already exists. Consistantly increasing penalties for such small crimes while we still have bigger problems to solve. People that murder, steal, rape, molest, etc. are being penalized less than someon who uses a drug, shares a song, or bypasses the encryption on their DVD to play a movie they bought. Do you see the problem here? Did you know that child molesters have a better chance of being released from prison earlier than those with drug offenses? What do you know? Why should business interests worry about child molesters, it doesn't cost them any money (directly at least). It makes me even more sad that there those that moderate your post insightful. It has little insight, simply a bunch of remarks to defend the established law system that needs rewriting, NOT EXTENDING. How about the next law we put in place is 10 year minimum sentence to anyone caught downloading an mp3? Sound fair?
"After all, 3M's not stupid: they price things correctly. These are the guys behind the Post-It Note."
3M is not a person. "These guys"? The ones that created Post-It Notes? Suddenly because one person (did the person work for 3M, sell it to them, was there more than one, do they still work there, etc?) created Post-It Notes, the entire company is smart? Please, I'm tired of hearing people speak of corporations like they are people. Although the ones responsible for pricing this may be smart, it does not make an entire company (which is NOT a person) smart. I'm sure you work with people both competent and incompetent at their jobs. I don't label the company I work for smart or stupid. Decisions in a company are made by people. PEOPLE!!!!!! Sorry, and thank you for not treating companies like people in the future.
Consider the fact that patents were never as outragous as they are now. Now consider the fact that large corporations have the most influence on political decisions. Now imagine what your going against. By simply saying that patents are alright under certain circumstances you give them something to stand on. Who decides these circumstances? The ones with the money. We can not simply "fix" the patent system, because to do so would mean some force needs to cause this fix to happen. Where is this force going to come from? Scientists, engineers, teachers, etc? Not really, because it is already apparent that most of them believe that we just need some "fix" to the system. Well, maybe people will get together and say we need a fix. So what do we agree is the fix? Not everyone has the same idea on what a "fix" to the system should be. A lot of arguing amongst the common person, and the lawyers, companies, and wealthy investors make the final choice anyway. Patents are about control. Before communication had reached the level it is today, control did help in progressing science and technology due to reasons I will not go into because I do not have space or time for that. Today, it has a lot less effect on progress and instead hinders it. Go ahead, put some real thought into the effect of the patent. Consider the fact that it was originally created to help secure investment. Now think about what it means to invest in science and technology in todays world. More educated people today and better communication than ever before. Resources? This is the information age. Imagine two choices. The complete destruction of all of our technology, or the complete destruction of all of our knowledge. Which is more valuable? So why make the system of knowledge so complex that it is entangled in an entire web of legal and political arguments?
Or maybe we can "fix" the system, but some level of control still creates problems, and therefore hinders progress. The question is, how much hindering are we willing to put up with? How many more lawyers do we need to argue the laws? How many more lawsuits until half our population is working on interpretting law?
"A small company doesn't need to spend more than..."
What small company? Seriously, what small company is going to try and break into the market and attempt to create DRM media? What other company besides some of the large guys (MS, Apple, Real, etc.) have any chance against a company that controls so much? Do you see the point? It does not make a difference if a small company would only have to pay less, but that there is no small company that can compete against a company as large and powerful as Microsoft. Possible? Maybe. Probable? Are you going to win the lottery this week?
"MS got to be market dominant (which is NOT a true monopoly) by making genuinely good programs."
False. Microsoft gained such enormous power by using both legal and illegal (hard to prove though in some cases) methods. Simple question, why is it that when you buy a computer from Dell, Gateway, or some of the other major brands that you can not get the system without a Microsoft operating system? Need I say more to show monopolistic dominance? No, they are not a 100% complete monopoly, but their control of the market of consumer operating systems is far too great to be considdered anything else but a monopoly.
"Wasted money can't be invested. Investment benefits everybody, by increasing opportunity. Investment in infrastructure is the reason you have a roof over your head instead of a cave. The theories of the anti-corp types would see all success dragged low, deliberate waste foisted upon the productive in the name of "fairness", and the result would be economic ruin. As it always has been in any country or group that embraced envy as a moral."
Did you learn economics from small phrases you heard on the side of cereal boxes? What are these theories of anti-corporate types? Problem is, no person can say for certain what any other system than the one we have now would produce. One thing is certain though, our current system is neither perfect nor sustainable for too much longer. We will see many consequences in the future to come as the system we now have in place begins to show its really ugly side. Envy? Do you REALLY believe that is the reason people are attacking Microsoft? You simplified this entire thing down to envy? So do we all envy Enron or SCO? Do we envy Martha Stewart? Is that why she is in court right now, fighting all the people envious of her?
Let us ask you, do YOU know any artists? How many? Now, how much of the propaganda from the RIAA do you believe? Most artists don't make a lot of their money from CD sales. These same artists are not generally the ones that are downloaded most often. The less known an artist is, the less downloads of music by that artist there will be. How much of the profit of CD sales do those artists that do receive money from CD sales receive? Not much. Technology advances and we make cuts. Music is not expensive as it used to be to record. Yes, some studios use really expensive equipment and cost a lot to record at. This is the high end of the spectrum. It is now cheap to record. Also, artists have a larger audience market because of the net and such and a really cheap distribution method, the net. RIAA and those between the customer and artist doing the recording, major paper work, suing kids for sharing, etc. are the major problem. Instead of realizing this sooner, the industry ignored these facts and instead pushed their old model based on pre-internet times. This creates problems. Their late response to the market is costing them and they are fighting brutally to the point of suing many individuals. It all also comes down to control. As technology helps toward a more equal society where the rich aren't so far from the poor, the wealthy use their control to fight this natural tendency. You also drew a back comparison between artists and programmers.
It is simply your opinion that violent videos desensitize people. There is no proof that this is true. No correlation exists. There is a wide held belief among certain people that violence in TV/Movies/etc. cause violence, but it isn't true. There are so many other factors that have a far greater influence on creating violence, that the connection, if there is one, between violent media and violent behavior would be too small to make a difference when taking into account all other factors combined. Look at all the wars fought on religios grounds. I don't conclude that religion induces violent behavior.
"Unions exist to distort the market, enrich the union bosses, violate property rights, and extort by means of threats of violence and murder."
Is that really what unions are for? Can we please stop with the blatent lies. True, there has been some corruption in unions. I will not deny this, but to outright say that all unions serve this purpose is very ignorant. Unions have a purpose. See, the problem is that companies have a specific purpose, and that is profit. Workers as individuals have a hard time fighting against these large companies all by themselves and so they created unions to help fight for them. The system is not perfect and problems do exist. One solution I had in mind was to force open more financial records of companies to disclose where the money is going. Why should certain people with more authority in a company be paid many more times than the average worker? I understand an increase in pay for certain positions, but when CEO's and various other figures of authority in a company are making millions a year, then something needs to be done. Receiving bonuses for cutting the pay of their workforce does not sound reasonable. Yes, some unions are corrupt, but so are some companies. Unfortunately, how do you put into effect such laws when they would directly threaten the wealthy in both unions and companies? The working class needs to work together to institute such a change by putting a lot of pressure on those that have the authority to make these changes.
Also, to add to Mr Piddles comments. I went to Devry for just over a year (bad school btw) and I can assure you that most of those going there for various technology related degrees did little to no additional learning outside of their normal schoolwork. In fact, I don't remember more than maybe a few people in the entire school that even knew what Linux was (fortunately there were a few classes that went over Linux a little and only then did they learn some small facts about it). Now Devry isn't all schools, but it definitely pulls through a pretty substantial amount of students and there are plenty more schools like it. One can't really blame the students nor the schools, there are many factors that all contribute to these problems. Still, as a student studying a particular subject, one should be expected to spend some free time learning more than what is asked of them.
I don't believe the article to be true simply because it says so, but by all the reading I've done, everything I've experienced, and all those I've talked to, I know what I say is true. I don't claim any numbers or specific details beyond those I know, but I do know that the amount of students that do not spend extra time learning is substantial.
Another thing. You may know quite a few business people that do not fit the description I have put forth, but what about those you do not know. There are many businesses and government sectors where the ones making the decisions are far behind being up-to-date on technology. For large companies like Microsoft, they are an easy target. Microsoft has plenty of sales people to push their products. What Linux related company (until recently) had the resources to push their products like the giants do? Also, stating that "the article is most likely WRONG." Is wrong to begin with. Well, let us say it is wrong. What is wrong? The entire thing? Is it a fabricated lie? I assume that everything stated is not fabricated. It is simply one point of view. It is difficult to write an article and cover ALL points precisely. It is none-the-less an article which at least gives just a little more insight into the problems the IT industry (and many others actually) face. So those who didn't know it before, now are a little more educated.
"Want to know why most business analysts and venture capitalists simply don't get it with respect to Unix? Take a look at the computer books they study while working toward their MBA, financial analysis certificate or accounting designation, and you'll understand that their ignorance isn't entirely their fault."
This is the first paragraph of the article. Now think about this. Basically what it says is that whatever the system (in this case educational institutions) feed them, that is what they believe. It is very sad to see that many professionals in fact do not spend the time to learn about their field outside of what is fed to them in the classroom. Their educational diet is pretty bad. If one really wants to know everything one can about a particular field, then one should take the time to read that which lies outside of the institution where they are learning it. Btw, this also shows how corporations are integrated with the education system. Never trust just one source for all your facts.
True, it isn't entirely the fault of the student, but what do we do about it? One idea comes to mind, find more sources for information besides just a book your school was encouraged to buy.
There is hope though. Linux is one very powerful example of how the internet has changed the way we find information and work together on common goals.
I believe I had a similar idea as well. Didn't really put much thought into it though, and I would have probably used a gerbil or mouse. Thanks for the info though, just incase I really do get the urge to make a living place for a future rodent. Now that I think about it, why not make a huge network of space for a rodent to move about. One could use many clear tubes moving from place to place around a room with a few large places such as a computer case or tank on top of a dresser or even another compartment on a shelf. As long as the right materials are used, and all scenarios are thought through, then it shouldn't be too much trouble. I would love to see how a few mice would live in such an environment.
That first statement just shines of intelligence.
Legacy eh? So if it is HIS legacy, why would it be up to his estate to deal with HIS legacy? So she sees what in his legacy? Is it the financial aspect? or is it for continuing his legacy? How will the act of making it harder for others to continue his legacy (in a way) be good for anyone besides her and her lawyers monetarily? There is already abuse. The second one believes that they have a right to have complete control over a work that is in the minds of others and acts on his impulse to control is abuse.
I can only agree to one thing, and that is preventing lies. If someone is going around claiming authorship to a work by another or not giving credit where it is due, then it is completely undestandable when one brings the law down upon them.
Actually I believe number 7 should be Microsoft. Although actually the entire proprietary software industry could be all grouped into number 7. There is still a widely held belief that software is as much a product as the toothbrush you buy at the supermarket. Software on the other hand is NOT like a product we are used to. It is more a service than anything.
If a company wants a good IT department they will listen less to large companies like Microsoft and more to their IT staff, clients, engineers, educational institutions, and various employees throughout their own company. Why listen to a company that wants to take money away from your IT staff and your company to produce products that are made to work for ALL their clients? I pick on Microsoft for one main reason, they shattered the idea of what software really is. Treat software like just another process in a company, not a product that your company uses. This is an idea I bet Microsoft fears the most. Open source carries this idea, and therefore open source software is also their enemy. Another problem is only the educated really understand what open source software means. Microsofts strategy is now to reshape the idea of open source to the masses and the corporate world in their favor. In the end, its about control. One of the largest barriers to open source software is therefore Microsoft (and others, SCO etc.).
The question is then, did he do it twice to two camera's? How can he take pictures of modifications to his camera with the camera he is supposedly taking pictures of?
"My rule of thumb is that the jocks mature early, the nerds mature late."
Define mature! Physically mature, ethically mature, socially mature, financially mature, etc? Sure, there is a general definition we have for mature, which even then varies on who you ask. I'm sorry, but this statement means nothing to me. Simply put, there are people out there that are more interested in tinkering with things than others. These people are commonly less social, but that only makes sense since they spend less time socializing. This doesn't mean they are less mature, or then again by your definition, which we know not, maybe yes. Don't treat nerds as a seperate group of people. Label whomever you wish and your more likely to be immature when it comes to understanding people. Most people are, so I don't really blame you. Stereotyping is reinforced by certain aspects of our society.
"A nerd invests hugely in a technical subject and should, with time, be able to leverage that into a high value career. So it's quite normal that many men who were totally nerdy in their teens and twenties become relaxed, charming, social, and wealthy as they get older and more succesful."
It can and does happen, but for the most part being a "jock", "nerd", or other stereotypical label is only one small part of the equation when it comes to financial success or even becoming a better social person. It is apparent most teens are different, but by the time they reach their twenties they change. Labels only work when people wish to be a part of a particular group and so they tend to be someone they are not by making slight changes that fit that label.
What you said has some truth to it, but only if I see it that way. So some will disagree with what you said, some will agree, and some like me, will disect it, analyze it, think about it, interpret it, apply it, and/or talk/write about it.
I would label your comments as interesting, but to some people unfortunately, they would interpret every word literally and make it out as truth or lie. Do people see in grey anymore?
"You, sir, are a genius. I salute you! And you know why!"
Because his name is CaptBubba and he's going to be giving it to the domain redirecter guy?
Your right. Storing *some* data about a real bill wouldn't be a problem. I didn't really think that one through. I did imagine some sort of pattern recognition though. Everything seems to come down to that type of method.
"Officials with the RCMP and the Bank of Canada refuse to identify or discuss the technology because they don't want to tip off would-be counterfeiters about ways of thwarting the system."
This won't prevent professional criminals from counterfeiting. At least they stated it correctly by saying "would-be counterfeiters". Still, someone with enough ambition and the resources and/or knowledge will still find a way. I'm simply stating the obvious here though.
I am curious though as to how the software prevents counterfeiting. I thought maybe one possibility was comparing a picture with data of an actual bill, but that would mean having data in the software that contained information of the real bill which presents a problem. If anyone has any ideas or information, please share.
Personally, I see major shifts in this area within the next few decades. Improved bills? Increase in amount of counterfeiting equipment? Some sort of digital verification system? Just some ideas.
Also, what about open source software?
"Let the big boys waste their time and money on copyrights and patents. When they control too much, everyone else will ignore them, just as they do with Kazaa, just as they do with this album. These big boys will go the way of all dinosaurs."
Well, it is our time and money. Not all of our time and money though. Think about it. We work (time) and spend our money to buy products from companies, whether it be music or just a cheeseburger. They in turn use some of that money to advertise which is using our time. They control a lot of it because they have the money to do it. When is too much control too much? If they see something not working, then they will spend more money on marketing. Most people don't have the time nor money to find alternatives or find out where the money is going. Even more so, they spend their time watching the media which is in a way controllled by them, because THEY pay for advertising with the money WE pay them. The "big boys" rarely ever die easily. They fight to stay in control. RIAA was finally losing out because of not changing fast enough, so what do they do, iTunes and others. The "big boys" are still in business. Sometimes it isn't so cut and clear and some few do fail eventually, but they all fight to the end using OUR time and OUR money. Do we deserve it because we don't know any better and only watch and listen to the major media? Or should we finally start watching the money and finally decide where it SHOULD go, to support those that bring us what we want, not those that simply control it?
These natural corrections you speak of take time, and in that time we pay for all of the problems. Why not correct the problems as soon as they arise? Why sit back and let others control and profit from these problems? The "big boys" in the RIAA understand these natural corrections (or maybe they don't, but that doesn't matter). They do what they can to stop it, slow it, or make it work for them. Welcome to profit for the wealthy RIAA. With the internet and all of the recording tech we have that makes it both easy and cheap, we could undermine them and finally get music straight, cheap, original, artistic, and pay the artists what they deserve.
"In fact, the projects that truly move at a glacial pace tend to be the free software projects. Sourceforge is full of these projects, gasping for attention, despite disclosing full source code. In the commercial world, when you throw money at a problem, code gets written from scratch pretty quickly."
First sentence, completely garbage. Neither true nor false. It all depends on the software. Second, you want software to be built extremely fast no matter how buggy, inefficient, or unorganized it is? Yes, MANY open sourced projects exist that have little to no audience. Now ask yourself this, what open source projects do have a large audience? The popular, important, and most used ones. These are developed at an alarming rate and with all the advantages. You can throw money at anything, but that doesn't always produce best results. Why would you want to throw a ton of money at a project that will have a small user base and/or little importance? Linux, GNOME/KDE, XFree, OpenOffice, Mozilla, Apache, Samba, and many more are arguably the strongest competition closed source projects have ever encountered. "Glacial" speed eh? Have you looked at the add-ons available for Mozilla lately? More features than any other browser. Sure, most are still in the infant stage, but in time the stronger ones win. How much money do you think Microsoft would have to throw at IE to produce as much output as the Mozilla project and sub-projects have produced? By your comments I strongly believe you know very little when it comes to education and progress. Although some of your facts do have some truth to them, your conclusions based on them just don't fit well.
Stop it already. Viol8, your arguments are pointless.
" XML is:
A) More bloated than a binary format
B) Harder to parse & hence less efficient that a binary format
C) Much easier to casually snoop on
Face it , XML is flavour of the month and trendy , it has zero advantages over formats."
This is what you said at first, LET US DISECT.
A, yes true, but does it really matter? As others have stated, you don't ALWAYS need to have extremely small, efficient, fast, etc. code/programs/information/etc.
In the case of this protocol, your argument means NOTHING. There is a reason they did it this way. If you don't understand the reasons, then shut up and listen. Try and understand it before you make one liner remarks that help us in no way. Anyone that knows about XMPP already knows it is bloated, but for a REASON. Those that don't need to know why, not a simple yes or no. It is a grey world, NOT BLACK AND WHITE.
B. Harder? Ok, great job. Define harder. Again, there are reasons why XML was used. Efficiency? Again, WHY? Sure, other methods are more efficient, but they have major cons due to that as well. Your comparing apples to oranges.
C. You have just proved you know little on this subject. It would be just as easy to snoop on XMPP as it would be on any other plain text protocol. That is why encryption is there to save the day. Why else has AOL been working on putting encryption into AIM?
In conclusion, please stop with the flame wars. If you have nothing beneficial to say or even funny, then just don't.
"Gaim allows you to connect to all the services that Trillian supports (except possibly IRC)..."
Actually Gaim supports IRC as well. Or did you mean that Trillian does not support IRC? In that case, you should work on your grammar.
"...(because once people are using XMPP and Gaim/Trillian, they don't really need AIM or Yahoo! servers to communicate."
Hold on. To communicate with other AOL AIM users, you MUST connect to their servers. Most AOL AIM users do not use Gaim or Trillian. Also, if they did, it does not necessarily mean they use XMPP. So most users only connection to their Yahoo/AOL AIM/MSN/ICQ/etc. friends, is thru the servers running these protocols.
On the other hand. If the community can work together and distribute the load of IM users and share account info across the servers and also make account creation in Gaim, Trillian, and other clients painless, well, you got yourself a new IM net. It would be great if IM was similar to email (without the spam)...I'm going off thinking again, sorry. Anyway, basically what I'm saying is that the current state of IM clients will not make any near future migration to XMPP any quicker.