"Having the public watch the cams and call in accidents as soon as they happen could be a *very* good thing. But the problem is that you'd need someone to police the people viewing the cams to make sure that if they acted on what they saw (or think they saw) that it was a real and legitimate problem."
I don't think that web cams would add much to informing authorities about accidents since so many people have mobile phones. It migt aid in determining how bad an accident is though. Also, determining legitimate information can be based on how many times the same information was provided by different sources.
I thought about that, but then I figured it would be insane. We would be supplying them with our email addresses. I get spam, but I don't get that much. A move like this would surely increase the spam in my box.
It claims they will run about $200. That is very cheap considering some of the best batteries we have now cost just about the same. Fuels cells have also looked to be rather expensive everywhere I've seen them. Check out http://wwww.fuelcellstore.com for example. Why are these fuel cells on places like fuelcellstore.com so expensive and the ones they plan on putting out as laptop power devices fairly cheap? I understand that economics has partly to do with it since the laptop fuel cells will be sold in much larger quantities. I still wonder and would love to hear someone who knows anything about this.
Why are they only delaying things? It is obvious most people do not accept software patents. This is coming from software programmers and economists. For the sake of humanity and the economy, why don't those politicians listen to those that are involved in the process of software and not those that simply make a business from it? I understand things are a bit more complicated, but I'm really getting tired of hearing politicians being constantly swaying by big businesses. I'm glad I did my part in this (even though I don't live in Europe), I sent my email/letter using all the available online services that are fighting against these softare patents.
"...DeCSS is used for ripping dvd's to vcd's and divx. We can keep living in la la land and pretend that DeCSS is perfectly ledgitimate, but it really isn't."
Sigh. Don't trust everything you read. First of all, ripping DVD's existed before DeCSS. Second, DeCSS DOES have legitimate uses. Yes, in many cases DeCSS (and related) is used to rip DVD's and encode them in different formats, but what does this mean? Progress. Is it against the law? Yes, but is this law moral, good for the economy, good for artists, and good for the people in general? I say not. Rather than believing someone else, whether it be the media, the politicians, the corporatations, or even me, do some of your own analysis. BTW, here is a google cache link to a site about DeCSS you should check out: http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:GWL6LVZ 2EiYJ: www.linux.gr/DeCSS/decss.html+DeCSS+Linux+player+r eason&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
I'm not disagreeing with anything either you or the parent poster said, but your comment was just plain rude. I hope you take it easy next time you post, even if the person really is a complete knuckle head.
"I hire on experience first, denonstratable skills second and education dead last."
Experience will get the job done fast, but will it be done better? One that understands the subject will probably get it done where the code is clean, essy to read, easy to modify, and easy to maintain. What is experience? Isn't that just another form of education? So are skills. It is what they know and understand that counts. So it all comes down to weighing their education. Your opinion may be that experience is a better form of education. Personally, I think it all depends on the job, what kind of experience one has, and what kind of education one has. Each person is different when it comes to learning as well.
That is all about DRM and related technologies and they are already working on it. Problem is, well, I'll be writing for atleast 10 minutes explaining the problems. So I suggest you do a search for "DRM problem" or something like that.
Monopolies don't ring a bell? How about the great idea monopolies they call patents? How about the anti-competitive practices by businesses to maintain dominance? How about the little guy that complains about a bug or missing feature and the company won't do anything about it because it cuts into their bottom line? What about companies attempting to lock their customer into their software? What about proprietary formats? Should I go on?
How is his presentation wrong? Have you read any of his material, listened to his speeches (or read them), or even considered the possibilities of a world where there is no such thing as proprietary software? The reason he gets "heckled" is because people fail to understand him. Same reason many other "crusaders" of the past were "heckled". Think about those that are threatened by what RMS says. Who are those people? RMS does not threaten the IT field, developers, users, software, or even companies (some, yes). On the other hand, his ideas would change IT into an almost entirely service based industry. Anyway, I've already said enough. Any questions or comments? I don't mind discussing this further if you want to.
I do know the difference between "your" and "you're". I just happened to be typing it really fast because I had to leave and I wasn't paying attention to writing mistakes. Thanks for pointing it out, but no thanks for telling me to "learn" the difference. Yes, you could continue using it, but that is not the point I was conveying. I'll just stop with that, since I don't believe I can make it any clearer, but if you would like I will try.
Comment about your first paragraph: Microsoft does the same thing.
"How can you promote "free software" when you don't promote the "freedom to choose"."
Thus the reason of supporting only free software, since non-free software limits your choices (especially future ones). Sure, you have the freedom to choose your proprietary software, but after that? You can't change proprietary software can you? (rare exceptions) There are many other limiting factors with proprietary software, which is why he is doing his best to stay away and stop others as well. Would you support a car company that sold you a car with no access to the engine, brakes, etc and discouraged any car "hacking"?
Looks as if you have problems understanding ethics and/or philosophy. That is ok, you keep on Lightwaving and leave ethics and philosophy to those understand it. This might help: your thinking may be free within a system, but your still bounded by that system.
You may view your thinking within Lightwave as free, but only as far as Lightwave will allow you to go. You own the Lightwave software, but who controls the Lightwave software? Beyond what has been built into the software, you have no control. So now your used to the Lightwave program, price goes up, what do you do? Go find another proprietary software package or pay up? Either way, your options have been limited severly. You may never understand RMS, but don't criticize one who fights to break down barriers for all of us.
Why hasn't he emailed those running the campaign and ask them if they are working with eScriptions.net and if they are, if they know about the spam?
First things first, ask the accused. If they admit to it, then you don't have to waste all the time on researching it. If any other answer, then the research could be done to verify the answer.
"Furthermore if Linux holds 20% you're going to have compatibility problems up the wazoo(sp?) The reason everyone uses Microsoft products is because it works[sic] so well together."
Ever tried the Knoppix Linux CD? Compatibility is no problem for Linux most of the time. I don't know this as a fact, but it seems as if Linux is gaining support (hardware, vendor, corporate, programmer, user) faster than any other OS ever has. Factor this with open source and well, you know the story.
MS's developers + company developers + the small amount of home developers VS Linux developers + growing amount of company developers + large amount of open source home developers. The equation is slowly but surely tilting to Linux. Windows currently has the advantage of a large base of commercial support, but this same support is also beginning to support Linux as well.
"...but the wording of the system and program messages could use some more clarity."
I used to say the same thing about Windows back in the day. Especially all those errors that simply gave you some akward number (or error code). I remember not even knowing which program had the error or if it was the OS. I agree though, system messages almost always need more clarity.
"The patent system has driven R&D in the United States for more than two hundred years."
Patents have done little to nothing to drive R&D, but have done a lot to drive the process of R&D into one of legal battle. People have invented as far back as we know. The patent system has only created a system to monopolize ideas. Your statement is false. If you really believe in this patent system, you have not done enough reading on this subject.
I highly recommend you read "Owning the Future" by Seth Shulman. That is just one small piece of the patent problem pie.
That has to be the saddest attempt at making a competing product. It uses nothing besides some gears to move around obstacles (no circuitry), uses wipes to clean floor (which don't work well according to website author, says it barely picks up dirt and it only does on the front of wipe), moves slowly, and obviously can't clean anything besides smooth surfaces. Is there a lamest products ever list? This really deserves it.
Unfortunately, this is all to support the old business models. The internet is a major change that companies see as both an oppurtunity and a risk. The risk is that it is has the potential of creating a much more competitive environment. Not just a mere increase in businesses that compete, but an entire transformation of business as we know it. The internet is not like other mediums where one can control it and feed whatever they want to a consumer. These large corporations are trying to save themselves by attempting to remove the risk of the internet, but keep the opportunity. This means that implementing DRM type technologies that give them more control over the distribution of content, ideas, services, and various other information would allow them to keep to their old business models and hinder the progress of change that the internet could have provided. This is not a conspiracy (sort of), but a fact that people do not want such a change. It isn't just the executives that resist the change, but people at all levels. Imagine how the investors feel about this change. For example, the reason why capitalism works better than previous forms of government, is that change is easier. Other forms of government had strict rules/laws that caused any change to be criticized by atleast some people (can't satisfy everyone) so it wasn't put into effect unless those with power and wealth(which usually have better ability to resist change (besides a mass population)) agreed to it.
Another reaon that Gazbo forgot to mention is that there are many different Linux installations. Many factors make it harder for someone to gain access to a majority of servers running Linux. An exploit may target one version of one specific server application that is implemented in one certain way on one specific kernel. Did you catch all the factors? Kernel version (another bonus: kernel compiled with different options), distro (or custom), implementation of the OS can be different, different applications, different versions of applications, various software surrounding all these other applications (such as security apps), and many more. Using proprietary software your very limited. If an exploit is found for Windows 2000 SE (or some other version) then there will a large number of servers that have this specific version with no modifications. There isn't much you can modify on a proprietary OS or software. Yes, many factors still exist on proprietary installations as well, but much much fewer.
"Says who? In any case, how an artist wants to make money is a matter for that artist, and no one else."
What is this supposed to mean? It proves nothing. The question is still on whether preventing copying should be enforced. It is a question of law that was meant to promote art. Does prevntion of "piracy" (as they call it, but is not the same since it is not physical) help promote progress in art? Do some research yourself, and don't let the RIAA (which profits from limiting and pricing as they choose, an intangible good) tell you otherwise.
"You want someone to be a fullt-time entertainer and fly their own planes, do their own accounting, arrange their own bookings, run their own payroll, act as their own lawyers, write their own contracts, prepare their own taxes, etc.?? Without middlemen, those bands you keep referring to as "artists" would never break out of the college bar circuits."
Do they need their own planes? How to fly them? Do they need to do their own accounting? Why can't those that run events hire artists to play at their next event? Do the artists need an accountant for that? No, they simply make a deal with the event organizers. They play where they want when they want. If they are popular, more bars/event organizers/radio stations/concert organizers/tour organizers/etc. will seek their service. Why do copyrights and lawyers have to be involved besides finding a way to fund the recording industry? I like many see the recording industry as a marketing medium. Make CD's to sell at concerts for a dollar (without restrictions) to promote the artists. Allow radio stations to play music to promote artists. Distribute music online for promotion. Have websites and radio stations rank what is most popular and present some of the newer artists. Why do companies need to have so much control over our culture? Music is part of our culture. Why should music be treated so often as a product and not a service? Why should lawyers be involved in every part of our life? The current system of paying artists to play at concerts/tours/events/etc. is not the only way to do it. Middlemen can be cut out easily. Especially since they were placed there by an artificial system created by business tycoons a long time ago.
"In general, just one more immature post trying to dress simple greed in bogus moralistic rationalizations."
Who is the dresser? The industry calling copyright infringement (a law, not one based on ethics but economy) stealing or piracy? or is the dresser the people trying to take back their culture of sharing traditions/music/culture/etc.? Owning culture is not unethical? but trying to share it is?
"("We will maintain your privacy for a small $500 processing fee"). "
No company, organization, government agency, or any other entity would get away with this. By stating something like this, they would open themselves up to an easy lawsuit.
Want good price and small size. Check out the Fujitsu P2000 series. Starting at around $1300. http://www.fujitsupc.com/
Few quick specs: Transmeta 933mhz Crusoe 10.6" Widescreen SXGA 256 RAM, up to 384 DVD/CD-RW drive Mobility Radeon 2.8-3.4 lbs optional built in wireless as well
Too small for me though, so I bought the S2000 with the AMD proc.
Slashdot Mirror
"Having the public watch the cams and call in accidents as soon as they happen could be a *very* good thing. But the problem is that you'd need someone to police the people viewing the cams to make sure that if they acted on what they saw (or think they saw) that it was a real and legitimate problem."
I don't think that web cams would add much to informing authorities about accidents since so many people have mobile phones. It migt aid in determining how bad an accident is though. Also, determining legitimate information can be based on how many times the same information was provided by different sources.
I thought about that, but then I figured it would be insane. We would be supplying them with our email addresses. I get spam, but I don't get that much. A move like this would surely increase the spam in my box.
It claims they will run about $200. That is very cheap considering some of the best batteries we have now cost just about the same. Fuels cells have also looked to be rather expensive everywhere I've seen them. Check out http://wwww.fuelcellstore.com for example. Why are these fuel cells on places like fuelcellstore.com so expensive and the ones they plan on putting out as laptop power devices fairly cheap? I understand that economics has partly to do with it since the laptop fuel cells will be sold in much larger quantities. I still wonder and would love to hear someone who knows anything about this.
Why are they only delaying things? It is obvious most people do not accept software patents. This is coming from software programmers and economists. For the sake of humanity and the economy, why don't those politicians listen to those that are involved in the process of software and not those that simply make a business from it? I understand things are a bit more complicated, but I'm really getting tired of hearing politicians being constantly swaying by big businesses. I'm glad I did my part in this (even though I don't live in Europe), I sent my email/letter using all the available online services that are fighting against these softare patents.
Anyone else notice the poll on eweek?
"Is Linux right that SCO is "smoking crack"?
Yes
No
"
So far 97% say yes.
"...DeCSS is used for ripping dvd's to vcd's and divx. We can keep living in la la land and pretend that DeCSS is perfectly ledgitimate, but it really isn't."
Z 2EiYJ: www.linux.gr/DeCSS/decss.html+DeCSS+Linux+player+r eason&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Sigh. Don't trust everything you read. First of all, ripping DVD's existed before DeCSS. Second, DeCSS DOES have legitimate uses. Yes, in many cases DeCSS (and related) is used to rip DVD's and encode them in different formats, but what does this mean? Progress. Is it against the law? Yes, but is this law moral, good for the economy, good for artists, and good for the people in general? I say not. Rather than believing someone else, whether it be the media, the politicians, the corporatations, or even me, do some of your own analysis. BTW, here is a google cache link to a site about DeCSS you should check out:
http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:GWL6LV
I'm not disagreeing with anything either you or the parent poster said, but your comment was just plain rude. I hope you take it easy next time you post, even if the person really is a complete knuckle head.
Can you explain the burning of natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico? I never heard of it before; sounds interesting.
"I hire on experience first, denonstratable skills second and education dead last."
Experience will get the job done fast, but will it be done better? One that understands the subject will probably get it done where the code is clean, essy to read, easy to modify, and easy to maintain. What is experience? Isn't that just another form of education? So are skills. It is what they know and understand that counts. So it all comes down to weighing their education. Your opinion may be that experience is a better form of education. Personally, I think it all depends on the job, what kind of experience one has, and what kind of education one has. Each person is different when it comes to learning as well.
That is all about DRM and related technologies and they are already working on it. Problem is, well, I'll be writing for atleast 10 minutes explaining the problems. So I suggest you do a search for "DRM problem" or something like that.
Monopolies don't ring a bell? How about the great idea monopolies they call patents? How about the anti-competitive practices by businesses to maintain dominance? How about the little guy that complains about a bug or missing feature and the company won't do anything about it because it cuts into their bottom line? What about companies attempting to lock their customer into their software? What about proprietary formats? Should I go on?
How is his presentation wrong? Have you read any of his material, listened to his speeches (or read them), or even considered the possibilities of a world where there is no such thing as proprietary software? The reason he gets "heckled" is because people fail to understand him. Same reason many other "crusaders" of the past were "heckled". Think about those that are threatened by what RMS says. Who are those people? RMS does not threaten the IT field, developers, users, software, or even companies (some, yes). On the other hand, his ideas would change IT into an almost entirely service based industry. Anyway, I've already said enough. Any questions or comments? I don't mind discussing this further if you want to.
I do know the difference between "your" and "you're". I just happened to be typing it really fast because I had to leave and I wasn't paying attention to writing mistakes. Thanks for pointing it out, but no thanks for telling me to "learn" the difference.
Yes, you could continue using it, but that is not the point I was conveying. I'll just stop with that, since I don't believe I can make it any clearer, but if you would like I will try.
Comment about your first paragraph: Microsoft does the same thing.
"How can you promote "free software" when you don't promote the "freedom to choose"."
Thus the reason of supporting only free software, since non-free software limits your choices (especially future ones).
Sure, you have the freedom to choose your proprietary software, but after that? You can't change proprietary software can you? (rare exceptions) There are many other limiting factors with proprietary software, which is why he is doing his best to stay away and stop others as well. Would you support a car company that sold you a car with no access to the engine, brakes, etc and discouraged any car "hacking"?
Looks as if you have problems understanding ethics and/or philosophy. That is ok, you keep on Lightwaving and leave ethics and philosophy to those understand it.
This might help: your thinking may be free within a system, but your still bounded by that system.
You may view your thinking within Lightwave as free, but only as far as Lightwave will allow you to go. You own the Lightwave software, but who controls the Lightwave software? Beyond what has been built into the software, you have no control. So now your used to the Lightwave program, price goes up, what do you do? Go find another proprietary software package or pay up? Either way, your options have been limited severly. You may never understand RMS, but don't criticize one who fights to break down barriers for all of us.
Why hasn't he emailed those running the campaign and ask them if they are working with eScriptions.net and if they are, if they know about the spam?
First things first, ask the accused. If they admit to it, then you don't have to waste all the time on researching it. If any other answer, then the research could be done to verify the answer.
"Furthermore if Linux holds 20% you're going to have compatibility problems up the wazoo(sp?) The reason everyone uses Microsoft products is because it works[sic] so well together."
Ever tried the Knoppix Linux CD? Compatibility is no problem for Linux most of the time. I don't know this as a fact, but it seems as if Linux is gaining support (hardware, vendor, corporate, programmer, user) faster than any other OS ever has. Factor this with open source and well, you know the story.
MS's developers + company developers + the small amount of home developers VS Linux developers + growing amount of company developers + large amount of open source home developers. The equation is slowly but surely tilting to Linux. Windows currently has the advantage of a large base of commercial support, but this same support is also beginning to support Linux as well.
"...but the wording of the system and program messages could use some more clarity."
I used to say the same thing about Windows back in the day. Especially all those errors that simply gave you some akward number (or error code). I remember not even knowing which program had the error or if it was the OS. I agree though, system messages almost always need more clarity.
"The patent system has driven R&D in the United States for more than two hundred years."
Patents have done little to nothing to drive R&D, but have done a lot to drive the process of R&D into one of legal battle. People have invented as far back as we know. The patent system has only created a system to monopolize ideas. Your statement is false. If you really believe in this patent system, you have not done enough reading on this subject.
I highly recommend you read "Owning the Future" by Seth Shulman.
That is just one small piece of the patent problem pie.
That has to be the saddest attempt at making a competing product. It uses nothing besides some gears to move around obstacles (no circuitry), uses wipes to clean floor (which don't work well according to website author, says it barely picks up dirt and it only does on the front of wipe), moves slowly, and obviously can't clean anything besides smooth surfaces. Is there a lamest products ever list? This really deserves it.
Unfortunately, this is all to support the old business models. The internet is a major change that companies see as both an oppurtunity and a risk. The risk is that it is has the potential of creating a much more competitive environment. Not just a mere increase in businesses that compete, but an entire transformation of business as we know it. The internet is not like other mediums where one can control it and feed whatever they want to a consumer. These large corporations are trying to save themselves by attempting to remove the risk of the internet, but keep the opportunity. This means that implementing DRM type technologies that give them more control over the distribution of content, ideas, services, and various other information would allow them to keep to their old business models and hinder the progress of change that the internet could have provided. This is not a conspiracy (sort of), but a fact that people do not want such a change. It isn't just the executives that resist the change, but people at all levels. Imagine how the investors feel about this change. For example, the reason why capitalism works better than previous forms of government, is that change is easier. Other forms of government had strict rules/laws that caused any change to be criticized by atleast some people (can't satisfy everyone) so it wasn't put into effect unless those with power and wealth(which usually have better ability to resist change (besides a mass population)) agreed to it.
Since they do read slashdot, then where are the IAAL acronyms?
Another reaon that Gazbo forgot to mention is that there are many different Linux installations. Many factors make it harder for someone to gain access to a majority of servers running Linux. An exploit may target one version of one specific server application that is implemented in one certain way on one specific kernel. Did you catch all the factors? Kernel version (another bonus: kernel compiled with different options), distro (or custom), implementation of the OS can be different, different applications, different versions of applications, various software surrounding all these other applications (such as security apps), and many more. Using proprietary software your very limited. If an exploit is found for Windows 2000 SE (or some other version) then there will a large number of servers that have this specific version with no modifications. There isn't much you can modify on a proprietary OS or software. Yes, many factors still exist on proprietary installations as well, but much much fewer.
"Says who? In any case, how an artist wants to make money is a matter for that artist, and no one else."
What is this supposed to mean? It proves nothing. The question is still on whether preventing copying should be enforced. It is a question of law that was meant to promote art. Does prevntion of "piracy" (as they call it, but is not the same since it is not physical) help promote progress in art? Do some research yourself, and don't let the RIAA (which profits from limiting and pricing as they choose, an intangible good) tell you otherwise.
"You want someone to be a fullt-time entertainer and fly their own planes, do their own accounting, arrange their own bookings, run their own payroll, act as their own lawyers, write their own contracts, prepare their own taxes, etc.?? Without middlemen, those bands you keep referring to as "artists" would never break out of the college bar circuits."
Do they need their own planes? How to fly them? Do they need to do their own accounting? Why can't those that run events hire artists to play at their next event? Do the artists need an accountant for that? No, they simply make a deal with the event organizers. They play where they want when they want. If they are popular, more bars/event organizers/radio stations/concert organizers/tour organizers/etc. will seek their service. Why do copyrights and lawyers have to be involved besides finding a way to fund the recording industry? I like many see the recording industry as a marketing medium. Make CD's to sell at concerts for a dollar (without restrictions) to promote the artists. Allow radio stations to play music to promote artists. Distribute music online for promotion. Have websites and radio stations rank what is most popular and present some of the newer artists. Why do companies need to have so much control over our culture? Music is part of our culture. Why should music be treated so often as a product and not a service? Why should lawyers be involved in every part of our life?
The current system of paying artists to play at concerts/tours/events/etc. is not the only way to do it. Middlemen can be cut out easily. Especially since they were placed there by an artificial system created by business tycoons a long time ago.
"In general, just one more immature post trying to dress simple greed in bogus moralistic rationalizations."
Who is the dresser? The industry calling copyright infringement (a law, not one based on ethics but economy) stealing or piracy? or is the dresser the people trying to take back their culture of sharing traditions/music/culture/etc.? Owning culture is not unethical? but trying to share it is?
"("We will maintain your privacy for a small $500 processing fee"). "
No company, organization, government agency, or any other entity would get away with this. By stating something like this, they would open themselves up to an easy lawsuit.
Want good price and small size. Check out the Fujitsu P2000 series. Starting at around $1300. http://www.fujitsupc.com/
Few quick specs:
Transmeta 933mhz Crusoe
10.6" Widescreen SXGA
256 RAM, up to 384
DVD/CD-RW drive
Mobility Radeon
2.8-3.4 lbs
optional built in wireless as well
Too small for me though, so I bought the S2000 with the AMD proc.