Simple economics example: you sell organic products.
Ok.
You start with food, and do very well. Everyone loves your food and only your food. They stop buying food from anyone else, and all other food producers go out of business and get other jobs.
So... it's somehow my fault everyone loves my food and the other food producers can't compete? Ok, moving on...
So you make a rule. You can't buy food unless you buy hemlock too. Now you still have the option of not buying food - just like people have the option of not buying a new computer and subsequently not being able to do their jobs (and subsequently not eating...), but you don't have the option of buying just food. You *must* buy hemlock to get food, and that's where we have a problem. That is leveraging a monopoly
I'm going to assume by your analogy that you have a pretty negative opinion of Windows or MS by comparing it to hemlock, which makes your analogy inherently biased.
In any case, this is where your analogy starts falling apart. For it to be closer to this real-life scenario, you'd also have the option of buying just the food, but you must pay a fee to have the hemlock removed or replaced from your shopping cart. I buy the hemlock, and the hemlock growers give me a bulk discount, so I have to get rid of the stock.
However, only about 0.05% of my customers complain about the hemlock being bundled with their groceries and want Skittles instead; the other 99.95% seem to either be happy or not caring about it. The 0.05% of complaining customers don't really make a dent in the books, since the hemlock growers discount more than makes up for those 'lost' customers.
If instead of the hemlock you want Skittles, I have to charge you for the Skittles (I don't get the same bulk discount from the Skittles source), and for the cost of removing and storing or disposing of the hemlock. Of course, you can always grow your own organic food, or open your own market and have people come and buy food from you.
Ultimately, PC makers can't seem to make money on systems with Linux installed. It just doesn't seem like there is enough demand for it. MS provides incentives to manufacturers to pre-install their OS in new systems, so of course the PC makers will bundle it with their systems. MS and the PC makers are not telling you what you can and can't run after you buy it. You can always install something else afterwards.
If you mean go build my own PC with Windows XP, that hasn't been possible for months.
Uh what? You gotta be kidding, right?
Microsoft is the exclusive lawful supplier of Windows XP Home Edition licenses in the United States, and it declines to supply new copies of Windows XP to people who build their own PCs.
You might want to check Newegg then. You can buy as many lawful copies of Windows XP Home Edition for you to install on your own system for $90/each.
No, I won't pay a cent for something I don't plan to use. I very specifically don't want to reward in the slightest or appear in the usage statistics of something I don't want to touch with a 10 foot pole.
Then don't buy it, period. If you're so adamant about not touching Vista in any way/shape/form, and all manufacturers offer are systems with Vista pre-installed, then I guess you won't be purchasing a system then. That's the choice you have.
It doesn't make sense that I have to pay extra for the ability of using something older, which by all logic should be cheaper.
How is it illogical? It is not uncommon to find 'older' things to be more expensive than 'new' things for whatever reason. For example, original IBM Model M keyboards are quite pricey, even though they're *old*. You can get a Model M clone from a number of different places (cheap too), but it's not quite the same, so people will still pay a premium for the original Model M. There's dozens of other examples such as this one out there, just look for them.
I wasn't given enough choice, and yes, I will bitch about it until satisfied, because that's the only way things get done these days.
You were given the choice to buy it as is, pay extra to get it 'your way', or not buy it at all. I'd say there is ample room there to make a choice.
The manufacturers aren't doing me a favour by allowing me to buy their products. I'm doing them a favour by choosing their product and paying a price, and no, I'm not going to comply with arbitrary demands and act as if their offerings were gifts from heaven.
You're wrong when you think in terms of 'allowance'. Manufacturers are not allowing you to do anything; they make a product and offer it for sale, and it's your choice to buy it or not. If the product does not meet your needs, expectations, or ideology, you're free to buy a different product, not buy anything at all, or go build your own. Manufacturers are in business to make a profit, not to respond to every whiner's whim. That's what people seem to be forgetting.
When Sony advertises the PS3, it specifically states in the ad or the box whether that specific model will or not it will be able to play PS2 titles. If you want PS2 functionality, you either pay extra for a model that is backwards-compatible (*gasp*) or you will have to buy a PS2 as well.
When you buy Terminator 2, you're getting Terminator 2 and nothing else, unless you're buying a bundle that includes the previous version.
Likewise, when a person buys a PC with Vista, that's exactly what they're getting. If they want a PC with XP, they either pay extra for whatever reason the manufacturer seems to think it's valid, or they're free to go get their own copy and install it. No one is forcing you to buy it; you're free to decide not to buy it at all.
There are extra costs incurred by the PC manufacturer when they have to make changes to their 'assembly-line' model. It's no accident that you can get systems for dirt cheap these days, and this means they have to cut costs in any way possible, including limiting the number of steps during assembly, OS installation, etc. Having to make a change to this process results in extra costs, which obviously will be passed on to the consumer (duh). Whether these costs are justifiable or not doesn't matter; you either pay them, or you don't.
You don't want a PC with Vista? Fine, don't buy it. You want the PC but with XP? Fine, buy it with Vista and install it yourself, *or* pay the extra $50 or whatever and have them do it for you. You were given the choice, don't bitch about it.
What's with this entitlement attitude that's been creeping up allover the place? When will consumers understand that they're not entitled to anything other than what's specifically agreed to as part of the specific items or goods being sold?
I wonder if we should also be able to sue dumbasses like this lady for bringing frivolous lawsuits to the courts and taking up valuable time and tax dollars that could be better used for more relevant things, like going after actual criminals.
Most adjustable keyboard trays commonly found in office-type furniture will work fine with this keyboard, like this one or this one
The cheap, narrow kind of keyboard trays that you can find in the self-assembly desks (like this one) probably won't allow this keyboard to fit, but if you're concerned about RSI, chances are you don't have a cheap desk like the one in the pic.
At work I use a Microsoft Trackball Explorer which is probably one of the best trackball mice ever made, and are nearly impossible to find nowadays. I know a few people that use the Logitech Cordless Trackman Optical and love it, but it didn't feel confortable enough for my own use.
At home, I use a Logitech G9 mouse and a Ideazon Fang for gaming sessions, but for everything else I tend to just rely on keyboard shortcuts to navigate around my desktop.
I've been using a Kinesis Advantage keyboard for several years now and I have to say it's probably one of the best out there, specially if you have issues with RSI. I ended up getting two; one which I leave at home on my workstation, and one that I have at work.
Programmable, very good tactile feedback (almost as good as the Model M), can be switched to Dvorak, and their support staff is phenomenal. It will take you maybe a week or so to get accustomed to the key positions, but once you get the hang of it, you'll never go back.
If you're in the market for a good keyboard that will last you years, definitely have a look at these. They're a little pricey (about $300 or so, depending on the model), but they'll be the best money ever spent on a keyboard.
There are 4 drive slots located below the power supply towards the rear of the case.
1) open the side panel, 2) remove the drive tray in one of the empty slots, 3) place your drive in the drive tray, slide it in, 4) connect the SATA and power cables, 5) close the side panel.
That's it.
Very first (non-sponsored) hit on Google!
on
Remote Access Policies
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
A link to the SANS Institute example for a Remote Access Policy doc (PDF format):
This is the first time I've come across anyone wanting a formal policy for this & online searches haven't been very helpful.
It looks like there's a trend going on; most of the last few Ask Slashdot articles seem to be written by people who can't be bothered to do a little work.
Additionally, console games shouldn't have a stationary 10-minute install screen.
Why not? PC games comparable to the console games you mention on average have much longer install periods than console games. Bioshock, HL2, Crysis, etc, all had long install times, much longer than the 10 or 15 minutes that something like Metal Gear Solid 4 took to install on the PS3. Not all games require 10-minute installs, though. Little Big Planet is one of those that is ready to play out of the box, without long install screens.
Having a PS3 is kind of like having a Mac: all the inconvenience of PC sluggishness with the made-purposely-difficult restrictions of unofficial hardware use(e.g. installing an alternate operating system).
Hey, guess what? You can upgrade the built-in hard drive on the PS3 with any size SATA laptop hard drive, partition it, and install an alternate operating on the PS3, with Sony's blessing even. Seriously. Fedora, Ubuntu, YellowDog, and OpenSuse are just some of the Linux distributions currently supported.
Judging by the way you refer to the PS3 and the Macs, I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume you don't own either.
It's not just about the medical aspect of it, you know. It's amazing what you can do with someone's information when they're freely giving it to you.
In a legal setting, you'd be surprised at the lengths that law enforcement agencies go through to collect DNA samples from individuals who may not want to cooperate with them. The old "Would you like some coffee, soda, smoke" bit comes to mind when you want to collect DNA from a suspect.
Something like this stunt, while great from a PR perspective, just simply makes it possible for insurance companies to deny them coverage in the future, allows law enforcement agencies to add their genetic profiles to their databases, etc, and they can't argue against it with the 'invasion of privacy' line. They volunteered it themselves.
You know, sometimes these guys are above 'your manager'. Way above.
From what the OP says, it sounds like the person he's referring to is something like a Chief Compliance Officer at his company. If that's the case, tough luck.
There is a possibility that the reason why open-source software is not approved for use is because it doesn't meet the compliance standards that were put in place, whether because of simpler and easier application support, patching, or just plain liability.
Open-source software often times as very poor support options. Forums and IRC are not substitutes to a dedicated phone support line that's manned 24/7.
User all the open-source software you want on your free time, OP. During work hours, play by their rules or find another job.
Since when have companies suddenly gained the right to censor everyone's speech on their property just because they are company? If I go to Disney world, can I not mention any other cartoon themed parks like six flags while there or if I do will I be silenced by the Disney World Censorship squad?
Companies have certain leeway when it comes to establishing and enforcing policies on their property. If when purchasing tickets to get into Disney World or Disney Land, they gave you a 'contract' stating that they could restrict what you could say on their property at your leisure before, then you have the option to say "No thanks, I'm going to Six Flags instead". If you decide to go in, then don't act surprised and outraged when you're walking around yelling "HEY MAN, SIX FLAGS IS AWESOME!" and they ask you to leave.
Of course, this is an extreme example of a hypothetical situation, but they have the right to do this, and your purchase of a ticket would be your implicit agreement to follow their rules.
Sure, companies might like their employees not to mention their competitors, but the only ones that they can reasonably demand that behavior of are paid actors in their ad slots. We kinda think that it's o.k. with cussing and what not. That's one thing with a very short list that generally should be avoided in most business communications be it verbal or written in any form. Talking about for or against other companies though shouldn't just be restricted, automatically while you are at work.
If he was an employee, then things like this would fall under a different umbrella as far as the laws go. There are very specific laws and precedents concerning free speech in the workplace, which can be applied either way depending on the situation and the company. However, none of those apply here because a) he's not an employee, and b) he agreed to the terms of service when he opened an account, which say they can and will control what you may or may not post if and when they see fit.
That's why claiming 'censorship' in a case like this is a bit silly.
What does this have to do with anything? hint:nothing
Not exactly. Privately-held companies are not subject to the same level of regulations as publicly-owned or government-subsidized companies. This means that while they can't do whatever they want, they have quite a bit more leeway when it comes to establishing and enforcing policies that some would equate to 'censorship'.
Yes, you can whine about it all you want, but they have the right to say "No, you will not link/advertise/mention any sites that we don't like, and you'll live with it" and enforce this policy as needed.
Whether it's in 'poor taste' or not is irrelevant. People need to understand that what they might perceive as their 'rights' is entirely subjective depending on the situation. In this case, they have *no* rights other than what's explicitly granted in the terms of service that they agree upon creating an account.
"... it's appalling for Facebook to block anyone from even mentioning the site -- it's plain and simple censorship, and it's unacceptable!"?
Why is it 'appalling' and 'unacceptable'? You do not own Facebook, and when you created an account, you pretty much waived your rights. If I recall correctly, Facebook is still a privately-owned company. They can block whatever they want, whenever they want, for as long as they want.
If you don't like this policy, familiarize yourself with the Terms of Service before you sign up to similar services.
You're always free to build your own alternative to Facebook; until then, you want to play in their playground, you play by their rules.
Is an unfair EULA a legally binding contract (fairness matters for legality of contracts). Is encouraging and enabling someone else to break a contract a violation of that contract? Glider can't commit copyright infringement in that the copy isn't made by them.
What do you mean by 'an unfair EULA'? What may be unfair under your definition can (and often is) perfectly valid and legal under the law. You can't claim that 'the unfair EULA' prompted you to violate a contract you accepted and agreed to follow when you installed the software. I'm not sure how much you know about it, but Glider actually does make copies of the memory regions used by the WoW client. It needs to in order to properly 'work its magic'. It's not enabling any hacks or any such nonsense, but it is basically replacing you at your keyboard.
But what about if the user opens up WoW first, it loads into memory, then Glider is started after? The copy was already made legally, and Glider is now being used to violate the EULA. You can't take away permission after the copy is made.
That'd be nice, if it was what was happening, but it isn't. Glider needs to make copies of memory regions used by the WoW client, or it doesn't work. That's why it is miles ahead of regular macro software.
There is nothing that unbalances the game to have something fish for me.
That's what you'd like to think. It's been a while since I was a WoW player, but I recall a number of high-level fish that gave some serious bonuses when you used them in recipes. You could say the same thing about skinning, or grinding kills in the Barrens, or building rep with this or that faction, but the bottom line is that you're not putting the effort like some of the other poor bastards out there, and that is an unfair advantage.
Using that logic, macros are cheating because not everyone can figure them out, so those that use them are getting an unfair advantage.
No, that's not true. Macros still require someone to be sitting down to hit the macro keys, and that's why Blizzard is ok with things like the Logitech G15 keyboards, the Zboard, etc. Using Glider is cheating, period. You don't see anything wrong with starting WoW, starting Glider, then walking away for a few hours? Here, this is from Glider's FAQ page:
Q: How does Glider work? A: Glider works a lot like a regular player. It looks at your health, mana, energy, etc. It moves the mouse around and pushes keys on the keyboard. You tell it about your character, where you want to kill things, and what to kill. Then it kills for you, automatically. You can do something else, like eat dinner or go to a movie, and when you return, you'll have a lot more experience and loot.
Nope, that's obviously not cheating, right guys? Right?
Both sides have to play by the rules, and playing the best-of-both-worlds sell or license game doesn't sound like a level playing field.
I'm glad you agree that both sides have to play by the rules. Blizzard has pretty straightforward rules when it comes to WoW, so just follow them. Don't use cheats, don't buy gold, etc. If the rules were as 'unfair' as you're implying they are, they wouldn't be as successful as they are today.
Now here is where it gets ridiculous. Ludicrous. They have gone PLAID . Technically if I took my music CD, put it into a player and "copied" the information off it into "memory" I have infringed upon somebody's copyrights? Has the player, and indirectly, the manufacturer infringed upon somebody's copyrights?
I think it'd be more accurate to say that you take a classical music CD, put it into your custom-made CD player that has 'filters' that change the music from classical to hip-hop on the fly. The original writer/producer of the classical CD could then claim that you're infringing on his copyright by using his original classical music for something he never gave you a license for.
The whole argument is just plain lunacy. The WoW subscribers paid for the software, they pay for their subscription. They pay for Glider (or it's free, I dunno) as well. The developer of Glider is not performing copyright infringment. That is just ridiculous.
See, that's where people are wrong. WoW subscribers are not paying for the software, but the license to use it. The software is Blizzard's property (don't take my word for it, read the EULA). The subscription is just the fee they collect for the privilege of using their servers, just like your next door neighbor charging you to play in his back yard does not mean you're now part-owner.
You can have as many copies of WoW running on your system and play as much as you want; however, Blizzard wants to drive home the fact that you do not have any rights to modify or 'exploit' what effectively is their software to perform anything it's not supposed to do under normal usage.
Besides, let's face it: Glider users are cheating bastards. It was bound to happen sooner or later.
Page 1: "Legend has it that the company managed to acquire what was once meant to be Enron's broadband trading hub for a song."
Page 3: "Enron had already built a lot of the infrastructure needed for its facility and brought the major carriers on board just as its business started to collapse. So, the broadband center went up for sale. "We were the only ones that bid on it," Roy said. "It should have been the $200bn companies that owned it. We got it for a Cinderella story type of figure."
If the facility was sold off as part of the bankruptcy proceedings, it's sold. Whatever you think 'fair market price' means, it doesn't apply when it comes to bankruptcy firesales, where the creditors are trying to recoup whatever they can from their investments, and don't necessarily have the patience to sit around and wait for the 'fair market price'.
"No, you're arguing in left field, and I'm playing hockey."
I'm glad you agree that you're just mouthing off rather than actually addressing the topic.
"If you think that college kids don't spend money on iPods, weed, graphics cards, and other luxury items before they even consider paying hundreds of dollars for software they can easily get for free, you may be beyond the reach of reason. That was the "reality" part of my post. I then constructed a "hypothetical" future based on what would happen if paying for such product was the only way to get it."
No, I never said any of the sort. I'm well aware that college kids will spend every last dime on beer/weed/ipods/itunes/whatever instead of on things they actually *need*. The reality is that they're still not entitled to pirating software because 'they need it', specially since it's *not* the only way to get it.
"People don't give two shits about what tools an artist uses, they just care about the result."
If we're still talking about graphic design in a paid position, actually yah they do care about the tools. What good is having a masterpiece done for a commission if it's in an incompatible format for the print shop? What good is it if the file can't be opened by anyone else in the office for editing, proofing, etc?
"Van Gogh could have shoved the handle of his palette knife up his ass, and it would just make him a little bit weirder. And though our imaginary artist may not be remembered for hundreds of years, his talent as a graphic designer is far more important than his intimate technical knowledge of one computer program."
Somehow, you seem to think that equating a graphic artist to Van Gogh or any of a number of influential artists will lend credibility to your argument. The reality is that after the commissioned work is complete, and the ad on its way, no one pays that much attention to the graphic artist dude. Are they talented? Of course. Are they 'masters'? Uh... I wouldn't go *that* far for the vast majority of them.
"For your edification, ask a marketing agency if they'd rather have a talented artist who knows how to use the Gimp, or a Photoshop expert with the creative mind of a turnip."
I don't have to. I worked for companies like Poppe Tyson (now part of Modem Media) where there were plenty of 'talented artists' and 'Photoshop experts'. The two don't always have to be one and the same; as long as the 'Photoshop expert' can design what the 'talented artist' visualizes, they're good to go. I can tell you that anyone who lists Gimp experience on their resume is not considered for any design positions.
"Adobe will never fully prosecute a college kid for pirating their product, because the damage that occurs is far outweighed by having that person hooked on their tools."
Not entirely, it's because it's not cost-effective. It makes no sense for a company like Adobe to spend thousands of dollars to go after Joe Sixpack at Ignoramus U. They will, however, go after bigger operations, like say, this one or this one.
"If they do start sending out the lawyers, it means that there is a better product available for a better price, or Adobe has hired an idiot to run their company."
I don't think they fear a 'better product', specially from the Open Source field. Sorry, that's just the truth.
"In reality, the college kid downloads a multi-thousand dollar package for free, and Adobe looks the other way because it's to their benefit."
That still doesn't change the *fact* that the kid is breaking the law. Him/her not being able to afford it and needing it is not an excuse to steal it, just like not being able to buy a car isn't an excuse to steal one. If you can't afford it, you shouldn't use it. That's about as clear as it gets.
"Your reading comprehension is pathetic, as long as we're trading ad-hominims."
*Sigh* What's with you people and calling everything an ad-hominem, when it plainly isn't? Do you actually think it makes you sound smarter than what you really are? I *did* read your comment, and here are the staments that led me to the conclusion that you somehow feel entitled to obtain movies or music when and how you see fit (notice the bolded parts):
I don't consider $20 for a DRM'd (and thus defective) movie, or $30 for an even more heavily DRM'd (but hi-def and shiny!) movie, to be a reasonable price. Now, rentals, I do consider to be reasonable prices -- but I'd much rather not have to actually go to the store. Netflix is a good idea, but their "watch now" service is heavily DRM'd." I used to feel bad about it, yes. Then they started suing 12-year-old children, grandmothers, and dead people for $100/song. Now I really don't care.
I interpret those statements as "I don't think I should pay that much for something that has DRM, and I if I want to watch the movie/listen to the album now, I'll just go ahead and pirate it. I don't care if I'm screwing the bands or whatever, I pay my dues to the indy bands and I hate the RIAA because they're douchebags". Isn't that essentially what you're saying? Tell if it isn't, because from here it certainly looks like that's it.
"Major studios and labels are finding that their business model is failing in the marketplace. They can't compete with "free" without drastically revamping their business model. Get over it."
Of course they cannot compete with "free". All it takes is one self-righteous idiot to come along, rip the album, upload it to a p2p service, and there goes any chance at potential revenue from album sales. Funny how it's their problem that people are pirating music, and you don't seem to see anything wrong with what is, in essence, theft. You'd be deceiving yourself if you believed that every person that downloads any album from a torrent will go out and buy it; some will, most won't. Heck, even Radiohead is not going to do the pay-what-you-think-is-fair bit anymore because as successful as their last album was, it wasn't *that* profitable for them. That's a *fact*.
"Well, you didn't read my post, I couldn't expect you to read the GP's."
I read your post, I read the GP, and most of the thread. That still doesn't invalidate my point that comparing the civil rights struggle of someone like Rosa Parks to whiny interweb nerds who want to freely spread copyrighted music and movies without repercussions or as some sort of 'protest' against RIAA's tactics a completely shameful action.
"Oh, by the way, notice how I was modded insightful, and you were modded troll?"
Yes, because we all know how awesome the/. moderation system works, specially when someone comments against the 'fashionable' opinion. In a way, it's more of a affirmation that I'm onto something, while you're spouting off the popular opinions of the 'whiny interweb nerds' I alluded to previously.
"This time, read my signature. Then read my comment. Then take a deep breath, take a walk, get some fresh air, and calm the fuck down.
I read your signature, that's why I took the time to reply to it. I think it's important to address rampant idiocy before it spirals out of control, but alas, it's too late.
"And then come back with something better than calling me a "petulant child" -- that's called an ad hominem, and using it is a flaw in your argument, not mine."
There you go again with the reference to ad hominem, this time with a link and all. Please. Stop. To quote Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
See, now you're backtracking and changing your analogy to suit your (flawed) argument.
"I was referring to what is commonly known as reality. Of course there is no excuse for him breaking the law in your eyes, just like there's no excuse for a senator to get hundreds of thousands of dollars in kickbacks for helping companies land government contracts. But these things happen anyway."
What I described *is* reality. What you mentioned was a possibility. The hypothetical bribing of a senator bears absolutely no relevance to this discussion, so whatever you were trying to achieve by bringing that up is, for lack of a better word, moot.
"In the imaginary scenario, he's just arriving to college - he won't graduate until 2012."
So now he's just getting into college, not *in* college. Wait, shouldn't he be going into college in the fall, since he has yet to graduate from HS? Or did he take a break? Did he go on vacation? Yah, whatever.
"If only Hemingway had used Mont Blanc pens instead of whatever pen he did use, he could have really been an artist! And can you believe Jackson Pollock used off-brand paint?"
Irrelevant. You specifically used the example of him going to work and being confronted with the question of which version of CS he preferred. Now, according to you, he's the equivalent of a Hemingway or a Pollock in the digital canvas. Right. I am not disputing his (possible) artistic talents; what I am stating is that he is not qualified to work in a position in which he has no experience whatsoever using the tools given to him by his employers, which is the example *you* used.
"Well, you didn't totally backslide into ad hominem. But you did make yourself look petty."
Your argument fails on a number of fronts, mostly because you come across as a petulant child who seems to think he/she's entitled to everything whenever he/she wishes. Let's go in steps:
"... So tell me where else I can go, when I want to watch a movie right now, without going to a video store -- or maybe it's not even at the video store yet -- oh, and I want to watch it on Linux."
Contrary to what you may think, you do not have *the right* to watch a movie whenever you feel like it. You might have the *opportunity* to watch it when the movie studio decides to release it in theathers, DVD, or whatever method they choose, but it's at their leisure, not yours. You wanting to watch it really bad and NOW! means absolutely nothing. Get that through your thick skull.
"The majority of movies come from a shockingly small number of studios. The majority of music comes from a shockingly small number of labels."
There are quite a few independent movie studious out there releasing hundreds of movies every year. The same is true with regards to music. Now, maybe the movies *you* like are coming from a very limited number of studios, and the music *you* like is only coming from a small group of labels, but that doesn't mean that they should accomodate your pedantic wants. Maybe you just need to broaden your tastes a bit.
"Seriously, proposing a "piracy tax" on ISPs? If they already assume their customers are their enemies, then I really don't care."
It could be worse. In Canada, you're paying a 'piracy tax' on blank media like CD/DVD-Rs because they automatically assume you're going to use it for illicit purposes. Get over it.
"At the same time, Rosa Parks didn't wait for the law to change. Neither am I."
Comparing your plight for bootlegged movies and music to the struggles of civil rights icons just shows how much of a complete idiot you are. Next time you feel the urge to type this type of comment, just don't. Open up a browser, go to Wikipedia or some other online reference, and educate yourself before inserting your foot so firmly into your mouth that your toes stick out of your asshole.
"Even if software is cheap, it's never going to be cheap enough for a college student eating Ramen and saving money for beer on the weekends."
See, you're wrong about this. In any college, you will find discounted copies of software and hardware from Apple, Adobe, and Microsoft.
"If Adobe made it impossible for him to get an illegal copy of Photoshop, guess what?"
Bullshit. You can go to the Adobe page here, for example, and see that Photoshop CS3 has a price of $299, compared to $999 retail. There is no excuse for the 'college student' you refer to to skip a few keggers and get his needed software legally, rather than pirate it.
"And when he arrives at his first job and they ask him which version of the Creative Suite he needs, he very well might say "That's alright - I know Gimp and Inkscape, and I already have them. Just get me a bigger monitor instead.""
Both Gimp and Inkscape are lacking in the areas required in the professional world, and that's a topic that's been beaten to death. They'd actually tell him what version of CS he'll be using, because they'll (most likely) have either a site or floating license, so your analogy continues to be wrong. Him being a rockstar in Gimp or Inkscape has just about the same value as him being fantastic with Paintshop Pro or Windows Image tool when it comes to the real world (i.e. useless).
"It's a nightmare scenario, and one of those things I wish they (Microsoft/Adobe/Autodesk/Apple) would be more honest about."
They don't need to be 'more honest'; you need to be more informed before you mouth off and display your ignorance.
I like how 'environmental groups' is a link to a single source: Greenpeace.
As we all know, they're the kind of people that we can have a good intelligent discussion with, right? Of course, anyone that doesn't fall in line with their philosophy is some sort of heretic, even if they happen to be one of their own founders that disagrees with a long-standing platform of the organization.
I'd have a lot more respect for them if they also condemned Al Gore and his pimping of useless carbon credits that happen to fatten his own pockets...
Slashdot Mirror
Simple economics example: you sell organic products.
Ok.
You start with food, and do very well. Everyone loves your food and only your food. They stop buying food from anyone else, and all other food producers go out of business and get other jobs.
So... it's somehow my fault everyone loves my food and the other food producers can't compete? Ok, moving on...
So you make a rule. You can't buy food unless you buy hemlock too. Now you still have the option of not buying food - just like people have the option of not buying a new computer and subsequently not being able to do their jobs (and subsequently not eating...), but you don't have the option of buying just food. You *must* buy hemlock to get food, and that's where we have a problem. That is leveraging a monopoly
I'm going to assume by your analogy that you have a pretty negative opinion of Windows or MS by comparing it to hemlock, which makes your analogy inherently biased.
In any case, this is where your analogy starts falling apart.
For it to be closer to this real-life scenario, you'd also have the option of buying just the food, but you must pay a fee to have the hemlock removed or replaced from your shopping cart. I buy the hemlock, and the hemlock growers give me a bulk discount, so I have to get rid of the stock.
However, only about 0.05% of my customers complain about the hemlock being bundled with their groceries and want Skittles instead; the other 99.95% seem to either be happy or not caring about it. The 0.05% of complaining customers don't really make a dent in the books, since the hemlock growers discount more than makes up for those 'lost' customers.
If instead of the hemlock you want Skittles, I have to charge you for the Skittles (I don't get the same bulk discount from the Skittles source), and for the cost of removing and storing or disposing of the hemlock.
Of course, you can always grow your own organic food, or open your own market and have people come and buy food from you.
Ultimately, PC makers can't seem to make money on systems with Linux installed. It just doesn't seem like there is enough demand for it. MS provides incentives to manufacturers to pre-install their OS in new systems, so of course the PC makers will bundle it with their systems.
MS and the PC makers are not telling you what you can and can't run after you buy it. You can always install something else afterwards.
If you mean go build my own PC with Windows XP, that hasn't been possible for months.
Uh what? You gotta be kidding, right?
Microsoft is the exclusive lawful supplier of Windows XP Home Edition licenses in the United States, and it declines to supply new copies of Windows XP to people who build their own PCs.
You might want to check Newegg then.
You can buy as many lawful copies of Windows XP Home Edition for you to install on your own system for $90/each.
Thanks for playing.
No, I won't pay a cent for something I don't plan to use. I very specifically don't want to reward in the slightest or appear in the usage statistics of something I don't want to touch with a 10 foot pole.
Then don't buy it, period. If you're so adamant about not touching Vista in any way/shape/form, and all manufacturers offer are systems with Vista pre-installed, then I guess you won't be purchasing a system then. That's the choice you have.
It doesn't make sense that I have to pay extra for the ability of using something older, which by all logic should be cheaper.
How is it illogical?
It is not uncommon to find 'older' things to be more expensive than 'new' things for whatever reason. For example, original IBM Model M keyboards are quite pricey, even though they're *old*. You can get a Model M clone from a number of different places (cheap too), but it's not quite the same, so people will still pay a premium for the original Model M.
There's dozens of other examples such as this one out there, just look for them.
I wasn't given enough choice, and yes, I will bitch about it until satisfied, because that's the only way things get done these days.
You were given the choice to buy it as is, pay extra to get it 'your way', or not buy it at all. I'd say there is ample room there to make a choice.
The manufacturers aren't doing me a favour by allowing me to buy their products. I'm doing them a favour by choosing their product and paying a price, and no, I'm not going to comply with arbitrary demands and act as if their offerings were gifts from heaven.
You're wrong when you think in terms of 'allowance'.
Manufacturers are not allowing you to do anything; they make a product and offer it for sale, and it's your choice to buy it or not. If the product does not meet your needs, expectations, or ideology, you're free to buy a different product, not buy anything at all, or go build your own.
Manufacturers are in business to make a profit, not to respond to every whiner's whim.
That's what people seem to be forgetting.
When Sony advertises the PS3, it specifically states in the ad or the box whether that specific model will or not it will be able to play PS2 titles. If you want PS2 functionality, you either pay extra for a model that is backwards-compatible (*gasp*) or you will have to buy a PS2 as well.
When you buy Terminator 2, you're getting Terminator 2 and nothing else, unless you're buying a bundle that includes the previous version.
Likewise, when a person buys a PC with Vista, that's exactly what they're getting. If they want a PC with XP, they either pay extra for whatever reason the manufacturer seems to think it's valid, or they're free to go get their own copy and install it. No one is forcing you to buy it; you're free to decide not to buy it at all.
There are extra costs incurred by the PC manufacturer when they have to make changes to their 'assembly-line' model. It's no accident that you can get systems for dirt cheap these days, and this means they have to cut costs in any way possible, including limiting the number of steps during assembly, OS installation, etc. Having to make a change to this process results in extra costs, which obviously will be passed on to the consumer (duh). Whether these costs are justifiable or not doesn't matter; you either pay them, or you don't.
You don't want a PC with Vista? Fine, don't buy it. You want the PC but with XP? Fine, buy it with Vista and install it yourself, *or* pay the extra $50 or whatever and have them do it for you. You were given the choice, don't bitch about it.
What's with this entitlement attitude that's been creeping up allover the place? When will consumers understand that they're not entitled to anything other than what's specifically agreed to as part of the specific items or goods being sold?
I wonder if we should also be able to sue dumbasses like this lady for bringing frivolous lawsuits to the courts and taking up valuable time and tax dollars that could be better used for more relevant things, like going after actual criminals.
Most adjustable keyboard trays commonly found in office-type furniture will work fine with this keyboard, like this one or this one
The cheap, narrow kind of keyboard trays that you can find in the self-assembly desks (like this one) probably won't allow this keyboard to fit, but if you're concerned about RSI, chances are you don't have a cheap desk like the one in the pic.
It really depends.
At work I use a Microsoft Trackball Explorer which is probably one of the best trackball mice ever made, and are nearly impossible to find nowadays.
I know a few people that use the Logitech Cordless Trackman Optical and love it, but it didn't feel confortable enough for my own use.
At home, I use a Logitech G9 mouse and a Ideazon Fang for gaming sessions, but for everything else I tend to just rely on keyboard shortcuts to navigate around my desktop.
I've been using a Kinesis Advantage keyboard for several years now and I have to say it's probably one of the best out there, specially if you have issues with RSI.
I ended up getting two; one which I leave at home on my workstation, and one that I have at work.
Programmable, very good tactile feedback (almost as good as the Model M), can be switched to Dvorak, and their support staff is phenomenal.
It will take you maybe a week or so to get accustomed to the key positions, but once you get the hang of it, you'll never go back.
If you're in the market for a good keyboard that will last you years, definitely have a look at these. They're a little pricey (about $300 or so, depending on the model), but they'll be the best money ever spent on a keyboard.
Yes, you can.
There are 4 drive slots located below the power supply towards the rear of the case.
1) open the side panel,
2) remove the drive tray in one of the empty slots,
3) place your drive in the drive tray, slide it in,
4) connect the SATA and power cables,
5) close the side panel.
That's it.
A link to the SANS Institute example for a Remote Access Policy doc (PDF format):
http://www.sans.org/resources/policies/Remote_Access_Policy.pdf
This is the first time I've come across anyone wanting a formal policy for this & online searches haven't been very helpful.
It looks like there's a trend going on; most of the last few Ask Slashdot articles seem to be written by people who can't be bothered to do a little work.
Additionally, console games shouldn't have a stationary 10-minute install screen.
Why not? PC games comparable to the console games you mention on average have much longer install periods than console games. Bioshock, HL2, Crysis, etc, all had long install times, much longer than the 10 or 15 minutes that something like Metal Gear Solid 4 took to install on the PS3.
Not all games require 10-minute installs, though. Little Big Planet is one of those that is ready to play out of the box, without long install screens.
Having a PS3 is kind of like having a Mac: all the inconvenience of PC sluggishness with the made-purposely-difficult restrictions of unofficial hardware use(e.g. installing an alternate operating system).
Hey, guess what? You can upgrade the built-in hard drive on the PS3 with any size SATA laptop hard drive, partition it, and install an alternate operating on the PS3, with Sony's blessing even. Seriously.
Fedora, Ubuntu, YellowDog, and OpenSuse are just some of the Linux distributions currently supported.
Judging by the way you refer to the PS3 and the Macs, I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume you don't own either.
... then get Little Big Planet
Have fun.
It's not just about the medical aspect of it, you know. It's amazing what you can do with someone's information when they're freely giving it to you.
In a legal setting, you'd be surprised at the lengths that law enforcement agencies go through to collect DNA samples from individuals who may not want to cooperate with them. The old "Would you like some coffee, soda, smoke" bit comes to mind when you want to collect DNA from a suspect.
Something like this stunt, while great from a PR perspective, just simply makes it possible for insurance companies to deny them coverage in the future, allows law enforcement agencies to add their genetic profiles to their databases, etc, and they can't argue against it with the 'invasion of privacy' line. They volunteered it themselves.
You know, sometimes these guys are above 'your manager'. Way above.
From what the OP says, it sounds like the person he's referring to is something like a Chief Compliance Officer at his company. If that's the case, tough luck.
There is a possibility that the reason why open-source software is not approved for use is because it doesn't meet the compliance standards that were put in place, whether because of simpler and easier application support, patching, or just plain liability.
Open-source software often times as very poor support options. Forums and IRC are not substitutes to a dedicated phone support line that's manned 24/7.
User all the open-source software you want on your free time, OP. During work hours, play by their rules or find another job.
Since when have companies suddenly gained the right to censor everyone's speech on their property just because they are company? If I go to Disney world, can I not mention any other cartoon themed parks like six flags while there or if I do will I be silenced by the Disney World Censorship squad?
Companies have certain leeway when it comes to establishing and enforcing policies on their property.
If when purchasing tickets to get into Disney World or Disney Land, they gave you a 'contract' stating that they could restrict what you could say on their property at your leisure before, then you have the option to say "No thanks, I'm going to Six Flags instead". If you decide to go in, then don't act surprised and outraged when you're walking around yelling "HEY MAN, SIX FLAGS IS AWESOME!" and they ask you to leave.
Of course, this is an extreme example of a hypothetical situation, but they have the right to do this, and your purchase of a ticket would be your implicit agreement to follow their rules.
Sure, companies might like their employees not to mention their competitors, but the only ones that they can reasonably demand that behavior of are paid actors in their ad slots. We kinda think that it's o.k. with cussing and what not. That's one thing with a very short list that generally should be avoided in most business communications be it verbal or written in any form. Talking about for or against other companies though shouldn't just be restricted, automatically while you are at work.
If he was an employee, then things like this would fall under a different umbrella as far as the laws go. There are very specific laws and precedents concerning free speech in the workplace, which can be applied either way depending on the situation and the company. However, none of those apply here because a) he's not an employee, and b) he agreed to the terms of service when he opened an account, which say they can and will control what you may or may not post if and when they see fit.
That's why claiming 'censorship' in a case like this is a bit silly.
Facebook is still a privately-owned company
What does this have to do with anything? hint:nothing
Not exactly. Privately-held companies are not subject to the same level of regulations as publicly-owned or government-subsidized companies. This means that while they can't do whatever they want, they have quite a bit more leeway when it comes to establishing and enforcing policies that some would equate to 'censorship'.
Yes, you can whine about it all you want, but they have the right to say "No, you will not link/advertise/mention any sites that we don't like, and you'll live with it" and enforce this policy as needed.
Whether it's in 'poor taste' or not is irrelevant. People need to understand that what they might perceive as their 'rights' is entirely subjective depending on the situation. In this case, they have *no* rights other than what's explicitly granted in the terms of service that they agree upon creating an account.
Simple as that.
From your 'blog':
"... it's appalling for Facebook to block anyone from even mentioning the site -- it's plain and simple censorship, and it's unacceptable!"?
Why is it 'appalling' and 'unacceptable'? You do not own Facebook, and when you created an account, you pretty much waived your rights. If I recall correctly, Facebook is still a privately-owned company. They can block whatever they want, whenever they want, for as long as they want.
If you don't like this policy, familiarize yourself with the Terms of Service before you sign up to similar services.
You're always free to build your own alternative to Facebook; until then, you want to play in their playground, you play by their rules.
Is an unfair EULA a legally binding contract (fairness matters for legality of contracts). Is encouraging and enabling someone else to break a contract a violation of that contract? Glider can't commit copyright infringement in that the copy isn't made by them.
What do you mean by 'an unfair EULA'? What may be unfair under your definition can (and often is) perfectly valid and legal under the law. You can't claim that 'the unfair EULA' prompted you to violate a contract you accepted and agreed to follow when you installed the software.
I'm not sure how much you know about it, but Glider actually does make copies of the memory regions used by the WoW client. It needs to in order to properly 'work its magic'. It's not enabling any hacks or any such nonsense, but it is basically replacing you at your keyboard.
But what about if the user opens up WoW first, it loads into memory, then Glider is started after? The copy was already made legally, and Glider is now being used to violate the EULA. You can't take away permission after the copy is made.
That'd be nice, if it was what was happening, but it isn't. Glider needs to make copies of memory regions used by the WoW client, or it doesn't work. That's why it is miles ahead of regular macro software.
There is nothing that unbalances the game to have something fish for me.
That's what you'd like to think. It's been a while since I was a WoW player, but I recall a number of high-level fish that gave some serious bonuses when you used them in recipes.
You could say the same thing about skinning, or grinding kills in the Barrens, or building rep with this or that faction, but the bottom line is that you're not putting the effort like some of the other poor bastards out there, and that is an unfair advantage.
Using that logic, macros are cheating because not everyone can figure them out, so those that use them are getting an unfair advantage.
No, that's not true. Macros still require someone to be sitting down to hit the macro keys, and that's why Blizzard is ok with things like the Logitech G15 keyboards, the Zboard, etc. Using Glider is cheating, period. You don't see anything wrong with starting WoW, starting Glider, then walking away for a few hours? Here, this is from Glider's FAQ page:
Q: How does Glider work?
A: Glider works a lot like a regular player. It looks at your health, mana, energy, etc. It moves the mouse around and pushes keys on the keyboard. You tell it about your character, where you want to kill things, and what to kill. Then it kills for you, automatically. You can do something else, like eat dinner or go to a movie, and when you return, you'll have a lot more experience and loot.
Nope, that's obviously not cheating, right guys? Right?
Both sides have to play by the rules, and playing the best-of-both-worlds sell or license game doesn't sound like a level playing field.
I'm glad you agree that both sides have to play by the rules. Blizzard has pretty straightforward rules when it comes to WoW, so just follow them.
Don't use cheats, don't buy gold, etc. If the rules were as 'unfair' as you're implying they are, they wouldn't be as successful as they are today.
Now here is where it gets ridiculous. Ludicrous. They have gone PLAID . Technically if I took my music CD, put it into a player and "copied" the information off it into "memory" I have infringed upon somebody's copyrights? Has the player, and indirectly, the manufacturer infringed upon somebody's copyrights?
I think it'd be more accurate to say that you take a classical music CD, put it into your custom-made CD player that has 'filters' that change the music from classical to hip-hop on the fly.
The original writer/producer of the classical CD could then claim that you're infringing on his copyright by using his original classical music for something he never gave you a license for.
The whole argument is just plain lunacy. The WoW subscribers paid for the software, they pay for their subscription. They pay for Glider (or it's free, I dunno) as well. The developer of Glider is not performing copyright infringment. That is just ridiculous.
See, that's where people are wrong. WoW subscribers are not paying for the software, but the license to use it. The software is Blizzard's property (don't take my word for it, read the EULA).
The subscription is just the fee they collect for the privilege of using their servers, just like your next door neighbor charging you to play in his back yard does not mean you're now part-owner.
You can have as many copies of WoW running on your system and play as much as you want; however, Blizzard wants to drive home the fact that you do not have any rights to modify or 'exploit' what effectively is their software to perform anything it's not supposed to do under normal usage.
Besides, let's face it: Glider users are cheating bastards. It was bound to happen sooner or later.
FTFA:
Page 1: "Legend has it that the company managed to acquire what was once meant to be Enron's broadband trading hub for a song."
Page 3: "Enron had already built a lot of the infrastructure needed for its facility and brought the major carriers on board just as its business started to collapse. So, the broadband center went up for sale.
"We were the only ones that bid on it," Roy said. "It should have been the $200bn companies that owned it. We got it for a Cinderella story type of figure."
If the facility was sold off as part of the bankruptcy proceedings, it's sold. Whatever you think 'fair market price' means, it doesn't apply when it comes to bankruptcy firesales, where the creditors are trying to recoup whatever they can from their investments, and don't necessarily have the patience to sit around and wait for the 'fair market price'.
"No, you're arguing in left field, and I'm playing hockey."
I'm glad you agree that you're just mouthing off rather than actually addressing the topic.
"If you think that college kids don't spend money on iPods, weed, graphics cards, and other luxury items before they even consider paying hundreds of dollars for software they can easily get for free, you may be beyond the reach of reason. That was the "reality" part of my post. I then constructed a "hypothetical" future based on what would happen if paying for such product was the only way to get it."
No, I never said any of the sort. I'm well aware that college kids will spend every last dime on beer/weed/ipods/itunes/whatever instead of on things they actually *need*. The reality is that they're still not entitled to pirating software because 'they need it', specially since it's *not* the only way to get it.
"People don't give two shits about what tools an artist uses, they just care about the result."
If we're still talking about graphic design in a paid position, actually yah they do care about the tools. What good is having a masterpiece done for a commission if it's in an incompatible format for the print shop? What good is it if the file can't be opened by anyone else in the office for editing, proofing, etc?
"Van Gogh could have shoved the handle of his palette knife up his ass, and it would just make him a little bit weirder. And though our imaginary artist may not be remembered for hundreds of years, his talent as a graphic designer is far more important than his intimate technical knowledge of one computer program."
Somehow, you seem to think that equating a graphic artist to Van Gogh or any of a number of influential artists will lend credibility to your argument.
The reality is that after the commissioned work is complete, and the ad on its way, no one pays that much attention to the graphic artist dude. Are they talented? Of course. Are they 'masters'? Uh... I wouldn't go *that* far for the vast majority of them.
"For your edification, ask a marketing agency if they'd rather have a talented artist who knows how to use the Gimp, or a Photoshop expert with the creative mind of a turnip."
I don't have to. I worked for companies like Poppe Tyson (now part of Modem Media) where there were plenty of 'talented artists' and 'Photoshop experts'. The two don't always have to be one and the same; as long as the 'Photoshop expert' can design what the 'talented artist' visualizes, they're good to go.
I can tell you that anyone who lists Gimp experience on their resume is not considered for any design positions.
"Adobe will never fully prosecute a college kid for pirating their product, because the damage that occurs is far outweighed by having that person hooked on their tools."
Not entirely, it's because it's not cost-effective. It makes no sense for a company like Adobe to spend thousands of dollars to go after Joe Sixpack at Ignoramus U. They will, however, go after bigger operations, like say, this one or this one.
"If they do start sending out the lawyers, it means that there is a better product available for a better price, or Adobe has hired an idiot to run their company."
I don't think they fear a 'better product', specially from the Open Source field. Sorry, that's just the truth.
"In reality, the college kid downloads a multi-thousand dollar package for free, and Adobe looks the other way because it's to their benefit."
That still doesn't change the *fact* that the kid is breaking the law. Him/her not being able to afford it and needing it is not an excuse to steal it, just like not being able to buy a car isn't an excuse to steal one.
If you can't afford it, you shouldn't use it. That's about as clear as it gets.
"Your reading comprehension is pathetic, as long as we're trading ad-hominims."
/. moderation system works, specially when someone comments against the 'fashionable' opinion. In a way, it's more of a affirmation that I'm onto something, while you're spouting off the popular opinions of the 'whiny interweb nerds' I alluded to previously.
*Sigh* What's with you people and calling everything an ad-hominem, when it plainly isn't? Do you actually think it makes you sound smarter than what you really are?
I *did* read your comment, and here are the staments that led me to the conclusion that you somehow feel entitled to obtain movies or music when and how you see fit (notice the bolded parts):
I don't consider $20 for a DRM'd (and thus defective) movie, or $30 for an even more heavily DRM'd (but hi-def and shiny!) movie, to be a reasonable price.
Now, rentals, I do consider to be reasonable prices -- but I'd much rather not have to actually go to the store. Netflix is a good idea, but their "watch now" service is heavily DRM'd."
I used to feel bad about it, yes. Then they started suing 12-year-old children, grandmothers, and dead people for $100/song. Now I really don't care.
I interpret those statements as "I don't think I should pay that much for something that has DRM, and I if I want to watch the movie/listen to the album now, I'll just go ahead and pirate it. I don't care if I'm screwing the bands or whatever, I pay my dues to the indy bands and I hate the RIAA because they're douchebags".
Isn't that essentially what you're saying? Tell if it isn't, because from here it certainly looks like that's it.
"Major studios and labels are finding that their business model is failing in the marketplace. They can't compete with "free" without drastically revamping their business model. Get over it."
Of course they cannot compete with "free". All it takes is one self-righteous idiot to come along, rip the album, upload it to a p2p service, and there goes any chance at potential revenue from album sales.
Funny how it's their problem that people are pirating music, and you don't seem to see anything wrong with what is, in essence, theft.
You'd be deceiving yourself if you believed that every person that downloads any album from a torrent will go out and buy it; some will, most won't. Heck, even Radiohead is not going to do the pay-what-you-think-is-fair bit anymore because as successful as their last album was, it wasn't *that* profitable for them. That's a *fact*.
"Well, you didn't read my post, I couldn't expect you to read the GP's."
I read your post, I read the GP, and most of the thread. That still doesn't invalidate my point that comparing the civil rights struggle of someone like Rosa Parks to whiny interweb nerds who want to freely spread copyrighted music and movies without repercussions or as some sort of 'protest' against RIAA's tactics a completely shameful action.
"Oh, by the way, notice how I was modded insightful, and you were modded troll?"
Yes, because we all know how awesome the
"This time, read my signature. Then read my comment. Then take a deep breath, take a walk, get some fresh air, and calm the fuck down.
I read your signature, that's why I took the time to reply to it. I think it's important to address rampant idiocy before it spirals out of control, but alas, it's too late.
"And then come back with something better than calling me a "petulant child" -- that's called an ad hominem, and using it is a flaw in your argument, not mine."
There you go again with the reference to ad hominem, this time with a link and all. Please. Stop.
To quote Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
See, now you're backtracking and changing your analogy to suit your (flawed) argument.
"I was referring to what is commonly known as reality. Of course there is no excuse for him breaking the law in your eyes, just like there's no excuse for a senator to get hundreds of thousands of dollars in kickbacks for helping companies land government contracts. But these things happen anyway."
What I described *is* reality. What you mentioned was a possibility.
The hypothetical bribing of a senator bears absolutely no relevance to this discussion, so whatever you were trying to achieve by bringing that up is, for lack of a better word, moot.
"In the imaginary scenario, he's just arriving to college - he won't graduate until 2012."
So now he's just getting into college, not *in* college. Wait, shouldn't he be going into college in the fall, since he has yet to graduate from HS? Or did he take a break? Did he go on vacation? Yah, whatever.
"If only Hemingway had used Mont Blanc pens instead of whatever pen he did use, he could have really been an artist! And can you believe Jackson Pollock used off-brand paint?"
Irrelevant. You specifically used the example of him going to work and being confronted with the question of which version of CS he preferred.
Now, according to you, he's the equivalent of a Hemingway or a Pollock in the digital canvas. Right.
I am not disputing his (possible) artistic talents; what I am stating is that he is not qualified to work in a position in which he has no experience whatsoever using the tools given to him by his employers, which is the example *you* used.
"Well, you didn't totally backslide into ad hominem. But you did make yourself look petty."
It's not ad hominem if it's true.
Your argument fails on a number of fronts, mostly because you come across as a petulant child who seems to think he/she's entitled to everything whenever he/she wishes.
Let's go in steps:
"... So tell me where else I can go, when I want to watch a movie right now, without going to a video store -- or maybe it's not even at the video store yet -- oh, and I want to watch it on Linux."
Contrary to what you may think, you do not have *the right* to watch a movie whenever you feel like it. You might have the *opportunity* to watch it when the movie studio decides to release it in theathers, DVD, or whatever method they choose, but it's at their leisure, not yours.
You wanting to watch it really bad and NOW! means absolutely nothing. Get that through your thick skull.
"The majority of movies come from a shockingly small number of studios. The majority of music comes from a shockingly small number of labels."
There are quite a few independent movie studious out there releasing hundreds of movies every year. The same is true with regards to music.
Now, maybe the movies *you* like are coming from a very limited number of studios, and the music *you* like is only coming from a small group of labels, but that doesn't mean that they should accomodate your pedantic wants. Maybe you just need to broaden your tastes a bit.
"Seriously, proposing a "piracy tax" on ISPs? If they already assume their customers are their enemies, then I really don't care."
It could be worse. In Canada, you're paying a 'piracy tax' on blank media like CD/DVD-Rs because they automatically assume you're going to use it for illicit purposes. Get over it.
"At the same time, Rosa Parks didn't wait for the law to change. Neither am I."
Comparing your plight for bootlegged movies and music to the struggles of civil rights icons just shows how much of a complete idiot you are.
Next time you feel the urge to type this type of comment, just don't. Open up a browser, go to Wikipedia or some other online reference, and educate yourself before inserting your foot so firmly into your mouth that your toes stick out of your asshole.
"Even if software is cheap, it's never going to be cheap enough for a college student eating Ramen and saving money for beer on the weekends."
See, you're wrong about this. In any college, you will find discounted copies of software and hardware from Apple, Adobe, and Microsoft.
"If Adobe made it impossible for him to get an illegal copy of Photoshop, guess what?"
Bullshit. You can go to the Adobe page here, for example, and see that Photoshop CS3 has a price of $299, compared to $999 retail.
There is no excuse for the 'college student' you refer to to skip a few keggers and get his needed software legally, rather than pirate it.
"And when he arrives at his first job and they ask him which version of the Creative Suite he needs, he very well might say "That's alright - I know Gimp and Inkscape, and I already have them. Just get me a bigger monitor instead.""
Both Gimp and Inkscape are lacking in the areas required in the professional world, and that's a topic that's been beaten to death.
They'd actually tell him what version of CS he'll be using, because they'll (most likely) have either a site or floating license, so your analogy continues to be wrong.
Him being a rockstar in Gimp or Inkscape has just about the same value as him being fantastic with Paintshop Pro or Windows Image tool when it comes to the real world (i.e. useless).
"It's a nightmare scenario, and one of those things I wish they (Microsoft/Adobe/Autodesk/Apple) would be more honest about."
They don't need to be 'more honest'; you need to be more informed before you mouth off and display your ignorance.
I like how 'environmental groups' is a link to a single source: Greenpeace.
As we all know, they're the kind of people that we can have a good intelligent discussion with, right? Of course, anyone that doesn't fall in line with their philosophy is some sort of heretic, even if they happen to be one of their own founders that disagrees with a long-standing platform of the organization.
I'd have a lot more respect for them if they also condemned Al Gore and his pimping of useless carbon credits that happen to fatten his own pockets...