To stop wanting thing and loving things would be to stop progress.
I'm not saying we should stop wanting things. Loving them more than people? Yep, that we should stop. The problem is with our focus. It's too unbalanced.
It's funny... Someone said once that we have the bad habit of loving things and using people, when it really should be the other way around.
It's funny because this situation illustrates it extremely well.
On the one hand, there's the Big Bad Microsoft, hand in hand with all the content providers, all wanting to narrow what people can do with the "digital content" they buy. As someone who loves music (fortunately, the kind that doesn't sell that much and can be bought at used cd stores for very little) I find the thought of not being able to rip the cd's to my laptop (so I can listen to whatever I feel like listening to without having to carry a bunch of cd's from one place to another), disturbing. If I paid for the thing, I should be able to do what I wanted with it, shouldn't I? I'm revolted at the degree of selfishness and greed that's taking over content producers, and while I understand that they have an obligation to the shareholders and owners, I find it very sadening to see that the maximization of profits leads to so much trampling of other freedoms.
On the other hand, there's this whole bunch of people, in their rightful indignation, ready to take arms against the enemy. You know, it's kind of funny the way we end up being so concerned about some things and not at all concerned about others. In fact, this could be a great way to stop watching so many movies, or to stop hearing so much music, or even to stop being so much time at the computer. The problem here is that we are getting so attached to these virtual fixes that the ones that provide them will (obviously) look for way of earning more from it. Doesn't it say so much about our present condition?
Everyone's loving things more (and probably using people more). So why don't we stop? There's such a big world out there (and a real one, for that matter), so many opportunities to have a life, so many things to do... I can say for sure that I would like to learn a lot of stuff, read a whole ton of other stuff, and to be a lot more sociable than what I currently am.
And, you know what? If people stopped caring so much with the small things, the ones that produce them probably wouldn't be so busy trying to rip everyone off...
Because unlike TV, radio, newspaper, billboards, and the rest, we are NOT a captive audience anymore. It's a two-way communication medium, like the telephone, that doesn't respond well to constant in-your-face sales pitches; and with software, those of us who have a particularly strong aversion to annoying influence peddlers (aka: advertisers), can simply opt-out of the noise, saving the site wasted ad bandwidth ($), and us wasted aggravation (!).
Right. Why all the bitching then, when you can simply walk away?
Thanks for volunteering your mind for product branding! As long as there's enough people like you (and there are) who don't mind being pawns in a massive mental engineering game, there's still hope! Into your willing consumer brains will be planted DESIRE; that desire will thusly translate into an eventual SALE; that sale -- which includes covering the hidden cost of your own manipulation -- will thusly keep the affiliate site, WWW.THE-NET-WAS-SUPPOSED-TO-BE-A-GOLDMINE.COM, afloat with a cut of the profit (simplified 10X).:-)
Uh... dude... Guess again, and don't be so quick to label people. I don't watch television and I'm almost impervious to advertising. That doesn't mean I don't understand that sites have to survive, and that the present way that they think enables them to survive is advertising. What would be sensible, though, is, with these kinds of ads, to end the insane per-click practices (or whatever they're called) and start charging the advertisers on a per-view basis (I think it's pretty difficult NOT to see one of those ads, unless you have some filtering software working).
Me on the the hand...If I want something, I'll go looking for it, and not the other way around. Ads are a relatively recent invention anyway, and they just aren't for everyone. So should I be kicked off the net because I'm a "bad consumer?" and who are these Jones' I'm supposed to keep up with?:)
You shouldn't be kicked off the net anymore than the people who use these kinds of ads should. The net is big enough for eveyone. What you should do, though, is walk away from the sites that use it, and stop bitching. They are offering you something, almost for free (if you don't count the ads). If you don't agree with their terms, just don't use their sites. Fair enough?
Oh, I also make extensive use of an "un-american" tool called pricegrabber [pricegrabber.com] to shave off even more of those high reseller profit margins.
Should I care? That's a perfectly legitimate right for you, as a consumer. Oh, and, btw, I'm not american. English isn't even my native tongue, so I don't care about what is "un-american" or not. I care, though, about what is right.
Selfish is expecting to be rewarded in any way for putting up some crap site.
But, if the site is crap, why do the ads bother you? Just don't go there!
Because most here are geeks, we do understand what it takes to put a site together and what it is "worth", either in subscription cost or ad annoyance.
I'm sorry, I'm not buying that one. I've been reading/. for some time now, and while that doesn't make me an expert in anything, it gives me a pretty good idea of the people I'm dealing with. And one specialty of (most, not all) people here is whining, as long as they don't get it for free, or now, or under the conditions that they label as 'fair' (usually involving a series of benefits to them, and no concern for the other party).
Far too many sites overvalue their content, and that is why you're never going to see them move to a subscription model,
I would call it 'undervaluing' (or being realistic) then, because if they thought their content was worth it, they would surely move into a subscription model. I think they reality is more that most people just aren't willing to pay, either because they're just cheapskates, or because they don't care enough.
because then reality really comes crashing down on you when you discover that your site is so worthless that people won't pay a bloody buck a month for it.
And that's capitalism isn't it? The things that people like survive, the others don't (note that I'm not saying 'the things that are good survive...').
How about getting back to the idea that the web was based on (sharing information) instead of trying to turn everything into a profit making venture?
If people want to have a profit, why not? If you don't care, move forward and let the market decide. That's why I don't understand all the whining about this kind of stuff. It's annoying, yes, but you have a choice, which is to vote with your clicks. You don't like the way a site shows its ads, you don't go there. If you care and the ads annoy you, how about emailing the site's owners sugesting a subscription model (or some other way of them being compensated) for those who are annoyed enough?
Let me just say I'm all for the sharing of information and all that, but, for a site who advocates freedom,./ has a lot to learn, and a lot of hypocrisy to overcome.
Because the Net is a fresh start. There are ways to fund content more directly and efficiently than ads.
Care to name a few? Because I don't seem to be anyone that's good enough to generate enough revenue for those who are looking to have some.
Oh, BTW: becoming insensitive, egocentric and selfish is growing up. Unlearning the commie values is very important.
People already are like that. That's why they're a bunch of whining freeloaders (I'm guilty of it too, sometimes). Growing up means understanding that people who offer something in order to get some compensation should be compensated, if it's worth it. If it's not, don't whine, just don't use the service. I think it's a matter of logic.
The point is not that most people want all the ads to go away. Most of us with a brain realize that the ads are required. If the ads are there in a nonintrusive way, then people will be more likely to click on them if they are relevant.
I don't know about you, but I seldom notice banner ads anymore, so I seldom get to check if an ad is relevant or not. My brain seems to have developed some kind of filtering system. I suspect this doesn't happen only with me. Given this situation, isn't it likely that advertisers will try and develop other (more annoying) ways of getting their message through?
Now, after I have not clicked on an ad for the 700th time, the advertiser should slowly start getting a message. "Hmmm, maybe this guy does not like gambling. How about we try some car adverts on him?" As they have a cookie to track me already, how difficult can this be!?
You're absolutely right. That is a flaw they should correct (without counting the cases where people filter their cookies...).
Ok, they're really annoying, but at least they're creatively made. And let's face it. Ads are the main driving force of all the media. Why should the net be any different? There is no such thing as a 'free lunch' as everyone knows...
Not that I like ads, but I understand sites need to have a way to survive. What I would like to see, though is:
An alternative to seeing those ads: some kind of subscription method for people who are regulars to a site and don't mind contributing. In exchange, they get to turn the ads off, and maybe some other goodies.
For people who don't want to subscribe, and since they'll be seeing the ads anyway, at least give them a way to choose what kind of ads they want to see.
For everybody else, tough. The world doesn't revolve around you and people have to eat. If you don't like it, go find other sites to see.
People really should stop being so selfish. I'm starting to believe that the 'geek' title so many people here are proud to use is nothing more than a certificate of insensitiveness, egocentrism and selfishness...
I agree in principle, but then there?ll be an even worse schism between MSIE and the OSS browsers than now.
When I talk about standards I don't mean web-only standards. In fact, I think most relevant web standards are already finalized (exluding maybe future versions of these standards). What I mean is stop attributing to all these greedy corporations the importance they think they have. They currently have the power people give them. If people stop giving them the power...
We have to be able to implement the same stuff the commercial browsers do unless we?re trying to marginalize ourselves.
It's not that we try to marginalize ourselves. If proposals like this go ahead in other fronts we'll have no choice but to be marginalized...
FYI, the IETF [ietf.org] and ISO [www.iso.ch] have been standardizing on proprietary standards for years.
But do you have to pay to implement them? Maybe you have to pay to claim 100% conformance to the standard, but you don't have to pay to mimic the standard. Compare this with a patent situation. You have no choice but to pay. To an open source project this means pretty much the death of it.
Yes, there would lie the problem, comercially speaking. Well, maybe the open source people would.:)
The big win open source has over comercial interests is that things can be taken on the basis of technical merits instead of the amount of revenue they generate. I find it unthinkable (and still am shocked) for a standards body to be willing to accept a standard that can't be freely implemented by all. What value does that standard have? Some people can't (or won't) pay to implement it, whether because they're working on open source projects, or because they simply may not have the necessary money to license what is needed.
With this proposal the W3C (and the ones behind it, namely Microsoft, Apple, HP, MIT, etc) are just saying 'screw you' to open source people. Maybe it's time for open source people to say, 'well, screw you too' to them.
The problem with the FSF (as I said in my post) is that RMS seems too obsessed, and I think he has some difficulties finding the middle term, even among free software people. What I think RMS lacks is the sensibility of a true judge/manager/whatever. He just doesn't know how to strive for unity...
Is it in any way possible to form a standards body composed entirely of open source people? With all these things W3C has aptly shown that its relevance days should be over.
Things shouldn't be left in the hands of the big corporations. There are more than enough examples that their interests are in their pockets instead of their customers. So why do people keep paying attention to them? Let them make all the flawed, selfish standards that they want. Why the heck should they dictate the laws? Can't open source/free software people think for themselves, and standardize things on their technical merits instead of their money-making merits?
Oh well, in an ideal world there would be a non-profit corporation (is this a paradox?) allowing people to work on their projects full-time (the FSF doesn't cut it, because RMS seems a little too much of a control freak to me. I may be wrong). No shareholders, no screwing of people... Ahh, those would be the days...
This had been previously posted as a section only article. Isn't it a little irresponsible of Slashdot to give such little importance to an issue like this?
mine is the best solution:
on
VIM 6.0 is Out
·
· Score: 1
XEmacs in Viper mode.:) Best of both worlds. Vi's unbeatable key bindings, Emacs' unbeatable flexibility. As someone who likes both editors a lot, here's a little piece of advice to fanatics in both camps: try the other editor. It'll expand your horizons.
As I'm not an american (and I never travelled outside my country) I don't know what's involved but, how hard is it to bring his family to the US while he is there? Didn't Adobe start all this? The very least they could do was to bring his family for a while so he can see them and they can see him.
(Sorry, I accidentally hit the 'post' button when I meant 'preview'.)
The only permission that you have with the book that you don't necessarily have with software is the right to give it away. (That is a cause for concern, yes, but it's not "scary.")
Suppose, I give you money for something. And you say, "you can't lend it, give it away, sell it, copy it for your own use, etc, etc". So you're in fact controlling what I do with what I bought from you, even after I already gave you money for it. You are allowed to dictate what I am to do or not to do, even after I paid you for what I bought from you. Is this logical? I don't think it is, and I also find it scary, because you are giving up something that you should not allow to be taken from you in the first place and that is your freedom. Even morally, you aren't doing anything wrong (is it wrong to make backup copies?).
If you want to obey the law and maintain ethical correctness, and also want to have backups of all your software, the only available path is to not buy software that you're not permitted to copy for backup purposes.
I fully agree with this. That's what I try to do whenever I see something with which I don't agree (in the case of AoE, I didn't knew it was that way, and I also had been using it so I had to buy it).
The problem is people are getting obnoxiously greedy. Please take a look at the software world. Some software houses charge by the cpu (if you have one cpu you pay x, if you have 2 cpus you pay 2x, and so on) for the same piece of data! Do you honestly think this is acceptable or legitimate? I don't think this kind of business practices should be allowed to prevail. What happens in a situation where everybody practices the same thing? You retire and live as a hermit?
No one has ever, in this country, had the right to make any kind of reproduction of anything produced by anyone else without the permission of the creator. Rights are granted by the government; permissions are granted by other people.
I have to say I really don't understand why in the world I'm not allowed to duplicate, exclusively for my own use, something which is inherently non-physical (like the text on a book, or the contents of an Age of Empires cd), without the permission from the publisher. Haven't I already given my money in order to obtain access to the data such products contain? Why should I need to pay twice if something happens and I lose access it? Didn't I pay for it?
The equivalent situation is, suppose you buy a book. Unless the publisher explicitly grants you permission, you do not have the right to photocopy every page just in case something happens to your original copy; nor do you have the right to photocopy every page and use the copied material to prevent wear and tear on the original. The only permission that you have with the book that you don't necessarily have with software is the right to give it away. (That is a cause for concern, yes, but it's not "scary.")
You mention the book example: in a way, I think the situation is similar. I just don't photocopy it because a book is something much more robust than a cd, and I need not have as much concern with the way it's treated as I do with a cd.
thanks, but I had already checked it. That's where I learned that the cd can't be properly checked.
The problem is that I shouldn't even have to do that. gamecopyworld.com is a workaround to a broken system. It just alleviates the pain, but doen't cure the problem.
I admit, I browse at +3. I am amazed, however, at the number of people failing to see the point (translated by the comments and their respective moderations).
The real issue is not if you trust your data to a free host, of if you use free forums. The real issue is that it seems to me that people are seeing rights being taken from them everyday and they seem to allow it for the sake of comfort. The cases mentioned were but examples of what may happen, even in a non-free (beer) world. I find it amazing how people here bitch about RIAA's, MPAA's and those of their ilk while still buying their products! I mean, how hypocritical is that?
The big problem is that abuses are being commited and people don't do anything against it.
An example: I'm a big fan of Age of Empires II. I usually play with some coworkers of mine after work-hours and this has been going on for some time. Since the copy I had was a cracked one (it was installed on the pc with a no-cd executable) I decided to buy the game, since (even though it's Microsoft and I don't like giving money to them) I think the money was deserved for the long hours of enjoyment it has given me. When it arrived, I decided to make a backup copy of it, since, given the use I give it, I was afraid I'd end up ruining it. To my surprise I found out that the cd's have some kind of copy protection that prevents them from being copied correctly (some serial number recorded in a non-accessible part of the cd so that the cd-recorder won't record it). The only way of using the new copy is by using a cracked executable with the copied cd. I think this kind of things shouldn't be allowed. Backup copying is a legitimate action and shouldn't be taken away from me.
Moves like the one I just related are getting more and more common. A business sees a way of making more money, even though it will completely screw up their customers. What's their decision? Well, "go for it, of course! Screw the customers, they're only human beings and our welfare and profits are far more important that any rights they may think they have!". The weird thing is that, more and more, the customers are agreeing with them. And that's scary. Really scary.
Those are books every programmer should read. _The Pragmatic Programmer_, well, is just plain bad.
Do you really think so? To me it's pretty cool. It has a lot of cool tips, and it shows that they like and care about what they do.
Btw, I already have Code Complete and Programming Pearls. Thanks for the tips on the other books, though (although I'm not quite sure if "Thinking Forth" will help me much:).
People interested in a very cool, completely object-oriented, beautiful, powerful language should check out ruby.
I think that ruby's clean syntax and pure object orientation outclasses (is this a word?) perl and python easily.
And, for anyone interested in learning, Dave Thomas and Andy Hunt (who wrote The Pragmatic Programmer, a book that all programmers should read) have written a book about ruby and placed it under the Open Publication License.
Maybe you should try installing xfstt (it's very easy to install, and you get access to all ttf files under Windows). I don't know if the problem gets solved with that, but I never had any problem reading a pdf.
There's also xfsft (or something like that) which is a patch to xfs, allowing it to serve ttf fonts also.
That's what we're using at work. We have a machine outside, with a SOCKS server. All Napster stuff goes through there. People can share what they want easily. Th only problem is I haven't found a linux napster client that would work with that and I don't know how to do it myself.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you mod this one up to +5, Beautiful? :)
To stop wanting thing and loving things would be to stop progress.
I'm not saying we should stop wanting things. Loving them more than people? Yep, that we should stop. The problem is with our focus. It's too unbalanced.
Also, I shouldn't be drinking so much. Where the heck did the news about the Digital Rights Management OS went?
It's funny because this situation illustrates it extremely well.
On the one hand, there's the Big Bad Microsoft, hand in hand with all the content providers, all wanting to narrow what people can do with the "digital content" they buy. As someone who loves music (fortunately, the kind that doesn't sell that much and can be bought at used cd stores for very little) I find the thought of not being able to rip the cd's to my laptop (so I can listen to whatever I feel like listening to without having to carry a bunch of cd's from one place to another), disturbing. If I paid for the thing, I should be able to do what I wanted with it, shouldn't I? I'm revolted at the degree of selfishness and greed that's taking over content producers, and while I understand that they have an obligation to the shareholders and owners, I find it very sadening to see that the maximization of profits leads to so much trampling of other freedoms.
On the other hand, there's this whole bunch of people, in their rightful indignation, ready to take arms against the enemy. You know, it's kind of funny the way we end up being so concerned about some things and not at all concerned about others. In fact, this could be a great way to stop watching so many movies, or to stop hearing so much music, or even to stop being so much time at the computer. The problem here is that we are getting so attached to these virtual fixes that the ones that provide them will (obviously) look for way of earning more from it. Doesn't it say so much about our present condition?
Everyone's loving things more (and probably using people more). So why don't we stop? There's such a big world out there (and a real one, for that matter), so many opportunities to have a life, so many things to do... I can say for sure that I would like to learn a lot of stuff, read a whole ton of other stuff, and to be a lot more sociable than what I currently am.
And, you know what? If people stopped caring so much with the small things, the ones that produce them probably wouldn't be so busy trying to rip everyone off...
Strange world that in which we live...
Because unlike TV, radio, newspaper, billboards, and the rest, we are NOT a captive audience anymore. It's a two-way communication medium, like the telephone, that doesn't respond well to constant in-your-face sales pitches; and with software, those of us who have a particularly strong aversion to annoying influence peddlers (aka: advertisers), can simply opt-out of the noise, saving the site wasted ad bandwidth ($), and us wasted aggravation (!).
Right. Why all the bitching then, when you can simply walk away?
Thanks for volunteering your mind for product branding! As long as there's enough people like you (and there are) who don't mind being pawns in a massive mental engineering game, there's still hope! Into your willing consumer brains will be planted DESIRE; that desire will thusly translate into an eventual SALE; that sale -- which includes covering the hidden cost of your own manipulation -- will thusly keep the affiliate site, WWW.THE-NET-WAS-SUPPOSED-TO-BE-A-GOLDMINE.COM, afloat with a cut of the profit (simplified 10X). :-)
Uh... dude... Guess again, and don't be so quick to label people. I don't watch television and I'm almost impervious to advertising. That doesn't mean I don't understand that sites have to survive, and that the present way that they think enables them to survive is advertising. What would be sensible, though, is, with these kinds of ads, to end the insane per-click practices (or whatever they're called) and start charging the advertisers on a per-view basis (I think it's pretty difficult NOT to see one of those ads, unless you have some filtering software working).
Me on the the hand...If I want something, I'll go looking for it, and not the other way around. Ads are a relatively recent invention anyway, and they just aren't for everyone. So should I be kicked off the net because I'm a "bad consumer?" and who are these Jones' I'm supposed to keep up with? :)
You shouldn't be kicked off the net anymore than the people who use these kinds of ads should. The net is big enough for eveyone. What you should do, though, is walk away from the sites that use it, and stop bitching. They are offering you something, almost for free (if you don't count the ads). If you don't agree with their terms, just don't use their sites. Fair enough?
Oh, I also make extensive use of an "un-american" tool called pricegrabber [pricegrabber.com] to shave off even more of those high reseller profit margins.
Should I care? That's a perfectly legitimate right for you, as a consumer. Oh, and, btw, I'm not american. English isn't even my native tongue, so I don't care about what is "un-american" or not. I care, though, about what is right.
Selfish is expecting to be rewarded in any way for putting up some crap site.
But, if the site is crap, why do the ads bother you? Just don't go there!
Because most here are geeks, we do understand what it takes to put a site together and what it is "worth", either in subscription cost or ad annoyance.
I'm sorry, I'm not buying that one. I've been reading /. for some time now, and while that doesn't make me an expert in anything, it gives me a pretty good idea of the people I'm dealing with. And one specialty of (most, not all) people here is whining, as long as they don't get it for free, or now, or under the conditions that they label as 'fair' (usually involving a series of benefits to them, and no concern for the other party).
Far too many sites overvalue their content, and that is why you're never going to see them move to a subscription model,
I would call it 'undervaluing' (or being realistic) then, because if they thought their content was worth it, they would surely move into a subscription model. I think they reality is more that most people just aren't willing to pay, either because they're just cheapskates, or because they don't care enough.
because then reality really comes crashing down on you when you discover that your site is so worthless that people won't pay a bloody buck a month for it.
And that's capitalism isn't it? The things that people like survive, the others don't (note that I'm not saying 'the things that are good survive...').
How about getting back to the idea that the web was based on (sharing information) instead of trying to turn everything into a profit making venture?
If people want to have a profit, why not? If you don't care, move forward and let the market decide. That's why I don't understand all the whining about this kind of stuff. It's annoying, yes, but you have a choice, which is to vote with your clicks. You don't like the way a site shows its ads, you don't go there. If you care and the ads annoy you, how about emailing the site's owners sugesting a subscription model (or some other way of them being compensated) for those who are annoyed enough?
Let me just say I'm all for the sharing of information and all that, but, for a site who advocates freedom, ./ has a lot to learn, and a lot of hypocrisy to overcome.
Because the Net is a fresh start. There are ways to fund content more directly and efficiently than ads.
Care to name a few? Because I don't seem to be anyone that's good enough to generate enough revenue for those who are looking to have some.
Oh, BTW: becoming insensitive, egocentric and selfish is growing up. Unlearning the commie values is very important.
People already are like that. That's why they're a bunch of whining freeloaders (I'm guilty of it too, sometimes). Growing up means understanding that people who offer something in order to get some compensation should be compensated, if it's worth it. If it's not, don't whine, just don't use the service. I think it's a matter of logic.
The point is not that most people want all the ads to go away. Most of us with a brain realize that the ads are required. If the ads are there in a nonintrusive way, then people will be more likely to click on them if they are relevant.
I don't know about you, but I seldom notice banner ads anymore, so I seldom get to check if an ad is relevant or not. My brain seems to have developed some kind of filtering system. I suspect this doesn't happen only with me. Given this situation, isn't it likely that advertisers will try and develop other (more annoying) ways of getting their message through?
Now, after I have not clicked on an ad for the 700th time, the advertiser should slowly start getting a message. "Hmmm, maybe this guy does not like gambling. How about we try some car adverts on him?" As they have a cookie to track me already, how difficult can this be!?
You're absolutely right. That is a flaw they should correct (without counting the cases where people filter their cookies...).
Ok, they're really annoying, but at least they're creatively made. And let's face it. Ads are the main driving force of all the media. Why should the net be any different? There is no such thing as a 'free lunch' as everyone knows...
Not that I like ads, but I understand sites need to have a way to survive. What I would like to see, though is:
People really should stop being so selfish. I'm starting to believe that the 'geek' title so many people here are proud to use is nothing more than a certificate of insensitiveness, egocentrism and selfishness...
How about... growing up?
I agree in principle, but then there?ll be an even worse schism between MSIE and the OSS browsers than now.
When I talk about standards I don't mean web-only standards. In fact, I think most relevant web standards are already finalized (exluding maybe future versions of these standards). What I mean is stop attributing to all these greedy corporations the importance they think they have. They currently have the power people give them. If people stop giving them the power...
We have to be able to implement the same stuff the commercial browsers do unless we?re trying to marginalize ourselves.
It's not that we try to marginalize ourselves. If proposals like this go ahead in other fronts we'll have no choice but to be marginalized...
FYI, the IETF [ietf.org] and ISO [www.iso.ch] have been standardizing on proprietary standards for years.
But do you have to pay to implement them? Maybe you have to pay to claim 100% conformance to the standard, but you don't have to pay to mimic the standard. Compare this with a patent situation. You have no choice but to pay. To an open source project this means pretty much the death of it.
Yes, there would lie the problem, comercially speaking. Well, maybe the open source people would. :)
The big win open source has over comercial interests is that things can be taken on the basis of technical merits instead of the amount of revenue they generate. I find it unthinkable (and still am shocked) for a standards body to be willing to accept a standard that can't be freely implemented by all. What value does that standard have? Some people can't (or won't) pay to implement it, whether because they're working on open source projects, or because they simply may not have the necessary money to license what is needed.
With this proposal the W3C (and the ones behind it, namely Microsoft, Apple, HP, MIT, etc) are just saying 'screw you' to open source people. Maybe it's time for open source people to say, 'well, screw you too' to them.
The problem with the FSF (as I said in my post) is that RMS seems too obsessed, and I think he has some difficulties finding the middle term, even among free software people. What I think RMS lacks is the sensibility of a true judge/manager/whatever. He just doesn't know how to strive for unity...
Is it in any way possible to form a standards body composed entirely of open source people? With all these things W3C has aptly shown that its relevance days should be over.
Things shouldn't be left in the hands of the big corporations. There are more than enough examples that their interests are in their pockets instead of their customers. So why do people keep paying attention to them? Let them make all the flawed, selfish standards that they want. Why the heck should they dictate the laws? Can't open source/free software people think for themselves, and standardize things on their technical merits instead of their money-making merits?
Oh well, in an ideal world there would be a non-profit corporation (is this a paradox?) allowing people to work on their projects full-time (the FSF doesn't cut it, because RMS seems a little too much of a control freak to me. I may be wrong). No shareholders, no screwing of people... Ahh, those would be the days...
This had been previously posted as a section only article. Isn't it a little irresponsible of Slashdot to give such little importance to an issue like this?
XEmacs in Viper mode. :) Best of both worlds. Vi's unbeatable key bindings, Emacs' unbeatable flexibility. As someone who likes both editors a lot, here's a little piece of advice to fanatics in both camps: try the other editor. It'll expand your horizons.
As I'm not an american (and I never travelled outside my country) I don't know what's involved but, how hard is it to bring his family to the US while he is there? Didn't Adobe start all this? The very least they could do was to bring his family for a while so he can see them and they can see him.
(Sorry, I accidentally hit the 'post' button when I meant 'preview'.)
Suppose, I give you money for something. And you say, "you can't lend it, give it away, sell it, copy it for your own use, etc, etc". So you're in fact controlling what I do with what I bought from you, even after I already gave you money for it. You are allowed to dictate what I am to do or not to do, even after I paid you for what I bought from you. Is this logical? I don't think it is, and I also find it scary, because you are giving up something that you should not allow to be taken from you in the first place and that is your freedom. Even morally, you aren't doing anything wrong (is it wrong to make backup copies?).
I fully agree with this. That's what I try to do whenever I see something with which I don't agree (in the case of AoE, I didn't knew it was that way, and I also had been using it so I had to buy it).
The problem is people are getting obnoxiously greedy. Please take a look at the software world. Some software houses charge by the cpu (if you have one cpu you pay x, if you have 2 cpus you pay 2x, and so on) for the same piece of data! Do you honestly think this is acceptable or legitimate? I don't think this kind of business practices should be allowed to prevail. What happens in a situation where everybody practices the same thing? You retire and live as a hermit?
I have to say I really don't understand why in the world I'm not allowed to duplicate, exclusively for my own use, something which is inherently non-physical (like the text on a book, or the contents of an Age of Empires cd), without the permission from the publisher. Haven't I already given my money in order to obtain access to the data such products contain? Why should I need to pay twice if something happens and I lose access it? Didn't I pay for it?
You mention the book example: in a way, I think the situation is similar. I just don't photocopy it because a book is something much more robust than a cd, and I need not have as much concern with the way it's treated as I do with a cd.
thanks, but I had already checked it. That's where I learned that the cd can't be properly checked.
The problem is that I shouldn't even have to do that. gamecopyworld.com is a workaround to a broken system. It just alleviates the pain, but doen't cure the problem.
I admit, I browse at +3. I am amazed, however, at the number of people failing to see the point (translated by the comments and their respective moderations).
The real issue is not if you trust your data to a free host, of if you use free forums. The real issue is that it seems to me that people are seeing rights being taken from them everyday and they seem to allow it for the sake of comfort. The cases mentioned were but examples of what may happen, even in a non-free (beer) world. I find it amazing how people here bitch about RIAA's, MPAA's and those of their ilk while still buying their products! I mean, how hypocritical is that?
The big problem is that abuses are being commited and people don't do anything against it.
An example: I'm a big fan of Age of Empires II. I usually play with some coworkers of mine after work-hours and this has been going on for some time. Since the copy I had was a cracked one (it was installed on the pc with a no-cd executable) I decided to buy the game, since (even though it's Microsoft and I don't like giving money to them) I think the money was deserved for the long hours of enjoyment it has given me. When it arrived, I decided to make a backup copy of it, since, given the use I give it, I was afraid I'd end up ruining it. To my surprise I found out that the cd's have some kind of copy protection that prevents them from being copied correctly (some serial number recorded in a non-accessible part of the cd so that the cd-recorder won't record it). The only way of using the new copy is by using a cracked executable with the copied cd. I think this kind of things shouldn't be allowed. Backup copying is a legitimate action and shouldn't be taken away from me.
Moves like the one I just related are getting more and more common. A business sees a way of making more money, even though it will completely screw up their customers. What's their decision? Well, "go for it, of course! Screw the customers, they're only human beings and our welfare and profits are far more important that any rights they may think they have!". The weird thing is that, more and more, the customers are agreeing with them. And that's scary. Really scary.
Those are books every programmer should read. _The Pragmatic Programmer_, well, is just plain bad.
Do you really think so? To me it's pretty cool. It has a lot of cool tips, and it shows that they like and care about what they do.
Btw, I already have Code Complete and Programming Pearls. Thanks for the tips on the other books, though (although I'm not quite sure if "Thinking Forth" will help me much :).
This is pretty off-topic but, what the heck.
People interested in a very cool, completely object-oriented, beautiful, powerful language should check out ruby.
I think that ruby's clean syntax and pure object orientation outclasses (is this a word?) perl and python easily.
And, for anyone interested in learning, Dave Thomas and Andy Hunt (who wrote The Pragmatic Programmer, a book that all programmers should read) have written a book about ruby and placed it under the Open Publication License.
There's also xfsft (or something like that) which is a patch to xfs, allowing it to serve ttf fonts also.
That's what we're using at work. We have a machine outside, with a SOCKS server. All Napster stuff goes through there. People can share what they want easily. Th only problem is I haven't found a linux napster client that would work with that and I don't know how to do it myself.
You're absolutely right. I was just trying to point an alternative to THAT particular dude, which seemed to not be liking any of the alternatives...