There is no question you are giving up freedom by making that choice. You are giving up the option to support the software yourself if you need to do so. That option is freedom to use the software as you see fit. If you use "non-free" software, you do not have that option, and you do not have that freedom. This is not "RMS's kool-aid," this is the definition of freedom.
How valuable you consider that freedom is up to you. Personally, I feel it is valuable enough to pursue, but not so valuable as to displace all other concerns. I use proprietary software when I feel it's necessary (usually for work, occasionally for games / entertainment). However, when I can, I use free options and do what I can to help improve them.
Yep, I like wine quite a bit. Actually, for most of my needs, dosbox does the best job of all. I find it sort of odd that the best way to run dos games is to quit out of windows and run linux.:-)
The problem with freedoms is that you DON'T miss them immediately upon giving them up. By the time you miss them, it's usually too late to ask for them back. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
Of course, I also feel the grandparent's pain. Linux on a laptop has improved quite a bit recently, but it's still not anywhere near as convenient or effortless as Windows or OSX. I run XP/Gentoo dual boot with KDE. On the good side, it accurately reports my battery level and can be configured to sleep when I close the lid. On the down side... Well, I'll just say I'm happy enough to use my machine in Linux for whatever I can, but I wouldn't suggest it to my mother.
To put this on topic a bit... there's no doubt I'd rather run linux than win98 on an old piece of hardware if there were any way I could get the software to switch over. Compared to XP, I prefer it for freedom and power, but I'd have a harder time pushing someone else on the idea.
There is certainly bias in virtually any source. However, I think there is simply more bias present in Wikipedia articles than in traditional encyclopedias. This is probably due to a combination of better (as in more stringent) editorial control, professional authorship, and the relative youth of Wikipedia as a reference work. I certainly don't consider this a damning fault of Wikipedia, but I find that using it as a reference requires somewhat larger grains of salt than does using a top-tier traditional encyclopedia. I'm generally willing to tolerate this because it's free, convenient, and usually has a decent selection of links to other sources.
One thing that I've found to be somewhat helpful in evaluating Wikipedia entries is the discussion page. Often, the discussion there gives hints as to the strengths, weaknesses, and biases in the article. I'm really glad that it's there and is visible. I wish they'd improve the threading of the discussions to make it easier to read, but it's still quite helpful.
Interesting theory. I don't pay close attention to the dates, but I would probably be unlikely to purchase if I happened to notice the offer was just about to expire. Generally I send them in as soon as I'm sure I'm content enough with the product that I won't need an intact UPC code (to return it to the store). Actually, there have been a few times I've run up against the post-purchase deadline. In those cases, though, I always try to be conservative -- if they say it must be within 30 days of purchase, I presume that means calendar days (not business days) and I assume they run the clock so that if you purchased on the first of the month, you'd have to submit no later than the 30th to qualify. Normally, I wouldn't even push it, but I'd be sure to have it postmarked by the 30th, even though you could make a case that 30 days would mean the 31st...
Maybe so. I do actively try to avoid buying from companies that have a sleazy feel to them, even if it costs a little extra. However, I've done business with quite a few different companies of varying sizes. Maybe I've just been lucky, though I think I've done enough rebates that I'd have had at least one problem if it were really as endemic as it is made out to be.
But, like I said, there's not much to actually like about these rebates, so I'd be glad to see them go, even if they work for me.
Oh, I understand your point completely, and do agree that it is kind of silly. I just think it's kind of odd that people hate them as passionately as they do. I'm no stranger to passionate hatred of stupidity, but rebates don't quite rise to that level for me.
Honestly, I don't understand the hatred that people have for these things. I have probably sent in rebates for 5-10 products per year for the last few years and every single one has been issued in a timely fashion. People claim that their submissions are ignored or denied because they failed to comply with the requirements, but that doesn't match my experience at all. I do have very neat handwriting, which I'm sure doesn't hurt. I used to painstakingly photocopy all the materials I sent and keep them in case there was a problem, but it came to seem pointless so now I only do that for higher value ones if at all.
That said, I'd be happy to see them done away with. They are inconvenient, especially for the lower value ones (I don't mind 10 minutes of paperwork for $50, but when it's for $10 or less, it seems kind of silly). An in-store rebate is much nicer for the customer.
No, it is NOT racist. It is racial, but that is not the same as racist. It'd be racist if it showed a black person in a poor light through hurtful stereotypes. The net content is a black person and a white person struggling. They're not making any statement except that one person is black and the other person is white, just like their PSP. They even kept a balance in the three images, showing that they're not espousing white or black supremacy.
A racist interpretation of this says more about the viewer than about the image. Not to say the person is hurtfully racist, but that the person has been trained to find racism whether it's there or not. Yeah, we went through (and to some degree are still going through) periods of slavery and discrimination in the US. Yeah, they have major black/white race conflicts elsewhere in the world. But that doesn't make every image of a black person and a white person part of that discrimination.
Fight racism when it happens, but don't manufacture it.
when you complete the document and the very same day, someone in upper management says, "Now this is a great document for you guys" and immediately starts making large changes (true story), there's not a whole lot you can do.
I used to work at a company that did consulting projects (we'd design hardware/software products for customers and get them through small manufacturing runs). We had one particular difficult customer who just didn't seem to understand that at some point, we had to define what it was we were building and what features it had to have to qualify as meeting spec. After a lot of back and forth early on thinking of all the great things it could do (which is fine), we finally had a meeting where we put together the design spec outline. As we closed the several hour meeting after which we were going to write the spec that would go in the contract, this guy actually really truly said, "Now, I hope you're not going to point to this and refuse a new feature later because it's not in the spec."
Really. It was all I could do not to stand up, throw my notebook at him, shout, "That is exactly what we'll do you moron, that's why we are writing this spec!" and storm out of the room. He did go on to try to add a few features later on in the design process. We probably implemented some of them, too.
Interesting point. Like so many, though, it's not clear what the overall implications are.
That is definitely true for the duplication costs, but the total cost for the authorized publishers is higher since they have to pay for the initial production. This is part of the main argument in favor of copyrights -- helping those who produce material recoup their production costs.
The thing that I think makes this such a difficult problem is that, it would seem, the music/movie/entertainment industry as it is and has been since the middle of last century (ie, since the advent of practical mechanical/electronic publication of music/movies/etc) is built on a model that fundamentally requires that high-quality duplication be expensive. That is no longer true. As a result, one of two things will happen. Either the system will be changed so that it IS once again expensive to duplicate these products, or the production system will change to be compatible with free or near-free copying.
The legal wrangling that's been going on is all essentially trying to make duplication expensive. It's not technically expensive any more, so the powers that be are adding legal and social costs (through laws or public villification of offenders). They're also trying to make it technically expensive through artificial means (copy protecting hardware, e.g.).
In my opinion, this is destined to fail. I don't believe you can achieve the level of enforcement necessary to rub out piracy (arrrrr) or the technical sophistication to outwit all the world's engineers who want to make a high-quality copy of a file they possess. The cat is out of the bag, technologically, and it ain't going back in.
It's a scary prospect, both for the entertainment producers and for the end users. No one knows what a market compatible with near-free duplication costs will support. It's never been done before. The producers stand to lose a lot, since they can't predict where to go to protect their interests in this unknown environment. The end users also stand to lose since it is quite possible that the number of artists who can be supported will fall drastically. Of course, it could end up being better for everyone in the long run. But it's really pretty close to impossible to predict.
Anyway, just some thoughts. I don't have any prescriptive answers for how to deal with this phase change. The best I can do is urge copyright reform to help society face up to the fact that free and easy copying is going to be the way of the future and hope that we can responsibly manage the transition.
Come on, this isn't flamebait. If it's not insightful, I don't know what is. It's pretty hard to get an IP ban on slashdot, and taking out your frustration by being rude to a tech support rep is a pretty good way to prove that you are a genuine Class A asshat. Showing off about this behavior later only confirms it.
I've got to agree with you on this one. The net content of this article was that somebody is going to do a study. Ok, great. It'll be news when the study is done and tells us something interesting. This story isn't even interesting for the debate it will spark on slashdot itself -- it's just begging for a flamewar. Can we mod the story down flamebait? (or off-topic, as we'll surely be modded...)
Even if we assume that the EULA's warranty disclaimer provisions are fully enforceable, that would have no bearing on an intentional act by the software provider. The warranty provisions would protect them if the software is incompatible. If they single you out and shut you down, that is an act on their part to specifically alter the software to your detriment, rather than an oversight or act of disclaimed negligence.
I believe they would need another clause to specify that you are only permitted to operate the software if you jump through their validation hoops. If you did not agree to that when you obtained your license, they'll be on pretty thin ice to add it to the license later.
I don't think his statement means what you interpreted it to mean. When a company works for an ethical goal -- one that is primarily motivated by doing the right thing rather than making money -- it is surprising. There is no surprise when a company works for a profit goal, since that is what companies are expected to do. This doesn't mean that profit goals are unethical, just that it's not particularly interesting when a company goes after a profitable target that happens to be ethical.
It does seem that perhaps it would have been cheaper for IBM to have settled long ago rather than fighting this for so long. You can make a reasonable case they're standing up for Linux because they don't want to see SCO make off with ill-gotten profits. I'm not totally sold on that interpretation -- it's also quite possible that they've done an analysis and found that settling the lawsuit would be more expensive than many slashdotters seem to estimate so they're just making a rational fiscal decision.
Personally, I hope that it's the former, because I agree with the original poster. It warms my heart to think of a large company motivated by something other than the bottom line. It doesn't happen often, but it is possible.
Thanks, and congratulations to you as well. 20060626 is a cool birthdate. It's fun to write and has a nice rhythm when you say it.
A number of my friends grew up with parents who speak other languages (mostly East Asian) who wound up very fluent listeners but poor speakers. It just seems that it's hard to get a kid to practice speaking a language that's not used in their wider social circle. Kind of a bummer -- most of my friends in this situation are kind of upset they don't speak the languages better. Ah well.
We noticed that he prefered to talk with adults rather then children at his age.
Is your son old enough to tell whether this gets in the way of interacting with other kids at all? My little brother, who's about 5 now, has been having a little bit of trouble feeling comfortable at preschool. As I live across the country and only see him on occasional vacations, I don't really have a whole lot of insight as to why, but I wonder if he feels he doesn't relate well to the other kids. Do you have any thoughts on that matter as it might relate to your son?
No sweat.. I try not to be too picky about typos, especially on a forum like this. I only clarified my interpretation because I wasn't 100% sure whether you meant "appreciate having been treated" or "appreciate being treated," which have different meanings here.
That's more or less what I'm trying to tell myself. It helps a little bit... Hearing it from someone who's going through it helps even more. Thanks, and congratulations!
As kids get older they tend to appreciate having being treated as real people.
(I assume you meant 'having been treated'...)
This is definitely true. My father had a "second batch" of children when I was about 22 so I've had an opportunity to watch him parenting from an adult perspective. One of the things that he does REALLY well is to talk to babies and kids without baby-talking. He has real conversations that are somehow at their level, about things they're interested in.
He's also very in tune with their truly being small people, with complex feelings and viewpoints. One of the things that annoys him is when a parent tells an embarassing story about a young child while the child is in earshot. I think he's quite right in his belief that kids are able to tell when they're being laughed at before they can really express that they feel embarassed.
I think paying attention to these things really does a lot to help kids develop, both emotionally and intellectually. My little siblings are two of the most articulate little kids I've ever seen. I think in large part this is because they've been exposed to "adult" talk since long before they could put syllables together. They've definitely been allowed to be kids, but they have also been given a lot of respect as humans. This is definitely something I hope to emulate when I become a father (in about 8 weeks... *gulp*).
Well, one nice thing about the Many Worlds Interpretation is that it really makes no useful contribution to quantitative physics. Not being comfortable with the idea of arbitrarily large numbers of universes won't get in the way of contributing to physics.:-) It's kind of an interesting thing to think about, but ultimately it's a metaphysical exercise that is only of value if it helps to understand and develop intuition about the quirks of quantum mechanics. If there were a prediction that we could communicate between these various universes, it could be useful, but I don't know of any models that plausibly posit that.
Personally, I am more at ease accepting inherent unpredictability in a single universe and don't feel there's benefit in creating these extra universes. Schroedinger's Cat, the EPR paradox, and other paradigm-shattering thought experiments all seemed interesting to me when I learned about them, but none seemed particularly unacceptable. I think this is a result of growing up and being educated after these ideas had been released into the wild. Had I originally been trained in the deterministic ways that preceded QM, I imagine it would have been more troubling.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no question you are giving up freedom by making that choice. You are giving up the option to support the software yourself if you need to do so. That option is freedom to use the software as you see fit. If you use "non-free" software, you do not have that option, and you do not have that freedom. This is not "RMS's kool-aid," this is the definition of freedom.
How valuable you consider that freedom is up to you. Personally, I feel it is valuable enough to pursue, but not so valuable as to displace all other concerns. I use proprietary software when I feel it's necessary (usually for work, occasionally for games / entertainment). However, when I can, I use free options and do what I can to help improve them.
Yep, I like wine quite a bit. Actually, for most of my needs, dosbox does the best job of all. I find it sort of odd that the best way to run dos games is to quit out of windows and run linux. :-)
The problem with freedoms is that you DON'T miss them immediately upon giving them up. By the time you miss them, it's usually too late to ask for them back. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
Of course, I also feel the grandparent's pain. Linux on a laptop has improved quite a bit recently, but it's still not anywhere near as convenient or effortless as Windows or OSX. I run XP/Gentoo dual boot with KDE. On the good side, it accurately reports my battery level and can be configured to sleep when I close the lid. On the down side... Well, I'll just say I'm happy enough to use my machine in Linux for whatever I can, but I wouldn't suggest it to my mother.
To put this on topic a bit... there's no doubt I'd rather run linux than win98 on an old piece of hardware if there were any way I could get the software to switch over. Compared to XP, I prefer it for freedom and power, but I'd have a harder time pushing someone else on the idea.
There is certainly bias in virtually any source. However, I think there is simply more bias present in Wikipedia articles than in traditional encyclopedias. This is probably due to a combination of better (as in more stringent) editorial control, professional authorship, and the relative youth of Wikipedia as a reference work. I certainly don't consider this a damning fault of Wikipedia, but I find that using it as a reference requires somewhat larger grains of salt than does using a top-tier traditional encyclopedia. I'm generally willing to tolerate this because it's free, convenient, and usually has a decent selection of links to other sources.
One thing that I've found to be somewhat helpful in evaluating Wikipedia entries is the discussion page. Often, the discussion there gives hints as to the strengths, weaknesses, and biases in the article. I'm really glad that it's there and is visible. I wish they'd improve the threading of the discussions to make it easier to read, but it's still quite helpful.
Interesting theory. I don't pay close attention to the dates, but I would probably be unlikely to purchase if I happened to notice the offer was just about to expire. Generally I send them in as soon as I'm sure I'm content enough with the product that I won't need an intact UPC code (to return it to the store). Actually, there have been a few times I've run up against the post-purchase deadline. In those cases, though, I always try to be conservative -- if they say it must be within 30 days of purchase, I presume that means calendar days (not business days) and I assume they run the clock so that if you purchased on the first of the month, you'd have to submit no later than the 30th to qualify. Normally, I wouldn't even push it, but I'd be sure to have it postmarked by the 30th, even though you could make a case that 30 days would mean the 31st...
Maybe so. I do actively try to avoid buying from companies that have a sleazy feel to them, even if it costs a little extra. However, I've done business with quite a few different companies of varying sizes. Maybe I've just been lucky, though I think I've done enough rebates that I'd have had at least one problem if it were really as endemic as it is made out to be.
But, like I said, there's not much to actually like about these rebates, so I'd be glad to see them go, even if they work for me.
Oh, I understand your point completely, and do agree that it is kind of silly. I just think it's kind of odd that people hate them as passionately as they do. I'm no stranger to passionate hatred of stupidity, but rebates don't quite rise to that level for me.
Honestly, I don't understand the hatred that people have for these things. I have probably sent in rebates for 5-10 products per year for the last few years and every single one has been issued in a timely fashion. People claim that their submissions are ignored or denied because they failed to comply with the requirements, but that doesn't match my experience at all. I do have very neat handwriting, which I'm sure doesn't hurt. I used to painstakingly photocopy all the materials I sent and keep them in case there was a problem, but it came to seem pointless so now I only do that for higher value ones if at all.
That said, I'd be happy to see them done away with. They are inconvenient, especially for the lower value ones (I don't mind 10 minutes of paperwork for $50, but when it's for $10 or less, it seems kind of silly). An in-store rebate is much nicer for the customer.
No, it is NOT racist. It is racial, but that is not the same as racist. It'd be racist if it showed a black person in a poor light through hurtful stereotypes. The net content is a black person and a white person struggling. They're not making any statement except that one person is black and the other person is white, just like their PSP. They even kept a balance in the three images, showing that they're not espousing white or black supremacy.
A racist interpretation of this says more about the viewer than about the image. Not to say the person is hurtfully racist, but that the person has been trained to find racism whether it's there or not. Yeah, we went through (and to some degree are still going through) periods of slavery and discrimination in the US. Yeah, they have major black/white race conflicts elsewhere in the world. But that doesn't make every image of a black person and a white person part of that discrimination.
Fight racism when it happens, but don't manufacture it.
Really. It was all I could do not to stand up, throw my notebook at him, shout, "That is exactly what we'll do you moron, that's why we are writing this spec!" and storm out of the room. He did go on to try to add a few features later on in the design process. We probably implemented some of them, too.
Interesting point. Like so many, though, it's not clear what the overall implications are.
That is definitely true for the duplication costs, but the total cost for the authorized publishers is higher since they have to pay for the initial production. This is part of the main argument in favor of copyrights -- helping those who produce material recoup their production costs.
Heh, I was not previously familiar with the GNAA. They weren't the **AA I had in mind, but feel free to include them in the sentiment.
You raise some very interesting points.
:-)
The thing that I think makes this such a difficult problem is that, it would seem, the music/movie/entertainment industry as it is and has been since the middle of last century (ie, since the advent of practical mechanical/electronic publication of music/movies/etc) is built on a model that fundamentally requires that high-quality duplication be expensive. That is no longer true. As a result, one of two things will happen. Either the system will be changed so that it IS once again expensive to duplicate these products, or the production system will change to be compatible with free or near-free copying.
The legal wrangling that's been going on is all essentially trying to make duplication expensive. It's not technically expensive any more, so the powers that be are adding legal and social costs (through laws or public villification of offenders). They're also trying to make it technically expensive through artificial means (copy protecting hardware, e.g.).
In my opinion, this is destined to fail. I don't believe you can achieve the level of enforcement necessary to rub out piracy (arrrrr) or the technical sophistication to outwit all the world's engineers who want to make a high-quality copy of a file they possess. The cat is out of the bag, technologically, and it ain't going back in.
It's a scary prospect, both for the entertainment producers and for the end users. No one knows what a market compatible with near-free duplication costs will support. It's never been done before. The producers stand to lose a lot, since they can't predict where to go to protect their interests in this unknown environment. The end users also stand to lose since it is quite possible that the number of artists who can be supported will fall drastically. Of course, it could end up being better for everyone in the long run. But it's really pretty close to impossible to predict.
Anyway, just some thoughts. I don't have any prescriptive answers for how to deal with this phase change. The best I can do is urge copyright reform to help society face up to the fact that free and easy copying is going to be the way of the future and hope that we can responsibly manage the transition.
Oh, and screw the **AA.
Come on, this isn't flamebait. If it's not insightful, I don't know what is. It's pretty hard to get an IP ban on slashdot, and taking out your frustration by being rude to a tech support rep is a pretty good way to prove that you are a genuine Class A asshat. Showing off about this behavior later only confirms it.
I've got to agree with you on this one. The net content of this article was that somebody is going to do a study. Ok, great. It'll be news when the study is done and tells us something interesting. This story isn't even interesting for the debate it will spark on slashdot itself -- it's just begging for a flamewar. Can we mod the story down flamebait? (or off-topic, as we'll surely be modded...)
Even if we assume that the EULA's warranty disclaimer provisions are fully enforceable, that would have no bearing on an intentional act by the software provider. The warranty provisions would protect them if the software is incompatible. If they single you out and shut you down, that is an act on their part to specifically alter the software to your detriment, rather than an oversight or act of disclaimed negligence.
I believe they would need another clause to specify that you are only permitted to operate the software if you jump through their validation hoops. If you did not agree to that when you obtained your license, they'll be on pretty thin ice to add it to the license later.
I don't think his statement means what you interpreted it to mean. When a company works for an ethical goal -- one that is primarily motivated by doing the right thing rather than making money -- it is surprising. There is no surprise when a company works for a profit goal, since that is what companies are expected to do. This doesn't mean that profit goals are unethical, just that it's not particularly interesting when a company goes after a profitable target that happens to be ethical.
It does seem that perhaps it would have been cheaper for IBM to have settled long ago rather than fighting this for so long. You can make a reasonable case they're standing up for Linux because they don't want to see SCO make off with ill-gotten profits. I'm not totally sold on that interpretation -- it's also quite possible that they've done an analysis and found that settling the lawsuit would be more expensive than many slashdotters seem to estimate so they're just making a rational fiscal decision.
Personally, I hope that it's the former, because I agree with the original poster. It warms my heart to think of a large company motivated by something other than the bottom line. It doesn't happen often, but it is possible.
Thanks, and congratulations to you as well. 20060626 is a cool birthdate. It's fun to write and has a nice rhythm when you say it.
A number of my friends grew up with parents who speak other languages (mostly East Asian) who wound up very fluent listeners but poor speakers. It just seems that it's hard to get a kid to practice speaking a language that's not used in their wider social circle. Kind of a bummer -- most of my friends in this situation are kind of upset they don't speak the languages better. Ah well.
Thanks...
No sweat.. I try not to be too picky about typos, especially on a forum like this. I only clarified my interpretation because I wasn't 100% sure whether you meant "appreciate having been treated" or "appreciate being treated," which have different meanings here.
That's more or less what I'm trying to tell myself. It helps a little bit... Hearing it from someone who's going through it helps even more. Thanks, and congratulations!
Thanks!
This is definitely true. My father had a "second batch" of children when I was about 22 so I've had an opportunity to watch him parenting from an adult perspective. One of the things that he does REALLY well is to talk to babies and kids without baby-talking. He has real conversations that are somehow at their level, about things they're interested in.
He's also very in tune with their truly being small people, with complex feelings and viewpoints. One of the things that annoys him is when a parent tells an embarassing story about a young child while the child is in earshot. I think he's quite right in his belief that kids are able to tell when they're being laughed at before they can really express that they feel embarassed.
I think paying attention to these things really does a lot to help kids develop, both emotionally and intellectually. My little siblings are two of the most articulate little kids I've ever seen. I think in large part this is because they've been exposed to "adult" talk since long before they could put syllables together. They've definitely been allowed to be kids, but they have also been given a lot of respect as humans. This is definitely something I hope to emulate when I become a father (in about 8 weeks... *gulp*).
Well, one nice thing about the Many Worlds Interpretation is that it really makes no useful contribution to quantitative physics. Not being comfortable with the idea of arbitrarily large numbers of universes won't get in the way of contributing to physics. :-) It's kind of an interesting thing to think about, but ultimately it's a metaphysical exercise that is only of value if it helps to understand and develop intuition about the quirks of quantum mechanics. If there were a prediction that we could communicate between these various universes, it could be useful, but I don't know of any models that plausibly posit that.
Personally, I am more at ease accepting inherent unpredictability in a single universe and don't feel there's benefit in creating these extra universes. Schroedinger's Cat, the EPR paradox, and other paradigm-shattering thought experiments all seemed interesting to me when I learned about them, but none seemed particularly unacceptable. I think this is a result of growing up and being educated after these ideas had been released into the wild. Had I originally been trained in the deterministic ways that preceded QM, I imagine it would have been more troubling.