If the iPhone takes sales away from the iPod then thats good news for Apple. Better for Apple to cannibalize its own products than for some other company to defeat the iPod.
On the other hand I still think there's room for both. Afterall many people already own multiple iPods. So now they'll own multiple iPods and one iPhone.
Moreal relativism sucks my friend. Our base in Gitmo is not the same as a Nazi concentration camp which sought to exterminate an entire race of people.
You'll have to enlighten me as to Eastern Europe. If those governments object to us building bases there don't you think we'd all know about it? Last I checked we hadn't invaded any european nations.
As for our military base being built in Iraq, the current government of Iraq has agreed to it being placed there. Whats the problem?
The iPhone isn't going to stay on one carrier forever. Its just a start. Just like the iPod started out on the Macintosh and then later moved to Windows. On the other hand I disagree vehemently with your assertion that people won't switch to Cingular for the iPhone. They'll probably get at LEAST 5 million new users because of the iPhone.
The only problem with that statement would be the whole US oppressing others thing. The US doesn't oppress anyone. Even when we invade we aren't oppressing anyone. My god you make it sound like we went into Afghanistan and Iraq and setup concentration camps.
Wider adoption of Linux is not going to turn more people into operating system geeks simply for the fact that Linux will not gain wider adoption until it is easier to use.
Despite what you may think the vast majority of people have absolutely no interest at all in learning how an operating system works. Who has the time for that anyway? Should I learn how my TV works? Or my heating system? Or my Microwave? Don't know, don't care. All people care about is if the stuff works or not. If it stops working they don't fix it themselves, they hire someone who specializes in it to do so. The entire reason Windows has such wide adoption is because its easy to use. The fact that I as a consumer or user cannot take a look at or modify personally the Windows kernel matters not one in the least to me. Why? Because I don't know how to program anyway! Its not like anyone can just become a computer software programmer. To some this ability comes easily and for the rest of us it would take far more work than its worth to learn how to do.
Like do you get that? The fact that programming is not an easy thing to do for most people? If it was everyone would program their own software and there wouldn't be a market for for-pay software in the first place!
10 years ago Linux was a barely useable pile of dog doo to anyone but the most autistic of geeks or obsessive compulsives of nerds.
Now and ONLY now is it approaching something decently usable by regular folks. So you wanted corporations 10 years ago to have invested time and money in Linux as it was back then? To compete with Windows 95?
I ask you again sir, are you on something?
Do you know what you are? I'll tell you....
on
NASA Fires Astronaut
·
· Score: 1
...you sir are an ENABLER of the highest order.
I commend you sir, you ENABLE people like no one has ever done before. My hat is off to you sir!
If in ANY western country a non-mentally retarded person finds themself in a situation where they can't eat or pay the rent should anyone really feel sorry for them?
I mean isn't it kind of a test for life to be able to feed and house yourself?
I've never heard of incompetent lions receiving social benefits if they are too stupid to catch a wilderbeast to eat.
Microsoft expects people to put up with the phoning home of their OS because they do put up with it. You are aware that you have to be technologically competent to be aware that the phoning home is even going on aren't you?
What the heck are you afraid of anyway? Its not like Microsoft is going to shut down your computer just for the heck of it.
"We live in different worlds. Right now I see laptops running WinXP and Win2k. Vista might as well not exist. We are members of the Microsoft Developer's Network Academic Alliance, so we can download free-as-in-beer copies of WinXP and Vista. I've only ever seen one copy of Vista running on campus."
Of course we live in different worlds. You live in the academic world and I live in the real one.:)
At any one time. With Windows there's only one current version of Windows. Right now its Vista. Before it was XP. Before that Win2k/98. Now with Linux at any one time there are literally hundreds of distros available. This is why Linux certification is necessary. If you want Linux certification to go away then somehow convince the community to stop spreading itself thin and concentrate on a few major distros.
Only a true geek could possibly not know the answer to your question.
Compiling from source is an extremely counter-intuitive way of installing software. If you are trying to promote wider acceptance and usage of Linux than telling people that they can compile from source if all else fails is absolutely not the way to do it.
There's a social disconnect here that you aren't percieving.
I'm not lacking any perspective. The right of a copyright holder to earn money from their creations is not causing anyone to be murdered, or raped, or physically harmed. Thus there is no need for it to be abridged. There are no other social considerations in this case. None. Not a damn one. I'm pretty sure a good number of CS grads simply sleep through their "social concious" classes if the class involves anything related to "doing good works for the common good" instead of "doing good works so you can get paid cash money". I'm also sure a good number don't sleep through such classes. But those guys usually don't go on to do great things.
Your second question covers the ground of whether or not copyrights should have been extended beyond their original set limits. I don't really care what the limits are. If enough people dislike them they can lobby their represenatives and Senators to change them. Seeing as how we have yet to have riots in the streets demanding such change, the issue must not be of any great importance. I know WHY the laws exist. Its to promote creation. I don't have to give you a detailed history of each copyright law and amendment to have an opinion on them. What YOU need to do since you are going against the status quo is tell us why things should change in the favor of the uncreative and unproductive user and away from the creators/copyright holders. How will such a change benefit society? How will it promote more creation? And not just any creation, but valuable creation (don't know how to tell the difference between the two? Check out Open Source software for a majority of low value creation).
The biggest indicator of the 'general will' is the free market. The free market has repeatedly decided again and again to reward those who work for money over those who do not. The free software movement has trouble GIVING their work away, meanwhile Microsoft racks up billions of dollars per month charging over $300 for an operating system and office suite. It is absoltuely, morally, socially and legally right that such creation be protected by law. I don't ever want our legal copyright framework to be redesigned in such a way that proprietary developers no longer have an incentive to work thus leaving us at the mercy of autistic free software developers. That would suck on more levels than there are in Dante's Inferno.
In any case Congress has already decreed that creators have rights above and beyond those who are merely users, and that of course is the right to profit from their creations. And seeing as how Congress writes the laws.....I don't know what your argument here is. While you managed to avoid mentioning you know what, you picked someone just as bad proving once again that Slashdotters, open source/free software propoenents and the like simply have absolutely no capabilities in concerns to perspective when discussing technical issues. To compare anything we're talking about right now (friggin software) to Stalin is really depressing. Why? Because on one hand technically geeks are obviously brilliant, while on the other hand this childish worldview demonstrates that when someone excells in one capacity they are usually deficient in the other, this being the social graces.
The author doesn't get paid when his stuff is pirated. The fact that its digital software that can be copied unlimited times without cost is wholly irrelevant. The most important viewpoint is that of the author. If we want good software to continue to be made, not horribly bad user interface wise open source software, then you have to make sure the developer can get paid.
I'm a Mac user but even I can tell you that there is no activation issues for swapping out a hard drive. You'd have to change more than just one component at a time to trigger any issues.
Slashdot Mirror
Click and Run refers to Linspire's installation technology for its Linux distro, not as a way to simply activate programs.
If the iPhone takes sales away from the iPod then thats good news for Apple. Better for Apple to cannibalize its own products than for some other company to defeat the iPod.
On the other hand I still think there's room for both. Afterall many people already own multiple iPods. So now they'll own multiple iPods and one iPhone.
Or maybe....two iPhones....
Moreal relativism sucks my friend. Our base in Gitmo is not the same as a Nazi concentration camp which sought to exterminate an entire race of people.
You'll have to enlighten me as to Eastern Europe. If those governments object to us building bases there don't you think we'd all know about it? Last I checked we hadn't invaded any european nations.
As for our military base being built in Iraq, the current government of Iraq has agreed to it being placed there. Whats the problem?
The iPhone isn't going to stay on one carrier forever. Its just a start. Just like the iPod started out on the Macintosh and then later moved to Windows. On the other hand I disagree vehemently with your assertion that people won't switch to Cingular for the iPhone. They'll probably get at LEAST 5 million new users because of the iPhone.
The only problem with that statement would be the whole US oppressing others thing. The US doesn't oppress anyone. Even when we invade we aren't oppressing anyone. My god you make it sound like we went into Afghanistan and Iraq and setup concentration camps.
Wider adoption of Linux is not going to turn more people into operating system geeks simply for the fact that Linux will not gain wider adoption until it is easier to use.
Despite what you may think the vast majority of people have absolutely no interest at all in learning how an operating system works. Who has the time for that anyway? Should I learn how my TV works? Or my heating system? Or my Microwave? Don't know, don't care. All people care about is if the stuff works or not. If it stops working they don't fix it themselves, they hire someone who specializes in it to do so. The entire reason Windows has such wide adoption is because its easy to use. The fact that I as a consumer or user cannot take a look at or modify personally the Windows kernel matters not one in the least to me. Why? Because I don't know how to program anyway! Its not like anyone can just become a computer software programmer. To some this ability comes easily and for the rest of us it would take far more work than its worth to learn how to do.
Like do you get that? The fact that programming is not an easy thing to do for most people? If it was everyone would program their own software and there wouldn't be a market for for-pay software in the first place!
Are you on some REALLY POWERFUL DRUGS?
10 years ago Linux was a barely useable pile of dog doo to anyone but the most autistic of geeks or obsessive compulsives of nerds.
Now and ONLY now is it approaching something decently usable by regular folks. So you wanted corporations 10 years ago to have invested time and money in Linux as it was back then? To compete with Windows 95?
I ask you again sir, are you on something?
...you sir are an ENABLER of the highest order.
I commend you sir, you ENABLE people like no one has ever done before. My hat is off to you sir!
Morality is a human construct. It doesn't actually exist, we made it up.
If in ANY western country a non-mentally retarded person finds themself in a situation where they can't eat or pay the rent should anyone really feel sorry for them?
I mean isn't it kind of a test for life to be able to feed and house yourself?
I've never heard of incompetent lions receiving social benefits if they are too stupid to catch a wilderbeast to eat.
Your crusade to stop car/computer analogies is like trying to get unionized American autoworkers to realize they're a big part of their own troubles.
In other words, its just never going to happen.
Microsoft expects people to put up with the phoning home of their OS because they do put up with it. You are aware that you have to be technologically competent to be aware that the phoning home is even going on aren't you?
What the heck are you afraid of anyway? Its not like Microsoft is going to shut down your computer just for the heck of it.
I personally am that one dimensional, why wouldn't a number of others be?
You just said it twice.
"We live in different worlds. Right now I see laptops running WinXP and Win2k. Vista might as well not exist. We are members of the Microsoft Developer's Network Academic Alliance, so we can download free-as-in-beer copies of WinXP and Vista. I've only ever seen one copy of Vista running on campus."
:)
Of course we live in different worlds. You live in the academic world and I live in the real one.
I got 5 on it what you got homie?
At any one time. With Windows there's only one current version of Windows. Right now its Vista. Before it was XP. Before that Win2k/98. Now with Linux at any one time there are literally hundreds of distros available. This is why Linux certification is necessary. If you want Linux certification to go away then somehow convince the community to stop spreading itself thin and concentrate on a few major distros.
They're not silly. They just don't care.
Only a true geek could possibly not know the answer to your question.
Compiling from source is an extremely counter-intuitive way of installing software. If you are trying to promote wider acceptance and usage of Linux than telling people that they can compile from source if all else fails is absolutely not the way to do it.
There's a social disconnect here that you aren't percieving.
I'm not lacking any perspective. The right of a copyright holder to earn money from their creations is not causing anyone to be murdered, or raped, or physically harmed. Thus there is no need for it to be abridged. There are no other social considerations in this case. None. Not a damn one. I'm pretty sure a good number of CS grads simply sleep through their "social concious" classes if the class involves anything related to "doing good works for the common good" instead of "doing good works so you can get paid cash money". I'm also sure a good number don't sleep through such classes. But those guys usually don't go on to do great things.
Your second question covers the ground of whether or not copyrights should have been extended beyond their original set limits. I don't really care what the limits are. If enough people dislike them they can lobby their represenatives and Senators to change them. Seeing as how we have yet to have riots in the streets demanding such change, the issue must not be of any great importance. I know WHY the laws exist. Its to promote creation. I don't have to give you a detailed history of each copyright law and amendment to have an opinion on them. What YOU need to do since you are going against the status quo is tell us why things should change in the favor of the uncreative and unproductive user and away from the creators/copyright holders. How will such a change benefit society? How will it promote more creation? And not just any creation, but valuable creation (don't know how to tell the difference between the two? Check out Open Source software for a majority of low value creation).
The biggest indicator of the 'general will' is the free market. The free market has repeatedly decided again and again to reward those who work for money over those who do not. The free software movement has trouble GIVING their work away, meanwhile Microsoft racks up billions of dollars per month charging over $300 for an operating system and office suite. It is absoltuely, morally, socially and legally right that such creation be protected by law. I don't ever want our legal copyright framework to be redesigned in such a way that proprietary developers no longer have an incentive to work thus leaving us at the mercy of autistic free software developers. That would suck on more levels than there are in Dante's Inferno.
I'm already an adult.
In any case Congress has already decreed that creators have rights above and beyond those who are merely users, and that of course is the right to profit from their creations. And seeing as how Congress writes the laws.....I don't know what your argument here is. While you managed to avoid mentioning you know what, you picked someone just as bad proving once again that Slashdotters, open source/free software propoenents and the like simply have absolutely no capabilities in concerns to perspective when discussing technical issues. To compare anything we're talking about right now (friggin software) to Stalin is really depressing. Why? Because on one hand technically geeks are obviously brilliant, while on the other hand this childish worldview demonstrates that when someone excells in one capacity they are usually deficient in the other, this being the social graces.
You have a form of autism don't you?
Obviously the guy meant it was against the law. Did you really think he needed you to point that out?
The author doesn't get paid when his stuff is pirated. The fact that its digital software that can be copied unlimited times without cost is wholly irrelevant. The most important viewpoint is that of the author. If we want good software to continue to be made, not horribly bad user interface wise open source software, then you have to make sure the developer can get paid.
Simple as that.
....and ghost the drive first.
Who the fuck re-installs everything just to replace a HD anymore?
I'm a Mac user but even I can tell you that there is no activation issues for swapping out a hard drive. You'd have to change more than just one component at a time to trigger any issues.