If this is even a borderline scam perpetrated by the makezine blogger, I pity those who followed OP's suggestion. There will be those who shout, "So what? They're two members of our hobbyist community and we should defend them against the eeeeevil government busybodies trying to run our lives!" and as a result, few will ever notice that they were used for a sales boost.
Impressive. You can read a person by her appearance alone, and a photograph where she was encouraged to pose, no less.
Tell me, can you elaborate on the vital plot points of War and Peace by looking at the cover alone?
Why is it that we're judging this woman already, when she might simply be doing her job? People living in suburbs have demanded a certain level of safety, and a full-blown organic chem lab inside a guy's house carries several risks that have serious consequences, especially if the chemist isn't on top of everything. Once someone with a cooler head points out the lack of formal charges and the scale of his operation, he gets hammered by people who value property rights over their neighbors' rights. I have a feeling that this general inability to comprehend that maybe their neighbors don't want a potential time bomb in their midst is why the libertarian sentiment here is so vocal and adamant.
Parent comment isn't informative, it's stirring the libertarian/anti-government pot. The submission itself is perfect libertarian bait, and they're eating it up like a feeding frenzy.
You'd think their chemists could convince them that all they needed was to go down the column of alkali metals-- or heck, slip some high explosive in there for a bigger bang, but I guess their minds were still on the Hindenburg.
The real question then becomes, are we going to let greed/control-motivated megacorps hold the government hostage with the fear of a diminished economic sector? They essentially are saying "We're going to go on strike and stop developing the good stuff unless you tack on another quarter century to Mickey Mouse's indentured servitude to Disney."
I know it seems counter-intuitive, but having your source code available doesn't mean people won't pay for your deliverable... As a matter of fact, given the increasing complexity of modern games, having the source available means that only the most dedicated of pirates will try to compile and sell his own rip-off. The only thing that prevents many game dev houses from using open source methodologies is the fact that the algorithms contained in the code are still very valuable to developers (and are therefore protected by NDAs and the like), and the big publishers have adopted many of the media distributors' (RIAA, MPAA, BPI, etc. member companies) views on digital copyright. I'm pretty sure the big guys are BSA members, so that should say a lot.
The one problem I see, however, is that open sourcing can kill a small developer looking to make money off his product. Most small fare games are nowhere near the size and complexity of big-ticket games, so if the source were available, all a competitor or jerk has to do is fetch it and make himself a rip-off to sell at a lower price, or flood the market with free clones. In such a scenario, I would keep the source and artwork closed, but give the game away with as few restrictions as possible. Offer direct support for a small fee, or sell expansion packs that add value, or (if it's a Flash game) stick some ads near the game. Heck, you can take id's cue and give the engine away (assuming it's really snazzy), but keep the artwork and story of your game proper. If the game is fun to play and doesn't handcuff the players for wanting to play, you'll be asking yourself how to handle all the legit customers rather than piracy.
Seriously, if you're a small-game developer, or one of scores of bit players, you can't afford the "churn" business model, which is the only model copy protections can encourage. The idea that equates a copy made without payment to a lost sale is a myth.
Of course Gates would say that. He's the one who wanted to get rich selling software from the very beginning of his career, and he's viewed anyone who would give away software as free to use or modify as a hindrance to his business.
Perhaps Gates views GPL software as "tainted", much as Free Software and OSS people regard proprietary software as "tainted". Technologically, OpenDocument would have provided the time- and vendor-proof file format ideal for easy access and archival. However, I believe he pushed for an XML dump of the major Office formats, because ODF support would grant no competitive advantage for Microsoft. If Microsoft really wants to enjoy the benefits of open source software, it needs to start accepting Free Software as part of the industry, contribute to it as a member of the community, and let go of requiring people to pay for software. In order for that to happen, however, Gates would have to have a much more diminished role in decision making.
They'd also have to find someone to be CEO other than "Used Car Sales Monkey" Ballmer, who is either part of a destructive tug-of-war over Yahoo, or he's using a flower and picking off the petals: "We buy them. We buy them not..."
Huge portions of our artistic heritage are simply being flushed down the toilet... and for what? So companies can continue to make a profit from that tenth of a percent of copyrighted works that are still being sold after ten years?
A tenth of a percent, perhaps, but without the cost involved with the creation of the work in question (chiefly artists and writers). Probably explains why some popular games from five years ago end up in the $10 bargain bin today. Not that I'm complaining.
Still, I think your point that it's not entirely greed is a good one. I personally think it's more about controlling every step of the process so a corporation doesn't have to deal with a content creator going to work for the competition. Funny how indentured servitude was supposed to be gone by the 20th century.
Americans will do almost anything if you pay them enough, watch that "Dirty Jobs" series if you don't believe me.
The key word may be "enough". What is "enough" for many people is "too much" for a company.
Of course, said company may be looking for an excuse to raise revenue by cutting costs. What such companies don't realize is that very often you do get what you pay for in staffing.
GNU Enterprise might be a great place for them to start contributing cash/engineers. It would be great for SAP and the others to have some competition in the Linux world.
Modern Olympic games (n.): 1. A means for a country to gain prestige and wealth even if it doesn't deserve it. (see also: 2008 Beijing, 1980 Moscow, 1936 Berlin.) 2. A means for corporations to add to their already lucrative profits. 3. A means for the IOC to demonstrate what low regard they have of the ideals upon which they were founded. 4. 20 minutes of advertisements for 15 minutes of tangential stories and 2 minutes of actual athletic competition.
I'd qualify "free" as in "free-to-broadcast." While their TV networks tend to blow away US networks in terms of content quality, the content producers/distributors are even more paranoid about so-called "intellectual property rights". Note also the ISP's willingness to try to kill all P2P regardless of infringement just because of a series of darknet applications used solely for file-sharing.
It's the classic business model of a confidence man.
1. Build a crummy product using the cheapest* tools you can find. 2. Promise big, big things to elections officials and to the mainstream parties, like donations, endorsements, and "victories", wink, wink, nudge, nudge. Sure, the product won't fulfill any of those promises (with the exception of "victories"), but by the time they find out, you'll be in Cancun with the profits. 3. Ensure a perpetual licensing model like the one Microsoft is testing with their Google Docs competitor. 4. Unquestionable profit. At least, until they're investigated and body-cavity-searched by the FBI.
* Cost here includes paying the developer, so Windows/VBA/Access was chosen to minimize the amount paid to the sucker, er, employee.
Stealing America looks like a freebie (which I can't view due to a missing plugin), but for those who don't mind HBO, there's the classic Hacking Democracy (www.hackingdemocracy.com). There's also Black Box Voting (www.blackboxvoting.org), with enough information about elections investigations to possibly make a paralegal blanch.
You are allowed to say: "The rules are bad. We must fix the rules."
Don't forget, "These people broke the rules. We must punish them, or the rules are rendered powerless."
Sadly, the Executive broke the rules on a nearly-constant basis, while the Legislature by its silence failed to uphold the rules. Some challenges have arisen in the Judiciary, but the Executive's neutering of the rule of law is pretty much complete.
... they always have to tack on a few batshit crazy things that (rightfully) scare away their potential supporters.
Not only this, but they scare the incumbent Democrats and Republicans such that, in the minuscule chance that a 3rd-party candidate is elected, they and their constituents are effectively marginalized. If the candidate somehow wins the Presidency, he/she becomes an instant lame duck for the same reason.
I find it interesting that 3rd-party supporters have such faith in their party enacting change if they're elected, when the first thing that mainstream society, press, and politics will do is quarantine them as "nuts". The first step to moving a gaggle of cats is to approach them, not brandish a big sign pointing out their faults.
Manipulative marketing VP: Sir, I have a proposal for all the security concerns. Why don't you have a look at this long report I've written on spying on our customers? CEO: I was elected to lead, not to read!
Someone read/heard about the MIT guys using a 6502-based machine and assumed "Apple II", which used the original chips*. The source for the original article could've called it the 2A03 Ricoh variant used in the Famicom/NES for clarity.
* As did many a Commodore computer; other notable devices using 6502 variants/successors were the venerable C64 and the Atari 2600. And no, I'm not a computing historian.
Keep the Velcro closed or use it sparingly, and it doesn't collect lint. Use a big enough carryon (like a zippered messenger bag) to hold the laptop case and your stuff.
I've yet to test the dockable case for my laptop on the TSA; I'm willing to bet that they are so curmudgeonly that they'll only let sleeves and such through (mine has snaps and a pocket if you carefully examine it, and they don't really block the view of the computer).
I'm sure, as in all sports, there will be extensive stats of scores, and the first few rounds will have nothing but record-breakers. A bigger issue may be that an indefinite upper bound may push more athletes into performance enhancements for higher scores.
... even if they were somehow able to definitively identify someone based on MAC and IP addresses, that evidence still can only be extracted using the unconscionable end-run around the intended purpose of federal court procedures. If such use of those procedures in John Doe suits is stopped by a judge, they won't even see the MAC addresses unless they wiretap the ISP.
1. The content distributors want to ensure a consistent and stable flow of revenue by ensuring their works have an indefinite period of copyright protection. Critics argue that just because they want to make a profit for the rest of the universe's lifetime, doesn't mean that they should keep renting content perpetually, nor should they attempt to recoup any perceived loss from digital copies by depriving the public domain of valuable content. This is a commonly held view among people online, but IMO money alone can't explain the whisper campaign against fair use or the RIAA driftnet, the latter most likely costing them much more than the sum of the settlements and judgments (?) won by them-- in fact, the more people know about the lawsuits brought against downloaders, the worse they seem to their customers. What's more, the revenue stream doesn't necessarily stop when a work goes public domain-- look at all the bargain classics Barnes & Noble or Borders sell near the cash registers. 2. The distributors don't want anyone, other than producers under their umbrellas, to create derivative works of their content. This is probably a stronger case against them, albeit much harder to prove (it would probably require a whistle-blower who's privy to board meetings). By criminalizing all copyright infringement, they hope to remain in firm control of all production and distribution of any content related to their own. After all, if you own all the printing presses, you can demand tribute for their use. I'd guess that any of the major labels who are participating in the RIAA driftnet also demand that their artists relinquish their rights to produce, promote, and distribute their music to them. Who can blame the artists for wanting to devote more time to creating music, rather than the drudgery of promotion and distribution? The best part is, this tight grip on creative control is shattered when a work goes into the public domain-- assuming the copyright holder respects the rule of law, of course. The problem with the insistence of total creative control is that the Internet is, in many ways, Pandora's Box for them. First is the ease and low cost of creating digital copies with very high fidelity to the original (for most ears, anyway). Second is the rapid development of technologies for transmitting, compressing, encrypting, etc. this digital data, often avoiding or circumventing attempts by the distributors to thwart them. The recording and movie industries are in the unenviable position of trying to keep this locked-down control over their content while at the same time, trying to distribute this content online with minimal inconvenience to their customers. Meanwhile, artists are beginning to realize the opportunity this huge network of computers gives them, and are finding new and innovative ways to bring music to their audience while circumventing potentially repressive contracts of big labels.
This could also be read as IBM stating publicly that Vista jumped the shark....which is waaaay different from a bunch of geeks in Slashdot saying it.
Expect Microsoft to start whining, very loudly, to the EU investigators and its partner companies about how IBM is being a mean, anticompetitive SOB. Kind of like the ISO mess, only on a more general scale.
So iamhigh's argument is: Canonical's support contracts are too costly and doesn't give Windows desktops/server admins any reason to switch.
His argument rests on this straw man: reduced cost is allegedly the only reason to switch to Linux. This ignores Linux's advantages such as lower hardware/software cost, access to source code and thus customizability. It also ignores the possibility of adding a Linux desktop or server for testing purposes.
Notice: He doesn't tell you how much a Windows Vista Open License costs in addition to a full support contract (!) from Microsoft or partner vendors, let alone a Windows Server 2003/2008 CAL + contract. Notice that it would be costly to him in terms of both time and resources to transition to Linux, and so he wouldn't be motivated to switch over anyway. Nowhere should a Linux evangelist ever demand that all Windows shops convert to Linux, for this reason. No one's forcing him to use Linux if Windows is working just fine, so he's mostly ranting about nothing. Worst case, he's a Microsoft evangelist.
I'm sorry, but he doesn't deserve those Insightful mods. Ironic that he predicted Flamebait mods, but as of right now no one's tagged him as such.
Slashdot Mirror
If this is even a borderline scam perpetrated by the makezine blogger, I pity those who followed OP's suggestion. There will be those who shout, "So what? They're two members of our hobbyist community and we should defend them against the eeeeevil government busybodies trying to run our lives!" and as a result, few will ever notice that they were used for a sales boost.
Impressive. You can read a person by her appearance alone, and a photograph where she was encouraged to pose, no less.
Tell me, can you elaborate on the vital plot points of War and Peace by looking at the cover alone?
Why is it that we're judging this woman already, when she might simply be doing her job? People living in suburbs have demanded a certain level of safety, and a full-blown organic chem lab inside a guy's house carries several risks that have serious consequences, especially if the chemist isn't on top of everything. Once someone with a cooler head points out the lack of formal charges and the scale of his operation, he gets hammered by people who value property rights over their neighbors' rights. I have a feeling that this general inability to comprehend that maybe their neighbors don't want a potential time bomb in their midst is why the libertarian sentiment here is so vocal and adamant.
Parent comment isn't informative, it's stirring the libertarian/anti-government pot. The submission itself is perfect libertarian bait, and they're eating it up like a feeding frenzy.
You'd think their chemists could convince them that all they needed was to go down the column of alkali metals-- or heck, slip some high explosive in there for a bigger bang, but I guess their minds were still on the Hindenburg.
The real question then becomes, are we going to let greed/control-motivated megacorps hold the government hostage with the fear of a diminished economic sector? They essentially are saying "We're going to go on strike and stop developing the good stuff unless you tack on another quarter century to Mickey Mouse's indentured servitude to Disney."
I know it seems counter-intuitive, but having your source code available doesn't mean people won't pay for your deliverable...
As a matter of fact, given the increasing complexity of modern games, having the source available means that only the most dedicated of pirates will try to compile and sell his own rip-off. The only thing that prevents many game dev houses from using open source methodologies is the fact that the algorithms contained in the code are still very valuable to developers (and are therefore protected by NDAs and the like), and the big publishers have adopted many of the media distributors' (RIAA, MPAA, BPI, etc. member companies) views on digital copyright. I'm pretty sure the big guys are BSA members, so that should say a lot.
The one problem I see, however, is that open sourcing can kill a small developer looking to make money off his product. Most small fare games are nowhere near the size and complexity of big-ticket games, so if the source were available, all a competitor or jerk has to do is fetch it and make himself a rip-off to sell at a lower price, or flood the market with free clones. In such a scenario, I would keep the source and artwork closed, but give the game away with as few restrictions as possible. Offer direct support for a small fee, or sell expansion packs that add value, or (if it's a Flash game) stick some ads near the game. Heck, you can take id's cue and give the engine away (assuming it's really snazzy), but keep the artwork and story of your game proper. If the game is fun to play and doesn't handcuff the players for wanting to play, you'll be asking yourself how to handle all the legit customers rather than piracy.
Seriously, if you're a small-game developer, or one of scores of bit players, you can't afford the "churn" business model, which is the only model copy protections can encourage. The idea that equates a copy made without payment to a lost sale is a myth.
Of course Gates would say that. He's the one who wanted to get rich selling software from the very beginning of his career, and he's viewed anyone who would give away software as free to use or modify as a hindrance to his business.
Perhaps Gates views GPL software as "tainted", much as Free Software and OSS people regard proprietary software as "tainted". Technologically, OpenDocument would have provided the time- and vendor-proof file format ideal for easy access and archival. However, I believe he pushed for an XML dump of the major Office formats, because ODF support would grant no competitive advantage for Microsoft. If Microsoft really wants to enjoy the benefits of open source software, it needs to start accepting Free Software as part of the industry, contribute to it as a member of the community, and let go of requiring people to pay for software. In order for that to happen, however, Gates would have to have a much more diminished role in decision making.
They'd also have to find someone to be CEO other than "Used Car Sales Monkey" Ballmer, who is either part of a destructive tug-of-war over Yahoo, or he's using a flower and picking off the petals: "We buy them. We buy them not..."
Huge portions of our artistic heritage are simply being flushed down the toilet... and for what? So companies can continue to make a profit from that tenth of a percent of copyrighted works that are still being sold after ten years?
A tenth of a percent, perhaps, but without the cost involved with the creation of the work in question (chiefly artists and writers). Probably explains why some popular games from five years ago end up in the $10 bargain bin today. Not that I'm complaining.
Still, I think your point that it's not entirely greed is a good one. I personally think it's more about controlling every step of the process so a corporation doesn't have to deal with a content creator going to work for the competition. Funny how indentured servitude was supposed to be gone by the 20th century.
Americans will do almost anything if you pay them enough, watch that "Dirty Jobs" series if you don't believe me.
The key word may be "enough". What is "enough" for many people is "too much" for a company.
Of course, said company may be looking for an excuse to raise revenue by cutting costs. What such companies don't realize is that very often you do get what you pay for in staffing.
GNU Enterprise might be a great place for them to start contributing cash/engineers. It would be great for SAP and the others to have some competition in the Linux world.
Modern Olympic games (n.):
1. A means for a country to gain prestige and wealth even if it doesn't deserve it. (see also: 2008 Beijing, 1980 Moscow, 1936 Berlin.)
2. A means for corporations to add to their already lucrative profits.
3. A means for the IOC to demonstrate what low regard they have of the ideals upon which they were founded.
4. 20 minutes of advertisements for 15 minutes of tangential stories and 2 minutes of actual athletic competition.
... a truly free country like Japan.
I'd qualify "free" as in "free-to-broadcast." While their TV networks tend to blow away US networks in terms of content quality, the content producers/distributors are even more paranoid about so-called "intellectual property rights". Note also the ISP's willingness to try to kill all P2P regardless of infringement just because of a series of darknet applications used solely for file-sharing.
Yup. Free, as long as you let the media 0wn you.
It's the classic business model of a confidence man.
1. Build a crummy product using the cheapest* tools you can find.
2. Promise big, big things to elections officials and to the mainstream parties, like donations, endorsements, and "victories", wink, wink, nudge, nudge. Sure, the product won't fulfill any of those promises (with the exception of "victories"), but by the time they find out, you'll be in Cancun with the profits.
3. Ensure a perpetual licensing model like the one Microsoft is testing with their Google Docs competitor.
4. Unquestionable profit. At least, until they're investigated and body-cavity-searched by the FBI.
* Cost here includes paying the developer, so Windows/VBA/Access was chosen to minimize the amount paid to the sucker, er, employee.
Stealing America looks like a freebie (which I can't view due to a missing plugin), but for those who don't mind HBO, there's the classic Hacking Democracy (www.hackingdemocracy.com).
There's also Black Box Voting (www.blackboxvoting.org), with enough information about elections investigations to possibly make a paralegal blanch.
You are allowed to say: "The rules are bad. We must fix the rules."
Don't forget, "These people broke the rules. We must punish them, or the rules are rendered powerless."
Sadly, the Executive broke the rules on a nearly-constant basis, while the Legislature by its silence failed to uphold the rules. Some challenges have arisen in the Judiciary, but the Executive's neutering of the rule of law is pretty much complete.
Not only this, but they scare the incumbent Democrats and Republicans such that, in the minuscule chance that a 3rd-party candidate is elected, they and their constituents are effectively marginalized. If the candidate somehow wins the Presidency, he/she becomes an instant lame duck for the same reason.
I find it interesting that 3rd-party supporters have such faith in their party enacting change if they're elected, when the first thing that mainstream society, press, and politics will do is quarantine them as "nuts". The first step to moving a gaggle of cats is to approach them, not brandish a big sign pointing out their faults.
Manipulative marketing VP: Sir, I have a proposal for all the security concerns. Why don't you have a look at this long report I've written on spying on our customers?
CEO: I was elected to lead, not to read!
And he's not a particularly good sales guy, either. The guy's a glorified used car salesman.
Someone read/heard about the MIT guys using a 6502-based machine and assumed "Apple II", which used the original chips*. The source for the original article could've called it the 2A03 Ricoh variant used in the Famicom/NES for clarity.
* As did many a Commodore computer; other notable devices using 6502 variants/successors were the venerable C64 and the Atari 2600.
And no, I'm not a computing historian.
Keep the Velcro closed or use it sparingly, and it doesn't collect lint. Use a big enough carryon (like a zippered messenger bag) to hold the laptop case and your stuff.
I've yet to test the dockable case for my laptop on the TSA; I'm willing to bet that they are so curmudgeonly that they'll only let sleeves and such through (mine has snaps and a pocket if you carefully examine it, and they don't really block the view of the computer).
I'm sure, as in all sports, there will be extensive stats of scores, and the first few rounds will have nothing but record-breakers. A bigger issue may be that an indefinite upper bound may push more athletes into performance enhancements for higher scores.
... even if they were somehow able to definitively identify someone based on MAC and IP addresses, that evidence still can only be extracted using the unconscionable end-run around the intended purpose of federal court procedures. If such use of those procedures in John Doe suits is stopped by a judge, they won't even see the MAC addresses unless they wiretap the ISP.
1. The content distributors want to ensure a consistent and stable flow of revenue by ensuring their works have an indefinite period of copyright protection. Critics argue that just because they want to make a profit for the rest of the universe's lifetime, doesn't mean that they should keep renting content perpetually, nor should they attempt to recoup any perceived loss from digital copies by depriving the public domain of valuable content. This is a commonly held view among people online, but IMO money alone can't explain the whisper campaign against fair use or the RIAA driftnet, the latter most likely costing them much more than the sum of the settlements and judgments (?) won by them-- in fact, the more people know about the lawsuits brought against downloaders, the worse they seem to their customers. What's more, the revenue stream doesn't necessarily stop when a work goes public domain-- look at all the bargain classics Barnes & Noble or Borders sell near the cash registers.
2. The distributors don't want anyone, other than producers under their umbrellas, to create derivative works of their content. This is probably a stronger case against them, albeit much harder to prove (it would probably require a whistle-blower who's privy to board meetings). By criminalizing all copyright infringement, they hope to remain in firm control of all production and distribution of any content related to their own. After all, if you own all the printing presses, you can demand tribute for their use. I'd guess that any of the major labels who are participating in the RIAA driftnet also demand that their artists relinquish their rights to produce, promote, and distribute their music to them. Who can blame the artists for wanting to devote more time to creating music, rather than the drudgery of promotion and distribution? The best part is, this tight grip on creative control is shattered when a work goes into the public domain-- assuming the copyright holder respects the rule of law, of course.
The problem with the insistence of total creative control is that the Internet is, in many ways, Pandora's Box for them. First is the ease and low cost of creating digital copies with very high fidelity to the original (for most ears, anyway). Second is the rapid development of technologies for transmitting, compressing, encrypting, etc. this digital data, often avoiding or circumventing attempts by the distributors to thwart them. The recording and movie industries are in the unenviable position of trying to keep this locked-down control over their content while at the same time, trying to distribute this content online with minimal inconvenience to their customers. Meanwhile, artists are beginning to realize the opportunity this huge network of computers gives them, and are finding new and innovative ways to bring music to their audience while circumventing potentially repressive contracts of big labels.
Expect Microsoft to start whining, very loudly, to the EU investigators and its partner companies about how IBM is being a mean, anticompetitive SOB. Kind of like the ISO mess, only on a more general scale.
The good news was, the consultant said the spaghetti was delicious.
So iamhigh's argument is: Canonical's support contracts are too costly and doesn't give Windows desktops/server admins any reason to switch.
His argument rests on this straw man: reduced cost is allegedly the only reason to switch to Linux. This ignores Linux's advantages such as lower hardware/software cost, access to source code and thus customizability. It also ignores the possibility of adding a Linux desktop or server for testing purposes.
Notice: He doesn't tell you how much a Windows Vista Open License costs in addition to a full support contract (!) from Microsoft or partner vendors, let alone a Windows Server 2003/2008 CAL + contract. Notice that it would be costly to him in terms of both time and resources to transition to Linux, and so he wouldn't be motivated to switch over anyway. Nowhere should a Linux evangelist ever demand that all Windows shops convert to Linux, for this reason. No one's forcing him to use Linux if Windows is working just fine, so he's mostly ranting about nothing. Worst case, he's a Microsoft evangelist.
I'm sorry, but he doesn't deserve those Insightful mods. Ironic that he predicted Flamebait mods, but as of right now no one's tagged him as such.