Ever hear someone who develops the HP-UX or AIX kernel blast of a bunch of half baked political rants?
1. The AIX and HP-UX kernel devel lists probably aren't open for public view, so we really don't know what they talk about.
2. Some of the programmers probably do make political statements -- who doesn't? -- but they don't get much attention because they're not as well known.
3. If you look at Linux as the equivalent to Sun or IBM, Alan is about at the same level as Bill Joy or Larry Ellison over at Oracle. They make political statements all the time. Alan is employed by Red Hat partly because of his skill and also because of his status in the Linux community. They could hire someone just as talented, probably, but they wouldn't have the same priviledges when it comes to working on the kernel. Red Hat can't buy that priviledge -- it has to settle for hiring someone who has it, or submitting code to someone who does.
4. If you disagree with Mr. Cox, that's all well and good -- it wasn't his choice for someone to report his statement on the mailing list. He's discussing something in his usual forum. The fact that it's been widely reported and speculated over is not his fault, nor do I really think he's trying to call undue attention to his opinion.
Obviously, many people do care what Alan thinks -- why does that bother you?
Actually, diamonds aren't as rare as they'd have you think -- the supply is simply restricted so that demand is artificially higher than supply.
And yes, two months' salary is too much to pay, thank you very much...
(I recall an advertisement that aired several years ago that showed a woman receiving a diamond ring, but only in silhouette. As she was being presented with the diamond, they cut to a close-up that looked very much like she was getting ready to perform oral sex on the presenter of the ring... Doesn't take a genius to figure out the point of that commercial...)
You can still get some decent deals on line (Computergeeks.com, anyone?) but overall you're not going to save a great deal on the MSRP online -- unless you're bargain hunting or the site is running a promotion.
Companies finally realized that they can't survive on razor-thin and non-existant margins. The stores that thrive on the 'Net will be ones that offer things that can't be easily found locally -- like the stuff at PCMods, ThinkGeek and all kinds of collector goods. It's also easier to set up a distribution system online for products that don't have a wide appeal, so only producing and shipping a small number makes sense. (Computer badges come to mind...)
Playing the pricing game doesn't really help in the long run -- the stores don't make enough to survive, and it hurts the companies who make the products. If people get used to the idea, for example, that they can buy Red Hat at cost they'll be reluctant to pay full price -- ever. If online stores run enough promotions, people simply learn to wait for the next deep discount instead of buying when they want the product.
I still prefer to do my shopping for many things online (books, computer parts) but I'd rather browse when looking for CDs or clothing.
Beats me why the market penetration hasn't
surpassed the greedy cable com bastards.
That's dead easy -- it's a royal PITA to get DSL in many areas, and (at least where I'm at) cable is available over a wider range and it's easier to get set up.
There's also the fact that the phone company has to pay for advertising DSL on TV, while the cable COs can just slip in ads for free...
AOL customers sign up for AOL. Qwest/MSN customers signed up for Qwest and got jacked -- there's a difference. People who used to be able to access their email using Linux no longer can, and Qwest has done their best to obscure the other available choices.
If you live in Denver, you HAVE to go through Qwest in some fashion to get DSL -- AOL dial-up has numerous competitors in every market.
AOL has its flaws, but when they took over CompuServe they pretty much left it the way it was, and people could still use the same software and email addresses they had previously.
I think DSL customers are more saavy than cable, and both cable and DSL users are more saavy than dial-up users.
Where the hell did you get this idea? Granted, the more technical you are, the more likely you are to want to pay the extra bucks for a cable modem or DSL since you're more likely to need (or at least want...) the speed. However, Cable is typically faster (or at least it has been...AT&T may be capping it to about the same speeds soon...) and available in many areas that DSL is not. You might want Cable or DSL but have to settle for the other.
It's not difficult to configure either service if the yahoos on the other end (ie, the cable or DSL company...) know what they're doing and actually hold up their end of the bargain.
Could you provide some reasoning behind your assertion that DSL folks are "more savvy"?
It's about time (sorry, pardon the pun...) that AOL figured out they need to back the competetion to Windows.
They half-assed it with a net device based on Linux with Gateway, but never pushed it.
Let's face it, AOL's customers are the kind of people who need a net appliance, not a Windows PC. They buy the Linux company with the most name recognition, and a solid embedded strategy and database play, and start whipping out AOLinux appliances that have Star Office, MP3 player, instant messenging, and a host of other goodies -- but they don't have to kiss Bill's ass anymore to get on the desktop.
Sure, they don't have to buy Red Hat to get Linux, but they can get a lot of expertise that way -- and I'm sure Red Hat is more than happy to talk to possible buyers.
I wish Earthlink and the other big ISPs would wake up and realize that M$ is NOT their friend.
AOL knows that the code isn't what they need to make money on -- it's a consistent monthly service -- and they can get the average person to pay $24.95 (or whatever) a month for an appliance that is self-updating (just like their client is now. Annoying, but it was one of the first examples of self-updating software...) and they have the infrastructure to make it work.
As much as the AOL-Time-Warner behemoth worries me as a media outlet (way too many media outlets under one roof) it could be the best hope for knocking Microsoft down a peg or two.
An AOLinux won't supplant Windows, but it'd sure as hell beef up the percentage to make it more even.
This is the best that a huge software company like Adobe can come up with?
I would think that Adobe could come up with some kind of solution that would prevent unauthorized copies of their software. (I refuse to use the word "piracy" to refer to unauthorized copying of software. It's ridiculous.) Hardware dongles or some other sort of anti-copying protection. IIRC QuarkXPress used to come with a required dongle when you'd purchase it for some environments. (The college I attended had hardware dongles for XPress.)
This is obviously a threat to the Asian governments "pass something like the DMCA and be willing to arrest teenagers for us, or we'll quit playing in your market."
Why would they want it? It doesn't support their claim that Lindows doesn't infringe on the trademark. It doesn't have anything to do with the suit.
If the defense is offering it, then they shouldn't be complaining that M$ is forcing them to give it, either. AFAIK, if they were to put it into evidence it would become public knowledge and not only would M$ have the information, but so would anyone else willing to read the court records, unless they were sealed. I have a feeling that M$'s lawyers are just requiring them to put up everything they can for discovery, just to make life difficult and drive up their legal bills.
This isn't about the trademark, it's about harassing a company that might infringe on M$'s profits.
See, what format I send email attachments in is MY choice.
This is true. No one said it isn't. Not me, not RMS. He is making a request, not a demand.
I don't have any say in what word processor you use, and you don't have any say in what type of attachments I send.
Also true, but if you want me to read it you'll send it in a format that I can read without using a word processor. (Of any type, I hate when people send a fscking attachment that could be put in the body of an email. I read email in an email client, not a word processor.)
If you choose to do business with me you'll adapt to the way I do business (or if I choose to I'll adapt to you).
Indeed. And when PR flacks send me Word attachments and want me to write about them for a Linux publication, they can choose to send it in plain text or forget about coverage. Guess which they choose?
I don't know what high-school you are about to graduate from, but in the real world if your boss sends out a memo as a.doc
I really wish I was still in high school, but that's beside the point. This isn't about an employee/employer relationship. Firstly, the employer would have to provide the computing environment, so we have to assume that if the boss sends an attachment he's going to do so in a format that the employee can read. That's not the basis of discussion here.
If the day comes when I have to look for a full-time job rather than freelancing, then I'll accept the tools that the employer wants me to use or find a different job. However, in a peer to peer situation I can't imagine any of the people that I correspond with being too pig-headed to be kind enough to send information in a format that I can read. They may not make it a full-time practice, but I've never had anyone get bent out of shape about being asked to send plain-text or HTML.
You are asking that I change something that I normally do because it doesn't match up with your world-view of everyone sending html or doc.foo's.
No, it's because.doc files aren't viewable in Pine, Mutt, and a majority of other email clients on non-Microsoft platforms. My world-view is that people should use whatever makes them happy, but don't send information in a format that requires that others be locked into using a particular platform and expensive program. Hell, I don't care if someone uses Word, but I don't want their usage to require me to use it as well.
Yet again, asking people not to attach a Word document does not preclude their using Word -- it asks only that they take one simple extra step and choose to save it in a non-proprietary format. While I'm sure RMS would be beside himself with joy if everyone did quit using Word, that's not the request here, so how am I not following my own advice?
my mom teaches pre-k, and I make no promises, but maybe if you could talk her into working with you maybe in a couple of years you could better your language skills. Again no promises.
No thanks, she obviously fumbled the ball with you. I'm willing to take my chances with my BA in English and communications/journalism.
I really don't consider asking people not to send Word attachments to be "favored treatment." It's not an unreasonable request.
You could be more wrong, but only if you tried really hard. Keep trying.
AFAIK, it's all digital, though I can copy analog to CD. It doesn't allow me to copy a copied disk, so if make a copy of "Dark Side of the Moon" and try to copy that, it won't allow it.
It is more expensive, but I still like it. It's more convenient to use when I'm making mix CDs to take on the road. Probably not a huge deal more convenient, but a little more and it wasn't so expensive as to be cost-prohibitive. I also have CD-Rs in a few of my computers, so I use those for data. (Or replicating a copied CD...)
It handles both CD-Rs and CD-RWs, but I'm sure you're right -- it's probably a 30:1 ratio or higher of computer CD-Rs to stereo components. But, I predict they will become more popular as they get cheaper, especially since computers aren't ubiquitious, even now.
This is awesome... the deal that was reached was so totally beneficial to Microsoft it would have made more sense if Microsoft had been suing the schools and the judgement was inflicted on them!
I never thought id say this but maybe having patents isnt such a bad thing after all as long as there owned by resonible people or companies
Well, the really big difference between Phillips CD patent and many that are being used now is that the CD patent was truly innovative. It's not a patent over a process or of something totally obvious. Also, as far as I can tell, Phillips hasn't been punative with it or tried to stifle competition with it. The infamous Amazon "one-click" patent on the other hand, is the worst of both worlds. They're only using it to try to harm Barnes & Noble. Patents have largely devolved from a way to protect innovation to a way to stifle it.
It is likely to raise DMCA questions, but I really think that this highlights the innate stupidity of the DMCA and might represent a good way to challenge it in court.
BTW, I have a dictionary... if you read your quoted definition you'll see quite clearly how applicable it is to your situation.
I guess you simply chose not to use it. Originally you were saying the definition of fanatic was "people with simple problems comparing them to matters of great import" which is quite wrong.
So, how is my situation fanatical? Excessive enthusiasm? Not really, I'm just arguing that RMS has every right to ask, and bring up for discussion the proposition that people not use Word attachments and I happen to agree with his reasoning -- not to mention having a few other reasons that he didn't bring up. Or am I excessively enthusiastic for responding, and should have simply let your previous posts go unresponded to?
Uncritical devotion? Hardly. While I agree with a lot of RMS views, I don't agree with all of them, nor how he expresses them -- And I've told him as much in some correspondence that I've had with him. I support Free Software, but not slavishly.
Again, this whole debate is not about the drive to get everyone to use Free Software, but about asking people to be courteous when sending email or asking for information. Use a format that everyone can use regardless of platform. That's hardly fanatical.
If you're calling RMS a fanatic, well... I wouldn't go quite that far, but I can see why people would think so. Single-minded is more like it.
Regardless of copyright, would they not be in violation of copyright for producing a device that bypasses a circumvention method?
Maybe, but that means the RIAA would have to sue someone their own size, which would be very interesting. It also would pit the DCMA against patent rights and other goodies... I'd love to see Phillips get sued. Not because I don't like them, but because they have the means to fight back.
I suddenly feel very good about having bought a Phillips CD/CD-R for my stereo system...
Elitism is not the same thing as disliking or even hating proprietary software. Please, for the love of whatever God you worship and the good of humanity, buy a fscking dictionary and look words up before you use them. It degrades the language when you don't use it properly.
(And that is probably a good example of me being an elitist language snob, which doesn't bother me in the least. I have a funny idea that people should be able to master their native language...)
RMS isn't asking that people use *Free* Software to send email, merely that they don't use proprietary formats. That's not unreasonable. Granted, RMS would probably prefer it if you did, but that's not the discussion here. Discussion works much better if you limit yourself to the actual discussion rather than trying to re-frame the discussion.
Yes, let's not be software Nazis. Let's all use software that can communicate in open formats so that everyone can use what they want. I agree with that. That doesn't discount Word, either -- it just means that they have to hit "save as" and choose text or HTML. Unfortunately, when someone chooses to send Word docs, they're forcing me to:
A. Give up my preferred program for reading email and open the attachment in another program. (I also despise HTML and PDF for this, but that's just a general hatred of attachments...)
B. Adopt a program I don't like and do not wish to pay for.
C. Not read the attachment.
Asking people to send a non-proprietary format is not unreasonable.
Asking that no one dare bring the topic up because it disagrees with your world-view and because you happen to think that everyone should just conform and use YOUR choice is unreasonable.
Formatting, tables and graphics are not exclusive to Word. Hell, PDF is better if you need to send highly formatted material.
Password protection? Maybe, if you're sending sensitive data, but I'm certain that's not what RMS is talking about.
Spelling/grammar checking. Many email clients do spell-checking, though I don't know about grammar checking. Still doesn't preclude using Word to write a document and exporting to plain-text.
Collaboration features are, again, beyond the scope of what RMS is talking about. That's if you're assuming that two people are writing a document together. Obviously, that's not the situation that RMS is talking about.
You're just looking for excuses now.
Again: There is NO GOOD REASON to send one-way Word attachments while there are many reasons not to. If you're collaborating together in Word, fine, but then two people have agreed on a format. RMS is asking that people not inflict the format on others who do not choose to use Word.
It's always so funny to see people with such simple problems trying to compare them to matters of great import.
No just comparing one tyranny to another. I'm sure Londoners probably felt the same way that you do. How silly for people to demand the right to represent themselves. How silly for people to demand the right to have unencumbered access to their own data.
I'm not saying that they're the same, just saying that ideology isn't always a bad thing.
Actually, the very definition of fanatic is:
marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion.
Really has no bearing on the size of the problem. Buy a dictionary, okay?
The point was made -- people would not accept buying a [insert just about any other product here] if they were told they simply could not maintain it themselves, and they would HAVE to buy a new version in a few years to stay current AND all the goodies they use with it are going to be obsolete in a few years if they don't choose to buy a new one -- even if the old one works just fine.
Most people won't work on any product themselves, but they wouldn't allow someone to sell them something with that restriction, regardless. It just goes against the grain to pay money for something that you essentially have no rights to.
Actually, I think it's more of a "norm" than a standard.
I'm not sure that I agree that sending ASCII is "subversive and silly" or that it's seen that way. Perhaps you see it that way.
I think you've actually backed up the points that many people are arguing -- Word is a word processing program that most people use, RMS is arguing that should not be allowed to bleed into sending email communications, thereby forcing the small percentage of us who do our work without Microsoft products to have to adopt them.
Yes, Microsoft has harsh and effective business practices to protect its bottom line at any cost. That's no reason to encourage their use.
That is so simplistic an assessment as to mark as an ignoramus. The problem with ideology is that it pretends to get the bottom of things with a single idea.
Actually, the word you're looking for is "concise" not simplistic. I could drone on for hours about the ideology that inspired people to rebel against England but I think we all know it already.
Also, to mark what as an ignoramus? I think you're missing a noun there.
One can take ideology too far, but it is not automatically wrong to be motivated by ideology. Usually when people argue that an ideology is bad, it's because it conflicts with their way of doing things and might inconvenience them. I'm sorry that you have no room for people who aren't motivated by the same things that motivate you. That's really sad.
Slashdot Mirror
Ever hear someone who develops the HP-UX or AIX kernel blast of a bunch of half baked political rants?
1. The AIX and HP-UX kernel devel lists probably aren't open for public view, so we really don't know what they talk about.
2. Some of the programmers probably do make political statements -- who doesn't? -- but they don't get much attention because they're not as well known.
3. If you look at Linux as the equivalent to Sun or IBM, Alan is about at the same level as Bill Joy or Larry Ellison over at Oracle. They make political statements all the time. Alan is employed by Red Hat partly because of his skill and also because of his status in the Linux community. They could hire someone just as talented, probably, but they wouldn't have the same priviledges when it comes to working on the kernel. Red Hat can't buy that priviledge -- it has to settle for hiring someone who has it, or submitting code to someone who does.
4. If you disagree with Mr. Cox, that's all well and good -- it wasn't his choice for someone to report his statement on the mailing list. He's discussing something in his usual forum. The fact that it's been widely reported and speculated over is not his fault, nor do I really think he's trying to call undue attention to his opinion.
Obviously, many people do care what Alan thinks -- why does that bother you?
Actually, diamonds aren't as rare as they'd have you think -- the supply is simply restricted so that demand is artificially higher than supply.
And yes, two months' salary is too much to pay, thank you very much...
(I recall an advertisement that aired several years ago that showed a woman receiving a diamond ring, but only in silhouette. As she was being presented with the diamond, they cut to a close-up that looked very much like she was getting ready to perform oral sex on the presenter of the ring... Doesn't take a genius to figure out the point of that commercial...)
You can still get some decent deals on line (Computergeeks.com, anyone?) but overall you're not going to save a great deal on the MSRP online -- unless you're bargain hunting or the site is running a promotion.
Companies finally realized that they can't survive on razor-thin and non-existant margins. The stores that thrive on the 'Net will be ones that offer things that can't be easily found locally -- like the stuff at PCMods, ThinkGeek and all kinds of collector goods. It's also easier to set up a distribution system online for products that don't have a wide appeal, so only producing and shipping a small number makes sense. (Computer badges come to mind...)
Playing the pricing game doesn't really help in the long run -- the stores don't make enough to survive, and it hurts the companies who make the products. If people get used to the idea, for example, that they can buy Red Hat at cost they'll be reluctant to pay full price -- ever. If online stores run enough promotions, people simply learn to wait for the next deep discount instead of buying when they want the product.
I still prefer to do my shopping for many things online (books, computer parts) but I'd rather browse when looking for CDs or clothing.
Beats me why the market penetration hasn't
surpassed the greedy cable com bastards.
That's dead easy -- it's a royal PITA to get DSL in many areas, and (at least where I'm at) cable is available over a wider range and it's easier to get set up.
There's also the fact that the phone company has to pay for advertising DSL on TV, while the cable COs can just slip in ads for free...
AOL customers sign up for AOL. Qwest/MSN customers signed up for Qwest and got jacked -- there's a difference. People who used to be able to access their email using Linux no longer can, and Qwest has done their best to obscure the other available choices.
If you live in Denver, you HAVE to go through Qwest in some fashion to get DSL -- AOL dial-up has numerous competitors in every market.
AOL has its flaws, but when they took over CompuServe they pretty much left it the way it was, and people could still use the same software and email addresses they had previously.
I think DSL customers are more saavy than cable, and both cable and DSL users are more saavy than dial-up users.
Where the hell did you get this idea? Granted, the more technical you are, the more likely you are to want to pay the extra bucks for a cable modem or DSL since you're more likely to need (or at least want...) the speed. However, Cable is typically faster (or at least it has been...AT&T may be capping it to about the same speeds soon...) and available in many areas that DSL is not. You might want Cable or DSL but have to settle for the other.
It's not difficult to configure either service if the yahoos on the other end (ie, the cable or DSL company...) know what they're doing and actually hold up their end of the bargain.
Could you provide some reasoning behind your assertion that DSL folks are "more savvy"?
It's about time (sorry, pardon the pun...) that AOL figured out they need to back the competetion to Windows.
They half-assed it with a net device based on Linux with Gateway, but never pushed it.
Let's face it, AOL's customers are the kind of people who need a net appliance, not a Windows PC. They buy the Linux company with the most name recognition, and a solid embedded strategy and database play, and start whipping out AOLinux appliances that have Star Office, MP3 player, instant messenging, and a host of other goodies -- but they don't have to kiss Bill's ass anymore to get on the desktop.
Sure, they don't have to buy Red Hat to get Linux, but they can get a lot of expertise that way -- and I'm sure Red Hat is more than happy to talk to possible buyers.
I wish Earthlink and the other big ISPs would wake up and realize that M$ is NOT their friend.
AOL knows that the code isn't what they need to make money on -- it's a consistent monthly service -- and they can get the average person to pay $24.95 (or whatever) a month for an appliance that is self-updating (just like their client is now. Annoying, but it was one of the first examples of self-updating software...) and they have the infrastructure to make it work.
As much as the AOL-Time-Warner behemoth worries me as a media outlet (way too many media outlets under one roof) it could be the best hope for knocking Microsoft down a peg or two.
An AOLinux won't supplant Windows, but it'd sure as hell beef up the percentage to make it more even.
This is the best that a huge software company like Adobe can come up with?
I would think that Adobe could come up with some kind of solution that would prevent unauthorized copies of their software. (I refuse to use the word "piracy" to refer to unauthorized copying of software. It's ridiculous.) Hardware dongles or some other sort of anti-copying protection. IIRC QuarkXPress used to come with a required dongle when you'd purchase it for some environments. (The college I attended had hardware dongles for XPress.)
This is obviously a threat to the Asian governments "pass something like the DMCA and be willing to arrest teenagers for us, or we'll quit playing in your market."
Let's see who blinks first.
Why would they want it? It doesn't support their claim that Lindows doesn't infringe on the trademark. It doesn't have anything to do with the suit.
If the defense is offering it, then they shouldn't be complaining that M$ is forcing them to give it, either. AFAIK, if they were to put it into evidence it would become public knowledge and not only would M$ have the information, but so would anyone else willing to read the court records, unless they were sealed. I have a feeling that M$'s lawyers are just requiring them to put up everything they can for discovery, just to make life difficult and drive up their legal bills.
This isn't about the trademark, it's about harassing a company that might infringe on M$'s profits.
Actually, I'm surprised that a tradmark lawsuit could require the Lindows folks to turn over their customer, or potential customer, lists.
The issue (as I understand it) before the court is whether the name Lindows infringes on the Microsoft Windows trademark.
Pre-trial discovery should be limited to any material that supports that suit, customer lists shouldn't apply.
See, what format I send email attachments in is MY choice.
.doc
This is true. No one said it isn't. Not me, not RMS. He is making a request, not a demand.
I don't have any say in what word processor you use, and you don't have any say in what type of attachments I send.
Also true, but if you want me to read it you'll send it in a format that I can read without using a word processor. (Of any type, I hate when people send a fscking attachment that could be put in the body of an email. I read email in an email client, not a word processor.)
If you choose to do business with me you'll adapt to the way I do business (or if I choose to I'll adapt to you).
Indeed. And when PR flacks send me Word attachments and want me to write about them for a Linux publication, they can choose to send it in plain text or forget about coverage. Guess which they choose?
I don't know what high-school you are about to graduate from, but in the real world if your boss sends out a memo as a
I really wish I was still in high school, but that's beside the point. This isn't about an employee/employer relationship. Firstly, the employer would have to provide the computing environment, so we have to assume that if the boss sends an attachment he's going to do so in a format that the employee can read. That's not the basis of discussion here.
If the day comes when I have to look for a full-time job rather than freelancing, then I'll accept the tools that the employer wants me to use or find a different job. However, in a peer to peer situation I can't imagine any of the people that I correspond with being too pig-headed to be kind enough to send information in a format that I can read. They may not make it a full-time practice, but I've never had anyone get bent out of shape about being asked to send plain-text or HTML.
You are asking that I change something that I normally do because it doesn't match up with your world-view of everyone sending html or doc.foo's .
.doc files aren't viewable in Pine, Mutt, and a majority of other email clients on non-Microsoft platforms. My world-view is that people should use whatever makes them happy, but don't send information in a format that requires that others be locked into using a particular platform and expensive program. Hell, I don't care if someone uses Word, but I don't want their usage to require me to use it as well.
No, it's because
Something just aint clicking upstairs is it?
I agree. Seek help.
Only if the company is full of brainless automatons who cannot think for themselves when sending email. You may fit in this category.
Nor is it unreasonable. Sorry, but thanks for playing.
Yet again, asking people not to attach a Word document does not preclude their using Word -- it asks only that they take one simple extra step and choose to save it in a non-proprietary format. While I'm sure RMS would be beside himself with joy if everyone did quit using Word, that's not the request here, so how am I not following my own advice?
my mom teaches pre-k, and I make no promises, but maybe if you could talk her into working with you maybe in a couple of years you could better your language skills. Again no promises.
No thanks, she obviously fumbled the ball with you. I'm willing to take my chances with my BA in English and communications/journalism.
I really don't consider asking people not to send Word attachments to be "favored treatment." It's not an unreasonable request.
You could be more wrong, but only if you tried really hard. Keep trying.
AFAIK, it's all digital, though I can copy analog to CD. It doesn't allow me to copy a copied disk, so if make a copy of "Dark Side of the Moon" and try to copy that, it won't allow it.
It is more expensive, but I still like it. It's more convenient to use when I'm making mix CDs to take on the road. Probably not a huge deal more convenient, but a little more and it wasn't so expensive as to be cost-prohibitive. I also have CD-Rs in a few of my computers, so I use those for data. (Or replicating a copied CD...)
It handles both CD-Rs and CD-RWs, but I'm sure you're right -- it's probably a 30:1 ratio or higher of computer CD-Rs to stereo components. But, I predict they will become more popular as they get cheaper, especially since computers aren't ubiquitious, even now.
This is awesome... the deal that was reached was so totally beneficial to Microsoft it would have made more sense if Microsoft had been suing the schools and the judgement was inflicted on them!
A flat-out $1 billion cash sum should do it.
I never thought id say this but maybe having patents isnt such a bad thing after all as long as there owned by resonible people or companies
Well, the really big difference between Phillips CD patent and many that are being used now is that the CD patent was truly innovative. It's not a patent over a process or of something totally obvious. Also, as far as I can tell, Phillips hasn't been punative with it or tried to stifle competition with it. The infamous Amazon "one-click" patent on the other hand, is the worst of both worlds. They're only using it to try to harm Barnes & Noble. Patents have largely devolved from a way to protect innovation to a way to stifle it.
It is likely to raise DMCA questions, but I really think that this highlights the innate stupidity of the DMCA and might represent a good way to challenge it in court.
BTW, I have a dictionary... if you read your quoted definition you'll see quite clearly how applicable it is to your situation.
I guess you simply chose not to use it. Originally you were saying the definition of fanatic was "people with simple problems comparing them to matters of great import" which is quite wrong.
So, how is my situation fanatical? Excessive enthusiasm? Not really, I'm just arguing that RMS has every right to ask, and bring up for discussion the proposition that people not use Word attachments and I happen to agree with his reasoning -- not to mention having a few other reasons that he didn't bring up. Or am I excessively enthusiastic for responding, and should have simply let your previous posts go unresponded to?
Uncritical devotion? Hardly. While I agree with a lot of RMS views, I don't agree with all of them, nor how he expresses them -- And I've told him as much in some correspondence that I've had with him. I support Free Software, but not slavishly.
Again, this whole debate is not about the drive to get everyone to use Free Software, but about asking people to be courteous when sending email or asking for information. Use a format that everyone can use regardless of platform. That's hardly fanatical.
If you're calling RMS a fanatic, well... I wouldn't go quite that far, but I can see why people would think so. Single-minded is more like it.
Regardless of copyright, would they not be in violation of copyright for producing a device that bypasses a circumvention method?
Maybe, but that means the RIAA would have to sue someone their own size, which would be very interesting. It also would pit the DCMA against patent rights and other goodies... I'd love to see Phillips get sued. Not because I don't like them, but because they have the means to fight back.
I suddenly feel very good about having bought a Phillips CD/CD-R for my stereo system...
*sigh*
Elitism is not the same thing as disliking or even hating proprietary software. Please, for the love of whatever God you worship and the good of humanity, buy a fscking dictionary and look words up before you use them. It degrades the language when you don't use it properly.
(And that is probably a good example of me being an elitist language snob, which doesn't bother me in the least. I have a funny idea that people should be able to master their native language...)
RMS isn't asking that people use *Free* Software to send email, merely that they don't use proprietary formats. That's not unreasonable. Granted, RMS would probably prefer it if you did, but that's not the discussion here. Discussion works much better if you limit yourself to the actual discussion rather than trying to re-frame the discussion.
Yes, let's not be software Nazis. Let's all use software that can communicate in open formats so that everyone can use what they want. I agree with that. That doesn't discount Word, either -- it just means that they have to hit "save as" and choose text or HTML. Unfortunately, when someone chooses to send Word docs, they're forcing me to:
A. Give up my preferred program for reading email and open the attachment in another program. (I also despise HTML and PDF for this, but that's just a general hatred of attachments...)
B. Adopt a program I don't like and do not wish to pay for.
C. Not read the attachment.
Asking people to send a non-proprietary format is not unreasonable.
Asking that no one dare bring the topic up because it disagrees with your world-view and because you happen to think that everyone should just conform and use YOUR choice is unreasonable.
Formatting, tables and graphics are not exclusive to Word. Hell, PDF is better if you need to send highly formatted material.
Password protection? Maybe, if you're sending sensitive data, but I'm certain that's not what RMS is talking about.
Spelling/grammar checking. Many email clients do spell-checking, though I don't know about grammar checking. Still doesn't preclude using Word to write a document and exporting to plain-text.
Collaboration features are, again, beyond the scope of what RMS is talking about. That's if you're assuming that two people are writing a document together. Obviously, that's not the situation that RMS is talking about.
You're just looking for excuses now.
Again: There is NO GOOD REASON to send one-way Word attachments while there are many reasons not to. If you're collaborating together in Word, fine, but then two people have agreed on a format. RMS is asking that people not inflict the format on others who do not choose to use Word.
It's always so funny to see people with such simple problems trying to compare them to matters of great import.
No just comparing one tyranny to another. I'm sure Londoners probably felt the same way that you do. How silly for people to demand the right to represent themselves. How silly for people to demand the right to have unencumbered access to their own data.
I'm not saying that they're the same, just saying that ideology isn't always a bad thing.
Actually, the very definition of fanatic is:
marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion.
Really has no bearing on the size of the problem. Buy a dictionary, okay?
So, the car is a bad example. Big deal.
The point was made -- people would not accept buying a [insert just about any other product here] if they were told they simply could not maintain it themselves, and they would HAVE to buy a new version in a few years to stay current AND all the goodies they use with it are going to be obsolete in a few years if they don't choose to buy a new one -- even if the old one works just fine.
Most people won't work on any product themselves, but they wouldn't allow someone to sell them something with that restriction, regardless. It just goes against the grain to pay money for something that you essentially have no rights to.
Actually, I think it's more of a "norm" than a standard.
I'm not sure that I agree that sending ASCII is "subversive and silly" or that it's seen that way. Perhaps you see it that way.
I think you've actually backed up the points that many people are arguing -- Word is a word processing program that most people use, RMS is arguing that should not be allowed to bleed into sending email communications, thereby forcing the small percentage of us who do our work without Microsoft products to have to adopt them.
Yes, Microsoft has harsh and effective business practices to protect its bottom line at any cost. That's no reason to encourage their use.
That is so simplistic an assessment as to mark as an ignoramus. The problem with ideology is that it pretends to get the bottom of things with a single idea.
Actually, the word you're looking for is "concise" not simplistic. I could drone on for hours about the ideology that inspired people to rebel against England but I think we all know it already.
Also, to mark what as an ignoramus? I think you're missing a noun there.
One can take ideology too far, but it is not automatically wrong to be motivated by ideology. Usually when people argue that an ideology is bad, it's because it conflicts with their way of doing things and might inconvenience them. I'm sorry that you have no room for people who aren't motivated by the same things that motivate you. That's really sad.