Don't get me wrong, I think Linux is "okay", but in terms of stability, speed, reliability, I think Microsoft products wins hands down.
That was the thing that started it. Now I know MIT isn't known for their English department, but surely they don't teach you that...
stability==GUI user friendliness speed==higher prices reliability==BSODs.
because that's the only way your original comment makes sense. It looked like a troll, because no person with much experience would believe that (or at least they would qualify it), so I called you a troll, and then the (fairly tame) flames followed.
I was also reading an article in USAToday (you can read most of that paper just walking by) talking about how M$ had upped its current PR campaign, and has spent untold millions on people and "community groups" who go around to newsgroups and tout the effectiveness of M$'s products, the evil DOJ, and basically lie in the first person. So there ya go.:) --
there's a statute like that here in Northern Colorado. You can't build buildings over three stories. The only one I've seen built taller than that since I've been here is the courthouse across the street...right between us and the mountains.:(
Others, particularly the things that most of us buy most of the time in modest quantities, are completely uninfluenced by the activities of the wealthy minority.
You mean stuff like cleaning products from proctor and gamble or long distance from At&t?
Voting none of the above is silly, IMHO. By not voiting you are just making the universe of voters that much smaller and thus increasing the effectiveness of the votes of every other idiot out there. Vote for a random candidate if you want to inject a little chaos into the system, but not voting does NOTHING to help. "Oh, look, low voter turn-out again. I guess nobody cares how I do my job."
Check the website. And I'm posting this from the NT network I set up and administer (no wonder I hate 'em, eh?). I can post from a Linux box too, if you like.
I love defragging the minds of people like you. Where should we start? --
That's an interesting technique, using numbers as letters. Where did you learn that?
When I use Linux, I'm just glad that it was able to become a good OS without breaking any laws. And yes, that does mean morons like you can use it too.
General Robert E. Lee, while watching thousands of Union soldiers sent to the slaughter at Fredericksburg during the Civil War, remarked "It is well that war is so terrible lest we grow too fond of it." -- We now live in a country where war has become so repugnant that we will spend billions of dollars developing technology that allows us to avoid casualties to our own troops at all costs, while still inflicting damage on our oponents. I for one see this as a good thing.
Wait until your opponents have these things. And their populace laughs around the dinner table as another "smart" bomb destroys another schoolhouse down the street. You think to yourself "How couldu those people allow this to continue", and all they can think of how neat "this" looks on TV. We haven't made war repugnant, we've made it palatable, that was the point of the book.
I honestly think that at the rate technology is advancing, we may one day make war obsolete.
Technology will never make war obsolete. Like everything else, it just makes it faster and more efficient. And maybe a bit cheaper.
Communication might make war obsolete, and the communication technologies we have today are a good start. Now let's just keep the greedy bastards from making them all illegal.
They already have this. Go set your preferences. If it doesn't do what you like, go download it from slashcode.com and make it. If you don't like the way/. is run, tell them or go to one of the subthreads to talk about.
And if you think Microsoft software is a good value, I've got a bunch to sell that they won't let sell on ebay, so send me an email.
True, True. The DMCA only applies if ebay refuses to remove them, correct? It's the gun, not the person. Waving it around is still pretty scary though. --
Thanks for the VERY informative post. A couple nit piks, though, mostly in the are of "form"
1) Line breaks : These are GOOD, they help people read and understand. Try changing that little box below your reply to "Plain Old Text" to help here.
2) The Moderator : It is not the moderator, but moderator(s) which moderate posts. They are picked from the user base of/. They are us, we are they, and all of us are stupid at something. It's a community, and it has biases and misconceptions like any other.
--
That being said, thanks for clearing up the "obvious" part of the patent process. Keeping things in context is VERY important.
There is one area that I think still leaves a chink in the armor of the patent system (at least for IP).
If the invention is anticipated, it is also (but redundantly) obvious, for anticipation is the epitome of obviousness.
Could you clarify this? How must an invention be anticipated? What proof is needed? As far as software and internet business process patents go, a great deal of things can be anticipated, and in fact, have been anticipated. How does one prove this?
Besides "software piracy" has been used in the context he is arguing against longer than "free software" has been used in the context he prefers.
That's because he realized that "software piracy" was an inevitable result of the system that was being created. Thus he made "free software" which, incredibly (I hopy you're following here) amounts to almost the exact same action on the part of the user.(i.e. sharing)
So one was in response to the other so logically it should follow it. --
The point is that, for a very good reason, the law grants the author of IP the ownership of it for a set amount of time.
Ya know, the Constituation said a "limited" amount of time. Currently it is life +75(?), which is not limited in any sense of the word that I understand.
Thus, when you copy someone's MP3s online, you are stealing in that a) you are taking something without permission of the owner, in this case a copy of the data; and b) you are depriving the owner of their due remuneration.
A) You are "taking" a copy, which is to say you are "making" a copy and not taking anything (and, IMHO taking is necessary for stealing)
B) Due renumeration=value. Value=Demand/Supply. Digital media makes supply infinite, value=0. There are other rewards than what is just "fair" though, luckily for us.
Laws are not necessarily good. Copyright is bad. Patents are bad. Trademark law is bad. I disobey them in protest, not for personal gain.
This is about where I draw the line on how to solve the current situation. Copyright, patents and trademark law all have thier place. I just think the need to be redefined. Like this....
...If the song never had a rightful owner, then stealing it isn't really harming the pretender-to-ownership because their revenue estimate was based on an error.
But most songs DO have a rightful owner. I wonder what you mean by "stealing it", if that includes listening to it, or burning it to CD and selling it. Those are two different things, and the law needs to reflect that.
That counter example would hold if the thief walked up to your cars, saw your CDS, and used a Magic HTML Ray-Gun, to make copies of yours while leaving the originals. Later, at a party, he was laughing with his friends about what crap music you listen to. But since he didn't do that, I don't think that is a good counter example. Thanks for playing, you win the Slashback Door Prize. Access to damn near every recording in the modern era. (put together by the poeple of Earth in UNDER 1 YEAR, Great Library eat your heart out.) But remember, you have to share, and you can't sell them, that would be stealing, IMHO.
yet, we don't want to pay for content. we make up superfluos excuses about being pinched by record companies, but I suspect we'd still bitch if music was all you can listen for $1.
so we won't pay for content anymore. what happens next?
Where do you get the idea that we shouldn't pay for content? We should just pay something that's a bit closer to the actual price.
content will never go away but a good portion of people who are motivated by the riches of content making (this is still a capitalist world, right) won't produce anymore. we all lose out. for what?
Hmm, I have the general feeling that those who produce content solely for the value they expect to gain in return are producing content that I probably don't want anyway. I'd rather support and consume content created for content's sake.
let's let the artists control their content, ok?
How EXACTLY do you propost to do that? And it's not the artists' content, it's the copyright holders, a big diff IMHO.
But like alot of people, I am sure, I read the interview, and am extremely happy that I have been given the opportunity to read about the real issues instead of just hear the spin, and I have changed my mind about Metallica.
How do you mean "changed your mind"? So instead of being greedy assholes they are now just misinformed assholes? (not looking for a flamewar, I'm just curious if that's what you meant)
And what were those "real issues", while we're at it? Was it Lars' "spin" that changed your mind?
You can encode voice at 8kbs (vs 128kbs for music) and it still comes over fine. This story alone for me is a 300K+ DL. I don't think the audio portion would be too much larger than that, and I'd only dl it once, versus the 5 or six times I will for this story.(or they could just put it on Napster, and let the people shoulder the massive bandwidth costs:)
Slashdot Mirror
Don't get me wrong, I think Linux is "okay", but in terms of stability, speed, reliability, I think Microsoft products wins hands down.
:)
That was the thing that started it. Now I know MIT isn't known for their English department, but surely they don't teach you that...
stability==GUI user friendliness
speed==higher prices
reliability==BSODs.
because that's the only way your original comment makes sense. It looked like a troll, because no person with much experience would believe that (or at least they would qualify it), so I called you a troll, and then the (fairly tame) flames followed.
I was also reading an article in USAToday (you can read most of that paper just walking by) talking about how M$ had upped its current PR campaign, and has spent untold millions on people and "community groups" who go around to newsgroups and tout the effectiveness of M$'s products, the evil DOJ, and basically lie in the first person. So there ya go.
--
there's a statute like that here in Northern Colorado. You can't build buildings over three stories. The only one I've seen built taller than that since I've been here is the courthouse across the street...right between us and the mountains. :(
--
Others, particularly the things that most of us buy most of the time in modest quantities, are completely uninfluenced by the activities of the wealthy minority.
You mean stuff like cleaning products from proctor and gamble or long distance from At&t?
Voting none of the above is silly, IMHO. By not voiting you are just making the universe of voters that much smaller and thus increasing the effectiveness of the votes of every other idiot out there. Vote for a random candidate if you want to inject a little chaos into the system, but not voting does NOTHING to help. "Oh, look, low voter turn-out again. I guess nobody cares how I do my job."
--
Tell me more about yourself.
Check the website. And I'm posting this from the NT network I set up and administer (no wonder I hate 'em, eh?). I can post from a Linux box too, if you like.
I love defragging the minds of people like you. Where should we start?
--
I'd like to see a distributed version of consumer reports.
www.deja.com
But organization helps, so for now, stick with consumer reports.
--
That's an interesting technique, using numbers as letters. Where did you learn that?
When I use Linux, I'm just glad that it was able to become a good OS without breaking any laws. And yes, that does mean morons like you can use it too.
--
(Hell, you can probably get Bill Gates to buy the actual supplies; he's already donated large sums to vaccination programs.)
How about giving a bit to the Outlook developement team? (ba-dum-dumb:)
--
from a post a bit above this one.
General Robert E. Lee, while watching thousands of Union soldiers sent to the slaughter at Fredericksburg during the Civil War, remarked "It is well that war is so terrible lest we grow too fond of it."
--
We now live in a country where war has become so repugnant that we will spend billions of dollars developing technology that allows us to avoid casualties to our own troops at all costs, while still inflicting damage on our oponents. I for one see this as a good thing.
Wait until your opponents have these things. And their populace laughs around the dinner table as another "smart" bomb destroys another schoolhouse down the street. You think to yourself "How couldu those people allow this to continue", and all they can think of how neat "this" looks on TV. We haven't made war repugnant, we've made it palatable, that was the point of the book.
I honestly think that at the rate technology is advancing, we may one day make war obsolete.
Technology will never make war obsolete. Like everything else, it just makes it faster and more efficient. And maybe a bit cheaper.
Communication might make war obsolete, and the communication technologies we have today are a good start. Now let's just keep the greedy bastards from making them all illegal.
--
some people on slashdot are more stupid than I thought they would be.
Go send Bill more money, he needs to hire more lawyers...and programmers.
--
tbat was my point, flamer
--
They already have this. Go set your preferences. If it doesn't do what you like, go download it from slashcode.com and make it. If you don't like the way /. is run, tell them or go to one of the subthreads to talk about.
And if you think Microsoft software is a good value, I've got a bunch to sell that they won't let sell on ebay, so send me an email.
--
Troll go home.
--
True, True. The DMCA only applies if ebay refuses to remove them, correct? It's the gun, not the person. Waving it around is still pretty scary though.
--
Thanks for the VERY informative post. A couple nit piks, though, mostly in the are of "form"
/. They are us, we are they, and all of us are stupid at something. It's a community, and it has biases and misconceptions like any other.
1) Line breaks : These are GOOD, they help people read and understand. Try changing that little box below your reply to "Plain Old Text" to help here.
2) The Moderator : It is not the moderator, but moderator(s) which moderate posts. They are picked from the user base of
--
That being said, thanks for clearing up the "obvious" part of the patent process. Keeping things in context is VERY important.
There is one area that I think still leaves a chink in the armor of the patent system (at least for IP).
If the invention is anticipated, it is also (but redundantly) obvious, for anticipation is the epitome of obviousness.
Could you clarify this? How must an invention be anticipated? What proof is needed? As far as software and internet business process patents go, a great deal of things can be anticipated, and in fact, have been anticipated. How does one prove this?
Either way, thanks for a VERY useful post.
--
What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?
The DMCA. All you need are accusations and copyrighted material must be removed or you face ridiculous fines.
--
Besides "software piracy" has been used in the context he is arguing against longer than "free software" has been used in the context he prefers.
That's because he realized that "software piracy" was an inevitable result of the system that was being created. Thus he made "free software" which, incredibly (I hopy you're following here) amounts to almost the exact same action on the part of the user.(i.e. sharing)
So one was in response to the other so logically it should follow it.
--
The point is that, for a very good reason, the law grants the author of IP the ownership of it for a set amount of time.
Ya know, the Constituation said a "limited" amount of time. Currently it is life +75(?), which is not limited in any sense of the word that I understand.
Thus, when you copy someone's MP3s online, you are stealing in that a) you are taking something without permission of the owner, in this case a copy of the data; and b) you are depriving the owner of their due remuneration.
A) You are "taking" a copy, which is to say you are "making" a copy and not taking anything (and, IMHO taking is necessary for stealing)
B) Due renumeration=value. Value=Demand/Supply. Digital media makes supply infinite, value=0. There are other rewards than what is just "fair" though, luckily for us.
--
Laws are not necessarily good. Copyright is bad. Patents are bad. Trademark law is bad. I disobey them in protest, not for personal gain.
...If the song never had a rightful owner, then stealing it isn't really harming the pretender-to-ownership because their revenue estimate was based on an error.
This is about where I draw the line on how to solve the current situation. Copyright, patents and trademark law all have thier place. I just think the need to be redefined. Like this....
But most songs DO have a rightful owner. I wonder what you mean by "stealing it", if that includes listening to it, or burning it to CD and selling it. Those are two different things, and the law needs to reflect that.
--
"Freedom is the by-product of economic surplus" - Aneurin Bevan
Wow, that's utter b.s. Hmmm.....
Both Aneurin's parents were Nonconformists: his father was a Baptist and his mother a Methodist. David Bevan had been a supporter of the Liberal Party in his youth but was converted to socialism by the writings of Robert Blatchford in the Clarion.
Now I understand.
--
Don't like this? Go change the rules.
OK
--
That counter example would hold if the thief walked up to your cars, saw your CDS, and used a Magic HTML Ray-Gun, to make copies of yours while leaving the originals. Later, at a party, he was laughing with his friends about what crap music you listen to. But since he didn't do that, I don't think that is a good counter example. Thanks for playing, you win the Slashback Door Prize. Access to damn near every recording in the modern era. (put together by the poeple of Earth in UNDER 1 YEAR, Great Library eat your heart out.) But remember, you have to share, and you can't sell them, that would be stealing, IMHO.
--
yet, we don't want to pay for content. we make up superfluos excuses about being pinched by record companies, but I suspect we'd still bitch if music was all you can listen for $1.
so we won't pay for content anymore. what happens next?
Where do you get the idea that we shouldn't pay for content? We should just pay something that's a bit closer to the actual price.
content will never go away but a good portion of people who are motivated by the riches of content making (this is still a capitalist world, right) won't produce anymore. we all lose out. for what?
Hmm, I have the general feeling that those who produce content solely for the value they expect to gain in return are producing content that I probably don't want anyway. I'd rather support and consume content created for content's sake.
let's let the artists control their content, ok?
How EXACTLY do you propost to do that? And it's not the artists' content, it's the copyright holders, a big diff IMHO.
--
You've just written another book.
Has VA realized this revenue stream yet?
--
But like alot of people, I am sure, I read the interview, and am extremely happy that I have been given the opportunity to read about the real issues instead of just hear the spin, and I have changed my mind about Metallica.
How do you mean "changed your mind"? So instead of being greedy assholes they are now just misinformed assholes? (not looking for a flamewar, I'm just curious if that's what you meant)
And what were those "real issues", while we're at it? Was it Lars' "spin" that changed your mind?
--
or a ragin' horde of geeks to mirror it.
:)
You can encode voice at 8kbs (vs 128kbs for music) and it still comes over fine. This story alone for me is a 300K+ DL. I don't think the audio portion would be too much larger than that, and I'd only dl it once, versus the 5 or six times I will for this story.(or they could just put it on Napster, and let the people shoulder the massive bandwidth costs
--