I partly agree with you there, and then again I don't... Let's see if I can make that obscure statement clear.
When I was younger and was not able to purchase certain items because of my age (alcohol, cigarettes, p0rn, etc...) and government restrictions on having minors purchase said items. I actually agreed with some of the restrictions, I looked at some of the other people my age and imagined how much more 'ucked up they would be if they had access to alcohol or...
Though I considered myself mature enough to see R rated movies or... And in this it was my family that took control and taught me respect if I wanted to obtain something that the government restricted me from purchasing then all I had to do was convince my parents that I would be fine with it (whatever it was). If I could prove to them that I was mature enough to have access to 'it' then I was given access to 'it'. If I didn't convince them I was mature enough or after gaining access I showed that I wasn't mature, my right to access 'it' was revoked...
That kind of structure would be impossible for the government to implement (and they shouldn't even try) but it was because of the government rules and regs that I was forced actually be mature (something that ain't a bad thing in my OSHO)
I'd disagree with that last statement.. "Today's PC's are not only tough to use, but they don't do too much well at all."
Let's pick communication, say ten years ago, how easy was it to send (x) to a friend/stranger/relative (whatever) half way across the world, comfortable in the knowledge it would be recieved within a couple of minutes/hours (depending on if they're up?)
I can see you saying, you could do that right? Well guess what, my mum couldn't of, my sister couldn't of, namely people who knew nothing about computers would of had a hell of a difficult time to do so. But today, I recieved an email from my grandmother containing a scanned photo from her b'day... Sure she probably had some help scanning the photo, but could she of done that 10 years ago? (without having a computer expert do it for her)
Good for you following what you believe and dream in but don't bag out those of us who have no interest in actually doing the Engineering stuff you do. Hey I love hearing about the feats that engineers and scientists do around the world, just as much as I love hearing about new advances in programming/programs, the latest AI advance, the success in having a program recognise the difference between the thought "Yes" and the signal to say "Yes"... (the list goes on)
but I really doubt a CS guy could write the code I do [for fluid dynamics]
Just as I (and no doubt others) doubt your ability to write beautiful recursive object structures to calculate taxes, invoice payments... Or analysing pictures/photos for UI building, or increasing the speed and scope of date/time comparisons, or networking to a....
Just 'cause you're good at doing a small subset of programming does not mean you're a programming god or that the rest of us who are just CS's are not as 'good' as you.
But there will never be a program which allows a computer to say "hello" to the world.
Why not?? Define what you mean by 'Say', '"Hello"' and 'world' and I'm sure someone can (if it hasn't been done already) write a program to do that.
Most computers have sound cards or the old PC Sound (you know that annoying beep), simple get it to say hello... Or perhaps you mean the more philosphical kinda like AI? How about that, there is lotsa people out there playing with and researching AI techniques to create an entity (or program if you will) that will pass the turing test and perhaps go further...
Don't know about Mac but in Windoze, you have System Modal dialog boxes or [normal] modal boxes. System modal does what you're talking about ('ucking annoying too!!) but with modal boxes, you can set the parent of it to being either the desktop, a specific form on your app, the main form on your app, only limited to what hWnd you can provide.. Sorta like context (just that very few programmers out there use them, or more specifically use them well)
So would you think that the availability of a way to obtain electronic books and read them quite comfortably has impacted on you purchasing actual paper based books?
Because if so, it suddenly makes the claim of "it isn't effecting book sales" null and void, at the moment it may not be much of an impact, but it's already starting...
Thanks for the clarification... But however I did find out that libraries and archives have particular restrictions and mentions in law or so I took to understand it, now not being a lawyer (and going brain-numb when reading legal docs), I didn't understand it fully, but essentially the legal rights of a library are different from the legal rights of an individual when it comes to copyright...
Anyone know where that line is? Can I just build up a collection of books/cd's and call it an archive/library (under law)?
We were talking about intellectual works - why the sudden change of subject?
I don't think there was a change in subject, work is work, whether intellectual or physical in nature, some people work either for free or for a low wage in the understanding that they will possibly get paid for their work in the future, usually in basis of royalties. Others work for a wage, with sufficient immediate reward for the work they are doing.
Both have done the work, both should be rewarded for the work, the only difference is time-frame.
Treating information/art itself as property is what I object to.
On this point I partly agree with you, but the distinction I make is that the person who created/discovered that art/information should in some form be compensated/rewarded for it. Currently that seems to be through royalties/copyrights etc.. Not an ideal method (witness the excessive profits of RIAA members), but the currently proposed replacement seems to basically be: screw the creator I want it for free!
As to "Trading hours for dollars is not what I object to." as to strict I get paid for the hours I work, that I don't think will work in a capitalist environment, because of demand. For myself I would qualify it with "Trading risk and hours worked for dollars" because if I'm going to be risking my life-savings, career, not getting paid for it (etc..) by doing a project, be that writing a book, working on new technology, researching... I think I deserve at least a little more than the money I would of earnt by the hour. But thats just me.
If by your argument you define that personal copy is one made by yourself as in "duplicated solely for purposes of preservation and security" then I for one definitely agree with you, however I believe that bellings has already argued that very point, the distinction made is that a copy you made is not the same as a copy made by someone else, and though I believe you are referring too:
duplicated solely for the purpose of replacement of a copy or phonorecord that is damaged, deteriorating, lost, or stolen, or if the existing format in which the work is stored has become obsolete
in that it is implied in context that you can obtain a copy from another person/entity but the following qualifier of that above statement sorta questions that if it has beendetermined that an unused replacement cannot be obtained at a fair price...
So basically it says you can make personal copies for security and preservation, but you can't obtain copies from other people without at least first determining if you can obtain a new copy at a first price...
Reading from a book is still infinitely more pleasurable (and portable, and durable) than reading off a computer screen. He has nothing to worry about.
Out of curiousity, how long do you think that will be so? As in there are lots of projects out there (Commercial and OpenSource) that are looking at how to make writing on a computer screen more readable, presentable, comfortable, etc... From the Monitor and video card corps researching so that you can look at the screen for longer periods without getting blurry-eyed, making them more compact and lighter, greater definition on PDA's... Then there's software that nicifies the font so that it looks smooth and yet again more readable....
How long will it be until sitting down and reading a book on your PDA (or whatever) is just (if not more) comfortable than a good ol' fashioned book?
If he's going to bitch about this, then why isn't he up in arms about libraries giving away his material for free?
On that, I ain't sure of it but I'd be willing to bet that each book costs more for the library than what we would pay at a bookstore, because they are an organisation that lend out individual books... Anyone want to clarify that?
Personally, my work would be Free for anyone to copy, read, translate, or sell.
Do you actually work for a living? How do you make money to eat, live, etc...? Because in the above statement you're saying you do not want to get paid for your work. Just because it may not be fictional writing has nothing to do with it, writers earn money from their work. Do you?
Just wanted to say I agree with you on some points I mean the guy who wrote: "Exclusive control, as of a commodity or service, by 1 group" what an idiot!;-)
Anyways to get to some of the articles.
The statements 'In order to get a place in our monopoly real estate, you can't do business with Netscape is NOT supported by If you agreed to be one of Microsoft's "Platinum Agreement" Web partners, you were restricted in dealing with other major companies making browsers, including Netscape.
For my mind it ain't a fair thing to do from a consumers perspective but from a competitors perspective, bad luck you didn't win that client. Welcome to the world where if two competitors are smoosching a client the client will usually choose one or the other, also the statement is restrictnotcan't. Aside from that it ain't fair from the clients perspective (I'd want my products/presence to be advertised prominently through multiple mediums and markets, not just one part of a market). And bringing that agreement under question definitely a good thing, though I would of thought the client would of at least questioned it prior to it being brought into the publics eye.
Now to some of your own statements (I assume these were your own and not meant to be linked to the previous article)... (Before you claim they all hung themselves, remember exclusive tying deals and bought out developers all paid for with monopoly monies.) That is self-completing argument, sort of a catch-22 in that Microsoft is a monopoly because they forced deals and bought out developers with monopoly monies. I never claimed that they hung themselves, nor was I going to, in fact I happen to think that ms business practices are down-right rotten, but that doesn't change that ms is very good at marketing, and like someone else on slashdot said, it ain't brilliant new technology that sells, it's marketing (or something like that). So what if you made a brilliant bit of software, if you can't put it in peoples faces it ain't going to sell. Don't blame ms when they went full-steam ahead in marketing their software when ms's competitors slowed down on the marketing side.
Several points that definitely support the argument of ms being a monopoly is the more popular Windows became, the more special programs were written to work with Windows. Because Windows could do more, even more people wanted it. now this shows how microsoft grew to a size which could be termed 'monopoly' a much better argument than 'they charge more than their competitors'. But where is the line between a 'market leader' and a 'monopoly' if we throw out the tradition definition of monopoly Being the only supplier of a service/goods
(Which doesn't make much commercial sense in the current global environment)...
Anyways, now that I've kinda finished my mis-matched response... My own personally belief is that ms is not a true monopoly, a super-power yes, obnoxious and overbearing yes. This is mainly because I don't agree with the definitions of what a monopoly (not that I have a better idea either..). Did the US government need to be brought in to break ms's strangle hold? I don't think so, there are some damn innovate people out there creating some great software, both commercially and OpenSource, given enough time they would of brought ms down to it's knees and restored the balance. Instead we have had the precedence set of a software developer being broken up by the government...
Thanks for the well researched response, unfortunately haven't had a chance to check out any of the links yet (dang net connection), but before I do that, and respond to those, I wanted to clarify something
To say that software is reliable because a lot of people can fix it is, and that's all we have anyway, probably isn't the best argument.
I wasn't actually saying that (though I can understand why you interpreted my statement that way) what I said of "But reliability is a lot more than just how reliable the software itself is..." I was refering to more than just how reliable the software itself is (which I happen to agree with you, ms software ain't the most reliable). Reliability encompasses much more than that, the ability to find support for that software quickly and easily either from the source or other parties, having the ability to find out quickly and easily if what I am trying to do is a known issue and recommended work-arounds, etc... (c'mon use your imagination I'm sure there's more)
Now this is one of the better reasons to go with the market-leader in a particular area, some other reasons are the old name recognition, feeling of security, the knowledge that most of the bugs have been found (not necessarily fixed but at least have work-arounds). You as a customer or a commercial entity don't have to worry about all the issues of being the fore-runner of relatively untested software, so that ms "get away with such a large knowledge base.." can actually be a corporate advantage.
"But with M$, you are not paying them for support, because they won't give you any with the purchase of the product..."
I agree you won't see much if any support from ms, but that was not the support I was talking about, I meant that by buying ms products I am safe in the knowledge that I will be able to get support (not from ms but other parties), because it is so well known and large. In effect as a consumer I would be willing to pay a higher price because I know I can get that extra support, without going to the source. And because people are willing to pay more, ms charges more.
I want to get back to ya on your other points and the links you supplied (perhaps add a few of my own), so the time being these'll have to do.
Also please note when I use I or You in this argument I am trying to personalize the issue rather than talking about what I or You actually do. As in I ain't a microsoft lackey.:-P
Relatively good response:-P but a few comments to continue this discussion
Microsoft is widely regarded as a producer of mediocre products in a commodity market
I agree that in the computer savvy world micro$oft products are not known as the best, though I wouldn't use the discription mediocre just that there are better solutions. However for the rest of the people out there, so many of them only know of micro$oft products or the ones that know of others actually think that micro$oft is the best solution. So by the understanding that "Quality is not based upon a physical aspect but rather a percieved aspect." (Quote from somewhere I don't remember) stating that Micro$oft is not a luxury commodity or of highstandard is your view not the view of everyone out there, and so they can charge at the higher rate, because people believe that that is what their software is worth.
BTW, it's not my definition.
Whose definition is it? If you've got a link I'd like to see it, mainly 'cause you mentioned that "First, a monopolist must be able to..." and I'd like to see what some of the other definitions are.
Sun can charge more for their OS/hardware because they sell reliablility with it.
This implies that Micro$oft software is not reliable or of high quality.... ok, you've got a point;-) But reliability is a lot more than just how reliable the software itself is, it's also support networks that are in place, how quickly patches are released, how promptly response is over known issues and those other aspects. Now admittedly I've not had much experience with Sun's support network, but the amount of support I can get from the microsoft sites in terms of their knowledge bases and in particular the msdn sites is fairly impressive.
Then there is also that I don't need to go to micro$oft directly, I can go to just about any third party computer or solftware supplier / developer and get support for micro$oft products. And when I as a consumer purchase software, part of the reason I am paying that price is the expected support I will recieve.
Thanks for actually attempting to respond with some detail though the page you mentioned does not appear to hold anything other than:
Any computer maker is free to change the Windows boot-up sequence, the arrangement of icons on the desktop, and replace Internet Explorer or other "middleware" without fear of retaliation from Microsoft.
This does not prove that micro$oft has forced any company to use it's software and other than restrictions in the contract (which the company agreed too), there is no reference too force... This statement does imply that micro$oft has retaliated against some computer suppliers, but doesn't prove it.
By the by, I do think micro$oft's business practices are questionable, and that they definitely aren't the best solution (or even in the top running [though it ain't as bad as a lot of people here believe]), but that does not mean that they have acted illegally, and I personally think that the court enforced breakup is the wrong way to break their hold on the software market... Try a) putting up a better solution and b) Educating people to that effect.
A strong reason as to why micro$oft is so powerful is that the common person out there does not know of another solution, and that those who do, actually think that micro$oft is the best solution.
BTW, I just called my local car dealer and asked him if I could buy a car without an engine. First he said "What kind of car are you interested in?" Then he said "Yeah, if you're willing to pay for it, we'll sell you a car without an engine."
And you know strangely enough if you rung up an average computer store and asked to not have an OS installed most would say yeah no problem. Big deal, if you as a consumer don't like it, don't buy it then, but I've yet to see anyone prove that microsoft forces computer developers to have Windows on the PC's and no other OS, then there's the resellers (who's forcing them?) then the end users?
So what if through advertising and various other means (which ain't nice, but ain't illegal either) Microsoft is the most well known brand of OS, and so in order to make more sales, most computer suppliers offer Windows with the new PC's... Welcome to the commercial world, where money speaks with a loud voice.
Note: I realise there more than likely is evidence that microsoft has forced corps, but my question still stands. Where is it? I've heard lotsa anti-micro$oft people say it's been proven, but I've never seen people hold the evidence up and say 'This proves it!' Please enlighten me...
A relevant view point, but to paraphrase your comment, you're basically saying that because of the effect a violent (and deadly) response to a political demonstation has. It is better that those people died, than they got repressed in a non-lethal way?
I agree that the effect on the world would be less if these demonstations had of not had casualties but, does that effect on the world justify those deaths?? After all that in essence is what you are proposing
First off good list of 'facts' though I would disagree that an astrophsisyst can claim "for life of any kind to exist." But a comment on your post as a/.er
LINK TO THE FRIGGIN WEB PAGE DON'T PASTE IT ALL HERE
That said, where is this guy's website so I can read his claims in context, and make an informed view of it.
Even if there are enough clones to count as a sizable minority, it's hard for even a grossly bigoted society to express prejudice towards targets it can't identify.
Are you so soon forgetting about that in the world today employees are being genetically tested? That this information is being stored and quite concievably in the future it could be a business's practice to check your DNA against a central repositry (for example the police for criminal past). So what's to stop people and corps in particular checking to see if you are a clone? Especially if you take into account that governments may require clones to be registered...
As to registered (because I can already see you wanting to refute that claim), how's this for a plausable reason to register clones. For police investigation, in the event that a crime occurs and your genetic makeup is detected at the crime scene, they need to be able to determine who that person is and in particular if it is more than one person...
Yeah, I know no a very creative reason, but c'mon people use your imagination. And if you think governments won't want to track this kind of stuff look at Carnivore or....
Let me take a wild guess how about those people who think that having a different skin colour makes you a lesser person? Or what about those people who believe that if you don't support their god you deserve to die?
C'mon are you seriously trying to tell me that there is going to be no-one out there who isn't going to want to discriminate against clones? As to the American congress or hell any countries political body actually legalising those discriminations?? Look around you in the world today and tell me it ain't going to happen
My apologies, I kinda missed out on explaining a part of my reasoning... Ok way back in the start of this post there was the statement of:
28: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Now I took your statement of: "This concept can be based on the idea that if you think about something often enough, you're probably going to eventually do it. " as being the justification for the biblical quote, which is why I put the clarification of "only once"... Namely the biblical quote is valid if you agree with the concept that "if you think about something you are going to do it (even if you only think once)."
Now for myself I happen to think that yes if you think about something often enough you will probably do it, but thinking about something once or twice does not mean you are going to do it.
Ok onto the other part in your post, I guess I didn't highlight enough that I was talking more about introspection, namely examining your
own
feelings and validating or resolving them. Than I was about seeing whether or not your partner has been tempted (not very good at explaining my morals on those concepts). But anyway, if you look at the following two statements:..if you feel the need to have your partner 'tested'... your relationship is seriously screwed anyway.It's more how I view myself, sometimes I don't know just how much I'm in love with someone until I've been tempted and either succumbed or resisted.
you should see what I meant (even if some of my words didn't follow..), so yeah I guess I believe that in a relationship, it's not so much how much my partner loves me, but wanting to know how much I love them that I want to know...
On knowing whether or not someone has been tempted, there is usually nothing verbally stated but I find that there is a certain something (attitude, intensity, whatever) that comes across from someone who has been tested and kept their values intact (assuming their values are not too cheat on a SO). Whether this occured during your relationship or in a past one, is irrelevant they feel more confident and it comes across. After all what is it 80%? of communication is non-verbal and that includes both the sender and recipient...
Just to throw my own 2 cents in on this topic. (The original topic that is)
This concept can be based on the idea that if you think about something often enough, you're probably going to eventually do it.
For myself this is a significant part of the argument, if you accept this idea as being true for all thoughts no matter if you only think it once, then online sex is definitely adultery.
Strangely enough I believe that most of the times online sex is adultery if you are in a commited relationship. But also I disagree with the above idea (on the whole), the reason being is rooted in the phrase "Evil is necessary, for without how will we know what good is?" If I am with someone and they have never been tempted (ie: had lustful thoughts but not acted on them) how can I truly know that there only with me because they haven't found someone better? Or to put it another way, are they with me because of the integral need of humans to be near someone or are they with me because they love me?
If you don't know the difference, then unfortunately I'd have to say that you haven't known love... Now having said all that, just because someone hasn't been tempted doesn't mean they are any less of a person than someone who has. In fact for myself I personally believe that if you feel the need to have your partner 'tested' (ie: as in temptation island) your relationship is seriously screwed anyway.:-P
It's more how I view myself, sometimes I don't know just how much I'm in love with someone until I've been tempted and either succumbed or resisted.
I thought I'd just re-iterate for your benefit the commonly touted belief around slashdot, that Microsoft is the 'Evil Empire', 'Borg', etc... and no-one should use Microsoft, it's a crime, etc, etc... Not really stating that Redmond should be 'bulldozed' but definitely stating they should be destroyed. So the other poster paraphrased ya, get over it!
Ok, flame kinda over, back to reason
Now the original poster I believe never made any refernce to the JD ruling or solution he was making reference to the general feeling on slashdot (or at least the percieved feeling) that Microsoft should be destroyed. Now whether or not you agree with the feeling of Microsoft being destroyed, I think you would at least take intelligently the issues that are raised if this was to occur. Hell the JD obviously did, assuming they ever contimplated such a drastic measure...
Very good points (and by the by thanks for responding in an intelligent matter)... I personally think that a weekly movie review is a good idea for slashdot, as it gives us geeks a chance to review movies from our perspective (as opposed to critic perspective, or...)
Now as to this week choice of a movie to review?? To be honest I don't think it's the most 'ideal' movie to review given the audience. However take the specific genre and there are technical aspects (albeit ridiculous) for example Bill and Ted's... the whole time travel concept
Though I think everyone would agree that's stretching it a bit too far. Myself I'd be more interested in a discussion of whether or not these movies are worth seeing. In the sense that they are not (nor do most of them pretend to be) intelligent or to force you to think about any kind of meaningful issue.
They are quite simply pure entertainment, they may not be everyone's ideal form. But you generally just sit there switch of your mind and laugh.
Back briefly on topic (and relating it to slashdot) the reason I think this is a valid topic here is: to answer the question, why do intelligent, artistic (add your own quality terms) people want to and enjoy watching these movies that do not in any way improve them as human beings??
Slashdot Mirror
I partly agree with you there, and then again I don't... Let's see if I can make that obscure statement clear.
When I was younger and was not able to purchase certain items because of my age (alcohol, cigarettes, p0rn, etc...) and government restrictions on having minors purchase said items. I actually agreed with some of the restrictions, I looked at some of the other people my age and imagined how much more 'ucked up they would be if they had access to alcohol or ...
Though I considered myself mature enough to see R rated movies or... And in this it was my family that took control and taught me respect if I wanted to obtain something that the government restricted me from purchasing then all I had to do was convince my parents that I would be fine with it (whatever it was). If I could prove to them that I was mature enough to have access to 'it' then I was given access to 'it'. If I didn't convince them I was mature enough or after gaining access I showed that I wasn't mature, my right to access 'it' was revoked...
That kind of structure would be impossible for the government to implement (and they shouldn't even try) but it was because of the government rules and regs that I was forced actually be mature (something that ain't a bad thing in my OSHO)
I'd disagree with that last statement.. "Today's PC's are not only tough to use, but they don't do too much well at all."
Let's pick communication, say ten years ago, how easy was it to send (x) to a friend/stranger/relative (whatever) half way across the world, comfortable in the knowledge it would be recieved within a couple of minutes/hours (depending on if they're up?)
I can see you saying, you could do that right? Well guess what, my mum couldn't of, my sister couldn't of, namely people who knew nothing about computers would of had a hell of a difficult time to do so. But today, I recieved an email from my grandmother containing a scanned photo from her b'day... Sure she probably had some help scanning the photo, but could she of done that 10 years ago? (without having a computer expert do it for her)
Good for you following what you believe and dream in but don't bag out those of us who have no interest in actually doing the Engineering stuff you do. Hey I love hearing about the feats that engineers and scientists do around the world, just as much as I love hearing about new advances in programming/programs, the latest AI advance, the success in having a program recognise the difference between the thought "Yes" and the signal to say "Yes"... (the list goes on)
but I really doubt a CS guy could write the code I do [for fluid dynamics]Just as I (and no doubt others) doubt your ability to write beautiful recursive object structures to calculate taxes, invoice payments... Or analysing pictures/photos for UI building, or increasing the speed and scope of date/time comparisons, or networking to a ....
Just 'cause you're good at doing a small subset of programming does not mean you're a programming god or that the rest of us who are just CS's are not as 'good' as you.
Why not?? Define what you mean by 'Say', '"Hello"' and 'world' and I'm sure someone can (if it hasn't been done already) write a program to do that.
Most computers have sound cards or the old PC Sound (you know that annoying beep), simple get it to say hello... Or perhaps you mean the more philosphical kinda like AI? How about that, there is lotsa people out there playing with and researching AI techniques to create an entity (or program if you will) that will pass the turing test and perhaps go further...
Don't know about Mac but in Windoze, you have System Modal dialog boxes or [normal] modal boxes. System modal does what you're talking about ('ucking annoying too!!) but with modal boxes, you can set the parent of it to being either the desktop, a specific form on your app, the main form on your app, only limited to what hWnd you can provide.. Sorta like context (just that very few programmers out there use them, or more specifically use them well)
Rant over you can continueSo would you think that the availability of a way to obtain electronic books and read them quite comfortably has impacted on you purchasing actual paper based books?
Because if so, it suddenly makes the claim of "it isn't effecting book sales" null and void, at the moment it may not be much of an impact, but it's already starting...
Thanks for the clarification... But however I did find out that libraries and archives have particular restrictions and mentions in law or so I took to understand it, now not being a lawyer (and going brain-numb when reading legal docs), I didn't understand it fully, but essentially the legal rights of a library are different from the legal rights of an individual when it comes to copyright...
Anyone know where that line is? Can I just build up a collection of books/cd's and call it an archive/library (under law)?
I don't think there was a change in subject, work is work, whether intellectual or physical in nature, some people work either for free or for a low wage in the understanding that they will possibly get paid for their work in the future, usually in basis of royalties. Others work for a wage, with sufficient immediate reward for the work they are doing.
Treating information/art itself as property is what I object to.Both have done the work, both should be rewarded for the work, the only difference is time-frame.
On this point I partly agree with you, but the distinction I make is that the person who created/discovered that art/information should in some form be compensated/rewarded for it. Currently that seems to be through royalties/copyrights etc.. Not an ideal method (witness the excessive profits of RIAA members), but the currently proposed replacement seems to basically be: screw the creator I want it for free!
As to "Trading hours for dollars is not what I object to." as to strict I get paid for the hours I work, that I don't think will work in a capitalist environment, because of demand. For myself I would qualify it with "Trading risk and hours worked for dollars" because if I'm going to be risking my life-savings, career, not getting paid for it (etc..) by doing a project, be that writing a book, working on new technology, researching ... I think I deserve at least a little more than the money I would of earnt by the hour. But thats just me.
If by your argument you define that personal copy is one made by yourself as in "duplicated solely for purposes of preservation and security" then I for one definitely agree with you, however I believe that bellings has already argued that very point, the distinction made is that a copy you made is not the same as a copy made by someone else, and though I believe you are referring too:
duplicated solely for the purpose of replacement of a copy or phonorecord that is damaged, deteriorating, lost, or stolen, or if the existing format in which the work is stored has become obsoletein that it is implied in context that you can obtain a copy from another person/entity but the following qualifier of that above statement sorta questions that if it has been determined that an unused replacement cannot be obtained at a fair price...
So basically it says you can make personal copies for security and preservation, but you can't obtain copies from other people without at least first determining if you can obtain a new copy at a first price...
Out of curiousity, how long do you think that will be so? As in there are lots of projects out there (Commercial and OpenSource) that are looking at how to make writing on a computer screen more readable, presentable, comfortable, etc... From the Monitor and video card corps researching so that you can look at the screen for longer periods without getting blurry-eyed, making them more compact and lighter, greater definition on PDA's... Then there's software that nicifies the font so that it looks smooth and yet again more readable....
How long will it be until sitting down and reading a book on your PDA (or whatever) is just (if not more) comfortable than a good ol' fashioned book?
If he's going to bitch about this, then why isn't he up in arms about libraries giving away his material for free?On that, I ain't sure of it but I'd be willing to bet that each book costs more for the library than what we would pay at a bookstore, because they are an organisation that lend out individual books... Anyone want to clarify that?
Do you actually work for a living? How do you make money to eat, live, etc...? Because in the above statement you're saying you do not want to get paid for your work. Just because it may not be fictional writing has nothing to do with it, writers earn money from their work. Do you?
Just wanted to say I agree with you on some points I mean the guy who wrote: "Exclusive control, as of a commodity or service, by 1 group" what an idiot! ;-)
Anyways to get to some of the articles.
The statements 'In order to get a place in our monopoly real estate, you can't do business with Netscape is NOT supported by If you agreed to be one of Microsoft's "Platinum Agreement" Web partners, you were restricted in dealing with other major companies making browsers, including Netscape.
For my mind it ain't a fair thing to do from a consumers perspective but from a competitors perspective, bad luck you didn't win that client. Welcome to the world where if two competitors are smoosching a client the client will usually choose one or the other, also the statement is restrict not can't. Aside from that it ain't fair from the clients perspective (I'd want my products/presence to be advertised prominently through multiple mediums and markets, not just one part of a market). And bringing that agreement under question definitely a good thing, though I would of thought the client would of at least questioned it prior to it being brought into the publics eye.
Now to some of your own statements (I assume these were your own and not meant to be linked to the previous article) ... (Before you claim they all hung themselves, remember exclusive tying deals and bought out developers all paid for with monopoly monies.) That is self-completing argument, sort of a catch-22 in that Microsoft is a monopoly because they forced deals and bought out developers with monopoly monies. I never claimed that they hung themselves, nor was I going to, in fact I happen to think that ms business practices are down-right rotten, but that doesn't change that ms is very good at marketing, and like someone else on slashdot said, it ain't brilliant new technology that sells, it's marketing (or something like that). So what if you made a brilliant bit of software, if you can't put it in peoples faces it ain't going to sell. Don't blame ms when they went full-steam ahead in marketing their software when ms's competitors slowed down on the marketing side.
Several points that definitely support the argument of ms being a monopoly is the more popular Windows became, the more special programs were written to work with Windows. Because Windows could do more, even more people wanted it. now this shows how microsoft grew to a size which could be termed 'monopoly' a much better argument than 'they charge more than their competitors'. But where is the line between a 'market leader' and a 'monopoly' if we throw out the tradition definition of monopoly Being the only supplier of a service/goods (Which doesn't make much commercial sense in the current global environment)...
Anyways, now that I've kinda finished my mis-matched response... My own personally belief is that ms is not a true monopoly, a super-power yes, obnoxious and overbearing yes. This is mainly because I don't agree with the definitions of what a monopoly (not that I have a better idea either..). Did the US government need to be brought in to break ms's strangle hold? I don't think so, there are some damn innovate people out there creating some great software, both commercially and OpenSource, given enough time they would of brought ms down to it's knees and restored the balance. Instead we have had the precedence set of a software developer being broken up by the government...
Thanks for the well researched response, unfortunately haven't had a chance to check out any of the links yet (dang net connection), but before I do that, and respond to those, I wanted to clarify something
To say that software is reliable because a lot of people can fix it is, and that's all we have anyway, probably isn't the best argument.
I wasn't actually saying that (though I can understand why you interpreted my statement that way) what I said of "But reliability is a lot more than just how reliable the software itself is..." I was refering to more than just how reliable the software itself is (which I happen to agree with you, ms software ain't the most reliable). Reliability encompasses much more than that, the ability to find support for that software quickly and easily either from the source or other parties, having the ability to find out quickly and easily if what I am trying to do is a known issue and recommended work-arounds, etc... (c'mon use your imagination I'm sure there's more)
Now this is one of the better reasons to go with the market-leader in a particular area, some other reasons are the old name recognition, feeling of security, the knowledge that most of the bugs have been found (not necessarily fixed but at least have work-arounds). You as a customer or a commercial entity don't have to worry about all the issues of being the fore-runner of relatively untested software, so that ms "get away with such a large knowledge base.." can actually be a corporate advantage.
"But with M$, you are not paying them for support, because they won't give you any with the purchase of the product..."
I agree you won't see much if any support from ms, but that was not the support I was talking about, I meant that by buying ms products I am safe in the knowledge that I will be able to get support (not from ms but other parties), because it is so well known and large. In effect as a consumer I would be willing to pay a higher price because I know I can get that extra support, without going to the source. And because people are willing to pay more, ms charges more.
I want to get back to ya on your other points and the links you supplied (perhaps add a few of my own), so the time being these'll have to do. :-P
Also please note when I use I or You in this argument I am trying to personalize the issue rather than talking about what I or You actually do. As in I ain't a microsoft lackey.
Relatively good response :-P but a few comments to continue this discussion
Microsoft is widely regarded as a producer of mediocre products in a commodity marketI agree that in the computer savvy world micro$oft products are not known as the best, though I wouldn't use the discription mediocre just that there are better solutions. However for the rest of the people out there, so many of them only know of micro$oft products or the ones that know of others actually think that micro$oft is the best solution. So by the understanding that "Quality is not based upon a physical aspect but rather a percieved aspect." (Quote from somewhere I don't remember) stating that Micro$oft is not a luxury commodity or of highstandard is your view not the view of everyone out there, and so they can charge at the higher rate, because people believe that that is what their software is worth.
BTW, it's not my definition.Whose definition is it? If you've got a link I'd like to see it, mainly 'cause you mentioned that "First, a monopolist must be able to ..." and I'd like to see what some of the other definitions are.
Sun can charge more for their OS/hardware because they sell reliablility with it.This implies that Micro$oft software is not reliable or of high quality.... ok, you've got a point ;-) But reliability is a lot more than just how reliable the software itself is, it's also support networks that are in place, how quickly patches are released, how promptly response is over known issues and those other aspects. Now admittedly I've not had much experience with Sun's support network, but the amount of support I can get from the microsoft sites in terms of their knowledge bases and in particular the msdn sites is fairly impressive.
Then there is also that I don't need to go to micro$oft directly, I can go to just about any third party computer or solftware supplier / developer and get support for micro$oft products. And when I as a consumer purchase software, part of the reason I am paying that price is the expected support I will recieve.
Thanks for actually attempting to respond with some detail though the page you mentioned does not appear to hold anything other than:
Any computer maker is free to change the Windows boot-up sequence, the arrangement of icons on the desktop, and replace Internet Explorer or other "middleware" without fear of retaliation from Microsoft.This does not prove that micro$oft has forced any company to use it's software and other than restrictions in the contract (which the company agreed too), there is no reference too force... This statement does imply that micro$oft has retaliated against some computer suppliers, but doesn't prove it.
By the by, I do think micro$oft's business practices are questionable, and that they definitely aren't the best solution (or even in the top running [though it ain't as bad as a lot of people here believe]), but that does not mean that they have acted illegally, and I personally think that the court enforced breakup is the wrong way to break their hold on the software market... Try a) putting up a better solution and b) Educating people to that effect.
A strong reason as to why micro$oft is so powerful is that the common person out there does not know of another solution, and that those who do, actually think that micro$oft is the best solution.
So by your narrow definition there, porsche has a monopoly on the car market, because they charge more than the majority of their competitors??
And you know strangely enough if you rung up an average computer store and asked to not have an OS installed most would say yeah no problem. Big deal, if you as a consumer don't like it, don't buy it then, but I've yet to see anyone prove that microsoft forces computer developers to have Windows on the PC's and no other OS, then there's the resellers (who's forcing them?) then the end users?
So what if through advertising and various other means (which ain't nice, but ain't illegal either) Microsoft is the most well known brand of OS, and so in order to make more sales, most computer suppliers offer Windows with the new PC's... Welcome to the commercial world, where money speaks with a loud voice.
Note: I realise there more than likely is evidence that microsoft has forced corps, but my question still stands. Where is it? I've heard lotsa anti-micro$oft people say it's been proven, but I've never seen people hold the evidence up and say 'This proves it!' Please enlighten me...
A relevant view point, but to paraphrase your comment, you're basically saying that because of the effect a violent (and deadly) response to a political demonstation has. It is better that those people died, than they got repressed in a non-lethal way?
I agree that the effect on the world would be less if these demonstations had of not had casualties but, does that effect on the world justify those deaths?? After all that in essence is what you are proposing
First off good list of 'facts' though I would disagree that an astrophsisyst can claim "for life of any kind to exist." But a comment on your post as a /.er
LINK TO THE FRIGGIN WEB PAGE DON'T PASTE IT ALL HERE
That said, where is this guy's website so I can read his claims in context, and make an informed view of it.
Are you so soon forgetting about that in the world today employees are being genetically tested? That this information is being stored and quite concievably in the future it could be a business's practice to check your DNA against a central repositry (for example the police for criminal past). So what's to stop people and corps in particular checking to see if you are a clone? Especially if you take into account that governments may require clones to be registered...
As to registered (because I can already see you wanting to refute that claim), how's this for a plausable reason to register clones. For police investigation, in the event that a crime occurs and your genetic makeup is detected at the crime scene, they need to be able to determine who that person is and in particular if it is more than one person...
Yeah, I know no a very creative reason, but c'mon people use your imagination. And if you think governments won't want to track this kind of stuff look at Carnivore or ....
Let me take a wild guess how about those people who think that having a different skin colour makes you a lesser person? Or what about those people who believe that if you don't support their god you deserve to die?
C'mon are you seriously trying to tell me that there is going to be no-one out there who isn't going to want to discriminate against clones? As to the American congress or hell any countries political body actually legalising those discriminations?? Look around you in the world today and tell me it ain't going to happen
My apologies, I kinda missed out on explaining a part of my reasoning... Ok way back in the start of this post there was the statement of:
28: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.Now I took your statement of: "This concept can be based on the idea that if you think about something often enough, you're probably going to eventually do it. " as being the justification for the biblical quote, which is why I put the clarification of "only once"... Namely the biblical quote is valid if you agree with the concept that "if you think about something you are going to do it (even if you only think once)."
Now for myself I happen to think that yes if you think about something often enough you will probably do it, but thinking about something once or twice does not mean you are going to do it.
Ok onto the other part in your post, I guess I didn't highlight enough that I was talking more about introspection, namely examining your
- own
feelings and validating or resolving them. Than I was about seeing whether or not your partner has been tempted (not very good at explaining my morals on those concepts). But anyway, if you look at the following two statements:you should see what I meant (even if some of my words didn't follow..), so yeah I guess I believe that in a relationship, it's not so much how much my partner loves me, but wanting to know how much I love them that I want to know...
On knowing whether or not someone has been tempted, there is usually nothing verbally stated but I find that there is a certain something (attitude, intensity, whatever) that comes across from someone who has been tested and kept their values intact (assuming their values are not too cheat on a SO). Whether this occured during your relationship or in a past one, is irrelevant they feel more confident and it comes across. After all what is it 80%? of communication is non-verbal and that includes both the sender and recipient...
Just to throw my own 2 cents in on this topic. (The original topic that is)
This concept can be based on the idea that if you think about something often enough, you're probably going to eventually do it.For myself this is a significant part of the argument, if you accept this idea as being true for all thoughts no matter if you only think it once, then online sex is definitely adultery.
Strangely enough I believe that most of the times online sex is adultery if you are in a commited relationship. But also I disagree with the above idea (on the whole), the reason being is rooted in the phrase "Evil is necessary, for without how will we know what good is?" If I am with someone and they have never been tempted (ie: had lustful thoughts but not acted on them) how can I truly know that there only with me because they haven't found someone better? Or to put it another way, are they with me because of the integral need of humans to be near someone or are they with me because they love me?
If you don't know the difference, then unfortunately I'd have to say that you haven't known love... Now having said all that, just because someone hasn't been tempted doesn't mean they are any less of a person than someone who has. In fact for myself I personally believe that if you feel the need to have your partner 'tested' (ie: as in temptation island) your relationship is seriously screwed anyway. :-P
It's more how I view myself, sometimes I don't know just how much I'm in love with someone until I've been tempted and either succumbed or resisted.
I thought I'd just re-iterate for your benefit the commonly touted belief around slashdot, that Microsoft is the 'Evil Empire', 'Borg', etc... and no-one should use Microsoft, it's a crime, etc, etc... Not really stating that Redmond should be 'bulldozed' but definitely stating they should be destroyed. So the other poster paraphrased ya, get over it!
Ok, flame kinda over, back to reasonNow the original poster I believe never made any refernce to the JD ruling or solution he was making reference to the general feeling on slashdot (or at least the percieved feeling) that Microsoft should be destroyed. Now whether or not you agree with the feeling of Microsoft being destroyed, I think you would at least take intelligently the issues that are raised if this was to occur. Hell the JD obviously did, assuming they ever contimplated such a drastic measure...
Ok, I've finished my rant. Tag your it.
Very good points (and by the by thanks for responding in an intelligent matter)... I personally think that a weekly movie review is a good idea for slashdot, as it gives us geeks a chance to review movies from our perspective (as opposed to critic perspective, or...)
Now as to this week choice of a movie to review?? To be honest I don't think it's the most 'ideal' movie to review given the audience. However take the specific genre and there are technical aspects (albeit ridiculous) for example Bill and Ted's... the whole time travel concept
Though I think everyone would agree that's stretching it a bit too far. Myself I'd be more interested in a discussion of whether or not these movies are worth seeing. In the sense that they are not (nor do most of them pretend to be) intelligent or to force you to think about any kind of meaningful issue.
They are quite simply pure entertainment, they may not be everyone's ideal form. But you generally just sit there switch of your mind and laugh.
Back briefly on topic (and relating it to slashdot) the reason I think this is a valid topic here is: to answer the question, why do intelligent, artistic (add your own quality terms) people want to and enjoy watching these movies that do not in any way improve them as human beings??
Anyways, hope that made some sense...