David is unique, however we do not claim, nor have we ever claimed that David is 100% our own proprietary code.
Hmm, I read their website, I read the press releases and stories. Nowhere did they ever claim that it wasn't 100% their own code. They may not have come out and stated that it was 100% their own code, but they certainly led people to believe it. That's why there was the 'furor' about it.
it sounds like they're being open and straightforward about it
Actually, it sounds like they're being open and straightforward about it now, after being called on it.
Our problem is that because our music is independent music generally no one has heard it before. Because we only give away 30 seconds of the song in high quality our sales are fairly low.
Here's the problem.
When I go looking for stuff, I wanna hear the whole song - doesn't matter if the quality sucks, but if I'm gonna buy it, I wanna hear more than a couple of riffs.
Instead of (or perhaps in addition to) high-quality 30-second bits, put out low-quality full-length songs (56K mono should be good enough quality that the listener can enjoy the song without being distracted by compression artifacts.)
Second - most people who are passionate about the music they like will want to get other people to listen to it. Encourage (with the artists' permission) people to share these low-quality files - put your site in the ID3 tags, and encourage listeners to share them on their favourite P2P site, or deep-link from their own website/blog (provide deep-linking instructions, for example.)
Third - (much more work that the other two:o) try to develop into some sort of social network; maybe in addition to simply listing by genre, allow people to 'rate' songs (a simple 'like' or 'dislike'), and use this to create recommended songlists (by listing songs that people who have similar tastes have rated 'like'.)
the current one has his own redeeming qualities too... Perl is just not one of them. =)
Considering it can be argued that knowing Perl isn't a redeeming quality at all, it's hard to assess from your statement whether your boyfriend knows Perl or not.:o)
Yeah, this is much simpler than just making the fans quiet in the first place, right?
Wonderful. "Look, instead of paying an extra 50 cents for a higher quality quiet fan, you can use cheap fans and spend $25.00 in additional parts to make the computer quiet!"
their prices are--still--lover than the competition
You think this is a co-incidence?
Think about the logistics for a minute. Running those 'membership' scams costs money - money that has to come from somewhere. Over all, the costs for merchandise is going to be similar for all of the chains, so you have to ask - "where is the money for that 'membership' coming from?"
Well, it's simple - they simply tack it onto the prices for non-'members', right? At the beginning of any 'membership' scam, this may be true, as the number of non-'member' customers was enough to sustain it - but over time, the ratio of 'members' to non-'members' changes - people who don't wish to become 'members' simply shop elsewhere..
So what ends up happening is that the store has two choices: accept lower profits, or increase the prices that they charge 'members'. Take a guess as to which one they choose.
A lot of them have installers that force you to agree to the GPL before it will install.
No, they don't. They may display the GPL, and present a button labeled "I agree", but (if you actually _READ_ the GPL) the GPL contains this text:
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works.
So they do not "force" you to agree to anything.
Just because something is presented as an EULA, by someone who doesn't know what an EULA is, does not make it an EULA.
You have never, ever seen an 'objective' documentary that wasn't trying to inform you of some plight, or problem, or point of view. Ever.
Ummm, that's complete bullshit.
Ummm, no.
You provided one definition of the term. Here are TEN definitions of "documentary", along with some choice quotes:
an interpretation of theoretical, factual, political, social or historical events or issues presented either objectively or with a specific point of view. (Broadcast Education Association.)
A nonfiction motion picture film having a theme or viewpoint but drawing its material from actual events (EPA glossary)
a non-fiction film which usually, although not always, has a particular point of view regarding its subject matter (Joseph Dunlop Addley, Professor of Film Studies and Literature)
Factual footage arranged in such a way that it informs and expresses a point of view (Multimedia Education Group)
I have seen PLENTY of real documentaries.
And I've seen plenty of footage of the space shuttle. Doesn't make me an astronaut.
Try taking some film studies courses before you talk about this subject again.
What gives you the impression that he expects you to not independently verify his content?
That he presents his work as documentary. That is a word with a specific meaning
I'm sorry, but WHAT??!?!?!?!!?!?
Here is a bunch of definitions of the word "documentary". I've read all ten, and none of them mention anything about the viewer not performing independant verification of the material presented.
In addition, I've taken some film studies courses, and none of my teachers ever said (or even implied) that a documentary means the viewer is expected to not do independant verification of the content.
Please provide some reference to this silly claim, or kindly concede that you are wrong on this point.
Moore was told as early as the summer of 2003 that the movie was not going to be released by Disney.
No, somebody claims that he was told this, but Moore claims differently - so it's really a "he said, she said" scenario, until you look at the fact that Disney continued pumping millions of dollars into the film.
If Disney truly had decided a year ago that they weren't going to release the film, why did they continue sending Moore money to continue it? It's not exactly good business sense to fund something you know you're not going to sell, right?
It seems to me, anyway, that Disney should have final say in what they do and don't release - they're not a government agency, they're a freakin company.
Yes, but the reason they're deciding not to release it is because of the government. They're afraid that the Florida government will penalize them. Which sounds an awful lot like censorship to me.
You're correct that it's not technically censorship, but (as they say) if it walks like a duck...
where does he get the idea that he can force companies into distributing his ideas for him?
From the contract they signed that said that they would distribute them?
I might as well call the Today show and demand that Katie Couric interview me so that I can go off on her about her liberal bias!
Well, if you signed a contract with the Today show which said that they would allow you to do this, then you really should, instead of bitching about it on/.
SpamCOP's public claim that Richter sends e-mails to people who have never opted-in
As others have pointed out, please back up this accusation with proof.
when you accuse somebody of something, it turns into a matter of fact
I see you accusing SpamCop of something - where is your proof, Mr. Hypocrite?
If you're publishing facts that aren't true
WHAT!??!?!?!?!
Here's how my dictionary defines 'fact': "a concept whose truth can be proved"
It is patently obvious that it is impossible to publish a fact that is not true, because if it's not true, then it's not a fact.
QED.
Here are some real facts for you to consider:
1. Spamcop does not publish opinions, nor does it accuse anybody of anything. It maintains a blacklist, and it acts as a reporting service for people who have not been spammed.
2. ISPs who do not want to received 'anonymous' spam reports from Spamcop can request that Spamcop send unobfuscated spam reports, which identifies the sender, which Spamcop will do. (The user is notified that the recipient refuses munged reports, and they have the choice to send the unobfuscated report, or to not send anything.)
This blows your arguments (as poor as they are) right out of the water.
I once worked at the service desk of a computer store. One day, a guy comes in - walks to the service desk (at the back of the store) - past the display computers, the rows of software, accessories, and all the related signage.
He puts a small box - about the size of a ATX PS, but with tubes coming out of it instead of wires - and asks me how much to replace it.
"What is it?" I ask
"It's a compressor for a 4510." He says.
"What's a 4510?" I ask.
He looks at me like I'm an idiot, and says "It's a dishwasher - don't you know anything?"
So I say "we sell computers here."
"Really?" he says - and then when I point to the afforementioned computers, software, and accessories that he walked past to get to me. He surveys everything, and says "Oh. I guess it is. I thought this was Trail Appliances."
Seriously, only "known" spammers get invites - but the question is - what constitutes "known"?
How hard would it be for an anti-spammer to set up a bogus online identity, list themselves as spammers, and then sent spam-like emails to the spammers' email addresses, and then wait for an invite?
If they paid, then in exchange for the money they got a non-public license to redistribute the content.
Not necessarily.
If you infringe someone's copyright, get caught, and pay a fine/settle out of court, it does not mean you have the right to distribute the material - it means that you paid a fine (and/or a settlement with the owner) for breaking the law.
Unless they got permission from the author, they still can't distribute the material, even if they paid a fine or settlement.
They are primarily a hardware company, who has a software division, who sells and supports lots of different types of software (including Linux.)
Saying that they are "linux-based" is like saying that McDonalds is "fish-based", because they sell filet-o-fish. (When in reality, it's one small part of their business, and is greatly overshadowed by their other products.)
"I think this is great for SCO - RBC decided that it loved them so much, that it chose to convert 10,000 of its' A-1 shares to common stock, at over TWICE the market rate! How much more of a vote of confidence can you get?
"Their total relinquishment of any controlling interest in SCO is a full ringing endorsement of the current SCO management and business direction.
"Combine this with the fact that the balance of their A-1 shares went to Baystar, a company that has come out in full support of SCO's legal case, means that this is all good news!" </voice>
If you want a Linux for the average user, it's going to have to be that way
No, it isn't. You don't need root to use a box, you need root to administer a box.
Adminstration and use are two separate things. For the longest time MS has tried to get people to think that they're the same, but even they now realize the error of doing things this way, and are slowly trying to transition people away from this.
Slashdot Mirror
David is unique, however we do not claim, nor have we ever claimed that David is 100% our own proprietary code.
Hmm, I read their website, I read the press releases and stories. Nowhere did they ever claim that it wasn't 100% their own code. They may not have come out and stated that it was 100% their own code, but they certainly led people to believe it. That's why there was the 'furor' about it.
it sounds like they're being open and straightforward about it
Actually, it sounds like they're being open and straightforward about it now, after being called on it.
Our problem is that because our music is independent music generally no one has heard it before. Because we only give away 30 seconds of the song in high quality our sales are fairly low.
:o) try to develop into some sort of social network; maybe in addition to simply listing by genre, allow people to 'rate' songs (a simple 'like' or 'dislike'), and use this to create recommended songlists (by listing songs that people who have similar tastes have rated 'like'.)
Here's the problem.
When I go looking for stuff, I wanna hear the whole song - doesn't matter if the quality sucks, but if I'm gonna buy it, I wanna hear more than a couple of riffs.
Instead of (or perhaps in addition to) high-quality 30-second bits, put out low-quality full-length songs (56K mono should be good enough quality that the listener can enjoy the song without being distracted by compression artifacts.)
Second - most people who are passionate about the music they like will want to get other people to listen to it. Encourage (with the artists' permission) people to share these low-quality files - put your site in the ID3 tags, and encourage listeners to share them on their favourite P2P site, or deep-link from their own website/blog (provide deep-linking instructions, for example.)
Third - (much more work that the other two
Try a better designed computer.
The Deskpro sitting in front of me is completely silent (the LED is the only way I know if it's on.)
Seriously - I have very sensitive hearing (I can hear our cat walking on carpet), and silence is one of the main things I look for in a computer.
the current one has his own redeeming qualities too... Perl is just not one of them. =)
:o)
Considering it can be argued that knowing Perl isn't a redeeming quality at all, it's hard to assess from your statement whether your boyfriend knows Perl or not.
Yeah, this is much simpler than just making the fans quiet in the first place, right?
Wonderful. "Look, instead of paying an extra 50 cents for a higher quality quiet fan, you can use cheap fans and spend $25.00 in additional parts to make the computer quiet!"
*sigh*
You forgot Sobey's (IGA)
their prices are--still--lover than the competition
You think this is a co-incidence?
Think about the logistics for a minute. Running those 'membership' scams costs money - money that has to come from somewhere. Over all, the costs for merchandise is going to be similar for all of the chains, so you have to ask - "where is the money for that 'membership' coming from?"
Well, it's simple - they simply tack it onto the prices for non-'members', right? At the beginning of any 'membership' scam, this may be true, as the number of non-'member' customers was enough to sustain it - but over time, the ratio of 'members' to non-'members' changes - people who don't wish to become 'members' simply shop elsewhere..
So what ends up happening is that the store has two choices: accept lower profits, or increase the prices that they charge 'members'. Take a guess as to which one they choose.
I'd really rather watch Barney melt to a purple goo. Dino is such a nice pet.
:o)
Agreed - then you'd have Betty all to yourself, right?
No, they don't. They may display the GPL, and present a button labeled "I agree", but (if you actually _READ_ the GPL) the GPL contains this text:
So they do not "force" you to agree to anything.
Just because something is presented as an EULA, by someone who doesn't know what an EULA is, does not make it an EULA.
Ummm, that's complete bullshit.
Ummm, no.
You provided one definition of the term. Here are TEN definitions of "documentary", along with some choice quotes:
an interpretation of theoretical, factual, political, social or historical events or issues presented either objectively or with a specific point of view. (Broadcast Education Association.)
A nonfiction motion picture film having a theme or viewpoint but drawing its material from actual events (EPA glossary)
a non-fiction film which usually, although not always, has a particular point of view regarding its subject matter (Joseph Dunlop Addley, Professor of Film Studies and Literature)
Factual footage arranged in such a way that it informs and expresses a point of view (Multimedia Education Group)
I have seen PLENTY of real documentaries.
And I've seen plenty of footage of the space shuttle. Doesn't make me an astronaut.
Try taking some film studies courses before you talk about this subject again.
That he presents his work as documentary. That is a word with a specific meaning
I'm sorry, but WHAT??!?!?!?! !?!?
Here is a bunch of definitions of the word "documentary". I've read all ten, and none of them mention anything about the viewer not performing independant verification of the material presented.
In addition, I've taken some film studies courses, and none of my teachers ever said (or even implied) that a documentary means the viewer is expected to not do independant verification of the content.
Please provide some reference to this silly claim, or kindly concede that you are wrong on this point.
If I also recall correctly
/.
According to Moore, you don't.
Moore was told as early as the summer of 2003 that the movie was not going to be released by Disney.
No, somebody claims that he was told this, but Moore claims differently - so it's really a "he said, she said" scenario, until you look at the fact that Disney continued pumping millions of dollars into the film.
If Disney truly had decided a year ago that they weren't going to release the film, why did they continue sending Moore money to continue it? It's not exactly good business sense to fund something you know you're not going to sell, right?
It seems to me, anyway, that Disney should have final say in what they do and don't release - they're not a government agency, they're a freakin company.
Yes, but the reason they're deciding not to release it is because of the government. They're afraid that the Florida government will penalize them. Which sounds an awful lot like censorship to me.
You're correct that it's not technically censorship, but (as they say) if it walks like a duck...
where does he get the idea that he can force companies into distributing his ideas for him?
From the contract they signed that said that they would distribute them?
I might as well call the Today show and demand that Katie Couric interview me so that I can go off on her about her liberal bias!
Well, if you signed a contract with the Today show which said that they would allow you to do this, then you really should, instead of bitching about it on
7. Open can of spam and place the contents in your hand
This step is optional - can be replaced with the following:
7. Place spam can in your hand
SpamCOP's public claim that Richter sends e-mails to people who have never opted-in
As others have pointed out, please back up this accusation with proof.
when you accuse somebody of something, it turns into a matter of fact
I see you accusing SpamCop of something - where is your proof, Mr. Hypocrite?
If you're publishing facts that aren't true
WHAT!??!?!?!?!
Here's how my dictionary defines 'fact': "a concept whose truth can be proved"
It is patently obvious that it is impossible to publish a fact that is not true, because if it's not true, then it's not a fact.
QED.
Here are some real facts for you to consider:
1. Spamcop does not publish opinions, nor does it accuse anybody of anything. It maintains a blacklist, and it acts as a reporting service for people who have not been spammed.
2. ISPs who do not want to received 'anonymous' spam reports from Spamcop can request that Spamcop send unobfuscated spam reports, which identifies the sender, which Spamcop will do. (The user is notified that the recipient refuses munged reports, and they have the choice to send the unobfuscated report, or to not send anything.)
This blows your arguments (as poor as they are) right out of the water.
I once worked at the service desk of a computer store. One day, a guy comes in - walks to the service desk (at the back of the store) - past the display computers, the rows of software, accessories, and all the related signage.
He puts a small box - about the size of a ATX PS, but with tubes coming out of it instead of wires - and asks me how much to replace it.
"What is it?" I ask
"It's a compressor for a 4510." He says.
"What's a 4510?" I ask.
He looks at me like I'm an idiot, and says "It's a dishwasher - don't you know anything?"
So I say "we sell computers here."
"Really?" he says - and then when I point to the afforementioned computers, software, and accessories that he walked past to get to me. He surveys everything, and says "Oh. I guess it is. I thought this was Trail Appliances."
"No, they're one block down."
*sigh*
I wonder how they got in if it's invitation only.
:o)
One would assume they got invited.
Seriously, only "known" spammers get invites - but the question is - what constitutes "known"?
How hard would it be for an anti-spammer to set up a bogus online identity, list themselves as spammers, and then sent spam-like emails to the spammers' email addresses, and then wait for an invite?
If they paid, then in exchange for the money they got a non-public license to redistribute the content.
Not necessarily.
If you infringe someone's copyright, get caught, and pay a fine/settle out of court, it does not mean you have the right to distribute the material - it means that you paid a fine (and/or a settlement with the owner) for breaking the law.
Unless they got permission from the author, they still can't distribute the material, even if they paid a fine or settlement.
IBM is not a Linux-based company.
They are primarily a hardware company, who has a software division, who sells and supports lots of different types of software (including Linux.)
Saying that they are "linux-based" is like saying that McDonalds is "fish-based", because they sell filet-o-fish. (When in reality, it's one small part of their business, and is greatly overshadowed by their other products.)
"I think this is great for SCO - RBC decided that it loved them so much, that it chose to convert 10,000 of its' A-1 shares to common stock, at over TWICE the market rate! How much more of a vote of confidence can you get?
"Their total relinquishment of any controlling interest in SCO is a full ringing endorsement of the current SCO management and business direction.
"Combine this with the fact that the balance of their A-1 shares went to Baystar, a company that has come out in full support of SCO's legal case, means that this is all good news!"
</voice>
I feel dirty now.
for every person betting it is going to go up, there is someone betting it will go down.
:o)
And as ~46% of the stock is held by insiders, it tells me that a whopping 92% of shareholders who aren't insiders think it's gonna go down.
Thems not good numbers.
Jim Morrison, during his first and only on-camera interview - May 23, 1969.
If you want a Linux for the average user, it's going to have to be that way
No, it isn't. You don't need root to use a box, you need root to administer a box.
Adminstration and use are two separate things. For the longest time MS has tried to get people to think that they're the same, but even they now realize the error of doing things this way, and are slowly trying to transition people away from this.
It was Grace Slick, right?
:o)
Nope.
during We Should Be Together on Dick Cavett?
No, that was August 18, 1969. We're talking almost three months before that.
There are some things that Google doesn't seem to have.. like this one:
:o)
Who was the first person to say the word "motherfucker" on national (US) TV?
Even knowing the answer, I was unable to find it on Google. (Maybe your Google skills are better than mine - give it a try
I know if I was making a trivia contest, I'd made sure that the results were difficult to find, or non-existant on google.
The results of an online community working to debunk bogus legal claims.
And even more importantly than that, is that this shows that the open-source model works for more than just software.
"Information sharing" isn't just a one-trick pony - if it's adaptable to law, it's probably adaptable to other areas as well.
Did they lose more money than last quarter?
:o)
Hey! Didn't it ever occur to you that intead of losing, they might have made money?
Wow - I can't believe that I was able to type that with a straight face