Imagine the extra traffic they would get if there were millions more desktops that didn't default to MSN/Live search/whatever they call it these days and instead defaulted to Google's search?
Of course. Because when Microsoft does it, it's anti-competetive, but when Google does it, it's OK.
Imagine the extra traffic they would get if there were millions more desktops that didn't default to MSN/Live search/whatever they call it these days and instead defaulted to Google's search?
Do you really think that the kind of people who would run a Linux-based desktop operating system aren't ALREADY using Google?
Heck even if it were the case where a user had to make a choice the first time and not default to any single one, more people would choose Google than currently do.
Hrmm.. kind of like, oh, I don't know, IE7, which requires you to choose the first time you run it (which Google sued them over originally, FWIW)?? The first time you run IE7, you have to choose a default search provider, and if you don't, it "guesses" one for you -- and the data show that 75% of the time the one that it "guesses" is _NOT_ Microsoft (http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2006/02/10/529950.aspx).
But your assertion that the chance is zero is ignoring the revenue they could get from it.
Where is this magical revenue appearing from? Please state how Google is making money from this. Did you read any of what I wrote previously?
Also why would they waste money on a flashy ad campaign when all they would have to do is release it and ride the wave of free press.
I didn't claim that they would run a "flashy ad campaign" -- the idiot that I was responding to did. It's also funny to see the claim that they wouldn't need an ad campain since they could just ride the "wave of free press" -- yet more evidence of the fact that Google walks on water as far as the press is concerned.
If it's really good and polished, it wouldn't need an ad campaign.
Yet again -- why is Google going to spend money to make the OS polished when they're not going to make money on it? Being "polished" is precisely why Linux falls on its face on the desktop. Linux may be good at a bunch of things, but being "polished" for the end-user is most certainly not one of them. Microsoft and Apple spend millions of dollars to accomplish this, so I just somehow fail to see how Google's going to make a similar investment (at cost) to make absolutely no money.
I doubt they'll do it, the chance that it will happen is just not zero.
Well don't tire yourselves out waiting with baited breath -- you might be waiting awhile.
My prediction is that a huge company with unlimited resources like google will package up a nice, distro, call it something flashy, advertise the hell out of it, and give it away for free. I am well aware of the options that already exist, but the average person is not. It takes flashy marketing to capture the market.
This is maybe the dumbest thing I've ever read.
Google exists for one reason, and for one reason only. As much as it pains me to let you in on the secret, I've got to tell you that it's not to release open source operating systems out of the goodness of their heart. Google, just like any corporation, exists solely for the purpose of making money for its shareholders. Any action that they take that's not somehow related to that end is a waste of time and money, and the shareholders will respond accordingly (hint: not in a good way). Mutual Fund X that owns 10% of Google doesn't give a shit about open source software and your little crusade -- they care about their ROI. If releasing an open source operating system is a means to that end, then sure, they could do it. But they won't. Google isn't a software company -- they're an advertising company who happens to write software to accomplish their primary goal of selling eyeballs. Releasing an OS just doesn't really fit that business model.
Here's why.
First, you say that they could "advertise the hell out of it". Given your subsequent comment about a "flashy marketing campaign" I'm going to interpret that as you meaning that they're going to SPEND money to advertise said OS. For the moment, let's just pretend that you actually have a clue what you're talking about and that, instead, you meant that they were going to monetize it THROUGH advertising. Let's think about this for a second. In your holy world of open source, how exactly does this work, given that in about 5 seconds you could remove all of said advertising? In this scenario, what incentive does Google have here?
Second scenario. Here, we know that Google open sources things all of the time, even if they have no financial incentive to do so (think of it as paying the community back for all of the open source code that runs their business, or as "charity" work if you will since it doesn't cut into their bottom line). If they're already going to write some code as part of their business, why don't they just open source it, or so the argument goes. I mean, it's not like Microsoft's going to beat them up and down the street in the search market because they open sourced Google Buffers (or, MySpace is going to kick Facebook's ass because they've added code to memcached). That being said, why is it then in their interest to spend money on an AD CAMPAIGN to evangelize it!? Releasing the OS then becomes a COST to them and they're not getting any REVENUE from it. Shareholders tend to frown on those sorts of things.
OK. Fair enough -- so they don't spend a dime advertising it. Why then, do people use it? First of all, it's not going to cater to the end-user desktop experience, since odds are that that is not what it was designed for (data-center perhaps?). And at this point, how is "Google Teh Awes0me OS" any different than any other Linux distro that only a tiny fraction of end-users are using on the desktop?
Odds of Google releasing a Linux distro that's just like any other distro: Decent
Odds of Google releasing a Linux distro for the purpose of "capturing the market" (as you put it) on desktop OS's and spending money to "advetise the hell out of it" through "flashy marketing": Zero
Not sure what kind of student you are, but if you're in college, you should go talk to the CS department and see if they're a member of MSDNAA (Microsoft Developer Network Academic Alliance). Through this program you can get Windows, SQL Server, Visual Studio, and a bunch of stuff like that for free.
Why does Microsoft need a link for donating? Is it all PR bullshit? Is it in fashion to appear to be helping... It is better to let the groups which have been around for so long do the job, the Red Cross and known charities.
Maybe because they actually care? Maybe because it "is in fashion" to actually help? Did you even click on the Microsoft link? They direct you to the "groups which have been around for so long to do the job." I don't know... maybe because posting the link (and sending out numerous internal emails) raises employee awareness, which helps the cause, because for ever dollar that an employee donates, Microsoft matches with their own corporate dollar? Maybe because Microsoft's employees, even in Redmond, have been mobilizing to help out people in need?
It makes me sick how formulaic most of these stories are:
[insert unimportant story here]. [Make an absolutely outlandish jump to conclusions and ask a ridiculous rhetorical question that bears absolutely no logical connection whatsoever to either a.) the story in question or b.) any sane person's version of reality].
Example: Blah blah blah some anime company using Bittorent for distribution blah blah blah. The question is will other distributors and studios follow ADV's example or stick to their current distribution models?"
Are you fucking kidding me? Yeah -- Dreamworks is going to start distributing all of their blockbusters over BitTorrent without any DRM starting, uhm, NEVER?
Dear Slashdot: This morning Microsoft's stock fell 3/10ths of a cent.... Is this the beginning of the end of the evil empire?
Dear Slashdot: Google recently announced a beta of some new program they're making... Will they cure cancer and AIDS next?
Dear Slashdot: Hollywood just announced another round of lawsuits for people illegally distributing copyrighted works online.... What's next? Is an elite team of Navy Seals and Green Berets going to storm my apartment (read: my mother's basement) the next time I download and install the latest Debian torrent?
Stop asking idiotic questions at the end of stories. You know the answers to them. This is _not_ a sign of "good" writing. It is fucking hackneyed and makes you look like a goddamned idiot.
Yah think I've got some strong feelings on the topic?;-)
I've gotta put in the obligatory "Go Duke!" Also, I happen to know/work with one of the guys on the team by the name of John Felkins. John, if you happen to see this, congrats!
While living in an apartment this summer, my roommate and I set our SSID to the telephone number to our apartment and enabled WEP so that no one could use it. Within a few days we got a few phone calls from other residents asking for the WEP key. We gave out the key to everyone who agreed to split the cost of the DSL with us and ended up paying about $5/month. We didn't really need the DSL for anything that bandwith intensive (nor do I think anyone else did), so this setup actually ended up working out quite well.
There is no evidence that he was using a "high-powered laser". Even if he had, for commonly available high-powered lasers, it is highly implausible that it would have injured or even dazzled the pilot.
So the next time I have roadrage going about 70mph I can just shine a "low-powered" laser pointer in your eye and you're OK with that? Why do you all feel the need to be apologists for this guy? What he did was clearly wrong. Bitch about the severity of his crime if you must, but at the end of the day, what he did was wrong and you know it.
I think it is high-time that the "Your Rights Online" section be renamed to "Paranoid Rantings About The Eeeevilness Of Organized Government By Slashdot's Editors." Although michael is almost always the culprit behind such stories, I guess timothy is now just as guilty.
It is amazing how often the stories in this section have little, if anything, to do with rights "online." What's even more interesting is how incredibly infrequently the alleged "rights" being violated in these stories are ever anything of the sort - namely "rights."
If you truly believe that you have some sort of God-given/Constitutionally-mandated right to shine a high-powered laser into the cockpit of a 747, then you truly need a reality check.
Also, you seem to think that downloading music is illegal everywhere, when it's not. Not everyone lives in the US of BushCo.
Listen, buddy. I dislike Bush as much as the next guy, but he has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with our current copyright laws. Go lay the blame elsewhere (hrmm.. maybe Sonny Bono?), but t'was not Dubya.
With that said, I took data from the 2000 election in Florida and performed the same "analysis" as the one in the link you posted. The results are quite similar: http://www.duke.edu/~mth6/florida2000.xls.
I'm too busy with school to do previous years, but I'd put money on the fact that the same thing will appear: these people are registered as Democrats, but vote Republican for some reason, there's no fraud involved. Now, I could be wrong, but I highly doubt it. Feel free to go look at the other years yourself.
I bet that if you took the time to look at 96, 92, etc, you'd see the same trend. For some reason a bunch of voters in those precincts register as Democrats, but always vote for Republicans.
When I first came across that web page with the Florida analysis I was a bit sceptical. As a result, I went to the website with all of the statistics from Florida's 2000 election and performed a similar analysis. The results can be found here (sorry, only Excel format):
As you can see, many of the same "anomolies" appear in the percentage change up/down for the Republicans and Democrats.
If I were a betting man, I'd say that analysis further back will show a similar trend: the registered Democrats there tend to actually vote Republican, not that there is widespread manipulation of the voting manchines.
Yes, I am well aware of the 10th (and the 9th for that matter) and I knew that was coming =)
I was actually going to make a comment about it, but didn't want to start a political flamewar that I was certain would devolve into a discussion that involved the phrase "activist judges."
That being said, neither the Constitution nor the laws of my state say anything about me, as a consenting adult, receiving a really great blowjob whenever I want. Therefore, I must certainly have a "right" to get really sweet head at my whim, right? I wish.
So, I'm not sure if you were actually criticizing my post (I don't think you were since you agreed with the rest) or if you were just pointing out an oversight of mine. Regardless, I just wanted to clarify that I don't really think that the 10th is referring to the type of "rights" I was speaking about.
That's what's so funny about the "Your Rights Online" section - these rights are completely imaginary. Where exactly in the Constitution is the Bill Of Internet Rights located?
I honestly believe that this is a side-effect of being indoctrinated by the GPL (*duck*). The GPL is great and I'm totally in favor of it. If you read over it, you'll notice that one of the most striking characteristics of it is the number of positive rights it grants you. Indeed, the first sentence of the preamble embodies this very idea:
The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users
Again, this is great. However, some people don't realize that _not everything_ works the same way. I think that after becoming accustomed to the GPL, which grants significantly more positive rights than most other sorts of software licenses, one comes to (understandably) wish for, or maybe event expect, a greater number of positive rights, not only in the software field, but in the sense of "rights" in general.
Sorry to break the news, but life in the US isn't licensed under the GPL. You don't have the positive right to do anything that your little heart desires. Although in your delusional world you may believe that you have the right to just download copyrighted movies from the Internet without paying for them and then throw them up on BitTorrent, the only actual right that exists in this situation is an artist's right to control the distribution of their copyrighted material as they see fit. When you violate that right you have broken the social contract (again, which is not a GPL-compliant license), and the aggrieved party has legal recourse.
Think about it this way. The mantra of the open source movement is somewhat like this:
"If you want to use proprietary software, then you have to play by their rules. If you don't like these rules, then fuck 'em, let's go make our own software and rules that are better anyway."
I think most people would agree with this statement in general. Thus, the converse should also be true:
"If you want to use free software, then you have to play by their rules. If you don't like these rules (i.e. you want to do things that the GPL forbids), then it sucks to be you: go write your own software under your own terms."
Again, I think people would agree that if someone was taking GPL software, boxing it as another product, and distributing binary versions without the source, most people here would be up in arms about a violation of their rights - rightly so, I might add.
However, when the situation is reversed, a different picture emerges:
"If you want to see a movie that Hollywood makes (which I assume some of you do, because despite the fact that you continually state that these movies "all suck anyways" you still leech them by by the gig), then you play by their rules. If you don't like their rules (i.e. you don't want to pay), then tough: go make your own movie."
But oh no, this time it's different. Since this situation doesn't benefit you, you get to change the rules and invent a new "right" to break the rules. As you quickly throw logic and reason out the back door, you grant unto yourself the inalienable right to get shit for free because you don't want to pay.
Some of these people just seem to be living in an imaginary place where the world revolves around themselves: they love to go on for hours talking about their _own_ rights, while conveniently ignoring the rights of anyone else.
It's about time we withdrew that consent. Given that 50% of the population fails to vote in any election, I'd say we already have.
That's horseshit. The vast majority of those that don't vote do so because they are too damned lazy to either a.) get their asses to the polls or b.) educate themselves enough on the issues to be able to make an informed decision. Only a small fraction of those who abstain from voting do so based on some ill-conceived moral perogative to not "lend legitimacy to an illegitimate system."
The *point* is that uploading/downloading should not be illegal, and any comparison in ANY respect between uploaders and bombers is FUD.
WHY? Why the hell should uploading or downloading stuff that you don't own be legal? Because you're fucking cheap and don't want to pay? Please attempt to explain this to me. Should I be able to walk into Sam Goody with a blank CDR, DEMAND that they burn a copy of the newest album I like for me, and then walk back out (I'm sorry - that puts the burden on the store - perhaps I would have to physically burn a copy of the album myself in the store-provided CD duplicator). Hey - I'm not depriving anyone else of "physical property" so this should be fine, right?
And YES, the RIAA _is_ doing what is correct. First, they went after the software companies (Napster), and you all bitched. You said "Don't prosecute the tool - prosecute the crime." Then, they went after the networks themselves (Kazaa, et al) and you all bitched. You said "Don't go after the communications medium - go after those infringing." Now, they're going after those who actually commit the crimes (like you've been asking them to do all along while looking for excuses to continue getting free shit), and you STILL bitch. You've now run out of excuses! So, what pray-tell, should the RIAA do next? The have a legitimate claim to do what they are doing - they paid to produce that music. You paid nothing, so you have no claim whatsofuckingever.
Really. Please do learn to think for yourself, instead of going for the law=good/no-law=bad automatism.
Really? How about you do the same and stop echoing the rest of the choir's constant reptition that their "business model" is flawed. There are now online music distributors - yet piracy still runs rampant. Is this business model similarly flawed? Is there any model that is NOT FLAWED (well, of course, other than the one in your mind in which you don't pay for music).?
The sheer number shows the public believes the existing laws are horribly flawed and won't follow them.
This is honestly the worst logic I've ever heard in my entire life. First of all, NO. The sheer numbers shows merely that people are fucking cheap and if they can get music without paying for it, with only a very small likelihood of getting in trouble for this transgression, then YES, they are going to break the law.
Is it sane logic to begin looking at our laws and just begin striking those that are violated the most, as this somehow means that the laws are inherently flawed? Or, perhaps, does this just show that the cost-benefit analysis of said law (from the perspective of a potential violator) is uneven, with a majority of its weight on the benefit side - meaning that the cost incurred needs to be increased. Guess what - if you did this, the number of violations of the law would sharply decrease and your ridiculous argument about the law being somehow "horribly flawed" disappears.
Unfortunately if no one broke the law or risked being sued when unfair, unconstitional or otherwise improper laws were passed they'd never be overthrown. We'd still be living in prohibition for instance, and even more telling we'd still be a British colony. Our founding fathers were traitors to Britain you know, we certainly don't feel they should have been sued over that do we?
All I can do is laugh. For starters, to even suppose that the act of violating copyright throught internet downloads is somehow "noble" is just fucking ludicris. Second, to even begin to compare it to a true act of civil disobedience, such as our revolts from the King of England (Boston Tea Party, perhaps?) is really just sad, and if it is what you truly believe, exhibits a serious lack of understanding and appreciation for our nation's history at the sacrifice of the truly trivial ability to download shit for free.
Face it, while downloading copyrighted matierial is a civil crime, it's a crime the public doesn't believe in any longer.
Yeah, and I bet the public doesn't also believe in speed limits, or income tax, or sales tax, or a draft, or the inability to have sex with a minor, or the fact that you can't rob a store, or, or, or, or... ad nauseum.
Over 6 billion people at any moment are practicing what would be considered civil disobedience in most other contexts. The RIAA and Congress can't seem to realize this.
Considering the fact that the total world population is only slightly higher than 6 billion people, I think that your numbers might be a little bit off there.
If Congress was really listening to the people it would be looking into ways to change the law to reflect what the public wants instead of what the RIAA wants.
I bet you were the kid in middle school who voted for the candidate for class president who promised soda in the drinking fountains and a 2 hour extension on recess. You can't always get what you want - especially when those wants are completely frivolous and driven entirely by greed and laziness. Do you realize that the USA consists of people OTHER than 17 year old kids with iPods who think that Britney is just way cool and 25 year old's who still haven't grown up and faced reality, and lurk around the internet (the real world is still too scary), spouting off the mantra "I love slashdot because it rocks and the government sucks because Microsoft is a Monopoly and music should be free." Surprise, surprise. This may come as a shock - but not everyone thinks that you should be able to download music on the Internet without paying for it just because you're too fucking cheap to shell out a few bucks to buy the damned thing.
No he's not you fucking idiot. He was making a point that the RIAA is doing the logically correct thing in going after those responsible for carrying out copyright infringement. Instead of suing the ISP's or the people who make the applications, they are going after those actually comitting the crimes, just as it would be appropriate, as the parent notes, to go after those making bomb threats - not the telephone company or the bomb manufacturer.
Perhaps actually trying to accomplish what you claim is impossible might help you out a bit. This took me about 30 seconds to do:
using System; using System.Drawing; using System.Windows.Forms;
namespace TreeTest {
public class TreeTest : Form {
[STAThread]
public static int Main(string[] args) {
Application.Run(new TreeTest());
return 0;
}
public TreeTest() {
tree = new Tree();
tree.Dock = DockStyle.Fill;
Controls.Add(tree);
Text = "TreeTest";
}
private Tree tree;
}
public class Tree : TreeView {
public Tree() {
menuItem = new MenuItem("Menu Item");
contextMenu = new ContextMenu();
contextMenu.MenuItems.Add(menuItem);
}
Slashdot Mirror
Of course. Because when Microsoft does it, it's anti-competetive, but when Google does it, it's OK.
Do you really think that the kind of people who would run a Linux-based desktop operating system aren't ALREADY using Google?
Hrmm.. kind of like, oh, I don't know, IE7, which requires you to choose the first time you run it (which Google sued them over originally, FWIW)?? The first time you run IE7, you have to choose a default search provider, and if you don't, it "guesses" one for you -- and the data show that 75% of the time the one that it "guesses" is _NOT_ Microsoft (http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2006/02/10/529950.aspx).
Where is this magical revenue appearing from? Please state how Google is making money from this. Did you read any of what I wrote previously?
I didn't claim that they would run a "flashy ad campaign" -- the idiot that I was responding to did. It's also funny to see the claim that they wouldn't need an ad campain since they could just ride the "wave of free press" -- yet more evidence of the fact that Google walks on water as far as the press is concerned.
Yet again -- why is Google going to spend money to make the OS polished when they're not going to make money on it? Being "polished" is precisely why Linux falls on its face on the desktop. Linux may be good at a bunch of things, but being "polished" for the end-user is most certainly not one of them. Microsoft and Apple spend millions of dollars to accomplish this, so I just somehow fail to see how Google's going to make a similar investment (at cost) to make absolutely no money.
Well don't tire yourselves out waiting with baited breath -- you might be waiting awhile.
This is maybe the dumbest thing I've ever read.
Google exists for one reason, and for one reason only. As much as it pains me to let you in on the secret, I've got to tell you that it's not to release open source operating systems out of the goodness of their heart. Google, just like any corporation, exists solely for the purpose of making money for its shareholders. Any action that they take that's not somehow related to that end is a waste of time and money, and the shareholders will respond accordingly (hint: not in a good way). Mutual Fund X that owns 10% of Google doesn't give a shit about open source software and your little crusade -- they care about their ROI. If releasing an open source operating system is a means to that end, then sure, they could do it. But they won't. Google isn't a software company -- they're an advertising company who happens to write software to accomplish their primary goal of selling eyeballs. Releasing an OS just doesn't really fit that business model.
Here's why.
First, you say that they could "advertise the hell out of it". Given your subsequent comment about a "flashy marketing campaign" I'm going to interpret that as you meaning that they're going to SPEND money to advertise said OS. For the moment, let's just pretend that you actually have a clue what you're talking about and that, instead, you meant that they were going to monetize it THROUGH advertising. Let's think about this for a second. In your holy world of open source, how exactly does this work, given that in about 5 seconds you could remove all of said advertising? In this scenario, what incentive does Google have here?
Second scenario. Here, we know that Google open sources things all of the time, even if they have no financial incentive to do so (think of it as paying the community back for all of the open source code that runs their business, or as "charity" work if you will since it doesn't cut into their bottom line). If they're already going to write some code as part of their business, why don't they just open source it, or so the argument goes. I mean, it's not like Microsoft's going to beat them up and down the street in the search market because they open sourced Google Buffers (or, MySpace is going to kick Facebook's ass because they've added code to memcached). That being said, why is it then in their interest to spend money on an AD CAMPAIGN to evangelize it!? Releasing the OS then becomes a COST to them and they're not getting any REVENUE from it. Shareholders tend to frown on those sorts of things.
OK. Fair enough -- so they don't spend a dime advertising it. Why then, do people use it? First of all, it's not going to cater to the end-user desktop experience, since odds are that that is not what it was designed for (data-center perhaps?). And at this point, how is "Google Teh Awes0me OS" any different than any other Linux distro that only a tiny fraction of end-users are using on the desktop?
Odds of Google releasing a Linux distro that's just like any other distro:
Decent
Odds of Google releasing a Linux distro for the purpose of "capturing the market" (as you put it) on desktop OS's and spending money to "advetise the hell out of it" through "flashy marketing":
Zero
Not sure what kind of student you are, but if you're in college, you should go talk to the CS department and see if they're a member of MSDNAA (Microsoft Developer Network Academic Alliance). Through this program you can get Windows, SQL Server, Visual Studio, and a bunch of stuff like that for free.
Maybe because they actually care? Maybe because it "is in fashion" to actually help? Did you even click on the Microsoft link? They direct you to the "groups which have been around for so long to do the job." I don't know... maybe because posting the link (and sending out numerous internal emails) raises employee awareness, which helps the cause, because for ever dollar that an employee donates, Microsoft matches with their own corporate dollar? Maybe because Microsoft's employees, even in Redmond, have been mobilizing to help out people in need?
A-MEN.
;-)
It makes me sick how formulaic most of these stories are:
[insert unimportant story here]. [Make an absolutely outlandish jump to conclusions and ask a ridiculous rhetorical question that bears absolutely no logical connection whatsoever to either a.) the story in question or b.) any sane person's version of reality].
Example: Blah blah blah some anime company using Bittorent for distribution blah blah blah. The question is will other distributors and studios follow ADV's example or stick to their current distribution models?"
Are you fucking kidding me? Yeah -- Dreamworks is going to start distributing all of their blockbusters over BitTorrent without any DRM starting, uhm, NEVER?
Dear Slashdot:
This morning Microsoft's stock fell 3/10ths of a cent.... Is this the beginning of the end of the evil empire?
Dear Slashdot:
Google recently announced a beta of some new program they're making... Will they cure cancer and AIDS next?
Dear Slashdot:
Hollywood just announced another round of lawsuits for people illegally distributing copyrighted works online.... What's next? Is an elite team of Navy Seals and Green Berets going to storm my apartment (read: my mother's basement) the next time I download and install the latest Debian torrent?
Stop asking idiotic questions at the end of stories. You know the answers to them. This is _not_ a sign of "good" writing. It is fucking hackneyed and makes you look like a goddamned idiot.
Yah think I've got some strong feelings on the topic?
I've gotta put in the obligatory "Go Duke!" Also, I happen to know/work with one of the guys on the team by the name of John Felkins. John, if you happen to see this, congrats!
How's the student "plaza" coming along? =)
Neither are Illinois or Duke, the only other American schools to place.
While living in an apartment this summer, my roommate and I set our SSID to the telephone number to our apartment and enabled WEP so that no one could use it. Within a few days we got a few phone calls from other residents asking for the WEP key. We gave out the key to everyone who agreed to split the cost of the DSL with us and ended up paying about $5/month. We didn't really need the DSL for anything that bandwith intensive (nor do I think anyone else did), so this setup actually ended up working out quite well.
So the next time I have roadrage going about 70mph I can just shine a "low-powered" laser pointer in your eye and you're OK with that? Why do you all feel the need to be apologists for this guy? What he did was clearly wrong. Bitch about the severity of his crime if you must, but at the end of the day, what he did was wrong and you know it.
I think it is high-time that the "Your Rights Online" section be renamed to "Paranoid Rantings About The Eeeevilness Of Organized Government By Slashdot's Editors." Although michael is almost always the culprit behind such stories, I guess timothy is now just as guilty.
It is amazing how often the stories in this section have little, if anything, to do with rights "online." What's even more interesting is how incredibly infrequently the alleged "rights" being violated in these stories are ever anything of the sort - namely "rights."
If you truly believe that you have some sort of God-given/Constitutionally-mandated right to shine a high-powered laser into the cockpit of a 747, then you truly need a reality check.
Listen, buddy. I dislike Bush as much as the next guy, but he has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with our current copyright laws. Go lay the blame elsewhere (hrmm.. maybe Sonny Bono?), but t'was not Dubya.
Move along.
Disclaimer: I voted for Kerry.
With that said, I took data from the 2000 election in Florida and performed the same "analysis" as the one in the link you posted. The results are quite similar: http://www.duke.edu/~mth6/florida2000.xls.
I'm too busy with school to do previous years, but I'd put money on the fact that the same thing will appear: these people are registered as Democrats, but vote Republican for some reason, there's no fraud involved. Now, I could be wrong, but I highly doubt it. Feel free to go look at the other years yourself.
Nothing to see here. Go look at the results from 2000 and they show the same thing:
http://www.duke.edu/~mth6/florida2000.xls
I bet that if you took the time to look at 96, 92, etc, you'd see the same trend. For some reason a bunch of voters in those precincts register as Democrats, but always vote for Republicans.
When I first came across that web page with the Florida analysis I was a bit sceptical. As a result, I went to the website with all of the statistics from Florida's 2000 election and performed a similar analysis. The results can be found here (sorry, only Excel format):
www.duke.edu/~mth6/florida2000.xls
As you can see, many of the same "anomolies" appear in the percentage change up/down for the Republicans and Democrats.
If I were a betting man, I'd say that analysis further back will show a similar trend: the registered Democrats there tend to actually vote Republican, not that there is widespread manipulation of the voting manchines.
Yes, I am well aware of the 10th (and the 9th for that matter) and I knew that was coming =)
I was actually going to make a comment about it, but didn't want to start a political flamewar that I was certain would devolve into a discussion that involved the phrase "activist judges."
That being said, neither the Constitution nor the laws of my state say anything about me, as a consenting adult, receiving a really great blowjob whenever I want. Therefore, I must certainly have a "right" to get really sweet head at my whim, right? I wish.
So, I'm not sure if you were actually criticizing my post (I don't think you were since you agreed with the rest) or if you were just pointing out an oversight of mine. Regardless, I just wanted to clarify that I don't really think that the 10th is referring to the type of "rights" I was speaking about.
Heard of the No Electronic Theft (NET) Act?
That's what's so funny about the "Your Rights Online" section - these rights are completely imaginary. Where exactly in the Constitution is the Bill Of Internet Rights located?
I honestly believe that this is a side-effect of being indoctrinated by the GPL (*duck*). The GPL is great and I'm totally in favor of it. If you read over it, you'll notice that one of the most striking characteristics of it is the number of positive rights it grants you. Indeed, the first sentence of the preamble embodies this very idea:
Again, this is great. However, some people don't realize that _not everything_ works the same way. I think that after becoming accustomed to the GPL, which grants significantly more positive rights than most other sorts of software licenses, one comes to (understandably) wish for, or maybe event expect, a greater number of positive rights, not only in the software field, but in the sense of "rights" in general.
Sorry to break the news, but life in the US isn't licensed under the GPL. You don't have the positive right to do anything that your little heart desires. Although in your delusional world you may believe that you have the right to just download copyrighted movies from the Internet without paying for them and then throw them up on BitTorrent, the only actual right that exists in this situation is an artist's right to control the distribution of their copyrighted material as they see fit. When you violate that right you have broken the social contract (again, which is not a GPL-compliant license), and the aggrieved party has legal recourse.
Think about it this way. The mantra of the open source movement is somewhat like this:
"If you want to use proprietary software, then you have to play by their rules. If you don't like these rules, then fuck 'em, let's go make our own software and rules that are better anyway."
I think most people would agree with this statement in general. Thus, the converse should also be true:
"If you want to use free software, then you have to play by their rules. If you don't like these rules (i.e. you want to do things that the GPL forbids), then it sucks to be you: go write your own software under your own terms."
Again, I think people would agree that if someone was taking GPL software, boxing it as another product, and distributing binary versions without the source, most people here would be up in arms about a violation of their rights - rightly so, I might add.
However, when the situation is reversed, a different picture emerges:
"If you want to see a movie that Hollywood makes (which I assume some of you do, because despite the fact that you continually state that these movies "all suck anyways" you still leech them by by the gig), then you play by their rules. If you don't like their rules (i.e. you don't want to pay), then tough: go make your own movie."
But oh no, this time it's different. Since this situation doesn't benefit you, you get to change the rules and invent a new "right" to break the rules. As you quickly throw logic and reason out the back door, you grant unto yourself the inalienable right to get shit for free because you don't want to pay.
Some of these people just seem to be living in an imaginary place where the world revolves around themselves: they love to go on for hours talking about their _own_ rights, while conveniently ignoring the rights of anyone else.
I bet steveb just developed a brown stain in his Hanes after reading that wonderfully articulate letter.
That's horseshit. The vast majority of those that don't vote do so because they are too damned lazy to either a.) get their asses to the polls or b.) educate themselves enough on the issues to be able to make an informed decision. Only a small fraction of those who abstain from voting do so based on some ill-conceived moral perogative to not "lend legitimacy to an illegitimate system."
WHY? Why the hell should uploading or downloading stuff that you don't own be legal? Because you're fucking cheap and don't want to pay? Please attempt to explain this to me. Should I be able to walk into Sam Goody with a blank CDR, DEMAND that they burn a copy of the newest album I like for me, and then walk back out (I'm sorry - that puts the burden on the store - perhaps I would have to physically burn a copy of the album myself in the store-provided CD duplicator). Hey - I'm not depriving anyone else of "physical property" so this should be fine, right?
And YES, the RIAA _is_ doing what is correct. First, they went after the software companies (Napster), and you all bitched. You said "Don't prosecute the tool - prosecute the crime." Then, they went after the networks themselves (Kazaa, et al) and you all bitched. You said "Don't go after the communications medium - go after those infringing." Now, they're going after those who actually commit the crimes (like you've been asking them to do all along while looking for excuses to continue getting free shit), and you STILL bitch. You've now run out of excuses! So, what pray-tell, should the RIAA do next? The have a legitimate claim to do what they are doing - they paid to produce that music. You paid nothing, so you have no claim whatsofuckingever.
Really? How about you do the same and stop echoing the rest of the choir's constant reptition that their "business model" is flawed. There are now online music distributors - yet piracy still runs rampant. Is this business model similarly flawed? Is there any model that is NOT FLAWED (well, of course, other than the one in your mind in which you don't pay for music).?
This is honestly the worst logic I've ever heard in my entire life. First of all, NO. The sheer numbers shows merely that people are fucking cheap and if they can get music without paying for it, with only a very small likelihood of getting in trouble for this transgression, then YES, they are going to break the law.
Is it sane logic to begin looking at our laws and just begin striking those that are violated the most, as this somehow means that the laws are inherently flawed? Or, perhaps, does this just show that the cost-benefit analysis of said law (from the perspective of a potential violator) is uneven, with a majority of its weight on the benefit side - meaning that the cost incurred needs to be increased. Guess what - if you did this, the number of violations of the law would sharply decrease and your ridiculous argument about the law being somehow "horribly flawed" disappears.
All I can do is laugh. For starters, to even suppose that the act of violating copyright throught internet downloads is somehow "noble" is just fucking ludicris. Second, to even begin to compare it to a true act of civil disobedience, such as our revolts from the King of England (Boston Tea Party, perhaps?) is really just sad, and if it is what you truly believe, exhibits a serious lack of understanding and appreciation for our nation's history at the sacrifice of the truly trivial ability to download shit for free.
Yeah, and I bet the public doesn't also believe in speed limits, or income tax, or sales tax, or a draft, or the inability to have sex with a minor, or the fact that you can't rob a store, or, or, or, or... ad nauseum.
Considering the fact that the total world population is only slightly higher than 6 billion people, I think that your numbers might be a little bit off there.
I bet you were the kid in middle school who voted for the candidate for class president who promised soda in the drinking fountains and a 2 hour extension on recess. You can't always get what you want - especially when those wants are completely frivolous and driven entirely by greed and laziness. Do you realize that the USA consists of people OTHER than 17 year old kids with iPods who think that Britney is just way cool and 25 year old's who still haven't grown up and faced reality, and lurk around the internet (the real world is still too scary), spouting off the mantra "I love slashdot because it rocks and the government sucks because Microsoft is a Monopoly and music should be free." Surprise, surprise. This may come as a shock - but not everyone thinks that you should be able to download music on the Internet without paying for it just because you're too fucking cheap to shell out a few bucks to buy the damned thing.
No he's not you fucking idiot. He was making a point that the RIAA is doing the logically correct thing in going after those responsible for carrying out copyright infringement. Instead of suing the ISP's or the people who make the applications, they are going after those actually comitting the crimes, just as it would be appropriate, as the parent notes, to go after those making bomb threats - not the telephone company or the bomb manufacturer.
Perhaps actually trying to accomplish what you claim is impossible might help you out a bit. This took me about 30 seconds to do:
using System;
using System.Drawing;
using System.Windows.Forms;
namespace TreeTest {
public class TreeTest : Form {
[STAThread]
public static int Main(string[] args) {
Application.Run(new TreeTest());
return 0;
}
public TreeTest() {
tree = new Tree();
tree.Dock = DockStyle.Fill;
Controls.Add(tree);
Text = "TreeTest";
}
private Tree tree;
}
public class Tree : TreeView {
public Tree() {
menuItem = new MenuItem("Menu Item");
contextMenu = new ContextMenu();
contextMenu.MenuItems.Add(menuItem);
}
protected override void OnKeyDown(KeyEventArgs e) {
base.OnKeyDown(e);
if (e.KeyCode == Keys.Apps) {
ShowMenu(new Point(0, 0));
}
}
protected override void OnMouseUp(MouseEventArgs e) {
base.OnMouseUp(e);
if (e.Button != MouseButtons.Right) {
return;
}
ShowMenu(new Point(e.X, e.Y));
}
protected void ShowMenu(Point pos) {
contextMenu.Show(this, pos);
}
protected ContextMenu contextMenu;
protected MenuItem menuItem;
}
}