"RMS has decried the GPL'ing of Java as being a major assault on free software advocacy."
Strange, according to multiple easily locatable sources Mr Stallman was very pleased with the idea and execution of the release of Java under the GPL and when the GPL announcement was made a video was available of him endorsing the move. Could you give a source for your apparent quote from RMS?
Yes of course Java will be declared obsolete this year. As one of the top most in demand tech skill on the planet all the usuers are furiously swapping to make sure they convert to product Y by the end of the year and abandon the last ten years of development. (try typing in the word Java to a job search engine, then type in your favorite skill de jour)
"81 video game degree courses offered by UK universities."
Because students will apply for them in droves. I taught 16 - 18 year olds and loads of them who couldn't program a simple loop wanted to be computer games programmers. I had to try to explain the difference between playing games and writing them. Hey kid what would you like to do write business database apps or create Kewl Gamez, yeah no contest.
I have seen job requirements where you were expected to have more years experience than the product had existed. Welcome to HR hell. The odd thing is that it is very common that the work you do is unrelated to the direct skills you were recruited for, so its overall aptitude and ability to learn that matters, not x years with version 2.13 of product Y.
The Mc Libel case did send the two protagonists through several shades of hell before they (partially) achieved their goal, so its not the sort of thing to be entered into lightly.
Your comment indicates your utter ignorance of UK immigration and passport laws. Every detail of your comment is incorrect and easily confirmed incorrect with a trivial amount of research.
Why the analogy with Royalty. Why do you think that this only affects rich people. Do you think that only rich people create content? There are millions of people who only make a modest income from creative content that are affected by copyright laws and their enforcement. The emphasis on rich people smacks of resentment.
Well the innodb backend for MySQL supports the enforcement of referential integrity, i.e. foregin keys. But the vast majority of installations of MySQL are not using innodb, and I suspect most new installations use MyIsam.
" but Google isn't going to kill MS until people can have control over the hardware it runs on."
This appears to assume that people assume their own "in house" technical people are going to do a better job of looking after their data than Google would. I'm not sure how many people would bet on their own geeks vs Google geeks.
About as sensible as suggesting that TV would replace live gigs. People like live gigs, real life not second life. Why mention mega rich, most musicians know that they are unlikely to be even affluent let alone rich.
Even if you really, really like doing it, being a musician is work. It's not unusual for a gig to "start" (i.e packing the van) at 2 in the afternoon and finish (turn out the lights, pull up the duvet) its 2 in the morning. Yes a 12 hour day, maybe 2 hours with the buzz on stage. The rest is work. Selling CD's at the gig can be the difference between eating and stopping "work". The audience sharing the music can make it unviable.
I used to get this argument from students "we only pirate it because we cannot afford it, if they lowered the price we would pay for it". Then I would ask them about copies of software they had they could very easily afford, but it seems they decided to pirate that as well. People copy stuff because they can, they can get it for nothing so they do, price has very, very little to do with it.
"It will force artists into being even more creative in how they attract their audience."
Or it will make it not worth their while being creative, i.e. they will have to spend their time doing other things in order to eat and thus not be creative.
"Copyright only makes it easy for (large) businesses to excercise oppression on citizens (RIAA, MPAA, BSA). It has, in real life, nothing to do with getting paid for what you do."
Why the obsession with big businesses? what about the millions of creative individuals who via new technology have a direct relationship with their audience and for whom copyright allows them the control that can ensure payment.
Many of us will be very very pleased to see the back of someone with such a bizzarre and distorted view of the UK, though it's good to see you upholding Goodwins law.
Here in the UK there was a recent fuss about extending copyright for another 25 years. The theory was that the people who created the stuff would be encouraged to create more. The fact that quite a few of them are dead did seem to undermine the argument somewhat. You have a good point that copyright law are being abused.
This works on the assumption that I generally assign my copyright to some corporation. Due to the changes in technology I generally don't have to do that. Generally I have come to the conclusion that it is not in my best financial interest. The relationship for most of what I create is between me and the customer with a little bit taken by the payment processor. Look out the window, technology is changing the relationship between those that create and the customer. My friend sell most of their CD's directly to the customer, their audience.
Just because US copyright law has become a pawn of major corporations (I'm not in the US) doesn't mean that copyright itself is a bad thing.
I was responding to a post that included "The problem with the copyright law", so I figured the person had a problem with copyright law. You may not be against the abolition of copyright law but many comentators are.
Seems like exactly my point. You don't create and you don't want to pay for other peoples creative content. So you think the media industry is ripping you off. Shop around, changes in technology are making it easier and easier for people who create to sell directly. My friends produce music CD's most of the price goes into their pockets, most of the payment from my writing (80% ish) goes into my poket. If you cannot be bothered to look further than major record lables that is no reason to repeal the entire legal structure of copyright.
Slashdot Mirror
"RMS has decried the GPL'ing of Java as being a major assault on free software advocacy."
Strange, according to multiple easily locatable sources Mr Stallman was very pleased with the idea and execution of the release of Java under the GPL and when the GPL announcement was made a video was available of him endorsing the move. Could you give a source for your apparent quote from RMS?
Yes of course Java will be declared obsolete this year. As one of the top most in demand tech skill on the planet all the usuers are furiously swapping to make sure they convert to product Y by the end of the year and abandon the last ten years of development. (try typing in the word Java to a job search engine, then type in your favorite skill de jour)
"81 video game degree courses offered by UK universities."
Because students will apply for them in droves. I taught 16 - 18 year olds and loads of them who couldn't program a simple loop wanted to be computer games programmers. I had to try to explain the difference between playing games and writing them. Hey kid what would you like to do write business database apps or create Kewl Gamez, yeah no contest.
I have seen job requirements where you were expected to have more years experience than the product had existed. Welcome to HR hell. The odd thing is that it is very common that the work you do is unrelated to the direct skills you were recruited for, so its overall aptitude and ability to learn that matters, not x years with version 2.13 of product Y.
The Mc Libel case did send the two protagonists through several shades of hell before they (partially) achieved their goal, so its not the sort of thing to be entered into lightly.
Your comment indicates your utter ignorance of UK immigration and passport laws. Every detail of your comment is incorrect and easily confirmed incorrect with a trivial amount of research.
Have you lived through a revolution?
What type of "real" software are you thinking of?
Why the analogy with Royalty. Why do you think that this only affects rich people. Do you think that only rich people create content? There are millions of people who only make a modest income from creative content that are affected by copyright laws and their enforcement. The emphasis on rich people smacks of resentment.
Well the innodb backend for MySQL supports the enforcement of referential integrity, i.e. foregin keys. But the vast majority of installations of MySQL are not using innodb, and I suspect most new installations use MyIsam.
"Sun has had a very poor history of actually open sourcing anything"
Get back in your hole Troll. According to the EU Sun is the No 1 contributor of code towards open source by a very, very wide margin.
"In England, you can, as a Member of Parliament, actually hold the same seat indefinitely."
I think you mean the UK (or Great Britain, which consists of England, Wales, Scotland and N. Ireland).
" but Google isn't going to kill MS until people can have control over the hardware it runs on."
This appears to assume that people assume their own "in house" technical people are going to do a better job of looking after their data than Google would. I'm not sure how many people would bet on their own geeks vs Google geeks.
About as sensible as suggesting that TV would replace live gigs. People like live gigs, real life not second life. Why mention mega rich, most musicians know that they are unlikely to be even affluent let alone rich.
Even if you really, really like doing it, being a musician is work. It's not unusual for a gig to "start" (i.e packing the van) at 2 in the afternoon and finish (turn out the lights, pull up the duvet) its 2 in the morning. Yes a 12 hour day, maybe 2 hours with the buzz on stage. The rest is work. Selling CD's at the gig can be the difference between eating and stopping "work". The audience sharing the music can make it unviable.
It's lucky that all people with a criminal past are "suspicious and a little creepy".
I used to get this argument from students "we only pirate it because we cannot afford it, if they lowered the price we would pay for it". Then I would ask them about copies of software they had they could very easily afford, but it seems they decided to pirate that as well. People copy stuff because they can, they can get it for nothing so they do, price has very, very little to do with it.
And how will society judge what is a "true" artist?
"It will force artists into being even more creative in how they attract their audience."
Or it will make it not worth their while being creative, i.e. they will have to spend their time doing other things in order to eat and thus not be creative.
"Copyright only makes it easy for (large) businesses to excercise oppression on citizens (RIAA, MPAA, BSA). It has, in real life, nothing to do with getting paid for what you do."
Why the obsession with big businesses? what about the millions of creative individuals who via new technology have a direct relationship with their audience and for whom copyright allows them the control that can ensure payment.
Many of us will be very very pleased to see the back of someone with such a bizzarre and distorted view of the UK, though it's good to see you upholding Goodwins law.
Enjoying something and getting paid for doing it are not mutually exclusive.
Here in the UK there was a recent fuss about extending copyright for another 25 years. The theory was that the people who created the stuff would be encouraged to create more. The fact that quite a few of them are dead did seem to undermine the argument somewhat.
You have a good point that copyright law are being abused.
This works on the assumption that I generally assign my copyright to some corporation. Due to the changes in technology I generally don't have to do that. Generally I have come to the conclusion that it is not in my best financial interest. The relationship for most of what I create is between me and the customer with a little bit taken by the payment processor. Look out the window, technology is changing the relationship between those that create and the customer. My friend sell most of their CD's directly to the customer, their audience.
Just because US copyright law has become a pawn of major corporations (I'm not in the US) doesn't mean that copyright itself is a bad thing.
I was responding to a post that included "The problem with the copyright law", so I figured the person had a problem with copyright law. You may not be against the abolition of copyright law but many comentators are.
Seems like exactly my point. You don't create and you don't want to pay for other peoples creative content. So you think the media industry is ripping you off. Shop around, changes in technology are making it easier and easier for people who create to sell directly. My friends produce music CD's most of the price goes into their pockets, most of the payment from my writing (80% ish) goes into my poket. If you cannot be bothered to look further than major record lables that is no reason to repeal the entire legal structure of copyright.