"I highly doubt the submitter's genes would be alive today, if not for the hunting of "innocent" animals, whatever the hell that means."
Well, I am not a hunter and I don't play one on TV, but I did find myself wondering if it is OK with people to hunt guilty animals. I mean, like, you know, those ones that kill other animals and, like, other species even.
"Ok, so here it comes. A SOUND LEVEL METER IS A BLOODY MICROPHONE!"
Sure.
"But if they keep it cheap and simple its probably easier to just send the audio and do processing centrally."
Perhaps, but at the cost of bandwidth and privacy issues. In other words, if it really is about noise ordinances, put a sound level meter on location and send only sound level data over the no-cat or over the cat. If they want to send the audio, my take is they want to do something more.
"which is where the frog reference comes in"
Oh, I get the frog reference. I was not fooled into thinking it was about the British attitude towards the French.
"The article also notes that they intend to locate them more permanently outside bars and nightclubs."
Now, these microphones will be outside of nightclubs. If there is a DJ inside playing copyrighted songs, they are going to pick up the songs and broadcast them? (wifi?)
If there is a live band, the mic will pick up their performance and broadcast it? So, can the general public put similar mics wherever they want in a public space and do the same thing?
Why would they need mics for the stated purpose anyway? Wouldn't sound level meters do the trick just as well without the privacy issues?
"(Of course, the Office edition for students and teachers costs $149, and no one's checking IDs)."
OK, so like I point out frequently, it is not piracy and theft, although it is illegal. (Assuming the license is valid.) Still, how do they get away promoting it, violating the license, that is? Do you think there is a wink, wink, nudge, nudge, with MS? Even in such an article?
"OpenSolaris is supposed to appear in July. Did I oversleep today, or isn't it still May?
It's a bit unfair to start calling something vaporware two months before the scheduled release. "
Why is it being called OpenSolaris? We know Solaris exists. Is it being called OpenSolaris because it is to be open source Solaris?
If so, the Solaris part may exist now, but the open part doesn't. I noticed something about legal encumberances to releasing now... All closed promoters please note the problems you get into using non-Free code in your programs. You can't do what you want with your own software. (I know I am only presenting one side there.)
"It's my right when they use government subsidies, meet at public schools, and use public funds. They can do anything they like as soon as they stop all those things."
This would be a fine argument except that the people normally thought of as holding such a view are also those who are normally thought of as tax and spend liberals.
So, tax 95% of everyone's income, provide them with what they need to live with and buy up all remaining private land for the government. Now, you can effectively outlaw religion. I doubt that that is what the establishment boys had in mind. If government wa small and limited and only took a small amount of tax, I doubt you would have so many fights about this issue. Apply in this case.
I know, which is why I asked if you or anyone had seen an upper limit placed on the physical act of transferring a copy.
I think you could try for 2 million dollars much less 2 hundred. Why would the courts get involved? Although this does bring up an interesting question. Must you make the GPL license terms and copyright notices available prior to sale or only upon sale?
If you see me trying to charge you 2 million dollars for a GPL program that someone else wrote, do you think you might try to find them and get a better deal? If it is my derivative, would you look around for a previous customer and try to get a better deal from them.
Nothing prevents us from shopping around for better prices on GPL software.
"You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy"
Have you seen a limit placed on this fee anywhere? I haven't. (IIRC) I have seen limits placed on the fee you may charge for providing the source if you originally only supplied a binary.
"to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."
Sure, licensed to them, but you can still charge them a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy to them. Right?
Perhaps it is time for the GNU boys to put out a more extensive FAQ on the GPL.
"Why would they leave this format out when it would be easy to include it?"
My take is that ogg support is left out because the people are anti-Free Software. They don't want anything Free taking off and becomming wildly popular or the market leader. That would deny them the use of much of the FUD that is popular.
Let's come up with a list of possible reasons for Free Software supporting people/companies to not support ogg vorbis while supporting non-free formats shall we?
1. Not as popular. Duh, but they are the ones who will make it popular if they support it. My take - not valid.
2. Costs too much. Huh? My take - not valid.
3. ???
4. Profit.
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Now, I can think of a lot more reasons for someone/company who doesn't support Free Software to leave out ogg vorbis support.
Plus, as a customer, I want to by my devices with ogg support and I want a good selection. So far, this is not available to me.
"companies like it that a less experienced person can still keep a win2k3/XPSP2 network up and running,"
I see this idea put forward all the time and yet, when things fall apart in the windows world, it is often blamed on clueless admins. It would be a good idea for people to have a bit more of a consistent view when it comes to this issue. (Not pointing at you in particular as you have only stated one half of the equation.)
"No they didn't. They have a computer sales business named Tiger. There's no OS tamed Tiger. 'Til tomorrow."
So, if Microsoft changes the release name of Longhorn to Apple, that will be OK because Apple has a Computer Manufacturing Business named Apple but no OS named Apple and therefore it is OK for MS to name their OS Apple?
"Essentially, I view truly private, voluntary exchanges as freedom."
Fine, but that is not the markets we are operating with.
So, I don't like people who want their copyrights and patents protected by the government extolling the virtues of the free market and complaining that people want the government to step in and address problems with them.
Now, if those people were calling for the end of copyrights and patents and extolling the virtues of the free market, that would be a different kettle of fish.
"The important thing to remember here is that freedom ends where government intervention begins. So long as the market is regulated by consumer decisions and PRIVATE efforts at change, freedom reigns and the sovereign consumer will get what they demand."
And how wrong you are. Government is in the middle of this - period.
I would bet that there are copyrights and patents involved in the nikon white balance example you refer to. And IIRC, Adobe was concerned about running afoul of the DMCA - another case of the government being in the heart of the matter. We are not discussing free markets when the goods are protected by copyright or patent laws. Period, end of story. These are government regulated markets from the get go.
"It is impossible to "sell" software and make a "profit" if the software can be sold by anyone else for "less" than you would "require" to recoup your "expenses" to develop the software."
But why are all of the conditions you stipulate necessary and unavoidable?
Slashdot Mirror
"1. Invent Domestication
/.
2. Kill Animals Dead
3. Invent "Super Market"
4. Sell Tasty Animal Parts
5. Profit!!!"
Dude, that's like, what, five steps? Way too many for here on
Good luck to you with the profit though.
all the best,
drew
"I highly doubt the submitter's genes would be alive today, if not for the hunting of "innocent" animals, whatever the hell that means."
Well, I am not a hunter and I don't play one on TV, but I did find myself wondering if it is OK with people to hunt guilty animals. I mean, like, you know, those ones that kill other animals and, like, other species even.
all the best,
drew
"Ok, so here it comes. A SOUND LEVEL METER IS A BLOODY MICROPHONE!"
Sure.
"But if they keep it cheap and simple its probably easier to just send the audio and do processing centrally."
Perhaps, but at the cost of bandwidth and privacy issues. In other words, if it really is about noise ordinances, put a sound level meter on location and send only sound level data over the no-cat or over the cat. If they want to send the audio, my take is they want to do something more.
"which is where the frog reference comes in"
Oh, I get the frog reference. I was not fooled into thinking it was about the British attitude towards the French.
all the best,
drew
"The article also notes that they intend to locate them more permanently outside bars and nightclubs."
Now, these microphones will be outside of nightclubs. If there is a DJ inside playing copyrighted songs, they are going to pick up the songs and broadcast them? (wifi?)
If there is a live band, the mic will pick up their performance and broadcast it? So, can the general public put similar mics wherever they want in a public space and do the same thing?
Why would they need mics for the stated purpose anyway? Wouldn't sound level meters do the trick just as well without the privacy issues?
all the best,
drew
(dnrtajts)
"(Of course, the Office edition for students and teachers costs $149, and no one's checking IDs)."
OK, so like I point out frequently, it is not piracy and theft, although it is illegal. (Assuming the license is valid.) Still, how do they get away promoting it, violating the license, that is? Do you think there is a wink, wink, nudge, nudge, with MS? Even in such an article?
all the best,
drew
"If they name their next OS "Apple Computer", then damn tootin' Apple's got a lawsuit against MS."
I did not say if they named it Apple Computer, just Apple. But let's go even further (less far?) and say they call it Apple Sauce.
Sorry I took so long to reply.
all the best,
drew
"OpenSolaris is supposed to appear in July. Did I oversleep today, or isn't it still May?
It's a bit unfair to start calling something vaporware two months before the scheduled release. "
Why is it being called OpenSolaris? We know Solaris exists. Is it being called OpenSolaris because it is to be open source Solaris?
If so, the Solaris part may exist now, but the open part doesn't. I noticed something about legal encumberances to releasing now... All closed promoters please note the problems you get into using non-Free code in your programs. You can't do what you want with your own software. (I know I am only presenting one side there.)
all the best,
drew
"I don't understand how this could possibly be construed as a bad thing, but as history as shown, the zealots will find a way."
I don't particularly consider myself a zealot, but I will take a shot at it for you:
Show me the fine print.
Enough said.
all the best,
drew
"It's my right when they use government subsidies, meet at public schools, and use public funds. They can do anything they like as soon as they stop all those things."
This would be a fine argument except that the people normally thought of as holding such a view are also those who are normally thought of as tax and spend liberals.
So, tax 95% of everyone's income, provide them with what they need to live with and buy up all remaining private land for the government. Now, you can effectively outlaw religion. I doubt that that is what the establishment boys had in mind. If government wa small and limited and only took a small amount of tax, I doubt you would have so many fights about this issue. Apply in this case.
all the best,
drew
"but theft is still theft.
Getting Boy Scouts (of whatever nation) to honor someone else's property is well within the concept of "doing the right thing" in my book!"
Hello. It is not theft. And, it is not someone else's property.
It is violation of copyrights, not theft. It is someone's copyright, not someone's property.
If, for instance, I violate someone's right to free speech, have I stolen their property?
I would like to see the materials though. Are they fair and even handed?
all the best,
drew
"which is why I said" etc...
I know, which is why I asked if you or anyone had seen an upper limit placed on the physical act of transferring a copy.
I think you could try for 2 million dollars much less 2 hundred. Why would the courts get involved? Although this does bring up an interesting question. Must you make the GPL license terms and copyright notices available prior to sale or only upon sale?
If you see me trying to charge you 2 million dollars for a GPL program that someone else wrote, do you think you might try to find them and get a better deal? If it is my derivative, would you look around for a previous customer and try to get a better deal from them.
Nothing prevents us from shopping around for better prices on GPL software.
all the best,
drew
"But you're not required to give the source to anyone who doesn't have the binary, and you're not required to give the binary away."
Nope, if you originally provide only the binary, you must provide the source to any third party. (Who asks.)
If you transfer the binary and source together in the first place, that is all you are obligated to do. Right?
all the best,
drew
"You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy"
Have you seen a limit placed on this fee anywhere? I haven't. (IIRC) I have seen limits placed on the fee you may charge for providing the source if you originally only supplied a binary.
"to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."
Sure, licensed to them, but you can still charge them a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy to them. Right?
Perhaps it is time for the GNU boys to put out a more extensive FAQ on the GPL.
all the best,
drew
"Why would they leave this format out when it would be easy to include it?"
My take is that ogg support is left out because the people are anti-Free Software. They don't want anything Free taking off and becomming wildly popular or the market leader. That would deny them the use of much of the FUD that is popular.
all the best,
drew
Sure, why not.
Let's come up with a list of possible reasons for Free Software supporting people/companies to not support ogg vorbis while supporting non-free formats shall we?
1. Not as popular. Duh, but they are the ones who will make it popular if they support it. My take - not valid.
2. Costs too much. Huh? My take - not valid.
3. ???
4. Profit.
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Now, I can think of a lot more reasons for someone/company who doesn't support Free Software to leave out ogg vorbis support.
Plus, as a customer, I want to by my devices with ogg support and I want a good selection. So far, this is not available to me.
all the best,
drew
"Does it occur to anyone that the negation of the answers provides MS with a roadmap of how to best avoid interoperation?"
[Evil Grin] OK, so can we give them answers such that when they negate them and implement them, it will break their software/business?
Just kidding. [Evil Grin] Or am I?
all the best,
drew
'all without ever once needing to speak to a "leader"'
Unless their aim is to "buy" and corrupt or taint those leaders. (I am talking generalities here.)
all the best,
drew
"companies like it that a less experienced person can still keep a win2k3/XPSP2 network up and running,"
I see this idea put forward all the time and yet, when things fall apart in the windows world, it is often blamed on clueless admins. It would be a good idea for people to have a bit more of a consistent view when it comes to this issue. (Not pointing at you in particular as you have only stated one half of the equation.)
all the best,
drew
"No they didn't. They have a computer sales business named Tiger. There's no OS tamed Tiger. 'Til tomorrow."
So, if Microsoft changes the release name of Longhorn to Apple, that will be OK because Apple has a Computer Manufacturing Business named Apple but no OS named Apple and therefore it is OK for MS to name their OS Apple?
Seriously. (I am honestly asking that question.)
all the best,
drew
"Good: 1
Evil: 42"
You are just sooo wrong! How can you claim that Evil is the answer to life, the universe and everything?
all the best,
drew
"Essentially, I view truly private, voluntary exchanges as freedom."
Fine, but that is not the markets we are operating with.
So, I don't like people who want their copyrights and patents protected by the government extolling the virtues of the free market and complaining that people want the government to step in and address problems with them.
Now, if those people were calling for the end of copyrights and patents and extolling the virtues of the free market, that would be a different kettle of fish.
all the best,
drew
I may indeed have misunderstood you.
The parent to your post said:
"This is not freedom. This is restriction."
You then replied:
"How wrong you are. You are free to choose whether or not to use a product based on all factors, such as the license, format restrictions, etc."
Which indicated to me that you thought he was wrong and it was not restriction but that it was freedom.
That's when I came in and said that when there were copyrights and patents involved, there were no free markets.
I hope that makes sense. What did you mean when you said how wrong he was?
all the best,
drew
"The important thing to remember here is that freedom ends where government intervention begins. So long as the market is regulated by consumer decisions and PRIVATE efforts at change, freedom reigns and the sovereign consumer will get what they demand."
And how wrong you are. Government is in the middle of this - period.
I would bet that there are copyrights and patents involved in the nikon white balance example you refer to. And IIRC, Adobe was concerned about running afoul of the DMCA - another case of the government being in the heart of the matter. We are not discussing free markets when the goods are protected by copyright or patent laws. Period, end of story. These are government regulated markets from the get go.
all the best,
drew
"It is impossible to "sell" software and make a "profit" if the software can be sold by anyone else for "less" than you would "require" to recoup your "expenses" to develop the software."
But why are all of the conditions you stipulate necessary and unavoidable?
all the best,
drew
"There are many companies out there that cannot survive on the "open source" model of making money through selling support and t-shirts."
The question, and their worry, is:
Can they survive when the competing software to theirs is available under the GPL?
all the best,
drew