"...also it encourages programmers to be better people [...] rather than locking up their work with restrictive licences which prevent programmers from working together."
I find this offensive.
I require people to pay money for the right to use the results of my work, be it the binary or source version, and because most people won't pay unless forced to, I have no other choice but to lock it up. Until a sustainable business model arrives (and survives) that enables a programmer to make a living AND give away their code for free, then I'm sticking with Plan A, which has a steady paycheck and lets me support my family.
I hate my company cell phone so I abuse it every chance I get, yet the damned thing keeps on going like some undead zombie from a B-rate horror film. Why pay extra for a feature that's already built into sucky phones like mine?
The thing I find most intriguing about this reply is the inability of moderators to figure out if the reply's author is trying to be funny or serious.
I can imagine their mouse pointers shifting uneasily between Funny and Insightful. They don't want to appear out-of-touch with the extreme dry humor that it could represent, nor have they fully digested the reaction they have when considering the realities of the author's comments. Which to pick... which... to... pick?!?!
Oh the humanity!
PS: Just rate it Funny it and have a good laugh over it!
Amazon already has a "Digital Locker" into which digital items like DVD extras, Users Manuals, and extra music tracks are instantly stored whenever you make an associated purchase. They actually call it your Digital Locker.
I wonder if anyone in MS marketing has been shopping at Amazon lately?
"...criminals can also learn from other's mistakes and be more careful next time..."
We should be advocating secrecy around how these crimes are solved because the next criminal might learn, and won't make the same mistake as the last one?
Why?
I don't know the exact statistics, but I am certain the clear majority of criminals are caught and convicted because they made the same mistake that millions of criminals before them made. Mistakes that have been publicized, written about, memorialized in songs, even had entire TV shows made out of them (think Law & Order, COPS, CSI, etc.).
You can tell criminals over and over: "Don't leave behind finger prints when you break and enter." But do they listen? NoooOOOOoo!
I read this article, or at least most of it, thinking I would actually get some new insight into why the Linux was "Safer" than Windows when it came to Viruses. But all he offered was: "It's harder to do stupid stuff on Linux, so if Linux rulled the world people wouldn't do stupid stuff."
False Assumption: If Linux rulled the world at some point in the future, it would look/feel/act the exact same was it does today.
If Linux rulled the world it would be because the user community (ie: Windows users of today) accepted it. If Linux continues to disallow "stupid" stuff to happen, users will continue to reject it, so it won't rule the world. Therefore, it must change. The user community has enjoyed a high-degree of freedom, and they will no give it up in HOPES that their computing lives will be safer from viruses, etc. The majority of consume-grade computers run Windows today because it does what they want, not because it's the only choice.
The author clearly has no understanding of the role usability plays in acceptance of an OS. If it's not easy to use out of the box no one is going to pick up the box. Period. Oh yeah, except of course for that small, 3% of the desktop user-space that enjoys the challenge. But those folks don't really matter since they aren't spreading viruses anyway.
You've essentially laid out a plan where people pay to get access to the information on your web host. That's been done. It's called subscription. The only caveat you've added is that some subscribers are complaining that they are paying the full $6.95/month (as an example), but only feel like they are getting $4.95 out of it each month.
At least two viable solutions to this problem:
1. Do like the news servers do, and charge a per-month fee for a maximum band-width per day limit. For example, you'd charge $6.95/month for 50Meg per day, but $12.95/month for 500Meg/day.
2. Deliniate your content into two or more sections. For example, 1) FREE, 2) Standard subscription, 3) Premium subscription.
Bottom Line: People are willing to pay for what they think is valuable; charge them for the information, not the pipeline that feeds them the information. Remember, Inkjet printers are almost free, but the cartridges cost $35 a piece, FOREVER!
Re:Try Catching the REAL criminals
on
eBay Beats DMCA
·
· Score: 1
Don't you think that's exactly what all copyright zelots would want? So, why aren't we doing it? It's called bandwidth. If the police attempted to arrest/charge *every* person that could be caught in the act of selling unauthorized copies, they would be 100% consumed doing only that. Let alone the lack of available bandwidth (oxymoron alert!) of the courts to prosecute those nabbed offenders.
You have a few options: 1) Force the RIAA and other copyright zelots to rethink their distribution and profit models, making it easier and less expensive for people to gain access to their materials, 2) Update the implementation and interpretation of the copyright laws in the courts to better reflect reality, or 3) Give up and just let people buy gold-CD's of their favorite bands or video games.
Re:We need more court cases like this.
on
eBay Beats DMCA
·
· Score: 1
Amen.
If people would just assume their problems can be resolved rationally (ie: minus the lawyers), it would be more likely that they WILL be resolved rationally. Instead, people just assume that the standard channels won't work and bypass them in favor of the big guns.
Hendrickson: "I have a complaint, I need to speak with your CEO right this instant!"
eBay: "Please present your complaint to our complaint department. They are well versed in handling complaints and understand how to escalate the issue if need be."
Hendrickson: "Do you know who I am?"
eBay: "No, we don't. But that's the great part - no matter who you are, we'll treat you with as much respect as everyone else!"
Hendrickson: "SMARTASSES!! DO YOU KNOW WHO YOU'RE DEALING WITH HERE??"
eBay: "No, really, we don't."
Hendrickson: "Fine, I'll sue your asses for not treating me with the respect I deserve."
Slashdot Mirror
Has anyone checked to see how much stock the governor has in the state's largest #2-Pencil manufacturer?
I require people to pay money for the right to use the results of my work, be it the binary or source version, and because most people won't pay unless forced to, I have no other choice but to lock it up. Until a sustainable business model arrives (and survives) that enables a programmer to make a living AND give away their code for free, then I'm sticking with Plan A, which has a steady paycheck and lets me support my family.
I guess that makes me a "bad person."
I hate my company cell phone so I abuse it every chance I get, yet the damned thing keeps on going like some undead zombie from a B-rate horror film. Why pay extra for a feature that's already built into sucky phones like mine?
The thing I find most intriguing about this reply is the inability of moderators to figure out if the reply's author is trying to be funny or serious.
I can imagine their mouse pointers shifting uneasily between Funny and Insightful. They don't want to appear out-of-touch with the extreme dry humor that it could represent, nor have they fully digested the reaction they have when considering the realities of the author's comments. Which to pick... which... to... pick?!?!
Oh the humanity!
PS: Just rate it Funny it and have a good laugh over it!
Amazon already has a "Digital Locker" into which digital items like DVD extras, Users Manuals, and extra music tracks are instantly stored whenever you make an associated purchase. They actually call it your Digital Locker.
I wonder if anyone in MS marketing has been shopping at Amazon lately?
Step 4: Rince and Repeat.
"...criminals can also learn from other's mistakes and be more careful next time..."
.sig not found, using /etc/passwd instead
We should be advocating secrecy around how these crimes are solved because the next criminal might learn, and won't make the same mistake as the last one?
Why?
I don't know the exact statistics, but I am certain the clear majority of criminals are caught and convicted because they made the same mistake that millions of criminals before them made. Mistakes that have been publicized, written about, memorialized in songs, even had entire TV shows made out of them (think Law & Order, COPS, CSI, etc.).
You can tell criminals over and over: "Don't leave behind finger prints when you break and enter." But do they listen? NoooOOOOoo!
--
Error:
How can you blame them?
/.
Because they are Microsoft, and this is
I read this article, or at least most of it, thinking I would actually get some new insight into why the Linux was "Safer" than Windows when it came to Viruses. But all he offered was: "It's harder to do stupid stuff on Linux, so if Linux rulled the world people wouldn't do stupid stuff."
False Assumption: If Linux rulled the world at some point in the future, it would look/feel/act the exact same was it does today.
If Linux rulled the world it would be because the user community (ie: Windows users of today) accepted it. If Linux continues to disallow "stupid" stuff to happen, users will continue to reject it, so it won't rule the world. Therefore, it must change. The user community has enjoyed a high-degree of freedom, and they will no give it up in HOPES that their computing lives will be safer from viruses, etc. The majority of consume-grade computers run Windows today because it does what they want, not because it's the only choice.
The author clearly has no understanding of the role usability plays in acceptance of an OS. If it's not easy to use out of the box no one is going to pick up the box. Period. Oh yeah, except of course for that small, 3% of the desktop user-space that enjoys the challenge. But those folks don't really matter since they aren't spreading viruses anyway.
You've essentially laid out a plan where people pay to get access to the information on your web host. That's been done. It's called subscription. The only caveat you've added is that some subscribers are complaining that they are paying the full $6.95/month (as an example), but only feel like they are getting $4.95 out of it each month.
At least two viable solutions to this problem:
1. Do like the news servers do, and charge a per-month fee for a maximum band-width per day limit. For example, you'd charge $6.95/month for 50Meg per day, but $12.95/month for 500Meg/day.
2. Deliniate your content into two or more sections. For example, 1) FREE, 2) Standard subscription, 3) Premium subscription.
Bottom Line: People are willing to pay for what they think is valuable; charge them for the information, not the pipeline that feeds them the information. Remember, Inkjet printers are almost free, but the cartridges cost $35 a piece, FOREVER!
Don't you think that's exactly what all copyright zelots would want? So, why aren't we doing it? It's called bandwidth. If the police attempted to arrest/charge *every* person that could be caught in the act of selling unauthorized copies, they would be 100% consumed doing only that. Let alone the lack of available bandwidth (oxymoron alert!) of the courts to prosecute those nabbed offenders.
You have a few options: 1) Force the RIAA and other copyright zelots to rethink their distribution and profit models, making it easier and less expensive for people to gain access to their materials, 2) Update the implementation and interpretation of the copyright laws in the courts to better reflect reality, or 3) Give up and just let people buy gold-CD's of their favorite bands or video games.
Amen.
If people would just assume their problems can be resolved rationally (ie: minus the lawyers), it would be more likely that they WILL be resolved rationally. Instead, people just assume that the standard channels won't work and bypass them in favor of the big guns.
Hendrickson: "I have a complaint, I need to speak with your CEO right this instant!"
eBay: "Please present your complaint to our complaint department. They are well versed in handling complaints and understand how to escalate the issue if need be."
Hendrickson: "Do you know who I am?"
eBay: "No, we don't. But that's the great part - no matter who you are, we'll treat you with as much respect as everyone else!"
Hendrickson: "SMARTASSES!! DO YOU KNOW WHO YOU'RE DEALING WITH HERE??"
eBay: "No, really, we don't."
Hendrickson: "Fine, I'll sue your asses for not treating me with the respect I deserve."