>The difference is that My open source implimentation of a commercial program is not FORCED upon everyone when they buy a PC.
You don't have to buy Windows if you buy a PC. Lots of people willing to sell you a PC without an OS.
>do you have a choice to uninstall tcp/ip from windows so you can use trumpet winsock?
When I get RedHat do you think that a normal user can change the IP code? I know that in theory, it is possible, but practically, for many many users, they just can't. Its just like you wanting to change your cylinder block in your car, possible but practically impossible.
>Taxes should be more based on what you use, or benefit from.
Then all the social services would all be cancelled (old and poor can't pay high taxes) and the only thing we would have is what rich people would want.
Instead of "one citizen one vote" it would be "one dollar one vote".
>Seriously, why can't the majority of middle class simple workers fill out the forms at the beginning of the year that we fill out at the end stating our status and then have them take out the proper amount?
I have to do this here in Canada.
Trust me, the added complexity and paying your taxes once every quarter is a pain.
You should be happy that you are borrowing the government's money for free.
>but we are now examining everyone with the assumption that they are cheating on their taxes.
Good point.
This issue came up here in Canada (I think) as "If a person is audited and is told he has to pay more has to prove that he doesn't (guilty until proven innocent). As opposed to the goverment has to prove he needs to pay it (innocent until proven guilty)"
But, the point the courts accepted from the government is that tax forms that you submit are self-assessed (vs. not saying anything and forcing them to prove what you owe) and therefore you do have to prove that you are not cheating.
>they'll give it to a bank, who [in exchange for a small amount of interest] will use it to provide venture capital to new companies to keep the economy moving!
The banks have enough money to lend out regardless of how much people deposit with them. The can get all the money they want from the Fed at insanely low interest rates.
The point is that if people stop spending, then who will companies sell to? A certain percentage of people would stop buying their morning cup of coffee if it now cost X% more.
> Erm... what's the use of a 100mbit/sec connection with a mobile phone.
As with all new technologies, ask yourself one question;
How can technology X improve the creation, distribution, storage or viewing of pr0n?
Once you have answered this, the other applications (DNA research, selling books, sub-atomic simulations to prove multi-parallel universe theories) are trivial.
1. Recent court cases here in Canada forces the governement to revist the copyright laws anyways.
2. The Juno (Canadian version of the Grammys) is on this week and has been increasing in popularity here. More Canadians last year watched the Junos than the Grammys. This announcement is just a Minister to scoring some publicity on its coat-tails.
So if I copy, package, sell/give it away on the street corners that is active participation and you have a good case for copyright infringment.
But if I just leave a directory publicly readable and a port open (or I leave my CDs out on my front porch) its too "passive" and not a copyright infringment.
>The vast majority of library users copy a few pages of a book or magazine.
But the ability to copy the entire thing is still there. And in the "photocopier in the library" case the point was that people were copying enough/entire articles to make it sufficient for copyright infringment.
I personnally think the major difference between the copy shop/library cases is that the later had a law society willing to fight for them.
> whether they deserved the piece of the pie they demanded, or whether they were just using the celebrity of the characters they played to blackmail Fox
Why are these two choices exclusive?
To they they think they deserve more of the pie, Fox may or may not think so.
They are using their celbrity status to use a leverage (its not blackmail) to the negotiations.
Either of these choices still have nothing to do with being greedy or not.
But they already made more then they would need during the previous seasons. Should they work for free in the next season(s) because any new money is "more than they will need"?
>That's all fine and dandy that they make a lot of money but to demand the salary equivalent to a small country's GNP is absurd.
But how much does Fox make directly and indirectly ? (The Simpsons is their premeire network show) If you made something continously for $1 and someone resells it for $20, would it be absurd to ask for $5 for the product?
>I understand about wanting a fair share of the pie, but where does it cross over into greed?
Is it greed because its a large absolute dollar value or becuase its a large dollar value compaired to what the producers/network make from the Simpsons?
Why is it greedy to ask for more money? Just because they can ask or just because someone says "Thats enough for you"?
>American companies have volunteered to give away american jobs.
Were they forced? Yes, because its cheaper to do so. So they were "forced" because its an action that they think would raise profits and/or lower prices.
Either they do it or their competitors (other American companies) would crush them.
I'm the CEO of a company and the union here has a too easy performance review scheme: The lowest ranking is "Average" and at least 50% of workers have to fall into "Super-human". How can I fight this?"
Slashdot Mirror
>The difference is that My open source implimentation of a commercial program is not FORCED upon everyone when they buy a PC.
You don't have to buy Windows if you buy a PC. Lots of people willing to sell you a PC without an OS.
>do you have a choice to uninstall tcp/ip from windows so you can use trumpet winsock?
When I get RedHat do you think that a normal user can change the IP code? I know that in theory, it is possible, but practically, for many many users, they just can't. Its just like you wanting to change your cylinder block in your car, possible but practically impossible.
So how is this different?
>If a for-profit corporation was giving away open source software I'd be leery of their motivation.
IBM, Redhat, Mandrake, SGI and others.
Why have they released their code? Why not jump and scream when they release something to OpenSource?
>You forgot Trumpet too: they crushed the whole winsock "market" by nefariously adding a TCP/IP stack to the OS.
They gave a product away for free, thereby rendering the commerical product at such a great disadvantage that no-one had a reason to use it.
And how is this different from software released under OpenSource?
Couldn't the government raise taxes to pay off the debt and still continue spending increasing amounts?
Couldn't the government default on what they owe?
>Taxes should be more based on what you use, or benefit from.
Then all the social services would all be cancelled (old and poor can't pay high taxes) and the only thing we would have is what rich people would want.
Instead of "one citizen one vote" it would be "one dollar one vote".
>Seriously, why can't the majority of middle class simple workers fill out the forms at the beginning of the year that we fill out at the end stating our status and then have them take out the proper amount?
I have to do this here in Canada.
Trust me, the added complexity and paying your taxes once every quarter is a pain.
You should be happy that you are borrowing the government's money for free.
>When someone pays less, they'll just have to figure out how to spend less.
Or another alternative is that the government will have to borrow more.
>but we are now examining everyone with the assumption that they are cheating on their taxes.
Good point.
This issue came up here in Canada (I think) as "If a person is audited and is told he has to pay more has to prove that he doesn't (guilty until proven innocent). As opposed to the goverment has to prove he needs to pay it (innocent until proven guilty)"
But, the point the courts accepted from the government is that tax forms that you submit are self-assessed (vs. not saying anything and forcing them to prove what you owe) and therefore you do have to prove that you are not cheating.
>they'll give it to a bank, who [in exchange for a small amount of interest] will use it to provide venture capital to new companies to keep the economy moving!
The banks have enough money to lend out regardless of how much people deposit with them. The can get all the money they want from the Fed at insanely low interest rates.
The point is that if people stop spending, then who will companies sell to? A certain percentage of people would stop buying their morning cup of coffee if it now cost X% more.
> Erm... what's the use of a 100mbit/sec connection with a mobile phone.
As with all new technologies, ask yourself one question;
How can technology X improve the creation, distribution, storage or viewing of pr0n?
Once you have answered this, the other applications (DNA research, selling books, sub-atomic simulations to prove multi-parallel universe theories) are trivial.
1. Recent court cases here in Canada forces the governement to revist the copyright laws anyways.
2. The Juno (Canadian version of the Grammys) is on this week and has been increasing in popularity here. More Canadians last year watched the Junos than the Grammys. This announcement is just a Minister to scoring some publicity on its coat-tails.
>Lesser of evils.
The GST is a tax bascially on everything that happens.
What short of killing small childern is a greater evil?
Thats what I read as the key point too.
So if I copy, package, sell/give it away on the street corners that is active participation and you have a good case for copyright infringment.
But if I just leave a directory publicly readable and a port open (or I leave my CDs out on my front porch) its too "passive" and not a copyright infringment.
>The vast majority of library users copy a few pages of a book or magazine.
But the ability to copy the entire thing is still there. And in the "photocopier in the library" case the point was that people were copying enough/entire articles to make it sufficient for copyright infringment.
I personnally think the major difference between the copy shop/library cases is that the later had a law society willing to fight for them.
> whether they deserved the piece of the pie they demanded, or whether they were just using the celebrity of the characters they played to blackmail Fox
Why are these two choices exclusive?
To they they think they deserve more of the pie, Fox may or may not think so.
They are using their celbrity status to use a leverage (its not blackmail) to the negotiations.
Either of these choices still have nothing to do with being greedy or not.
>It's greed because it's more than they need.
But they already made more then they would need during the previous seasons. Should they work for free in the next season(s) because any new money is "more than they will need"?
>That's all fine and dandy that they make a lot of money but to demand the salary equivalent to a small country's GNP is absurd.
But how much does Fox make directly and indirectly ? (The Simpsons is their premeire network show) If you made something continously for $1 and someone resells it for $20, would it be absurd to ask for $5 for the product?
>I understand about wanting a fair share of the pie, but where does it cross over into greed?
Is it greed because its a large absolute dollar value or becuase its a large dollar value compaired to what the producers/network make from the Simpsons?
Why is it greedy to ask for more money? Just because they can ask or just because someone says "Thats enough for you"?
>No vendor spin on security issues. ... yet.
If this thing becomes popular you don't think that every profit or non-profit group will use it to enforce their own narrow point of view?
>other companies (Dell comes to mind) DO NOT need to outsource to survive, they outsource because it is cheaper.
Unless you are a "brand-name" like Apple or Nike, cheaper = survival.
Ask any store that goes against Wal-Mart.
Define basic human rights?
To certain socitieis the US has horrible human rights.
Should no country had done trade with the US when blacks were still second-class citizens?
Should no country do any trade when it has thought-crime laws like the DMCA (or pick any law that you don't agree with)?
Is this a "do as I say, not as I do" race?
>American companies have volunteered to give away american jobs.
Were they forced? Yes, because its cheaper to do so. So they were "forced" because its an action that they think would raise profits and/or lower prices.
Either they do it or their competitors (other American companies) would crush them.
Better story. Pretty well not your typical scientist.
Then the next "Ask Slashdot" question will be:
I'm the CEO of a company and the union here has a too easy performance review scheme: The lowest ranking is "Average" and at least 50% of workers have to fall into "Super-human". How can I fight this?"
I don't have time to buy harddrives, I use better compression.
>males are supposed to demonstrate their wealth and prowess by not having to care about expending costly resources on useless pursuits.
So are you saying that all the slashdot trolls are demonstrating their mating suitability?