Sorry, I'm pretty sure he'd want to be paid for his time, expertise, etc. I suspect that the lingering evil effects from working for Microsoft would include the desire to be fairly compensated to support himself and his family.
I'm just waiting for some obese computer geek (nobody here, right?) who buys soda by the case win this thing, be unable to pass the physical requirements for the rigors of space travel, and then turn around and sue Pepsi for the $20 mil that they didn't have to pay Russia.
It could be kind of humorous, actually, the kind of people who will think they're cut out for space flight just because they drink soda.
"Why the hell couldn't the sender just turn it into a.pdf instead of assuming that we have Visio installed here?"
Why then should he assume that you have Acrobat Reader installed? It's every bit as reasonable to assume that they have Microsoft Office Document Readers installed.
What used to be considered "hot rodding" has degenerated into hideous monstrosities of coffee-can exhausts, clip-on spoilers, and lots and lots of stickers.
Really, there's nothing more pathetic than a late-80's model brownish-grey and rusting Volkswagen Fox (actually saw this) whose owner thinks is a race/show car.
"Industry studies point out that for every hit the business scores, it loses $6.3 million on albums that tank. Fewer than 5% of signed artists deliver a hit."
That's not the artists' fault, so don't make them pay for the labels' poor decisions. It's the fault of the labels for signing every jackass garage band it 'discovers' to multi-album contracts.
Perhaps they'd lose less money (and maybe make some?) if their tastes and qualifications were a little more discriminating.
I'm not sure what world you're living in, but my experience has been that people will often download every song they want from a particular album because they don't feel like paying for the songs they don't want.
Now if the recording industry was smart, they'd offer an easy, convenient way to offer a pay-per-download service where people didn't have to buy the entire album, it may be received warmly by alot of music fans.
However that kind of business model is not yet feasible because of rampant piracy on P2P networks. Why pay for it when you can get it for free? You can almost surmise that P2P is preventing fair per-download music sales from becoming economically viable.
Now I'm not saying that the music undustry has been reasonable, by any means. But I think anyone can understand their hostility towards people who they percieve as a threat to their industry.
Just about every day I see the latest attempt by the media/software industries to prevent the theft of their product, and usually soon after see a circumvention of that attempt. Sometimes this involves some rather convoluted and really bizarre ways of getting at that tasty morsel.
A lot of times these methods result in getting a much lower quality piece of software/media than if it were simply bought. A lot of times (mostly with software) the result barely works at all.
So is it really worth it to copy some of this stuff at any cost? I can't help but think that sometimes it would cost less time and aggravation to just go out and buy the damn software/music CD/DVD. And don't give me that "information wants to be free" crap either. There comes a point when it's just not worth the time or effort to circumvent copy protection just because you can.
Re:Crack to stop all this...
on
"Squishy" DRM?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
A more effective way to accomplish the same thing would be to stop giving these industries money. Stop going to movies. Stop buying CDs and DVDs. Don't buy products with DRM built in. Show these companies that you don't want their tainted products. If you get enough people on board with this legal form of protest (as opposed to the illegal theft that I am convinced is the cause of these extreme measures) you will show them that forced copy-protection isn't necessary, nor wanted.
However when copyright infringement is so obviously present (and rampant) it will only convince them that they are losing money because of MP3's and such, not because of dissatisfied customers.
Re:Crack to stop all this...
on
"Squishy" DRM?
·
· Score: 1
"All it will take, and I am sure it is inevitable, is for someone to write a virus/worm/trojan that will make all data on the victims computer DRM controlled and expired."
...only to further strengthen the positions of those who support DRM. I wonder if it ever occured to the people who create these circumventions that they're actually hurting their own cause in the long run.
Is EVERYTHING "becoming like 1984"?? I know I speak for more people than just myself when I say that we are tired of everything being compared to 1984.
I know that I'm going to be modded as a troll for not conforming to the masses yet again, but comon, at least be more imaginative than comparing every to 1984.
You might be right, but none of this has anything to do with the article that the editors are inappropriately trying to sensationalize as an open vs. closed source issue.
All it really comes down to is users who are dumb, users who were too lazy to properly use the system, and perhaps some bad software QA, certainly none of which are foreign to open source software.
Correct me if I'm wrong (as in not intended as a troll), but isn't this the sort of thing that Microsoft was criticized for with it's heavy incorporation of browser and kernal?
How safe would this be? What kind of interaction between an application developed with Mozilla and the kernal would there be? Would this potentially create vulnerabilities?
Just wanted to be sure all sides of this were explored.
I think your paranoia is a little over the top, friend.
First of all, the parent post wasn't saying anything to the effect of the fairness of the machines' tallying methods. Any system can be compromised by unscrupulous character, be it manual hand counting or rigged counting algorithms.
The point the parent's post was making is that the article was titled in such a way that the root cause of the problems experienced was that the voting software was closed source. Not only is that sensationalist, it's simply untrue. Any system can break if those expected to use it can't figure out how to do so.
So the story had nothing to do with the fairness of the machines, and little to do with technical problems within the software itself. It certainly made no case that any of it could have been solved with open source. So please, editors, stop trying to make these stories into something they're not.
It's about time posts like this got modded up. I'd like to think that the editors that publish these stories are at least rational (unbiased already long forsaken) people, but lately the articles have taken on a frightening tone of fanaticism.
Closed-source software is not inherently flawed. Open-source software is not infallible.
"Clearly, Bruce believes his child, and his freedom is more worth living for than his job at HP."
Now whether he was fired for the reasons he claims or not, it's interesting to me that someone who "believes his child... is more worth living for" was willing to sacrifice the means to support his child for the sake of his principles.
For the sake of his child, I hope his adversarial ways don't prevent him from meeting his parental obligations.
Re:The Constitution doesn't need amending
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 2
A most excellent post! The problem that we're having is not the erosion of our rights. It's the over-interpretation of the constitution that is creating implied rights.
One day murder (such as what's going on in Israel, in the name of a cause) will be interpreted as legally protected speech (expression).
Funny, though, at the same time we have little politically correct nonsences like "hate speech" and "intolerance" which do not in themselves take away our freedoms, but seek to make us feel bad for exercise them. Thankfully offending people is not yet a crime...... YET.
"Nor is such a scheme utopian - quite a few practical and effective governments in Europe are overtly socialist, and even the United States has socialist leanings."
You are correct about socialism in Europe and America, except for where you called it effective. Thanks to socialism, France has become an over-taxed catastrophe that sould be a model of how not to run a country.
It hasn't gotten that bad in America, but it's well on its way. Roughly 34% of my gross income goes to various government entities, most of which I see no return on whatsoever. The beneficiary of my taxes are, for the most part, people who are either unable or unwilling to exist without their taxpayer-subsidized entitlements.
And where am I going with this? It's simple, really. Many of the same people who believe in socialism (and oppose capitalism) have a problem with a company like Microsoft when it amasses enormous wealth. Now I don't have a problem if these people creating a free alternative (in fact I think it's a great idea) but I do have a problem when these reletively few people assume a posture of superiority over those content to pay for their software.
Like any good socialist, they condecendingly preach that their belief represents the universal good of society, and heaven help you if you're not on board with that idea.
Now before I get preachy myself (and I fear I already have) let me restate that I have no problem with open-source or any of that. But I question the logic of people when they start expecting companies to corner markets that are as of yet unprofitable, for the sake of some moral victory over capitalism.
"Given that I have an installation of Windows 98SE to play games on at home, how many people would be willing to install Linux in order to play Doom 3? I'd suggest there would be a lot."
This statement is optimistic at best and naive at worst. Why would any game company deliberately exclude a HUGE segment of their market (Windows users)? In the socialist-utopian model, this might work, but that's simply not how real life works.
And wouldn't it be ironic for a game company to charge $60 for a product and market it to a community who largely feels that it should be distributed for free. Wait, that's not irony, that's stupidity.
Re:Please, AOLTW, switch to NS from IE for AOL..
on
Netscape 7.0 is Out
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
An interesting editorial, especially since these all are the exact same things (essentially) that put IE on most desktops: making deals with software vendors and aggressively (and intrusively) push their product down the throats of its potential user base.
If NS/Mozilla is going to win this "browser war", they'll have to do it by creating a better product (which I believe they are on track to do). More "aggressive" marketing will only embitter people as MS has done with its omnipresent IE.
There's an easy way to avoid getting struck (stricken?) by lightning when on a golf course. Just keep a 2-iron in your bag. When a thunderstorm interrupts your game, take out the 2-iron and hold it up high, because it is rumored that not even God himself can hit a 2-iron.
"And since it is open source, the government is able to make sure that the software meets the government's needs, either by changing the software itself, or hiring someone to do so for them."
But it is not the job of government to re-engineer software. It is more cost/time effective to simply purchase software that already meets its needs. In this new age of fiscal responsibility and cutting government waste, I would think that you'd be behind that.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, I'm pretty sure he'd want to be paid for his time, expertise, etc. I suspect that the lingering evil effects from working for Microsoft would include the desire to be fairly compensated to support himself and his family.
It could be kind of humorous, actually, the kind of people who will think they're cut out for space flight just because they drink soda.
Why then should he assume that you have Acrobat Reader installed? It's every bit as reasonable to assume that they have Microsoft Office Document Readers installed.
Really, there's nothing more pathetic than a late-80's model brownish-grey and rusting Volkswagen Fox (actually saw this) whose owner thinks is a race/show car.
...case mods for cars. *sigh*
That's not the artists' fault, so don't make them pay for the labels' poor decisions. It's the fault of the labels for signing every jackass garage band it 'discovers' to multi-album contracts.
Perhaps they'd lose less money (and maybe make some?) if their tastes and qualifications were a little more discriminating.
Now if the recording industry was smart, they'd offer an easy, convenient way to offer a pay-per-download service where people didn't have to buy the entire album, it may be received warmly by alot of music fans.
However that kind of business model is not yet feasible because of rampant piracy on P2P networks. Why pay for it when you can get it for free? You can almost surmise that P2P is preventing fair per-download music sales from becoming economically viable.
Now I'm not saying that the music undustry has been reasonable, by any means. But I think anyone can understand their hostility towards people who they percieve as a threat to their industry.
A lot of times these methods result in getting a much lower quality piece of software/media than if it were simply bought. A lot of times (mostly with software) the result barely works at all.
So is it really worth it to copy some of this stuff at any cost? I can't help but think that sometimes it would cost less time and aggravation to just go out and buy the damn software/music CD/DVD. And don't give me that "information wants to be free" crap either. There comes a point when it's just not worth the time or effort to circumvent copy protection just because you can.
However when copyright infringement is so obviously present (and rampant) it will only convince them that they are losing money because of MP3's and such, not because of dissatisfied customers.
...only to further strengthen the positions of those who support DRM. I wonder if it ever occured to the people who create these circumventions that they're actually hurting their own cause in the long run.
I know that I'm going to be modded as a troll for not conforming to the masses yet again, but comon, at least be more imaginative than comparing every to 1984.
I didn't even think we had one, let alone three!
All it really comes down to is users who are dumb, users who were too lazy to properly use the system, and perhaps some bad software QA, certainly none of which are foreign to open source software.
How safe would this be? What kind of interaction between an application developed with Mozilla and the kernal would there be? Would this potentially create vulnerabilities?
Just wanted to be sure all sides of this were explored.
First of all, the parent post wasn't saying anything to the effect of the fairness of the machines' tallying methods. Any system can be compromised by unscrupulous character, be it manual hand counting or rigged counting algorithms.
The point the parent's post was making is that the article was titled in such a way that the root cause of the problems experienced was that the voting software was closed source. Not only is that sensationalist, it's simply untrue. Any system can break if those expected to use it can't figure out how to do so.
So the story had nothing to do with the fairness of the machines, and little to do with technical problems within the software itself. It certainly made no case that any of it could have been solved with open source. So please, editors, stop trying to make these stories into something they're not.
It's about time posts like this got modded up. I'd like to think that the editors that publish these stories are at least rational (unbiased already long forsaken) people, but lately the articles have taken on a frightening tone of fanaticism.
Closed-source software is not inherently flawed. Open-source software is not infallible.
Isn't Slashdot calling somebody "biased" a case of the pot calling the kettle black?
Now whether he was fired for the reasons he claims or not, it's interesting to me that someone who "believes his child... is more worth living for" was willing to sacrifice the means to support his child for the sake of his principles.
For the sake of his child, I hope his adversarial ways don't prevent him from meeting his parental obligations.
...the sky is blue, and less fat and more exercise is good for you.
One day murder (such as what's going on in Israel, in the name of a cause) will be interpreted as legally protected speech (expression).
Funny, though, at the same time we have little politically correct nonsences like "hate speech" and "intolerance" which do not in themselves take away our freedoms, but seek to make us feel bad for exercise them. Thankfully offending people is not yet a crime...... YET.
You are correct about socialism in Europe and America, except for where you called it effective. Thanks to socialism, France has become an over-taxed catastrophe that sould be a model of how not to run a country.
It hasn't gotten that bad in America, but it's well on its way. Roughly 34% of my gross income goes to various government entities, most of which I see no return on whatsoever. The beneficiary of my taxes are, for the most part, people who are either unable or unwilling to exist without their taxpayer-subsidized entitlements.
And where am I going with this? It's simple, really. Many of the same people who believe in socialism (and oppose capitalism) have a problem with a company like Microsoft when it amasses enormous wealth. Now I don't have a problem if these people creating a free alternative (in fact I think it's a great idea) but I do have a problem when these reletively few people assume a posture of superiority over those content to pay for their software.
Like any good socialist, they condecendingly preach that their belief represents the universal good of society, and heaven help you if you're not on board with that idea.
Now before I get preachy myself (and I fear I already have) let me restate that I have no problem with open-source or any of that. But I question the logic of people when they start expecting companies to corner markets that are as of yet unprofitable, for the sake of some moral victory over capitalism.
This statement is optimistic at best and naive at worst. Why would any game company deliberately exclude a HUGE segment of their market (Windows users)? In the socialist-utopian model, this might work, but that's simply not how real life works.
And wouldn't it be ironic for a game company to charge $60 for a product and market it to a community who largely feels that it should be distributed for free. Wait, that's not irony, that's stupidity.
If NS/Mozilla is going to win this "browser war", they'll have to do it by creating a better product (which I believe they are on track to do). More "aggressive" marketing will only embitter people as MS has done with its omnipresent IE.
There's an easy way to avoid getting struck (stricken?) by lightning when on a golf course. Just keep a 2-iron in your bag. When a thunderstorm interrupts your game, take out the 2-iron and hold it up high, because it is rumored that not even God himself can hit a 2-iron.
But it is not the job of government to re-engineer software. It is more cost/time effective to simply purchase software that already meets its needs. In this new age of fiscal responsibility and cutting government waste, I would think that you'd be behind that.