Indie bands have little to no chance of success based on the model used by the media megaliths.
Indie bands have little to no chance of success because there's a far greater supply of talented musicians than there is demand, in the form of hours in a day for most people to listen to them. It's as simple as that. You could argue that the established labels have an undue influence on public opinion, and there's probably some truth to that, but there will always be "little to no chance of success," no different from athletes, aspiring politicians, etc.
No, I just didn't want to use an example of a real law. You could replace my example with whatever other ambiguous activity or prohibition you chose. Sock-free Wednesdays. Carrying bags in the left hand. (That's actually a "law" for the military so they're always ready to salute). The reason to follow such laws, or rules, isn't for the sake of the rules, but because failing to do so has deleterious effects: First, it agitates people who DO follow the rules, which harms the efficiency of society by focusing too much attention on something which is probably unimportant. Second, when there exists a clear approach to changing the law, as in the specifically referenced democratic society, disregarding the law shows an utter lack of respect for the process of democracy. That lack of respect, whether real or perceived (although perception is reality for all practical purposes), is detrimental on many levels, not the least of which is because it lowers the credibility of the individual, which reduces his influence in actually affecting change. For example, the leaders of NORML generally abstain (or claim to abstain) from marijuana for this very reason.
Another point on civil disobedience is that it must be public, or have public consequences, in order to be purposeful or effective. Sitting in the front of the bus with the media in tow is effective. Doing the same on an empty bus, hoping the driver won't notice, is not. If you were to stand on the street corner handing out free DVDs, obviously making no commercial gain and putting yourself at risk in the process, that might be an effective protest of copyright law. Downloading content in private is not.
This means that this segment is typically very computer savvy and not likely to be pwned as a group.
I think your logic is a little off there.
First, you're assuming that wanting to use Linux == computer savvy == security savvy, which is quite a leap. Everyone has to start somewhere, and a knowledge of Windows is only partially relevant to Linux. Furthermore, there's no way of knowing what percent of users bother to learn any fundamentals of the OS or security beyond what they need to know in order to accomplish their goals.
Second, you're assuming that the lack of malware/exploits is due to said savvy rather than inherent characteristics of the OS and/or the lack of attempted attacks against said OS. I can claim my black box has a 100% success rate against penetration, but if nobody's trying to get in, it doesn't really matter. If your goal is to create a botnet, or install advertising/spyware, it doesn't make sense to pick a very small pool (i.e., Linux) unless 1) you're gauranteed to have a nearly perfect infection rate, or 2) those systems have a greater capacity to accomplish your goal. In the first case, even the most malicious of Windows worms probably doesn't achieve a >=50% infection rate, so nearly perfect success seems like an unreasonable expectation. If you can hit 5% of 90% of the market, or 5% of 5%, which do you attack? In the second case, you're probably looking at a specific system -- let's say a bank -- in which case you're only concerned with the vulnerabilities of that specific implementation anyway. If they're running Windows, then a Windows vulnerability might be one possible avenue of attack, but alternative avenues will exist regardless of what OS they're using.
Change the borders to any color you like, there are still a huge amount of computer users that shouldn't be computer users
By that logic, there are a huge amount of people who shouldn't be car or homeowners because they don't understand how their locks work. And yes, we all pay when cars get stolen and homes are burglarized, in the form of insurance premiums and/or increased police presence.
It's simply economically infeasible to create specific devices for word processing, spreadsheets, e-mail, web browsing, etc, and the only benefit would be that an exploit would be limited to a specific device, maybe, if no two devices shared the same vulnerability, and people never e-mailed their infected files, or posted them online, etc. Cross-platform infections are theoretically possible, and if necessary (by which I mean, if everyone was using different devices and an attacker had no other choice), they would probably become a reality. So we isolate systems when there is an economic incentive to do so, such as in-flight-entertainment and flight control systems, but when the benefits of interoperability and/or connectivity outweigh the risks, we integrate.
As far as licensing, there is reasonable grounds to require a drivers license because an unknowledgable user could cause grievous harm to person or property. It's so improbable that they could directly cause damage beyond their own system through ignorance that we can consider it impossible. An unknowledgable computer user could facilitate grevious harm by not securing their system (and having it used in an attack), but less so than having their car stolen which is later involved in a drive by. In any case, it's the offender who is to blame, not the person who happened to own a computer/car with poor protections. We could possibly legally mandate increased protections, but again, is the cost worth the benefit? Since it's impossible to write bug-free code, the answer is probably no. Likewise, licensing would not solve the problem of poor protections, which are arguably a greater threat than ignorant misuse/misconfiguration of a system.
If we place responsibility for protection with the user, then the onus lies with them rather than the attackers and/or manufacturers, which is generally the oppo
People use free OSes for the same reason they don't buy cars with the hoods welded shut.
People don't buy cars with the hoods welded shut because they don't sell them, which is totally irrelevant to what OS they use.
Anyway, a) most new cars are so complex that the hood might as well be welded shut as far as the owner is concerned, b) whether or not they can modify their car is not the primary consideration for most purchasers (hint: it's something you put drinks in), c) welding the hood shut would increase labor in the event that repairs had to be made, which would increase warranty costs, making those vehicles less competitive, and d) I suspect that, despite all of that, most people would still buy Corvettes even if the hood was welded shut. True, that's purely speculative, but no less than your absurd implication that manufacturers secretly desire to weld hoods shut.
Copyrights and patents, in other words, are an attempt at social engineering
I've been saying this for YEARS. I've seen far too many people completely owned by copyrights and patents. Remember folks: if a copyright or patent ever asks for your password, just say NO.
One should always obey the law, no matter how idiotic, obscene, corrupt and morally bankrupt, I presume?
If a law required you to sacrifice your firstborn, I would say no. However, a law requiring you to touch your nose as you exit your house in the morning would be idiotic, but should still be followed. Clearly there must exist a grey area between the two, and in that grey area, each man must decide for himself what is and is not acceptable. I would argue that if the law is not creating a clear and present danger for yourself or those around you, then it should be followed until such a time as it can be properly repealed, changed, or overturned.
While civil disobedience was at least partly responsible for changes in the 60s, the stakes were enormously higher. Human rights are a significantly more important issue than a quibble over the business method of the people who created Britney Spears. Moreover, the civil disobedience was so successful precisely because people were willing to accept the punishment for their actions in order to demonstrate how absurd the law was. If you're willing to go to jail in protest against copyright, then more power to you.
It's now just over a month that I have been in to win.
It's been exciting and challenging and fun all at the same time. The people I have met have been terrific.
And we decided day one that this campaign would live as much on the web as in the living rooms - and the opening of the blog is just another in the many web firsts in this campaign, following the unprecedented announcement and three straight nights of live video chats.
Translation: Only a month?
I hate this campaigning crap, but I have to stroke your egos to get the vote.
I'm hip, and "with it." In fact, *I* invented the internets. Did I mention I'm too cheap to pay for TV time? LOL!
The conspiracy freak in me thinks maybe it's supposed to look pedestrian in order to convince people that it's authentic and/or that she's down to earth. The cynic in me thinks maybe it's a testament to the reading level of the electorate. The rest of me thinks she cackles and calls people "my pretties" when nobody's looking.
#1. The "support" has to include ALL the hardware on the box.
Why wouldn't it?
#2. The boxes have to be the most popular boxes Dell sells already.
As far as I can tell, "our OptiPlex desktops, Latitude notebooks and Dell Precision workstations," means that will be the case. AFAIK, "corportate" machines are their most popular products.
#3. The price cannot be higher than the equivalent Windows box.
That's an unreasonable expectation. Since Linux is a niche market at this point, it doesn't enjoy any of the same economies of scale that Windows does, including installation, configuration, and support. That alone is enough for Linux to cost more. The gap widens further when you factor in the lack of "advertising" (in the form of pre-installed trial software).
That's just a ploy to "show" that "no one" really wants Linux on the desktop.
Nonsense. Dell has no financial incentive to spend money doing that when it could be accomplished just as easily by refusing to sell Linux at all. Businesses don't generally take steps to deliberately decrease profits (tax oddities and competition aside), and introducting a product expecting it to fail would be lunacy.
The problem is that many (but certianly not all) people are attracted to Linux because it's "free," but what they tend to ignore is all the time and effort they spend selecting, installing, configuring, and self-supporting a distribution and/or the associated hardware, by which I mean the Linux user is generally his own tech support. When someone else takes on those roles, the costs shift accordingly, and you pay for it in dollars rather than man hours. For some reason, seeing their man hours of work translated into $100-$200 is shocking, and people think "I'll just buy the Windows system and install Linux myself." What they need to realize that Linux is not "free as in beer," because there is no such thing.
jokes apart, [sic] will we be booting our cars up and installing flash updates every week to prevent computer viruses getting into the control systems?
Even if it weren't for the content 'protection,' what's the real point?...don't buy them. Tell your friends not to buy the, and spread the word.
The point is that they have more capacity. Sure, it's not a revolutionary change, but most changes are incremental, and the increment (or the culmination of successive increments) may be compelling enough for some people to upgrade. If it's not compelling for you, that's fine, but I'm not going to proselytize on your behalf. I refuse to pay $600 for a next-gen burner, but once prices hit the ~$200 mark, I'll probably buy.
The 'truth' that the xxAAs don't understand is that physical medium are on the way out.
We're all "on the way out" from the moment we're born, but most people don't give up until they're gone. There's a big difference between "on the way out" and "gone." Specifically (and I assume you're referring to distribution channels, because physical media themselves are here to stay), most people don't have access to broadband, and won't for some time, so it makes sense for them to stick with physical media. Of those who do, many connections are insufficient to transfer HD content in a reasonable timeframe and, moreover, there are no legitimate sources for such content. I am certainly in favor of online distribution, and it may or may not completely replace physical distribution at some point, but that change will be organic, and cannot be forced by simply "not buying" physical media, which would only prolong the transition to HD and/or stem the production of content due to perceived lack of demand.
In short, what makes sense for you doesn't necessarily make sense for everyone, so while it's fine to explain your perspective, it's unreasonable to talk in absolutes and expect everyone to share your position.
He wasn't trying to cheat, else he would have simply started the game rather than running up the counter, but even if he was trying to cheat, that argument is weak. Cheating == abusing the system.
You are correct that if it had not crashed there would be no damage, but crash it did. I might not intend to hit someone while swinging my arms wildly, and if I don't, no harm no foul, but if I DO, then I'm liable. Sure, it was minor damage with no lasting effects on the system, but it degraded the experience for 400 other paying customers, and THAT is actual damage, just like peeing in the soup. I'm not saying the guy should be locked up, or even prosecuted, and I certainly never advocated that he be shot. Your straw man arguments and resorts to profanity do you more discredit than I possibly could. I simply said that the airline banning him from further flights would be a reasonable response given the circumstances. The airline has the right to refuse service, and his actions seem like reasonable grounds to refuse service.
you can arrange things so that people don't have any motive to blow themselves up.
I think the situation is a little more complex than that. "Arranging things" so that one group has no motive will very likely give another group motive, especially in the fiercely diverse belief systems throughout the middle east.
Nonetheless, military strikes are clearly not the solution in most cases, except to combat another agressive military. Random acts of violence are crimes, not military offensives, and should be treated as such.
Slashdot Mirror
Indie bands have little to no chance of success based on the model used by the media megaliths.
Indie bands have little to no chance of success because there's a far greater supply of talented musicians than there is demand, in the form of hours in a day for most people to listen to them. It's as simple as that. You could argue that the established labels have an undue influence on public opinion, and there's probably some truth to that, but there will always be "little to no chance of success," no different from athletes, aspiring politicians, etc.
Just like >99.99% of people who can quote the atmospheric composition of Mars have never been there. Poseurs, all of them!
Not in the U.S. (select your country, upper right).
No, I just didn't want to use an example of a real law. You could replace my example with whatever other ambiguous activity or prohibition you chose. Sock-free Wednesdays. Carrying bags in the left hand. (That's actually a "law" for the military so they're always ready to salute). The reason to follow such laws, or rules, isn't for the sake of the rules, but because failing to do so has deleterious effects: First, it agitates people who DO follow the rules, which harms the efficiency of society by focusing too much attention on something which is probably unimportant. Second, when there exists a clear approach to changing the law, as in the specifically referenced democratic society, disregarding the law shows an utter lack of respect for the process of democracy. That lack of respect, whether real or perceived (although perception is reality for all practical purposes), is detrimental on many levels, not the least of which is because it lowers the credibility of the individual, which reduces his influence in actually affecting change. For example, the leaders of NORML generally abstain (or claim to abstain) from marijuana for this very reason.
Another point on civil disobedience is that it must be public, or have public consequences, in order to be purposeful or effective. Sitting in the front of the bus with the media in tow is effective. Doing the same on an empty bus, hoping the driver won't notice, is not. If you were to stand on the street corner handing out free DVDs, obviously making no commercial gain and putting yourself at risk in the process, that might be an effective protest of copyright law. Downloading content in private is not.
This means that this segment is typically very computer savvy and not likely to be pwned as a group.
I think your logic is a little off there.
First, you're assuming that wanting to use Linux == computer savvy == security savvy, which is quite a leap. Everyone has to start somewhere, and a knowledge of Windows is only partially relevant to Linux. Furthermore, there's no way of knowing what percent of users bother to learn any fundamentals of the OS or security beyond what they need to know in order to accomplish their goals.
Second, you're assuming that the lack of malware/exploits is due to said savvy rather than inherent characteristics of the OS and/or the lack of attempted attacks against said OS. I can claim my black box has a 100% success rate against penetration, but if nobody's trying to get in, it doesn't really matter. If your goal is to create a botnet, or install advertising/spyware, it doesn't make sense to pick a very small pool (i.e., Linux) unless 1) you're gauranteed to have a nearly perfect infection rate, or 2) those systems have a greater capacity to accomplish your goal. In the first case, even the most malicious of Windows worms probably doesn't achieve a >=50% infection rate, so nearly perfect success seems like an unreasonable expectation. If you can hit 5% of 90% of the market, or 5% of 5%, which do you attack? In the second case, you're probably looking at a specific system -- let's say a bank -- in which case you're only concerned with the vulnerabilities of that specific implementation anyway. If they're running Windows, then a Windows vulnerability might be one possible avenue of attack, but alternative avenues will exist regardless of what OS they're using.
Change the borders to any color you like, there are still a huge amount of computer users that shouldn't be computer users
By that logic, there are a huge amount of people who shouldn't be car or homeowners because they don't understand how their locks work. And yes, we all pay when cars get stolen and homes are burglarized, in the form of insurance premiums and/or increased police presence.
It's simply economically infeasible to create specific devices for word processing, spreadsheets, e-mail, web browsing, etc, and the only benefit would be that an exploit would be limited to a specific device, maybe, if no two devices shared the same vulnerability, and people never e-mailed their infected files, or posted them online, etc. Cross-platform infections are theoretically possible, and if necessary (by which I mean, if everyone was using different devices and an attacker had no other choice), they would probably become a reality. So we isolate systems when there is an economic incentive to do so, such as in-flight-entertainment and flight control systems, but when the benefits of interoperability and/or connectivity outweigh the risks, we integrate.
As far as licensing, there is reasonable grounds to require a drivers license because an unknowledgable user could cause grievous harm to person or property. It's so improbable that they could directly cause damage beyond their own system through ignorance that we can consider it impossible. An unknowledgable computer user could facilitate grevious harm by not securing their system (and having it used in an attack), but less so than having their car stolen which is later involved in a drive by. In any case, it's the offender who is to blame, not the person who happened to own a computer/car with poor protections. We could possibly legally mandate increased protections, but again, is the cost worth the benefit? Since it's impossible to write bug-free code, the answer is probably no. Likewise, licensing would not solve the problem of poor protections, which are arguably a greater threat than ignorant misuse/misconfiguration of a system.
If we place responsibility for protection with the user, then the onus lies with them rather than the attackers and/or manufacturers, which is generally the oppo
People use free OSes for the same reason they don't buy cars with the hoods welded shut.
People don't buy cars with the hoods welded shut because they don't sell them, which is totally irrelevant to what OS they use.
Anyway, a) most new cars are so complex that the hood might as well be welded shut as far as the owner is concerned, b) whether or not they can modify their car is not the primary consideration for most purchasers (hint: it's something you put drinks in), c) welding the hood shut would increase labor in the event that repairs had to be made, which would increase warranty costs, making those vehicles less competitive, and d) I suspect that, despite all of that, most people would still buy Corvettes even if the hood was welded shut. True, that's purely speculative, but no less than your absurd implication that manufacturers secretly desire to weld hoods shut.
Copyrights and patents, in other words, are an attempt at social engineering
I've been saying this for YEARS. I've seen far too many people completely owned by copyrights and patents. Remember folks: if a copyright or patent ever asks for your password, just say NO.
Specify the destination device, e.g. "Windows Media Player" or some other device that may or may not exist yet
Please select from the following format options:
XViD
MPEG-14
WMV-XD
TechniDepth 4D
iMplant
PhalseMemory
ASCII
Google Fights to the rescue. Looks like 4% to me.
One should always obey the law, no matter how idiotic, obscene, corrupt and morally bankrupt, I presume?
If a law required you to sacrifice your firstborn, I would say no. However, a law requiring you to touch your nose as you exit your house in the morning would be idiotic, but should still be followed. Clearly there must exist a grey area between the two, and in that grey area, each man must decide for himself what is and is not acceptable. I would argue that if the law is not creating a clear and present danger for yourself or those around you, then it should be followed until such a time as it can be properly repealed, changed, or overturned.
While civil disobedience was at least partly responsible for changes in the 60s, the stakes were enormously higher. Human rights are a significantly more important issue than a quibble over the business method of the people who created Britney Spears. Moreover, the civil disobedience was so successful precisely because people were willing to accept the punishment for their actions in order to demonstrate how absurd the law was. If you're willing to go to jail in protest against copyright, then more power to you.
And I'm not a big fan of all the snarky comments, myself.
Typical.
does anyone remember the hidden message in HTML of the Gore 2000 website?
No.
Translation: Only a month?
I hate this campaigning crap, but I have to stroke your egos to get the vote.
I'm hip, and "with it." In fact, *I* invented the internets. Did I mention I'm too cheap to pay for TV time? LOL!
The conspiracy freak in me thinks maybe it's supposed to look pedestrian in order to convince people that it's authentic and/or that she's down to earth. The cynic in me thinks maybe it's a testament to the reading level of the electorate. The rest of me thinks she cackles and calls people "my pretties" when nobody's looking.
#1. The "support" has to include ALL the hardware on the box.
Why wouldn't it?
#2. The boxes have to be the most popular boxes Dell sells already.
As far as I can tell, "our OptiPlex desktops, Latitude notebooks and Dell Precision workstations," means that will be the case. AFAIK, "corportate" machines are their most popular products.
#3. The price cannot be higher than the equivalent Windows box.
That's an unreasonable expectation. Since Linux is a niche market at this point, it doesn't enjoy any of the same economies of scale that Windows does, including installation, configuration, and support. That alone is enough for Linux to cost more. The gap widens further when you factor in the lack of "advertising" (in the form of pre-installed trial software).
That's just a ploy to "show" that "no one" really wants Linux on the desktop.
Nonsense. Dell has no financial incentive to spend money doing that when it could be accomplished just as easily by refusing to sell Linux at all. Businesses don't generally take steps to deliberately decrease profits (tax oddities and competition aside), and introducting a product expecting it to fail would be lunacy.
The problem is that many (but certianly not all) people are attracted to Linux because it's "free," but what they tend to ignore is all the time and effort they spend selecting, installing, configuring, and self-supporting a distribution and/or the associated hardware, by which I mean the Linux user is generally his own tech support. When someone else takes on those roles, the costs shift accordingly, and you pay for it in dollars rather than man hours. For some reason, seeing their man hours of work translated into $100-$200 is shocking, and people think "I'll just buy the Windows system and install Linux myself." What they need to realize that Linux is not "free as in beer," because there is no such thing.
function justice(vigilante)
{
justice(++vigilante);
}
The latter being punishable by death!
jokes apart, [sic] will we be booting our cars up and installing flash updates every week to prevent computer viruses getting into the control systems?
It's no joke.
And you wonder why we've been exploring Saturn recently.
That's no moon, it's a space station!
Even if it weren't for the content 'protection,' what's the real point? ...don't buy them. Tell your friends not to buy the, and spread the word.
The point is that they have more capacity. Sure, it's not a revolutionary change, but most changes are incremental, and the increment (or the culmination of successive increments) may be compelling enough for some people to upgrade. If it's not compelling for you, that's fine, but I'm not going to proselytize on your behalf. I refuse to pay $600 for a next-gen burner, but once prices hit the ~$200 mark, I'll probably buy.
The 'truth' that the xxAAs don't understand is that physical medium are on the way out.
We're all "on the way out" from the moment we're born, but most people don't give up until they're gone. There's a big difference between "on the way out" and "gone." Specifically (and I assume you're referring to distribution channels, because physical media themselves are here to stay), most people don't have access to broadband, and won't for some time, so it makes sense for them to stick with physical media. Of those who do, many connections are insufficient to transfer HD content in a reasonable timeframe and, moreover, there are no legitimate sources for such content. I am certainly in favor of online distribution, and it may or may not completely replace physical distribution at some point, but that change will be organic, and cannot be forced by simply "not buying" physical media, which would only prolong the transition to HD and/or stem the production of content due to perceived lack of demand.
In short, what makes sense for you doesn't necessarily make sense for everyone, so while it's fine to explain your perspective, it's unreasonable to talk in absolutes and expect everyone to share your position.
an Intel Core Duo 2?
That is obscure..
Always read the fine print, contained in the period after "taxes," in this case. I've copied the text below, for the lazy.
[so I can route their returns into my offshore account]
Perhaps, but when you avoid missionary, others don't have to make up for it.
(Although I may be willing to assist in this matter on a case by case basis.)
Does nothing for strings
ahhiiinnoooprrssssttt
He wasn't trying to cheat, else he would have simply started the game rather than running up the counter, but even if he was trying to cheat, that argument is weak. Cheating == abusing the system.
You are correct that if it had not crashed there would be no damage, but crash it did. I might not intend to hit someone while swinging my arms wildly, and if I don't, no harm no foul, but if I DO, then I'm liable. Sure, it was minor damage with no lasting effects on the system, but it degraded the experience for 400 other paying customers, and THAT is actual damage, just like peeing in the soup. I'm not saying the guy should be locked up, or even prosecuted, and I certainly never advocated that he be shot. Your straw man arguments and resorts to profanity do you more discredit than I possibly could. I simply said that the airline banning him from further flights would be a reasonable response given the circumstances. The airline has the right to refuse service, and his actions seem like reasonable grounds to refuse service.
Good day.
you can arrange things so that people don't have any motive to blow themselves up.
I think the situation is a little more complex than that. "Arranging things" so that one group has no motive will very likely give another group motive, especially in the fiercely diverse belief systems throughout the middle east.
Nonetheless, military strikes are clearly not the solution in most cases, except to combat another agressive military. Random acts of violence are crimes, not military offensives, and should be treated as such.