"But realising an idea is hard. You need to buy tools and possibly raw materials to do it with. And those tools and raw materials are expensive, because they sell to people who are already established in the IP industry and can afford high prices. Not only that, but you may not be able to get them, because you can't prove you aren't just going to use them to copy other people's material. To prove that you need a reputation, which you can never get because you can't get started without the tools."
This whole circular argument sounds exactly like the common problems entry-level people out of college (like myself) have finding jobs. People can see your skill, but don't necessarily want to hire you because you don't have experience. You can't get experience without being hired by *someone*. It's a vicious circle that needs to be defeated by a company or individual giving you a shot (which, fortunately for me, has happened).
This has been going on for years, though, and some would argue that it's an integral catch-22 of the current corporate market. Unless mommy and daddy have relations within the company you're going to apply for, chances are you won't be hired even if you have skills.
Same for IP. All of these things match your paragraph on IP, yet people still manage to break through. Example (and a bit of a poor one): South Park. The original idea of South Park came from two guys who decided to create something totally original. When selling wasn't feasible, they gave the first video tapes away. Gradually, the intellectual property went from free to owned. No one would have argued that Trey Parker and Matt Stone don't deserve some kind of payment for their actions.
And yet, they didn't have the financial backing, the advertising knowledge, or even many connections in the industry. They just had their IP.
"Intellectual "property" isn't scarce, so the same rules CANNOT apply exactly."
It is not scarce? So you're telling me that everyone thinks and creates on the same level of intelligence. Genius-level, creative, emotional and lax brains all work at the same speed, to the same quality, and therefore there is no scarcity between qualities of thought. That's bullshit. There's a reason why some people are artists, scientists, writers and others aren't: it's because they possess a level of intelligence others don't have, and therefore is SCARCE.
Considering I'm posting this on a Microsoft OS, with a Microsoft browser, and I didn't really touch computers too much until DOS made easy computing ubiquitous, I would have to argue that closed software *did* help me post this to Slashdot.
Sure. I'm all for IP. I think being able to own ideas is a *good* thing. I think that people against it are primarily doing so because they themselves don't know how to make money. I think the capitalist society we live in today (along with IP) led to the technological growth that allows me to post my voice on this board, this very second. I think most "free" people on Slashdot are quacks, because if it really came down to it, they couldn't use their free software argument for everything else they purchase... and sell... in life. Thus, they are hypocrits.
I doubt this is what the editor had in mind when he put up the dept. heading, but hey.
Mr. Katz is not a luminary, nor a movie conduit. He is not a nationally-read critic or in touch with the media's big wigs. He's just a normal guy, like you and me, who wished to express his opinion about something.
Apparently, you don't like that. For some reason or another, your ego prevents you from allowing another person equal to yourself in the realm of critiquing, a chance to have a review on the front page. Perhaps it's a size-related issue.
The fact remains, however, that Katz-bashing is not only past-tense, but also an extremely childish Slashdot-affair. It's like beating up on someone who doesn't care (or is too intelligent) to bother fighting back. Just because YOU don't have your opinions on the front page, doesn't mean you have to go against his.
And the fact still remains, as always, that you can turn his reviews off. Simply going into your preferences will suffice.
Mr. L, please re-evaluate YOURSELF immediately. You need to mature a great deal.
In the tech world (as in all capitalism-based industries) there is a very basic solution if a piece of software no longer manages your "criteria" for acceptable. If an OS decided to upgrade itself, and *didn't* give me the option to turn it off (which, as I stated before, XP does), I wouldn't buy it. Simple solution to a simple problem.
Re:Best RTS ever in my not so humble opinion...
on
HIstory of RTS Games
·
· Score: 2
Total Annihilation was fun in a "make a million units and throw them at your enemy" kind of way (Red Alert and Red Alert 2 were the kings of this subgenre of the genre.
However, I don't think any game has kept me more engrossed than StarCraft. Way over WarCraft I and II. I was so pissed when Blizzard decided to make a third game of that when one of their most well-liked games has had players clammoring for a sequel. I'll be like every other shmuck who buys it, though - when it lowers to a reasonable price.:) You hearing Civ III?
If there was ever an OS that refused to allow me to control network traffic, yes, we would switch to something else. No one's done that yet, and quite frankly I don't think any software maker would (corporations like to keep close tabs on their workstation's configurations - lose that and we'll stop buying).
I set up all of my users to download the Group Policy setting "Don't automatically download" from my 2000 server. This, alone, should prevent them from upgrading patches I don't want them to.
I then check the traffic on the firewall to see if any are trying to go out on the Windows Update port. So how is Windows going to suddenly "magically" change its settings to automatically download the software? Going to some rogue IP that I know nothing about? This is foolish X-file stuff!
There *are* alternatives to automatic downloads, but you don't have to go to free software, or necessarily and other OS, to have them. All you have to do is make sure your users (and yourself) don't make negative decisions, than enforce it by checking your network traffic. So far, from several months of traffic, I have seen NOTHING on the port (and no calls to Microsoft sites on the DNS outside of www.microsoft.com and www.msn.com).
I can't believe this drivel even made it onto Slashdot. This paragraph (and the paragraphs around it, which the article is clearly not referencing for shock value) talk about a feature that has to be *turned on* to be used. In fact, the OS asks you early on if you even want to enable Automatic Updating, and IT administrators (like myself) can easily turn it off on a whole host of machines simply by using Group Policy: remove the option to automatically update.
This is a tech "shock" article, designed to get zealots in an uproar, and it should not even be bothered to be read.
Any user who's new to a system will complain about difficulty.
I personally have never had any issues with InstallShield. And for someone who apparently "hasn't been on Windows in 3 years", how can you form an accurate opinion on it. That's like me commenting on Apache, which I last used 3 years ago, as "slow".
Further, I submit to you that any user without a CS degree is going to have a far easier time double-clicking a self-extracting installer, walking through a few dialog boxes, and (in a worst case scenario) dealing with an error message that says need to install the original program before upgrading; than working with a command-line interface, figuring out how to solve dependancies for source files (when, in reality, the designer should have just provided binaries for his popular Linux distro to begin with).
You've obviously had little to no experience in the user-friendly world.
If you're going to tell me that a tarball beats an InstallShield, self-extracting exe that my grandmother can double-click to open and have automatically install pre-created binaries for her, you're sadly mistaken.
You think the movie companies, as rich as they are, are going to try to ruffle the feathers of Blockbuster (owned by Viacom, a multibillion dollar company) over the issue of $2 a disc? And lose all their promotional tie-ins? You're sadly mistaken.
Break a Furby apart to learn its internal electronics (and try to reprogram its main chip to speak curse words) = A hacking "experiment" with "great knowledge" learned by the experimenter.
Creating an invulnerable firewall that only needs to be configured once and will forever be secure = A "game".
Good points. I was going to argue this myself. To me, in the rental world, this simply doesn't seem economically practical. While DVDs are more fragile than tapes, they can still take a lot of abuse (changing hands at a rental store over 100 times is not unheard of) and still be sold as previewed. Blockbuster will have to buy "disposable" DVDs regularly, and they will probably cost just as much (if not more) than the $60-80 price of rental tapes in the long run.
Slashdot Mirror
As evidenced by your post?
This whole circular argument sounds exactly like the common problems entry-level people out of college (like myself) have finding jobs. People can see your skill, but don't necessarily want to hire you because you don't have experience. You can't get experience without being hired by *someone*. It's a vicious circle that needs to be defeated by a company or individual giving you a shot (which, fortunately for me, has happened).
This has been going on for years, though, and some would argue that it's an integral catch-22 of the current corporate market. Unless mommy and daddy have relations within the company you're going to apply for, chances are you won't be hired even if you have skills.
Same for IP. All of these things match your paragraph on IP, yet people still manage to break through. Example (and a bit of a poor one): South Park. The original idea of South Park came from two guys who decided to create something totally original. When selling wasn't feasible, they gave the first video tapes away. Gradually, the intellectual property went from free to owned. No one would have argued that Trey Parker and Matt Stone don't deserve some kind of payment for their actions.
And yet, they didn't have the financial backing, the advertising knowledge, or even many connections in the industry. They just had their IP.
It is not scarce? So you're telling me that everyone thinks and creates on the same level of intelligence. Genius-level, creative, emotional and lax brains all work at the same speed, to the same quality, and therefore there is no scarcity between qualities of thought. That's bullshit. There's a reason why some people are artists, scientists, writers and others aren't: it's because they possess a level of intelligence others don't have, and therefore is SCARCE.
Considering I'm posting this on a Microsoft OS, with a Microsoft browser, and I didn't really touch computers too much until DOS made easy computing ubiquitous, I would have to argue that closed software *did* help me post this to Slashdot.
Sure. I'm all for IP. I think being able to own ideas is a *good* thing. I think that people against it are primarily doing so because they themselves don't know how to make money. I think the capitalist society we live in today (along with IP) led to the technological growth that allows me to post my voice on this board, this very second. I think most "free" people on Slashdot are quacks, because if it really came down to it, they couldn't use their free software argument for everything else they purchase... and sell... in life. Thus, they are hypocrits.
I doubt this is what the editor had in mind when he put up the dept. heading, but hey.
Mr. Katz is not a luminary, nor a movie conduit. He is not a nationally-read critic or in touch with the media's big wigs. He's just a normal guy, like you and me, who wished to express his opinion about something.
Apparently, you don't like that. For some reason or another, your ego prevents you from allowing another person equal to yourself in the realm of critiquing, a chance to have a review on the front page. Perhaps it's a size-related issue.
The fact remains, however, that Katz-bashing is not only past-tense, but also an extremely childish Slashdot-affair. It's like beating up on someone who doesn't care (or is too intelligent) to bother fighting back. Just because YOU don't have your opinions on the front page, doesn't mean you have to go against his.
And the fact still remains, as always, that you can turn his reviews off. Simply going into your preferences will suffice.
Mr. L, please re-evaluate YOURSELF immediately. You need to mature a great deal.
Regards,
SC
In the tech world (as in all capitalism-based industries) there is a very basic solution if a piece of software no longer manages your "criteria" for acceptable. If an OS decided to upgrade itself, and *didn't* give me the option to turn it off (which, as I stated before, XP does), I wouldn't buy it. Simple solution to a simple problem.
However, I don't think any game has kept me more engrossed than StarCraft. Way over WarCraft I and II. I was so pissed when Blizzard decided to make a third game of that when one of their most well-liked games has had players clammoring for a sequel. I'll be like every other shmuck who buys it, though - when it lowers to a reasonable price. :) You hearing Civ III?
If there was ever an OS that refused to allow me to control network traffic, yes, we would switch to something else. No one's done that yet, and quite frankly I don't think any software maker would (corporations like to keep close tabs on their workstation's configurations - lose that and we'll stop buying).
I set up all of my users to download the Group Policy setting "Don't automatically download" from my 2000 server. This, alone, should prevent them from upgrading patches I don't want them to.
I then check the traffic on the firewall to see if any are trying to go out on the Windows Update port. So how is Windows going to suddenly "magically" change its settings to automatically download the software? Going to some rogue IP that I know nothing about? This is foolish X-file stuff!
There *are* alternatives to automatic downloads, but you don't have to go to free software, or necessarily and other OS, to have them. All you have to do is make sure your users (and yourself) don't make negative decisions, than enforce it by checking your network traffic. So far, from several months of traffic, I have seen NOTHING on the port (and no calls to Microsoft sites on the DNS outside of www.microsoft.com and www.msn.com).
This is a tech "shock" article, designed to get zealots in an uproar, and it should not even be bothered to be read.
This is, quite possibly, the most idiotic comment I've ever read on Slashdot. Congratulations.
Oh, sorry, I was in my role-playing mode.
Naturally he assumes just because someone likes simplicity he's a "kid". Good call.
I personally have never had any issues with InstallShield. And for someone who apparently "hasn't been on Windows in 3 years", how can you form an accurate opinion on it. That's like me commenting on Apache, which I last used 3 years ago, as "slow".
Further, I submit to you that any user without a CS degree is going to have a far easier time double-clicking a self-extracting installer, walking through a few dialog boxes, and (in a worst case scenario) dealing with an error message that says need to install the original program before upgrading; than working with a command-line interface, figuring out how to solve dependancies for source files (when, in reality, the designer should have just provided binaries for his popular Linux distro to begin with).
You've obviously had little to no experience in the user-friendly world.
If you're going to tell me that a tarball beats an InstallShield, self-extracting exe that my grandmother can double-click to open and have automatically install pre-created binaries for her, you're sadly mistaken.
You think the movie companies, as rich as they are, are going to try to ruffle the feathers of Blockbuster (owned by Viacom, a multibillion dollar company) over the issue of $2 a disc? And lose all their promotional tie-ins? You're sadly mistaken.
Creating an invulnerable firewall that only needs to be configured once and will forever be secure = A "game".
?
Good points. I was going to argue this myself. To me, in the rental world, this simply doesn't seem economically practical. While DVDs are more fragile than tapes, they can still take a lot of abuse (changing hands at a rental store over 100 times is not unheard of) and still be sold as previewed. Blockbuster will have to buy "disposable" DVDs regularly, and they will probably cost just as much (if not more) than the $60-80 price of rental tapes in the long run.
10 bucks said it was a Slashdot editor's mod. It was +3 funny for a while.
Pepe: "Thank you papa Homer."
I totally agree. You tell someone that Microsoft (or any tech company) is good, bad or indifferent and they usually say "Why?"
Why does it have to be "came from Microsoft". There must be some Windows lovers out there. Anyone?
Are you kidding me? I've been trying to get my computer to print for over a week. Stupid lpr.
And, likewise, I'm free to express myself about your above post: you're an idiot.