Do leather seats make the mercedes drive any better? Wood panels? These things have nothing to do with the drivetrain, and everything to do with the *ride*. Can't have a ride without a drivetrain, sure, but people are buying the ride.
Actually blender is taught along with flash as a GE course for lower division non-majors at my school. People seem to be able to learn to use it OK.
On a totally different topic, one of my own rants, if you are getting a minor in Art, then not understanding transforms is understandable. A young friend of mine is getting her BS in Art, and took an Art class on the physics of light. She came over to discuss wave particle duality. I was amazed, but she said, "well I'm an art major, how can I not learn about something as important as light." I gained some respect, there.
If you don't ever learn the real (math) terms for the tools that you use, its just magic. You might trial and error your way to something that looks good, but I doubt you know what you are doing. I don't think you have to learn the math, or the proofs, but at least the concepts should mean something to you.
Oh and don't upgrade your ram and hard drive and video card, or you won't be able to prove that you own a license to use WinXP on that computer, because you don't.
Actually firefox has evolved from netscape. Netscape kicked IE's butt for the longest time. You actually have your history inverted, in terms of who played catchup. IE is only now about to catchup with firefox in terms of usability. If you consider the easy extension system firefox has, and include the extensions available, then IE still has a long way to go to catch up. But this doesn't matter, because in terms of market share, better doesn't matter. What matters is what is preinstalled.
Its hard to install, but Windows isn't easy to install, either. Once it is running, linux is easier to install new software.
In terms of applications, I think there are tons more apps available for linux than windows, but the windows apps have marketing budgets and advertise.
This last makes me think you are a troll. It is because of its looks that people ask about it. I've had art majors end up installing linux because of the themes available. Can they compile a tarball? Hell no, they don't know what one is. They just bring up the "Add Software" and click on what they want, and it automagicly installs. They can surf the internet, read email, install software, and look good doing it.
Yeah the bitch of it is that the install you ran is actually for Netscape. If you've got netscape installed, surprise surprise, flash now works. I had to sym link to get it to work. This isn't the fault of linux, though, you should blame Adobe's installer for fucking you up. Why the *hell* can't they get this right? Obviously, they just don't care.
I'd be surprised it if wasn't just a matter of clicking the Start Menu, then Mutltimedia, then Sound, then choosing from 5 or 7 players that all work. Most distros install many apps for the basic things. Even so, it would take you less than 20 minutes to install that many if you are running a Debian based flavor of linux.
Show them in front of Synaptic, and just let them select what they want from topic menus and click on the choices. Dependencies automagicly taken care of...no problem. Easier than inserting a CD, even. Software installation is actually one area where my flavor of linux kicks ass over windows.
Agreed that MS Windows help has really gone downhill. It is pretty, but almost impossible to find what you need. Likewise, KDE help has come a long way. The diversity of linux makes the help system harder, though, because KDE help may not get you to what you need in a mixed system. More cross fertilization is an answer, and it seems to be happening.
The organic nature of linux growth is actually a strength, not a weakness. It grows in all directions at once, so while some will fail, it always has also gone the right way. This is part of the reason it moves so much faster. The diversity is also a blessing in terms of robustness. Ask in bio major type, which ecosystem is more robust: one with 10 species or one with 10,000. Ask him to explain why one is more resistant to extinction.
This is where debian based systems kick ass. You want to install something? Open the graphical "Install New Software", and then click on what you want. You can search rather than use the topic lists. You need to install some dependencies? It shows you a list of them, and asks if it should proceed. Then it installs, and it works. Very sweet. The fact that its all Free is a bonus, and the fact that its all free is too:-)
Insightful? Would it be insightful to suggest that grandma won't be able to surf the internet on WinXP because she doesn't "get" visual studio? She can't write a letter because she won't be able to understand c++? My god but the moderators are on crack today...
I certainly have friends who run linux who've never opened a terminal, nor seen a config script. They wouldn't even know that they didn't know. They just surf, and email, and write papers. It just works. No big deal.
Windows won, yes, but I think it has less to do with how well it did anything, and more to do with the balls to the wall, laws be damned, dirty & illegal tactics that they got away with.
Well but notice in the article they quoted polls that indicated that most people were ripping MP3s from their CDs for portable players, and also that most of them thought what they were doing was legal. I suggest that people are pretty good at pattern recognition. People look at things, and see what they are similar to, and we tend to make pretty good guesses. However, most people seem to be looking at this, and seeing what the law is probably going to say, based on their life experiences, and guessing wrong. This is because in this instance the law is so counter intuitive that it is probably the law that is backasswards, and not most people.
"They mean you should be able to keep people from using or sharing your ideas once you've willingly divulged them, and that is dependent on government, because you have no ability on your own to prevent other people from sharing information with each other."
Agreed. The real question is whether said prevention is ethical. You give up freedoms to merge with society in order to gain more than you gave up. So long as the synergy works, the system is a good one. Do we *really* gain more in the long run by bullying people into giving up their natural right to copy a CD, in order to sustain the artifical pseudo-property right that is IP?
Let me be honest and say that I don't know. The thing is that until the question is firmly framed in such a fundamental context, there can't be answers. I insist on framing my questions as I do in hopes that people much smarter (and with research grants) will be intrigued enough to try to answer the real question.
What I find frustrating is people who assume that IP is a natural right. If black is white, and war is peace, then you can't even begin to debate let alone try to make an arguement.
And this is exactly my conflict with your point of view: "How can anyone possibly think this is the case? Clearly you don't have the right to redistribute the music, including (I think?) public performaces, amongst other things."
The way our legal system is currently configured, you are correct that such redistribution would lead to problems and even serious trouble for you. But it is the "How can anyone possibly think" (otherwise) that truely troubles me. You seem to assume that copyright is a natural right. It isn't. It is a virtual right that was created for a purpose. People agreed to *pretend* there was such a thing, and to *act* as though there was such a thing, and now the King has been naked for so long people are actually seeing clothes on the naked royal frame. The real question is this: whatever would give someone the *right* to stop you from copying? Don't quote me law, defend the ethics behind the law. Slavery was legal, but that didn't mean people had the *right* to own other people as property.
"How does that make sense? If I've written and recorded a song, are you entitled to my recording?"
Of course not. To take your recording from you would be theft. However, to copy your recording is a different matter. The question becomes, what right do you have to say what someone does with the CD after you've released it? Why should you be able to say, "I'll sell you this object, but only if you agree to use it the way I would want to see it used." Notice also that there is a difference between your saying something, and having any ethcial basis for enforcing it. I certainly think you should be able to request that people not make copies. I don't think people should have to abide by your request.
"How does that make sense? If I've written and recorded a song, are you entitled to my recording?"
Actually, I would suggest that it was not I who devalued one for the other. Rather, it was an attempt to apply general principles towards the application of a system of ethics to a particular question. The result would, I agree, be a market adjustment away from artifically created value (based on artifical scarcity) and toward real value. Who wants to compete on real value, though, when artifical scarcity can milk a few more $$$ from the milch cows?
Is brit spears gonna make a ton of money covering the song? You mean by touring? Seems like whoever tours the most (and can draw a crowd) is going to make the money. Which means that in every little town, there could be a live band doing their version of b. spears latest hit, free to earn what the market will pay them to perform. Suddenly what is being rewarded is the making of music, rather than the control of the distribution of the music. And yes, by "making" music, I mean performance.
Doesn't songwriting (or other artistic creation) have some value?
I think so, yes. Can that value be monitized? In an ethical manner? Not easily. Does an original Van Gogh have more market value than a high quality print? Of course it does. But in terms of Art rather than Finance, don't the two have equal aesthetic features? If we are talking about beauty, and the creation of its awareness in the minds of our fellow man, then why is there even a discussion? It is because we aren't talking about art, or beauty, but rather money. The value of one system doesn't necessarily translate over to the values of the other.
Funny how far I can agree with you, right up to the conclusion.
Intellectual property is the only form of property that is *not* dependent on government. That is, I only own my house because I have a government document that says it's mine.
Yep, I can see that.
Nobody, however, can take my ideas from me unless I willingly part with them.
Yep, I can see that.
However, once you willingly part with them, are they not a part of something other than yourself? Else, what does "part" mean? It is exactly this jump you make to monitizing your ideas where the conflict is located.
What you want to suggest, it seems, is that by expressing your ideas you have placed a constraint on what other people can then admit they are thinking. This is where we disagree. So long as your ideas are in your head they are *yours* and yours alone. So long as you keep them there. Once you tell someone, the idea is in both heads. Whose idea is it then? That you had the idea first doesn't mean that the other person doesn't have the idea, too, now. Yet they didn't deprive you of the idea, it isn't like stealing physical property. This is the difference.
You assume your conclusion. Notice that logical there is no difference to my stating, "but if I go out and dig holes in my backyard for 2 years, I've done *work* and its work I haven't been paid for." I could go on to say, "if you want me to stand behind this cash register and sell fries, you've got to pay for what made me what I am today, the digging of those holes." Wouldn't go very far, would it?
I think the post was suggesting that inherent to property rights should be the right to use the property you've purchased however you see fit. Thus, buying a CD should give you the right to rip it to your hard drive, and your iPod. This makes sense to me, since there is no redistribution involved.
You raise a different question. You have written a song. You like to think it is therefor "your song" in a similar fashion to owning the pants you bought at the store. I think that you do have rights as the creator. You should be able to say, "I did this", and defend yourself against others who would claim credit. However, it seems unfair to me for you to have any rights to stop someone who hears you sing your song to not also sing that same song, or modify it and sing their version of your song. If I took your pants from you, you couldn't wear them. If I sing your song, you can still sing your song. That is an inherent difference. I agree that no one should be able to force you to sing your song, that is up to you. But once you give in to the urge to let it loose, at least in my mind, in the system of ethics that makes the most sense to me, you've let it loose. You don't own the air. You don't own the soundwaves propagating from your lips, even though you created them. You certainly don't own the memories of people who heard you.
Of course, I could be wrong. I'm certainly a heretic by modern standards.
Agreed, with just this one exception. We need rule of law, in terms of a constitution, to safeguard the rights of individuals from the majority. If it were voted upon, and a law passed that all left-handed (or otherwise miniority defining, arbitrary criteria) were to have their property seized and redistributed for the betterment of right-handed people, that should be prevented even if the majority would benefit and strive to steal from the left-handed people. Now where it gets really interesting is progressive taxation.
But (at least our) inalienable rights were "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". Note that this is a modification of Locke's "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Property". Therefor, in the historical beginnings of the USA, property rights were excluded for the inclusion of pursuit of happiness. Of course, this is Britian we are talking about, so Pursuit of Property would (perhaps?) be a fundamental right; unlike here, where all these "damn hippies" keep pursuing happiness.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Do leather seats make the mercedes drive any better? Wood panels? These things have nothing to do with the drivetrain, and everything to do with the *ride*. Can't have a ride without a drivetrain, sure, but people are buying the ride.
Actually blender is taught along with flash as a GE course for lower division non-majors at my school. People seem to be able to learn to use it OK.
On a totally different topic, one of my own rants, if you are getting a minor in Art, then not understanding transforms is understandable. A young friend of mine is getting her BS in Art, and took an Art class on the physics of light. She came over to discuss wave particle duality. I was amazed, but she said, "well I'm an art major, how can I not learn about something as important as light." I gained some respect, there.
If you don't ever learn the real (math) terms for the tools that you use, its just magic. You might trial and error your way to something that looks good, but I doubt you know what you are doing. I don't think you have to learn the math, or the proofs, but at least the concepts should mean something to you.
Oh and don't upgrade your ram and hard drive and video card, or you won't be able to prove that you own a license to use WinXP on that computer, because you don't .
Actually firefox has evolved from netscape. Netscape kicked IE's butt for the longest time. You actually have your history inverted, in terms of who played catchup. IE is only now about to catchup with firefox in terms of usability. If you consider the easy extension system firefox has, and include the extensions available, then IE still has a long way to go to catch up. But this doesn't matter, because in terms of market share, better doesn't matter. What matters is what is preinstalled.
Its hard to install, but Windows isn't easy to install, either. Once it is running, linux is easier to install new software.
In terms of applications, I think there are tons more apps available for linux than windows, but the windows apps have marketing budgets and advertise.
This last makes me think you are a troll. It is because of its looks that people ask about it. I've had art majors end up installing linux because of the themes available. Can they compile a tarball? Hell no, they don't know what one is. They just bring up the "Add Software" and click on what they want, and it automagicly installs. They can surf the internet, read email, install software, and look good doing it.
Yeah the bitch of it is that the install you ran is actually for Netscape. If you've got netscape installed, surprise surprise, flash now works. I had to sym link to get it to work. This isn't the fault of linux, though, you should blame Adobe's installer for fucking you up. Why the *hell* can't they get this right? Obviously, they just don't care.
This is just about the clearest, sanest description of user friendliness I've seen. Thank you.
I'd be surprised it if wasn't just a matter of clicking the Start Menu, then Mutltimedia, then Sound, then choosing from 5 or 7 players that all work. Most distros install many apps for the basic things. Even so, it would take you less than 20 minutes to install that many if you are running a Debian based flavor of linux.
Show them in front of Synaptic, and just let them select what they want from topic menus and click on the choices. Dependencies automagicly taken care of...no problem. Easier than inserting a CD, even. Software installation is actually one area where my flavor of linux kicks ass over windows.
Agreed that MS Windows help has really gone downhill. It is pretty, but almost impossible to find what you need. Likewise, KDE help has come a long way. The diversity of linux makes the help system harder, though, because KDE help may not get you to what you need in a mixed system. More cross fertilization is an answer, and it seems to be happening.
The organic nature of linux growth is actually a strength, not a weakness. It grows in all directions at once, so while some will fail, it always has also gone the right way. This is part of the reason it moves so much faster. The diversity is also a blessing in terms of robustness. Ask in bio major type, which ecosystem is more robust: one with 10 species or one with 10,000. Ask him to explain why one is more resistant to extinction.
This is where debian based systems kick ass. You want to install something? Open the graphical "Install New Software", and then click on what you want. You can search rather than use the topic lists. You need to install some dependencies? It shows you a list of them, and asks if it should proceed. Then it installs, and it works. Very sweet. The fact that its all Free is a bonus, and the fact that its all free is too :-)
Insightful? Would it be insightful to suggest that grandma won't be able to surf the internet on WinXP because she doesn't "get" visual studio? She can't write a letter because she won't be able to understand c++? My god but the moderators are on crack today...
I certainly have friends who run linux who've never opened a terminal, nor seen a config script. They wouldn't even know that they didn't know. They just surf, and email, and write papers. It just works. No big deal.
Windows won, yes, but I think it has less to do with how well it did anything, and more to do with the balls to the wall, laws be damned, dirty & illegal tactics that they got away with.
Interesting idea. It would certainly allow you to literally see at a glance the layout.
One comment: paper is linear, and hyperlinks have moved us somewhat beyond that already.
Well but notice in the article they quoted polls that indicated that most people were ripping MP3s from their CDs for portable players, and also that most of them thought what they were doing was legal. I suggest that people are pretty good at pattern recognition. People look at things, and see what they are similar to, and we tend to make pretty good guesses. However, most people seem to be looking at this, and seeing what the law is probably going to say, based on their life experiences, and guessing wrong. This is because in this instance the law is so counter intuitive that it is probably the law that is backasswards, and not most people.
________rev_____growth___market share
World_$12.29B___0.006___100.00%
Sun____$1.59B___0.155____12.94%
IBM____$3.42B__-0.022____27.83%
HP_____$3.4B___-0.017____27.66%
Dell___$1.27B__-0.013____10.33%
Rest___$2.61B____________21.24%
"They mean you should be able to keep people from using or sharing your ideas once you've willingly divulged them, and that is dependent on government, because you have no ability on your own to prevent other people from sharing information with each other."
Agreed. The real question is whether said prevention is ethical. You give up freedoms to merge with society in order to gain more than you gave up. So long as the synergy works, the system is a good one. Do we *really* gain more in the long run by bullying people into giving up their natural right to copy a CD, in order to sustain the artifical pseudo-property right that is IP?
Let me be honest and say that I don't know. The thing is that until the question is firmly framed in such a fundamental context, there can't be answers. I insist on framing my questions as I do in hopes that people much smarter (and with research grants) will be intrigued enough to try to answer the real question.
What I find frustrating is people who assume that IP is a natural right. If black is white, and war is peace, then you can't even begin to debate let alone try to make an arguement.
And this is exactly my conflict with your point of view: "How can anyone possibly think this is the case? Clearly you don't have the right to redistribute the music, including (I think?) public performaces, amongst other things."
The way our legal system is currently configured, you are correct that such redistribution would lead to problems and even serious trouble for you. But it is the "How can anyone possibly think" (otherwise) that truely troubles me. You seem to assume that copyright is a natural right. It isn't. It is a virtual right that was created for a purpose. People agreed to *pretend* there was such a thing, and to *act* as though there was such a thing, and now the King has been naked for so long people are actually seeing clothes on the naked royal frame. The real question is this: whatever would give someone the *right* to stop you from copying? Don't quote me law, defend the ethics behind the law. Slavery was legal, but that didn't mean people had the *right* to own other people as property.
"How does that make sense? If I've written and recorded a song, are you entitled to my recording?"
Of course not. To take your recording from you would be theft. However, to copy your recording is a different matter. The question becomes, what right do you have to say what someone does with the CD after you've released it? Why should you be able to say, "I'll sell you this object, but only if you agree to use it the way I would want to see it used." Notice also that there is a difference between your saying something, and having any ethcial basis for enforcing it. I certainly think you should be able to request that people not make copies. I don't think people should have to abide by your request.
"How does that make sense? If I've written and recorded a song, are you entitled to my recording?"
Actually, I would suggest that it was not I who devalued one for the other. Rather, it was an attempt to apply general principles towards the application of a system of ethics to a particular question. The result would, I agree, be a market adjustment away from artifically created value (based on artifical scarcity) and toward real value. Who wants to compete on real value, though, when artifical scarcity can milk a few more $$$ from the milch cows?
Is brit spears gonna make a ton of money covering the song? You mean by touring? Seems like whoever tours the most (and can draw a crowd) is going to make the money. Which means that in every little town, there could be a live band doing their version of b. spears latest hit, free to earn what the market will pay them to perform. Suddenly what is being rewarded is the making of music, rather than the control of the distribution of the music. And yes, by "making" music, I mean performance.
Doesn't songwriting (or other artistic creation) have some value?
I think so, yes. Can that value be monitized? In an ethical manner? Not easily. Does an original Van Gogh have more market value than a high quality print? Of course it does. But in terms of Art rather than Finance, don't the two have equal aesthetic features? If we are talking about beauty, and the creation of its awareness in the minds of our fellow man, then why is there even a discussion? It is because we aren't talking about art, or beauty, but rather money. The value of one system doesn't necessarily translate over to the values of the other.
Funny how far I can agree with you, right up to the conclusion.
Intellectual property is the only form of property that is *not* dependent on government. That is, I only own my house because I have a government document that says it's mine.
Yep, I can see that.
Nobody, however, can take my ideas from me unless I willingly part with them.
Yep, I can see that.
However, once you willingly part with them, are they not a part of something other than yourself? Else, what does "part" mean? It is exactly this jump you make to monitizing your ideas where the conflict is located.
What you want to suggest, it seems, is that by expressing your ideas you have placed a constraint on what other people can then admit they are thinking. This is where we disagree. So long as your ideas are in your head they are *yours* and yours alone. So long as you keep them there. Once you tell someone, the idea is in both heads. Whose idea is it then? That you had the idea first doesn't mean that the other person doesn't have the idea, too, now. Yet they didn't deprive you of the idea, it isn't like stealing physical property. This is the difference.
You assume your conclusion. Notice that logical there is no difference to my stating, "but if I go out and dig holes in my backyard for 2 years, I've done *work* and its work I haven't been paid for." I could go on to say, "if you want me to stand behind this cash register and sell fries, you've got to pay for what made me what I am today, the digging of those holes." Wouldn't go very far, would it?
I think the post was suggesting that inherent to property rights should be the right to use the property you've purchased however you see fit. Thus, buying a CD should give you the right to rip it to your hard drive, and your iPod. This makes sense to me, since there is no redistribution involved.
You raise a different question. You have written a song. You like to think it is therefor "your song" in a similar fashion to owning the pants you bought at the store. I think that you do have rights as the creator. You should be able to say, "I did this", and defend yourself against others who would claim credit. However, it seems unfair to me for you to have any rights to stop someone who hears you sing your song to not also sing that same song, or modify it and sing their version of your song. If I took your pants from you, you couldn't wear them. If I sing your song, you can still sing your song. That is an inherent difference. I agree that no one should be able to force you to sing your song, that is up to you. But once you give in to the urge to let it loose, at least in my mind, in the system of ethics that makes the most sense to me, you've let it loose. You don't own the air. You don't own the soundwaves propagating from your lips, even though you created them. You certainly don't own the memories of people who heard you.
Of course, I could be wrong. I'm certainly a heretic by modern standards.
Agreed, with just this one exception. We need rule of law, in terms of a constitution, to safeguard the rights of individuals from the majority. If it were voted upon, and a law passed that all left-handed (or otherwise miniority defining, arbitrary criteria) were to have their property seized and redistributed for the betterment of right-handed people, that should be prevented even if the majority would benefit and strive to steal from the left-handed people. Now where it gets really interesting is progressive taxation.
Yes, perhaps, maybe.
;-)
But (at least our) inalienable rights were "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". Note that this is a modification of Locke's "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Property". Therefor, in the historical beginnings of the USA, property rights were excluded for the inclusion of pursuit of happiness. Of course, this is Britian we are talking about, so Pursuit of Property would (perhaps?) be a fundamental right; unlike here, where all these "damn hippies" keep pursuing happiness.