That is because the GOP is not concerned with economic freedom, but endeavors to control the economy and most other aspects of life in America and in the world. If you would like to read an early draft of thier blueprint for gaining and maintaining control, look here.
It's a little dense, and its length does live up to the title, but there has never been a more complete manual for controling the populace of a nation.
Actually, I agree with you that it is not the government's responsibility to provide broadband access to the masses, even though I feel that the same arguments that led to the governments subsidizing cable tv and telephone infrastructure development do apply to broadband (probably moreso than in tv or telecom).
First of all, the file is not in mp3 format but in iTunes format. If it were a mp3, this would not be a sale of the item, but unauthorized publication, and we already have laws to prevent that.
Second, the file can only be played on an authorized machine registered with iTunes and to a specific account.
Third, as the seller will technically selling only the authorization, and will no longer be able to make use of the file, it is similar toselling a used book, which is specifically the case that right of first sale doctorine was created for.
If the RIAA were able to eliminate the right of first sale in this case it would be precedent for eliminating the right of first sale in cases of any material object as well, as there would be little difference between this sale and the sale of any other item that leaves the possesion of the seller at the time of the sale.
The legal barring of this type of sale could potentially be used eliminate the right of anyone to sell anything without the explicit permission of the manufacturer or copyright holder.
No second-hand anything could be sold, no garage sales, used book stores, flea markets, thrift shops or charity bazzars without first getting license to sell from the original supplier of each and every item that was for sale.
Of course, congress could create special classes of goods along the lines of "electronic copy" vs "physical copy", much in the same way that some lawmakers contend that "computer fraud" is somehow different from fraud carried out by other means, but these knds of distinctions are tenuous, and having congess decide such things arbitrarily would change common law in the US from "legal unless explicitly forbidden" to "Illegal unless explicitly permitted".
IANAL, but I do have a brain, and I'm not afraid to use it.
If you are like most users and install/uninstall apps, there's a good chance in the older OS's that this would degrade your system.
I think you mean "older verions of Windows".
I have never run into this problem in non-Microsoft operating systems.
I am amazed at how much difficulty Windows has with recognising the current version of a file.
(example: when using the MS Baseline security analyzer, I am constantly warned about files being a later version than the reccomended patch. I have to assume that Microsoft would not allow a later version of a file to reintroduce a flaw that an earlier patch was released for. I fail to understand how the designers of the BASA did not see the usefulness in having the program only look for the latest file version included in all of the patches that the BASA is looking for.)
I also wonder why I must go to more than one update site to update machines if I want to keep the Office installs up to date as well. If the Windows Update site is capable of knowing what version and patch I have of Explorer and MediaPlayer, then why can it not do the same for Office? And why do I have to cart around all of the Office install disks in order to upgrade from the network? And why do I have to reboot in order to upgrade an application?
Compared to my prefered environment (Debian), Windows is a royal pain in the ass to maintain.
Because the fee is per song per listener. If you only have one listener, then your assumption is correct, but if your webcast suddenly becomes popular, you're screwed without major corporate backing.
The sum of communism is this, if you have a number of people who work together resulting in a direct benefit of the group rather than the individual (or as well as the individual), you have communism.
There are many systems that would fit your description of "communism". The diehard Marxist would statethat you are wrong and that Communism requires the outlawing of privately owned property (ie: "property is theft"). Fundamentalist Capitolists (Neoconsrvatives) defines Communism much in the same way as you and equate any altruistic (non-selfish) beliefs, tendancies, or actions with Stalinism (Centralised ownership of all property and centralised management of all transactions by an authoritarian government) while ignoring the likelyhood that the laissez faire aproach to Capitolism that they support will eventually lead to a similar situation in regards to individual rights and freedom to conduct one's life in both personal and business matters according one's own beliefs.
but we're dealing with a limited number of skilled programmers.
Open Source is not a corporation, nor is it a (managed) Democracy. It is, howerver a volunteer effort where programmers are permitted to put thier efforts behind whicheber effort they see fit, for whatever reason.
But why fork a project needlessly when combined efforts could produce a product that is ultimately more intuitive and polished than two rough apps that waste twice the time for twice the learning curve?
It is more likely that a single effort will produce a non-intuitive and unpolished implementation than two seperate efforts.
As for wasting "twice the time", if one effort finds itself committed to the wrong approach, then the rest of the community will be thankful that the other does exist. See the Mythical Man Month to understand why more programmers working on a single project does not necessarily mean that the project will turn out better or be ready quicker.
I'm not really certain that "intuitiveness" is at stake here. IMHO, the most important aspect of the.net spec is the network transparancy, not the particular user interface. If it is possible to implement the network layer without tying it to a particular user interface or Desktop environment, then that is what should be done. (IIRC,.net does some of what Gnome was originally intended to do as a "network object model environment". Too bad Gnome spent so much time attempting to be "Windows, but better" that Microsoft beat them to the punch on the "network object" spec.)
I do like some of what Ximian has done, but not enough to change my mind about accepting any argument for a "default desktop environment". Neither Gnome nor KDE has shown me that thier way is superior to designing apps that are not tied to any particular "desktop" or window manager.
What makes Slashdot readers think Linux will take over the desktop and server markets when FreeBSD didn't?
Hate to say it, but it's the GPL which will enable Linux to gain in marketshare beyond what BSD has.
The BSD License allows companies to take the work of the BSD developers, make changes, and not share those changes back with the original developers.
You could say that BSD codebase has been adopted widely throughout the industry, but it has been through other companies adopting (read: "Embrace and Extend") BSD code into thier own propoietary products without compensating the developers or community that made that code possible.
In this sense the BSD License is "more Free" than the GPL, but the BSD license does not ensure that that changes to the code will be Free as well.
Perhaps, because different projects might come up with different implementations that have strenths that the others might not.
Sometimes a parallel effort is needed in order that different approaches to the same problems get to be explored fully.
Because it is sometimes better to fork a project, not because one approach is "wrong" but because another is equally good.
Because it might be better to merge to separate efforts later when both have more mature codebases.
Because having two separate projects nmight enable the coders to more easily see alternative methods that neither effort would have thought of without the other.
And then the spammers pay Verisign to certify them.
I do like the idea of mail being sent only from assigned smarthosts (using auth), as then it would be much easier to contact abuse@mailhost.com (and blacklist the server if there is no action).
There is no reason for a "standard desktop" for Linux, and the choices being two of the most bloated, overly interdependant projects in the Linux (X11) spectrum should help to illustrate this.
Yes, there should be good apps that work well together.
And yes, there should be a good set of libraries that help to do this.
But to say that every distribution should default to the same environment doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I put a good amount of effort in keeping the Gnome and KDE libraries off of my computer, and when my friends who use Windows borrow my laptop, it might take them 5 to 10 minutes to figure out Blackbox, or a little less time to figure out WindowMaker on my desktop, but the only consistant problem I've seen is them asking which program to use, and this will happen whenever a person uses a computer that has different programs installed on it.
It's not rocket science, and users are capable of adjusting, like they do every time Windows (or office) is upgraded.
Different distributions "look" different, and this is how it should be. The choice is for the consumer, and if you are selling Linux to your clients, then sell them on the choices.
And I would vote for neither, but I would still be capable of the same work and the same output as either of you.
The Integrated Desktop Environment is a red herring as far as Linux adoption is concerned (at least in the way that KDE and Gnome are pursuing it), even if it is a popular criticism from the peanut gallery of reviewers. What is needed is a good UC&P (universal cut and paste) for xwindows and at least two windowmanagers that make it easy for users to migrate from other platforms (one for Win, the other for Mac).
"To close this window, I need to find the X. It was on the right last time, but that's a Circle. Oh, there it is on the left. Click."
But in my expirience, users will choose a window manager that suits them and then stay with that. Your argument would be valid if you were not talking about a feature that is consistant throughout a given windowing environment, but is reduiculous if you are claiming that the choice of windowmanager makes using Linux (more accurately, X11) more difficult.
If you had used the example of menus in applications, then perhaps you would have a valid argument, but only if MacIntosh were your standard. Among Microsoft applications (AFAIK, the most widely used apps) there ios little GUI standardization between different programs and different versions of the same program. Similar features are in different menus depending upon if you are using Publisher, Word, or Frontpage (yes, I know that these programs are for different purposes, but the argument still holds). Upgrading to a new vesion of Word leaves users searching for the new locations of commonly used functions and configurations.
Different software publishers are successful on the windows platform even though thier interfaces differ from Microsoft's (example: Adobe).
The argument that Linux needs some kind of standardization on this front flies in the face of the history of the software business and has no real grounding in reason.
Pick a reasonable default, let the users customize thier environments, choose thier WM, and allow them their choice of apps (as long as the file formats are transparently compatible) and let the Linux programmers program as they see fit.
then all those people who have spent a small fortune clearing radon out of their basemants may have actually increased their chances of cancer.
It's called a "vent fan" and they cost around $20.00 to $80.00 (depending on the amount of air you want to exchange/time) down at home depot. All that is neccessary to clear radon from a crawlspace or basement is reasonable ventilation exchanging air with the outside.
Yeah, the regulations are confusing, but that tends to be the nature of building codes, and of course the contractor is going to (try to) sell you something more expensive, but that is the nature of contractors.
Terniary computing might allow a programming logic that can represent the possibilities in Go, as each possible point on the board is occupied by either white, black or neither (three possible states).
To date, all of the Go playing computer programs are rather sorry at the game, and perhaps this is due in part to the either/or logic of binary computing (and the bias towards either/or thinking that humans tend to cling to).
Has anyone here looked at the Go programming problem using terniary logic methods/tools?
It's that they are a search technology company that makes as much (more?) money from licensing the search engine as they do from advertising. Putting advertising ahead of search tech would hurt thier revenue stream.
To put it simply search tech is thier meat and potatoes, advertising is just gravy.
Although MSN would have you believe that thier search feature is a service offered to users, it is clearly a marketing tool from end to end.
In order to be listed at MSN, you must deal with Looksmart, a company that touts itself as "the global leader in paid inclusions". In other words, Microsoft's MSN Search is not in the business of helping you find what you are looking for, but the business of making sure you go where thier customers want you to go.
Google, on the other hand is a search company, that specialized in search technologies, for your corporate intranet or for your web page before they added advertising, first, to thier search page and later to your own page.
While there is no doubt that Google Advertising is a large part of thier revenue, the success of Google Adverts is due to thier apropriateness to the viewer of the page. This appropriateness is only possible if there is an attempt to keep the pagerank formula somewhat objective.
IMHO, Google's business model is the stronger, because they are not attempting the impossible task of keeping the viewer while simultaneously attempting to manipulate him (like MSN is), and the advertising model that Google has created is the only advertising that I would allow on a page of my own.
Could you provide a link to some support for your allegation, please.
Google's original revenue stream was from search technology that companies can use for either internal (intranet) use or on thier own public sites for a fee.
Google never allowed paid advertising to be mixed with the search results, but has always kept the ads separate.
AFAIK, it has never been shown that Googles advertising (or search engine) customers have recieved any prefrencial treatment in respect to pagerank or placement in listings.
Slashdot Mirror
Former Communists running the GOP - go figure!
That is because the GOP is not concerned with economic freedom, but endeavors to control the economy and most other aspects of life in America and in the world. If you would like to read an early draft of thier blueprint for gaining and maintaining control, look here.
It's a little dense, and its length does live up to the title, but there has never been a more complete manual for controling the populace of a nation.
Actually, I agree with you that it is not the government's responsibility to provide broadband access to the masses, even though I feel that the same arguments that led to the governments subsidizing cable tv and telephone infrastructure development do apply to broadband (probably moreso than in tv or telecom).
So you'd rather pay $60.00 a month for your own broadband instead of $20-$30 (or less) a month and everyone else get's broadband as well.
Same should go for police protection as well I guess, have you seen the homeowners fees in planned comunities that have thier own security?
Sounds like you've eaten a little too much off that neocon mushroom they've been passing around.
Eh, NineNine;)
I'd think you'd want it to be easier to reach a few more customers.
First of all, the file is not in mp3 format but in iTunes format. If it were a mp3, this would not be a sale of the item, but unauthorized publication, and we already have laws to prevent that.
Second, the file can only be played on an authorized machine registered with iTunes and to a specific account.
Third, as the seller will technically selling only the authorization, and will no longer be able to make use of the file, it is similar toselling a used book, which is specifically the case that right of first sale doctorine was created for.
If the RIAA were able to eliminate the right of first sale in this case it would be precedent for eliminating the right of first sale in cases of any material object as well, as there would be little difference between this sale and the sale of any other item that leaves the possesion of the seller at the time of the sale.
The legal barring of this type of sale could potentially be used eliminate the right of anyone to sell anything without the explicit permission of the manufacturer or copyright holder.
No second-hand anything could be sold, no garage sales, used book stores, flea markets, thrift shops or charity bazzars without first getting license to sell from the original supplier of each and every item that was for sale.
Of course, congress could create special classes of goods along the lines of "electronic copy" vs "physical copy", much in the same way that some lawmakers contend that "computer fraud" is somehow different from fraud carried out by other means, but these knds of distinctions are tenuous, and having congess decide such things arbitrarily would change common law in the US from "legal unless explicitly forbidden" to "Illegal unless explicitly permitted".
IANAL, but I do have a brain, and I'm not afraid to use it.
If you are like most users and install/uninstall apps, there's a good chance in the older OS's that this would degrade your system.
I think you mean "older verions of Windows".
I have never run into this problem in non-Microsoft operating systems.
I am amazed at how much difficulty Windows has with recognising the current version of a file.
(example: when using the MS Baseline security analyzer, I am constantly warned about files being a later version than the reccomended patch. I have to assume that Microsoft would not allow a later version of a file to reintroduce a flaw that an earlier patch was released for. I fail to understand how the designers of the BASA did not see the usefulness in having the program only look for the latest file version included in all of the patches that the BASA is looking for.)
I also wonder why I must go to more than one update site to update machines if I want to keep the Office installs up to date as well. If the Windows Update site is capable of knowing what version and patch I have of Explorer and MediaPlayer, then why can it not do the same for Office? And why do I have to cart around all of the Office install disks in order to upgrade from the network? And why do I have to reboot in order to upgrade an application?
Compared to my prefered environment (Debian), Windows is a royal pain in the ass to maintain.
So why aren't radio stations paying this?
Because the fee is per song per listener. If you only have one listener, then your assumption is correct, but if your webcast suddenly becomes popular, you're screwed without major corporate backing.
The sum of communism is this, if you have a number of people who work together resulting in a direct benefit of the group rather than the individual (or as well as the individual), you have communism.
There are many systems that would fit your description of "communism". The diehard Marxist would statethat you are wrong and that Communism requires the outlawing of privately owned property (ie: "property is theft"). Fundamentalist Capitolists (Neoconsrvatives) defines Communism much in the same way as you and equate any altruistic (non-selfish) beliefs, tendancies, or actions with Stalinism (Centralised ownership of all property and centralised management of all transactions by an authoritarian government) while ignoring the likelyhood that the laissez faire aproach to Capitolism that they support will eventually lead to a similar situation in regards to individual rights and freedom to conduct one's life in both personal and business matters according one's own beliefs.
Hence, my sig:
but we're dealing with a limited number of skilled programmers.
.net spec is the network transparancy, not the particular user interface. If it is possible to implement the network layer without tying it to a particular user interface or Desktop environment, then that is what should be done. (IIRC, .net does some of what Gnome was originally intended to do as a "network object model environment". Too bad Gnome spent so much time attempting to be "Windows, but better" that Microsoft beat them to the punch on the "network object" spec.)
Open Source is not a corporation, nor is it a (managed) Democracy. It is, howerver a volunteer effort where programmers are permitted to put thier efforts behind whicheber effort they see fit, for whatever reason.
But why fork a project needlessly when combined efforts could produce a product that is ultimately more intuitive and polished than two rough apps that waste twice the time for twice the learning curve?
It is more likely that a single effort will produce a non-intuitive and unpolished implementation than two seperate efforts.
As for wasting "twice the time", if one effort finds itself committed to the wrong approach, then the rest of the community will be thankful that the other does exist. See the Mythical Man Month to understand why more programmers working on a single project does not necessarily mean that the project will turn out better or be ready quicker.
I'm not really certain that "intuitiveness" is at stake here. IMHO, the most important aspect of the
I do like some of what Ximian has done, but not enough to change my mind about accepting any argument for a "default desktop environment". Neither Gnome nor KDE has shown me that thier way is superior to designing apps that are not tied to any particular "desktop" or window manager.
What makes Slashdot readers think Linux will take over the desktop and server markets when FreeBSD didn't?
Hate to say it, but it's the GPL which will enable Linux to gain in marketshare beyond what BSD has.
The BSD License allows companies to take the work of the BSD developers, make changes, and not share those changes back with the original developers.
You could say that BSD codebase has been adopted widely throughout the industry, but it has been through other companies adopting (read: "Embrace and Extend") BSD code into thier own propoietary products without compensating the developers or community that made that code possible.
In this sense the BSD License is "more Free" than the GPL, but the BSD license does not ensure that that changes to the code will be Free as well.
why have two projects at all?
Perhaps, because different projects might come up with different implementations that have strenths that the others might not.
Sometimes a parallel effort is needed in order that different approaches to the same problems get to be explored fully.
Because it is sometimes better to fork a project, not because one approach is "wrong" but because another is equally good.
Because it might be better to merge to separate efforts later when both have more mature codebases.
Because having two separate projects nmight enable the coders to more easily see alternative methods that neither effort would have thought of without the other.
Because there is more than one way to do it.
Very funny.
(I mean it. Wish I had thought of it myself.)
Debian stable (aka Woody) ships with 2.4.
Looks like Sarge will ship with 2.4 as the default and 2.6 available with apt-get.
Show some respect for the old farts.
They paid thier dues when you were in diapers.
And then the spammers pay Verisign to certify them.
I do like the idea of mail being sent only from assigned smarthosts (using auth), as then it would be much easier to contact abuse@mailhost.com (and blacklist the server if there is no action).
Sleazy ISPs move the spammers around to evade such blocks.
Which is precisely why the entire sleazy ISP should be blacklisted.
There is no reason at all to not punnish sleazy internet providers, as they are as much the problem as the spammers they market thier services to.
There is no reason for a "standard desktop" for Linux, and the choices being two of the most bloated, overly interdependant projects in the Linux (X11) spectrum should help to illustrate this.
Yes, there should be good apps that work well together.
And yes, there should be a good set of libraries that help to do this.
But to say that every distribution should default to the same environment doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I put a good amount of effort in keeping the Gnome and KDE libraries off of my computer, and when my friends who use Windows borrow my laptop, it might take them 5 to 10 minutes to figure out Blackbox, or a little less time to figure out WindowMaker on my desktop, but the only consistant problem I've seen is them asking which program to use, and this will happen whenever a person uses a computer that has different programs installed on it.
It's not rocket science, and users are capable of adjusting, like they do every time Windows (or office) is upgraded.
Different distributions "look" different, and this is how it should be. The choice is for the consumer, and if you are selling Linux to your clients, then sell them on the choices.
If I had to choose, I would vote for KDE.
And I would vote for GNOME.
And I would vote for neither, but I would still be capable of the same work and the same output as either of you.
The Integrated Desktop Environment is a red herring as far as Linux adoption is concerned (at least in the way that KDE and Gnome are pursuing it), even if it is a popular criticism from the peanut gallery of reviewers. What is needed is a good UC&P (universal cut and paste) for xwindows and at least two windowmanagers that make it easy for users to migrate from other platforms (one for Win, the other for Mac).
"To close this window, I need to find the X. It was on the right last time, but that's a Circle. Oh, there it is on the left. Click."
But in my expirience, users will choose a window manager that suits them and then stay with that. Your argument would be valid if you were not talking about a feature that is consistant throughout a given windowing environment, but is reduiculous if you are claiming that the choice of windowmanager makes using Linux (more accurately, X11) more difficult.
If you had used the example of menus in applications, then perhaps you would have a valid argument, but only if MacIntosh were your standard. Among Microsoft applications (AFAIK, the most widely used apps) there ios little GUI standardization between different programs and different versions of the same program. Similar features are in different menus depending upon if you are using Publisher, Word, or Frontpage (yes, I know that these programs are for different purposes, but the argument still holds). Upgrading to a new vesion of Word leaves users searching for the new locations of commonly used functions and configurations.
Different software publishers are successful on the windows platform even though thier interfaces differ from Microsoft's (example: Adobe).
The argument that Linux needs some kind of standardization on this front flies in the face of the history of the software business and has no real grounding in reason.
Pick a reasonable default, let the users customize thier environments, choose thier WM, and allow them their choice of apps (as long as the file formats are transparently compatible) and let the Linux programmers program as they see fit.
then all those people who have spent a small fortune clearing radon out of their basemants may have actually increased their chances of cancer.
It's called a "vent fan" and they cost around $20.00 to $80.00 (depending on the amount of air you want to exchange/time) down at home depot. All that is neccessary to clear radon from a crawlspace or basement is reasonable ventilation exchanging air with the outside.
Yeah, the regulations are confusing, but that tends to be the nature of building codes, and of course the contractor is going to (try to) sell you something more expensive, but that is the nature of contractors.
Terniary computing might allow a programming logic that can represent the possibilities in Go, as each possible point on the board is occupied by either white, black or neither (three possible states).
To date, all of the Go playing computer programs are rather sorry at the game, and perhaps this is due in part to the either/or logic of binary computing (and the bias towards either/or thinking that humans tend to cling to).
Has anyone here looked at the Go programming problem using terniary logic methods/tools?
(has anyone here done any Go programming at all?)
Did the robot eat dirt, sing "Saint James Infirmary Blues" and shit wire?
Didn't intel already do this whith the original Pentium?
It's that they are a search technology company that makes as much (more?) money from licensing the search engine as they do from advertising. Putting advertising ahead of search tech would hurt thier revenue stream.
To put it simply search tech is thier meat and potatoes, advertising is just gravy.
Although MSN would have you believe that thier search feature is a service offered to users, it is clearly a marketing tool from end to end.
In order to be listed at MSN, you must deal with Looksmart, a company that touts itself as "the global leader in paid inclusions". In other words, Microsoft's MSN Search is not in the business of helping you find what you are looking for, but the business of making sure you go where thier customers want you to go.
Google, on the other hand is a search company, that specialized in search technologies, for your corporate intranet or for your web page before they added advertising, first, to thier search page and later to your own page.
While there is no doubt that Google Advertising is a large part of thier revenue, the success of Google Adverts is due to thier apropriateness to the viewer of the page. This appropriateness is only possible if there is an attempt to keep the pagerank formula somewhat objective.
IMHO, Google's business model is the stronger, because they are not attempting the impossible task of keeping the viewer while simultaneously attempting to manipulate him (like MSN is), and the advertising model that Google has created is the only advertising that I would allow on a page of my own.
Could you provide a link to some support for your allegation, please.
Google's original revenue stream was from search technology that companies can use for either internal (intranet) use or on thier own public sites for a fee.
Google never allowed paid advertising to be mixed with the search results, but has always kept the ads separate.
AFAIK, it has never been shown that Googles advertising (or search engine) customers have recieved any prefrencial treatment in respect to pagerank or placement in listings.