Realistically speaking, a widespread boycott will work though. It just requires that as many people as possible spread the word to as many other people (consumers and artists) as possible.
There aren't any other options. RIAA has the money and influence to get Congress to change the laws. RIAA controls the message, to an extent, through their advertising and their contracts with the artists.
Software like the above may be morally right, but that's cold comfort for anyone caught with it; they'll have their cold comfort in jail.
I mean, really, what other option is there? No one beyond a few geeks seems to really give a damn.
Those 2,000 CD's you own are part of the problem if any of them are produced by RIAA member companies. The only thing that's going to really get their attention is a total boycott (including purchase or downloading).
Once they realize that they no longer have a market of any kind, they will start trying to find ways to work with the users.
Use it as a Darwinian test. Run it in safe mode, but don't tell him. If he uses some sense about things, then he might be OK. Otherwise, gently explain that "things aren't working out" and recommend him highly to your competition.
Perhaps it is time to introduce a licensing scheme beginning with the users of these two products.
I suggest we do a study first to find out which hardware platform is predominantly used to manufacture virii and all the other crap plaguing us these days. Then find out what percentage of those users are actually doing it. If the percentage of PowerPC users creating this crap is higher than the percentage of Intel/AMD users (or other processor), then I, sir, will gladly join you in call for licensed "usership" of the PowerPC (or other processor).
Until then, you are an asshat, sir. A trolling asshat.
I tried Mellel and it rocks - fast, cheap, and easy to use. I also tried Mariner while it's not as good (it "feels" ever so slightly clunky), I eventually keep having to go back to Word, due to the needs of my clients. Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to force them to switch applications.
But, man, if I was - it'd be the first one I'd make them use.
Let the political class and those who like politics play their game. All I ask is that you don't screw up the economy for the rest of us so we can enjoy our family and community.
And there's the problem right there - if you don't participate, there's no way that politicans are going to pay any attention to you. Sure the threat that you could go out and vote is going to keep them from doing some things, but not forever. Without that vote, you don't exist for them - you don't matter, not really, not when it counts.
I really wish we could just say "you boys go have your little fun and when you're done, wash your hands", but it ain't gonna happen.
I guess the US liberating Iraq is actually a noble attempt to try and make up for the CIA's sponsorship of Saddam's rise to power in the 1960s....
You know, I'd be laughing my ass off if the situation weren't so grim. This is about one little fuckwit's attempt to avenge his daddy, not anything noble about getting rid of Saddam and freeing the Iraqi people. You'll note that "freedom for the Iraqi people" didn't even make the list of reasons we invaded Iraq until AFTER it started to look like the other reasons were a crock of feces.
This is a personal war, not a Presidential one, and it's a pity our soldiers and Iraqi civilians have to die just because someone embarassed the Bush family name. Saddam was NOT an immediate threat (really, I'm not even sure he was a credible threat this time around); he was a problem that could have waited until we had finished our work elsewhere.
Because many distros will not ship non-free software by default
1. Java is free, just not open-source. 2. Don't use those distros if you need Java. If your social conscience doesn't allow you to use non-free software, then you probably don't need it that badly. 3. Use a different distro if your conscience will allow. There are plenty that do. 4. Develop an alternative.
Having a social conscience is a great thing - I occasionally pretend that I do. But if it doesn't allow you to make some reasonable compromises in a world that provides too many opportunities for seriously unreasonable compromise, then it becomes dogma, and that's not a good thing, IMO. In this world, moral absolutists are pretty much setting themselves up for disappointment.
Me - I avoid java when I can. I've only found one app that I absolutely love, jedit, but I only use it on my PC. It runs like a pig on a 500-mHz iBook.
Now if we can just get the Xwindows folks on board! When I say "12-point type", I mean a height of 6 lines per inch, not 12 pixels (enormous on the cellphone; invisible on the workstation).
Suggest you read the following: "What is point size?" for the correct definition of point size. It's a workable measure, but only for print - it doesn't translate well to the screen and saying it's 6LPI doesn't seem correct either.
In fact, it's way more complex. The problem here is we're using a measurement for something it was not designed to be applied to. It works after a fashion, but there's gotta be a better way.
Pixels actually works pretty well on a screen, since it's an absolute reference for that screen. Your problem is the screen resolution - low on a cellphone, high on a workstation.
Sounds like grounds for a lawsuit to me. Sony is selling the CDs, but also encouraging breaking the law by selling the means to break copyright law. What does NZ law have to say about that, I wonder?
Every time someone mentions the 3,000 people who died in the WTC disaster, I wonder if they think of the "17,448 drunken driving deaths in 2001" or the "16,572 in 1999" that were caused by Americans on American highways.
Yes, 3,000 people died all at once in a horrendous act. But we kill a lot more on our own without the help of foreign terrorists. Sometimes, it's hard to figure out just who the enemy is.
Only one way to find out - start submitting complaints about 1) Religious shows that ask for money - I find this grossly offensive 2) Political speeches - lying is grossly offensive 3) Asshat political commentary - Pretty much anything Limbaugh or O'Reilly says is grossly offensive 4) FOX Network - about half their shows are grossly offensive 5) Reality shows - ditto 6) Infomercials - ditto
Whether it's the state or the neigborhood where I live should have no bearing on who I am allowed to vote on.
Many problems that voter face are somewhat geographic in nature, though. There's no way you can maintain the argument that problems in East Texas can be adequately represented by someone living in Northern California, or even West Texas. Not to mention which, geographic representation allows the representative to (theoretically) maintain a perspective on those problems.
It's not fair that a person who wins 50.01% of the vote gets to shit on half the population
That's a problem of human nature. It's not necessarily right, but it's also not something that can be easily solved until you get people into office who actually care about those they represent. The system is built to attract a certain type of person drawn to power. Perhaps, instead of drafting people into the military, we should draft them into public representation instead.
Third parites just don't stand a chance
Not entirely true. There is some representation by third parties at state levels. The third party voters are pretty scattered throughout the US and do not form a concentrated voting bloc in any one area.
Who the fuck needs a president anyway
Well, the Constitution calls for it, so unless you change the Constitution, we're stuck with it. Not to mention which, having a President allows us to have a single representative of the entire nation to deal with other nations, when it is really necessary. Most of the time, the job seems redundant or unnecessary, since most of the contact is handled through lower level representatives, but on occasion, someone has to make the hard decision and do it in a decisive way.
Just because you don't like the one we've got (and believe me, I wouldn't pee on him if he was on fire, in the figurative AND literal sense), doesn't mean the Office is not necessary on occasion.
Instead of stealing from everyone and calling it fairness what about not stealing from anyone and letting whatever happens, happen?
Because then you have anarchy, which might be fun in concept, but the reality is, whoever has the biggest weapon and the fewest moral compunctions wins. You have to have some rules in order to even have what can be called a "society".
why on earth are you attributing "pay as you go" to Republicans?
Two reasons:
1) They are the ones who propose doing away with most free governmental services and getting those who use them to pay service fees. Since such services can be handled more "efficiently" by the private sector, their eventual aim is to privatize all but a very few functions of the government. Democrats are ostensibly in favor of more services being provided by the government, or at least less privatization. Whether or not privatization is a "good thing" is not something I'm prepared to argue because there may be a case that it would help in some cases, but I don't have any concrete thoughts on that.
2) There is one theory afloat that in order to do this more rapidly - they are willing to bankrupt the government. Now, I'm not some sad conspiracy theorist, but damn me if they're not doing a pretty effective job of it, right now. Which would force the issue of privatization and user-pays really damn quick.
One really has to wonder about the educational level around here. Some of it can be attributed to hitting the wrong keys (well, all of it, technically, I guess), but... geez, people! Read a book! Learn to spell! It's not that hard!
Your argument about "free society" leaves out a few things, though. True, we do not live in "free society". Without the taxes you pay, there would be no funding for infrastructure that keeps our society rolling.
Sure, we could take a "pay-as-you-go" approach (Republicans), but then certain important functions such as the military, or firefighting, would only be paid by those individuals able or willing to afford them. Both of those functions are necessary on a wider basis because a war or a fire doesn't just affect one discrete paying individual (Pearl Harbor, California fires).
Then you have the problem of everyone paying what they can afford. The major problem there is that there's always some fatass who's willing to let everyone else keep his ass in potato chips and couch cushions.
A mandatory levy on properties, or other items is the only way to ensure that everyone pays to a certain extent. Personally, I think they ought to tax the crap out Intellectual Properties.
My question is: am I the only one who just wants a phone with a generous memory for a directory, voice-mail, call-waiting, and call-forwarding?
Why the hell do I want text messaging and all the other crap? If I want to send a message, I'll fricking call someone and leave a message.
Geez. I know marketing-and-business why it has to be so complicated, by WHY does it have to be so complicated?
Re:How do they decide which companies can do it?
on
EU Passes Nasty IP Law
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The first time a corporation busts through my window will be the last time that individual stormtrooper breathes on his/her own. I'm not a violent person by any means, but turning over law enforcement functions to private companies is not right and I won't tolerate it.
You want to arrest me? Fine, send the regular police. No problem there. Federal agents even.
The funny thing is, as I read the comments here, everyone speaks of software as if it's a physical thing. Sure, it has a physical reference, but there's nothing you can point to and say, that's software, like you can with sugar or wheat. You can't buy a "pound of software", strictly speaking.
What can be commoditized is time; specifically, the time spent to create software. It can be rationalized, measured, spent, etc., and there is already an existing metaphor for compensating one for these various actions: the hourly rate. Software production costs time and money (or no money, as we'll see).
Read the whole discussion before you blow up.
In a sense, Free Software takes the whole paradigm of time having value and does away with it entirely. With Free Software, one cannot expect to receive money for the time spent. One creates software and turns it loose on the whole world, or some small portion of it and receives recognition (or not) from the receiving audience. Strictly speaking, if you receive money for developing something, it cannot be considered Free Software - somebody paid something for it.
In a sense, it is a slap in the face to software companies and to those of us who work for money. Free Software says that the time and money spent hiring a programmer and designers (or me) to produce a given piece of software was wasted: what y'all spent millions over the course of six months to develop, we can do for free in eight months or a year.
On the other hand, there is an argument to be made in favor of the greater public good. Software is expensive, and specialized software is even more so, perhaps out of the reach of some developing businesses. Certain types of software are important enough that perhaps they should be free, but determining which is an impossible task. An operating system - that's pretty easy; an MP3 player - not so easy. How does an MP3 player benefit the overall public?
To my mindset, money helps smooth over one of the basic problems of humans: ego. If we lived in a world where everything was produced freely and given freely, that would be great. But how do you compensate for that jerk down the road who sits on his ass all day and just takes and takes rather than giving back to society in some form? The answer is you force him to pay for the materials he uses and consumes. That requires money. Sure, he could work it off, but we've already established that he's a lazy bastard and won't work.
Thus, I have to come down in favor of paying for software. I don't think it can be properly commoditized in the same sense that sugar can. In fact, I'm not even sure there's a proper word for that type of a thing. What I do know is that certain forms of Free Software are a kind of slap in the face - saying that the time I spent and the education I paid for are worthless.
It wasn't worth time I spent reading it, so I'm filing a claim under my state's lemon laws. Oh, yeah, I've also called the BBB about shoddy merchandise. I will be filing a class action lawsuit next week on behalf of all/. readers who may have reason to believe they were harmed emotionally, mentally or intellectually by your comments.
I've also called Random House and Webster's. Their lawyers may want to speak to you about the usage of various of the following words:
Excellent point. By the way, I'm the copyright owner of this comment, and by reading it you agree to pay me $1000. If you think it's wrong to break copyright, then please don't read this comment, but since you already have, I'll take the full amount in $20's please
Slashdot Mirror
Yep. Man's gotta dream, though.
Realistically speaking, a widespread boycott will work though. It just requires that as many people as possible spread the word to as many other people (consumers and artists) as possible.
There aren't any other options. RIAA has the money and influence to get Congress to change the laws. RIAA controls the message, to an extent, through their advertising and their contracts with the artists.
Software like the above may be morally right, but that's cold comfort for anyone caught with it; they'll have their cold comfort in jail.
I mean, really, what other option is there? No one beyond a few geeks seems to really give a damn.
Those 2,000 CD's you own are part of the problem if any of them are produced by RIAA member companies. The only thing that's going to really get their attention is a total boycott (including purchase or downloading).
Once they realize that they no longer have a market of any kind, they will start trying to find ways to work with the users.
Total boycott.
Use it as a Darwinian test. Run it in safe mode, but don't tell him. If he uses some sense about things, then he might be OK. Otherwise, gently explain that "things aren't working out" and recommend him highly to your competition.
Perhaps it is time to introduce a licensing scheme beginning with the users of these two products.
I suggest we do a study first to find out which hardware platform is predominantly used to manufacture virii and all the other crap plaguing us these days. Then find out what percentage of those users are actually doing it. If the percentage of PowerPC users creating this crap is higher than the percentage of Intel/AMD users (or other processor), then I, sir, will gladly join you in call for licensed "usership" of the PowerPC (or other processor).
Until then, you are an asshat, sir. A trolling asshat.
Yeah, Bush is evil, but I really doubt he's that evil.
This sounds like someone's idea of a very bad joke.
I tried Mellel and it rocks - fast, cheap, and easy to use. I also tried Mariner while it's not as good (it "feels" ever so slightly clunky), I eventually keep having to go back to Word, due to the needs of my clients. Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to force them to switch applications.
But, man, if I was - it'd be the first one I'd make them use.
Let the political class and those who like politics play their game. All I ask is that you don't screw up the economy for the rest of us so we can enjoy our family and community.
And there's the problem right there - if you don't participate, there's no way that politicans are going to pay any attention to you. Sure the threat that you could go out and vote is going to keep them from doing some things, but not forever. Without that vote, you don't exist for them - you don't matter, not really, not when it counts.
I really wish we could just say "you boys go have your little fun and when you're done, wash your hands", but it ain't gonna happen.
I guess the US liberating Iraq is actually a noble attempt to try and make up for the CIA's sponsorship of Saddam's rise to power in the 1960s....
You know, I'd be laughing my ass off if the situation weren't so grim. This is about one little fuckwit's attempt to avenge his daddy, not anything noble about getting rid of Saddam and freeing the Iraqi people. You'll note that "freedom for the Iraqi people" didn't even make the list of reasons we invaded Iraq until AFTER it started to look like the other reasons were a crock of feces.
This is a personal war, not a Presidential one, and it's a pity our soldiers and Iraqi civilians have to die just because someone embarassed the Bush family name. Saddam was NOT an immediate threat (really, I'm not even sure he was a credible threat this time around); he was a problem that could have waited until we had finished our work elsewhere.
Because many distros will not ship non-free software by default
1. Java is free, just not open-source.
2. Don't use those distros if you need Java. If your social conscience doesn't allow you to use non-free software, then you probably don't need it that badly.
3. Use a different distro if your conscience will allow. There are plenty that do.
4. Develop an alternative.
Having a social conscience is a great thing - I occasionally pretend that I do. But if it doesn't allow you to make some reasonable compromises in a world that provides too many opportunities for seriously unreasonable compromise, then it becomes dogma, and that's not a good thing, IMO. In this world, moral absolutists are pretty much setting themselves up for disappointment.
Me - I avoid java when I can. I've only found one app that I absolutely love, jedit, but I only use it on my PC. It runs like a pig on a 500-mHz iBook.
Now if we can just get the Xwindows folks on board! When I say "12-point type", I mean a height of 6 lines per inch, not 12 pixels (enormous on the cellphone; invisible on the workstation).
Suggest you read the following: "What is point size?" for the correct definition of point size. It's a workable measure, but only for print - it doesn't translate well to the screen and saying it's 6LPI doesn't seem correct either.
In fact, it's way more complex. The problem here is we're using a measurement for something it was not designed to be applied to. It works after a fashion, but there's gotta be a better way.
Pixels actually works pretty well on a screen, since it's an absolute reference for that screen. Your problem is the screen resolution - low on a cellphone, high on a workstation.
200 users? Is that it? I'd think you'd configure it for something like 10K simultaneous users.
Sounds like grounds for a lawsuit to me. Sony is selling the CDs, but also encouraging breaking the law by selling the means to break copyright law. What does NZ law have to say about that, I wonder?
Every time someone mentions the 3,000 people who died in the WTC disaster, I wonder if they think of the "17,448 drunken driving deaths in 2001" or the "16,572 in 1999" that were caused by Americans on American highways.
Yes, 3,000 people died all at once in a horrendous act. But we kill a lot more on our own without the help of foreign terrorists. Sometimes, it's hard to figure out just who the enemy is.
Just keep some perspective.
Only one way to find out - start submitting complaints about
1) Religious shows that ask for money - I find this grossly offensive
2) Political speeches - lying is grossly offensive
3) Asshat political commentary - Pretty much anything Limbaugh or O'Reilly says is grossly offensive
4) FOX Network - about half their shows are grossly offensive
5) Reality shows - ditto
6) Infomercials - ditto
Let's push this and see what happens.
Whether it's the state or the neigborhood where I live should have no bearing on who I am allowed to vote on.
Many problems that voter face are somewhat geographic in nature, though. There's no way you can maintain the argument that problems in East Texas can be adequately represented by someone living in Northern California, or even West Texas. Not to mention which, geographic representation allows the representative to (theoretically) maintain a perspective on those problems.
It's not fair that a person who wins 50.01% of the vote gets to shit on half the population
That's a problem of human nature. It's not necessarily right, but it's also not something that can be easily solved until you get people into office who actually care about those they represent. The system is built to attract a certain type of person drawn to power. Perhaps, instead of drafting people into the military, we should draft them into public representation instead.
Third parites just don't stand a chance
Not entirely true. There is some representation by third parties at state levels. The third party voters are pretty scattered throughout the US and do not form a concentrated voting bloc in any one area.
Who the fuck needs a president anyway
Well, the Constitution calls for it, so unless you change the Constitution, we're stuck with it. Not to mention which, having a President allows us to have a single representative of the entire nation to deal with other nations, when it is really necessary. Most of the time, the job seems redundant or unnecessary, since most of the contact is handled through lower level representatives, but on occasion, someone has to make the hard decision and do it in a decisive way.
Just because you don't like the one we've got (and believe me, I wouldn't pee on him if he was on fire, in the figurative AND literal sense), doesn't mean the Office is not necessary on occasion.
It's a 12-inch Powerbook. About the only thing you can do is add more memory.
Instead of stealing from everyone and calling it fairness what about not stealing from anyone and letting whatever happens, happen?
Because then you have anarchy, which might be fun in concept, but the reality is, whoever has the biggest weapon and the fewest moral compunctions wins. You have to have some rules in order to even have what can be called a "society".
why on earth are you attributing "pay as you go" to Republicans?
Two reasons:
1) They are the ones who propose doing away with most free governmental services and getting those who use them to pay service fees. Since such services can be handled more "efficiently" by the private sector, their eventual aim is to privatize all but a very few functions of the government. Democrats are ostensibly in favor of more services being provided by the government, or at least less privatization. Whether or not privatization is a "good thing" is not something I'm prepared to argue because there may be a case that it would help in some cases, but I don't have any concrete thoughts on that.
2) There is one theory afloat that in order to do this more rapidly - they are willing to bankrupt the government. Now, I'm not some sad conspiracy theorist, but damn me if they're not doing a pretty effective job of it, right now. Which would force the issue of privatization and user-pays really damn quick.
One really has to wonder about the educational level around here. Some of it can be attributed to hitting the wrong keys (well, all of it, technically, I guess), but ... geez, people! Read a book! Learn to spell! It's not that hard!
Your argument about "free society" leaves out a few things, though. True, we do not live in "free society". Without the taxes you pay, there would be no funding for infrastructure that keeps our society rolling.
Sure, we could take a "pay-as-you-go" approach (Republicans), but then certain important functions such as the military, or firefighting, would only be paid by those individuals able or willing to afford them. Both of those functions are necessary on a wider basis because a war or a fire doesn't just affect one discrete paying individual (Pearl Harbor, California fires).
Then you have the problem of everyone paying what they can afford. The major problem there is that there's always some fatass who's willing to let everyone else keep his ass in potato chips and couch cushions.
A mandatory levy on properties, or other items is the only way to ensure that everyone pays to a certain extent. Personally, I think they ought to tax the crap out Intellectual Properties.
I CAN SEE MY HOUSE FROM HERE :D
... uh ...
And so can any Martians that are hiding out there in the desert.
I'm lamer than you! Wait
My question is: am I the only one who just wants a phone with a generous memory for a directory, voice-mail, call-waiting, and call-forwarding?
Why the hell do I want text messaging and all the other crap? If I want to send a message, I'll fricking call someone and leave a message.
Geez. I know marketing-and-business why it has to be so complicated, by WHY does it have to be so complicated?
The first time a corporation busts through my window will be the last time that individual stormtrooper breathes on his/her own. I'm not a violent person by any means, but turning over law enforcement functions to private companies is not right and I won't tolerate it.
You want to arrest me? Fine, send the regular police. No problem there. Federal agents even.
Private corporations? Never.
The funny thing is, as I read the comments here, everyone speaks of software as if it's a physical thing. Sure, it has a physical reference, but there's nothing you can point to and say, that's software, like you can with sugar or wheat. You can't buy a "pound of software", strictly speaking.
What can be commoditized is time; specifically, the time spent to create software. It can be rationalized, measured, spent, etc., and there is already an existing metaphor for compensating one for these various actions: the hourly rate. Software production costs time and money (or no money, as we'll see).
Read the whole discussion before you blow up.
In a sense, Free Software takes the whole paradigm of time having value and does away with it entirely. With Free Software, one cannot expect to receive money for the time spent. One creates software and turns it loose on the whole world, or some small portion of it and receives recognition (or not) from the receiving audience. Strictly speaking, if you receive money for developing something, it cannot be considered Free Software - somebody paid something for it.
In a sense, it is a slap in the face to software companies and to those of us who work for money. Free Software says that the time and money spent hiring a programmer and designers (or me) to produce a given piece of software was wasted: what y'all spent millions over the course of six months to develop, we can do for free in eight months or a year.
On the other hand, there is an argument to be made in favor of the greater public good. Software is expensive, and specialized software is even more so, perhaps out of the reach of some developing businesses. Certain types of software are important enough that perhaps they should be free, but determining which is an impossible task. An operating system - that's pretty easy; an MP3 player - not so easy. How does an MP3 player benefit the overall public?
To my mindset, money helps smooth over one of the basic problems of humans: ego. If we lived in a world where everything was produced freely and given freely, that would be great. But how do you compensate for that jerk down the road who sits on his ass all day and just takes and takes rather than giving back to society in some form? The answer is you force him to pay for the materials he uses and consumes. That requires money. Sure, he could work it off, but we've already established that he's a lazy bastard and won't work.
Thus, I have to come down in favor of paying for software. I don't think it can be properly commoditized in the same sense that sugar can. In fact, I'm not even sure there's a proper word for that type of a thing. What I do know is that certain forms of Free Software are a kind of slap in the face - saying that the time I spent and the education I paid for are worthless.
These are only my views. Pillory away.
I've also called Random House and Webster's. Their lawyers may want to speak to you about the usage of various of the following words:
Have a nice day.
Well, the hangers-on and the n00bs have to do something to justify their existence, since they're not coding.
Except the ones that are.