This strikes on something that I've been thinking about since the last discussion here about piracy. Piracy really does hurt small producers, because whether they sell enough copies determines their ability to stay afloat.
On the other hand, when big companies say that you are costing consumers more money by driving up their prices, it's a great, big, stinking lie. The truth is, they charge what the market will bear no matter how many people "steal" their software, and in fact, piracy probably lowers software fees rather than raising them, because higher fees encourage more piracy.
Piracy does hurt the consumer by shutting down small producers, though. This limits consumer choice and also protects the big guys by killing the competition.
Anyway, I used to use lots of pirated software, but now I've adopted the policy that if I don't want to pay I'll use free software, which I feel better about anyway.
Actually, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that advocating violence is unlawful only when it poses a "clear and present danger" to safety.
His legal scrape is not due to advocating violence per se, but due to distributing bomb-making instructions, which falls under different laws.
Of course, there have been plenty of organizations who have had their offices raided and property seized for what they have SAID, and from what I understand the FBI has the power to keep your stuff even if they never charge you with a crime. That just wasn't the case this time.
Those trailers were terrible
on
Review: Kung Pow
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
the trailers were tantalizing
No, the trailers were terrible. How anyone could want to see a movie based on those trailers is beyond me. Yet another spoof on The Matrix, this time with a cow? A guy being distracted by a woman with big breasts? And these are the highlights? This was just another me-too addition to the new genre of 'genre parodies' to come out in the last few years, and obviously not an inspired newcomer.
This is something that most socialists don't understand. In a free market, the consumers determine the price.
I'm sorry, but this is just plain wrong. In a free market, the price is determined by supply and demand. Consumers determine demand, suppliers determine supply. Furthermore, there can be no free market in videos, because copyright law gives the owner of a film's copyright a monopoly on that particular film. The commodity you want is not "DVDs" -- anyone can sell you those. You're looking for that *particular* DVD, which only one company can sell you.
A monopoly situation is the antithesis of the free market. This is why Adam Smith did not think the government should grant corporate monopolies, as I've said before. Unfortunately, copyright law does just that.
Why are several of my C64 games better than modern games in terms of playability and even in music and sound in some cases?
I believe that there are two reasons for this.
1. You're used to the old games and the nostalgia makes you enjoy them more.
2. There were LOTS of terrible games on old platforms. You don't see them anymore because they've all fallen by the wayside. Meanwhile, all of today's blunders are still around in plain view.
I don't think that it has anything to do with old games being inherently better. In some ways today's games are far better. For example, in terms of artwork modern games are far superior, both because graphics capabilities are better and because professional artists are involved in their design.
I haven't read this book, but I have read Beginning Linux Programming, and heartily reccomend it, especially for those who are looking for a good bridge between reading books on ANSI C and reading online API documentation. However, I do agree with the "slapping 'Linux'" on the cover comment. In fact, the book frequently refers to the system you're using as 'UNIX' rather than 'Linux.' It seems like a UNIX programming book with Linux and the GNU tools used as the special case for all examples. This is actually a strength, though, because the book keeps you conscious of the X/Open and POSIX standards, reminding you that although your code might run on any Linux it's still better if it's portable to other UNIX implementations.
True, but some wealth has a great deal more inherent value than other wealth. For example, food will always retain at least some value, because people always need it. Plus, you can always use it yourself if nobody else wants it. The same is not true for stocks.
That's why the *article* never says "minicomputer", it says "mini-PC". It's just Slashdot that said "minicomputer". Really, guys, you're supposed to be geeks and should know better.
According to Lessig there is no reason to ban or punish proprietary providers. But this view is hardly consistent with Lessig's view on the future of software copyright law. In Lessig's future system, proprietary providers are severely punished. They lose about 100 years of protection, the current copyright protection of life of author plus 70 year,s compared to five plus five years and then full disclosure.
I think the author misunderstands this. Taking away most of the term of the software copyright is not "punishing" proprietary providers, it continues to reward them for publishing closed code by giving them exclusive rights for ten years. It does reduce their *reward* to a much more reasonable term, since most software is pretty much useless after 10 years. Don't forget that this copyright term is a gift from the government to the author, not a fundamental right.
Meanwhile, those who publish Free Software get no rewards in today's system, and Lessig suggests that they should get some when he says that the government should "encourage" open source. "Encourage" means "reward" desired behavior.
Copyright is an entirely artificial right, constructed for social purposes, not one of those "inalienable" rights in the Declaration of Independance. It is, in fact, more reminiscent of the medieval system of "rights" where the term really meant privileges granted by the feudal system. For example, in many places in Europe the lord had a "right" to sleep with any bride before the husband got a go at her. These kinds of rights can change as society sees fit, according to what is deemed most beneficial.
Perhaps it is best that we reward artists and programmers for their work to provide them an incentive, but this is not a matter of fundamental morality. If you don't want your work copied you can keep it secret, but if you share it with others I see no innate, compelling reason why you should have the power to control how each person uses it should it fall into their hands. In fact, I *do* find it immoral that some should try to restrict use of their work or discoveries in a way that unduly restricts the work's benefit to society in the name of profiteering.
Furthermore, it's unfortunate that this article does not address patents, because even if proprietary sources are divulged ten years from the release of the code, they will remain useless to others if they implement still-active patents held by the author.
I think you give Smith and Keynes both less and more credit than they deserve. AFAICR, both had an excellent understanding of the way that powerful players can tip the scales to the detriment of society. Certainly Smith understood this, and when he opposed government intervention in the market, he meant largely that the British crown should not grant trade monopolies to companies involved in exploited Britain's new overseas colonies. Keynes saw financiers as ruthless people who would stop at nothing in pursuit of wealth and power, and estimated that it was better to let them amass it legitimately than to turn to criminal activity.
I think that, unfortunately, the modern businessman's understanding of Smith and Keynes is generally crude and lacking in subtlety. I doubt most have read and understood The Wealth of Nations. Undoubtedly many have read and appreciated Ayn Rand's works, however.
Disclaimer: I myself have never actually read any complete works of either Smith or Keynes, I have formed my perceptions of them based on bits I've read and that I've seen others discuss over the years.
Re:No, it means the end of armed conflict.
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 1
It's fortunate that the most technologically advanced nations are also democratic, because democracies do not start wars with each other as a rule.
Or at least, it's fortunate that the most technologically advanced nations are also allies, because allies do not start wars with each other as a rule.
Re:Unfortunately, an end to wars
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 1
These countries did not "win" their independence, it was given to them.
Actually, the frequencies are licensed by the government because the people of the US do own them (in the US), and broadcast companies are simply loaned the right to broadcast.
I'd have to question whether the Canadian population really is more spread out. After all, most of the population is concentrated along the southern border, and then most of that is in Ontario and Quebec, is it not? Certainly if you take into account the entire area of Canada this is true, but population is far less evenly distributed in Canada than it is in the U.S.
I don't have any data on this, however, and certainly in provinces such as Manitoba and Saskatchewan (sp?) population is spread out. The same goes for Kansas and Wyoming, though, and Canada is not unique in having very rural, agriculturally-oriented areas.
Merry (along with Eowyn, Eomer's sister) killed the Witch King, the leader of the Nazgul and Sauron's #1 servant. It was said that he would never be destroyed by a man (heh heh). It almost killed them, but they survived due to their strength and Aragorn's healing.
I'd have to agree that the first two books do make the hobbits seem insignificant, as they begin to feel after a time. That's why it's so remarkable when, in the Return of the King, all four become heroes of the War of the Ring. When they are finally alone, put to the test, they rise to the occasion, though not necessarily in the way that we would have foreseen had they had a more dominant role early on.
I didn't think this article made a very good case for its "stacked desktops" concept, but I think it did run into the issue of the problem with 'C:' without addressing it. The use of objects in the user interface that correspond to physical hard drives is a big design sin committed by both MS-Windows and MacOS. The fact that programs are not always in the same place in the filesystem, whether on a machine with one hard drive or ten, is confusing and also a practical pain, as you have to waste time designing your own distribution of files across the drives.
I'm not one to say that UNIX paradigms are always best, but this one seems such a no-brainer that you would think that MS would have ditched this floppy drive legacy long ago.
As for the desktop, what I would like to see is ONE desktop with specialized areas on it for different things... areas that, while perhaps flexible in size, have enforced functions, such as only having program links or document links. It's a vague idea, but would give that clutter far better organization and usefulness, I think.
Considering that the average computer user uses the word memory when (s)he really means disk space , it shouldn't be surprising that a hard disk icon is confusing.
Well, they're technically correct -- it's just that among the technically informed, 'memory' is usually short for 'RAM,' and doesn't include long-term memory (i.e. your hard disk).
Nobody's saying he's about to write a best-seller that's acclaimed in the NYT Book Review. I'm just saying that the quality of the language he uses is up there with most professional journalists, at least on the Internet (or in most minor newspapers). His writing may be cliched, but this is in part because he has a decent grasp of the genre he's writing in, rather than typical web fare which often looks like it's lifted from a chat room. Furthermore, I doubt that many of the posters here would be capable of writing a review of this movie, which I saw last night, and make it absorbing enough to
As for the movie itself:
I think it's mostly a me-too rip-off of Scary Movie in concept, but my girlfriend says that they did an excellent job of spoofing all of the movie that they cover. I couldn't really say, because I haven't seen Pretty In Pink, Cruel Intentions, or She's All That, which apparently account for the bulk of the references made. It's interesting to note that these so-called parody movies really have little appeal to people who actually *dislike* the genre -- the makers are, in fact, celebrating the genre and perpetuating our absorption in their cookie-cutter plots and characters.
I think a really clever parody would surround all this ridiculousness with an original and clever plot, displaying the contrast between the cynical, lackluster conception of teen movies and the true potential of a quality production.
Just because this is a site for geeks doesn't mean every article has to be about BIOS revisions, Kernel patches, and medical science breakthroughs. Yes, that makes up the bulk of what we want to see here, and it is the bulk of what we DO see here, but geeks do have interests outside of those fields.
Come now, the bulk of the stories are actually about the latest DMCA news, publicity stunts for Linux and Darwin, and Microsoft security holes. And that's why I read Slashdot. After all, what other public forum would discuss Dmitry Sklyarov, the Mexican government's flirtation with Linux, or every single little doubt about MSIE security? I would be incomplete as a person without my daily dose of such things.
OK, I wouldn't. But my other hobby is drinking, and my girlfriend likes that even less!
Yes, you have to give Jon Katz credit for the fact that he obviously knows how to write. You may not like what he writes, but he has a good command of the English language. (Which is more that you can say for many -- or most? -- Slashdot posters.)
Slashdot Mirror
This strikes on something that I've been thinking about since the last discussion here about piracy. Piracy really does hurt small producers, because whether they sell enough copies determines their ability to stay afloat.
On the other hand, when big companies say that you are costing consumers more money by driving up their prices, it's a great, big, stinking lie. The truth is, they charge what the market will bear no matter how many people "steal" their software, and in fact, piracy probably lowers software fees rather than raising them, because higher fees encourage more piracy.
Piracy does hurt the consumer by shutting down small producers, though. This limits consumer choice and also protects the big guys by killing the competition.
Anyway, I used to use lots of pirated software, but now I've adopted the policy that if I don't want to pay I'll use free software, which I feel better about anyway.
Actually, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that advocating violence is unlawful only when it poses a "clear and present danger" to safety.
His legal scrape is not due to advocating violence per se, but due to distributing bomb-making instructions, which falls under different laws.
Of course, there have been plenty of organizations who have had their offices raided and property seized for what they have SAID, and from what I understand the FBI has the power to keep your stuff even if they never charge you with a crime. That just wasn't the case this time.
the trailers were tantalizing
No, the trailers were terrible. How anyone could want to see a movie based on those trailers is beyond me. Yet another spoof on The Matrix, this time with a cow? A guy being distracted by a woman with big breasts? And these are the highlights? This was just another me-too addition to the new genre of 'genre parodies' to come out in the last few years, and obviously not an inspired newcomer.
This is something that most socialists don't understand. In a free market, the consumers determine the price.
I'm sorry, but this is just plain wrong. In a free market, the price is determined by supply and demand. Consumers determine demand, suppliers determine supply. Furthermore, there can be no free market in videos, because copyright law gives the owner of a film's copyright a monopoly on that particular film. The commodity you want is not "DVDs" -- anyone can sell you those. You're looking for that *particular* DVD, which only one company can sell you.
A monopoly situation is the antithesis of the free market. This is why Adam Smith did not think the government should grant corporate monopolies, as I've said before. Unfortunately, copyright law does just that.
Why are several of my C64 games better than modern games in terms of playability and even in music and sound in some cases?
I believe that there are two reasons for this.
1. You're used to the old games and the nostalgia makes you enjoy them more.
2. There were LOTS of terrible games on old platforms. You don't see them anymore because they've all fallen by the wayside. Meanwhile, all of today's blunders are still around in plain view.
I don't think that it has anything to do with old games being inherently better. In some ways today's games are far better. For example, in terms of artwork modern games are far superior, both because graphics capabilities are better and because professional artists are involved in their design.
I haven't read this book, but I have read Beginning Linux Programming, and heartily reccomend it, especially for those who are looking for a good bridge between reading books on ANSI C and reading online API documentation. However, I do agree with the "slapping 'Linux'" on the cover comment. In fact, the book frequently refers to the system you're using as 'UNIX' rather than 'Linux.' It seems like a UNIX programming book with Linux and the GNU tools used as the special case for all examples. This is actually a strength, though, because the book keeps you conscious of the X/Open and POSIX standards, reminding you that although your code might run on any Linux it's still better if it's portable to other UNIX implementations.
True, but some wealth has a great deal more inherent value than other wealth. For example, food will always retain at least some value, because people always need it. Plus, you can always use it yourself if nobody else wants it. The same is not true for stocks.
That's why the *article* never says "minicomputer", it says "mini-PC". It's just Slashdot that said "minicomputer". Really, guys, you're supposed to be geeks and should know better.
According to Lessig there is no reason to ban or punish proprietary providers. But this view is hardly consistent with Lessig's view on the future of software copyright law. In Lessig's future system, proprietary providers are severely punished. They lose about 100 years of protection, the current copyright protection of life of author plus 70 year,s compared to five plus five years and then full disclosure.
I think the author misunderstands this. Taking away most of the term of the software copyright is not "punishing" proprietary providers, it continues to reward them for publishing closed code by giving them exclusive rights for ten years. It does reduce their *reward* to a much more reasonable term, since most software is pretty much useless after 10 years. Don't forget that this copyright term is a gift from the government to the author, not a fundamental right.
Meanwhile, those who publish Free Software get no rewards in today's system, and Lessig suggests that they should get some when he says that the government should "encourage" open source. "Encourage" means "reward" desired behavior.
Copyright is an entirely artificial right, constructed for social purposes, not one of those "inalienable" rights in the Declaration of Independance. It is, in fact, more reminiscent of the medieval system of "rights" where the term really meant privileges granted by the feudal system. For example, in many places in Europe the lord had a "right" to sleep with any bride before the husband got a go at her. These kinds of rights can change as society sees fit, according to what is deemed most beneficial.
Perhaps it is best that we reward artists and programmers for their work to provide them an incentive, but this is not a matter of fundamental morality. If you don't want your work copied you can keep it secret, but if you share it with others I see no innate, compelling reason why you should have the power to control how each person uses it should it fall into their hands. In fact, I *do* find it immoral that some should try to restrict use of their work or discoveries in a way that unduly restricts the work's benefit to society in the name of profiteering.
Furthermore, it's unfortunate that this article does not address patents, because even if proprietary sources are divulged ten years from the release of the code, they will remain useless to others if they implement still-active patents held by the author.
Adam Smith, Maynard Keynes
I think you give Smith and Keynes both less and more credit than they deserve. AFAICR, both had an excellent understanding of the way that powerful players can tip the scales to the detriment of society. Certainly Smith understood this, and when he opposed government intervention in the market, he meant largely that the British crown should not grant trade monopolies to companies involved in exploited Britain's new overseas colonies. Keynes saw financiers as ruthless people who would stop at nothing in pursuit of wealth and power, and estimated that it was better to let them amass it legitimately than to turn to criminal activity.
I think that, unfortunately, the modern businessman's understanding of Smith and Keynes is generally crude and lacking in subtlety. I doubt most have read and understood The Wealth of Nations. Undoubtedly many have read and appreciated Ayn Rand's works, however.
Disclaimer: I myself have never actually read any complete works of either Smith or Keynes, I have formed my perceptions of them based on bits I've read and that I've seen others discuss over the years.
It's fortunate that the most technologically advanced nations are also democratic, because democracies do not start wars with each other as a rule.
Or at least, it's fortunate that the most technologically advanced nations are also allies, because allies do not start wars with each other as a rule.
These countries did not "win" their independence, it was given to them.
Actually, the frequencies are licensed by the government because the people of the US do own them (in the US), and broadcast companies are simply loaned the right to broadcast.
I'd have to question whether the Canadian population really is more spread out. After all, most of the population is concentrated along the southern border, and then most of that is in Ontario and Quebec, is it not? Certainly if you take into account the entire area of Canada this is true, but population is far less evenly distributed in Canada than it is in the U.S.
I don't have any data on this, however, and certainly in provinces such as Manitoba and Saskatchewan (sp?) population is spread out. The same goes for Kansas and Wyoming, though, and Canada is not unique in having very rural, agriculturally-oriented areas.
Merry (along with Eowyn, Eomer's sister) killed the Witch King, the leader of the Nazgul and Sauron's #1 servant. It was said that he would never be destroyed by a man (heh heh). It almost killed them, but they survived due to their strength and Aragorn's healing.
I'd have to agree that the first two books do make the hobbits seem insignificant, as they begin to feel after a time. That's why it's so remarkable when, in the Return of the King, all four become heroes of the War of the Ring. When they are finally alone, put to the test, they rise to the occasion, though not necessarily in the way that we would have foreseen had they had a more dominant role early on.
I didn't think this article made a very good case for its "stacked desktops" concept, but I think it did run into the issue of the problem with 'C:' without addressing it. The use of objects in the user interface that correspond to physical hard drives is a big design sin committed by both MS-Windows and MacOS. The fact that programs are not always in the same place in the filesystem, whether on a machine with one hard drive or ten, is confusing and also a practical pain, as you have to waste time designing your own distribution of files across the drives.
I'm not one to say that UNIX paradigms are always best, but this one seems such a no-brainer that you would think that MS would have ditched this floppy drive legacy long ago.
As for the desktop, what I would like to see is ONE desktop with specialized areas on it for different things... areas that, while perhaps flexible in size, have enforced functions, such as only having program links or document links. It's a vague idea, but would give that clutter far better organization and usefulness, I think.
Considering that the average computer user uses the word memory when (s)he really means disk space , it shouldn't be surprising that a hard disk icon is confusing.
Well, they're technically correct -- it's just that among the technically informed, 'memory' is usually short for 'RAM,' and doesn't include long-term memory (i.e. your hard disk).
Nobody's saying he's about to write a best-seller that's acclaimed in the NYT Book Review. I'm just saying that the quality of the language he uses is up there with most professional journalists, at least on the Internet (or in most minor newspapers). His writing may be cliched, but this is in part because he has a decent grasp of the genre he's writing in, rather than typical web fare which often looks like it's lifted from a chat room. Furthermore, I doubt that many of the posters here would be capable of writing a review of this movie, which I saw last night, and make it absorbing enough to
As for the movie itself:
I think it's mostly a me-too rip-off of Scary Movie in concept, but my girlfriend says that they did an excellent job of spoofing all of the movie that they cover. I couldn't really say, because I haven't seen Pretty In Pink, Cruel Intentions, or She's All That, which apparently account for the bulk of the references made. It's interesting to note that these so-called parody movies really have little appeal to people who actually *dislike* the genre -- the makers are, in fact, celebrating the genre and perpetuating our absorption in their cookie-cutter plots and characters.
I think a really clever parody would surround all this ridiculousness with an original and clever plot, displaying the contrast between the cynical, lackluster conception of teen movies and the true potential of a quality production.
Hence the impetus for establishing the metric system, also known as the SI (Systeme International, with an accent grave on the first e in 'Systeme').
Just because this is a site for geeks doesn't mean every article has to be about BIOS revisions, Kernel patches, and medical science breakthroughs. Yes, that makes up the bulk of what we want to see here, and it is the bulk of what we DO see here, but geeks do have interests outside of those fields.
Come now, the bulk of the stories are actually about the latest DMCA news, publicity stunts for Linux and Darwin, and Microsoft security holes. And that's why I read Slashdot. After all, what other public forum would discuss Dmitry Sklyarov, the Mexican government's flirtation with Linux, or every single little doubt about MSIE security? I would be incomplete as a person without my daily dose of such things.
OK, I wouldn't. But my other hobby is drinking, and my girlfriend likes that even less!
Ha!
-N
Yes, but more importantly, you could buy a bottle of booze!
The series portrays teens as stupid drooling sex addicts whose primary motivation is invariably getting laid.
That's how I'd describe myself in high school. I don't know about you.
Yes, you have to give Jon Katz credit for the fact that he obviously knows how to write. You may not like what he writes, but he has a good command of the English language. (Which is more that you can say for many -- or most? -- Slashdot posters.)
I think that if Jon Katz really cared about all the shit that he gets all the time, he would have quit writing stories on Slashdot long ago.