this was the first time in a loong time that slashdot had the balls into retracting anything.
I see it all the time.
It only happened because they were so shamed into it because it was utterly baseless and false.
It almost never happens with mainstream media.
And Slashdot is based around the forum. I go to the space weapon article you mention, and what do I see? The first thing I see is it being corrected in the comments.
It speaks volumes for/. (and blogs and web media in general) that they display their retractions so prominently, and in the same space as the original news. You won't see the same in print or on tv.
Personally, I read/. a couple of times a day (often via Straw), and I saw the retraction at the same time I saw the story.
I feel that the arrogant attitude of the pirate bay will come back and haunt them; that it'll get opinion against them. It appears spiteful and childish.
Personally, I do want copyright law to be changed. I want copying to be legalized, and I see piracy as a way to do that (as a sort of mass protest), but I fear a backlash coming if we're too arrogant about it.
Don't make it look like a "problem" they have to "solve". I hear the pirate bay is hosted in Sweden, and EUCD is coming. Maybe they'll look especially into "solving the BitTorrent dilemma".
It doesn't happen like it does in US. People are asked to be responsible for themselves.
No, it's not because "people are asked to be responsible for themselves", it's because there are lots of good consumer rights organisations in place, so you don't need to sue. (Of course, with the currently increasing corporate power in Europe, the consumer rights organisations need to gain power, too.)
Let me tell you something: the whole "suing everyone macarena" in United States appears so ridiculous to many other countries that it makes up for good laughs at dinner time, in front of a burning hot expresso.
I know, but those people don't always realize the exposed position of the american consumer. Among europeans, the story often goes "Hear about that guy[sic] who sued McDonalds just because the coffee was a bit warm?" "Silly Americans, ha ha ha". Dismissed, just like that, without knowing any details about the case, or considering the american medicare system.
Actually, I think Raskin would be somewhat happy with something like Emacs, especially with it's incremental search (backwards and forwards) feature, available by default on C-r and C-s.
Jef Raskin has a very different view on what's "good UI" than most of his peers - maybe you could combine both schools and come up with something that's killer.
There's no difference in the behavior of regular and brushed-metal windows. The close, maximize, minimize and toolbar buttons do the same thing in all of them.
There's a difference in appearance. It's like running two gnome themes at once. And the close button does work differently from app to app, and so does the zoom/maximize button. At least, that's the impression I've gotten.
Nope. There's application hiding, and window minimizing.
Why? Why is there both? And why is the WM so focused on the concept of "applications"? Before Exposé, if I wanted to switch to a browser window I had to first Cmd-Tab to the application, then use the application's internal window switching keyboard shortcut to find the particular window I wanted. Why?
Excuse me? What's your issue with iTunes? I'm able to pick the song I want out of 1,429 choices in about three seconds.
My issue is this: say I want to listen to "Chicks on Speed - For all the boys in the world", then "Jeff Buckley - Hallelujah", then the entire April March/Los Cincos album, then some Moloko tracks. With Muine, I can make that entire playlist (or any playlist) in maybe five seconds. With iTunes, as far as I know (and I really hope there's an easier way), I have to create a playlist and then drag the tracks/albums I want to it. That wasn't obvious to figure out, and if there's an easier way, it's even less obvious.
True, but this is negated by the fact that there are more than two people (idiot or not) on the ballot. You can easily avoid voting for either of the two idiots, Bush and Nader, by voting for Kerry.
Putting a non-idiot on the ballot (and I'm not saying that Kerry's a non-idiot) doesn't completely negate the encouragement.
It's like the original case with Linux vs pirated Windows - at least a subset of users will save the money but still use pirated Windows.
Then why not continue using the (perfectly good) copy of Linux they already have?
I would - I don't know their reasons, but in many cases, it's probably network externalities.
Microsoft (as a group of individuals, not as a corporate pseudoperson) puts a product on the market with the expectation that its users will compensate them for their efforts in its production.
Back in 1976, Microsoft did just that, even thought the software climate (in that market) at the time was free redistribution and sharing. In essense, they tried ot impose their economic ideal on the rest of the world, and, judging from their success, managed to do that to some extent, especially in the corporate world.
Not only have they tried to influence the economic system via propaganda and cultural means; they've also used the legal system to they advantage, using copyright and patent lawsuits to get what they want. (Personally, I count that as use of "force", by the way.)
It's a package deal - if you don't agree with any part of it, the moral thing to do is reject the whole trade (including the privilege being offered).
A good point, but why did Microsoft even enter the software market in the seventies if it wasn't prepared to deal with the (very real, and very widespread) effects (and cultural climate) of software copying? Since they disagreed with that part of their target market, wouldn't the moral thing be to abstain from participating at all?
Or, to shorten that up a little, "If you don't want to pay what they're asking, don't use it."
But people with the "to each according to need" economic ideal often see the software realms as commons, which corporations like Microsoft is trying to impose their own rules on.
"If you don't want people to use your software, don't release it into the commons."
Sound absurd? Again, the basic issue is the basic economic, particularly IP-related, premises assumed in the discussion.
The compatibility problems between the two economic ideals have been the source of numerous conflicts over the years, and is one of the major issues of humanity.
As I believe you agree, one way around the issue that should be acceptable to both camps is the work of the free software movement.
But (at least currently), it can't be all things to all people (again, I'm thinking of network externalities), and that's why we have conflict-causing things such as claims of "ownership" of software, versus software piracy. Whether or not you think of one of these two things as "right" again depends on which economic ideal you prefer.
Slashdot Mirror
"Honey, I'm getting a huge paycut, and we have to move to another state!"
"That am wonderful news!"
I see it all the time.
It almost never happens with mainstream media.
And Slashdot is based around the forum. I go to the space weapon article you mention, and what do I see? The first thing I see is it being corrected in the comments.
It speaks volumes for /. (and blogs and web media in general) that they display their retractions so prominently, and in the same space as the original news. You won't see the same in print or on tv.
/. a couple of times a day (often via Straw), and I saw the retraction at the same time I saw the story.
Personally, I read
I feel that the arrogant attitude of the pirate bay will come back and haunt them; that it'll get opinion against them. It appears spiteful and childish.
Personally, I do want copyright law to be changed. I want copying to be legalized, and I see piracy as a way to do that (as a sort of mass protest), but I fear a backlash coming if we're too arrogant about it.
Don't make it look like a "problem" they have to "solve". I hear the pirate bay is hosted in Sweden, and EUCD is coming. Maybe they'll look especially into "solving the BitTorrent dilemma".
"This book is dedicated, in respect and admiration, to the spirit that lives in the computer."
Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs.
Yeah, I know, I was also kidding.
Canada is part of America, you insensitive clod!
In South Park, Turd Sandwich used a similar font/logotype as Bush/Cheney.
No, it's not free (open source) software.
While I wouldn't fall of my chair if Bush wins, I do think synchronity and other magickal phenomena are interesting and can sometimes be useful.
(My personal epistemology has a feyerabendian slant.)
No, it's not because "people are asked to be responsible for themselves", it's because there are lots of good consumer rights organisations in place, so you don't need to sue. (Of course, with the currently increasing corporate power in Europe, the consumer rights organisations need to gain power, too.)
I know, but those people don't always realize the exposed position of the american consumer. Among europeans, the story often goes "Hear about that guy[sic] who sued McDonalds just because the coffee was a bit warm?" "Silly Americans, ha ha ha". Dismissed, just like that, without knowing any details about the case, or considering the american medicare system.
Well, then maybe the law should be changed.
You misunderstand, we're talking about a defensible view of what copyright should be, not "an alternate interpretation of current copyright law".
I think Dana actually is hosting her website on one of her old macs, a Quadra I think. I'm not sure.
Is there an "operating system" that's developed specifically for abacuses?
I mean specific methods/modes of operation. Good abacus "software".
Is there talk of a merge, or cooperation? How will it turn out between the two of you?
Actually, I think Raskin would be somewhat happy with something like Emacs, especially with it's incremental search (backwards and forwards) feature, available by default on C-r and C-s.
Jef Raskin has a very different view on what's "good UI" than most of his peers - maybe you could combine both schools and come up with something that's killer.
You should give his newest album, Has been, a listen. It's really good, it just came out. Look for it on suprnova.
Unfortunately, it's a very common misconception since not everyone is familiar with the OSI's definition.
"Open" is an ambiguous word, as in "open for reading/viewing" vs "open for changing/redistribution".
There's a difference in appearance. It's like running two gnome themes at once. And the close button does work differently from app to app, and so does the zoom/maximize button. At least, that's the impression I've gotten.
Why? Why is there both? And why is the WM so focused on the concept of "applications"? Before Exposé, if I wanted to switch to a browser window I had to first Cmd-Tab to the application, then use the application's internal window switching keyboard shortcut to find the particular window I wanted. Why?
My issue is this: say I want to listen to "Chicks on Speed - For all the boys in the world", then "Jeff Buckley - Hallelujah", then the entire April March/Los Cincos album, then some Moloko tracks. With Muine, I can make that entire playlist (or any playlist) in maybe five seconds. With iTunes, as far as I know (and I really hope there's an easier way), I have to create a playlist and then drag the tracks/albums I want to it. That wasn't obvious to figure out, and if there's an easier way, it's even less obvious.
Did Apple?
This is Apple:
Putting a non-idiot on the ballot (and I'm not saying that Kerry's a non-idiot) doesn't completely negate the encouragement.
It's like the original case with Linux vs pirated Windows - at least a subset of users will save the money but still use pirated Windows.
I hope that'll change in the future.
A "polite" culture is one that adheres to plenty of unwritten social rules. It isn't the same as generosity.
I would - I don't know their reasons, but in many cases, it's probably network externalities.
Back in 1976, Microsoft did just that, even thought the software climate (in that market) at the time was free redistribution and sharing. In essense, they tried ot impose their economic ideal on the rest of the world, and, judging from their success, managed to do that to some extent, especially in the corporate world.
Not only have they tried to influence the economic system via propaganda and cultural means; they've also used the legal system to they advantage, using copyright and patent lawsuits to get what they want. (Personally, I count that as use of "force", by the way.)
A good point, but why did Microsoft even enter the software market in the seventies if it wasn't prepared to deal with the (very real, and very widespread) effects (and cultural climate) of software copying? Since they disagreed with that part of their target market, wouldn't the moral thing be to abstain from participating at all?
But people with the "to each according to need" economic ideal often see the software realms as commons, which corporations like Microsoft is trying to impose their own rules on.
"If you don't want people to use your software, don't release it into the commons."
Sound absurd? Again, the basic issue is the basic economic, particularly IP-related, premises assumed in the discussion.
The compatibility problems between the two economic ideals have been the source of numerous conflicts over the years, and is one of the major issues of humanity.
As I believe you agree, one way around the issue that should be acceptable to both camps is the work of the free software movement.
But (at least currently), it can't be all things to all people (again, I'm thinking of network externalities), and that's why we have conflict-causing things such as claims of "ownership" of software, versus software piracy. Whether or not you think of one of these two things as "right" again depends on which economic ideal you prefer.