I think if you did an educational documentary about the difference between proprietary and Free Software with a focus on schools you could educate the general public about this issue and the overwhelming public outcry would cause parents to demand that their children be supplied with exclusively Free Software. The current system of proprietary software manufacturers exploiting our schools, be it monetarily or just to get kids hooked, is a result of the apathy of some and ignorance of most.
The point of my post was that there are fundamentally philosophical reasons why schools should use Free Software and yet we don't talk about them. We're more interested in how cheaply we can educate our children than what we actually teach them. By using proprietary software in schools we are teaching children that
Some knowledge is forbidden.
Sharing is wrong.
Everything is made by a corporation.
Everything is made for profit.
Cost is the only thing worth considering when comparing alternatives.
Even if proprietary software turns out to be cheaper, surely it is more important not to give children those messages than it is to save a few bucks. As such even considering using proprietary software in our schools leaves our children morally bankrupt.
Maybe if Free Software advocates starting making Free Software arguments instead of "cost saving" arguments we'd actually get somewhere. For an example of how different a Free Software argument is to an Open Source one, read Richard Stallman's "Why schools should use exclusively Free Software" paper. There's some good truths in there that can and should be presented to educators.
Yes, and for that exact reason we don't have laws that say you can't share your bread, or car with your friends and neighbours. There no laws that favour bakers or car manufacturers over the people who consume the goods they make. In fact, there's a whole bunch of laws that control how bakers bake bread and car manufacturers make cars which actually to the disadvantage of the manufacturer.
Riiiight. So when an Australian citizen gets extradited to the US to face criminal charges for copyright infringement when (at the time of his actions) Australia has no similar laws that's what? Oh that's right, it's the Berne Convention, that states that it doesn't matter if you didn't commit a crime or violate civil law in your own country, any country can reach across the world and enforce its own law in another other country.
People will still record it when it first airs, strip the ads out and put it on the net before the "premium" one becomes available. It'll be like a game, who can get the release up the fastest.. oh wait, that's the game now.
Jesus. I was giving an example of an argument that doesn't make sense. I wasn't suggesting that there was any relevance between the two conversations. Seriously, sometimes posting on slashdot is like talking to a 15 year old (or a PE teacher).
The purpose of shows like 24 is to ensure that you are there and watching the show (complete with ads) at the alloted time. If you could just download an episode that you missed you wouldn't bother ensuring that you were home and in front of the tv at the alloted time and the ad slots would no longer be as premium. That's why the superbowl is so damn valuable to advertisers too. If you miss it and think you'll just watch it later you'll have to walk around holding your ears until you do because everyone talks about the score for 3 days starting immediately after the event.
Yeah, and then the people they give it to will strip the ads out and distribute it to everyone else without ads and they'll have to chase these people around even more than they are having to do now. Of course, what would be perfect would be if the TV companies actually put some effort into figuring out what kind of products I like, and advertising those products to me. If they included a link to the website in the film I'd happily click on it and consider buying the product. Of course, that actually takes some sort of creativity.
Why is it so hard to understand? The vast majority of people watch tv, they don't make tv, so why does the law favour the minority and not the majority? Why, because that minority pays the even smaller minority who makes the laws to make ones that favour them.
Wow, that argument follows as much as the conversation between Bart and his one time employer, Fat Tony. "Is it wrong to steal bread if your family is starving?" "No, I don't guess so."
"And if you have a large family, is it wrong to steal a truckload of bread?" "No"
"And say your family don't like bread. Say they like cigarettes. Is it wrong to steal a truckload of cigarettes?" "Hell no!"
Fair use is the worst thing that ever happened with copyright law. If people didn't have a way to weasle out from under the jackboots of copyright we'd have had the revolution a long time ago.
Copyrights are internationally honoured. Unless you're in one of the few countries that hasn't signed the international treaties on copyright then you are bound by US copyright just as much as you are bound by Japanese copyright.
Blah, if you treat children like children they will act like children, which is the best thing that a child can be. Unless you havn't noticed, the period of time for which children actually get to be children has getting smaller and smaller and the result is a seriously fucked up generation.
Hang on a minute, are you trying to suggest that playing video games isn't a sport? Oh please, tell me how golf, ping-pong and chess are sports but shooting stuff in a video game isn't? If the sport was photographing animals with a remote controlled helicopter you'd probably have less problem with it and wouldn't think not to call it a sport.
I'm sure. But as you said, they can just give no reason. So those laws wouldn't protect you, they'd just make it hard for you to figure out why your career has been poisoned. My sole point is that if you don't like anything in your contract, even if you don't think it is enforcable, then you should have it addressed before you sign it.
Well fair enough, you clearly have had moron employers who didn't even look at your contract let alone care about it. Personally I've never worked for anyone that stupid. Even the most stupid employers I've had have looked at my signature before filing it. As for just agreeing to something and then doing the opposite (contract or not) you better hope that your future employers don't hear about your actions or you might find yourself unemployable. Of course, next you'll probably tell me that employers can't refuse to hire you based on your behaviour with previous employers.
Slashdot Mirror
I think if you did an educational documentary about the difference between proprietary and Free Software with a focus on schools you could educate the general public about this issue and the overwhelming public outcry would cause parents to demand that their children be supplied with exclusively Free Software. The current system of proprietary software manufacturers exploiting our schools, be it monetarily or just to get kids hooked, is a result of the apathy of some and ignorance of most.
Even if proprietary software turns out to be cheaper, surely it is more important not to give children those messages than it is to save a few bucks. As such even considering using proprietary software in our schools leaves our children morally bankrupt.
Ya know, there are Linux administrators too.
Maybe if Free Software advocates starting making Free Software arguments instead of "cost saving" arguments we'd actually get somewhere. For an example of how different a Free Software argument is to an Open Source one, read Richard Stallman's "Why schools should use exclusively Free Software" paper. There's some good truths in there that can and should be presented to educators.
Yes, and for that exact reason we don't have laws that say you can't share your bread, or car with your friends and neighbours. There no laws that favour bakers or car manufacturers over the people who consume the goods they make. In fact, there's a whole bunch of laws that control how bakers bake bread and car manufacturers make cars which actually to the disadvantage of the manufacturer.
Dude, it happened.
Riiiight. So when an Australian citizen gets extradited to the US to face criminal charges for copyright infringement when (at the time of his actions) Australia has no similar laws that's what? Oh that's right, it's the Berne Convention, that states that it doesn't matter if you didn't commit a crime or violate civil law in your own country, any country can reach across the world and enforce its own law in another other country.
Pretentious people who can spell 'pretentious'.
It's called that by people who are pretenious, yes.
People will still record it when it first airs, strip the ads out and put it on the net before the "premium" one becomes available. It'll be like a game, who can get the release up the fastest.. oh wait, that's the game now.
Jesus. I was giving an example of an argument that doesn't make sense. I wasn't suggesting that there was any relevance between the two conversations. Seriously, sometimes posting on slashdot is like talking to a 15 year old (or a PE teacher).
And you know the answer to that as much as I do. DRM on films *just doesn't work*.
The purpose of shows like 24 is to ensure that you are there and watching the show (complete with ads) at the alloted time. If you could just download an episode that you missed you wouldn't bother ensuring that you were home and in front of the tv at the alloted time and the ad slots would no longer be as premium. That's why the superbowl is so damn valuable to advertisers too. If you miss it and think you'll just watch it later you'll have to walk around holding your ears until you do because everyone talks about the score for 3 days starting immediately after the event.
Yeah, and then the people they give it to will strip the ads out and distribute it to everyone else without ads and they'll have to chase these people around even more than they are having to do now. Of course, what would be perfect would be if the TV companies actually put some effort into figuring out what kind of products I like, and advertising those products to me. If they included a link to the website in the film I'd happily click on it and consider buying the product. Of course, that actually takes some sort of creativity.
Actually, no, they want people to watch the Ads.
Why is it so hard to understand? The vast majority of people watch tv, they don't make tv, so why does the law favour the minority and not the majority? Why, because that minority pays the even smaller minority who makes the laws to make ones that favour them.
Wow, that argument follows as much as the conversation between Bart and his one time employer, Fat Tony.
"Is it wrong to steal bread if your family is starving?"
"No, I don't guess so."
"And if you have a large family, is it wrong to steal a truckload of bread?"
"No"
"And say your family don't like bread. Say they like cigarettes. Is it wrong to steal a truckload of cigarettes?"
"Hell no!"
Fair use is the worst thing that ever happened with copyright law. If people didn't have a way to weasle out from under the jackboots of copyright we'd have had the revolution a long time ago.
Copyrights are internationally honoured. Unless you're in one of the few countries that hasn't signed the international treaties on copyright then you are bound by US copyright just as much as you are bound by Japanese copyright.
It's because he's french isn't it? I can understand that.
Vegetarian. Nuff said.
Blah, if you treat children like children they will act like children, which is the best thing that a child can be. Unless you havn't noticed, the period of time for which children actually get to be children has getting smaller and smaller and the result is a seriously fucked up generation.
Hang on a minute, are you trying to suggest that playing video games isn't a sport? Oh please, tell me how golf, ping-pong and chess are sports but shooting stuff in a video game isn't? If the sport was photographing animals with a remote controlled helicopter you'd probably have less problem with it and wouldn't think not to call it a sport.
And you're a liar and a plagarist is just redundant.
I'm sure. But as you said, they can just give no reason. So those laws wouldn't protect you, they'd just make it hard for you to figure out why your career has been poisoned. My sole point is that if you don't like anything in your contract, even if you don't think it is enforcable, then you should have it addressed before you sign it.
Well fair enough, you clearly have had moron employers who didn't even look at your contract let alone care about it. Personally I've never worked for anyone that stupid. Even the most stupid employers I've had have looked at my signature before filing it. As for just agreeing to something and then doing the opposite (contract or not) you better hope that your future employers don't hear about your actions or you might find yourself unemployable. Of course, next you'll probably tell me that employers can't refuse to hire you based on your behaviour with previous employers.