Economic factors aside, "opt-in" is the way to go, especially for junk mail and spam. If only commercial (e.g. radio and tv) advertising worked the same way...
PS: Would I be correct in assuming that the closer the sphere of exposure of your average lobbyist/lawmaker to the average man, the more likely "opt-in" policies are to take hold?
Take a look at the various responses to your message; obviously people have varying opinions on how long batteries should last... The most interesting thing is that experience usually factors in to a person's opinion; given the wide range of comments and expectations for battery life, could you conclude that "more than physics" factors into the equation for just how long a battery will last?
Make no mistake, It think your question of "Where's the problem" is not only insightful, but a bit loaded.
Facts:
I attended a BBQ@Gates' place this summer for interns, and I specifically asked him about the Mono project. The phrase he used to describe the project was "flattering". His comment was accompanied by a smile, not a menacing grin.
I honestly think that MS (at least at the top) bears no ill will towards the project. An independent project extending the platform functionality of their software is a free gift, and everyone loves free stuff =)
On the other hand, the people who work for MS, at a PM and Dev level, may move yardsticks forward with future versions of the framework. At that time, it'll be up to the Mono developers to keep the implementations compatible. Don't expect MS to offer any help.
Coincidentally, I also asked a PUM (a person in charge of about 100 employees) whether the openess of the framework would be maintained in future releases. He told me there were no plans on changing the availabilty of documentation, etc.
My opinion:
All in all, Mono is a good thing. But architecture choices are a delicate thing. If you really don't trust MS, don't use their software, especially their frameworks and IDEs.
Another format/form factor you might want to consider is the "Book PC" - a small form factor SiS630 based solution (comes with a keyboard and mouse, just slap in the memory, hard drive, and processor, and you're off and running):
Just remember - if you are going to purchase parts for a load of computers, purchase the components from a single vendor (one point of return in case anything goes wrong)... Intel chipsets tend to be a bit less of a hassle in terms of installing OS's (less patches for Win2K, etc.)
Be sure to consider your end user's needs - if your clients use will be restricted to standard office tasks (word processing, spreadsheets, email and file sharing), a cheap client with a freeOS is more than sufficient. Just use established design patterns and best practices when creating the network and installing the machines (use ghost, drive images, seperate system and data partitions, use a kickstart server, and have an app for remote management and monitoring).
Their (JCraft's) Product allows you to see your entire desktop from any computer with a web browser, internet connection, and a JDK installed.
That, or use WindowsXP =(
The economic implications of this legislation would be far-reaching and grim...
Software currently isn't considered as part of the GDP (Gross Domestic Product). But any legislator who doubts the link between the health of the tech-industry and the general welfare of the economy at large need only examine the.com collapse. Stiffling innovation in the nascent stages of the Internet has disastrous consequences, for both tech and non-tech companies. Irregardless of the design philosophy of the internet (open community), in strictly economic terms, the SSSCA is a bad idea.
"Seriously! Wouldn't this be incredibly efficient? Isn't this the logical conclusion of laws that are designed to guarantee profits for a particular group?"
Technically, your logic is incorrect - the intention of the law is to protect 3 interests:
The artist's interest (incentive to create new content)
The public's interetest (public domain, the desire to consume)
The copyright holder/distributor's interest (profit preservation).
Think of this as a triangle, with each one of the interests at a vertex, in a constant tug-of-war.
What's the shape of the current triangle? Is it equalateral, or stretched in the direction of one particular vertex?
If you are interested in grasping some additional metaphors considered in the current copyright arena, check out Jessica Litman's "Digital Copyright: Protecting Intellectual Property on The Internet" - it's a must-read if you are interested in digital copyright, and has received wonderful reviews here on Slashdot.
"a pretense to virtue a possible antecedent to true virtue? I don't know."
A US Representative, Barney Frank (D), was recently quoted during the campaign finance debates as saying: "Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue."
Neither party's hands are clean when it comes to the current Orwellian state of affairs in the US. It's a shame that people are ready to throw away 200 years of hard fought battles defending civil liberties, all because of fears of terrorism and a digital economy. The framers of the consitution were defining guiding principles, not specifics. They must be "rolling over" in their graves.
Slashdot Mirror
Economic factors aside, "opt-in" is the way to go, especially for junk mail and spam. If only commercial (e.g. radio and tv) advertising worked the same way...
PS: Would I be correct in assuming that the closer the sphere of exposure of your average lobbyist/lawmaker to the average man, the more likely "opt-in" policies are to take hold?
Take a look at the various responses to your message; obviously people have varying opinions on how long batteries should last... The most interesting thing is that experience usually factors in to a person's opinion; given the wide range of comments and expectations for battery life, could you conclude that "more than physics" factors into the equation for just how long a battery will last?
Make no mistake, It think your question of "Where's the problem" is not only insightful, but a bit loaded.
Facts: I attended a BBQ@Gates' place this summer for interns, and I specifically asked him about the Mono project. The phrase he used to describe the project was "flattering". His comment was accompanied by a smile, not a menacing grin. I honestly think that MS (at least at the top) bears no ill will towards the project. An independent project extending the platform functionality of their software is a free gift, and everyone loves free stuff =) On the other hand, the people who work for MS, at a PM and Dev level, may move yardsticks forward with future versions of the framework. At that time, it'll be up to the Mono developers to keep the implementations compatible. Don't expect MS to offer any help. Coincidentally, I also asked a PUM (a person in charge of about 100 employees) whether the openess of the framework would be maintained in future releases. He told me there were no plans on changing the availabilty of documentation, etc. My opinion: All in all, Mono is a good thing. But architecture choices are a delicate thing. If you really don't trust MS, don't use their software, especially their frameworks and IDEs.
Another format/form factor you might want to consider is the "Book PC" - a small form factor SiS630 based solution (comes with a keyboard and mouse, just slap in the memory, hard drive, and processor, and you're off and running): Just remember - if you are going to purchase parts for a load of computers, purchase the components from a single vendor (one point of return in case anything goes wrong)... Intel chipsets tend to be a bit less of a hassle in terms of installing OS's (less patches for Win2K, etc.)
Be sure to consider your end user's needs - if your clients use will be restricted to standard office tasks (word processing, spreadsheets, email and file sharing), a cheap client with a freeOS is more than sufficient. Just use established design patterns and best practices when creating the network and installing the machines (use ghost, drive images, seperate system and data partitions, use a kickstart server, and have an app for remote management and monitoring).
JCraft
Their (JCraft's) Product allows you to see your entire desktop from any computer with a web browser, internet connection, and a JDK installed. That, or use WindowsXP =(Software currently isn't considered as part of the GDP (Gross Domestic Product). But any legislator who doubts the link between the health of the tech-industry and the general welfare of the economy at large need only examine the .com collapse. Stiffling innovation in the nascent stages of the Internet has disastrous consequences, for both tech and non-tech companies. Irregardless of the design philosophy of the internet (open community), in strictly economic terms, the SSSCA is a bad idea.
Technically, your logic is incorrect - the intention of the law is to protect 3 interests:
The artist's interest (incentive to create new content)
The public's interetest (public domain, the desire to consume)
The copyright holder/distributor's interest (profit preservation).
Think of this as a triangle, with each one of the interests at a vertex, in a constant tug-of-war.
What's the shape of the current triangle? Is it equalateral, or stretched in the direction of one particular vertex?
If you are interested in grasping some additional metaphors considered in the current copyright arena, check out Jessica Litman's "Digital Copyright: Protecting Intellectual Property on The Internet" - it's a must-read if you are interested in digital copyright, and has received wonderful reviews here on Slashdot.
"a pretense to virtue a possible antecedent to true virtue? I don't know." A US Representative, Barney Frank (D), was recently quoted during the campaign finance debates as saying: "Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue." Neither party's hands are clean when it comes to the current Orwellian state of affairs in the US. It's a shame that people are ready to throw away 200 years of hard fought battles defending civil liberties, all because of fears of terrorism and a digital economy. The framers of the consitution were defining guiding principles, not specifics. They must be "rolling over" in their graves.