There is a lot more diversity on Linux desktops than on Windows desktops
I have a theory that said diversity will diminish as Linux desktops become more popular. I am not convinced that there is an inherent reason why the Linux desktop will not eventually settle on a single desktop that is run by the vast majority of users. Especially if one version gets a good foothold in the corporate world.
It happens in every other sphere of activity (sort of a convergence on the mean) so why would the desktop be any different (unless of course you believe that MS became dominant only through evil means)
on eBay when the riaa gets rid of the machines they confiscate from pirate shops. Make 10000 copies and store them somewhere. One of them has gotta work in 10 years time
I assumed they meant a security issue for the user of the MSN client ie as a vector. They are saying that the old versions are so hopelessly compromised that they won't allow them to be used in future.
homeless who are mentally ill and choose to continue living that way
I have difficulty reconciling the two concepts of mental illness and sensible choices.. To suggest that choices made by the mentally ill are valid decisions arrived at after reasonable consideration of acceptable alternatives is to suggest that they are not mentally ill in the first place. And that there is therefore no such thing as mental illness merely laziness.
Depending on the illness, the act of not taking medication can put the patient in a position where harm to them or others is more likely to result. Being on medication does not magically fix most underlying mental problems, merely make it easier for the sufferer to manage day to day activities.
might refuse to even go into a shelter if something like this was instituted.Those in the active state of their mental illnesses may. Some others with an active dislike or distrust of any oversight. But there would I suspect be a significant number who might feel more worthwile knowing that they don't have to prove their status from the ground up every time they go for a meal. Or have to convince a doctor that they did receive a particular treatment the last ten times they presented.
That is an opinion based on my understanding of supply and demand.. It is not everyones opinion but it is not only my opinion.
I am not American. I did not support the invasion of Iraq. It was unnecessary to achieve its stated aims and it was against the basic UN Charter provision relating to interference in another country's internal affairs. The UN Charter allows a long slow oppression of a people by an unelected regieme.
I never thought that the US would be welcomed with flowers in Iraq and I never thought the US had the brains or understanding of Iraq to ever succeed in their stated aims of bringing democracy to Iraq.
Your one track Blood for Oil position shows no insight at all. If you truly think that this is only about Oil you are deluded. Oil was a happy side benefit.(from some US officials perspective)
of the anti Saddam push.
If more than one person got the same email that they hadn't opted in on then the dean campaign was spamming. You don't need to do any in depth technical research about Venesualian whatever image servers to work that out. Who cares who sent it
Deans biggest stuff up was deciding to send email at all to people who hadn't indicated an interest in receiving email from his campaign.
The rest of us that think IP is a valid concept, but is being abused by some, will continue to speak without ACing.
You will notice many posters putting their name to posts wholehartedly against IP as a concept. So this part of your post marks you as clueless.
I guess you could also speak in favor of incest, beastiality, and communism as an AC, and still be so "brave" for speaking your mind
And for obvious reasons this marks you as an idiot.
This flatly borders on some freakish communism where the individual has no rights, and all things belong to the "community".
There is no indication that any any anti IP posters advocate property as theft. Only that there are such fundemantal differences between tangible and intangible property that intangible property should not be given the same protections as tangible property.
This religious view of "free" is beyond what any rational person can accept
Nice juxtaposition there; bad 'religious' v good 'rational'. Except that rationalism can be as religious an experience as any religion.
For all the rants there are many points raised in these forum that expose inconsistencies and weaknesses in the current IP arrangements. Enough at least to show that there are differing valid points of view and that total abolition of IP is one of those.
IP includes drugs too.
Yeah, and one-click internet shopping. Some people see that as part of the problem because common sense suggests that there is a difference between the two. You obviously see it as part of the solution because rationally there is no difference between drugs and one-click shopping.
but rather whose companies get the contracts on distributing it
The US doesn't steal oil from anyone. Sure it makes money by operating the wells etc but it buys the oil the same as anyone else at world prices. It has a hugh interest in seeing the base price of oil as low as possible. Other wise Joe Sixpack will start to get pissed off as the refil price on his SUV goes up as well as effects on industry..
The major effect of the availability of Iraqi oil on the price etc of oil will be to reduce the influence the Saudis have on supply and thereby the price.
Does the US have WMD/CBW stashed away in secret warehouses Yes. I know this because its never really been a secret
Does (not did yet) Saddam H have WMD/CBW stashed away in secret warehouses Dunno yet, maybe, maybe not. Depends who you believe.
Am I worried about the not so secret US arsenal
No. They show no inclination to use it against anyone in particular and if they ever were to do so I suspect it would be the least of my problems by that time. And its probably well enough guarded to feel that it won't fall into the wrong hands.
Am I worried about the oh so secret Iraqui possible arsenal
Shit yes. None of the above feelgood factors are there.
Copyright is not a contract issue but licences are. By acquiring a CD I accept the note on almost every CD I've seen that says "Unauthorized copying blah blah is strictly prohibited." That is a licence. So yes if i were then caught distributing such a song on Kazaa, I would expect the law to be able to bind me to the terms on it. The GPL licence is a bit longer than the CD one because you can do more with software and it is a more complex issue.
Truth is you make copies all the time.
And those copies are all authorized by copyright law specifically to allow computers to operate.
They give you the site free. Are you bound?
Yes. Now don't tell me that hidden away in the really small print in white typeface is a promise to give them my next born child and now I'm bound to do that because I looked at their site.
As an aside, while writing the first point above about every cd, i happened to pick up my copy (purchased legal and all) of the Sleepy Jackson CD which is proudly stamped with Copy Controlled in various places and notes that the disc incorporates Copy Control technology that prevents the consumer from making digital copies. Nowhere is there a copyright mark or the above mentioned Thou Shalt Not label. The only thing that looks ownerish is the (L.Steele.Control) after each song title which I assume is the Composer.Publisher
In Australia at least there are cases supporting existance of a valid contract where the offer was basically "If I hear no more about him I shall consider the horse mine at 30 15s 0d". (Felthouse v Bindley
And there are the ticket cases.
From http://law.anu.edu.au/colin/Layout/Off_Ac_h.htm
Traditionally the so-called "ticket cases", that is, cases in which there is a written document which is not signed by either party, have been analysed as follows: the person who provides the ticket makes an offer by proffering the ticket. The other person (the passenger in this case) then either accepts the ticket (and therefore the terms contained therein) or decides not to accept. The theory is that the person at least has some time to peruse the terms and then makes a decision whether to accept them. In practice, of course, no-one peruses the terms and no-one rejects the ticket. Instead they just put the ticket in their pocket. We will see later that in some ticket cases there is a possible argument that the person proffering the ticket must give reasonable notice of the terms in the ticket. But this is usually achieved by simply proffering the ticket.
It's Australian but I presumed most common law jurisdictions wiould come to similar conclusions to allow normal business activities to go ahead.
Only deliberately
agreeing to a contract should bind you to a contract.
Should maybe but that has not been law for a long time. A finding like that would probably be beyond the ability of any judge at this point. It would destroy lots of very good and useful law that suggests that acceptance of a contract is implied by acting in accordance with the contract. It works both ways and to throw it out because occasionally it works against the 'weaker' party to a contract ignores the times it has acted as a shield against 'stronger" parties looking to void contracts that they have gone along with till it suited them.
The argument about accepting EULA's as contracts will go on (and on and on) but a desire to avoid them is not a good reason to support changing good law.
Personally I have always considered the GPL to be heavily reliant on acceptance of terms being implied by actions. No one signs anything with the GPL. How else do you evidence accepatnce.
How dare a company that sells technology have knowledgable staff
Computers are a commodity. The salesman is there to discuss terms and conditions.
He was probably going to say "What the fruk are you talking about man. You come Frys to buy the box cheap. If you have to ask questions, you are not ready to buy the box. Come back when you know which box you are going to buy and Fry's will give you a good deal" but you walked out after the first word.
For $7 an hour you tell them what you want and if they have it they help you load your car. If they don't they show you where the door is.
Don't tell me they expected that to be a good movie.
Maybe good was a bad word. Movies like that are as you say built for a target. So they put in all the bits that will please that audience.
Nobody makes a movie that they expect no one will want to watch. leading part played by a star which appeals to the target audience, storyline from the script-o-matic machine, run-of-the-mill special effects Sounds like the average Hollywood movie. Some times they get it right and the movie is worth $10 or whatever to watch, some times they get it wrong and $10 is to much if its worth anything at all.
Viewers only become frustrated one time viewers when they get it wrong and the viewer really doesn't take any notice of the bad word of mouth. That's what reviewers are for. eg Is anyone in their right mind going to see Gigli. The problem is that the answer is yes, millions will. Some of them will even love it.
If piracy can amplify the negative word-of-mouth for this kind of movie, then piracy can make the world a better place.
Man that is the lamest excuse for piracy that I can imagine. If its that bad why give it to people to watch. If they hate it you have spread more unjoy. If they like it you have ripped Hollywood off as Hollywood suggests. You lose both ways.
Stick with "I don't wanna pay for something if I can get it for free because I don't wanna pay"
If only the good one's make money, maybe they'll only make the good one's.
This seems to be a common call. Do you really think the people making movies set out to make a bad movie for $35 million. Why would they do that. Lots of things go towards making a bad movie but no one sets out to make one.
If there was a way of ensuring every time that a good movie would be produced don't you think it would have filtered out to everyone by now.
Most big-budget crap starts out as a good idea and the more people who are expected to like it the more a producer will put into it. So big-budget crap is stuff the producer mis-calculated the audience for. Some of it is stuff that just didn't work on screen even if they looked good on paper. Dave Barry is an example of that. His Big Trouble as a book was funny but apparently didn't translate to the screen. Same for Elmore Leonard. A few of his early adaptions were crap when you think it will work. Then Get Shorty is a hugh hit.
One of the reasons why some movies make hugh profits is because some make hugh losses. Real crap doesn't make its money back from one time viewers.
I don't know for sure if you think I am suggesting that you can discriminate if race etc is relevant. I don't because it isn't. The examples you give are mistakes of correlation vs causation which lead to unfair discrimination. It may be that more minorities default on loans. That doesn't mean all members of that minority do, so discrimination on that basis is unfair to those that pay their debts. Loans should be based on credit history, guarantees, references etc, not colour of skin. Same for women and jobs. And rentals although you could justify higher rents in a minority area if you could show high crime rates effect costs etc like insurance and more repairs. But again that isn't related to the race ofd the renters.
Society has judged that the social hardship of allowing such distinctions isn't worth any potential financial benefit
I'd rather think that society insists that any differences be economically justified rather than racially or gender justified. Just like justice is blind to the race, gender or social status of the person but not to the facts so should economic decisions br blind to those personal attributes.
I still think it is better to keep the salespeople in the dark
Agreed but
having a historical database really will not budge the human bell curve so salesman won't need tons of information up-front because they can assume that most people really are gullible and pay through the nose especially in the poor/uneducated neighborhoods.
Information wants to be free but its captors will only allow it out at a price, a price that cash loan stores, cell phone stores, bail bond agents, seedy used car lots, etc are highly unlikely to see a need for given the locals are gullible etc.
This information will be used to target middle class and higher, more than poor who already spend all their money now.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a theory that said diversity will diminish as Linux desktops become more popular. I am not convinced that there is an inherent reason why the Linux desktop will not eventually settle on a single desktop that is run by the vast majority of users. Especially if one version gets a good foothold in the corporate world.
It happens in every other sphere of activity (sort of a convergence on the mean) so why would the desktop be any different (unless of course you believe that MS became dominant only through evil means)
on eBay when the riaa gets rid of the machines they confiscate from pirate shops. Make 10000 copies and store them somewhere. One of them has gotta work in 10 years time
I have difficulty reconciling the two concepts of mental illness and sensible choices.. To suggest that choices made by the mentally ill are valid decisions arrived at after reasonable consideration of acceptable alternatives is to suggest that they are not mentally ill in the first place. And that there is therefore no such thing as mental illness merely laziness.
Depending on the illness, the act of not taking medication can put the patient in a position where harm to them or others is more likely to result. Being on medication does not magically fix most underlying mental problems, merely make it easier for the sufferer to manage day to day activities.
might refuse to even go into a shelter if something like this was instituted.Those in the active state of their mental illnesses may. Some others with an active dislike or distrust of any oversight. But there would I suspect be a significant number who might feel more worthwile knowing that they don't have to prove their status from the ground up every time they go for a meal. Or have to convince a doctor that they did receive a particular treatment the last ten times they presented.
That must be very distracting for your girlfriend.
Ah yes, The Princess Bride; truly a film for children of all ages.
That is an opinion based on my understanding of supply and demand.. It is not everyones opinion but it is not only my opinion.
I am not American. I did not support the invasion of Iraq. It was unnecessary to achieve its stated aims and it was against the basic UN Charter provision relating to interference in another country's internal affairs. The UN Charter allows a long slow oppression of a people by an unelected regieme.
I never thought that the US would be welcomed with flowers in Iraq and I never thought the US had the brains or understanding of Iraq to ever succeed in their stated aims of bringing democracy to Iraq.
Your one track Blood for Oil position shows no insight at all. If you truly think that this is only about Oil you are deluded. Oil was a happy side benefit .(from some US officials perspective)
of the anti Saddam push.
Deans biggest stuff up was deciding to send email at all to people who hadn't indicated an interest in receiving email from his campaign.
You will notice many posters putting their name to posts wholehartedly against IP as a concept. So this part of your post marks you as clueless.
I guess you could also speak in favor of incest, beastiality, and communism as an AC, and still be so "brave" for speaking your mind
And for obvious reasons this marks you as an idiot.
This flatly borders on some freakish communism where the individual has no rights, and all things belong to the "community".
There is no indication that any any anti IP posters advocate property as theft. Only that there are such fundemantal differences between tangible and intangible property that intangible property should not be given the same protections as tangible property.
This religious view of "free" is beyond what any rational person can accept
Nice juxtaposition there; bad 'religious' v good 'rational'. Except that rationalism can be as religious an experience as any religion.
For all the rants there are many points raised in these forum that expose inconsistencies and weaknesses in the current IP arrangements. Enough at least to show that there are differing valid points of view and that total abolition of IP is one of those.
IP includes drugs too.
Yeah, and one-click internet shopping. Some people see that as part of the problem because common sense suggests that there is a difference between the two. You obviously see it as part of the solution because rationally there is no difference between drugs and one-click shopping.
The US doesn't steal oil from anyone. Sure it makes money by operating the wells etc but it buys the oil the same as anyone else at world prices. It has a hugh interest in seeing the base price of oil as low as possible. Other wise Joe Sixpack will start to get pissed off as the refil price on his SUV goes up as well as effects on industry..
The major effect of the availability of Iraqi oil on the price etc of oil will be to reduce the influence the Saudis have on supply and thereby the price.
Does (not did yet) Saddam H have WMD/CBW stashed away in secret warehouses Dunno yet, maybe, maybe not. Depends who you believe.
Am I worried about the not so secret US arsenal
No. They show no inclination to use it against anyone in particular and if they ever were to do so I suspect it would be the least of my problems by that time. And its probably well enough guarded to feel that it won't fall into the wrong hands.
Am I worried about the oh so secret Iraqui possible arsenal
Shit yes. None of the above feelgood factors are there.
My AV software CA Innoculan calls it w32.poza virus
Truth is you make copies all the time.
And those copies are all authorized by copyright law specifically to allow computers to operate.
They give you the site free. Are you bound? Yes. Now don't tell me that hidden away in the really small print in white typeface is a promise to give them my next born child and now I'm bound to do that because I looked at their site.
As an aside, while writing the first point above about every cd, i happened to pick up my copy (purchased legal and all) of the Sleepy Jackson CD which is proudly stamped with Copy Controlled in various places and notes that the disc incorporates Copy Control technology that prevents the consumer from making digital copies. Nowhere is there a copyright mark or the above mentioned Thou Shalt Not label. The only thing that looks ownerish is the (L.Steele.Control) after each song title which I assume is the Composer.Publisher
So I made an analog copy.
In Australia at least there are cases supporting existance of a valid contract where the offer was basically "If I hear no more about him I shall consider the horse mine at 30 15s 0d". (Felthouse v Bindley
And there are the ticket cases.
From http://law.anu.edu.au/colin/Layout/Off_Ac_h.htm Traditionally the so-called "ticket cases", that is, cases in which there is a written document which is not signed by either party, have been analysed as follows: the person who provides the ticket makes an offer by proffering the ticket. The other person (the passenger in this case) then either accepts the ticket (and therefore the terms contained therein) or decides not to accept. The theory is that the person at least has some time to peruse the terms and then makes a decision whether to accept them. In practice, of course, no-one peruses the terms and no-one rejects the ticket. Instead they just put the ticket in their pocket. We will see later that in some ticket cases there is a possible argument that the person proffering the ticket must give reasonable notice of the terms in the ticket. But this is usually achieved by simply proffering the ticket.
It's Australian but I presumed most common law jurisdictions wiould come to similar conclusions to allow normal business activities to go ahead.
MS has its own State. Holy Shit.
Is it a patent portfolio company? Sounded more like the originator to me though I haven't looked further. Just the way it's worded.
Should maybe but that has not been law for a long time. A finding like that would probably be beyond the ability of any judge at this point. It would destroy lots of very good and useful law that suggests that acceptance of a contract is implied by acting in accordance with the contract. It works both ways and to throw it out because occasionally it works against the 'weaker' party to a contract ignores the times it has acted as a shield against 'stronger" parties looking to void contracts that they have gone along with till it suited them.
The argument about accepting EULA's as contracts will go on (and on and on) but a desire to avoid them is not a good reason to support changing good law.
Personally I have always considered the GPL to be heavily reliant on acceptance of terms being implied by actions. No one signs anything with the GPL. How else do you evidence accepatnce.
Computers are a commodity. The salesman is there to discuss terms and conditions.
He was probably going to say "What the fruk are you talking about man. You come Frys to buy the box cheap. If you have to ask questions, you are not ready to buy the box. Come back when you know which box you are going to buy and Fry's will give you a good deal" but you walked out after the first word.
For $7 an hour you tell them what you want and if they have it they help you load your car. If they don't they show you where the door is.
Yes, integrity is great. If you can fake it you've got it made.
Don't tell me they expected that to be a good movie.
Maybe good was a bad word. Movies like that are as you say built for a target. So they put in all the bits that will please that audience.
Nobody makes a movie that they expect no one will want to watch. leading part played by a star which appeals to the target audience, storyline from the script-o-matic machine, run-of-the-mill special effects Sounds like the average Hollywood movie. Some times they get it right and the movie is worth $10 or whatever to watch, some times they get it wrong and $10 is to much if its worth anything at all.
Viewers only become frustrated one time viewers when they get it wrong and the viewer really doesn't take any notice of the bad word of mouth. That's what reviewers are for. eg Is anyone in their right mind going to see Gigli. The problem is that the answer is yes, millions will. Some of them will even love it.
If piracy can amplify the negative word-of-mouth for this kind of movie, then piracy can make the world a better place.
Man that is the lamest excuse for piracy that I can imagine. If its that bad why give it to people to watch. If they hate it you have spread more unjoy. If they like it you have ripped Hollywood off as Hollywood suggests. You lose both ways.
Stick with "I don't wanna pay for something if I can get it for free because I don't wanna pay"
But is there anything that 'those with power' do that doesn't sound mighty oppressive to you.
This seems to be a common call. Do you really think the people making movies set out to make a bad movie for $35 million. Why would they do that. Lots of things go towards making a bad movie but no one sets out to make one.
If there was a way of ensuring every time that a good movie would be produced don't you think it would have filtered out to everyone by now.
Most big-budget crap starts out as a good idea and the more people who are expected to like it the more a producer will put into it. So big-budget crap is stuff the producer mis-calculated the audience for. Some of it is stuff that just didn't work on screen even if they looked good on paper. Dave Barry is an example of that. His Big Trouble as a book was funny but apparently didn't translate to the screen. Same for Elmore Leonard. A few of his early adaptions were crap when you think it will work. Then Get Shorty is a hugh hit.
One of the reasons why some movies make hugh profits is because some make hugh losses. Real crap doesn't make its money back from one time viewers.
Society has judged that the social hardship of allowing such distinctions isn't worth any potential financial benefit
I'd rather think that society insists that any differences be economically justified rather than racially or gender justified. Just like justice is blind to the race, gender or social status of the person but not to the facts so should economic decisions br blind to those personal attributes.
Agreed but
having a historical database really will not budge the human bell curve so salesman won't need tons of information up-front because they can assume that most people really are gullible and pay through the nose especially in the poor/uneducated neighborhoods.
Information wants to be free but its captors will only allow it out at a price, a price that cash loan stores, cell phone stores, bail bond agents, seedy used car lots, etc are highly unlikely to see a need for given the locals are gullible etc.
This information will be used to target middle class and higher, more than poor who already spend all their money now.
This would force all buyers to be more hardnosed about buying all the time so as to avoid getting a rep of paying through the nose for everything.