"We will give you the following property right in return for that property eventually reverting to the public." Copyright owners often make the mistake of speaking as if copyright exists for their benefit. It doesn't. The entire point of copyright is to encourage the creation of intellectual property for the benefit of the public. The fact that the mechanism by which the creation of that intellectual property is achieved is by granting a benefit to the author is purely incidental."
Finally! somebody else who understands this! now if we could only convince the politicians who are supposed to represent their constituents....
You make a good point. Like I said in a response to another post, unless the kids are actually learning to use computers as computers, it's nothing but a white elephant appliance. Windows doesn't need to be taught. Real computing does. But that doesn't mean that every kid is going to learn it.
Now that I think about it, specialization at earlier ages needs to happen. I remember being frustrated at how easy everything was in elementary school, and was teaching myself to program by 6th grade. If schools had given me classes in C, Assembly, and so on, I'd have gotten an awful lot more out of junior high school and high school than what little I managed to distill from the politically correct fluff and the trite details of their requirements.
That all depends on what's being done. Windows computers are used as a replacement for teachers, or as an appliance. That's the wrong school of thought. If you're going to spend time getting computers going in a school, it shouldn't have to do anything more advanced than an Apple// to do the job. If you're teaching typing, or having them run Oregon Trail or some such, then why do you need a computer that can even run Windows, much less an actual install of Windows? Giving a first grader a Windows box and expecting him to learn something they won't learn on their own is like giving a kid a TV and telling him to learn to use it. Either teach kids computers, or don't bother with computers. There's no good grey area to start them in. If my dad hadn't had me learn on DOS, I don't think I'd have ever learned to really use a computer.
1) because it saves time and work in keeping track of windows licenses. 2) because it actually teaches children about computers, rather than just about GUIs and what can be done on them. When all the low-level things are done in the background, its no wonder the average american doesn't know what formatting a hard drive does aside from kill all their data. 3) teaches troubleshooting. Using nothing but windows, you'll never realize how much easier it is to use a command line tool for something simple. 4) provides compilers and development environments for those who are adept enough to care to use them 5) difficult for learning students to bring down the whole computer from a user-class account 6) it's free, and provides alternatives to almost anything that can be done under windows that they'll need to do in anything but very specific areas (which will catch up with time anyway). 7) UNIX is time-tested as a style of environment. Windows is controlled by the whims of the market.
There are others, but that pretty much covers the basics. Anything I missed, besides:
on the contrary. I'm saying that having cheap cars that don't work well on all terrains without restrictions on the road prevents my full-size V8 from functioning well. Your comparison is once again idiotic. A more apt comparison is a car and a railroad. If the roads were all modified to run trains on them, it would be extreme interference to my ability to drive my Crown Victoria on these railroads, to fix your horribly mangled, one-sided analogy. DVD and CSS are two different subjects, much as if you were to compare redbook standards with crippled CDs.
Once again, that makes no fucking sense whatsoever. Your CSS-enabled DVD interferes with my ability to watch other DVDs by making me not want to deal with DVDs at all. Much as with CDs, which I no longer purchase because they may contain copy protection that I don't care to see if will damage my computers, I also won't purchase DVDs due to similar concerns about precedents. You set a precedent, and you're damaging my ability to watch other DVDs or DVDs in general without fear.
that's quite possibly the stupidest arguement I've heard since anthony_dipierro claimed that DRM would help the little garage bands. If I have a computer with a media player on it and would like to watch a DVD on a DVD ROM, which is arguably a dvd player, then it's like trying to listen to FM on an FM radio, not AM. You're not the brightest light bulb in the box, are you?
does any real creative mind want to tap into that DMCA pay-as-you-play goodness? I want anyone creating content for me to want me to enjoy it, otherwise I can't in right mind do so. Greed simply makes it not fun for me. So does taking away my freedoms.
Philips doesn't have anything to gain itself by supporting copy protection on CDs. However, if the US passes a draconian copy protection law, they certainly stand to gain from owning this company. I think this is more an insurance policy than a moral shift.
Too bad you didn't have a way to pull them out of DARE. The only thing I noticed during DARE was that all it did was 1) teach kids how to use drugs, 2) teach them what fun they could have with each, and 3) give them a T-shirt to use while using drugs to triple the irony. And yes, I did happen to notice that a few years or so later when all the kids who were going to do drugs were doing them, they were the only ones who actually wore their DARE shirts.
not all supposedly convenient technologies are necessarily better or more convenient. I like having a cord on my mouse and keyboard because 1) i know it's connected and 2) i know another isn't. Wireless keyboards etc. have no less a security risk involved as would a wireless network. Imagine being logged on as root and having the guy on the floor above you type in rm -rf/. while you hit the bathroom. even if your door is locked, you're still screwed.
"Will this model revolutionize the way companies compute, or is this plan doomed to be another PCjr?"
yes. Doomed to be another PCjr. People want expensive goods that they can brag about. Plus, let's see you game on it. Personally, metered utilities are bad enough on their own without extending into my computer.
I don't see huge amounts of money being given to individuals who royally fuck their finances and claim "accounding errors" for huge debts. That's fraud, my friend. If WorldCom were a person, they'd be doing time. They should be disbanded with all speed. And if not, then businesses are liable for less than a human. Therefore, if a human is more responsible for their acts, then a human should therefore be also offered more protection under the law against such entities with such limited liability and unlimited lifespan. My $.02.
Does this mean they'll be adding ICQ functionality to AIM, such as being able to message/recieve messages while i'm not online or the person i'm sending to isn't online?
Posix bases are better in general for server applications than windows. Windows is designed for users. Posix is geared towards computers. Windows is about making things easy. Posix is about making things work well. Each of these has concessions towards the other's area of expertise, but it's all a matter of which is better for the job, and if the concessions are better than the other's native functions. Damn...think i confused myself with that
They're selling the business unit, not the computers themselves alone. They're selling the owner of the license. If i were a slave and had a license for Windows, and I were sold but the PC was still considered in some contrived manner to be mine and came with me, would I have to relicense? no. Because I'm licensed. How should that work any different for a business unit?
Darwin is not open source. Darwin is based off an opensource kernel, but itself is not. And from there, there's compatibility with the rest of MacOS to work with.
whatever happened to good old ASCII or ISO text files? nothing says cross-platform than an ISO format
Re:Suit and Tie do not make the programmer.
on
Suit Up Or Ship Out?
·
· Score: 2
Interview is one thing. Every day is another. Tying appearance to professionalism is utter bullshit. Professionalism is a matter of quality of work and devotion to getting it done right the first time. Professionalism is not wearing a suit and keeping your cube/office/cabin/yurt/teepee/workstation free of paper and personal effects. I currently work with the finest group of professionals it's ever been my pleasure to work with. Yet I've never seen a suit on anyone but one of our producers, who was wearing a tuxedo to a release party with a shirt resembling the Texas flag. These men have done the best work they could on long hours (without a definite "have to" being told to them) because of that professionalism I spoke of. Let's see someone more concerned with suits pull a group like that together, and then ask the programmers if they're happy with their job, and check the quality of the product. If it's equal or better, then you can speak. Until then, leave the suits to the petty tyrants and let the computer people be what they are.
Slashdot Mirror
"We will give you the following property right in return for that property eventually reverting to the public." Copyright owners often make the mistake of speaking as if copyright exists for their benefit. It doesn't. The entire point of copyright is to encourage the creation of intellectual property for the benefit of the public. The fact that the mechanism by which the creation of that intellectual property is achieved is by granting a benefit to the author is purely incidental."
Finally! somebody else who understands this! now if we could only convince the politicians who are supposed to represent their constituents....
"Unless someone comes out with one based on Monty Python and the Holy Grail..."
I can see it now...thousands of players walking around, chanting spam, seeking shrubberies...oh god, make it stop!
You make a good point. Like I said in a response to another post, unless the kids are actually learning to use computers as computers, it's nothing but a white elephant appliance. Windows doesn't need to be taught. Real computing does. But that doesn't mean that every kid is going to learn it.
Now that I think about it, specialization at earlier ages needs to happen. I remember being frustrated at how easy everything was in elementary school, and was teaching myself to program by 6th grade. If schools had given me classes in C, Assembly, and so on, I'd have gotten an awful lot more out of junior high school and high school than what little I managed to distill from the politically correct fluff and the trite details of their requirements.
That all depends on what's being done. Windows computers are used as a replacement for teachers, or as an appliance. That's the wrong school of thought. If you're going to spend time getting computers going in a school, it shouldn't have to do anything more advanced than an Apple // to do the job. If you're teaching typing, or having them run Oregon Trail or some such, then why do you need a computer that can even run Windows, much less an actual install of Windows? Giving a first grader a Windows box and expecting him to learn something they won't learn on their own is like giving a kid a TV and telling him to learn to use it. Either teach kids computers, or don't bother with computers. There's no good grey area to start them in. If my dad hadn't had me learn on DOS, I don't think I'd have ever learned to really use a computer.
Why? simple.
1) because it saves time and work in keeping track of windows licenses.
2) because it actually teaches children about computers, rather than just about GUIs and what can be done on them. When all the low-level things are done in the background, its no wonder the average american doesn't know what formatting a hard drive does aside from kill all their data.
3) teaches troubleshooting. Using nothing but windows, you'll never realize how much easier it is to use a command line tool for something simple.
4) provides compilers and development environments for those who are adept enough to care to use them
5) difficult for learning students to bring down the whole computer from a user-class account
6) it's free, and provides alternatives to almost anything that can be done under windows that they'll need to do in anything but very specific areas (which will catch up with time anyway).
7) UNIX is time-tested as a style of environment. Windows is controlled by the whims of the market.
There are others, but that pretty much covers the basics. Anything I missed, besides:
8: PROFIT!!!!
on the contrary. I'm saying that having cheap cars that don't work well on all terrains without restrictions on the road prevents my full-size V8 from functioning well. Your comparison is once again idiotic. A more apt comparison is a car and a railroad. If the roads were all modified to run trains on them, it would be extreme interference to my ability to drive my Crown Victoria on these railroads, to fix your horribly mangled, one-sided analogy. DVD and CSS are two different subjects, much as if you were to compare redbook standards with crippled CDs.
Once again, that makes no fucking sense whatsoever. Your CSS-enabled DVD interferes with my ability to watch other DVDs by making me not want to deal with DVDs at all. Much as with CDs, which I no longer purchase because they may contain copy protection that I don't care to see if will damage my computers, I also won't purchase DVDs due to similar concerns about precedents. You set a precedent, and you're damaging my ability to watch other DVDs or DVDs in general without fear.
that's quite possibly the stupidest arguement I've heard since anthony_dipierro claimed that DRM would help the little garage bands. If I have a computer with a media player on it and would like to watch a DVD on a DVD ROM, which is arguably a dvd player, then it's like trying to listen to FM on an FM radio, not AM. You're not the brightest light bulb in the box, are you?
I disagree. Making a CSS-enabled DVD interferes with my use of DVDs on Linux.
does any real creative mind want to tap into that DMCA pay-as-you-play goodness? I want anyone creating content for me to want me to enjoy it, otherwise I can't in right mind do so. Greed simply makes it not fun for me. So does taking away my freedoms.
I work at Microsoft and use linux at home. Microsoft won't let me use linux at work. Work is where I am most of the time when I check /.
Philips doesn't have anything to gain itself by supporting copy protection on CDs. However, if the US passes a draconian copy protection law, they certainly stand to gain from owning this company. I think this is more an insurance policy than a moral shift.
Too bad you didn't have a way to pull them out of DARE. The only thing I noticed during DARE was that all it did was 1) teach kids how to use drugs, 2) teach them what fun they could have with each, and 3) give them a T-shirt to use while using drugs to triple the irony. And yes, I did happen to notice that a few years or so later when all the kids who were going to do drugs were doing them, they were the only ones who actually wore their DARE shirts.
That's what is called an insecure facility...if you have insecure facilities, you're still full of breaches.
not all supposedly convenient technologies are necessarily better or more convenient. I like having a cord on my mouse and keyboard because 1) i know it's connected and 2) i know another isn't. Wireless keyboards etc. have no less a security risk involved as would a wireless network. Imagine being logged on as root and having the guy on the floor above you type in rm -rf /. while you hit the bathroom. even if your door is locked, you're still screwed.
Now if only two way communications services had such protection offered by humans in power...
*longs for a time when all internet boxes were peers rather than AUP and TOS slave clients which connect to the wealthy "servers"*
how they intend to enforce the judgement. Try keeping tabs on the biggest information company in the world and you'll see where the problem lies.
"Will this model revolutionize the way companies compute, or is this plan doomed to be another PCjr?"
yes. Doomed to be another PCjr. People want expensive goods that they can brag about. Plus, let's see you game on it. Personally, metered utilities are bad enough on their own without extending into my computer.
I don't see huge amounts of money being given to individuals who royally fuck their finances and claim "accounding errors" for huge debts. That's fraud, my friend. If WorldCom were a person, they'd be doing time. They should be disbanded with all speed. And if not, then businesses are liable for less than a human. Therefore, if a human is more responsible for their acts, then a human should therefore be also offered more protection under the law against such entities with such limited liability and unlimited lifespan. My $.02.
Does this mean they'll be adding ICQ functionality to AIM, such as being able to message/recieve messages while i'm not online or the person i'm sending to isn't online?
Posix bases are better in general for server applications than windows. Windows is designed for users. Posix is geared towards computers. Windows is about making things easy. Posix is about making things work well. Each of these has concessions towards the other's area of expertise, but it's all a matter of which is better for the job, and if the concessions are better than the other's native functions. Damn...think i confused myself with that
They're selling the business unit, not the computers themselves alone. They're selling the owner of the license. If i were a slave and had a license for Windows, and I were sold but the PC was still considered in some contrived manner to be mine and came with me, would I have to relicense? no. Because I'm licensed. How should that work any different for a business unit?
Darwin is not open source. Darwin is based off an opensource kernel, but itself is not. And from there, there's compatibility with the rest of MacOS to work with.
whatever happened to good old ASCII or ISO text files? nothing says cross-platform than an ISO format
Interview is one thing. Every day is another. Tying appearance to professionalism is utter bullshit. Professionalism is a matter of quality of work and devotion to getting it done right the first time. Professionalism is not wearing a suit and keeping your cube/office/cabin/yurt/teepee/workstation free of paper and personal effects. I currently work with the finest group of professionals it's ever been my pleasure to work with. Yet I've never seen a suit on anyone but one of our producers, who was wearing a tuxedo to a release party with a shirt resembling the Texas flag. These men have done the best work they could on long hours (without a definite "have to" being told to them) because of that professionalism I spoke of. Let's see someone more concerned with suits pull a group like that together, and then ask the programmers if they're happy with their job, and check the quality of the product. If it's equal or better, then you can speak. Until then, leave the suits to the petty tyrants and let the computer people be what they are.