If you're missing out on a solution that could save your company millions of dollars because you couldn't be bothered to listen carefully the first time and instead cowed the presenter.. that's a bad technique.
If they're voting completely randomly, there's an equal chance that they'll be cancelling out each other's votes, so the informed voters will still have sway and your concerns there are meaningless.
However, the truth is that, everybody has a reason or two that they'd prefer one person in over the other. Often they have conflicting reasons on each side. What a full vote does is take those reasons and get at the plurality of them, thus making sure those elected are most accurately representing what works for the country.
"If you are not voting, what does are you saying?" I'm saying plenty by not voting. "Americas 2 party electoral system is a sham, and I won't participate. Choosing between the lesser of 2 evils is not liberty or freedom."
The problem is, no vote at all can say so many things. You could be saying "I'm too tired after working two jobs to be able to get to the polls".
You could be saying "I'm perfectly happy with America and content that the majority of the people will choose the right course."
You could be saying "Vote? But Springer's on... and look, it's a good one too.."
You could be saying "I don't know where my polling station is."
So how are those who actually get elected to know what it is you're actually saying? More importantly, what incentive is there for them to change the way things are done? After all, your non-vote didn't hurt them getting into power, now did it? So as far as they're concerned, the system worked, and you're a big help in maintaining that, congratulations.
If every idiot who said to himself "I'm not voting because there's nobody useful to vote for," actually showed up at the polls and used their vote for Donald Duck or some such, you'd see a change in politics. Your apathy doesn't affect the system one iota.. it'll continue along happily letting the two parties continue their rule, eventually becoming irrelevant to everybody with the exception of those in power.
Unfortunately, it's those in power that command the military should the revolution come. Think about that.
I'd rather wait overnight or even a couple of days to know who the voters chose to lead my country rather than only waiting a couple of hours but not knowing whether it was the voters or the voting machines who chose.
The following letter is hereby placed in the public domain. Please feel free to copy it, make what modifications are needed and send it to your Congressperson.
--------
The Hounorable (insert full name of your representative) (insert Rm.#),(insert name of)House Office Building United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Dear Representative:
I am writing to you about the recent use of the Patriot Act by the FBI to execute a warrantless search and seizure upon Mr. Adam McGaughey, owner of the SG1Archive.com website at the behest of the MPAA.
While I do not endorse copyright infringement as allegedly practiced by Mr. McGaughey, I deplore the use of my tax-dollars being used on the behalf of the MPAA rather than having them pursue their litigation through civil means.
However, what I am most concerned about is that the FBI has used the provisions in the Patriot Act to execute a warrantless search and seizure in a case where there was no imminent or life-threatening danger or possibility of terrorist activity. This is an abuse not only of the Constitution of our great land, but also of your good word and trust as you were assured, and so assured me, that the Patriot Act would never be used for the prosecution of ordinary criminals.
I am making you aware of this situation so that you may take action on my behalf to ensure that this does not happen again, and that I may feel secure in my choice of voting for you in the next election.
though I would prefer a middle view that recognizes software as a distinct hybrid of an "idea" and a "device"
You may have heard of this little thing we have called copyright law.
It happens to do exactly what you're looking for, that is, protect the specific expression of an idea.
It also contains provisions for fair-use, and, unlike patents, is instant and cannot be submarined.
Patents should go back to what patents were orginally for. A physical device of some sort. An invention. Not a process. Not a description. An actual physical invention.
A bunch of other slashdot folk have pointed out bits and pieces of this puzzle, but let's see what happens when we put it all together:
1. The new standards, XML, etc, are going to be controlled as much outside the browser, by the productivity suite, as they will be within it. The standards for basic browsers have more or less solidified at this point. There's no more control to be taken here.
2. The browser market has been driven into the ground. There's no money to be made here anymore, as decent free alternatives are available, and the market has gotten used to not paying for their browser. There won't be another Netscape threat.
3. The whole "browser as your desktop" idea has faded away. MS is no longer in danger of losing its OS or productivity-suite sales to a browser company.
Put all of this together and you've got the reason why MS doesn't really give a crap if people use IE or not anymore. But why go the extra step of taking it down?
1. Even in its recommendation, the article is a backhanded compliment at best. Very much in the league of "If you have to switch, this one will work." Which leads to a setup for the future version of IE.. "All the features of Firefox, plus..." which of course will only be able to run properly on the new Longhorn system.
2. IE's security problems have really started to hit the mainstream. The article isn't telling folks anything that wasn't known already, but lets MSN Slate look like a wonderfully independant publication while doing so.
Most importantly:
3. IE doesn't make them money anyway. At this point, the various holes are costing them more than IE provides them both in actual dollars in support and programmer hours that have to be devoted to containing the mess, and in PR.
So it's really to Microsoft's interest at this point to get people *off* of IE, especially to something simple that they'll be able to easily port settings from for the new version. The only thing that might keep them there is stubborn pride. If cooler heads have prevailed in the boardroom, expect to see more on these lines from Microsoft sources.
I mean, c'mon, the USPTO makes the majority of its money these days on providing and renewing patents. It makes nothing on investigating or refusing them.
So really, the fact that they'll patent anything under the sun should come as no real shock to anybody.
You want to fix the USPTO? Fix how they get funded.
Re:It's Gone Beyond Science Fiction into Mainstrea
on
Open Source Life?
·
· Score: 1
So you expect all farmers to now stop planting what grows best without doing extensive genetic testing on it first to see if it's been patented somewhere, is that what I'm getting?
Guess what, if I'm growing tomatoes, and I happen to find that for some reason the strain on the left side grows better on the right, I'm going to try planting more of the seeds from the tomatoes on the left side next year. After all, it may be random mutation. Why is it my job to find out if it happens to be somebody else's patented pollen?
And if you come on to my land and try and take some of my tomatoes to go test, then unless you're a cop with a warrant, I'm going to have you charged with trespassing and theft. If some criminal steals your bike, that doesn't give you licsence to break into his house and take your bike back. You call the proper authorities.
But doing the latter without the former is rather pointless.
Boycotting without informing is pointless. After all, it could simply be that audience tastes changed. It could also be (and this is the excuse they like to use) that piracy is up, thus providing reasons to get even "better" DRM schemes in place.
Since writing on slashdot about this means something between Jack and Shit to the music industry execs, what you could try is writing out your letter and hitting print instead.
Once that's done, send it to here: By Mail Corporate Communications Department EMI Group plc 27 Wrights Lane London W8 5SW
Or call: Tel: 020 7795 7000
If you happen to be a shareholder, you can use the fast track address/number:
Lloyds TSB Registrars Shareholder Services The Causeway Worthing West Sussex BN99 6DA Tel: 0870 600 3984 (+44 121 433 8000 from outside the UK).
Tell EMI who you are, why you bought their music before, and why you won't be buying it in future.
If the only thing these boys understand is money, let's let them see what's happening to it.
From what I gather, most music industry contracts these days have clauses specifically to prohibit #1. Basically, the music industry can decide if what you've put out is purposely crap unless it sells over a certain number of copies. If it is purposely crap, it doesn't count against your contract -- but the studio time and all the promotional expenses they would have paid are still charged to you, meaning the next non-crap album you release has an even bigger debt to pay off before you start making anything.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm Canadian.
They can suck on my IP for all the good it'll do'em.
Actually, it *does* mean the technique is bad.
If you're missing out on a solution that could save your company millions of dollars because you couldn't be bothered to listen carefully the first time and instead cowed the presenter.. that's a bad technique.
If they're voting completely randomly, there's an equal chance that they'll be cancelling out each other's votes, so the informed voters will still have sway and your concerns there are meaningless.
However, the truth is that, everybody has a reason or two that they'd prefer one person in over the other. Often they have conflicting reasons on each side. What a full vote does is take those reasons and get at the plurality of them, thus making sure those elected are most accurately representing what works for the country.
"If you are not voting, what does are you saying?" I'm saying plenty by not voting. "Americas 2 party electoral system is a sham, and I won't participate. Choosing between the lesser of 2 evils is not liberty or freedom."
The problem is, no vote at all can say so many things. You could be saying "I'm too tired after working two jobs to be able to get to the polls".
You could be saying "I'm perfectly happy with America and content that the majority of the people will choose the right course."
You could be saying "Vote? But Springer's on... and look, it's a good one too.."
You could be saying "I don't know where my polling station is."
So how are those who actually get elected to know what it is you're actually saying? More importantly, what incentive is there for them to change the way things are done? After all, your non-vote didn't hurt them getting into power, now did it? So as far as they're concerned, the system worked, and you're a big help in maintaining that, congratulations.
If every idiot who said to himself "I'm not voting because there's nobody useful to vote for," actually showed up at the polls and used their vote for Donald Duck or some such, you'd see a change in politics. Your apathy doesn't affect the system one iota.. it'll continue along happily letting the two parties continue their rule, eventually becoming irrelevant to everybody with the exception of those in power.
Unfortunately, it's those in power that command the military should the revolution come. Think about that.
Bogus response.
I'd rather wait overnight or even a couple of days to know who the voters chose to lead my country rather than only waiting a couple of hours but not knowing whether it was the voters or the voting machines who chose.
The following letter is hereby placed in the public domain. Please feel free to copy it, make what modifications are needed and send it to your Congressperson.
--------
The Hounorable (insert full name of your representative)
(insert Rm.#),(insert name of)House Office Building
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Representative:
I am writing to you about the recent use of the Patriot Act by the FBI to execute a warrantless search and seizure upon Mr. Adam McGaughey, owner of the SG1Archive.com website at the behest of the MPAA.
While I do not endorse copyright infringement as allegedly practiced by Mr. McGaughey, I deplore the use of my tax-dollars being used on the behalf of the MPAA rather than having them pursue their litigation through civil means.
However, what I am most concerned about is that the FBI has used the provisions in the Patriot Act to execute a warrantless search and seizure in a case where there was no imminent or life-threatening danger or possibility of terrorist activity. This is an abuse not only of the Constitution of our great land, but also of your good word and trust as you were assured, and so assured me, that the Patriot Act would never be used for the prosecution of ordinary criminals.
I am making you aware of this situation so that you may take action on my behalf to ensure that this does not happen again, and that I may feel secure in my choice of voting for you in the next election.
Thank you for your time.
(insert signature and full name & address)
..I'm damned happy for this.
Maybe this will finally convince them to turn the shit off.
Not everything is created by a lone inventor in the workshop.
Some things do emerge from committees, such as the BackStreet Boys.
Who does the copyright go to then?
Radio is *still* great for artist exposure.
Just stop listening to the Clearchannel stations and tune in to the local college or university station.
No. The reason isn't marketing.
It's a case of "good enough"
What does the typical user get on his computer? Windows. Is it great? No.. but it's good enough.
Ah.. so now you're saying, you're free to act in your self-interest, so long as nobody else requests you to stop it?
Can't have it both ways.
Uh.. yes..
That was the parent posters point.
What's yours?
You *have* patched your version of Thief III right?
Otherwise if you're playing on expert and save your game, you're not playing on expert any more.
Bullshit.
That's simply saying there's nothing wrong with being an asshole so long as people have the option to walk away.
I like to think we're better than that.
though I would prefer a middle view that recognizes software as a distinct hybrid of an "idea" and a "device"
You may have heard of this little thing we have called copyright law.
It happens to do exactly what you're looking for, that is, protect the specific expression of an idea.
It also contains provisions for fair-use, and, unlike patents, is instant and cannot be submarined.
Patents should go back to what patents were orginally for. A physical device of some sort. An invention. Not a process. Not a description. An actual physical invention.
No.. they didn't.
All they've won so far is the battle.
Piss people off enough and laws don't matter.
Boston Tea Party, anybody?
A bunch of other slashdot folk have pointed out bits and pieces of this puzzle, but let's see what happens when we put it all together:
1. The new standards, XML, etc, are going to be controlled as much outside the browser, by the productivity suite, as they will be within it. The standards for basic browsers have more or less solidified at this point. There's no more control to be taken here.
2. The browser market has been driven into the ground. There's no money to be made here anymore, as decent free alternatives are available, and the market has gotten used to not paying for their browser. There won't be another Netscape threat.
3. The whole "browser as your desktop" idea has faded away. MS is no longer in danger of losing its OS or productivity-suite sales to a browser company.
Put all of this together and you've got the reason why MS doesn't really give a crap if people use IE or not anymore. But why go the extra step of taking it down?
1. Even in its recommendation, the article is a backhanded compliment at best. Very much in the league of "If you have to switch, this one will work." Which leads to a setup for the future version of IE.. "All the features of Firefox, plus..." which of course will only be able to run properly on the new Longhorn system.
2. IE's security problems have really started to hit the mainstream. The article isn't telling folks anything that wasn't known already, but lets MSN Slate look like a wonderfully independant publication while doing so.
Most importantly:
3. IE doesn't make them money anyway. At this point, the various holes are costing them more than IE provides them both in actual dollars in support and programmer hours that have to be devoted to containing the mess, and in PR.
So it's really to Microsoft's interest at this point to get people *off* of IE, especially to something simple that they'll be able to easily port settings from for the new version. The only thing that might keep them there is stubborn pride. If cooler heads have prevailed in the boardroom, expect to see more on these lines from Microsoft sources.
Of course, the real beauty of this game is that it has multiple means of getting to a victory.
For instance, you can also go
3, 7, 9, 6
Or even, if you want to see things from a different point of view
7, 3, 9, 6
Quite complex really.
I mean, c'mon, the USPTO makes the majority of its money these days on providing and renewing patents. It makes nothing on investigating or refusing them.
So really, the fact that they'll patent anything under the sun should come as no real shock to anybody.
You want to fix the USPTO? Fix how they get funded.
So you expect all farmers to now stop planting what grows best without doing extensive genetic testing on it first to see if it's been patented somewhere, is that what I'm getting?
Guess what, if I'm growing tomatoes, and I happen to find that for some reason the strain on the left side grows better on the right, I'm going to try planting more of the seeds from the tomatoes on the left side next year. After all, it may be random mutation. Why is it my job to find out if it happens to be somebody else's patented pollen?
And if you come on to my land and try and take some of my tomatoes to go test, then unless you're a cop with a warrant, I'm going to have you charged with trespassing and theft. If some criminal steals your bike, that doesn't give you licsence to break into his house and take your bike back. You call the proper authorities.
Do both.
But doing the latter without the former is rather pointless.
Boycotting without informing is pointless. After all, it could simply be that audience tastes changed. It could also be (and this is the excuse they like to use) that piracy is up, thus providing reasons to get even "better" DRM schemes in place.
You also forgot the other reason that SUV's are creating more soccer-mom accidents.
SUV's work to hinder Darwin's theory.
After all, evolution doesn't work right if the incompetent are prevented from dying due to their incompetence.
Since writing on slashdot about this means something between Jack and Shit to the music industry execs, what you could try is writing out your letter and hitting print instead.
Once that's done, send it to here:
By Mail
Corporate Communications Department
EMI Group plc
27 Wrights Lane
London
W8 5SW
Or call:
Tel: 020 7795 7000
If you happen to be a shareholder, you can use the fast track address/number:
Lloyds TSB Registrars
Shareholder Services
The Causeway
Worthing
West Sussex
BN99 6DA
Tel: 0870 600 3984
(+44 121 433 8000 from outside the UK).
Tell EMI who you are, why you bought their music before, and why you won't be buying it in future.
If the only thing these boys understand is money, let's let them see what's happening to it.
We know the general statement isn't true:
"If system X was as popular as system Y, it would be targeted just as much."
We know this isn't true simply by looking at Apache vs. Microsoft's server software.
Microsoft's software is targetted and hit much more often than Apache, even though it's market share is considerably less.
From what I gather, most music industry contracts these days have clauses specifically to prohibit #1. Basically, the music industry can decide if what you've put out is purposely crap unless it sells over a certain number of copies. If it is purposely crap, it doesn't count against your contract -- but the studio time and all the promotional expenses they would have paid are still charged to you, meaning the next non-crap album you release has an even bigger debt to pay off before you start making anything.