After all, it's not like Microsoft will be unaware of the policy.
And every EULA they have say that they can revoke your liscence for any reason whatsoever.
So if MS doesn't like it, they just revoke and give back the full purchase price, while demanding their software back.
It works out about the same, except that in this case, MS can still sell their product to the government while maintaining their close-source business model. They just have to acknoweldge a penalty for it. In the other case, they don't even have the option.
Okay, to assuage the libertarian in you, let's just set our terms straight.
Government = purchaser Microsoft = seller
Now it becomes much easier to see how this works without those perjorative terms in mind.
The purchaser has specific needs, of which open source is one of them. Now, the purchaser is free to choose not to use closed source at all, but is smart enough to realize that there may be some benefits to doing so. The purchaser tells the seller.. "I prefer closed source, but I'm willing to purchase your product at a 10% discount, even though it doesn't match my preference"
If the seller agrees, no problem.
If the seller doesn't agree, nobody's forcing the sale.
See, open source and libertarian all in one.
The Draft by Another Name
on
A Mighty Wind
·
· Score: 1
Wonderful idea.
So let's see what this leaves us with -- the people who, for whatever reason can't find other employment, and the people who, for whatever reason, don't want to find other employment. Or in other words, the incompetent, the disabled, the slackasses, and the dispossesed.
And these are the people you want in the military?
Not to mention that sending to war a bunch of people who don't want to be there in the first place is a great way of weakening your position in any actual battle.
Besides all of that, White America would never go for this plan. They've worked hard to ensure that black people are pretty much forced to stay as second class citizens, and now you want to give them, en masse, guns and the training in how to use them effectively?
Write to the company explaining (politely) to them why you're not buying it, and why you will be encouraging your friends and others not to buy it.
If you can, show them that there are alternatives you will use instead -- even if those alternatives may be somewhat inferior.
For example, have you checked out a play recently? Cheap seats can often be had for less than the price of a movie ticket these days. Watch the local bar scene in your town and check out some of the groups that come through. Most will be happy to sell you a CD or tape if you want it. Explore the world of foreign films -- unless you're living in the equivalent of Podunk, Nebraska, there is usually at least one theatre somewhere in town playing more unusual (read non-MPAA) stuff. And if you *are* living in Podunk, I hear that camping is an excellent past-time.
Other entertainment options include board games, parlor games, physical activity of some sort (I hear paintball is popular among the geekier set, you could also try curling if the whole idea of fitness sends shivers down your back-fat..)
Basically, if you think avoiding MPAA and RIAA limits your entertainment options, they're already too limited.
Nice number massaging there.
on
A Mighty Wind
·
· Score: 3, Informative
According to your own link, Defense gets over 360 billion, and for each of the others you lump together several categories, such as Medical into "welfare programs", meaning that you seem to think HMO regulation costs, hospital insurance costs, government employee health benefits, the cost of funding the FDA and health research, as well as disease control and training all fall under the heading of "welfare programs".
I don't see it mandating a specific type of software. I see it mandating a specific type of licence.
And even for that, I don't see any of the specifics on the licence. Perhaps MS's Shared Source initiative would even be open enough. MS is perfectly free to develop open source alternatives that they can sell to the Brazilian Government.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
Often != Always. Owned Collectively != Centralized Government.
..as I understand it, is that the PTO gets more money if it actually grants the patent then if it refuses it.
Considering that it gets squat for federal money these days, you can see how this situation leads to the patenting of crap-on-a-stick and so forth.
So to fix this, do it the other way around. Charge slightly more should the patent examiner determine the invention is "obvious" and a lot more should it be determined that there is prior art.
I'd even be willing to give the examiners a direct incentive should they find prior art. (But set up an appeals process if you do that) This would discourage companies and individuals from patenting utter crap, and strongly encourage patent applicants to do a good search of the prior art, rather then (as now) choosing to avoid looking (because if you don't see it, you can say you didn't know)
A very good Abandonware/Older Game site, not only for the variety of stuff it hosts, but for the fact that he does actually take stuff down if he's requested, and for stuff that is still being sold, even has links to places you can purchase it.
..why would they be so reluctant to point out which sections belong to them? After all, it's not like their copyright would go away immediately after pointing it out - their case would still stand, and in fact, would stand a lot taller with shareholders than it does today. Thus increasing the chances of a juicy settlement or buy-out offer from IBM.
Games generally require conflict of some sort to provide a play experience because they rely on a story at least on some superficial level. There are exceptions (Tetris would be a big example) but by and large you need a protagonist and an antagonist.
You seem to have fallen into the same track as a majority of the major game developers in that you're confusing conflict with interaction and feedback. It's not terribly surprising, because conflict is one of the easist forms of "interaction causes feedback" to understand - do the task correctly, you go farther, do it wrong and get punished in some way. But that's kind of what the article is about. Nobody's actually putting in the time to think of some other way to get that interaction-feedback loop going.
I'm the one who hated the damned bouncing bullets. Why? Because of that stupid sweet spot the right tank had just below the bunker. If you were good, you could get to it and line up the shot in about 2 seconds. A second later you were rewarded with his tank going boom, because the shot nicely covered the entire area behind the right tank's bumper.
No, the best one was the triple bi-plane formation with the curving bullets. Now *that* was awesome.
I wasn't questioning the worth or value of the time and resources put into it. I was questioning how someone can consider Linux being "dumped" into a market when there are no defined costs of its production.
Windows on the other hand, has very defined costs in R&D, programming, and (of course) marketing.
Slashdot Mirror
After all, it's not like Microsoft will be unaware of the policy.
And every EULA they have say that they can revoke your liscence for any reason whatsoever.
So if MS doesn't like it, they just revoke and give back the full purchase price, while demanding their software back.
It works out about the same, except that in this case, MS can still sell their product to the government while maintaining their close-source business model. They just have to acknoweldge a penalty for it. In the other case, they don't even have the option.
Welcome to Slashdot.
I see you've learned the first lesson:
Don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.
For had you read the article, you'd see that this has nothing to do with the market and instead has to do with sales to the government.
Okay, to assuage the libertarian in you, let's just set our terms straight.
Government = purchaser
Microsoft = seller
Now it becomes much easier to see how this works without those perjorative terms in mind.
The purchaser has specific needs, of which open source is one of them. Now, the purchaser is free to choose not to use closed source at all, but is smart enough to realize that there may be some benefits to doing so. The purchaser tells the seller.. "I prefer closed source, but I'm willing to purchase your product at a 10% discount, even though it doesn't match my preference"
If the seller agrees, no problem.
If the seller doesn't agree, nobody's forcing the sale.
See, open source and libertarian all in one.
Wonderful idea.
So let's see what this leaves us with -- the people who, for whatever reason can't find other employment, and the people who, for whatever reason, don't want to find other employment. Or in other words, the incompetent, the disabled, the slackasses, and the dispossesed.
And these are the people you want in the military?
Not to mention that sending to war a bunch of people who don't want to be there in the first place is a great way of weakening your position in any actual battle.
Besides all of that, White America would never go for this plan. They've worked hard to ensure that black people are pretty much forced to stay as second class citizens, and now you want to give them, en masse, guns and the training in how to use them effectively?
- Don't buy it.
- Write to the company explaining (politely) to them why you're not buying it, and why you will be encouraging your friends and others not to buy it.
If you can, show them that there are alternatives you will use instead -- even if those alternatives may be somewhat inferior.For example, have you checked out a play recently? Cheap seats can often be had for less than the price of a movie ticket these days. Watch the local bar scene in your town and check out some of the groups that come through. Most will be happy to sell you a CD or tape if you want it. Explore the world of foreign films -- unless you're living in the equivalent of Podunk, Nebraska, there is usually at least one theatre somewhere in town playing more unusual (read non-MPAA) stuff. And if you *are* living in Podunk, I hear that camping is an excellent past-time.
Other entertainment options include board games, parlor games, physical activity of some sort (I hear paintball is popular among the geekier set, you could also try curling if the whole idea of fitness sends shivers down your back-fat..)
Basically, if you think avoiding MPAA and RIAA limits your entertainment options, they're already too limited.
According to your own link, Defense gets over 360 billion, and for each of the others you lump together several categories, such as Medical into "welfare programs", meaning that you seem to think HMO regulation costs, hospital insurance costs, government employee health benefits, the cost of funding the FDA and health research, as well as disease control and training all fall under the heading of "welfare programs".
Just a wee bit of bias, perhaps?
..if you're a Microsoft developer, and used to having access to all the hidden widgets, maybe you do need low level know-how.
I don't see it mandating a specific type of software. I see it mandating a specific type of licence.
And even for that, I don't see any of the specifics on the licence. Perhaps MS's Shared Source initiative would even be open enough. MS is perfectly free to develop open source alternatives that they can sell to the Brazilian Government.
Let's try it again, with different highlighting.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
Often != Always.
Owned Collectively != Centralized Government.
..as I understand it, is that the PTO gets more money if it actually grants the patent then if it refuses it.
Considering that it gets squat for federal money these days, you can see how this situation leads to the patenting of crap-on-a-stick and so forth.
So to fix this, do it the other way around. Charge slightly more should the patent examiner determine the invention is "obvious" and a lot more should it be determined that there is prior art.
I'd even be willing to give the examiners a direct incentive should they find prior art. (But set up an appeals process if you do that) This would discourage companies and individuals from patenting utter crap, and strongly encourage patent applicants to do a good search of the prior art, rather then (as now) choosing to avoid looking (because if you don't see it, you can say you didn't know)
Anarchist means no government. It may or may not mean "the individual uber alles"
..if you can't afford cable, should you really be spending your time watching TV in the first place?
Imagine if a point of failure isn't total shut-down, but rather mis-interpreted signals.
A bit gets flipped and all your friends are drawn in "shoot-at-me" red instead of "friendly green"
Yeah, somebody will figure it out and shut the thing down, but how much damage will have been done in the interim?
I point you to:
Home of the Underdogs
A very good Abandonware/Older Game site, not only for the variety of stuff it hosts, but for the fact that he does actually take stuff down if he's requested, and for stuff that is still being sold, even has links to places you can purchase it.
..why would they be so reluctant to point out which sections belong to them? After all, it's not like their copyright would go away immediately after pointing it out - their case would still stand, and in fact, would stand a lot taller with shareholders than it does today. Thus increasing the chances of a juicy settlement or buy-out offer from IBM.
Imagine if they had gone after credit card numbers instead, for example?
Yes. Imagine if they had.
Now imagine what they (or some other group) might think if they can do this and get away with it free and clear?
The fact that it happened to more than 14 people. And the fact that these people are paying and the company is paying to fix the crap that went on.
nt means no text
absolutely none at all
stupid lame filter
Black & White isn't a game.. ..it's a God Sim with some tasks thrown in.
Its major failing was that it was marketed as a game, and over-marketed at that.
Games generally require conflict of some sort to provide a play experience because they rely on a story at least on some superficial level. There are exceptions (Tetris would be a big example) but by and large you need a protagonist and an antagonist.
You seem to have fallen into the same track as a majority of the major game developers in that you're confusing conflict with interaction and feedback. It's not terribly surprising, because conflict is one of the easist forms of "interaction causes feedback" to understand - do the task correctly, you go farther, do it wrong and get punished in some way. But that's kind of what the article is about. Nobody's actually putting in the time to think of some other way to get that interaction-feedback loop going.
Err.. behind the *left* tank's bumper.
Being ambidextrous is a pain sometimes.
I'm the one who hated the damned bouncing bullets. Why? Because of that stupid sweet spot the right tank had just below the bunker. If you were good, you could get to it and line up the shot in about 2 seconds. A second later you were rewarded with his tank going boom, because the shot nicely covered the entire area behind the right tank's bumper.
No, the best one was the triple bi-plane formation with the curving bullets. Now *that* was awesome.
Congratulations on completely missing the point.
I wasn't questioning the worth or value of the time and resources put into it. I was questioning how someone can consider Linux being "dumped" into a market when there are no defined costs of its production.
Windows on the other hand, has very defined costs in R&D, programming, and (of course) marketing.
Wait till I tell my fiance that her weight
fluctuates on a weekly basis!
Glutton for punishment?
Gazillions to develop? Really?
Let's see your pay-stubs.