Vote for a third party, it may not help this time, it may not help next time, but don't you think that it will be easier to convince those hundreds of millions if the numbers of votes for a thrid party candidate keeps going up?
But it's not just Kerry and Bush, they don't have much to do with the bullshit that comes out of congress. Start outing your senators. Get people up and moving. Hell if California can recall it's gov, we should easily be able to recall a senator or congressman. Start a campagin showing these people aren't servign the public interest anymore and get rid of them. Dont' just vote them out, remove them with the political power of the people.
The first amendment is to protect political speech, or the ability to criticise government without fear of getting locked up in a gulag
Not quite. The first amendment does protect all kinds of speech, no matter their original nature. If it was intended to be only political speech, it would have said as much. The question is though, what is speech, and what speech violates the over riding mandate of the government to protect the lives of it's citizens?
For example, the reason yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire is not protected speech is because it poses an iminent danger to the lives of the people in that theater. Child pornography has been determined to pose a direct danger to the lives and well being of the children. That is why thise speech is unprotected.
Yet why is the state AG not addressing gun control instead of P2P?!
Oh they are, have you looked at the gun legislation in california recently? But that's besides the point because the right to keep and bear arms is a constitutionaly protected right.
The right to "infringe on copyright" is not.
Our politicians are crooked because they are ALLOWED to be.
No, I think George Carlin put it best. Our politicians suck because the public sucks. There are no public serving selfless humble politicians out there that are just waiting to run for office if only they would get the vote. The fact is, America is full of selfish self serving pricks who's only true goal in life is to get what they want for themselves and to hell with everyone. The politicians we elect are the best this country has to offer. And that's sad.
Even though every time this comes up, it's always cast as "freedom" vs. Great Satan, it's more complicated than that.
Independents like me are also protected by copyright.
Indeed, I fully agree.
But note: if the goal is to "legitimize" p2p so that artists get paid, how would you do it?
There are lots of suggested methods, you could tax CD-Rs which are most commonly used by P2P users for backup of the files they download. You could start a subscription service, under which you pay a (small) fee and have access to a P2P network (note this differs from such things like iTMS et al in that it's a P2P network, not a store). There are lots of proposed solutions, it's just that no one is listening. It's also possible that artists may have to take a loss here and find another way of making income. Maybe CDs on demand instead of mass production.
Would you add a new Internet tax that everybody should pay?
of course not, that's senseless. The only people that should pay are those that use the services, a net tax will not do that.
Would you add new monitoring software so that an agency can track what people are doing on the net?
Again, no, we only want to charge those that use the services.
Would it actually be any more helpful to independents?
It seems to be fairly helpful to a lot of them. But what does this have to do with anything? If it's not more helpful to the independents we shouldn't do it?
Do you think that everybody whose income depends on their ability to sell their own copyrighted work should just have to find another job?
If need be, yes. You are not entitled to an icome via your method of choosing.
Look I'm not some kid that only wants free music, I'm on the music making side of this too. But I'm realistic about this too. My groupd puts out CDs, and yes they can be very expensive to produce, but we have come to realize the money isn't in the CDs. We make more money charging $5 a head for a concert than we do selling CDs for $10 a piece. That's just life someimes. Sometimes you take a loss in one place to gain in another.
However, if you kept reading your law book, you could have found that the 14th (IIRC) amendment has been established by the courts to extend the restrictions placed on the government in the bill of rights to the states as well.
Well of course it doesn't need to be changed every 3000 miles, but then again, you don't need to run a virus scan on your computer or install the latest windows updates or defrag the HDD or any number of matainence procedures. it's just a good idea.
If your iPod is out-of-warranty and the battery's ability to hold an electrical charge has diminished 50% or more from its original condition, you can receive a replacement iPod for $99, plus $6.95 shipping. Be sure to follow all of the battery troubleshooting steps before submitting your iPod for battery replacement.
But then it wouldn't be GPL compatible, all the linux distros would drop it and it would fork at least once for every idealist you pissed off by asking for money for your software.
Not quite. This isn't really the place to get into it, but we didn't contruct our society so that we needed money. We constructed money because we needed it for society. Sometime you don't want to trade your services for someone elses, money helps equalize that so someone can get what they need from you, and you don't wind up recieving a useless service.
But what happens when they fork the standards? Maybe a bunch of developers don't like the standards anymore. ANd who decides on these stnadards anyway?
You know, if you're really worried about your equipment going through the scanner, at a lot of airports, you can request a manual examination of the equipment. The prerequisit to that of course being that you will allow them to handle the equipment.
If someone else hits my car, their insurance is responsible for damages. If I give my car to someone else and they break the law using my car, my insurance pays the damages, therefore the two situations are not the same.
Damn right they should have been fired. My money pays them to fill potholes. They weren't filling potholes. As such, they were effectively stealing my money. Fuck em.
It was the FBI, they were tapping them with warrents, and the failure was a failure of the OnStar system. To tell the truth, the fact that it didn't have two lines of communication is a bad thing.
And again with the point missing. The point is stuff like this is all over the place in linux, and there will be very little acceptance of linux on desktops until it changes.
There is no such thing as "standard hardware", and you can't have done a lot of Windows installations if you think that Windows works without problems on many PCs.
I've done plenty of Windows installations, plenty of linux and plenty of mac as well, and of all of them, Linux works on the smallest hardware set. And yes there is such thing as standard hardware. If you buy common name hardware (RealTek, Creative, Western Digital, Hitachi etc etc etc) windows works with it either first time, or with the included drivers 99% of the time. The same can not be said of linux. The fact is, windows compatible software is the standard for people to measure compatability by. Linux does not play nice with even most windows compatible hardware, and therefore it's not compatable with standard hardware.
Why is that a "strike"? You buy a Macintosh to run MacOS, you buy a Windows PC to run Windows, why shouldn't you buy a Linux PC to run Linux?
There's a subtle difference between buying a mac and buying a linux PC. The Apple, nor the macintosh community, make no claims to it being able to run on my x86 box. I can't tell you how often I hear from someone "I'm looking for an inexpensive computer to do X" and the first thing someone says is "Build a PC and put Linux on it". Which would be great, if linux worked on my PC but it didn't.
And what Windows "supports" is often junk anyway: yes, you can get a WinModem or a WinPrinter, and they cost less, but they also tend to be an endless source of hassles.
I'm still talking about my realtek here. A standard NIC found in many computers and LInux couldn't figure out what it was. This isn't good. And windows supports a shit load more than just min modems and winPrinters.
There, I strongly disagree. One of the main reasons why I use Linux is because I think the Windows GUI and Windows apps are truly awful. Funny, isn't it: we all have different needs and different preferences. Just because you think a Yugo is a really great car doesn't mean every car on the road needs to look like a Yugo.
Indeed, but every car should operate in the same basic way. I expect that when I turn the ignition key, my car will start. YOu could make a car that gets 100 miles to the gallon, but no one will buy it if it has to be wound up for an hour before it will start.
I have no idea why a consumer would want to buy Linux. I think consumers should buy whatever works best for them. That may well not be Linux. Linux is for those people for whom Linux works best. That includes me and apparently a few million other Linux users. And Linux adapts to the needs of its users because it is being created by its users
And here we reach the crux of the problem. Linux supposedly adapts to it's users, yet I, a user of linux, has a problem, and I'm being told to stop blaming linux and get better hardware or a different distro or to not use linux at all. And that is the problem, you're telling me to adapt to linux.
If it doesn't include you, well, just don't use it. But don't try to tell people that they should turn Linux into Windows because you want a freebie OS. Linux is the way it is because the people who pay for it (with their time) make it so.
I don't mind paying for linux, I don't want just a freebie. But I'm not going to spend money on something that gives me no additional value.
You seem to think that I hate linux or that I've got something against it, I don't other than the fact that it's broken in lots of places. I would love to see linux become a dominent force in the desktop area. What I (and ESR) am doing is making it known that there are indeed problems in linux that severely hinder it's uptake, and they need to be fixed. Why don't we fix them ourselves? Because we don't have that knowledge
So now we're paying for Linux to get it, strike one benefit fo rthe consumer. Afterall, the consumer really isn't going to care if he can hack his kernel, he doesn't know anthing about it. He just wants something that works, but is an alternative to windows.
As for the NIC, you think I'm bullshitting but I'm not. Standard Realtek NIC. Windows sees it fine and on the first try. SuSE said "I don't know what this is" and then proceeded to give me a list of driver options, including half a dozen realteks (none of which worked by the way) But of course, I did finaly get it working. But now you're telling me I need to buy linux certified hardware now too?
So let me get this straight, as a consumer, I'm looking to get an alternative to windows. I have to buy this alternative (even though I've been told it's free): Strike 1. But it is cheaper than windows: +1, but it won't work without configuration on my standard hardware set that window has no problem with: Strike 2. And if I don't want hassels, I have to buy Linux certified hardware: strike 3. ANd the hardware supported by linux is a much smaller subset than the windows hardware: strike 4. And the interfaces are still considereably lacking from the windows counterparts: Strike 5.
Remind me again why a consumer wants to buy linux?
Slashdot Mirror
Vote for a third party, it may not help this time, it may not help next time, but don't you think that it will be easier to convince those hundreds of millions if the numbers of votes for a thrid party candidate keeps going up?
But it's not just Kerry and Bush, they don't have much to do with the bullshit that comes out of congress. Start outing your senators. Get people up and moving. Hell if California can recall it's gov, we should easily be able to recall a senator or congressman. Start a campagin showing these people aren't servign the public interest anymore and get rid of them. Dont' just vote them out, remove them with the political power of the people.
The first amendment is to protect political speech, or the ability to criticise government without fear of getting locked up in a gulag
Not quite. The first amendment does protect all kinds of speech, no matter their original nature. If it was intended to be only political speech, it would have said as much. The question is though, what is speech, and what speech violates the over riding mandate of the government to protect the lives of it's citizens?
For example, the reason yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire is not protected speech is because it poses an iminent danger to the lives of the people in that theater. Child pornography has been determined to pose a direct danger to the lives and well being of the children. That is why thise speech is unprotected.
Yet why is the state AG not addressing gun control instead of P2P?!
Oh they are, have you looked at the gun legislation in california recently? But that's besides the point because the right to keep and bear arms is a constitutionaly protected right.
The right to "infringe on copyright" is not.
Our politicians are crooked because they are ALLOWED to be.
No, I think George Carlin put it best. Our politicians suck because the public sucks. There are no public serving selfless humble politicians out there that are just waiting to run for office if only they would get the vote. The fact is, America is full of selfish self serving pricks who's only true goal in life is to get what they want for themselves and to hell with everyone. The politicians we elect are the best this country has to offer. And that's sad.
Even though every time this comes up, it's always cast as "freedom" vs. Great Satan, it's more complicated than that.
Independents like me are also protected by copyright.
Indeed, I fully agree.
But note: if the goal is to "legitimize" p2p so that artists get paid, how would you do it?
There are lots of suggested methods, you could tax CD-Rs which are most commonly used by P2P users for backup of the files they download. You could start a subscription service, under which you pay a (small) fee and have access to a P2P network (note this differs from such things like iTMS et al in that it's a P2P network, not a store). There are lots of proposed solutions, it's just that no one is listening. It's also possible that artists may have to take a loss here and find another way of making income. Maybe CDs on demand instead of mass production.
Would you add a new Internet tax that everybody should pay?
of course not, that's senseless. The only people that should pay are those that use the services, a net tax will not do that.
Would you add new monitoring software so that an agency can track what people are doing on the net?
Again, no, we only want to charge those that use the services.
Would it actually be any more helpful to independents?
It seems to be fairly helpful to a lot of them. But what does this have to do with anything? If it's not more helpful to the independents we shouldn't do it?
Do you think that everybody whose income depends on their ability to sell their own copyrighted work should just have to find another job?
If need be, yes. You are not entitled to an icome via your method of choosing.
Look I'm not some kid that only wants free music, I'm on the music making side of this too. But I'm realistic about this too. My groupd puts out CDs, and yes they can be very expensive to produce, but we have come to realize the money isn't in the CDs. We make more money charging $5 a head for a concert than we do selling CDs for $10 a piece. That's just life someimes. Sometimes you take a loss in one place to gain in another.
However, if you kept reading your law book, you could have found that the 14th (IIRC) amendment has been established by the courts to extend the restrictions placed on the government in the bill of rights to the states as well.
IOW, California has no right to do this either.
Aye, but can you get a dual processor, 1U unit for $500? I don't think so
Well of course it doesn't need to be changed every 3000 miles, but then again, you don't need to run a virus scan on your computer or install the latest windows updates or defrag the HDD or any number of matainence procedures. it's just a good idea.
From apple.com
If your iPod is out-of-warranty and the battery's ability to hold an electrical charge has diminished 50% or more from its original condition, you can receive a replacement iPod for $99, plus $6.95 shipping. Be sure to follow all of the battery troubleshooting steps before submitting your iPod for battery replacement.
turn it on by pressing a button
Yeah, but with an opensource robot, by the time you configured him to get you a beer, you could have been at the bar for hours.
FreeBSD is dyi-
er... that is... carry on then.
But then it wouldn't be GPL compatible, all the linux distros would drop it and it would fork at least once for every idealist you pissed off by asking for money for your software.
Not quite. This isn't really the place to get into it, but we didn't contruct our society so that we needed money. We constructed money because we needed it for society. Sometime you don't want to trade your services for someone elses, money helps equalize that so someone can get what they need from you, and you don't wind up recieving a useless service.
Using image capture in your applications folder?
Because as they say over and over, the old license didn't directly address binary only distributions. The new one does.
But what happens when they fork the standards? Maybe a bunch of developers don't like the standards anymore. ANd who decides on these stnadards anyway?
You know, if you're really worried about your equipment going through the scanner, at a lot of airports, you can request a manual examination of the equipment. The prerequisit to that of course being that you will allow them to handle the equipment.
If someone else hits my car, their insurance is responsible for damages. If I give my car to someone else and they break the law using my car, my insurance pays the damages, therefore the two situations are not the same.
Damn right they should have been fired. My money pays them to fill potholes. They weren't filling potholes. As such, they were effectively stealing my money. Fuck em.
And with a warrent, that's perfectly legal. The onyl difference is, the FBI didn't have to risk one of their guys lives to get the bug installed.
It was the FBI, they were tapping them with warrents, and the failure was a failure of the OnStar system. To tell the truth, the fact that it didn't have two lines of communication is a bad thing.
Even if they make a mistake, my insurance still goes up, because it's my car. My car is insured, not me.
And again with the point missing. The point is stuff like this is all over the place in linux, and there will be very little acceptance of linux on desktops until it changes.
There is no such thing as "standard hardware", and you can't have done a lot of Windows installations if you think that Windows works without problems on many PCs.
I've done plenty of Windows installations, plenty of linux and plenty of mac as well, and of all of them, Linux works on the smallest hardware set. And yes there is such thing as standard hardware. If you buy common name hardware (RealTek, Creative, Western Digital, Hitachi etc etc etc) windows works with it either first time, or with the included drivers 99% of the time. The same can not be said of linux. The fact is, windows compatible software is the standard for people to measure compatability by. Linux does not play nice with even most windows compatible hardware, and therefore it's not compatable with standard hardware.
Why is that a "strike"? You buy a Macintosh to run MacOS, you buy a Windows PC to run Windows, why shouldn't you buy a Linux PC to run Linux?
There's a subtle difference between buying a mac and buying a linux PC. The Apple, nor the macintosh community, make no claims to it being able to run on my x86 box. I can't tell you how often I hear from someone "I'm looking for an inexpensive computer to do X" and the first thing someone says is "Build a PC and put Linux on it". Which would be great, if linux worked on my PC but it didn't.
And what Windows "supports" is often junk anyway: yes, you can get a WinModem or a WinPrinter, and they cost less, but they also tend to be an endless source of hassles.
I'm still talking about my realtek here. A standard NIC found in many computers and LInux couldn't figure out what it was. This isn't good. And windows supports a shit load more than just min modems and winPrinters.
There, I strongly disagree. One of the main reasons why I use Linux is because I think the Windows GUI and Windows apps are truly awful. Funny, isn't it: we all have different needs and different preferences. Just because you think a Yugo is a really great car doesn't mean every car on the road needs to look like a Yugo.
Indeed, but every car should operate in the same basic way. I expect that when I turn the ignition key, my car will start. YOu could make a car that gets 100 miles to the gallon, but no one will buy it if it has to be wound up for an hour before it will start.
I have no idea why a consumer would want to buy Linux. I think consumers should buy whatever works best for them. That may well not be Linux. Linux is for those people for whom Linux works best. That includes me and apparently a few million other Linux users. And Linux adapts to the needs of its users because it is being created by its users
And here we reach the crux of the problem. Linux supposedly adapts to it's users, yet I, a user of linux, has a problem, and I'm being told to stop blaming linux and get better hardware or a different distro or to not use linux at all. And that is the problem, you're telling me to adapt to linux.
If it doesn't include you, well, just don't use it. But don't try to tell people that they should turn Linux into Windows because you want a freebie OS. Linux is the way it is because the people who pay for it (with their time) make it so.
I don't mind paying for linux, I don't want just a freebie. But I'm not going to spend money on something that gives me no additional value.
You seem to think that I hate linux or that I've got something against it, I don't other than the fact that it's broken in lots of places. I would love to see linux become a dominent force in the desktop area. What I (and ESR) am doing is making it known that there are indeed problems in linux that severely hinder it's uptake, and they need to be fixed. Why don't we fix them ourselves? Because we don't have that knowledge
So now we're paying for Linux to get it, strike one benefit fo rthe consumer. Afterall, the consumer really isn't going to care if he can hack his kernel, he doesn't know anthing about it. He just wants something that works, but is an alternative to windows.
As for the NIC, you think I'm bullshitting but I'm not. Standard Realtek NIC. Windows sees it fine and on the first try. SuSE said "I don't know what this is" and then proceeded to give me a list of driver options, including half a dozen realteks (none of which worked by the way) But of course, I did finaly get it working. But now you're telling me I need to buy linux certified hardware now too?
So let me get this straight, as a consumer, I'm looking to get an alternative to windows. I have to buy this alternative (even though I've been told it's free): Strike 1. But it is cheaper than windows: +1, but it won't work without configuration on my standard hardware set that window has no problem with: Strike 2. And if I don't want hassels, I have to buy Linux certified hardware: strike 3. ANd the hardware supported by linux is a much smaller subset than the windows hardware: strike 4. And the interfaces are still considereably lacking from the windows counterparts: Strike 5.
Remind me again why a consumer wants to buy linux?
The reason it's a troll is because the Apple Store was not arround for OS X DP3