If there is no incentive to make money in a certain field, progress will suffer in a society such as a capitalist one.
So things like public libraries and the open exchange of knowledge in scientific journals are inherently bad things that destroy capitalism? Moreover, there is no incentive to make money by patenting things like prepositional phrases and licensing their use. Are you saying there should be?
The way I understand capitalism, the market is in no way obligated to provide you with a way to do business. Identifying a marketable need and providing for it effectively is YOUR problem. Attempting to create that need by manipulating the justice system != capitalism.
I read with great interest your attempts to bully and silence Cory Doctrow for having shed light on just what Star Force software is and what it does. I understand that you are the PR manager for Star Force. I would just like to say that you have done a good job in illustrating and explaining the goals and intentions of Star Force to the general public. I think your style of PR creates a more open environment of understanding how companies like Star Force operate. I applaud your efforts and wish other PR managers were as forthright and direct as you have been on this issue.
I couldn't believe it when I read about that "people near me" feature. They couldn't even make it to the second paragraph before catastrophically demonstrating that MS continues to have no clue about security.
Known as "Cider", Microsoft's Visual Designer for the Windows Presentation Foundation is set to be part of Visual Studio "Orcas," the next major release of Microsoft's Visual Studio tool suite, which is expected to support Windows Vista development. Orcas is slated for release in 2007.
Just what I always wanted. A web based animation tool into which I can embed OLE objects containing print jobs of ascii porn stored in an access database on my desktop and e-mail them to your grandmother. Because that sort of design philosophy has worked so well these past 15 years.
Most of the time, that reason is to make middle managers (whose job consists exclusively of writing memos and attending meetings) look busy. The more incapable the manager is of writing effectively and/or the more unwilling to have a record of exactly what they said, the more likely you are to have a full daily schedule of meetings.
Now watch as I reveal the one most evil and stupid word in modern business - communication. Not simply the actual fact of doing so, but the implication that communication solves all business problems, sort of like how everyone thought communication solved all marital problems back in the 80's when it was popular to say that. Communication is a load of horse shit. There is no such thing as a communication problem. Every "communication" problem in modern business is in fact a confidence problem. The information is readily available, but 2 things block its distribution: 1 - Managers don't like to go on record. They don't reply to e-mails, for example. They lack the confidence to go on record with whatever they want to say. Here's an idea - if you don't have the balls to put your "communication" on paper with your name on it for all to see, then STFU. If you lie frequently enough that committing anything to writing hampers your ability to work, then you need to be fired. 2 - For the reasons documented above, employees have no confidence in anything managers have to say. I've never seen anything cited as a communication problem that was not actually communicated in fact. "I guess we need better communication between you/your department and me/my department." has become the polite and meaningless mea culpa for the business age.
NO! We don't need more communication. We need to STFU and get back to work!
The main problem here is that your wife is an idiot.
Do you shut the engine off and recrank it periodically while driving? Do you unfasten and refasten the seatbelt? Only an idiot would expect a user to intuitively engage in such ridiculous behavior with a computer.
It gets a nice reputation for instability because so many manufacturers put it on bottom-basement gimpy hardware, but I seriously doubt Linux would fare any better.
In fact, Linux does quite a bit better on flaky hardware. I have a pool of test machines in a special projects lab that is composed entirely of "repeat offender" computers that would crash with Windows often enough to be pulled from the user PC pool. None of them has ever caused a problem with Linux. I am using one as an internal web server. It has been running for over 200 days.
PIRACY no more outdates an IP business model than a CROWBAR outdates jewelry stores.
Cute talking point. Did you come up with that on your own?
It wasn't an IP business model. It was a business model based upon providing distribution of entertainment. The need for that distribution effectively no longer exists. The reaction of the entrenched industry is to supplant that original both-sides-benefiting need for distribution with artificial market pressure via IP law. By your "benefit both sides" criterion, DRM is indefensible, for example - it provides no more benefit to users than allowing the steamboat industry to regulate maximum steam pressure in locomotives would benefit the railroad industry.
Your cynicism is misplaced - it should not be directed at the pockets of the networks, but rather at your own inability to recognize that the problem is that the end-users who choose to pirate are an unbalancing force in the ecosystem, and if and when that ecosystem comes crashing down (as many here so often claim they wish it will, at least as music is concerned), then they better be the last in line bitching about how suddenly there are fewer shows on TV (or music CDs in the stores) or that copyrightholders increasingly resort to stricter and stricted methods to try to bring some balance back.
The reason we are having this conversation is that technology has changed and the incremental cost to distribute information has fallen precipitously. Trying to moralize this market change makes about as much sense as blaming the death of the steamboat industry on people wanting to get to their destinations faster (via rail). The market is a free market. Making your money is your responsibility, not mine. If your business model is stupid/outdated, you will fail. That is not my fault. I am not obligated to support your outdated business model.
"Sadly the networks cannot condone properly taking care of the needs of the end users. That wouldn't be fiscally responsible to their pockets."
So you are actually trying to argue that users "need" to download a copyrighted work without the permission of the copyright holder? That is a "want" of end users, not a need, just like I want $1 million. There is no rational justification other than self interest.
I think the word "need" in this sense is not so much what a particular person wants, but more like what the market demands. Broadcasters have enjoyed a half century of total control of the means, timing, and content of all entertainment of the public. The fact that they have built an industry abusing that control no more constitutes "need" than does your example of the desires of a user. You are not entitled to a continuous, legally protected revenue stream just because technology allowed you to get it at some point in the past. The market is defined by the desires of everyone involved and their ability to control the terms of how those desires are satisfied. You lost control because circumstances changed? (the development of new types of fish nets, railroads, p2p, etc.) That's too bad. Adapt or die. If you choose to attempt to cancel the free market by artificially controlling it via IP law, the result is the formation of a black market whose size is determined by the extent to which the artificial control seeks to change market reality, and the opportunity to avoid that control. By way of example, if early movie makers must operate on the other side of the continent and close to the border in order to evade the "needs" of Thomas Edison's film projector patent police, they will.
That's reality. That isn't the way one or more particular parties to the transaction want it to be - that's the way it really is. Deal.
"Gnome seems to be developed by interface nazis, where consistently the excuse for not doing something is not 'it's too complicated to do', but 'it would confuse users'.""
So that's why there are no features in gnome apps. I always wondered what the design philosophy was.
Much better than I expected. The acting was good (Trevor is a hard character to get right, and Marton Csokas pulls it off brilliantly), the action was everything you'd expect, and the set design and shooting locations were breathtaking.
The story was well conceived, written, and executed - perhaps too much so. The original concept didn't trouble itself too much with plot, but the movie comes across with an interesting scifi story in its own right. It would have been very easy for a director to invest too much into the movie story at the expense of keeping to the simplicity of the original concept. While the two don't seamlessly combine in the movie, it reflects very well onto the director and producer that the movie story didn't completely overwhelm the movie and leave us all in WTF land ala Highlander 2. I was expecting 2 stars, and I give it a 3. Nice job, guys.
I think the "technical inconsistencies" pointed out by some readers are clearly bullshit - you have a problem with clones remembering their past lives in a world with strap-on transdimensional travel suits and complex multimedia messages being suspended in aqueous solution? Gimme a break. It wouldn't surprise me if all memory of your past lives was stored in a parasitic frog embedded in the abdomen of your next generation. How can you fail at suspension of disbelief in what has always been a consummately unbelievable world both in the cartoon and the movie?
Slashdot Mirror
If there is no incentive to make money in a certain field, progress will suffer in a society such as a capitalist one.
So things like public libraries and the open exchange of knowledge in scientific journals are inherently bad things that destroy capitalism? Moreover, there is no incentive to make money by patenting things like prepositional phrases and licensing their use. Are you saying there should be?
The way I understand capitalism, the market is in no way obligated to provide you with a way to do business. Identifying a marketable need and providing for it effectively is YOUR problem. Attempting to create that need by manipulating the justice system != capitalism.
IMO, I think slashdot could do without the lil trollish comments at the end of the summaries--its tiring and childish.
I guess the astroturfers have been here long enough that they feel they're entitled to a little fun by now.
Browsing through the posts on this topic, it appears to me that most seem to think this is for real.
Why?
I read with great interest your attempts to bully and silence Cory Doctrow for having shed light on just what Star Force software is and what it does. I understand that you are the PR manager for Star Force. I would just like to say that you have done a good job in illustrating and explaining the goals and intentions of Star Force to the general public. I think your style of PR creates a more open environment of understanding how companies like Star Force operate. I applaud your efforts and wish other PR managers were as forthright and direct as you have been on this issue.
I couldn't believe it when I read about that "people near me" feature. They couldn't even make it to the second paragraph before catastrophically demonstrating that MS continues to have no clue about security.
Your employer's problem:
If they want competent network administration, they must pay (time and cost) to train their people.
Your problem:
You want training to increase your knowledge and marketability.
If your employer wants to solve their problem, they are responsible for doing so. If you want to solve your problem, you are responsible for doing so.
From TFA:
Known as "Cider", Microsoft's Visual Designer for the Windows Presentation Foundation is set to be part of Visual Studio "Orcas," the next major release of Microsoft's Visual Studio tool suite, which is expected to support Windows Vista development. Orcas is slated for release in 2007.
Just what I always wanted. A web based animation tool into which I can embed OLE objects containing print jobs of ascii porn stored in an access database on my desktop and e-mail them to your grandmother. Because that sort of design philosophy has worked so well these past 15 years.
Please elaborate.
Meeting are held for a reason
Most of the time, that reason is to make middle managers (whose job consists exclusively of writing memos and attending meetings) look busy. The more incapable the manager is of writing effectively and/or the more unwilling to have a record of exactly what they said, the more likely you are to have a full daily schedule of meetings.
Now watch as I reveal the one most evil and stupid word in modern business - communication. Not simply the actual fact of doing so, but the implication that communication solves all business problems, sort of like how everyone thought communication solved all marital problems back in the 80's when it was popular to say that. Communication is a load of horse shit. There is no such thing as a communication problem. Every "communication" problem in modern business is in fact a confidence problem. The information is readily available, but 2 things block its distribution: 1 - Managers don't like to go on record. They don't reply to e-mails, for example. They lack the confidence to go on record with whatever they want to say. Here's an idea - if you don't have the balls to put your "communication" on paper with your name on it for all to see, then STFU. If you lie frequently enough that committing anything to writing hampers your ability to work, then you need to be fired. 2 - For the reasons documented above, employees have no confidence in anything managers have to say. I've never seen anything cited as a communication problem that was not actually communicated in fact. "I guess we need better communication between you/your department and me/my department." has become the polite and meaningless mea culpa for the business age.
NO! We don't need more communication. We need to STFU and get back to work!
The main problem here is that your wife is an idiot.
Do you shut the engine off and recrank it periodically while driving? Do you unfasten and refasten the seatbelt? Only an idiot would expect a user to intuitively engage in such ridiculous behavior with a computer.
It gets a nice reputation for instability because so many manufacturers put it on bottom-basement gimpy hardware, but I seriously doubt Linux would fare any better.
In fact, Linux does quite a bit better on flaky hardware. I have a pool of test machines in a special projects lab that is composed entirely of "repeat offender" computers that would crash with Windows often enough to be pulled from the user PC pool. None of them has ever caused a problem with Linux. I am using one as an internal web server. It has been running for over 200 days.
All applications launched inside Wine, Cedega, or Cross-Over Office are technically still exploitable
That's 3 Unix/Linux vulnerabilities to 1 for Windows. Windows is more secure.
Stockings hung by the tree, a fire in the fireplace, Christmas carols in the air, and Santa Claus misspelled on Slashdot.
PIRACY no more outdates an IP business model than a CROWBAR outdates jewelry stores.
Cute talking point. Did you come up with that on your own?
It wasn't an IP business model. It was a business model based upon providing distribution of entertainment. The need for that distribution effectively no longer exists. The reaction of the entrenched industry is to supplant that original both-sides-benefiting need for distribution with artificial market pressure via IP law. By your "benefit both sides" criterion, DRM is indefensible, for example - it provides no more benefit to users than allowing the steamboat industry to regulate maximum steam pressure in locomotives would benefit the railroad industry.
Your cynicism is misplaced - it should not be directed at the pockets of the networks, but rather at your own inability to recognize that the problem is that the end-users who choose to pirate are an unbalancing force in the ecosystem, and if and when that ecosystem comes crashing down (as many here so often claim they wish it will, at least as music is concerned), then they better be the last in line bitching about how suddenly there are fewer shows on TV (or music CDs in the stores) or that copyrightholders increasingly resort to stricter and stricted methods to try to bring some balance back.
The reason we are having this conversation is that technology has changed and the incremental cost to distribute information has fallen precipitously. Trying to moralize this market change makes about as much sense as blaming the death of the steamboat industry on people wanting to get to their destinations faster (via rail). The market is a free market. Making your money is your responsibility, not mine. If your business model is stupid/outdated, you will fail. That is not my fault. I am not obligated to support your outdated business model.
"Sadly the networks cannot condone properly taking care of the needs of the end users. That wouldn't be fiscally responsible to their pockets."
So you are actually trying to argue that users "need" to download a copyrighted work without the permission of the copyright holder? That is a "want" of end users, not a need, just like I want $1 million. There is no rational justification other than self interest.
I think the word "need" in this sense is not so much what a particular person wants, but more like what the market demands. Broadcasters have enjoyed a half century of total control of the means, timing, and content of all entertainment of the public. The fact that they have built an industry abusing that control no more constitutes "need" than does your example of the desires of a user. You are not entitled to a continuous, legally protected revenue stream just because technology allowed you to get it at some point in the past. The market is defined by the desires of everyone involved and their ability to control the terms of how those desires are satisfied. You lost control because circumstances changed? (the development of new types of fish nets, railroads, p2p, etc.) That's too bad. Adapt or die. If you choose to attempt to cancel the free market by artificially controlling it via IP law, the result is the formation of a black market whose size is determined by the extent to which the artificial control seeks to change market reality, and the opportunity to avoid that control. By way of example, if early movie makers must operate on the other side of the continent and close to the border in order to evade the "needs" of Thomas Edison's film projector patent police, they will.
That's reality. That isn't the way one or more particular parties to the transaction want it to be - that's the way it really is. Deal.
In their forum.
Emacs.
Flamewar trifecta is now in play.
"Gnome seems to be developed by interface nazis, where consistently the excuse for not doing something is not 'it's too complicated to do', but 'it would confuse users'.""
So that's why there are no features in gnome apps. I always wondered what the design philosophy was.
Much better than I expected. The acting was good (Trevor is a hard character to get right, and Marton Csokas pulls it off brilliantly), the action was everything you'd expect, and the set design and shooting locations were breathtaking.
The story was well conceived, written, and executed - perhaps too much so. The original concept didn't trouble itself too much with plot, but the movie comes across with an interesting scifi story in its own right. It would have been very easy for a director to invest too much into the movie story at the expense of keeping to the simplicity of the original concept. While the two don't seamlessly combine in the movie, it reflects very well onto the director and producer that the movie story didn't completely overwhelm the movie and leave us all in WTF land ala Highlander 2. I was expecting 2 stars, and I give it a 3. Nice job, guys.
I think the "technical inconsistencies" pointed out by some readers are clearly bullshit - you have a problem with clones remembering their past lives in a world with strap-on transdimensional travel suits and complex multimedia messages being suspended in aqueous solution? Gimme a break. It wouldn't surprise me if all memory of your past lives was stored in a parasitic frog embedded in the abdomen of your next generation. How can you fail at suspension of disbelief in what has always been a consummately unbelievable world both in the cartoon and the movie?
This guy.
Anyone care to imagine what 800,000 computers in the Internet equivalent of anaphylactic shock would look like?
Your opinion is noted and your intentions are known. Please form a line behind the RIAA, MPAA, Bill O'Reilly, and Orrin Hatch. Thank you.
This comment is why you should get karma for funny mods. Well done.
And you think that Dell pays $200 for that copy of MS Windows XP Home Edition on that $300 PC?
Hey, let's use your own pricing method for Linux -- apparantly the only way to get Linux is to pay $99 for Linspire at Best Buy.
Unless I am Dell, your point has absolutely no merit. Anyone can download Linux for free. Not everyone has access to Dell's pricing for MS software.