Blame the vendor for a bad OS?
Blame the user for not patching?
I don't see either of these as reasonable without DRM. Computers are more complicated then any other consumer device and the exploits are more complicated then any other repair or maintenance we expect people to do. This won't change unless the home computer stops being a general purpose computer, through the magic of DRM. Then we could blame the vendor who had control.
At the very most, we will only hold people responsible for not doing relatively easy things: patching, anti-virus, firewall, etc.. These aren't enough though (0-day exploit, etc...) and we won't expect the average person to do more. If it's not reasonable to think the average person could fix it or prevent it, then we won't blame them.
The only alternative would be taking your computer to a specialist and having it certified. (DRM the slow way.) Then lawyers could blame the company that worked on it, or individuals could be liable for not having it serviced, as everyone knows you should.
I think you meant this for the grandparent post by Da_Biz (267075), but since I agreed with it I'll reply.
Just so we're 100% clear here, you're using the threat of litigation and, in some countries, criminal charges to force people to use the work only in the way which you deem is acceptable.
Yes. But we do that for the GPL also, and all kinds of things. The means of enforcement (however ugly) don't change the argument for or against. Surgery is nasty to watch; but a heart bypass operation is not bad because of that.
The balance of Fair Use and the existence of any restrictions (like copyright) is an issue of politics, not personal choice. What choice an artist makes is the issue the CC trys to address. It just seems like they should advocate complete freedom, more then make it easy to apply restrictions.
if you put funeral in the subject line, you get 0 ads no matter what the content
If you search funeral on google you do get adds, but not in email, strange. Wonder if there was a reasoning to this, or they just used different algorithms that happened to have that result.
I've been thinking about using gmail account for other things: people made a file system from it, and picture sharing in picassa, but how about a database. If you label the entries the right way you could use the fast sort/filtering to store records. Its ideal for blob/large string type data. No triggers since their filters only work on incoming mail. Interesting, but not really a fair thing to do to google. (Wonder why you can get free web hosting but not free database service?)
The original poster disliked "the advocation of non-commercial restrictions, as if they were a good idea." This seems true to me also, and pretty different from the common OSS licenses. CC has several options, what do these correspond to in software licenses?
Attribution. - comments in an #include
Noncommercial. - ?
No Derivative Works. - Proprietary license?
Share Alike. - GPL
If it was software we would want to get everyone on the freedom train, and marginalize those who want things like 'open proprietary standards,' so why should this be so different with artistic works?
As the creator and copyright holder of the piece, I believe I have the right to say how it's used.
Yes you do, and yes you should. But the issue is more about encouraging people to be liberal about restrictions, rather then creating an easy way for them to restrict.
It's all a trade off; you get more people & work, with more restrictions, and I like the CC, trust that they are doing good work with consideration, etc..., but it seems very incongruous with FOSS to make a system which encourages restrictions.
How would google make money off ads if people pop'ed their mail?
Its the interface they're selling. Look at their 'why use gmail' page and you'll find:
(1) The secret is search
(2) It's all in how you look at it
(3) Never lose a message again
(4) Filing email is not the best use of your time
(5) Frying your spam
(6) It has ads. But only good ads.
Every point here is tied to the gmail interface; there is no claim that 'you get 1 gig.' So it looks like they are betting that the client you use won't be as good as gmail. I use pop3 for gmail, but I've also found myself logging on and thinking about their interface more and more.
Latter versions of Outlook work with Hotmail. (2002 an XP for sure, I think 2000 also.)
Still a proprietary connection protocol, but above was this by qa'lth (216840):
Actually, if you get the httpmail plugin for Mail.app on OSX, you can connect to a hotmail account.
There's also a Linux/UNIX daemon that I forget the name of that can do the same thing, it makes the HotMail account appear to be a normal POP3 mailbox.
Either way, thats a good word.
A warning that its a simplification, some taking responsibility for the errors that will come from the simplification, the implication that the simplification might reach the level of a lie, and a little fun with language.
...what if they teamed up with some sort of ID-verification service? Or even several of them.
Someone else commented on Yahoo! asking you to make another dead email to use groups (etc...) which is really annoying, but what I want to know is where did federated (not MS passport) single sign-on go?
Yahoo! is big enough to help push a standard, and since this is a problem for them they could use it on their site, and help bring in others like the NY Times.
6. Free content Model: Competition for readers is so great that providers choose to give away content in support of other endeavors, or for the public good.
Newspapers could be replaced by blogging aggregates, or Wikinews type collaborative efforts.
Corporations already produce information about things related to their industries (although its often just marketing.) In a free (as-in-beer) press environment the incentive may be strong enough to produce unbiased information. This could help the companies in a general way, i.e. More general knowledge about the auto repair could mean less competition from makers of cheap, low quality parts. A good situation for any company that competes on merit rather then brand.
Large organizations could become more public and timely. For example the CIA publishes the World Fact Book and Universities collect information for research and publication. Churches create newsletters that don't compare to the metro 'local' section, but that could change.
A mix of these is probably what will happen (as you said,) but I think free content will become even more common then it is now.
MS history and monopoly status should make this more then civil.
Cash settlements don't usually end criminal investigations.
Consider Michael Jackson -- cash can stop criminal investigations from even starting.
Closed settlements are bad for criminal investigations, and we only allow them to discourage long trials. This is almost ideal for large companies: a game few can afford, or sealed settlement.
Unless AOL is going to try doing fuzzy-logic dictionary look-ups, and/or statistical analysis on ALL messages, there's no way they would even know the difference between encrypted and unencrypted messages.
Wouldn't it be the opposite: look for conversations with evenly distributed character usage.
base64/uu encoding of messages produces all standard characters.
High level usage of non-common characters could be a (relatively) cheap filter. (The + and / would be used too often.)
Your reply wasn't just non-technical, it was WRONG.
I'm sure your not complaining that I made an error, (because we all do,) and I won't dispute that "web based" was wrong.
So what are you saying? Was it not a valid attempt at summarizing? Did I summarize Groove in a vicious and negligent manner? Was there some misunderstanding about the context of it being a general answer?
Someone who read & believed your message will be worse off than if she knew nothing
Someone who read "It looks like..." in a general summary, can decide if they care to learn more.
Isn't this sort of issue why there is a mod system?
Oh thats not technical enough! comes the reply....
Look at the first and third questions; this was a complaint that the most basic information was missing. Somtimes people just want a general clue.
The fact that you posted a *much* better description means you should be modded up, but posting general information is not a bad idea. And no, I have not used Groove.
Do you see my point? The debate about PCness has subsided only because we've all grown sick of talking about it. The PCness, though is still here and accepted.
Very true, but we shouldn't worry about it because another round of change will come. The starting point will be much better, even if we don't get it right.
Consider this: kids say 'nigger' on the net and I've seen white kids say it as if it was reasonable - edgy, but not racist. They know we got the rules wrong (they are too strict as you point out,) and the honesty (or foolishness) of kids lets them express this, even if they don't really understand why its wrong, and even if the way they express it is moronic. They are going to drive society through another round of PC/language debate, and we'll get closer to an answer.
What amazes me is how people focus on minor implimentation details, rather then trying to figure out whats right. We are much more concerned if fixing an injustice involves even a tiny wrong, then with the injustice we set out to fix. The PC debate rarely involved people saying that racist expression is right or wrong (the centeral issue), it was almost always about how to decide what counts as racist expression (the details.)
With addiction vs. responsibility, the debate plays out much the same way: endless 'discussions' about whether some activity should be more classified as one or the other. But where is the central issue? We used to blame people for things that were physically and metally outside the bounds of responsibility. That was wrong, we need to change it, and we need acknowledge it. We also need to find what qualifies as more one or the other. But what the debate always seems to focus on is whether we are upset about the change, rather then if its right.
Allows web-based group projects with people from different companies. It looks like file sharing integrated with easy web form creation for custom project tools.
Why should we care that Microsoft, king of acquisitions, have acquired Yet Another Company?
MS might make it more popular, or more MS Office centric, or kill a cross platform possibility in the future. (it requires windows)
Because if we can blame our bad habits on a disease, something out of our control, then we can absolve ourselves of any responsibility for it.
Its an overreaction from the days of all-things-are-your-fault regardless of what it is; its your morality and choices that are to blame, never any other factor.
i.e. Alcoholism was a moral problem, not at all physical: you just need to take responsibility.
Society never reaches a new balance without some craziness along the way, and now we are dealing with addiction vs. willpower vs. morality.
Just be happy that most of the language & political-correctness debate has subsided.
I don't think we need to worry about penalizing education and advancement.
The market rewards more then the tax costs, but Income tax does work against the individual doing better. There are other taxes (property, stock sales/value, corporate, VAT, etc...) which don't go against the individual improving themselves.
Income & Sales taxes are the two staples in the US government tax diet, and they are the two which penalize the average individual even as they work to increase their skills.
Now yes, it's prone to cheating, but that's because we've made it so complicated.
True that a flat(er) tax would curb cheating, but we added in all the crazy laws for reasons. Some of them were even legitimate reasons. (No, I don't want to guess at what percentage.) Do you want to answer for Home ownership incentives, single parents, Earned Income Tax Credit, renters deductions,... I'm not asking you too, just saying that taxes are a mess, and we can't just go with a flat tax +\- a few rules. Remember how botched it was the last time someone suggested a flat tax, (Forbes in 1996?,) it was: revenue stays the same, the rich pay less, and the poor, uh... they won't pick up the tab, honest, its better!
Would you be happier if, rather than taxing you 10 times at 5% your government taxed you 1 time at 50%? I'll assume the answer to that question is no.
10 times at 5% == 40.1%
I'd be happier if they taxed me once at 40%, rather then tax me ten different times. It would not only be easier, but clearer as to how much was being taken and when.
I can agree with most of your points: I don't think taxes are too high, but I don't think they are the right kind either. Income and Sales taxes are regressive, penalize education and advancement, and are more prone to cheating.
Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch stated that he will appeal Finley's decision. See Ramsey County court decision, Unity v. State of MN (7/14/2004).
...
On January 13, 2005, the Minnesota Court of Appeals heard arguments on the Ramsey County court decision. A Minnesota Court of Appeals decision is pending.
sometimes the grammar nazi's make me want to snipe back:(
I believe that depends on what flavor of English you use.
Wikipedia says...
The American convention is for sentence punctuation to be included inside the quotation marks, even if the punctuation is not part of the quoted sentence, while the British style is to have the punctuation outside the quotation marks for small quoted phrases:
Slashdot Mirror
Blame the user for not patching?
I don't see either of these as reasonable without DRM. Computers are more complicated then any other consumer device and the exploits are more complicated then any other repair or maintenance we expect people to do. This won't change unless the home computer stops being a general purpose computer, through the magic of DRM. Then we could blame the vendor who had control.
At the very most, we will only hold people responsible for not doing relatively easy things: patching, anti-virus, firewall, etc.. These aren't enough though (0-day exploit, etc...) and we won't expect the average person to do more. If it's not reasonable to think the average person could fix it or prevent it, then we won't blame them.
The only alternative would be taking your computer to a specialist and having it certified. (DRM the slow way.) Then lawyers could blame the company that worked on it, or individuals could be liable for not having it serviced, as everyone knows you should.
Just so we're 100% clear here, you're using the threat of litigation and, in some countries, criminal charges to force people to use the work only in the way which you deem is acceptable.
Yes. But we do that for the GPL also, and all kinds of things. The means of enforcement (however ugly) don't change the argument for or against. Surgery is nasty to watch; but a heart bypass operation is not bad because of that.
The balance of Fair Use and the existence of any restrictions (like copyright) is an issue of politics, not personal choice. What choice an artist makes is the issue the CC trys to address. It just seems like they should advocate complete freedom, more then make it easy to apply restrictions.
If you search funeral on google you do get adds, but not in email, strange. Wonder if there was a reasoning to this, or they just used different algorithms that happened to have that result.
I've been thinking about using gmail account for other things: people made a file system from it, and picture sharing in picassa, but how about a database. If you label the entries the right way you could use the fast sort/filtering to store records. Its ideal for blob/large string type data. No triggers since their filters only work on incoming mail. Interesting, but not really a fair thing to do to google. (Wonder why you can get free web hosting but not free database service?)
The original poster disliked "the advocation of non-commercial restrictions, as if they were a good idea." This seems true to me also, and pretty different from the common OSS licenses. CC has several options, what do these correspond to in software licenses?
If it was software we would want to get everyone on the freedom train, and marginalize those who want things like 'open proprietary standards,' so why should this be so different with artistic works?
As the creator and copyright holder of the piece, I believe I have the right to say how it's used.
Yes you do, and yes you should. But the issue is more about encouraging people to be liberal about restrictions, rather then creating an easy way for them to restrict.
It's all a trade off; you get more people & work, with more restrictions, and I like the CC, trust that they are doing good work with consideration, etc..., but it seems very incongruous with FOSS to make a system which encourages restrictions.
The BSA hounds whoever it's masters PAY it to hound. Who would pay the huge fee's to the BSA?
A page with the history and diagrams.r oundwithaLightTouch.html
http://www.subsurfacebuildings.com/BuildingUnderg
Its the interface they're selling. Look at their 'why use gmail' page and you'll find:
Every point here is tied to the gmail interface; there is no claim that 'you get 1 gig.' So it looks like they are betting that the client you use won't be as good as gmail. I use pop3 for gmail, but I've also found myself logging on and thinking about their interface more and more.Still a proprietary connection protocol, but above was this by qa'lth (216840):
Either way, thats a good word. A warning that its a simplification, some taking responsibility for the errors that will come from the simplification, the implication that the simplification might reach the level of a lie, and a little fun with language.
Someone else commented on Yahoo! asking you to make another dead email to use groups (etc...) which is really annoying, but what I want to know is where did federated (not MS passport) single sign-on go?
Yahoo! is big enough to help push a standard, and since this is a problem for them they could use it on their site, and help bring in others like the NY Times.
The value is not just in current earnings. Yahoo! has a chance to compete, just like Microsoft does, but current size is not the ball game.
Newspapers could be replaced by blogging aggregates, or Wikinews type collaborative efforts.
Corporations already produce information about things related to their industries (although its often just marketing.) In a free (as-in-beer) press environment the incentive may be strong enough to produce unbiased information. This could help the companies in a general way, i.e. More general knowledge about the auto repair could mean less competition from makers of cheap, low quality parts. A good situation for any company that competes on merit rather then brand.
Large organizations could become more public and timely. For example the CIA publishes the World Fact Book and Universities collect information for research and publication. Churches create newsletters that don't compare to the metro 'local' section, but that could change.
A mix of these is probably what will happen (as you said,) but I think free content will become even more common then it is now.
MS history and monopoly status should make this more then civil.
Cash settlements don't usually end criminal investigations.
Consider Michael Jackson -- cash can stop criminal investigations from even starting.
Closed settlements are bad for criminal investigations, and we only allow them to discourage long trials. This is almost ideal for large companies: a game few can afford, or sealed settlement.
Wouldn't it be the opposite: look for conversations with evenly distributed character usage.
base64/uu encoding of messages produces all standard characters.
High level usage of non-common characters could be a (relatively) cheap filter. (The + and / would be used too often.)
I'm sure your not complaining that I made an error, (because we all do,) and I won't dispute that "web based" was wrong.
So what are you saying? Was it not a valid attempt at summarizing? Did I summarize Groove in a vicious and negligent manner? Was there some misunderstanding about the context of it being a general answer?
Someone who read & believed your message will be worse off than if she knew nothing
Someone who read "It looks like..." in a general summary, can decide if they care to learn more.
Isn't this sort of issue why there is a mod system?
Oh thats not technical enough! comes the reply....
Look at the first and third questions; this was a complaint that the most basic information was missing. Somtimes people just want a general clue.
The fact that you posted a *much* better description means you should be modded up, but posting general information is not a bad idea. And no, I have not used Groove.
Very true, but we shouldn't worry about it because another round of change will come. The starting point will be much better, even if we don't get it right.
Consider this: kids say 'nigger' on the net and I've seen white kids say it as if it was reasonable - edgy, but not racist. They know we got the rules wrong (they are too strict as you point out,) and the honesty (or foolishness) of kids lets them express this, even if they don't really understand why its wrong, and even if the way they express it is moronic. They are going to drive society through another round of PC/language debate, and we'll get closer to an answer.
What amazes me is how people focus on minor implimentation details, rather then trying to figure out whats right. We are much more concerned if fixing an injustice involves even a tiny wrong, then with the injustice we set out to fix. The PC debate rarely involved people saying that racist expression is right or wrong (the centeral issue), it was almost always about how to decide what counts as racist expression (the details.)
With addiction vs. responsibility, the debate plays out much the same way: endless 'discussions' about whether some activity should be more classified as one or the other. But where is the central issue? We used to blame people for things that were physically and metally outside the bounds of responsibility. That was wrong, we need to change it, and we need acknowledge it. We also need to find what qualifies as more one or the other. But what the debate always seems to focus on is whether we are upset about the change, rather then if its right.
Its an overreaction from the days of all-things-are-your-fault regardless of what it is; its your morality and choices that are to blame, never any other factor.
i.e. Alcoholism was a moral problem, not at all physical: you just need to take responsibility.
Society never reaches a new balance without some craziness along the way, and now we are dealing with addiction vs. willpower vs. morality.
Just be happy that most of the language & political-correctness debate has subsided.
The market rewards more then the tax costs, but Income tax does work against the individual doing better. There are other taxes (property, stock sales/value, corporate, VAT, etc...) which don't go against the individual improving themselves.
Income & Sales taxes are the two staples in the US government tax diet, and they are the two which penalize the average individual even as they work to increase their skills.
Now yes, it's prone to cheating, but that's because we've made it so complicated.
True that a flat(er) tax would curb cheating, but we added in all the crazy laws for reasons. Some of them were even legitimate reasons. (No, I don't want to guess at what percentage.) Do you want to answer for Home ownership incentives, single parents, Earned Income Tax Credit, renters deductions,... I'm not asking you too, just saying that taxes are a mess, and we can't just go with a flat tax +\- a few rules. Remember how botched it was the last time someone suggested a flat tax, (Forbes in 1996?,) it was: revenue stays the same, the rich pay less, and the poor, uh... they won't pick up the tab, honest, its better!
Makes me think of when Netscape decided to ditch all the 'ugly old' ftp code and remake it clean, only to realize that it was tried and tested, and worked.
We do need changes though, and big ones, but I don't know how to reconcile what I said above and the need for change...
if i see you in CVS again i'm going to gank you -- no questions asked punk!
10 times at 5% == 40.1%
I'd be happier if they taxed me once at 40%, rather then tax me ten different times. It would not only be easier, but clearer as to how much was being taken and when.
I can agree with most of your points: I don't think taxes are too high, but I don't think they are the right kind either. Income and Sales taxes are regressive, penalize education and advancement, and are more prone to cheating.
http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/issues/firearmcarr
'Tony's Law' Would Require Marijuana Users To Inform Interested Neighbors
I believe that depends on what flavor of English you use.
Wikipedia says...