Re:weird perspective for a conflict... and wrong!
on
Sun's Open Source DRM
·
· Score: 1
With DRM, the companies could be satisfied to allow people to actually get enough content to use their players.
Since when is capitalism is about customers begging to be "allowed" to buy a product? Why don't we wait until music companies come begging to buy their low cost products that run on our existing hardware and then see if we want to buy it? If it's not happening, the market is controlled by monopoly/oligarhy instead of healthy competition and its time for some government action. I don't see street musicians caring about me passing around some mp3s to my friends. They are just happy if those friends show up and drop a few bucks in their bucket. If real competition exists, some of the smaller/underdog labels will start behaving more like that and the rest will have to follow to compete.
Well, I bet you didn't intend to get in trouble with the law , whatever it is - drunk driving, underage drinking, child custody issues... Maybe you should admit you are powerless over your drinking habits and need some help.
Babies are not truly self aware until sometime after they are born, but you don't want the court to rule along these lines*. SCOTUS has to be human in addition to being rational, even if human judgement is necessarily fuzzy and arbitrary. Anyway, it serves the purpose that women have time to choose and that babies that can survive outside the womb are not killed.
* However, I would support euthanasia for newborns with truly crippling and untreatable disabilities such as fetal alcohol syndrome, AIDS or cystic fibrosis. Also, those 19 year olds that strangle their newborns should be seriously punished, but probably not with life sentences.
Huh? I don't even have a TV anymore, because I can just go on Internet and read some blogs. And should you be inclined to participate in the new hot trend, well a lot of content to help you along is available free by choice of the "artists" (ok, middlemen). Nobody is interested in your stuff anymore, at least not for money. Face the music and evolve.
Have you ever actually heard of anyone criticized for calling 911 with a broken wrist? If you don't have anyone to take you to the hospital, you could develop shock, hypothermia, blood clots...
Last I remember, you could assign processor affinity in Windows task manager to really run database on one CPU and web server on another, if that's what gives you the best performance. Of course the main point is that CPU-intensive code from both processes (say sorting in the database and image rendering in web server ) can run simultaneously. What's exactly wrong with your boss's point of view?
It could be argued that it's a waste of developers' time to develop the same application for many different platforms, so it's better to have one dominant operating system and place various regulations on its maker.
Can you please give a case where a company was required to provide free services to a random person with whom it has no customer relationship whatsoever?
A case could be made that Google should provide equal services to all paying customers who are not breaking any laws.
If I already paid for programmer's time with my taxes, I should be able to use the source in any way I want - without giving away my own work, acceditation or any other trouble whatsoever. By the way, the same goes for patents received by university stuff/students, software written for a government contract etc.
If you want to impose GPL on me, do it on your own time/dime.
Free software is written according to developer's personal needs and interests. If I have a blind friend, I might try to test my Internet radio recorder with his/her screen reader. If not, oh well, I barely have time to finish a graphics-only, English-only version anyway. Given that disabled people have limited potential to be developers or to be rich enough to justify commercial support in most software*, the best bet would be government grants or charitable contributions of development money/personal time. It's unlikely that most FOSS can be made accessible, only a few "key" projects like Firefox and Open Office.
* This is not to reflect on their intelligence or discount exceptional cases, but you know it's just harder for these folks to do things.
Corporations do not have your best interests at heart and never will.
While not arguing about common reality, what's to stop a particular corporation from having your best interests at heart and why do you think they can not/shouldn't? In fact, I consider it a part of civilized society. If I set up a repair shop and incorporated it for tax/(reasonable) liability protection purposes, I would try to help my customers with their problems rather than screw them over. You?
Tell me again why should I waste my time and risk my job security or future bonus my alienating the PHB? The company pays me for the best use of my skills, therefore if I see something stupid I will send an e-mail to my manager, once. If he chooses to ignore it and the company (in the extreme case) goes under, I will feel as sorry about them as they would if my job is outsourced - NOT. Maybe some companies care about their employees or making high quality stuff, but I haven't worked for one yet.
Universities exist to promote advancement of knowledge and create citizens that will change society for the better my challenging existing dogma. As such, they have a responsibility to allow any legal means of inquiry and even support illegal but meaningful and essentially harmless pursuits such as civil disobedience. A university is not your dinner table and they shouldn't be able to dismiss students for farting.
Just curious, do you think Google shouldn't filter out Kazaa Lite links in US, Nazi links in France and so on? How do you propose they keep their servers running? Would it even always be a good thing when the supposed representatives of that country's people decided otherwise? Given the violence committed by Muslim groups around the world in the last 5 years, are you sure it's a good idea to give religious/cult recruiters an unrestricted access to young, naive and poor population?
Slashdot Mirror
With DRM, the companies could be satisfied to allow people to actually get enough content to use their players.
Since when is capitalism is about customers begging to be "allowed" to buy a product? Why don't we wait until music companies come begging to buy their low cost products that run on our existing hardware and then see if we want to buy it? If it's not happening, the market is controlled by monopoly/oligarhy instead of healthy competition and its time for some government action. I don't see street musicians caring about me passing around some mp3s to my friends. They are just happy if those friends show up and drop a few bucks in their bucket. If real competition exists, some of the smaller/underdog labels will start behaving more like that and the rest will have to follow to compete.
What would be a word for someone who doesn't care about any gods or higher powers because they don't seam to get involved in his/her life?
Well, I bet you didn't intend to get in trouble with the law , whatever it is - drunk driving, underage drinking, child custody issues... Maybe you should admit you are powerless over your drinking habits and need some help.
Babies are not truly self aware until sometime after they are born, but you don't want the court to rule along these lines*. SCOTUS has to be human in addition to being rational, even if human judgement is necessarily fuzzy and arbitrary. Anyway, it serves the purpose that women have time to choose and that babies that can survive outside the womb are not killed.
* However, I would support euthanasia for newborns with truly crippling and untreatable disabilities such as fetal alcohol syndrome, AIDS or cystic fibrosis. Also, those 19 year olds that strangle their newborns should be seriously punished, but probably not with life sentences.
Huh? I don't even have a TV anymore, because I can just go on Internet and read some blogs. And should you be inclined to participate in the new hot trend, well a lot of content to help you along is available free by choice of the "artists" (ok, middlemen). Nobody is interested in your stuff anymore, at least not for money. Face the music and evolve.
You mean you never heard about the new KDE version of Sun's CPUs?
Do they recommend that their customers run database and web servers on single processor, single disk systems?
Then how do you explain Sun, IBM and other folks trying (and occasionally succeeding) to sell 64 CPU servers?
You actually store your database and your webpages on the same hard drive?
Have you ever actually heard of anyone criticized for calling 911 with a broken wrist? If you don't have anyone to take you to the hospital, you could develop shock, hypothermia, blood clots...
Last I remember, you could assign processor affinity in Windows task manager to really run database on one CPU and web server on another, if that's what gives you the best performance. Of course the main point is that CPU-intensive code from both processes (say sorting in the database and image rendering in web server ) can run simultaneously. What's exactly wrong with your boss's point of view?
And why should humanity survives if it resorts to such behavior?
Care to explain how public domain source is related to drunk driving or killing people in their sleep?
It could be argued that it's a waste of developers' time to develop the same application for many different platforms, so it's better to have one dominant operating system and place various regulations on its maker.
Can you please give a case where a company was required to provide free services to a random person with whom it has no customer relationship whatsoever?
A case could be made that Google should provide equal services to all paying customers who are not breaking any laws.
If I already paid for programmer's time with my taxes, I should be able to use the source in any way I want - without giving away my own work, acceditation or any other trouble whatsoever. By the way, the same goes for patents received by university stuff/students, software written for a government contract etc.
If you want to impose GPL on me, do it on your own time/dime.
Free software is written according to developer's personal needs and interests. If I have a blind friend, I might try to test my Internet radio recorder with his/her screen reader. If not, oh well, I barely have time to finish a graphics-only, English-only version anyway. Given that disabled people have limited potential to be developers or to be rich enough to justify commercial support in most software*, the best bet would be government grants or charitable contributions of development money/personal time. It's unlikely that most FOSS can be made accessible, only a few "key" projects like Firefox and Open Office.
* This is not to reflect on their intelligence or discount exceptional cases, but you know it's just harder for these folks to do things.
I don't know, does the lack of pot endanger your life and future? If so, you can legally get THC in pill/eye drop form.
Corporations do not have your best interests at heart and never will.
While not arguing about common reality, what's to stop a particular corporation from having your best interests at heart and why do you think they can not/shouldn't? In fact, I consider it a part of civilized society. If I set up a repair shop and incorporated it for tax/(reasonable) liability protection purposes, I would try to help my customers with their problems rather than screw them over. You?
Tell me again why should I waste my time and risk my job security or future bonus my alienating the PHB? The company pays me for the best use of my skills, therefore if I see something stupid I will send an e-mail to my manager, once. If he chooses to ignore it and the company (in the extreme case) goes under, I will feel as sorry about them as they would if my job is outsourced - NOT. Maybe some companies care about their employees or making high quality stuff, but I haven't worked for one yet.
Universities exist to promote advancement of knowledge and create citizens that will change society for the better my challenging existing dogma. As such, they have a responsibility to allow any legal means of inquiry and even support illegal but meaningful and essentially harmless pursuits such as civil disobedience. A university is not your dinner table and they shouldn't be able to dismiss students for farting.
Or maybe you'd sell them canned food to feed concentration camp inmates, since they're better off with your food than with none at all?
Well, wouldn't you if you really believed those were the only two choices?
What does this have to do with OS/2?
Not to mention that Mac users had AppleScript before, during and after OS/2. Nothing to see here, move along!
Just curious, do you think Google shouldn't filter out Kazaa Lite links in US, Nazi links in France and so on? How do you propose they keep their servers running? Would it even always be a good thing when the supposed representatives of that country's people decided otherwise? Given the violence committed by Muslim groups around the world in the last 5 years, are you sure it's a good idea to give religious/cult recruiters an unrestricted access to young, naive and poor population?