From article:
"The most critical point in Wilson's post, in my mind, is Microsoft's admission that it will fail the crucial Acid2 browser-compliance test , which the Web Standards Project (WaSP) designed to help browser vendors ensure that their products properly support Web standards. "
Also from article:
"You can turn the tide by demanding more from Microsoft and by using a better alternative Web browser. I recommend and use Mozilla Firefox, but Apple Safari (Macintosh only) and Opera 8 are both worth considering as well."
But Firefox doesn't pass the acid2 test either. What's the logic in recommending boycotting IE because it isn't compliant, and then recommending other non-compliant browsers instead?
"Open-source software advocates want information to be free, as do civil liberty groups and other political organizations that fall near the Slashdot line of thinking."
Except their own information. That must remain protected.
So, then the US govt. should stop supporting Israel as well, with military technology? What happens when you leave Israel defenseless against enemies who have sworn to destroy it.
According to the article, the commentator suggests MS make a Microsoft Linux fork that is compatible with Windows. If they can get Linux users to use this version, they kill off the old Linux in favor of their fork.
When WiMax or the successor to 3G becomes widespread, mobile users will subscribe to these services and get broadband wireless without needing a hotspot.
"The right to contract's value varies from person to person. You may as well say the right to be a slave is a valuable part of our "spirit of freedom". Do you believe that someone should be allowed to contract being knocked senseless or infected with AIDS for some sort of renumeration?"
You get a lot worse than that in the military. So by your reasoning soldiers shouldn't have to honor their contracts if a war breaks out
"Non-compete? No, it denies the freedom of place of work."
By denying a company the ability to negotiate a no-compete clause, you are taking away their freedom. If a person signs the contract freely (no physical coercion), then his freedom has not been restricted.
"Who the hell are they giving tariff royalties to from blank media? That's asinine. The CPCC are just like our RIAA, all a pack of crooks. If you want royalties to go to the Artists, than lower the damn price of the music your sell and people might actually buy a CD. Inflating the price of a CD to pay for the CPCC/ RIAA Rats, who claim to "protect" Artists is wrong! I'm curious how much of these collected tariffs actually makes its way back to the Artists."
People steal (yes copyright infringement is theft, don't bother with equivocating) music, and the only option the Canadian govt. gives music labels is this lame tariff on media. So music labels accept this as better than nothing, but they're the crooks? Give me a break.
Forcing someone to lower their prices under threat of theft if they don't is a vioation of indivdual rights./.ers love to bitch about their rights but then tranple over the rights of those they disagree with, and get modded up by other hypocrites.
"Unfortunately the end result of this is that the rich are much better represented than the poor, when it's really the poor that need the representation. "
Not true. You think the EFF, labor unions, etc. don't hire lobbyists? Special interest groups are more than just "rich people". Special interest groups represent anyone with a special interest, as long as there are enough people with the special interest.
" Yeah, I love it when the government fleeces the taxpayer in order to subsidize big business!
Please. You act like this isn't happening enough as it is."
Right, because the tax money they collect on the profit from the plant isn't going to more than make up for the initial investment. This sounds more like a business deal than govt. charity.
"Printer manufactures added this technology under persuasion from the government inorder to help combat counterfeiting operations, however this technology defeats the presumed anonymity most people expect from the documents they print."
Yeah most people expect anonymity when they print out letters that they sign. And certainly when printing out mapquest instructions, people are really concerned about anonymity, since they are showing the printouts to no one else. Oh yeah, and when printing out photos of their families, people are really concerned about anonymity. And don't forget, when printing out your tax form (with your ssn), you certainly want to remain anonymous.
Think for a second people, and you'll realize that only a very small fraction of people printing out anything are concerned about remaining anonymous. Most of the time the document never changes hands, and when it does, the person receiving the document knows who gave it to him.
"Statistics and studies do not matter to these people. Your desire to kick the tires before you buy doesn't matter either. You got it - you didn't pay for it - we lost money. Of course the reality of it is something totally different, but these organizations have had a stranglehold on their commodity for so long, they're not comfortable with anything less than a stranglehold."
Here's the reality (from the article): "But our concern is that file-sharers' expenditure on music overall is down, a fact borne out by study after study.
"The consensus among independent research is that a third of illegal file-sharers may buy more music and around two thirds buy less.
"That two-thirds tends to include people who were the heaviest buyers which is why we need to continue our carrot and stick approach to the problem of illegal file-sharing," he said.
"That hardly seems like a carrot. Or rather, when the company drastically reduces their packaging and distribution costs, I expect a big chunk of that benefit to be passed on to the consumer. At least, that's what I would expect to happen in a competitive market."
For whatever reason, the majority of people equate legal music on the internet with Apple. Few people go to other sites, even though they charge less than $1/song. Therefore, Apple has a monopoly, and doesn't worry about competition. They simply pick a price that maximizes profit.
" Recording companies don't care about consumers; they're scared as hell that the artists will decide that they don't need record companies any more. The artists will quit signing with them, or they will insist on better terms."
The job of a record label is to produce and market music. Even if a band produces its own music, it is unlikely they have the capital or connections to market the music. The internet won't help you get exposure if no one knows who you are in the first place. A company can try to start up on it's own captial, but more likely the company will seek venture capital. In the music industry, the record labels are the venture capitalists of musicians.
"No such thing exists in the 'nautral' world, IP law, just like the ideas that it supposedly 'protects', is a abstract invention of humans. IP isn't the same as a lump of iron ore, or a bar of gold, or the computer I'm typing this on."
In the natural world there is no such thing as any property rights. All that exists is "might makes right".
"And you're going to probably see more of this because of No Child Left Behind. It's in the budgetary interest of the school to have the highest grades possible. If it means having most students ace the exam on fraction addition in 8th grade, then that's what it takes."
I thought no child left behind used nation wide standardized tests. The reason Democrats oppose this policy is they are in the pockets of teachers' labor unions.
"IP laws gone insane will kill research here if it goes on long enough. Our genetics research is crippled in all sorts of places by strategically held patents. Scientists can't share ideas the way they're supposed to because of non-disclosure, non-compete, and rest of the rest of muck. Science is the goose that laid the golden egg and corporates are running that sucker through a Tyson plant."
And yet the US by far produces the most pharmaceutical breakthoughs of any place in the world.
If I ran a radio station, I'd make people pay me to play their music. They sell songs to people who like them because they heard them on the radio. Why should I pay them to play the songs on the radio, to help them make money? I'd pick music that fit the format, of course, to keep listeners happy, but then only those who paid would get airplay. Then there would be no need to waste listener's time playing commercials. Why should it be illegal for me to do this? What happened to freedom in this country?
"And, jokes aside, "proof of purchase" of what? If they mean a possible purchase of a machine with, or a standalone copy of, a counterfeit version of Windows, assuming the user purchased it legitimately in good faith, how in the hell is this the user's responsibility or fault?"
If you buy something that later is determined to be stolen, it will be conviscated and returned to the rightful owner. Similarly, if you unknowingly buy an illegal copy of Windows, MS deserves to be compensated if you wish to continue using the software. If you've been ripped off, you can sue the person who sold you the illegal software.
So whoever wrote the post and the editor missed the point of the article entirely. The article is telling people to secure their wireless networks to prevent unwanted guests accessing your network for nefarious purposes. However, one line was pulled out of the article, saying possessing certain antennae is illegal, when it probably should have said these antennae can be used illegally by breaking the FCC maximum output power requirements for WiFi. The point was to warn people that a person doesn't need to be parked next to your house to access your network, since by using the right equipment, someone can access your network from a long distance. Given all the publicity on/. over security, I'm surprised that an article claiming that people need to lock down their wireless networks is described as "containing panic inducing rhetoric".
There are at least 10 posts claiming that liberty and security aren't related, including the Franklin quote. This is nonsense. How can you consider yourself free if you can't even walk out the door without worrying about someone taking your life? The one function most rational people can agree a govt.'s job is, is to make and enforce laws to protect individual rights. These include life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Now if your govt. is unable to protect your life, your individual right is jeopardized. Therefore a rational person must make choices that curtail his liberty in order to minimize risk to his life. Liberty, therefore, has been compromised, and freedom lost. Note: quoting a famous person who says something is so, doesn't make it true.
" Conservatives learned some lessons from the democrats some time ago. They stopped fighting for small government and fiscal responsibility because neither gets you so many votes."
Yhis is the only insightful post I've read, buried in hundreds of moronic posts by people who only believe in copyright enforcement when the GPL is under assault.
"Completely agree! Sure I like the balanced budgets and robut economy from the blue side, but you cannot really put a price on the entertainment value of all the bombing/shooting/killing you get to see live on CNN with the red side. Priceless!;-)"
If the blue side is so good at balancing budgets, why does CA have near junk bond status?
Slashdot Mirror
From article:
"The most critical point in Wilson's post, in my mind, is Microsoft's admission that it will fail the crucial Acid2 browser-compliance test , which the Web Standards Project (WaSP) designed to help browser vendors ensure that their products properly support Web standards. "
Also from article:
"You can turn the tide by demanding more from Microsoft and by using a better alternative Web browser. I recommend and use Mozilla Firefox, but Apple Safari (Macintosh only) and Opera 8 are both worth considering as well."
But Firefox doesn't pass the acid2 test either. What's the logic in recommending boycotting IE because it isn't compliant, and then recommending other non-compliant browsers instead?
"Open-source software advocates want information to be free, as do civil liberty groups and other political organizations that fall near the Slashdot line of thinking."
Except their own information. That must remain protected.
So, then the US govt. should stop supporting Israel as well, with military technology? What happens when you leave Israel defenseless against enemies who have sworn to destroy it.
According to the article, the commentator suggests MS make a Microsoft Linux fork that is compatible with Windows. If they can get Linux users to use this version, they kill off the old Linux in favor of their fork.
When WiMax or the successor to 3G becomes widespread, mobile users will subscribe to these services and get broadband wireless without needing a hotspot.
"Sorry but that does not mean shit. When will you Americans realize that your laws do not extend within the borders of other sovereign nations?"
Do you know what a treaty is?
"The right to contract's value varies from person to person. You may as well say the right to be a slave is a valuable part of our "spirit of freedom". Do you believe that someone should be allowed to contract being knocked senseless or infected with AIDS for some sort of renumeration?"
You get a lot worse than that in the military. So by your reasoning soldiers shouldn't have to honor their contracts if a war breaks out
"Non-compete? No, it denies the freedom of place of work."
By denying a company the ability to negotiate a no-compete clause, you are taking away their freedom. If a person signs the contract freely (no physical coercion), then his freedom has not been restricted.
"Who the hell are they giving tariff royalties to from blank media? That's asinine. The CPCC are just like our RIAA, all a pack of crooks. If you want royalties to go to the Artists, than lower the damn price of the music your sell and people might actually buy a CD. Inflating the price of a CD to pay for the CPCC/ RIAA Rats, who claim to "protect" Artists is wrong! I'm curious how much of these collected tariffs actually makes its way back to the Artists."
/.ers love to bitch about their rights but then tranple over the rights of those they disagree with, and get modded up by other hypocrites.
People steal (yes copyright infringement is theft, don't bother with equivocating) music, and the only option the Canadian govt. gives music labels is this lame tariff on media. So music labels accept this as better than nothing, but they're the crooks? Give me a break.
Forcing someone to lower their prices under threat of theft if they don't is a vioation of indivdual rights.
"Unfortunately the end result of this is that the rich are much better represented than the poor, when it's really the poor that need the representation.
"
Not true. You think the EFF, labor unions, etc. don't hire lobbyists? Special interest groups are more than just "rich people". Special interest groups represent anyone with a special interest, as long as there are enough people with the special interest.
" Yeah, I love it when the government fleeces the taxpayer in order to subsidize big business!
Please. You act like this isn't happening enough as it is."
Right, because the tax money they collect on the profit from the plant isn't going to more than make up for the initial investment. This sounds more like a business deal than govt. charity.
"Printer manufactures added this technology under persuasion from the government inorder to help combat counterfeiting operations, however this technology defeats the presumed anonymity most people expect from the documents they print."
Yeah most people expect anonymity when they print out letters that they sign. And certainly when printing out mapquest instructions, people are really concerned about anonymity, since they are showing the printouts to no one else. Oh yeah, and when printing out photos of their families, people are really concerned about anonymity. And don't forget, when printing out your tax form (with your ssn), you certainly want to remain anonymous.
Think for a second people, and you'll realize that only a very small fraction of people printing out anything are concerned about remaining anonymous. Most of the time the document never changes hands, and when it does, the person receiving the document knows who gave it to him.
"Statistics and studies do not matter to these people. Your desire to kick the tires before you buy doesn't matter either. You got it - you didn't pay for it - we lost money. Of course the reality of it is something totally different, but these organizations have had a stranglehold on their commodity for so long, they're not comfortable with anything less than a stranglehold."
Here's the reality (from the article):
"But our concern is that file-sharers' expenditure on music overall is down, a fact borne out by study after study.
"The consensus among independent research is that a third of illegal file-sharers may buy more music and around two thirds buy less.
"That two-thirds tends to include people who were the heaviest buyers which is why we need to continue our carrot and stick approach to the problem of illegal file-sharing," he said.
"That hardly seems like a carrot. Or rather, when the company drastically reduces their packaging and distribution costs, I expect a big chunk of that benefit to be passed on to the consumer. At least, that's what I would expect to happen in a competitive market."
For whatever reason, the majority of people equate legal music on the internet with Apple. Few people go to other sites, even though they charge less than $1/song. Therefore, Apple has a monopoly, and doesn't worry about competition. They simply pick a price that maximizes profit.
" Recording companies don't care about consumers; they're scared as hell that the artists will decide that they don't need record companies any more. The artists will quit signing with them, or they will insist on better terms."
The job of a record label is to produce and market music. Even if a band produces its own music, it is unlikely they have the capital or connections to market the music. The internet won't help you get exposure if no one knows who you are in the first place. A company can try to start up on it's own captial, but more likely the company will seek venture capital. In the music industry, the record labels are the venture capitalists of musicians.
"No such thing exists in the 'nautral' world, IP law, just like the ideas that it supposedly 'protects', is a abstract invention of humans. IP isn't the same as a lump of iron ore, or a bar of gold, or the computer I'm typing this on."
In the natural world there is no such thing as any property rights. All that exists is "might makes right".
"And you're going to probably see more of this because of No Child Left Behind. It's in the budgetary interest of the school to have the highest grades possible. If it means having most students ace the exam on fraction addition in 8th grade, then that's what it takes."
I thought no child left behind used nation wide standardized tests. The reason Democrats oppose this policy is they are in the pockets of teachers' labor unions.
"IP laws gone insane will kill research here if it goes on long enough. Our genetics research is crippled in all sorts of places by strategically held patents. Scientists can't share ideas the way they're supposed to because of non-disclosure, non-compete, and rest of the rest of muck. Science is the goose that laid the golden egg and corporates are running that sucker through a Tyson plant."
And yet the US by far produces the most pharmaceutical breakthoughs of any place in the world.
If I ran a radio station, I'd make people pay me to play their music. They sell songs to people who like them because they heard them on the radio. Why should I pay them to play the songs on the radio, to help them make money? I'd pick music that fit the format, of course, to keep listeners happy, but then only those who paid would get airplay. Then there would be no need to waste listener's time playing commercials. Why should it be illegal for me to do this? What happened to freedom in this country?
"And, jokes aside, "proof of purchase" of what? If they mean a possible purchase of a machine with, or a standalone copy of, a counterfeit version of Windows, assuming the user purchased it legitimately in good faith, how in the hell is this the user's responsibility or fault?"
If you buy something that later is determined to be stolen, it will be conviscated and returned to the rightful owner. Similarly, if you unknowingly buy an illegal copy of Windows, MS deserves to be compensated if you wish to continue using the software. If you've been ripped off, you can sue the person who sold you the illegal software.
So whoever wrote the post and the editor missed the point of the article entirely. The article is telling people to secure their wireless networks to prevent unwanted guests accessing your network for nefarious purposes. However, one line was pulled out of the article, saying possessing certain antennae is illegal, when it probably should have said these antennae can be used illegally by breaking the FCC maximum output power requirements for WiFi. The point was to warn people that a person doesn't need to be parked next to your house to access your network, since by using the right equipment, someone can access your network from a long distance. Given all the publicity on /. over security, I'm surprised that an article claiming that people need to lock down their wireless networks is described as "containing panic inducing rhetoric".
"Just cause a terrorist may blow something up when I'm riding on a train, doesn't mean I've lost my liberty."
I think it's is safe to conclude you've lost your liberty if you're dead. Life is a necessary condition for liberty.
There are at least 10 posts claiming that liberty and security aren't related, including the Franklin quote. This is nonsense. How can you consider yourself free if you can't even walk out the door without worrying about someone taking your life? The one function most rational people can agree a govt.'s job is, is to make and enforce laws to protect individual rights. These include life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Now if your govt. is unable to protect your life, your individual right is jeopardized. Therefore a rational person must make choices that curtail his liberty in order to minimize risk to his life. Liberty, therefore, has been compromised, and freedom lost. Note: quoting a famous person who says something is so, doesn't make it true.
" Conservatives learned some lessons from the democrats some time ago. They stopped fighting for small government and fiscal responsibility because neither gets you so many votes."
Yhis is the only insightful post I've read, buried in hundreds of moronic posts by people who only believe in copyright enforcement when the GPL is under assault.
"Completely agree! Sure I like the balanced budgets and robut economy from the blue side, but you cannot really put a price on the entertainment value of all the bombing/shooting/killing you get to see live on CNN with the red side. Priceless! ;-)"
If the blue side is so good at balancing budgets, why does CA have near junk bond status?