I believe they want to charge cab drivers because taxi services are businesses that make money. By playing the radio, you are "enhancing" the taxi ride experience, and the music industry thinks they should be compensated. I don't necessarily agree with this philosophy, so don't flame me please. Just thought I'd point out what the issue is really about.
"Who's to decide what 'greatly' means in your context? Will it end world hunger? No. Will it cure cancer? No. Will I be able to show my (grand)children the entertainment I grew up with, in an uneditted non-PC form, without owing anyone anything? Yes."
You should consider that maybe you should owe someone to show mickey mouse to your grandkids. After all, what did you contribute to the creation of mickey mouse that entitles you to get it for free.
You've illustrated very well why there are copyright and patent laws. Creative work is very valuable, and often costly to produce. Rather than allowing the common intellectual property thief to profit from the work of others, these laws protect this intellectual property, allowing the creators to profit from their work. Other plilosophies, such as socialism, disagree, and claim this property is not that of the owner but of society. The USSR is a good illustration of what happens under this type of philosophy. Put simply, work needs to be done for people to survive. If you value someone's work, you should be willing to trade your work for his (via money, for instance). You shouldn't simply steal it because it is easy to do so. If you don't respect someone's work, and take it for free, don't be surprised when he isn't producing any more work for you.
"Faster? Perhaps.
More power efficient? Not a chance.
Cooler(temp.)? No way.
More efficient architecture? Good gravy, no!
Utilizable SIMD core? Oh bugger."
The only thing worth mentiong is price and performance, and PC wins hands down on both. The other things you mention are secondary in a desktop or server.
Why do you have a problem with running Linux on DRM hardware? This will expand your ability to use multimedia because you can play retricted format files as well as your mp3s etc. Why do you think Mac users can't rent downloadable movies from movielink? Because Apple is limiting their option by not supporting DRM, not increasing their options, as is the common misconception.
Given that Mac Hardware is more expensive than pc hardware, and Windows is no harder to use than MacOS, I'd say MacOS X will lose in TCO. That's the price you pay for buying into a hardware monopoly.
You can't run a business whose product is used solely to break the law. I can't start a company that gives minors ids saying their 21. I can't sell boxes that unscramble cable channels. And I can't sell software that allows copying of copyrighted material. The DMCA may be bad legislation, but I feel no sympathy for this company, and supporting them is pro-piracy.
I would say that the current govt. are more like the Harkonnens. i.e. Hussein, Arafat, Saudi Royal Family, Taliban, etc. The UN and the US are more like the Emperor and his troops. There is no equivalent to the Atreides, except maybe the more moderate mid-east govts. The Fremen are like the everyday people who are stuck with their corrupt govts. Saying the US is like the Harkonnens doesn't fit since they don't even drill for oil there.
"However, given that legislators only hear from those with money(or those who have been trodden upon by previously passed legislation), it is often percived by those in public offices that what they are doing is popular."
I'm sick of this misinformation. Legislators care what voters think first, otherwise there would be no such thing as parties with agendas. Only second do they care about contributions, since all the money won't get you elected if no one likes your position. Since the DMCA is a nonissue for most people, and the intent is good, although the actual legislation is overly broad and restrictive, no one is worried about siding with it. This case is a perfect example. They're trying to put a software company out of business that sells software to illegally copy copyrighted material. They're not trying to put some Russian kid in jail. So the DOJ in this case is following the spirit of the law instead of the letter of the law.
If justice is putting a Russian software company out of business for selling a product whose primary use is circunventing copyright law, then I agree, regardless of how poorly written DMCA legislation is.
Yes. I was forced to use Macs in grad school because my advisor liked them. That was the worst OS on the planet. No preemptive multitasking, no memory management, no memory protection. It was a nightmare. I hated that machine so much I prayed Apple would go out of business so my advisor would be forced to switch to windows. Since I graduated, OS X has come out and sounds decent. Wish it was around back then.
"BMW has a monopoly in the BMW market. GM has a monopoly in the GM market. And yet, they both sell cars and compete against each other. I guess that's why this guy is only a visiting professor of economics.;)"
So by your arguement, MS isn't a monopoly, only a monopoly on the PC market. The problem in the analogy is that there are no compatibility issues between cars. However, if you buy a Mac, you buy the hardware and software from apple, as well as the accessories. Most importantly, if you want to keep your software, but upgrade your computer, you need to buy another mac. It's the same thing in the pc world. Once you choose an operating system, you're stuck with it without starting over. With cars however, if you don't like one, you can simply sell it and buy a different one without worrying about whether or not it'll be compatible with the roads you drive on.
"cognitive dissonance is an extremely powerful component of the continuing strength of MS. Admitting that fear, uncertainty and doubt has led you to lock yourself and your company into an abusive relationship with a monopoly is not something that people want to do (if the latest licensing scheme doesn't qualify as abusive, I don't know what would). People would much rather declare that their "choice" of MS is sensible and will save them money."
Just substitute Apple for MS everywhere and you get the same result, except for the saving money part. Apple is has more of a monopoly than MS on their product, since they sell the hardware as well as the software.
Man pages suck in the sense that they are not indexed. If I want to find out about networking for instance, I can't just type in man networking an expect anything. Windows help is indexed, at least, and I have used it from time to time, with varying results.
First of all, the US govt. doesn't dictate to people what kind of software to use, so no amount of so-called bribe money to the govt. is going to affect Joe User's choice of software. The ruling against MS does not allow them to dictate through any means what type of software OEMs put on their machines, so you have failed to prove that weak enforcement of the law has given MS the ability to force people to use their products. On a more general note, campaign contributions can't be legally spent for personal use, so there is no advantage in siding with MS for money if you lose the election anyway because the constituents didn't like your policy towards MS. The way the govt. ruled against MS is a reflection of the beliefs of the current administration as to the amount of involvement the govt. has a right to interfere with the operation of a business, especially given they didn't ever enact legislation to encourage a monopoly in that market. You can't buy an election in the US, only ads to try to get people to vote for you.
Funny, I don't recall being able to get OS X for free. I don't think you can call it OSS just because it's a GUI that runs on an open source OS. Note that it doesn't run under linux, since then they'd be forced to give away the source. Server applications are hardly mainstream either. They are used only by a select group of ubergeeks, so your IBM reference isn't a particularly good reference either. Mozilla, OpenOffice, and Linux/BSD are in my opinion the most likely programs to threaten the proprietary establishment (including threatening MacOS).
"But you do seem to be one of those people who, when someone else gives one example, jumps to the conclusion that one example is all there is. Not true. But based on my experience with people, those who make such assumptions are generally not open minded. I am, but you have years and years of frustrations with Microsoft Windows to overcome."
Typical weak argument. Attacking the opponent because there's no real substance to your argument.
Telecommunications are left up to private companies in the US. The govt. just says stuff like, you need to give all schools a T1 line, and other regulatory stuff.
Your one bad experience with windows that you can come up with isn't pretty on most versions of unix I've used. Unix hates removable media also. Usually you need to mount the floppy, and then copy the file somewhere else if you want to switch disks as well. Then you have to unmount the floppy, mount the new floppy, and save the new file. I doubt Linux would allow you to remove the old disk while the file was in use either. It would complain that it can't unmount it because the directory is in use. I've used both windows and unix and they both have good points and bad points. The only crappy os I've ever used is MacOS 9 and earlier. Claiming Windows is crap is typical slashdot elitism, and of course you got modded up for your/.speak
You are such an elitist. The majority of people want windows on their machine and want nothing to do with linux. Linux is not on store pcs because people don't want it. MS contracts requiring all machines to ship with windows is due to priacy concerns long before they considered linux a threat. They were more concerned with people installing bootleg copies of windows on machines shipped with no os. The reason people like windows is for compatibility reasons. Calling ms software crap is just more elitist bs that doesn't fly.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone has to pay for the T1 lines going to all the high schools. The govt. figures that might as well be phone users.
I believe they want to charge cab drivers because taxi services are businesses that make money. By playing the radio, you are "enhancing" the taxi ride experience, and the music industry thinks they should be compensated. I don't necessarily agree with this philosophy, so don't flame me please. Just thought I'd point out what the issue is really about.
"Who's to decide what 'greatly' means in your context? Will it end world hunger? No. Will it cure cancer? No. Will I be able to show my (grand)children the entertainment I grew up with, in an uneditted non-PC form, without owing anyone anything? Yes."
You should consider that maybe you should owe someone to show mickey mouse to your grandkids. After all, what did you contribute to the creation of mickey mouse that entitles you to get it for free.
You've illustrated very well why there are copyright and patent laws. Creative work is very valuable, and often costly to produce. Rather than allowing the common intellectual property thief to profit from the work of others, these laws protect this intellectual property, allowing the creators to profit from their work. Other plilosophies, such as socialism, disagree, and claim this property is not that of the owner but of society. The USSR is a good illustration of what happens under this type of philosophy. Put simply, work needs to be done for people to survive. If you value someone's work, you should be willing to trade your work for his (via money, for instance). You shouldn't simply steal it because it is easy to do so. If you don't respect someone's work, and take it for free, don't be surprised when he isn't producing any more work for you.
Price Watch. Look for yourself, you sarcastic asshole.
"Faster? Perhaps. More power efficient? Not a chance. Cooler(temp.)? No way. More efficient architecture? Good gravy, no! Utilizable SIMD core? Oh bugger."
The only thing worth mentiong is price and performance, and PC wins hands down on both. The other things you mention are secondary in a desktop or server.
Why do you have a problem with running Linux on DRM hardware? This will expand your ability to use multimedia because you can play retricted format files as well as your mp3s etc. Why do you think Mac users can't rent downloadable movies from movielink? Because Apple is limiting their option by not supporting DRM, not increasing their options, as is the common misconception.
Given that Mac Hardware is more expensive than pc hardware, and Windows is no harder to use than MacOS, I'd say MacOS X will lose in TCO. That's the price you pay for buying into a hardware monopoly.
You're wrong. Our sysadmin booted our Windows server using a cdrom and replaced a file deleted by a disgruntled employee.
You can't run a business whose product is used solely to break the law. I can't start a company that gives minors ids saying their 21. I can't sell boxes that unscramble cable channels. And I can't sell software that allows copying of copyrighted material. The DMCA may be bad legislation, but I feel no sympathy for this company, and supporting them is pro-piracy.
I would say that the current govt. are more like the Harkonnens. i.e. Hussein, Arafat, Saudi Royal Family, Taliban, etc. The UN and the US are more like the Emperor and his troops. There is no equivalent to the Atreides, except maybe the more moderate mid-east govts. The Fremen are like the everyday people who are stuck with their corrupt govts. Saying the US is like the Harkonnens doesn't fit since they don't even drill for oil there.
"However, given that legislators only hear from those with money(or those who have been trodden upon by previously passed legislation), it is often percived by those in public offices that what they are doing is popular."
I'm sick of this misinformation. Legislators care what voters think first, otherwise there would be no such thing as parties with agendas. Only second do they care about contributions, since all the money won't get you elected if no one likes your position. Since the DMCA is a nonissue for most people, and the intent is good, although the actual legislation is overly broad and restrictive, no one is worried about siding with it. This case is a perfect example. They're trying to put a software company out of business that sells software to illegally copy copyrighted material. They're not trying to put some Russian kid in jail. So the DOJ in this case is following the spirit of the law instead of the letter of the law.
If justice is putting a Russian software company out of business for selling a product whose primary use is circunventing copyright law, then I agree, regardless of how poorly written DMCA legislation is.
Yes. I was forced to use Macs in grad school because my advisor liked them. That was the worst OS on the planet. No preemptive multitasking, no memory management, no memory protection. It was a nightmare. I hated that machine so much I prayed Apple would go out of business so my advisor would be forced to switch to windows. Since I graduated, OS X has come out and sounds decent. Wish it was around back then.
Why does everyone blame MS because they're too incompetent to use their software?
"BMW has a monopoly in the BMW market. GM has a monopoly in the GM market. And yet, they both sell cars and compete against each other. I guess that's why this guy is only a visiting professor of economics. ;)"
So by your arguement, MS isn't a monopoly, only a monopoly on the PC market. The problem in the analogy is that there are no compatibility issues between cars. However, if you buy a Mac, you buy the hardware and software from apple, as well as the accessories. Most importantly, if you want to keep your software, but upgrade your computer, you need to buy another mac. It's the same thing in the pc world. Once you choose an operating system, you're stuck with it without starting over. With cars however, if you don't like one, you can simply sell it and buy a different one without worrying about whether or not it'll be compatible with the roads you drive on.
"cognitive dissonance is an extremely powerful component of the continuing strength of MS. Admitting that fear, uncertainty and doubt has led you to lock yourself and your company into an abusive relationship with a monopoly is not something that people want to do (if the latest licensing scheme doesn't qualify as abusive, I don't know what would). People would much rather declare that their "choice" of MS is sensible and will save them money."
Just substitute Apple for MS everywhere and you get the same result, except for the saving money part. Apple is has more of a monopoly than MS on their product, since they sell the hardware as well as the software.
Man pages suck in the sense that they are not indexed. If I want to find out about networking for instance, I can't just type in man networking an expect anything. Windows help is indexed, at least, and I have used it from time to time, with varying results.
First of all, the US govt. doesn't dictate to people what kind of software to use, so no amount of so-called bribe money to the govt. is going to affect Joe User's choice of software. The ruling against MS does not allow them to dictate through any means what type of software OEMs put on their machines, so you have failed to prove that weak enforcement of the law has given MS the ability to force people to use their products. On a more general note, campaign contributions can't be legally spent for personal use, so there is no advantage in siding with MS for money if you lose the election anyway because the constituents didn't like your policy towards MS. The way the govt. ruled against MS is a reflection of the beliefs of the current administration as to the amount of involvement the govt. has a right to interfere with the operation of a business, especially given they didn't ever enact legislation to encourage a monopoly in that market. You can't buy an election in the US, only ads to try to get people to vote for you.
Funny, I don't recall being able to get OS X for free. I don't think you can call it OSS just because it's a GUI that runs on an open source OS. Note that it doesn't run under linux, since then they'd be forced to give away the source. Server applications are hardly mainstream either. They are used only by a select group of ubergeeks, so your IBM reference isn't a particularly good reference either. Mozilla, OpenOffice, and Linux/BSD are in my opinion the most likely programs to threaten the proprietary establishment (including threatening MacOS).
"But you do seem to be one of those people who, when someone else gives one example, jumps to the conclusion that one example is all there is. Not true. But based on my experience with people, those who make such assumptions are generally not open minded. I am, but you have years and years of frustrations with Microsoft Windows to overcome."
Typical weak argument. Attacking the opponent because there's no real substance to your argument.
Telecommunications are left up to private companies in the US. The govt. just says stuff like, you need to give all schools a T1 line, and other regulatory stuff.
Your one bad experience with windows that you can come up with isn't pretty on most versions of unix I've used. Unix hates removable media also. Usually you need to mount the floppy, and then copy the file somewhere else if you want to switch disks as well. Then you have to unmount the floppy, mount the new floppy, and save the new file. I doubt Linux would allow you to remove the old disk while the file was in use either. It would complain that it can't unmount it because the directory is in use. I've used both windows and unix and they both have good points and bad points. The only crappy os I've ever used is MacOS 9 and earlier. Claiming Windows is crap is typical slashdot elitism, and of course you got modded up for your /.speak
Too bad Eldred hasn't beaten Ashcroft in court yet. Spielberg could have gotten the movie rights for free then.
You are such an elitist. The majority of people want windows on their machine and want nothing to do with linux. Linux is not on store pcs because people don't want it. MS contracts requiring all machines to ship with windows is due to priacy concerns long before they considered linux a threat. They were more concerned with people installing bootleg copies of windows on machines shipped with no os. The reason people like windows is for compatibility reasons. Calling ms software crap is just more elitist bs that doesn't fly.