I don't buy it. When I was a teenager we managed to find the money for the albums and singles and music we wanted. All the kids did. Now its just a "transfer" payment, in that "free" music means that their money can instead go towards clothes and all the other things that they can't steal quite so easily.
And to quote, "The fact of the matter is, if I didn't have a pirated version of Photoshop... then I would use something else." Which makes the point. Since you, apparently, DO have a pirated copy of Photoshop, you're NOT using or supporting or buying any other cheaper alternatives.
I expressed my displeasure with him on the "must pass" millitary budget/national id fiasco. He pointed out that not to vote yes on the military spending bill would have been suicide. Which brings us back around. We need, like several state legislatures, to enact legislation that prohibit riders that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. If you need a new aquarium for your hometown, then put it up there and let it get voted on...
Yes, but I have no control over, say, the Senator from the Commonwealth of Virgina. If he slides a pork appropriation onto a bill meant for something else, there's nothing I, as a citizen of the State of Colorado, can do about it. I can't vote against him. I can't replace him. He is not accountable to me.
And HIS citizens are going to be happy he brought home the bacon, so they're not going to do anything about it either.
So the only thing I can do is make sure my senator does the same thing, which benefits no one, and subverts the system.
"Or is their some group favored with superior decison making ability which should be allowed to make their decisions for them?"
Yes. Your representitives are elected and paid to make those decisions for the "greater good" of the nation. They, in turn, elect to give money to, say, the National Science Foundation, whose boards study research grants and select the ones to fund.
So "superior decison making ability" translates to "those knowledgeable in the field of study", who, unlike you, are qualified to make those decisions.
"This argument is that there is the assumption that the campgrounds, hotels, motels, recording companies, etc. are *entitled* to my business whether I want to give it to them or not."
So, barring legal alternatives (staying in a Walmart parking lot) you say that you're entitled to illegal alternatives (trespassing in my backyard)?
While they might not be entitled to your business, you have the choice of giving it to them, breaking the law, finding a legal alternative, or doing without. And breaking the law is still breaking the law.
Which brings us back to the point that bills should be single purpose. Every law deserves its own day in court, as it were, and each should be debated on its own merits.
Why in hell should a "must pass" military appropriations bill be used as a cover to pass a national id card system? Why is a budget bill covering a communications act? Isn't either one important enough to deserve their own debate?
The real problem lies in the fact that too many of these "sliders" would not stand on their own two feet. And so legislators try to sneak them by, hidden in the muck.
If they're going to "monetize" BT, as in, "The piracy business is not something anyone can make money on," then who is paying?
Since BT is ALREADY free on both sides, where are the dollars coming from? If we were talking a grant to develop better versions I could see it, but venture people usually want a return on their investment.
So again, who's paying? Especially given the, ah... nature of the existing BT audience?
"If we all get refunds for programs with which we disagree, or never fund them in the first place, then we can use those resources to fund the programs with which we do agree."
First, the people who actually make the decisions just might have a slightly better idea of what research grants require funding than you do. Or are you up on the latest in protein folding and its relationship to auto-immune research?
And second, would you, or Joe Sixpack, take that "refund" and actually fund any research? Or would it be much more likely that the only thing funded is a few more cases of beer and a larger flat-screen TV?
"How am I supposed to find a better one? I have no qualifications at all."
So what steps are you taking to gain some? What books are you reading? What classes are you taking? What seminars have you attended?
But no. It's easier to whine about it. This why China and India are going to eat our lunch. Their people, after years of poverty, are willing to study and work to get ahead.
"If I go into your back yard and pitch a tent and sleep there, technically, I am not stealing anything from you."
As in all lame analogies, there are issues that don't cross-over. You are trespassing; in pitching and residing in said tent you will in all likelyhood damage my yard; you're interfering with my privacy; and you're preventing any other use of my property while you and your tent are there.
More to the point, and as an issue that DOES cross over, there are any number of campgrounds, hotels, and motels that are not getting your business while you're off freeloading on my property.
"There's this little thing called network storage..."
In which case, I suspect I'd still need a computer/storage device to store all my pictures, videos, and music. Or does network storage (I assume internet in this case) somehow not need computers and/or storage devices at the other end?
And as if I wanted to pay a subscription fee for a terabyte or three of online storage.
Not to mention the security and privacy angles. Do I really want all of my papers, financial information, and tax data stored out there somewhere on someone else's theoretically secure system that theoretically no one else can read?
It appears to be just normal handling. I went to an Apple store about a week after the announcement to see the Nano, and the display models that were just sitting on the counter were already incredibly scuffed and scratched. Made me wonder how often they were going to need to replace them...
Even if it did all of those things, I suspect I'd still need a computer/storage device to store all of my pictures, videos, and music. I doubt I'm going to get a phone with a terabyte drive in the near future.
The article assumes you have a choice. Netscape, from those who've talked to me, didn't. While it may be that some of the code could be reused, the original architecture was completely unsuited for supporting CSS1/2, newer version of JavaScript and the DOM, XML, and so on. And anyone who's done cross-platform HTML knew that their engine had a plethora of irritating bugs and rendering quirks.
IMHO, what really killed them was not the code rewrite per say, but attempting to be an early pioneer in open source development. THAT'S what burned up all the time, and everyone knows pioneers have a high risk of ending up with arrows in their backs.
So if you're after morals to the story, I'd say instead never bet your company on open source... *grin*
The parent is right. There are times when it get harder and harder to implement new features and subscribe to new requirements with the existing architecture and code base.
Though, just to play devil's advocate, one might ask why you should have some of those abilities.
Yes, you can time-shift regular programming. But why should you be able to time-shift video-on-demand? I mean, you can start the show any time you wish, so it's not like it's only on at 8:00, and you need to record it so you can watch it at 9:00 when you get home.
And part of pay-per-view is pay-PER-view. In essence, it's like buying a movie ticket to see a certain show at a certain time. But having bought one ticket doesn't mean I can go back to the theater and watch it again and again.
Forgive me, but these seem like reasonable restrictions...
I believe the actual story was about how Firefox was less secure. The spin on the story was that they're more reactive.
BTW, the use of "spin" was deliberate. I've yet to see numbers for both sides that prove MF is more reactive than MS, even though it appears to be "common knowledge". IIRC, the last release (1.0.6) fixed bugs found in March.
Slashdot Mirror
Out of curiosity, how does the RIAA, an industry trade organization and not a record company, take advantage of artists?
And to quote, "The fact of the matter is, if I didn't have a pirated version of Photoshop... then I would use something else." Which makes the point. Since you, apparently, DO have a pirated copy of Photoshop, you're NOT using or supporting or buying any other cheaper alternatives.
I expressed my displeasure with him on the "must pass" millitary budget/national id fiasco. He pointed out that not to vote yes on the military spending bill would have been suicide. Which brings us back around. We need, like several state legislatures, to enact legislation that prohibit riders that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. If you need a new aquarium for your hometown, then put it up there and let it get voted on...
Huh? Funny, I thought that this was exactly what Terminal Services and/or Remote Desktop achieved?
For those who are uniformed: Terminal Services
And in a pay site the money goes to the pay site, not to BT.
And HIS citizens are going to be happy he brought home the bacon, so they're not going to do anything about it either.
So the only thing I can do is make sure my senator does the same thing, which benefits no one, and subverts the system.
Yes. Your representitives are elected and paid to make those decisions for the "greater good" of the nation. They, in turn, elect to give money to, say, the National Science Foundation, whose boards study research grants and select the ones to fund.
So "superior decison making ability" translates to "those knowledgeable in the field of study", who, unlike you, are qualified to make those decisions.
So, barring legal alternatives (staying in a Walmart parking lot) you say that you're entitled to illegal alternatives (trespassing in my backyard)?
While they might not be entitled to your business, you have the choice of giving it to them, breaking the law, finding a legal alternative, or doing without. And breaking the law is still breaking the law.
Why in hell should a "must pass" military appropriations bill be used as a cover to pass a national id card system? Why is a budget bill covering a communications act? Isn't either one important enough to deserve their own debate?
The real problem lies in the fact that too many of these "sliders" would not stand on their own two feet. And so legislators try to sneak them by, hidden in the muck.
Since BT is ALREADY free on both sides, where are the dollars coming from? If we were talking a grant to develop better versions I could see it, but venture people usually want a return on their investment.
So again, who's paying? Especially given the, ah... nature of the existing BT audience?
First, the people who actually make the decisions just might have a slightly better idea of what research grants require funding than you do. Or are you up on the latest in protein folding and its relationship to auto-immune research?
And second, would you, or Joe Sixpack, take that "refund" and actually fund any research? Or would it be much more likely that the only thing funded is a few more cases of beer and a larger flat-screen TV?
So what steps are you taking to gain some? What books are you reading? What classes are you taking? What seminars have you attended?
But no. It's easier to whine about it. This why China and India are going to eat our lunch. Their people, after years of poverty, are willing to study and work to get ahead.
As in all lame analogies, there are issues that don't cross-over. You are trespassing; in pitching and residing in said tent you will in all likelyhood damage my yard; you're interfering with my privacy; and you're preventing any other use of my property while you and your tent are there.
More to the point, and as an issue that DOES cross over, there are any number of campgrounds, hotels, and motels that are not getting your business while you're off freeloading on my property.
In which case, I suspect I'd still need a computer/storage device to store all my pictures, videos, and music. Or does network storage (I assume internet in this case) somehow not need computers and/or storage devices at the other end?
And as if I wanted to pay a subscription fee for a terabyte or three of online storage.
Not to mention the security and privacy angles. Do I really want all of my papers, financial information, and tax data stored out there somewhere on someone else's theoretically secure system that theoretically no one else can read?
Not to mention the fact that all we're doing is breeding better germs...
It appears to be just normal handling. I went to an Apple store about a week after the announcement to see the Nano, and the display models that were just sitting on the counter were already incredibly scuffed and scratched. Made me wonder how often they were going to need to replace them...
We also like small (RAZR, mini's, Nano's). However, I would like to be able to use the 30" screen with a Mac mini. Best of both worlds. *grin*
Even if it did all of those things, I suspect I'd still need a computer/storage device to store all of my pictures, videos, and music. I doubt I'm going to get a phone with a terabyte drive in the near future.
They've indicated in several statements and articles that some older and/or less popular music could be priced at less than a buck.
IMHO, what really killed them was not the code rewrite per say, but attempting to be an early pioneer in open source development. THAT'S what burned up all the time, and everyone knows pioneers have a high risk of ending up with arrows in their backs.
So if you're after morals to the story, I'd say instead never bet your company on open source... *grin*
The parent is right. There are times when it get harder and harder to implement new features and subscribe to new requirements with the existing architecture and code base.
As a rule of thumb, an object's retail price is roughly twice its costs. Higher for cheap items, less for expensive items.
Yes, you can time-shift regular programming. But why should you be able to time-shift video-on-demand? I mean, you can start the show any time you wish, so it's not like it's only on at 8:00, and you need to record it so you can watch it at 9:00 when you get home.
And part of pay-per-view is pay-PER-view. In essence, it's like buying a movie ticket to see a certain show at a certain time. But having bought one ticket doesn't mean I can go back to the theater and watch it again and again.
Forgive me, but these seem like reasonable restrictions...
But losing your patron and and your primary development team both at the same time could be a major blow...
BTW, the use of "spin" was deliberate. I've yet to see numbers for both sides that prove MF is more reactive than MS, even though it appears to be "common knowledge". IIRC, the last release (1.0.6) fixed bugs found in March.