amateur:
1. A person who engages in an art, science, study, or athletic activity as a pastime rather than as a profession.
2. Sports. An athlete who has never accepted money, or who accepts money under restrictions specified by a regulatory body, for participating in a competition.
3. One lacking the skill of a professional, as in an art.
You're thinking of definition (3). I prefer definition (1), influenced by (2):
An "amateur artist" is one who does not rely upon money made from his/her paintings to earn a living.
But language is a funny thing -- if you said, "That artist is an amateur" (as compared to "amateur artist") I would think you meant definition (3)!
Mate, you're right, but you're wrong at the same time.
I think we're arguing along slightly different fronts -- we have to distinguish between amateur artists, and professional artists. Amateur artists may well create art 'because it's just cool', but they are primarily creating art for their *own* gratification.
Not for the Pope. Not for anyone else. They probably don't even care if their art gets locked up in their basement. The only thing that matters is that they get enjoyment out of it.
And that's fine, as far as it goes.
A *professional* artist, on the other hand, devotes his or her time to creating art on the basis that others will compensate them for their work. And they have probably only got to that stage by getting sufficient kudos from other people for their previous, amateur works.
*That's* where my list kicks in.
Love art, and create art for free, by all means. But if people are to be able to devote all their time to using their talent to the best of their ability, at some point, they need to be able to get paid for that.
The problem with arguments over the 'unaltered original' is that a movie, unlike a painting, is *never* a single entity.
By that, I mean that there are endless feet of film that end up on the cutting room floor, even if at one point they were part of the movie.
If you are part of the audience for a test screening, you may see a movie with a different ending. Or a cut version for TV.
The more I learn about the movie-making process, the less I think there really is an "unaltered original" of a movie. In reality, there are probably tens, if not hundreds of versions of any movie.
That said, I'd propose the following principles: (1) Only people who hold the permissions for a film should be allowed to publish changed versions of that film. You should not be allowed to publish an *altered* version of a film (eg. CleanFlicks). (2) The people who provide you with content set up how it is *meant* to be displayed. However, it should not be illegal for people who change that order in a personal environment, whether through programmed manipulations or through permanent editing or montage. However, if you want to censor films you buy, you must do it yourself (or in an appropriately private transaction environment, eg. by a friend).
It's nothing to do with being a moral right -- the whole purpose of copyright is to put incentives in place for people to create new content.
Without copyright, the argument goes, people simply wouldn't bother creating the materials. And it's true!
Before copyright existed, artists had 3 basic options:
1. Get a private person to sponsor your work.
2. Get the church to sponsor your work.
3. Get the government to sponsor your work.
None of these methods are used widely today. Copyright was a legal right instituted in relatively modern times to ensure that, with the collapse of the patronage system, people could still receive sufficient financial returns from their work, and would continue to produce new material.
There are many problems with copyright, yes, but to assert that content providers should have no rights over how their work is used is simply going to drastically reduce the number and quality of creative works in the marketplace.
If what you say about Radiohead (one of the most innovative bands of the 1990s and 2000s) is true, I pity the American radio industry.
Are there no government-sponsored or community radio stations on air in the USA?
In Australia, we have a fantastic 'youth radio' network called Triple J (JJJ). It has around 50 broadcast points across the country, and plays probably at least 80% of the non-mainstream, commercial music heard across the country.
Then, about 4-6 months after being played on JJJ, the most popular songs inevitably make their way across to the giant radio comglomerates.
We also have a variety of smaller community radio stations that play to their own niches.
Surely there must be room in the USA for a station that can reward creativity and talent, rather than commercial success?
It's not about being 'desperate for more trade', it's about forging closer ties with the U.S. (not that we need them, thanks to Little Johnny), staying true to the Government's philosophy of lowering trade barriers, and reducing government intervention.
I truly hope the free-trade agreement falls through. I don't think it's in Australia's best interests. But writing about it in this way is at best, not helpful, and at worst, misrepresentative and counterproductive.
Mozilla has (so far) been subject to 25 security bugs. Of these, only 3 were 'arbitrary code execution' of which 2 were either the fault of Microsoft apps or supporting libraries (PNG corruption etc).
Internet Explorer has been subject to multiple, critical bugs that compromise the integrity of your entire system, bypassing all firewall boundaries (unless you're planning on blocking HTTP). Furthermore, exploits for many of these bugs are well-known and published.
Surely any security-conscious IT manager would have to consider the merits of putting Mozilla on the desktop as a browser.
Don't forget, before countries began to co-operate on matters such as extradition, extra-territorial jurisdictions and so on, the only way a country could retrieve a mass murderer (or other criminal) was to declare war and invade.
These conventions have evolved for a reason. Despite their perceived inadequacies today, on the whole, these laws and conventions exist and need be enforceable to maintain a global civil society.
Say it with me: You can't discriminate against those who are on top.
Let's take the theoretical situation that a white man and a black woman go for the same job. They both have the same qualifications, and are equally competent.
The black woman gets the job. You cry racism and sexism.
But a statistical anomaly isn't discrimination. Across the country, the white man gets the job more often than the black woman.
Until hiring practices, wages, etc. across the country fall in line with statistical expectations, discrimination is a reality. Not until the white man gets hired less often than the black woman can he legitimately claim discrimination.
Stop being bitter. Next time you go for a job, remember that the white man still has a better chance of being hired.
You can't tell me that people would use a search engine which is more complicated to use than typing in a URL.
People use Google because it's *fast*. Stopping to type in a username & password, or ANY OTHER form of verification would be a big turn off. Cookies wouldn't solve the problem because people want to be able to search from *any* WWW terminal.
You will not be able to charge for Web searching until paying for information on the Web is as easy and transparent as using the Web itself.
People should e-mail CNN or Associated Press about their shoddy article and let them know we prefer reading news reports from people who can regurgitate press releases accurately?
Look at the Google explanation. If you're not getting high click-through rates, Google will charge you more for your rank in the advertising list.
And although I can't confirm this on the Google web site, I have read that if your click-through rate drops below 0.5%, the ad is automatically dropped.
Google still has by far the best advertising system I have ever seen on the Internet
And as TheOpenCD points out in their FAQ, Mozilla contacted them and specifically requested that they *not* include Mozilla on the CD...
Remember, Mozilla is provided for testing only, not for commercial distribution. I find that hard to swallow because I personally think Mozilla is fantastic, but, well, they're right!
REMEMBER: Mozilla is *not* an end-user product. Beonex and Netscape ARE.
The point is, my gaming fellows, is that *not* everyone regularly attends LAN parties, nor does everyone want to go through the hassle of:
Unplugging, packing, transporting, unpacking, plugging, setting up, PLAYING (finally!), packing, transporting home, unpacking, plugging, and setting up back at home.
THAT is one of the reasons why I have never been particularly attracted to LAN parties. However, getting to go to a place where all the work has already been done is a much more enticing proposition.
There aren't many MS zealots -- you don't *need* to be when you're on top.
How many zealots have you met demanding more rights for men? Not many, because men already *have* their rights (in most circumstances).
As a general rule, the more a cause has to fight for recognition and survival, the more zealots will exist for that cause (Apple, Islam, Israel... and so on).
Hmm. Properly designed HTML+CSS has no color information encoded into it at all. In older browsers that don't support CSS, you should end up with black text on white.
The challenge is to convince web designers to separate form from content properly. Done right, websites designed for Mozilla or IE are just as useable on Lynx or Netscape 3.
Yes, you will lose the 'prettiness' of the webpage. But an older computer shouldn't be running complicated graphical effects anyway, IMHO. The important thing is that all Web users can access the information on the site.
The biggest problem with the idea of.kids.us is that you would have to take away one of the biggest advantages of the Internet in the first place -- its ability to interact with other people.
Things you couldn't do on.kids.us:
Run chatrooms
Allow postings to forums
Run personal webpages
... at least without 24-hour moderation of all materials that would be posted. And who will pay for those expenses?
I know I'm preaching to the (mostly) converted here, but:
Open Source does so well because people can do what they want with it. If a program is buggy, unstable, or too expensive, people will either fix it, fork it or dump it and write their own...
Think of Open Source as a gigantic Darwinian "survival of the fittest". You may end up with a dominant species (eg. Red Hat), but that doesn't instantly mean all the others will become extinct.
Having lots of desktop distributions helps to speed their evolution as they all compete for 'resources' in their respective niches.
In Australia, whenever a news program explains how a crime was committed, they always leave out vital steps on how to actually DO it.
For example, a while ago, there was a report on how a gang had managed to make duplicates of people's credit cards by leaving a device that read the magnetic-strip encoding when people placed their card in an ATM.
However, the news article, while explaining the *methodology* of the crime gang completely, did not explain the technical details.
Posting program code to exploit a vulnerability cannot be defended as just 'reporting the facts'. It is actively contributing knowledge that can be directly used to exploit systems, and needs to be treated as such.
Technology + legislation is a dangerous combination, because it allows automatic enforcement of laws against people.
Compare the process of issuing a speeding fine in the 60s (policeman chases down the person, makes him stop, gives ticket) to today (camera: *click*, infringement notice arrives in the mail 5-10 working days later).
Copyright laws were acceptable in 'the old days' because each abuse had to be discovered individually. Now, bots can send out infringement notices to thousands of websites without a single human interaction. Things get even scarier when you consider the TCPA/Palladium platform, with punishments (ie. infringing material deleted) being potentially handed out automatically.
Online rights require a set of rules that are more flexible, not more rigid. We just haven't worked out what they should be yet.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm probably using an older meaning, but I believe it to be more accurate:
From dictionary.com:
amateur:
1. A person who engages in an art, science, study, or athletic activity as a pastime rather than as a profession.
2. Sports. An athlete who has never accepted money, or who accepts money under restrictions specified by a regulatory body, for participating in a competition.
3. One lacking the skill of a professional, as in an art.
You're thinking of definition (3). I prefer definition (1), influenced by (2):
An "amateur artist" is one who does not rely upon money made from his/her paintings to earn a living.
But language is a funny thing -- if you said, "That artist is an amateur" (as compared to "amateur artist") I would think you meant definition (3)!
Mate, you're right, but you're wrong at the same time.
I think we're arguing along slightly different fronts -- we have to distinguish between amateur artists, and professional artists. Amateur artists may well create art 'because it's just cool', but they are primarily creating art for their *own* gratification.
Not for the Pope. Not for anyone else. They probably don't even care if their art gets locked up in their basement. The only thing that matters is that they get enjoyment out of it.
And that's fine, as far as it goes.
A *professional* artist, on the other hand, devotes his or her time to creating art on the basis that others will compensate them for their work. And they have probably only got to that stage by getting sufficient kudos from other people for their previous, amateur works.
*That's* where my list kicks in.
Love art, and create art for free, by all means. But if people are to be able to devote all their time to using their talent to the best of their ability, at some point, they need to be able to get paid for that.
The problem with arguments over the 'unaltered original' is that a movie, unlike a painting, is *never* a single entity.
By that, I mean that there are endless feet of film that end up on the cutting room floor, even if at one point they were part of the movie.
If you are part of the audience for a test screening, you may see a movie with a different ending. Or a cut version for TV.
The more I learn about the movie-making process, the less I think there really is an "unaltered original" of a movie. In reality, there are probably tens, if not hundreds of versions of any movie.
That said, I'd propose the following principles:
(1) Only people who hold the permissions for a film should be allowed to publish changed versions of that film. You should not be allowed to publish an *altered* version of a film (eg. CleanFlicks).
(2) The people who provide you with content set up how it is *meant* to be displayed. However, it should not be illegal for people who change that order in a personal environment, whether through programmed manipulations or through permanent editing or montage. However, if you want to censor films you buy, you must do it yourself (or in an appropriately private transaction environment, eg. by a friend).
What do people think?
It's nothing to do with being a moral right -- the whole purpose of copyright is to put incentives in place for people to create new content.
Without copyright, the argument goes, people simply wouldn't bother creating the materials. And it's true!
Before copyright existed, artists had 3 basic options:
1. Get a private person to sponsor your work.
2. Get the church to sponsor your work.
3. Get the government to sponsor your work.
None of these methods are used widely today. Copyright was a legal right instituted in relatively modern times to ensure that, with the collapse of the patronage system, people could still receive sufficient financial returns from their work, and would continue to produce new material.
There are many problems with copyright, yes, but to assert that content providers should have no rights over how their work is used is simply going to drastically reduce the number and quality of creative works in the marketplace.
If what you say about Radiohead (one of the most innovative bands of the 1990s and 2000s) is true, I pity the American radio industry.
Are there no government-sponsored or community radio stations on air in the USA?
In Australia, we have a fantastic 'youth radio' network called Triple J (JJJ). It has around 50 broadcast points across the country, and plays probably at least 80% of the non-mainstream, commercial music heard across the country.
Then, about 4-6 months after being played on JJJ, the most popular songs inevitably make their way across to the giant radio comglomerates.
We also have a variety of smaller community radio stations that play to their own niches.
Surely there must be room in the USA for a station that can reward creativity and talent, rather than commercial success?
Let's face it -- if you're hanging around Slashdot waiting for the first post, you're a prime candidate.
It's not about being 'desperate for more trade', it's about forging closer ties with the U.S. (not that we need them, thanks to Little Johnny), staying true to the Government's philosophy of lowering trade barriers, and reducing government intervention.
I truly hope the free-trade agreement falls through. I don't think it's in Australia's best interests. But writing about it in this way is at best, not helpful, and at worst, misrepresentative and counterproductive.
It's not a serious impediment to piracy at all!
.SWF file, you can decode it back to its original form using standard tools.
From the article: 'many commercial and open source tools exist for generating and parsing SWF files.'
In other words, if you can access the
Why?
Mozilla has (so far) been subject to 25 security bugs. Of these, only 3 were 'arbitrary code execution' of which 2 were either the fault of Microsoft apps or supporting libraries (PNG corruption etc).
Internet Explorer has been subject to multiple, critical bugs that compromise the integrity of your entire system, bypassing all firewall boundaries (unless you're planning on blocking HTTP). Furthermore, exploits for many of these bugs are well-known and published.
Surely any security-conscious IT manager would have to consider the merits of putting Mozilla on the desktop as a browser.
Don't forget, before countries began to co-operate on matters such as extradition, extra-territorial jurisdictions and so on, the only way a country could retrieve a mass murderer (or other criminal) was to declare war and invade.
These conventions have evolved for a reason. Despite their perceived inadequacies today, on the whole, these laws and conventions exist and need be enforceable to maintain a global civil society.
Er, yeah. Probably.
Remember, the speed of light is constant no matter where you are or how fast you are moving. I would guess that gravity follows the same rules.
Say it with me: You can't discriminate against those who are on top.
Let's take the theoretical situation that a white man and a black woman go for the same job. They both have the same qualifications, and are equally competent.
The black woman gets the job. You cry racism and sexism.
But a statistical anomaly isn't discrimination. Across the country, the white man gets the job more often than the black woman.
Until hiring practices, wages, etc. across the country fall in line with statistical expectations, discrimination is a reality. Not until the white man gets hired less often than the black woman can he legitimately claim discrimination.
Stop being bitter. Next time you go for a job, remember that the white man still has a better chance of being hired.
You can't tell me that people would use a search engine which is more complicated to use than typing in a URL.
People use Google because it's *fast*. Stopping to type in a username & password, or ANY OTHER form of verification would be a big turn off. Cookies wouldn't solve the problem because people want to be able to search from *any* WWW terminal.
You will not be able to charge for Web searching until paying for information on the Web is as easy and transparent as using the Web itself.
Here's a thought:
People should e-mail CNN or Associated Press about their shoddy article and let them know we prefer reading news reports from people who can regurgitate press releases accurately?
Notice the key reason given for the switch:
"We are trying to move to an environment where what we provide in the laboratories can be mirrored in the students' home."
You can't give people a free copy of Solaris or Windows. Linux is lovely for a set of cash-strapped students.
Look at the Google explanation. If you're not getting high click-through rates, Google will charge you more for your rank in the advertising list.
And although I can't confirm this on the Google web site, I have read that if your click-through rate drops below 0.5%, the ad is automatically dropped.
Google still has by far the best advertising system I have ever seen on the Internet
Go Google!
And as TheOpenCD points out in their FAQ, Mozilla contacted them and specifically requested that they *not* include Mozilla on the CD ...
Remember, Mozilla is provided for testing only, not for commercial distribution. I find that hard to swallow because I personally think Mozilla is fantastic, but, well, they're right!
REMEMBER:
Mozilla is *not* an end-user product.
Beonex and Netscape ARE.
The point is, my gaming fellows, is that *not* everyone regularly attends LAN parties, nor does everyone want to go through the hassle of:
Unplugging, packing, transporting, unpacking, plugging, setting up, PLAYING (finally!), packing, transporting home, unpacking, plugging, and setting up back at home.
THAT is one of the reasons why I have never been particularly attracted to LAN parties. However, getting to go to a place where all the work has already been done is a much more enticing proposition.
There aren't many MS zealots -- you don't *need* to be when you're on top.
... and so on).
How many zealots have you met demanding more rights for men? Not many, because men already *have* their rights (in most circumstances).
As a general rule, the more a cause has to fight for recognition and survival, the more zealots will exist for that cause (Apple, Islam, Israel
Hmm. Properly designed HTML+CSS has no color information encoded into it at all. In older browsers that don't support CSS, you should end up with black text on white.
The challenge is to convince web designers to separate form from content properly. Done right, websites designed for Mozilla or IE are just as useable on Lynx or Netscape 3.
Yes, you will lose the 'prettiness' of the webpage. But an older computer shouldn't be running complicated graphical effects anyway, IMHO. The important thing is that all Web users can access the information on the site.
The biggest problem with the idea of .kids.us is that you would have to take away one of the biggest advantages of the Internet in the first place -- its ability to interact with other people.
Things you couldn't do on .kids.us:
... at least without 24-hour moderation of all materials that would be posted. And who will pay for those expenses?
I must say ....
I never thought I'd see the day where people would side with Microsoft on an issue.
Just goes to show that, to Slashdotters, Microsoft-bashing comes second to a quality gaming experience.
[ Evil Empire: 1 ] - [ Open Source: 5,324,358 ]
I know I'm preaching to the (mostly) converted here, but:
Open Source does so well because people can do what they want with it. If a program is buggy, unstable, or too expensive, people will either fix it, fork it or dump it and write their own...
Think of Open Source as a gigantic Darwinian "survival of the fittest". You may end up with a dominant species (eg. Red Hat), but that doesn't instantly mean all the others will become extinct.
Having lots of desktop distributions helps to speed their evolution as they all compete for 'resources' in their respective niches.
In Australia, whenever a news program explains how a crime was committed, they always leave out vital steps on how to actually DO it.
For example, a while ago, there was a report on how a gang had managed to make duplicates of people's credit cards by leaving a device that read the magnetic-strip encoding when people placed their card in an ATM.
However, the news article, while explaining the *methodology* of the crime gang completely, did not explain the technical details.
Posting program code to exploit a vulnerability cannot be defended as just 'reporting the facts'. It is actively contributing knowledge that can be directly used to exploit systems, and needs to be treated as such.
Technology + legislation is a dangerous combination, because it allows automatic enforcement of laws against people.
Compare the process of issuing a speeding fine in the 60s (policeman chases down the person, makes him stop, gives ticket) to today (camera: *click*, infringement notice arrives in the mail 5-10 working days later).
Copyright laws were acceptable in 'the old days' because each abuse had to be discovered individually. Now, bots can send out infringement notices to thousands of websites without a single human interaction. Things get even scarier when you consider the TCPA/Palladium platform, with punishments (ie. infringing material deleted) being potentially handed out automatically.
Online rights require a set of rules that are more flexible, not more rigid. We just haven't worked out what they should be yet.