Piracy is theft. Whether you agree with it or not, it's theft.
Agreed. In fact it's worse than that. Piracy is armed robbery with violence. On the high seas, to boot.
However, copyright violation (which is what we seem to be discussing here) remains copyright violation. And that's also "whether you agree with it or not"
So, according to the OP, theft is good.
Well, if it turns out that TFA really is discussing the violent seizure of goods at sea,
then I'd have to conceed you were right. Otherwise, the main point I took was that there
remains considerable room for debate as to the actual vs perceived benefits of
current copyright legislation.
That's certainly a new one for me.
Splendid! There's nothing like exposure to new ideas to widen ones horizons. Don't you think?
Well, I guess parking and speeding tickets should be based on how much money you have, too. That's how some countries do it, but do you really want to get fined $30,000 for parking at a hydrant?
So you reckon that we should use the same criteria for punishing people as as we do for corporations?
You know, I almost like the sound of that. Let's harmonize the laws for private citizens to bring them into line with corporate crime.
For a start, we can get rid of all those prisons - no jail time for anyone, just fines.
Second, let's set the fines for most offenses to a token payment. Let's say 10 cents standard.
That means anyone with a source of income can ignore as many laws as they can afford.
I guess we can expect theft, violence and fraud to rise a little as a result, but that's
just the market at work I guess.
Alternatively we can use the approach the EU took with Microsoft.
When I break a law I don't get punished at all, they just tell me to stop doing it.
If I'm still dumb enough to be doing it a year later they can fine me a months wages.
It doesn't sound like a world everyone would like to live in, but at least we'd be using the same yardstick for individuals and corprorations. I mean, that is the most important thing, right?
I'm surprised at how many naysayers are on this forum, possibly conditioned to believe that spiderman villains are villainous because they didn't get their superpowers "naturally".
It's that Otto Octavius I blame. If he'd stop knocking over banks, and work to raise awareness of the potential benefits of his research,
the cybernetics field would be a lot further forward, I feel.
There may be benefits to complete prosthetic bodies which have capabilities superior to flesh and blood
Are you sure you're not just a Cybus Industries shill?
John Lumic's full body prosthesis process may look impressive, but there are a few bugs in the system I'd want to see addressed before
I got myself upgraded. Although his airships are pretty cool.
As for concerns to losing your humanity, it's not who you are inside, but what you do that counts.
Never mind the loss of individuality, I'm waiting for a design that can withstand
a little man stepping out of a blue box with a flashing light on top.
Until he gets that problem licked, I really can't see any future for the design.
it isn't Microsoft's job to be nice to me. I do see your point that it might be in their best interests to be nice to me though.
or at least, they might find their interests better served if they nicer in sometimes. The trouble is, I don't think "nice" is something that gets taken into consideration at Redmond. They seem to have this ghetto "everyone's out to get us" mentality which makes them see their users as hostile. I think they're nasty be reflex because they see themselves as hated and under attack. And I think becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. I was a Microsoft fanboy once upon a time...
Microsoft, despite the vitriol they face in certain communities, is not in the business of making bad decisions.
Ten years ago that point would have been unassailable.
It may seem like it, but hey, they clear a billion dollars a month.
I think they made some excellent decisions in the past. In the last ten years though I don't think they've had to - I think their wealth and power has insulated whenever they've made a mediocre decision, and when they've made the occasional stinker, they've been able to fix it in advertising or in politics
A also think the time is coming when they are going to have to make some very good decisions indeed if they want to remain in business at anywhere near their current level. Office is under pressure from OpenDocument, Desktop linux is finally starting to see large-scale governent and corporate deployemnt. That wouldn't be so much a problem if there was anywhere for MS to go, but they seem to be losing the embedded market, never had servers no matter how hard they tried, phones are being hotly contested.. about the only breakthrough they made was into games consoles, mainly by burning money until it happened.
The trouble is that people don't like them. That wasn't a problem while they were seen as the only game in town. But that's increaslingly not the case, and some of the new offerings can undercut them by a lot.
Apple were in that position with respect to MS, and they survived (in no small part) by having a core of deeply loyal users. Somehow though, I can't see that tactic working for Microsoft.
Oops, my apologies. I searched for "force" rather than "forcing". Honest mistake on my part.
That said... I'm not sure what you're objecting to. We both seem agreed that - by means of carrot or by
means of stick - MS are trying to manipulate their userbase by withholding DX10 from XP. (You may
feel "influence" is a kinder term).
You tend to cast their actions in a more positive light than I. Never the less, I think we agree on the
"what" and largely on the "why" of it all.
So I'm really not sure what your objection is. Are you questioning my assesment of this strategy as possible unwise over the medium to long term, or maybe you just think I'm being mean for no good reason?
I dunno, maybe the thing to do is to shrug and move on to more productive discussions
Yeah, we disagree on whether they are in a position to do any 'forcing',
Odd. The only reference to "force" in my last post was in refernce to the pressure MS and Sony are putting on Game studios to release of XBox or PlayStation only. Or failing that, to delay release to the PC so as to drive console sales. Perhaps I might have expressed myself with greater clarity if I had written "if those gamers (who wish to enjoy the latest games) are forced (by delayed or restrited release cycles) to buy consoles to do so...".
The point being that until PS3 comes out (if ever) then MS are competing against themselves here. They may driver more games to abandon the PC for consoles (which is about the only way this strategy makes any kind of sense for them) but they're probably not going to induce many games to upgrade just for DX10, and the ones that do are going to end up bitterly dissapointed if MS keep pressuring game studios to starve the PC market. It's a short term gain against even more long term resntment. Not that such considerations ever seemed to bother them in the past, but I do think times are changing.
or perhaps I think there is a carrot and you think there is a whip.
I'm sure MS think they're offering a carrot as well. I just think this one is going to leave a sour and lasting taste in the mouths of those who chase it, and I question whether this is a sensible time for the software giant to be pissing off even more its userbase.
But you know, it doesn't affect me one way or the other.
people in windows land don't upgrade their os, they upgrade their computer
Exactly! Which is the problem MS face. Most users are happy with the level of computing power they currently have. MS want a wave of purchases so they can proclaim Vista as a success. But the average joe isn't going to do it, and the PHBs are notoriously reluctant to upgrade software. The omly folks who are likely to spend the money on a Vista capable rig right now are likely to be Gamers. So I guess they reckon that if they want to generate that buzz, gamers are the segment where they need to apply pressure.
But wait, it's Microsoft. Oh, SCREW THIS! They're too big, make too much money, they're evil! Need to die. Who the hell do they think they are, trying to protect their stuff? They don't need the extra money, I feel good sticking it to them! Imagine, trying to make people pay for their stuff or make people feel bad for having stolen it.
What a pity you couldn't maintain that carefully non-contentious tone to the end.
Never mind, let's pretend you did and see if we can discuss this sensibly.
I don't think most people have a problem with the idea of MS getting paid for their software. I might question
their pricing policy, the value received in return, and I find their licences objectionable, but that doesn't
mean they shouldn't get paid. I think we're in agreement that far,
However having accepted their entitlement to remuneration, it doesn't necessarily follow that any action
they take to protect those revenues are automatically justified.
There's a shop just down the road that has problems with shoplifters. However, I doubt you would
take that as justification for the shop owner to break into your house every night and search the premises to make sure you had receipts for all any candy wrappers that he might find on the premises.
There's such a thing as an inappropriate response.
Of course MS will claim that - unlike the case with the shopkeeper - that their customers agreed to tolerate
such intrusions as part of the licencing agreement, which gives them all the justification they need. California law however would seem to disagree. Which is, of course, what this lawsuit is testing.
It's all a bit of a sideshow from the customer perspective though - people are still having their
metaphorical homes broken into at night. At an emotional level, it's an intrustion into personal territory,
and I can't say I blame anyone for disliking the intrusion, or for disliking the company behind it.
THE NERVE.
I know you're bing sarcastic, but yes, actually, I think they do have a nerve.
And yes, I am glad that someone is challenging their actions in court,
since I don't like the directions in which this could develop.
I think it's possible to say that without being an fanatical anti-Microsoft zealot
or an advocate of wholesale copyright violation.
If the benefits from keeping existing customers happy is less than the cost of supporting xp, they shouldn't do it.
You know, I think the trouble with this debate is that too many people are conflating ethical, legal and economic imperatives when they use the word "should".
Some commentators seem to think MS "should" release DX10/Xp because they have a moral obligation to do so. I disagree, and I suspect you do likewise. If that's the extent of our variance we can stop arguing now.
Some seem to think that MS "should" be required under law to offer DX10 for XP. Again, I think we both disagree,
Then we have the economic case. Here, you seem to assume, not unreasonably, that MS have run the numbers and concluded that their benefits from witholding DX10 from XP outweigh any they might gain otherwise. I wouldn't dispute that, save that I think they're being short-sighted.
The benefit for MS is forcing their game players into an early upgrade. It's a tactic they've used before, from the origins of Direct X to the 3.1.1/95 break, to the backwards compatibility problems of migrating to XP. Add to that, the fact that gamers tend to be the only home consumers of leading edge computer kit left, and that's probably as far as they've thought about it.
On the other hand, things have changed quite a bit since the days of 3.1.1 when this stunt arguably worked best. For one thing, the PC games market is dying; in no small part because MS is trying to kill it to push X-Box sales.
The thing is, if all the gamers are forced to consoles to get the new games, then they're not going to be particularly driven to upgrade to vista. And if they do upgrade, they're likely to feel somewhat let down when they find there are no new games coming out for the platform. The sad thing being that, apart from a few PHBs who don't actually use their software, MS are all set to alienate the last remaining stronghold of MS fanboyism.
This is classic MS, but their traditional tactics evolved in a market that wasn't being squeezed between high end gaming consoles on one side, and Linux on the other. By building bridges, rather than burning them, they could start building a userbase thay could support them past the fall of their OS monopoly - something I think is both inevitable and looming large in their future. IMHO, obviously.
It's not like that many people are running xp on hardware where dx10 is going to make a difference.
...because Vista is going to be such a radical step forward - or at least have so much eye candy - that current machines just won't be able cope, yes?
Only we have OSX which is generally considered to be as pretty an interface as could be asked for, and that runs just fine on current x86 kit. So does Xev. And most of the prettiness in Vista is MS playing catch up. Apple and Linux have had a lot of this stuff for years.
Which brings us to the question of whether Vista _really_ needs this hardware requirement. It can be done without, which suggests either poor coding skills, or (as I;m inclined to believe) that MS are just bloating their software to make it seem as if it must be more powerful.
Microsoft not spending money backporting DX10 to XP...
Presupposing that Vista is different enough from xp that backporting is a non-trivial task. Their marketing says it is, but then they said that about 98 and ME, so I'm inclined to cynicism
...to keep people who don't want to give them more money happy, isn't all that surprising.
And heaven forbid they should keep their existing customers happy.
Nope, the thing to do is to punish their customers who recently invested in their operating system.
It's like the idea that if there are no queues in a post office then too many staff are being employed; if Microsoft's customers are happy, that would mean MS weren't being aggressive enough, right? And anything short of maximal aggression would be A Bad Thing... apparently.
So, no, I don't find it surprising, either. Hell, I'm so far beyond surpise, I'm not even disappointed. But then I don't run windows anymore..
Why should Microsoft make DirectX 10 available for old versions of Windows?
Because they're not a nasty vicious monopolistic corporation hell-bent on extorting every last cent from their customer base, and who would never stoop so low as to refuse to release a key product for a mature platform still well within its support cycle, purely to force an upgrade cycle upon a market that feels no particular need to switch to an unproven product that offers debateable advantages and which will require expenditure on new hardware in most cases?
if you want to stop a hurricane from forming, you can't just find a butterly and start flapping its wings, because the sensitivity to initial conditions of chaos theory is really sensitive.
I quite agree. There's no guarantee that starting a flap will get the results you desire - but then when was there ever? The thing is, chaos theory says your efforts will have an effect.
There's this really annoying meme that gets trotted out at times like this: "oh! we are all so puny and powerless that we cannot win and therefore it would be foolish to even try". Really, I don't think it's supportable.
I'm not sure if I'd agree with your macro-scale argument either
I'm not an expert myself, so I could well be wrong. I was thinking specifically of some of the cases cited by James Glick where (IIRC) use of pesticide on an island caused the insect population targetted to increase the following year. The pesticide was a macro scale remedy that targetted the insect population broadly, and it worked counter intiutively. Similarly, corporate advertising works indiscriminately across the population.
The point here being that just because the opponent has a stranglehold on mass media doesn't mean the cause is automatically lost. And while I do think that there's a lot to be learnt by considering Humanity as a chaotic system, I'd hate to defend it at any deeper level than that.
The important point is that we can win. Therefore, go for it!
I like your post. In fact, is not all science based on faith? At the very least, when some scientist tells you that global warming is real, are you not basing your belief on faith in that scientist?
Interesting question. I think I'd have to stop short of the notion that all science is based on faith. There's a couple of reasons why I say that.
From the viewpoint of the scientist, scientific reasoning is fundamentally different from faith based reasoning. As I see it, when someone argues primarily from faith, they start with the conclusion. For example. they might start with "God exists", then look for arguments to support that conclusion, "the universe is too complex not to be a deliberate creation" and then tries to interpret facts light of this framework "those fossile must be fakes, created by God to test our faith".
The scientist takes the oppsite approach. Starting with observable and verifiable facts "those fossil bones contain carbon; the half life of carbon 14 is well known" they seek conclusions that logically follow "measuring the proportions of carbon isotopes in these bones will provide a measure of their age" and from there to conclusions that sometimes surprise them "judging from the evidence, these remains predate every biblical event". The big difference is that the starting point for any scientific chain of reasoning should be independantly verifiable, observable fact. That way, any other scientist can check both the initial observations and the reasoning based upon them, before deciding whether to trust the results.
From the user perspective, it's a little different. Not everyone has the time, aptitude or training to verify scientifc discoveries. Still, I think that calling it a matter of faith is something of a stretch. It's like the linux kernel. I don't have time to go over it all line by line, but then I don't have to; There are enough other people looking that someone is going to spot any deception. It's still something that I have to take on trust, but not on absolute faith. The process is verifiable, and if I ever feel the need, I could potentially check the findings myself.
Of course, that chain of verifiability is increasingly under attack in modern science. Corporate funding of research means that studies that do not say the sponsor wishes to be said are often buried never to see the light of day, which both distorts the apparent scientific consensus, and places researchers under pressure to stay "on message" if they ever want to publish. Similarly, governmental pressure is increasingly being used to silence scientific opinion where it goes against established policy, and of course in some areas the scale of the resources required to conduct an experiment can often prevent the amateur from repeating an experiment.
For me, the mindset is the important thing. Scientific and faith-based reasoning operate from fundamentally different starting points, and that's enough for me to draw a distinction. I do think a lot of people see science as "just" a religion. Some see two disciplines that both attempt to explain the universe, others I feel would like to have science considered a religion, since then the ideas of cultural relativism could be brought to bear, and unwanted conclusions could be dismissed with the notion that no one religious viewpoint is more valid than another.
Look: the population of Planet Earth have all characteristics required to qualify as a chaotic system - which is to say there are too many too consider all of them individually, and that their behaviour at any given time depends both on their inputs and their state.
This has a couple of interesting implications when it comers to activism. One is that
macro-scale attempts at control (which in this context would be corporate and government manipulations) are unlikely to work out as intended.
The other is that the butterfly effect, sensitive dependence on initial conditions, applies.
Small inputs can make a tremendous difference, and the apparently uninterested non-techie you tell about this may, in fact, go home and mull it over, and then decide to tell someone else. Who tells someone else, who tells someone else...
The point being that control over the media channels is no longer enough to surpress a campaign. The story leaks out at grassroots level. Which is why so many corporations and politicians are pouring money into "astroturfing" campaigns. They recognise the power of this approach, even if the general public to not.
But I don't think any astroturfing operation can compete with the real thing - no one can afford to buy that many opinions. Whereas we don't have to. You've heard of the "many eyes" principle for free software? Well this is the "many mouths" principle. With enough people talking, we can own this debate. I propose we do just that.
So stop taking like a loser, and start spreading the word. We can do this.
It's an interesting analogy but not an apt one. The cost of jumping out of the way is almost zero.
That's very true, at least until you consider that cost is a relative concept. The disadvantages of avoiding the truck are trivial in comparison to those entailed in allowing it to hit you. The same is far from proven in the case of climate change. To say that the drawbacks of inactivity are trivial in comparison to those of remedial action, is to presuppose the desired conclusion. That's not to suggest the converse case - I don't belive that the cost of remedial action is necessariy trivial in comparison with no action at all. All I want to propose with the truck analogy is that waiting until you have incontrovertible proof of a threat is not always a survival characteristic. I expect we can probably agree that far:)
But realize this isn't free. It is a worthwhile investment, but no politician is willing to invest beyond 8 years.
Agreed. Same question I'm asking everyone today: What conditions would have to be met to convince you that the front loaded remidial investment might be more cost effective in the long term. What conditions would you set before you decided that the up front investment was far better value? how about massively better?
(I know you're not exactly disagreeing with me, but I'm interested in the answer all the same)
Your description of the scientific method sounds more like: if A, then B; B is true; therefore A is true.
More like: conclusion CONC seems to satisfy evidential set EV. However we cannot say with certainty that
CONC is correct. We therefore identify a set of disproofs DIS, any one of which will, if observed, demonstrate the
falsity of CONC. However in the absence of those disproofs, and until presented with a similarly falsifable model
that fits the facts as well or better, we will treat CONC as though it had been proven.
What the poster to whom I responded was saying was: "CONC is false because you have no proof of CONC".
I'm saying is that science doesn't work like that, and proof of anything outside the realm of pure mathematics won't be forthcoming from any reputatble scientist anytime soon.
If you still think I'm engaged in fallacious argument, please explain why and we can debate the point further. As to the rest:
Suppose it really is the warmest it's been in 400 yrs. How much warmer? What's the cause? How quickly is it changing?
Excellent questions all. Do you have data? I'm particularly interested
in the rate of change, especially of the incidence of "freak" weather conditions.
What proof is there that it has to do with human activity?
What proof will you accept? No, really. What proof will you accept?
I read the article and I see some vague answers...
Agreed. I'm not defending the academic standing of the article, which appears to be collections of
third hand summaries of political speeches. I am interested in debunking the abuse of the
concept of proof and the fallacious appeal to the scientific method currently popular with
the proponents of deliberate inaction.
Using the truck analogy, if 100 scientists yell at me not to enter the road...
You don't trust scientists? Fair enough - so what are your
criteria? I want to know what evidence you would accept as requiring
remidial action, how we can verifiably determine if those critera have
been set. Oh, and the evidence should be gatherable over a fairly short
time scale - say no more than five years. If you were going to say "gosh,
I guess we do need to take some action here", what would have to happen
in order for you to draw that conclusion?
Someone comes to your house and knocks on the door. When you answer he tells you he has just looked over your house and it is infested with termites. If you pay him a large fee he will treat it immediately to before irreparable harm has been done.
Sure. Or how much additional evidence of termite infestation do you need? What will it take to persuade you that you need to take some action? (Not necessarily employing the original caller, BTW). For that matter what evidence will you accept as sufficent to dismiss the matter entirely?
Here's another one - every thursday you go out for a beer. Every thursday, while you are out, someone breaks into your home and steals something. You never have any proof that the burglary will be repeated, but week after week the pattern repeats.
At what point do you decide that it is sensible, even in the absence of proof, to take some remedial action?
Einstein: "The important thing is not to stop questioning."
Agreed. I'm not running round shouting the "sky is falling", I'm just looking for some evidence that someone has thought about this proposed policy of deliberate inaction. I want to see a backup plan, just in inaction turns out ineffective for any reason. And I want it to come with a clear and verifiable set of tests to determine if and when the time has come to take that action, and a timescale overwhich it is proposed that those criteria be evaluated.
I don't think it's too much to ask. A little evidence that someone, somewhere has run the numbers on this thing,
rather than just raising superficial but facile objections.
On the subject of questions, here's the one I'm asking everyone: what are your criteria? What would it take before you were forced to conceed that the sky might, metaphorically speaking, be falling?
Might. The term "dearly" is a relative one. The question that needs to be asked is "dearly in comparison to what?" Describing the costs as dear presupposes that any negative consequences entailed in doing nothing are trivial in comparison. I believe that's the logical fallacy known as
begging the question".
A freemarket capitalism might be able to leap over the problems, and still provide not just an equal quality of life, but continue with an ever-increasing one, even in the face of global warming, when compared to strict regulations that reverse it.
And then again, it might not. The trouble is that if not then reversing the damage might prove far more costly, or even impossible.
In other words, measure quality of life in 100 years, with and without Kyoto and other restrictions, and the world with continued global warming might very well have a higher quality of life
And it might very well not. The problem is that the stakes are potentially so very high.
I'll ask you the same question I'm asking everyone else: how will you know if your laisser faire approach has failed? How bad will conditions have to get before you're willing to conceed that intervention is the best course. I'm not asking you to make any concessions here - I just want to know what your threshold conditions would be. Preferably ones that don't take 100 years to evaluate.
That has to be the silliest reason to get knocked over by a truck I've ever heard. "Why yes, I could have jumped out of the way, only I was worried I might later have falsely attributed my survival to my actions. As it is, I did survive and can therefore conclude that I would have been wrong to do so. And the doctors say I may even regain the use of my legs in time".
People are most likely to take action when variance is at its peak. Then after results become more normal they believe that their action was the cause of the change when in fact it was not causal.
I'm a little curious about the past occasions you seem to think I'm using as a basis for my reasoning. It's not like I'm saying "it worked for Atlantis and therefore it'll work for us". All I'm doing is asking what, if any criteria the denial crowd would accept as sufficent grounds to warrant action.
I don't think that's unreasonable. If they want to be scientific about this, let's see a properly falsifaible counter hypothesis, and maybe we can start gathering the data to make an informed decision.
Stop getting carried away with something that has not been proven scientifically.
Hypothetical question for you, You're crossing a road, first thing in the morning. You're still maybe half asleep, late night and all that.
Suddenly you hear a noise. You look up from your reverie to find there's a huge great truck barrelling down the road toward you, horn blaring.
So what do you do? Do you think "Hmm, this is an rare scenario. The truck could exist, but I also have to consider that I may in fact be still asleep and dreaming this encounter. What data can I collect to determine if actiion is truly warranted in this case?"
Do you do all that, or do you get out of the frigging way first and then run your analysis? I bet I know what most of your ancestors did in analagous situations.
See, the thing is that science never proves anything. That's not a flaw in science, it's methodology. Scientists have long discarded modus ponens as the logical basis for the scientific method, in favour of
modus tollens. What that means is that we don't try to prove things, because we recognise that we may not yet have all the facts. Instead we propose a explanation that seem to fit the facts and we try and disprove it.
The thing to note here is that if e wait for science to prove that global is happening, we'll still be waiting in billions of years time. Even if the Sun the should expand to swallow the earth and engulf us solar plasma, we;ll still be waiting, because that's not what scientists, do!
What they do do[1] is get out of the way of oncoming traffic.
If you want to be scientific about this, you need a counter theory, and it has to be falsifiable. There has to be a test we can conduct that to prove it wrong. Preferably one that doesn't involve waiting a thousand years to see if the climate flips state back to the Cambrian Era.
Give me a set of criteria that, if they are satisfied, you will regard as sufficent evidence for taking action against global warming and I will accept that you may have a pont.
Otherwise, all you're doing is saying "Bah! Youse scientist dunt never nothing nowhow" only in an fancy accent.
Me, I vote we get out of the way of the truck
[1] On the whole, that is. I'm not counting absent mindedness, scientific tests of experimental traffc-proof suits, or Bruce Banner when he gets angry. I don't really think this weakens my argument.
I'm in the UK. There's no problem if you're willing to work on MS kit, but I'd hate to still be trying to earn a living as a UNIX/Linux contractor. Mind, that's based purely on the numbers of agents calling me, and since I've told most of them I'm off the market, I'm probably getting a distorted impression of the business.
I still reckon something's amiss if they have to resort to stunts like this one.
Remember, Office documents have DRM capabilities, by having a plug-in that is offficial then people worried about DRM can still use the Creative Commons License to publish writings
That seems an odd idea.
At first glance it just seems silly. Why make something free redistributable, and then employ a technology designed to prevent redistribution. So no-one's going to be using the DRM in that way. What else is there?
I can't see how the non-commercial aspect is going to be enforced. You can set property on the document, but you hardly need DRM to do that. I suppose the doc could ask if it was being illegally redistributed and refuse to decrypt instead, but I'm guessing that anyone willing to flaunt the licence is also going to lie to the DRM, so that's probably not much help.
The no-derivs clause is probably the best fit. You could (presumably) distribute a.doc file wit your litterary masterpiece and be fairly confident that the document won't allow others to amend the text. Not much of an impediment to a determined attacker, since the analogue gap is particularly easy to access for text documents. Maybe the idea is to embed your multimedia in doc file - but then why not use wmv?
And of course, the attribution can only be enforced for a write only doc, so that only really usefuk with no-derivs.
Still, I can't help feeling that most of the CC crowd aren't really going to be interested in technological preventatives. CC seems to be mainly about retaining your rights while allowing free distribution, while DRM is mainly about making people pay for every access. I don't really see it catching on.
Of course, it does offer potential benefits to third party distributors who want to make money from non-comercial CC material. Afte all, you wouldn't be paying them for the content, just for the privilege of
decoding it. I just don't think the creators will see that as a desirable outcome.
It's an add-in:) nobody made you download
We're talking about the CC plugin again, right? Not the DRM
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. In fact it's worse than that. Piracy is armed robbery with violence. On the high seas, to boot.
However, copyright violation (which is what we seem to be discussing here) remains copyright violation. And that's also "whether you agree with it or not"
So, according to the OP, theft is good.
Well, if it turns out that TFA really is discussing the violent seizure of goods at sea, then I'd have to conceed you were right. Otherwise, the main point I took was that there remains considerable room for debate as to the actual vs perceived benefits of current copyright legislation.
That's certainly a new one for me.
Splendid! There's nothing like exposure to new ideas to widen ones horizons. Don't you think?
So you reckon that we should use the same criteria for punishing people as as we do for corporations?
You know, I almost like the sound of that. Let's harmonize the laws for private citizens to bring them into line with corporate crime.
For a start, we can get rid of all those prisons - no jail time for anyone, just fines.
Second, let's set the fines for most offenses to a token payment. Let's say 10 cents standard. That means anyone with a source of income can ignore as many laws as they can afford. I guess we can expect theft, violence and fraud to rise a little as a result, but that's just the market at work I guess.
Alternatively we can use the approach the EU took with Microsoft. When I break a law I don't get punished at all, they just tell me to stop doing it. If I'm still dumb enough to be doing it a year later they can fine me a months wages.
It doesn't sound like a world everyone would like to live in, but at least we'd be using the same yardstick for individuals and corprorations. I mean, that is the most important thing, right?
Microsoft here are (to stretch the analogy somewhat) parking in front of every hydrant in the EU.
It's that Otto Octavius I blame. If he'd stop knocking over banks, and work to raise awareness of the potential benefits of his research, the cybernetics field would be a lot further forward, I feel.
There may be benefits to complete prosthetic bodies which have capabilities superior to flesh and blood
Are you sure you're not just a Cybus Industries shill? John Lumic's full body prosthesis process may look impressive, but there are a few bugs in the system I'd want to see addressed before I got myself upgraded. Although his airships are pretty cool.
As for concerns to losing your humanity, it's not who you are inside, but what you do that counts.
Never mind the loss of individuality, I'm waiting for a design that can withstand a little man stepping out of a blue box with a flashing light on top. Until he gets that problem licked, I really can't see any future for the design.
or at least, they might find their interests better served if they nicer in sometimes. The trouble is, I don't think "nice" is something that gets taken into consideration at Redmond. They seem to have this ghetto "everyone's out to get us" mentality which makes them see their users as hostile. I think they're nasty be reflex because they see themselves as hated and under attack. And I think becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. I was a Microsoft fanboy once upon a time...
Microsoft, despite the vitriol they face in certain communities, is not in the business of making bad decisions.
Ten years ago that point would have been unassailable.
It may seem like it, but hey, they clear a billion dollars a month.
I think they made some excellent decisions in the past. In the last ten years though I don't think they've had to - I think their wealth and power has insulated whenever they've made a mediocre decision, and when they've made the occasional stinker, they've been able to fix it in advertising or in politics
A also think the time is coming when they are going to have to make some very good decisions indeed if they want to remain in business at anywhere near their current level. Office is under pressure from OpenDocument, Desktop linux is finally starting to see large-scale governent and corporate deployemnt. That wouldn't be so much a problem if there was anywhere for MS to go, but they seem to be losing the embedded market, never had servers no matter how hard they tried, phones are being hotly contested.. about the only breakthrough they made was into games consoles, mainly by burning money until it happened.
The trouble is that people don't like them. That wasn't a problem while they were seen as the only game in town. But that's increaslingly not the case, and some of the new offerings can undercut them by a lot. Apple were in that position with respect to MS, and they survived (in no small part) by having a core of deeply loyal users. Somehow though, I can't see that tactic working for Microsoft.
That said... I'm not sure what you're objecting to. We both seem agreed that - by means of carrot or by means of stick - MS are trying to manipulate their userbase by withholding DX10 from XP. (You may feel "influence" is a kinder term). You tend to cast their actions in a more positive light than I. Never the less, I think we agree on the "what" and largely on the "why" of it all.
So I'm really not sure what your objection is. Are you questioning my assesment of this strategy as possible unwise over the medium to long term, or maybe you just think I'm being mean for no good reason?
I dunno, maybe the thing to do is to shrug and move on to more productive discussions
Odd. The only reference to "force" in my last post was in refernce to the pressure MS and Sony are putting on Game studios to release of XBox or PlayStation only. Or failing that, to delay release to the PC so as to drive console sales. Perhaps I might have expressed myself with greater clarity if I had written "if those gamers (who wish to enjoy the latest games) are forced (by delayed or restrited release cycles) to buy consoles to do so...".
The point being that until PS3 comes out (if ever) then MS are competing against themselves here. They may driver more games to abandon the PC for consoles (which is about the only way this strategy makes any kind of sense for them) but they're probably not going to induce many games to upgrade just for DX10, and the ones that do are going to end up bitterly dissapointed if MS keep pressuring game studios to starve the PC market. It's a short term gain against even more long term resntment. Not that such considerations ever seemed to bother them in the past, but I do think times are changing.
or perhaps I think there is a carrot and you think there is a whip.
I'm sure MS think they're offering a carrot as well. I just think this one is going to leave a sour and lasting taste in the mouths of those who chase it, and I question whether this is a sensible time for the software giant to be pissing off even more its userbase.
But you know, it doesn't affect me one way or the other.
people in windows land don't upgrade their os, they upgrade their computer
Exactly! Which is the problem MS face. Most users are happy with the level of computing power they currently have. MS want a wave of purchases so they can proclaim Vista as a success. But the average joe isn't going to do it, and the PHBs are notoriously reluctant to upgrade software. The omly folks who are likely to spend the money on a Vista capable rig right now are likely to be Gamers. So I guess they reckon that if they want to generate that buzz, gamers are the segment where they need to apply pressure.
Sounds reasonable
But wait, it's Microsoft. Oh, SCREW THIS! They're too big, make too much money, they're evil! Need to die. Who the hell do they think they are, trying to protect their stuff? They don't need the extra money, I feel good sticking it to them! Imagine, trying to make people pay for their stuff or make people feel bad for having stolen it.
What a pity you couldn't maintain that carefully non-contentious tone to the end. Never mind, let's pretend you did and see if we can discuss this sensibly.
I don't think most people have a problem with the idea of MS getting paid for their software. I might question their pricing policy, the value received in return, and I find their licences objectionable, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't get paid. I think we're in agreement that far,
However having accepted their entitlement to remuneration, it doesn't necessarily follow that any action they take to protect those revenues are automatically justified. There's a shop just down the road that has problems with shoplifters. However, I doubt you would take that as justification for the shop owner to break into your house every night and search the premises to make sure you had receipts for all any candy wrappers that he might find on the premises.
There's such a thing as an inappropriate response.
Of course MS will claim that - unlike the case with the shopkeeper - that their customers agreed to tolerate such intrusions as part of the licencing agreement, which gives them all the justification they need. California law however would seem to disagree. Which is, of course, what this lawsuit is testing.
It's all a bit of a sideshow from the customer perspective though - people are still having their metaphorical homes broken into at night. At an emotional level, it's an intrustion into personal territory, and I can't say I blame anyone for disliking the intrusion, or for disliking the company behind it.
THE NERVE.
I know you're bing sarcastic, but yes, actually, I think they do have a nerve. And yes, I am glad that someone is challenging their actions in court, since I don't like the directions in which this could develop. I think it's possible to say that without being an fanatical anti-Microsoft zealot or an advocate of wholesale copyright violation.
Don't you?
You know, I think the trouble with this debate is that too many people are conflating ethical, legal and economic imperatives when they use the word "should".
Some commentators seem to think MS "should" release DX10/Xp because they have a moral obligation to do so. I disagree, and I suspect you do likewise. If that's the extent of our variance we can stop arguing now.
Some seem to think that MS "should" be required under law to offer DX10 for XP. Again, I think we both disagree,
Then we have the economic case. Here, you seem to assume, not unreasonably, that MS have run the numbers and concluded that their benefits from witholding DX10 from XP outweigh any they might gain otherwise. I wouldn't dispute that, save that I think they're being short-sighted.
The benefit for MS is forcing their game players into an early upgrade. It's a tactic they've used before, from the origins of Direct X to the 3.1.1/95 break, to the backwards compatibility problems of migrating to XP. Add to that, the fact that gamers tend to be the only home consumers of leading edge computer kit left, and that's probably as far as they've thought about it.
On the other hand, things have changed quite a bit since the days of 3.1.1 when this stunt arguably worked best. For one thing, the PC games market is dying; in no small part because MS is trying to kill it to push X-Box sales.
The thing is, if all the gamers are forced to consoles to get the new games, then they're not going to be particularly driven to upgrade to vista. And if they do upgrade, they're likely to feel somewhat let down when they find there are no new games coming out for the platform. The sad thing being that, apart from a few PHBs who don't actually use their software, MS are all set to alienate the last remaining stronghold of MS fanboyism.
This is classic MS, but their traditional tactics evolved in a market that wasn't being squeezed between high end gaming consoles on one side, and Linux on the other. By building bridges, rather than burning them, they could start building a userbase thay could support them past the fall of their OS monopoly - something I think is both inevitable and looming large in their future. IMHO, obviously.
It's not like that many people are running xp on hardware where dx10 is going to make a difference.
Only we have OSX which is generally considered to be as pretty an interface as could be asked for, and that runs just fine on current x86 kit. So does Xev. And most of the prettiness in Vista is MS playing catch up. Apple and Linux have had a lot of this stuff for years.
Which brings us to the question of whether Vista _really_ needs this hardware requirement. It can be done without, which suggests either poor coding skills, or (as I;m inclined to believe) that MS are just bloating their software to make it seem as if it must be more powerful.
Based on past experience...
Presupposing that Vista is different enough from xp that backporting is a non-trivial task. Their marketing says it is, but then they said that about 98 and ME, so I'm inclined to cynicism
And heaven forbid they should keep their existing customers happy. Nope, the thing to do is to punish their customers who recently invested in their operating system. It's like the idea that if there are no queues in a post office then too many staff are being employed; if Microsoft's customers are happy, that would mean MS weren't being aggressive enough, right? And anything short of maximal aggression would be A Bad Thing ... apparently.
So, no, I don't find it surprising, either. Hell, I'm so far beyond surpise, I'm not even disappointed. But then I don't run windows anymore..
Because they're not a nasty vicious monopolistic corporation hell-bent on extorting every last cent from their customer base, and who would never stoop so low as to refuse to release a key product for a mature platform still well within its support cycle, purely to force an upgrade cycle upon a market that feels no particular need to switch to an unproven product that offers debateable advantages and which will require expenditure on new hardware in most cases?
Opps, sorry. Wrong parallel universe.
I quite agree. There's no guarantee that starting a flap will get the results you desire - but then when was there ever? The thing is, chaos theory says your efforts will have an effect. There's this really annoying meme that gets trotted out at times like this: "oh! we are all so puny and powerless that we cannot win and therefore it would be foolish to even try". Really, I don't think it's supportable.
I'm not sure if I'd agree with your macro-scale argument either
I'm not an expert myself, so I could well be wrong. I was thinking specifically of some of the cases cited by James Glick where (IIRC) use of pesticide on an island caused the insect population targetted to increase the following year. The pesticide was a macro scale remedy that targetted the insect population broadly, and it worked counter intiutively. Similarly, corporate advertising works indiscriminately across the population.
The point here being that just because the opponent has a stranglehold on mass media doesn't mean the cause is automatically lost. And while I do think that there's a lot to be learnt by considering Humanity as a chaotic system, I'd hate to defend it at any deeper level than that.
The important point is that we can win. Therefore, go for it!
Interesting question. I think I'd have to stop short of the notion that all science is based on faith. There's a couple of reasons why I say that.
From the viewpoint of the scientist, scientific reasoning is fundamentally different from faith based reasoning. As I see it, when someone argues primarily from faith, they start with the conclusion. For example. they might start with "God exists", then look for arguments to support that conclusion, "the universe is too complex not to be a deliberate creation" and then tries to interpret facts light of this framework "those fossile must be fakes, created by God to test our faith".
The scientist takes the oppsite approach. Starting with observable and verifiable facts "those fossil bones contain carbon; the half life of carbon 14 is well known" they seek conclusions that logically follow "measuring the proportions of carbon isotopes in these bones will provide a measure of their age" and from there to conclusions that sometimes surprise them "judging from the evidence, these remains predate every biblical event". The big difference is that the starting point for any scientific chain of reasoning should be independantly verifiable, observable fact. That way, any other scientist can check both the initial observations and the reasoning based upon them, before deciding whether to trust the results.
From the user perspective, it's a little different. Not everyone has the time, aptitude or training to verify scientifc discoveries. Still, I think that calling it a matter of faith is something of a stretch. It's like the linux kernel. I don't have time to go over it all line by line, but then I don't have to; There are enough other people looking that someone is going to spot any deception. It's still something that I have to take on trust, but not on absolute faith. The process is verifiable, and if I ever feel the need, I could potentially check the findings myself.
Of course, that chain of verifiability is increasingly under attack in modern science. Corporate funding of research means that studies that do not say the sponsor wishes to be said are often buried never to see the light of day, which both distorts the apparent scientific consensus, and places researchers under pressure to stay "on message" if they ever want to publish. Similarly, governmental pressure is increasingly being used to silence scientific opinion where it goes against established policy, and of course in some areas the scale of the resources required to conduct an experiment can often prevent the amateur from repeating an experiment.
For me, the mindset is the important thing. Scientific and faith-based reasoning operate from fundamentally different starting points, and that's enough for me to draw a distinction. I do think a lot of people see science as "just" a religion. Some see two disciplines that both attempt to explain the universe, others I feel would like to have science considered a religion, since then the ideas of cultural relativism could be brought to bear, and unwanted conclusions could be dismissed with the notion that no one religious viewpoint is more valid than another.
Look: the population of Planet Earth have all characteristics required to qualify as a chaotic system - which is to say there are too many too consider all of them individually, and that their behaviour at any given time depends both on their inputs and their state.
This has a couple of interesting implications when it comers to activism. One is that macro-scale attempts at control (which in this context would be corporate and government manipulations) are unlikely to work out as intended. The other is that the butterfly effect, sensitive dependence on initial conditions, applies. Small inputs can make a tremendous difference, and the apparently uninterested non-techie you tell about this may, in fact, go home and mull it over, and then decide to tell someone else. Who tells someone else, who tells someone else... The point being that control over the media channels is no longer enough to surpress a campaign. The story leaks out at grassroots level. Which is why so many corporations and politicians are pouring money into "astroturfing" campaigns. They recognise the power of this approach, even if the general public to not.
But I don't think any astroturfing operation can compete with the real thing - no one can afford to buy that many opinions. Whereas we don't have to. You've heard of the "many eyes" principle for free software? Well this is the "many mouths" principle. With enough people talking, we can own this debate. I propose we do just that.
So stop taking like a loser, and start spreading the word. We can do this.
The motivation has to come from outside.
That's very true, at least until you consider that cost is a relative concept. The disadvantages of avoiding the truck are trivial in comparison to those entailed in allowing it to hit you. The same is far from proven in the case of climate change. To say that the drawbacks of inactivity are trivial in comparison to those of remedial action, is to presuppose the desired conclusion. That's not to suggest the converse case - I don't belive that the cost of remedial action is necessariy trivial in comparison with no action at all. All I want to propose with the truck analogy is that waiting until you have incontrovertible proof of a threat is not always a survival characteristic. I expect we can probably agree that far :)
But realize this isn't free. It is a worthwhile investment, but no politician is willing to invest beyond 8 years.
Agreed. Same question I'm asking everyone today: What conditions would have to be met to convince you that the front loaded remidial investment might be more cost effective in the long term. What conditions would you set before you decided that the up front investment was far better value? how about massively better?
(I know you're not exactly disagreeing with me, but I'm interested in the answer all the same)
Your description of the scientific method sounds more like: if A, then B; B is true; therefore A is true.
More like: conclusion CONC seems to satisfy evidential set EV. However we cannot say with certainty that CONC is correct. We therefore identify a set of disproofs DIS, any one of which will, if observed, demonstrate the falsity of CONC. However in the absence of those disproofs, and until presented with a similarly falsifable model that fits the facts as well or better, we will treat CONC as though it had been proven.
What the poster to whom I responded was saying was: "CONC is false because you have no proof of CONC". I'm saying is that science doesn't work like that, and proof of anything outside the realm of pure mathematics won't be forthcoming from any reputatble scientist anytime soon.
If you still think I'm engaged in fallacious argument, please explain why and we can debate the point further. As to the rest:
Suppose it really is the warmest it's been in 400 yrs. How much warmer? What's the cause? How quickly is it changing?
Excellent questions all. Do you have data? I'm particularly interested in the rate of change, especially of the incidence of "freak" weather conditions.
What proof is there that it has to do with human activity?
What proof will you accept? No, really. What proof will you accept?
I read the article and I see some vague answers ...
Agreed. I'm not defending the academic standing of the article, which appears to be collections of third hand summaries of political speeches. I am interested in debunking the abuse of the concept of proof and the fallacious appeal to the scientific method currently popular with the proponents of deliberate inaction.
Using the truck analogy, if 100 scientists yell at me not to enter the road ...
You don't trust scientists? Fair enough - so what are your criteria? I want to know what evidence you would accept as requiring remidial action, how we can verifiably determine if those critera have been set. Oh, and the evidence should be gatherable over a fairly short time scale - say no more than five years. If you were going to say "gosh, I guess we do need to take some action here", what would have to happen in order for you to draw that conclusion?
Sure. Or how much additional evidence of termite infestation do you need? What will it take to persuade you that you need to take some action? (Not necessarily employing the original caller, BTW). For that matter what evidence will you accept as sufficent to dismiss the matter entirely?
Here's another one - every thursday you go out for a beer. Every thursday, while you are out, someone breaks into your home and steals something. You never have any proof that the burglary will be repeated, but week after week the pattern repeats.
At what point do you decide that it is sensible, even in the absence of proof, to take some remedial action?
Einstein: "The important thing is not to stop questioning."
Agreed. I'm not running round shouting the "sky is falling", I'm just looking for some evidence that someone has thought about this proposed policy of deliberate inaction. I want to see a backup plan, just in inaction turns out ineffective for any reason. And I want it to come with a clear and verifiable set of tests to determine if and when the time has come to take that action, and a timescale overwhich it is proposed that those criteria be evaluated.
I don't think it's too much to ask. A little evidence that someone, somewhere has run the numbers on this thing, rather than just raising superficial but facile objections.
On the subject of questions, here's the one I'm asking everyone: what are your criteria? What would it take before you were forced to conceed that the sky might, metaphorically speaking, be falling?
Really? Which one was that, then?
Would, which is the entire problem
Might. The term "dearly" is a relative one. The question that needs to be asked is "dearly in comparison to what?" Describing the costs as dear presupposes that any negative consequences entailed in doing nothing are trivial in comparison. I believe that's the logical fallacy known as begging the question".
A freemarket capitalism might be able to leap over the problems, and still provide not just an equal quality of life, but continue with an ever-increasing one, even in the face of global warming, when compared to strict regulations that reverse it.
And then again, it might not. The trouble is that if not then reversing the damage might prove far more costly, or even impossible.
In other words, measure quality of life in 100 years, with and without Kyoto and other restrictions, and the world with continued global warming might very well have a higher quality of life
And it might very well not. The problem is that the stakes are potentially so very high.
I'll ask you the same question I'm asking everyone else: how will you know if your laisser faire approach has failed? How bad will conditions have to get before you're willing to conceed that intervention is the best course. I'm not asking you to make any concessions here - I just want to know what your threshold conditions would be. Preferably ones that don't take 100 years to evaluate.
Getting out of the way costs you the effort expended in moving faster than usual, and may result in injury.
doing whatever we speculate might be necessary to avoid any global warming would cost us dearly.
Might cost us dearly. As with the truck, it's a question of the relative risks, costs and benefits, and the timescale over which they are evaluated.
All I'm suggesting is that we try and find some criteria by which we can evaluate those factors.
I'm a little curious about the past occasions you seem to think I'm using as a basis for my reasoning. It's not like I'm saying "it worked for Atlantis and therefore it'll work for us". All I'm doing is asking what, if any criteria the denial crowd would accept as sufficent grounds to warrant action.
I don't think that's unreasonable. If they want to be scientific about this, let's see a properly falsifaible counter hypothesis, and maybe we can start gathering the data to make an informed decision.
Hypothetical question for you, You're crossing a road, first thing in the morning. You're still maybe half asleep, late night and all that.
Suddenly you hear a noise. You look up from your reverie to find there's a huge great truck barrelling down the road toward you, horn blaring.
So what do you do? Do you think "Hmm, this is an rare scenario. The truck could exist, but I also have to consider that I may in fact be still asleep and dreaming this encounter. What data can I collect to determine if actiion is truly warranted in this case?"
Do you do all that, or do you get out of the frigging way first and then run your analysis? I bet I know what most of your ancestors did in analagous situations.
See, the thing is that science never proves anything. That's not a flaw in science, it's methodology. Scientists have long discarded modus ponens as the logical basis for the scientific method, in favour of modus tollens. What that means is that we don't try to prove things, because we recognise that we may not yet have all the facts. Instead we propose a explanation that seem to fit the facts and we try and disprove it.
The thing to note here is that if e wait for science to prove that global is happening, we'll still be waiting in billions of years time. Even if the Sun the should expand to swallow the earth and engulf us solar plasma, we;ll still be waiting, because that's not what scientists, do!
What they do do[1] is get out of the way of oncoming traffic.
If you want to be scientific about this, you need a counter theory, and it has to be falsifiable. There has to be a test we can conduct that to prove it wrong. Preferably one that doesn't involve waiting a thousand years to see if the climate flips state back to the Cambrian Era.
Give me a set of criteria that, if they are satisfied, you will regard as sufficent evidence for taking action against global warming and I will accept that you may have a pont. Otherwise, all you're doing is saying "Bah! Youse scientist dunt never nothing nowhow" only in an fancy accent.
Me, I vote we get out of the way of the truck
[1] On the whole, that is. I'm not counting absent mindedness, scientific tests of experimental traffc-proof suits, or Bruce Banner when he gets angry. I don't really think this weakens my argument.
I still reckon something's amiss if they have to resort to stunts like this one.
That seems an odd idea.
At first glance it just seems silly. Why make something free redistributable, and then employ a technology designed to prevent redistribution. So no-one's going to be using the DRM in that way. What else is there?
I can't see how the non-commercial aspect is going to be enforced. You can set property on the document, but you hardly need DRM to do that. I suppose the doc could ask if it was being illegally redistributed and refuse to decrypt instead, but I'm guessing that anyone willing to flaunt the licence is also going to lie to the DRM, so that's probably not much help.
The no-derivs clause is probably the best fit. You could (presumably) distribute a .doc file wit your litterary masterpiece and be fairly confident that the document won't allow others to amend the text. Not much of an impediment to a determined attacker, since the analogue gap is particularly easy to access for text documents. Maybe the idea is to embed your multimedia in doc file - but then why not use wmv?
And of course, the attribution can only be enforced for a write only doc, so that only really usefuk with no-derivs.
Still, I can't help feeling that most of the CC crowd aren't really going to be interested in technological preventatives. CC seems to be mainly about retaining your rights while allowing free distribution, while DRM is mainly about making people pay for every access. I don't really see it catching on.
Of course, it does offer potential benefits to third party distributors who want to make money from non-comercial CC material. Afte all, you wouldn't be paying them for the content, just for the privilege of decoding it. I just don't think the creators will see that as a desirable outcome.
It's an add-in :) nobody made you download
We're talking about the CC plugin again, right? Not the DRM