All the guy did was tell the truth. One day maybe the world will get over believing in something created by folks attempting to explain the world around them. Doubtful in a few hundred lifetimes, but we can dream.
Check with your school's Technology Transfer group. While it is true that Universities generally want control over everything created while you are working for them, most of the time the value to the University is not worth their time or trouble. If your work will generate actual revenue for the University (revenue that will actually offset the work involved in licensing and all that), they'll be very interested. If not, they will most likely leave it up to you to do with it what you will. At least that is how it works at my school.
Loser, I actually don't use windows, I just have deal with fallout from average people who can't seem do manage system.
To elevate the discussion, I was addressing the slip-shoddy product shipped by Redmond. The choices made by MS has created the mess that we have today. They could have made a OS that was secure and easy to use, but they opted not to from the start.
I agree, but what if someone does not know how to do this? I would suspect most simply don't. Then again, why is the answer having to turn on a firewall? Or having to buy a NAT router to protect a systems that should have more protection out of the box. Why can't we expect a more secure platform from Redmond?
Ummm, how many corporations truly stand on their own feet without any help from government subsidies? Business is very different from other eco-systems. Companies routinely request and receive subsidies from the government.
In most ecosystems it is not necessarily the strong that survive, those that survive are best adapted to their environment. It is possible for something extremely weak to survive.
Let me ask you this, how long does your laptop last on a NiMH battery? 8 hours? If you travel with your laptop, do you take along the charger, just in case? I can toss a 12 inch firewire cable and along with the charger and I'm all set. When I'm at the airport stuck in limbo, I just pull out the charger and plug in. Suprise electrical outlets are all over the place. And I can plug my iPod into my laptop and charge it while working.
It is not terribly difficult to replace the battery in the iPod, I wish it was easier, but so be it. If the average consumer doesn't want to mess with it, they can send it in to Apple and pay the $50.00 labor charge. Heck the average consumer does this all the time when they take their car in for service.
You final argument on "people who buy iPods" is simply poor logic on your part. According to you, there are only two types of people, trendy and music lovers with practical needs. If you buy an iPod you are trendy if not, your are a music lover with practical needs. Can I turn the argument around and say that the definition of a practical music lover is someone who doesn't own an iPod?
Isn't it quite possible that there are music lovers who decide based on set of criteria that the iPod is the best device for them? If so, are they trendy?
How about if we all send in one cent or a nickel on behalf of this girl to RIAA? Okay so there may not be enough/.'ers to make up the $2000.00, but maybe start a website with a howto.
I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part.
Okay, so it appears that regardless of which side of the political-economic fence you sit on, reform is on the thoughts of more than a few people posting today.
My two cents, and forgive me for not reading through all the posts. It seems that the general theme of those asking for reform is that the 'structures/systems/agencies/policies' need to reform themselves, "the fault is our slightly-malfunctioning government, which needs reform itself.".
I argue that there is no ediface called the government, the system or any such things. To borrow from the earlier work of A. Giddens, our collective actions (including our inactions), combine to create all these institutions. What we do and don't do, has major repercussions on the state of things. That said, we are collectively the "slightly-malfunctioning government". Our actions and in-actions allowed things to get to where they are now.
If we want patent-reform or insurance reform, and hope that the "system" will reform itself, then be prepared to be disappointed. As an example, look at how the MPAA has influenced laws in various American States. If there is some philosophical imperitive that directs our leaders to do the right thing, then some of the stuff that was passed recently would never have happened.
I'm not arguing against or for Capitalism, what does it matter at this point. Getting more people actively involved is what I'm concerned about.
Marx once wrote, "Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly found, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living."
Before I get too outraged by this whole thing, how does anyone suppose that the feds will be able to handle the amount of data collected? It seems that there were pieces of the 9/11 puzzle available to the feds prior to the incident, but no one could put them together.
Honestly, does anyone believe that the Feds could actually get through all the data? Sure natural language processing could analyze some of the data, but all of it? And really, do we believe that terrorists really so stupid as to put "Attack this Thusday at Place X--Bring Explosives" in their subject lines?
Apart from the practical nature of the collecting and analyzing data, are we just a little too nutty about wanting to feel safe? Homeland Security, watching our neighbors, analyzing what sites I surf, will that really keep terrorists out of the US? Is this all just a bunch of fear motivated policies that will keep us placated while we go about our day, at least until the next event.
Sure we need to be prepared and all, but at least lets demand a little intelligence and thought.
Hmmmm, lets see. I'm an American and if I want to I can say whatever I want to about the President. I can critique, disagree, agree, and even (gasp) not respect or support him.
Guess what dude, this comes under the heading of freedom of speech and last time I looked, the Constitution allowed me to just that. And does that make my unpatriotic? Not in my book, dissenting views ultimately created this Nation. Remember?
Oh, if you want to make a point, then do so with a reasoned and intelligent response. Why is dissention bad? How is speaking your mind in disagreement with leadership un-American? Because you said so? Hmmm.
Slashdot Mirror
All the guy did was tell the truth. One day maybe the world will get over believing in something created by folks attempting to explain the world around them. Doubtful in a few hundred lifetimes, but we can dream.
Check with your school's Technology Transfer group. While it is true that Universities generally want control over everything created while you are working for them, most of the time the value to the University is not worth their time or trouble. If your work will generate actual revenue for the University (revenue that will actually offset the work involved in licensing and all that), they'll be very interested. If not, they will most likely leave it up to you to do with it what you will. At least that is how it works at my school.
Loser, I actually don't use windows, I just have deal with fallout from average people who can't seem do manage system. To elevate the discussion, I was addressing the slip-shoddy product shipped by Redmond. The choices made by MS has created the mess that we have today. They could have made a OS that was secure and easy to use, but they opted not to from the start.
I agree, but what if someone does not know how to do this? I would suspect most simply don't. Then again, why is the answer having to turn on a firewall? Or having to buy a NAT router to protect a systems that should have more protection out of the box. Why can't we expect a more secure platform from Redmond?
Ummm, how many corporations truly stand on their own feet without any help from government subsidies? Business is very different from other eco-systems. Companies routinely request and receive subsidies from the government.
In most ecosystems it is not necessarily the strong that survive, those that survive are best adapted to their environment. It is possible for something extremely weak to survive.
Thank You! I wouldn't deface my Tele or Strat with that thing.
It is not terribly difficult to replace the battery in the iPod, I wish it was easier, but so be it. If the average consumer doesn't want to mess with it, they can send it in to Apple and pay the $50.00 labor charge. Heck the average consumer does this all the time when they take their car in for service.
You final argument on "people who buy iPods" is simply poor logic on your part. According to you, there are only two types of people, trendy and music lovers with practical needs. If you buy an iPod you are trendy if not, your are a music lover with practical needs. Can I turn the argument around and say that the definition of a practical music lover is someone who doesn't own an iPod?
Isn't it quite possible that there are music lovers who decide based on set of criteria that the iPod is the best device for them? If so, are they trendy?
How about if we all send in one cent or a nickel on behalf of this girl to RIAA? Okay so there may not be enough /.'ers to make up the $2000.00, but maybe start a website with a howto.
I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part.
My two cents, and forgive me for not reading through all the posts. It seems that the general theme of those asking for reform is that the 'structures/systems/agencies/policies' need to reform themselves, "the fault is our slightly-malfunctioning government, which needs reform itself.".
I argue that there is no ediface called the government, the system or any such things. To borrow from the earlier work of A. Giddens, our collective actions (including our inactions), combine to create all these institutions. What we do and don't do, has major repercussions on the state of things. That said, we are collectively the "slightly-malfunctioning government". Our actions and in-actions allowed things to get to where they are now.
If we want patent-reform or insurance reform, and hope that the "system" will reform itself, then be prepared to be disappointed. As an example, look at how the MPAA has influenced laws in various American States. If there is some philosophical imperitive that directs our leaders to do the right thing, then some of the stuff that was passed recently would never have happened.
I'm not arguing against or for Capitalism, what does it matter at this point. Getting more people actively involved is what I'm concerned about.
Marx once wrote, "Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly found, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living."
Honestly, does anyone believe that the Feds could actually get through all the data? Sure natural language processing could analyze some of the data, but all of it? And really, do we believe that terrorists really so stupid as to put "Attack this Thusday at Place X--Bring Explosives" in their subject lines?
Apart from the practical nature of the collecting and analyzing data, are we just a little too nutty about wanting to feel safe? Homeland Security, watching our neighbors, analyzing what sites I surf, will that really keep terrorists out of the US? Is this all just a bunch of fear motivated policies that will keep us placated while we go about our day, at least until the next event.
Sure we need to be prepared and all, but at least lets demand a little intelligence and thought.
My little rant.
Guess what dude, this comes under the heading of freedom of speech and last time I looked, the Constitution allowed me to just that. And does that make my unpatriotic? Not in my book, dissenting views ultimately created this Nation. Remember?
Oh, if you want to make a point, then do so with a reasoned and intelligent response. Why is dissention bad? How is speaking your mind in disagreement with leadership un-American? Because you said so? Hmmm.