While I do love the whole open source thing, if you had actually READ my post, you may have noticed that not only was I not advocating open source, I didn't even MENTION it. All I said was that Microsoft ripped off ICQ's idea.
However, since you brought it up, I like it when open source projects make new implementations. I like it when closed source projects make new implementations. I like choice. What I DON'T like is being "forced" to choose between using MSN Messenger, which may start to charge at some point, or not being able to talk to 90% of the friends I love because they aren't tech-savvy/informed/ideologically motivated enough to not use the only IM client that came with their OS that was made by convicted monopolists.
Yes, I'm aware of this, hence the phrasing I used.
I think you still need to consider 2 factors: 1. If you want innovations that QT doesn't offer, go somewhere that does. I don't think MS will fit the bill. 2. QT is not really an analogue of Windows. You should at least look at KDE, which has been offering new features, or possibly a distro as a whole.
It seems to me that essentially what Microsoft does is wait for someone else to come up with a cool new idea and take the risks of making sure it works, and then implement the same concept themselves in an integrated fashion so that the lazy and/or uninformed will just use theirs. I think a prime example of this is ICQ, which of course was followed by MSN.
One wonders whether these calls for help actually get people to call in, and how many people have to call for the company to want to keep a show. I'd imagine some people see that and say "sweet merciful crap, first commercials, and now a telethon in between". Guess it's a good thing I'm too much of an internet junkie to care about TV anymore.:)
The start menu is fine. Expected, in fact; I'd be bothered if it wasn't there. The desktop is fine, if I don't like it it's VERY easy to delete. Same with quickstart. The system tray is irritating, but there are many other programs that default to a memory-resident program. Not a huge deal when you can right click and disable.
Where real starts to bother me is the registry entry that runs something every time you boot. And if you delete said registry entry, it replaces it the next time you run the program. It pisses me off when programs use my system resources without my knowledge for ANY reason, but I'm pretty sure this one is spyware, which is extra irritating.
On the off chance that there are still people out there who need to hear this, do yourself a favour and use Media Player Classic and Real Alternative (and Quicktime Alternative) in Windows, or Mplayer in Linux.
Upon reading the article, it says that they only tested for 4 specific programs: Gator, Cydoor, SaveNow, and eZula. And got 5.1% positives. So yeah, you're probably right.
Funny, but makes you wonder how much was there that they didn't detect. And as much as I love Spybot S&D and to a lesser extent Ad-Aware, I wonder how much they miss.
1. If a cult can survive after the predicted date of the end of the world, I think religions are pretty much here to stay regardless of the evidence against.
2. When confronted with new evidence, you can always make a new religion or adapt an old one to maintain logical consistence. Of course, then the distinction between religion and science becomes awfully blurry.
Maybe I'm just an idiot, but where does the water go? Vapour in the atmosphere? Did the hydrogen and oxygen break apart somehow? Chemical reactions with something else? Did it just float off into space? Those all seem unlikely to me, but then, what do I know?
Please understand that I mean no disrespect, but the fact that this post is taken seriously is evidence of something severely wrong with society.
Yes, money keeps you alive. But what's the point of being alive? Maybe money can buy you some fun, but in my experience it can't buy fulfillment. And if writing free software for other people DOES fulfill you, it seems to me that it would be an obvious choice to do that and starve even if it meant dying.
I don't know for sure, but it seems quite likely to me that the US is the world's largest exporter of intellectual property, the export stats might even include that.
In any case, it seems to me that IP laws are "good" for the movie and recording industries in the US, and that is why the US is so hell-bent on enforcing their IP laws on other countries. I think it was Marx that said Capitalism is Imperialism. In my books, IP laws are just another weapon on that front.
As much as I love the idea of a "democratic" web, I have to disagree with more people creating content being a good thing. I've been arguing against copyright for a long time, and one of the reasons I do so is that it creates far too much of an incentive to create. It seems to me that we have a huge glut of material both on and offline. Having worked in a university bookstore for 4 years, I've personally seen how useless much of that content truly is.
Of course, it may be true that the more people creating FREE content, the better. Maybe. In any case, the main point I'm making is that as long as copyright law prevails over the net, I'd call it overly controlled.
It seems to me that this will only matter when one of two things happens. 1. Heavy promotion of creative commons-licensed material happens somehow. 2. There is a severe crackdown on copyrighted file-sharing to the point that few or none feel comfortable doing it.
I can't see 1 happening ever. 2, on the other hand, may be beginning. Personally, though, I think the better way to address this is just to allow copyrighted file-sharing.
Property rights are vastly different because we can't copy land; we can't take it from someone while leaving them in the same situation they were in before.
So no, the logical conclusion of this argument has nothing to do with property rights and wouldn't abrogate civilization at all.
I, on the other hand, can't believe you'd hold up drug corporations as a shining example of the good of patents.
Number one, patents in the drug arena encourage popular things to be invented long before important things. For instance, we have a boner pill (Viagra) and a baldness pill (Rogaine I think), but no AIDS pill (at least that I'm aware of).
Number two, providing corporations with financial benefits for pills encourages them to come up with fake ailments and prescribe their medications for them. Take antidepressants... I read a story recently that explained how one of the big pharmaceutical companies (I think it was Pfizer, I'm not sure anymore) made a massive "awareness" (advertising) campaign about some generically named stress syndrome that had been described as very rare by psychiatrists. Coincidentally, their drug was used to treat it, and some medical professional on their payroll was quoted as saying something like 10% of people had this syndrome.
Don't think I haven't considered that. Yes, it kinda sucks, but let's contrast this with the current situation.
Take software patents and open source, a particularly relevant case to Slashdot. I want to develop code for myself and others to use and enjoy. If only I was allowed to do it instead of being legally required to not use my expertise because someone thinks it's a good thing to own the rights to an idea.
The only way to stop it is to change the conditions the companies live under. To make it impossible or disadvantageous to patent and litigate. My personal suggestion is (and has been for some time) to completely abandon patents and copyright. All they are to me is children whining "I thought of it first".
As much as I love open source and even openness in other forms (like letters), I can't help but think that open letters tend to be more about making news than actually seriously expecting things to work the proposed way.
Slashdot Mirror
While I do love the whole open source thing, if you had actually READ my post, you may have noticed that not only was I not advocating open source, I didn't even MENTION it. All I said was that Microsoft ripped off ICQ's idea.
However, since you brought it up, I like it when open source projects make new implementations. I like it when closed source projects make new implementations. I like choice. What I DON'T like is being "forced" to choose between using MSN Messenger, which may start to charge at some point, or not being able to talk to 90% of the friends I love because they aren't tech-savvy/informed/ideologically motivated enough to not use the only IM client that came with their OS that was made by convicted monopolists.
Yes, I'm aware of this, hence the phrasing I used.
I think you still need to consider 2 factors:
1. If you want innovations that QT doesn't offer, go somewhere that does. I don't think MS will fit the bill.
2. QT is not really an analogue of Windows. You should at least look at KDE, which has been offering new features, or possibly a distro as a whole.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but anyone who wants to use QT under the GPL can do so for free, right?
You don't want to pay? Don't. Seems fair to me.
It seems to me that essentially what Microsoft does is wait for someone else to come up with a cool new idea and take the risks of making sure it works, and then implement the same concept themselves in an integrated fashion so that the lazy and/or uninformed will just use theirs. I think a prime example of this is ICQ, which of course was followed by MSN.
One wonders whether these calls for help actually get people to call in, and how many people have to call for the company to want to keep a show. I'd imagine some people see that and say "sweet merciful crap, first commercials, and now a telethon in between". Guess it's a good thing I'm too much of an internet junkie to care about TV anymore. :)
The start menu is fine. Expected, in fact; I'd be bothered if it wasn't there. The desktop is fine, if I don't like it it's VERY easy to delete. Same with quickstart. The system tray is irritating, but there are many other programs that default to a memory-resident program. Not a huge deal when you can right click and disable.
Where real starts to bother me is the registry entry that runs something every time you boot. And if you delete said registry entry, it replaces it the next time you run the program. It pisses me off when programs use my system resources without my knowledge for ANY reason, but I'm pretty sure this one is spyware, which is extra irritating.
On the off chance that there are still people out there who need to hear this, do yourself a favour and use Media Player Classic and Real Alternative (and Quicktime Alternative) in Windows, or Mplayer in Linux.
It seems to me that there are more than enough exceptions to free speech already. Glad to see this allowed, let's go a little farther.
Sigh... Yeah I guess those dreams of trained monkeys really were a pie-in-the-sky fantasy. :)
Upon reading the article, it says that they only tested for 4 specific programs: Gator, Cydoor, SaveNow, and eZula. And got 5.1% positives. So yeah, you're probably right.
Funny, but makes you wonder how much was there that they didn't detect. And as much as I love Spybot S&D and to a lesser extent Ad-Aware, I wonder how much they miss.
Reminds me of the "identify a song recorded off the radio" feature of the Neuros mp3 player... Only evil... Really evil.
Is that even possible?
1. If a cult can survive after the predicted date of the end of the world, I think religions are pretty much here to stay regardless of the evidence against.
2. When confronted with new evidence, you can always make a new religion or adapt an old one to maintain logical consistence. Of course, then the distinction between religion and science becomes awfully blurry.
3. Maybe logic simply doesn't work.
Maybe I'm just an idiot, but where does the water go? Vapour in the atmosphere? Did the hydrogen and oxygen break apart somehow? Chemical reactions with something else? Did it just float off into space? Those all seem unlikely to me, but then, what do I know?
No, it means I have other reasons for being alive. There are things that fulfill me that don't require me to die.
Please understand that I mean no disrespect, but the fact that this post is taken seriously is evidence of something severely wrong with society.
Yes, money keeps you alive. But what's the point of being alive? Maybe money can buy you some fun, but in my experience it can't buy fulfillment. And if writing free software for other people DOES fulfill you, it seems to me that it would be an obvious choice to do that and starve even if it meant dying.
I don't know for sure, but it seems quite likely to me that the US is the world's largest exporter of intellectual property, the export stats might even include that.
In any case, it seems to me that IP laws are "good" for the movie and recording industries in the US, and that is why the US is so hell-bent on enforcing their IP laws on other countries. I think it was Marx that said Capitalism is Imperialism. In my books, IP laws are just another weapon on that front.
As much as I love the idea of a "democratic" web, I have to disagree with more people creating content being a good thing. I've been arguing against copyright for a long time, and one of the reasons I do so is that it creates far too much of an incentive to create. It seems to me that we have a huge glut of material both on and offline. Having worked in a university bookstore for 4 years, I've personally seen how useless much of that content truly is.
Of course, it may be true that the more people creating FREE content, the better. Maybe. In any case, the main point I'm making is that as long as copyright law prevails over the net, I'd call it overly controlled.
It seems to me that this will only matter when one of two things happens.
1. Heavy promotion of creative commons-licensed material happens somehow.
2. There is a severe crackdown on copyrighted file-sharing to the point that few or none feel comfortable doing it.
I can't see 1 happening ever. 2, on the other hand, may be beginning. Personally, though, I think the better way to address this is just to allow copyrighted file-sharing.
Yeah, STUPID pretty girls...
:)
Oh yeah, that's pretty much all of them... Correction cheerfully withdrawn.
Property rights are vastly different because we can't copy land; we can't take it from someone while leaving them in the same situation they were in before.
So no, the logical conclusion of this argument has nothing to do with property rights and wouldn't abrogate civilization at all.
Believe it! :)
I, on the other hand, can't believe you'd hold up drug corporations as a shining example of the good of patents.
Number one, patents in the drug arena encourage popular things to be invented long before important things. For instance, we have a boner pill (Viagra) and a baldness pill (Rogaine I think), but no AIDS pill (at least that I'm aware of).
Number two, providing corporations with financial benefits for pills encourages them to come up with fake ailments and prescribe their medications for them. Take antidepressants... I read a story recently that explained how one of the big pharmaceutical companies (I think it was Pfizer, I'm not sure anymore) made a massive "awareness" (advertising) campaign about some generically named stress syndrome that had been described as very rare by psychiatrists. Coincidentally, their drug was used to treat it, and some medical professional on their payroll was quoted as saying something like 10% of people had this syndrome.
And that's just off the top of my head.
Don't think I haven't considered that. Yes, it kinda sucks, but let's contrast this with the current situation.
Take software patents and open source, a particularly relevant case to Slashdot. I want to develop code for myself and others to use and enjoy. If only I was allowed to do it instead of being legally required to not use my expertise because someone thinks it's a good thing to own the rights to an idea.
Evolution, my friend.
The only way to stop it is to change the conditions the companies live under. To make it impossible or disadvantageous to patent and litigate. My personal suggestion is (and has been for some time) to completely abandon patents and copyright. All they are to me is children whining "I thought of it first".
As much as I love open source and even openness in other forms (like letters), I can't help but think that open letters tend to be more about making news than actually seriously expecting things to work the proposed way.