No, if you actually RTFPR (press release), you'd see that Connectiva had $2.2 million in revenue last fiscal year and broke even. And with big customers like the Brazilian army, they're in a good position to turn a profit this year.
Mandrake made a good power move into the South American Linux market with the market leader, dipshit.
Yeah, my dad's real big into iTunes. He was using Windows Media Player, but when he saw how he didn't have to go to 5000 different screens to play some music, he stuck onto it instantly. He likes the buying music factor to, but what's he's having real fun doing is turning his old records into digital music.
It seems a sensible argument to me. As FF's user base grows, so does its attractiveness to all kinds of nefarious bungholes. True, being an open source project, things will get fixed faster (usually), but when you patch a hole, you may end up breaking something for some users.
In fact, the chance of that happening (IMO) has a positive correlation to the number of users.
*sigh* You know, maybe people are just creatures of habit. Just because they are doesn't mean they're stupid. I tried getting my mother to switch to firefox. She honestly tried it for a few days and said, "meh, it's not worth learning something new when the old thing works just fine for me." Ok, that's fair. While they're not radically different in UI terms, as far as setting preferences, managing downloads and such, they're worlds apart. (I think firefox is easier to set preferences in - except for the ones you can only get to with about:config).
But, I'm not going to say she's stupid. So the best thing I can do as a conscientious son is to make sure she knows safe browsing habits and keeps her computer up to date. For a 45 year old woman who'd never used a computer until about two years ago, her ability to spot something that isn't right is remarkable. She's never had a virus or spyware.
Now if I could just get her to stop asking if I'm there when she gets my voicemail, I'd be set.
You can't be convicted of being a monopoly. Monopolies aren't inherently illegal. It's how you use your monopolistic status. AT&T abused its status, Microsoft abused its status, and Standard Oil abused its status. Intel was a monopoly of PC processors for a while. IBM was a monopoly in many industries for a while, too. But the difference was neither abused that position, at least enough to warrant attention. They didn't bully suppliers or customers.
Wal-Mart isn't technically a monopoly yet, so those rules don't apply to them.
I don't care what "scientists" say about global warming. For instance, my doctor is a scientist. Zoologists are scientists, physicists are scientists, but they're not climatologists. And among climatologists, as far as I've read, there really is debate on the issue.
That's why we need Democrats back in the White House. It'll take EPA restrictions to control this, and the previous administration was trying to do something about it. Among the first things Bush did when in office was to strip a lot of those restrictions under the guise of a "Clean Skies" initiative.
No, Clinton didn't sign the treaty. Madeleine Albright, his Sec. of State did. The Senate, which ratifies all treaties (well, until they gave up that responsibility a few years ago), voted not to.
No, I think that oversimplifies it. When NS 6 was out there (and even 6.1,6.2, and 7) and Mozilla still wasn't a very powerful browser (not to mention that you had to also install the mail app, the composer, and so on), IE was the best browser out there. It was my primary browser until Firefox hit 0.6. It wasn't that IE was great, it was that the other browsers just sucked so hard (including Opera) that it was the only viable choice.
Even though I love Firefox, it takes a LOT of customization to make it work for me. installing different extensions, changing different settings, it's still quite a bit of things that have to be done to make Firefox as great as it is.
Whereas IE just works. The functionality isn't as great, but it doesn't make you work for it.
No, I don't think it's a surrender, it's more of a call to arms.
Why did IE become the dominant browser? because Netscape stopped at 4.5 while IE kept updating and improving. Once IE got far enough ahead (about 5.0), it stopped still in the water, only releasing versions because of security bugs. So why is Firefox gaining popularity? Because IE hasn't done anything new since 2000, and doesn't have the kick-ass features Firefox has.
Surrendering would involve using something other than IE as the default Windows browser.
Improving it significatnly (which MS has been working on for about a year now, with not much to show for it besides popup blocking) is a step to stem the tide of defections to Firefox and win back the 5% Firefox has taken from it.
The fact that it's a "victimless crime" (it's not, but I'll let it slide for this supposition) does not justify theft.
It's an ethical issue. True, it's not shrink, but it's still stealing. I won't compare it to stealing tangible objects, because it's not the same thing. If a movie isn't valuable enough to go buy or rent it, then just don't see it. And don't say if I like it, I'll go buy it. Yeah right. That's what trailers are for. That's what all those sneak-previews are for.
That's an awful lot of guessing you've got there for trying to convince businesspeople that theft can lead to greater revenue. Maybe they'll go see a sequel, maybe they'll go buy the DVD, and maybe monkeys might fly out of my butt.
Not having the funds is not justification for stealing a movie. C'mon, it's not food! And if you've got $50 lying around for movies every month, then I have no sympathy for you.
He squirmed a lot on the disclaimer of fitness thing, too. He's totally correct that pretty much all software (OSS included) makes this disclaimer, but he didn't really adress the issue that the barrier of responsibility is much lower for something thats provided gratis than for a commercial product.
I think that's something that all software companies, and IT companies in general, need to address, not just Microsoft. Unlike in other professional industries like medicine and law, there is no kind of guarantee that a product won't mess up your livelihood.
I think until the issue is addressed, and some kind of standard put out there, IT will never be seen as a serious profession.
no it's not. Format shifting would be a derivative work for no valid reason.
But, it would really be up to a judge whether something falls under the 4 "rules" to fair use. My contention would be that the hypothetical situation would not, as it wouldn't meet the teaching/research/comment/news reporting aspects of fair use.
Fair use does not mean that because you bought it, you can do whatever you want with it.
Slashdot Mirror
No, if you actually RTFPR (press release), you'd see that Connectiva had $2.2 million in revenue last fiscal year and broke even. And with big customers like the Brazilian army, they're in a good position to turn a profit this year.
Mandrake made a good power move into the South American Linux market with the market leader, dipshit.
Yeah, my dad's real big into iTunes. He was using Windows Media Player, but when he saw how he didn't have to go to 5000 different screens to play some music, he stuck onto it instantly. He likes the buying music factor to, but what's he's having real fun doing is turning his old records into digital music.
that'd be cool with me, cuz I'm a lover, not a fighter, baby.
Yeah, but even if no marketing, there's still politics that play into it. That's automatic in any group dynamic.
It seems a sensible argument to me. As FF's user base grows, so does its attractiveness to all kinds of nefarious bungholes. True, being an open source project, things will get fixed faster (usually), but when you patch a hole, you may end up breaking something for some users.
In fact, the chance of that happening (IMO) has a positive correlation to the number of users.
*sigh* You know, maybe people are just creatures of habit. Just because they are doesn't mean they're stupid. I tried getting my mother to switch to firefox. She honestly tried it for a few days and said, "meh, it's not worth learning something new when the old thing works just fine for me." Ok, that's fair. While they're not radically different in UI terms, as far as setting preferences, managing downloads and such, they're worlds apart. (I think firefox is easier to set preferences in - except for the ones you can only get to with about:config).
But, I'm not going to say she's stupid. So the best thing I can do as a conscientious son is to make sure she knows safe browsing habits and keeps her computer up to date. For a 45 year old woman who'd never used a computer until about two years ago, her ability to spot something that isn't right is remarkable. She's never had a virus or spyware.
Now if I could just get her to stop asking if I'm there when she gets my voicemail, I'd be set.
Put the chips and the petrol in the brazier, set it on fire and cook stuff on top.
Do I take the brazier off the girlfriend first?
I stand corrected.
You can't be convicted of being a monopoly. Monopolies aren't inherently illegal. It's how you use your monopolistic status. AT&T abused its status, Microsoft abused its status, and Standard Oil abused its status. Intel was a monopoly of PC processors for a while. IBM was a monopoly in many industries for a while, too. But the difference was neither abused that position, at least enough to warrant attention. They didn't bully suppliers or customers.
Wal-Mart isn't technically a monopoly yet, so those rules don't apply to them.
Money
Manage your money matters.
* 6 Steps to Retiring Rich
* Get Next Year's Tax Return Now
* How to Get Out of Debt
I hope the EFF site is on that list, because it's not just endagnered, it appears to be a victim of mass extinction caused by a slashdotterite.
I don't care what "scientists" say about global warming. For instance, my doctor is a scientist. Zoologists are scientists, physicists are scientists, but they're not climatologists. And among climatologists, as far as I've read, there really is debate on the issue.
That's why we need Democrats back in the White House. It'll take EPA restrictions to control this, and the previous administration was trying to do something about it. Among the first things Bush did when in office was to strip a lot of those restrictions under the guise of a "Clean Skies" initiative.
No, Clinton didn't sign the treaty. Madeleine Albright, his Sec. of State did. The Senate, which ratifies all treaties (well, until they gave up that responsibility a few years ago), voted not to.
sometimes that's a good thing.
No, I think that oversimplifies it. When NS 6 was out there (and even 6.1,6.2, and 7) and Mozilla still wasn't a very powerful browser (not to mention that you had to also install the mail app, the composer, and so on), IE was the best browser out there. It was my primary browser until Firefox hit 0.6. It wasn't that IE was great, it was that the other browsers just sucked so hard (including Opera) that it was the only viable choice.
Even though I love Firefox, it takes a LOT of customization to make it work for me. installing different extensions, changing different settings, it's still quite a bit of things that have to be done to make Firefox as great as it is.
Whereas IE just works. The functionality isn't as great, but it doesn't make you work for it.
Of course VS isn't written in .Net. .Net isn't a programming language, it's a platform. It's like asking if a music program is written in LAME.
No, I don't think it's a surrender, it's more of a call to arms.
Why did IE become the dominant browser? because Netscape stopped at 4.5 while IE kept updating and improving. Once IE got far enough ahead (about 5.0), it stopped still in the water, only releasing versions because of security bugs. So why is Firefox gaining popularity? Because IE hasn't done anything new since 2000, and doesn't have the kick-ass features Firefox has.
Surrendering would involve using something other than IE as the default Windows browser.
Improving it significatnly (which MS has been working on for about a year now, with not much to show for it besides popup blocking) is a step to stem the tide of defections to Firefox and win back the 5% Firefox has taken from it.
you still rent? your bad.
you have to pay for the "privilege" of paying for your own repairs and improvements? your bad. Home ownership is a ripoff.
The fact that it's a "victimless crime" (it's not, but I'll let it slide for this supposition) does not justify theft.
It's an ethical issue. True, it's not shrink, but it's still stealing. I won't compare it to stealing tangible objects, because it's not the same thing. If a movie isn't valuable enough to go buy or rent it, then just don't see it. And don't say if I like it, I'll go buy it. Yeah right. That's what trailers are for. That's what all those sneak-previews are for.
That's an awful lot of guessing you've got there for trying to convince businesspeople that theft can lead to greater revenue. Maybe they'll go see a sequel, maybe they'll go buy the DVD, and maybe monkeys might fly out of my butt.
Not having the funds is not justification for stealing a movie. C'mon, it's not food! And if you've got $50 lying around for movies every month, then I have no sympathy for you.
Actually, it's "Looks good in IE, which 90% of my customers use, so forget the others!"
or
"Looks good in IE, which is what everyone in the organization uses, so I don't need to make sure it works in anything else"
Neither is a good excuse, but both are valid reasons.
He squirmed a lot on the disclaimer of fitness thing, too. He's totally correct that pretty much all software (OSS included) makes this disclaimer, but he didn't really adress the issue that the barrier of responsibility is much lower for something thats provided gratis than for a commercial product.
I think that's something that all software companies, and IT companies in general, need to address, not just Microsoft. Unlike in other professional industries like medicine and law, there is no kind of guarantee that a product won't mess up your livelihood.
I think until the issue is addressed, and some kind of standard put out there, IT will never be seen as a serious profession.
And I think they would be. We shouldn't rely on Israel for our intelligence on Iran. They've got their own agenda to promote.
no it's not. Format shifting would be a derivative work for no valid reason.
But, it would really be up to a judge whether something falls under the 4 "rules" to fair use. My contention would be that the hypothetical situation would not, as it wouldn't meet the teaching/research/comment/news reporting aspects of fair use.
Fair use does not mean that because you bought it, you can do whatever you want with it.