I'm really tired of that attitude. No issue will ever be so important that everyone cares about it. Especially technical issues. Duh. So is it really necessary, whenever someone expresses an opinion, to say, "I don't care, nobody else cares, and anyone who does is a contrary, self-important egomaniac."? Apathy is fine, but it's nothing to be proud of.
I really wish we had more parties, but I'm not sure a mandatory vote is the way to do it. I'd prefer something like instant runoff voting, which might have a similar effect. The whole system today is flawed. Kodos says it best: "It's a two party system - you have to vote for one of us." "I think I'll vote for an independant candidate" "Fine, waste your vote."
I'm not so naively optimistic to think it'll ever get fixed, though. Oh, well.
It's easier than that, of course, because you're the other side of the dam. If it's a simple pinhole (and not a structural failing), chewing gum would probably be sufficient.
Of course, it could be much more difficult to fix, mostly because it might be difficult to access the actual pressure-bearing skin. Or it might be a seal, in which case you'd need a lot of chewing gum.
I think that's an unfair generalization - Linux users have no trouble paying for things (Even when they don't have to - e.g., shrinkwrapped RedHat.) As Microsoft is fond of saying, the initial cost isn't as important as TCO, or the value. There's technical value in Linux. Speaking for myself, cost never entered into my decision to use Linux - Windows would have been cheap anyway, because it comes with computers, I'm a dependant, and next year it'll be cheap through the university. Besides technical issues, my biggest problem is giving money to a group which takes a "leadership position" towards things I don't want - DRM, software patents, etc.
the RIAA won't let Apple continue distributing in an easily-pirated format.
Hello? Files that can be burnt to CD-RW (and subsequently re-encoded) are very easily pirated. The RIAA doesn't like piracy (hence the lawsuits), but it's capitalizing on piracy as an excuse to push DRM to the masses.
iTunes got the Music industries backing because it was secure...
No. For starters, iTunes was insecure from the very start - CDs are easy to copy, and software -> soundcard audio path isn't secure, and of course there's the analog hole. Pirates can't be bothered to listen for clicks, they don't care about the difference between 128 kbps AAC and 128 kbps AAC -> 160 kbps MP3.
iTunes got the industry's backing because, by having essentially no limits, and by pushing hardware, iTunes is helping the industry push DRM to the unwashed masses. This recent slight increase in the convenience and quality of DRM-free iTunes music won't interfere with that goal at all. In fact, it will further it, because those who are resigned to DRM can now say, "Why are you worried? It will be cracked in a month anyway!"
Also, probably to expand the precedent. It's about time the legal community recoginized that every single copying device, while it can be used to infringe copyrights, has very significant legitimate uses, and absoultely shouldn't be banned.
It will be interesting to see how he got files and keys to experiment with, however. But perhaps some interested party sent him an iTunes-laden computer from America. It's actually pretty likely, when you think about it.
If Exclusive tracks aren't available in stores, then they provide a good way to measure "heavy piracy." I won't check, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find these Exclusive tracks on P2P networks. iTunes, in its present form, doesn't deter any kind of piracy at all. Think it through.
I think the reason the RIAA allowed iTunes to exist was to build infrastructure and public acceptance for DRM. Now there's tons of hardware and software that can support DRM, and even on Slashdot there are people defending it. Suffice it to say that I personally view this as a bad thing.
This 50-60 mm weakness certainly applies to me, but it's interesting that this should be so. Consider that you can look all the way to the side, so it should be possible to diverge your eyes farther than parallel. But few people (nobody?) can.
And the short answer: selling support, dual licensing, bounties for features, or perhaps experience, fame, chrity, or a way to pass the time. And for the common case, companies using but not creating OSS - it saves money.
They can't - just as the GPL requires copyrights, their GPL-ish license requires patents, which they probably don't have. Which, BTW, is why patents are bad while copyrights are good - anyone can own copyrights automatically, but patents are costly to obtain and even more so to defend.
There are many engine manufacturers, but there is only one RIAA. And the RIAA is in a position of complete power - they can deliver ultimatums. Just as they can say "no pointless DRM scheme, no 99 cent downloads," they can remove any other right. Where else can resellers and consumers go for mainstream legal music?
It won't be immediate, because the first goal is to make DRM commonplace. Then, barring some unforseen competition, fair use rights can be destroyed.
It suggests to me that Apple had to make some concessions to the RIAA in order to make their music available for 99 cents a track.
Yes, but please ask yourself: why does the RIAA demand these DRM concessions? As grandparent said, the iTunes DRM does nothing to stop mass copyright infringement or even casual trading with friends.
It also doesn't keep me from enjoying my music in any way. Thus I, personally, don't care about it.
That's rather myopic. The RIAA sees iTunes as a way to build both infrastructure for and public acceptance of DRM. It's working, because many people like you accept the instant gratification of iTunes but never question the necessity of DRM. After DRM becomes the status quo, do you really trust the industry (which is currently attempting to exempt itself from antitrust laws) not to increase prices and remove rights?
If being employed is more important to you than being ethical, then fine - who are we to judge? But what will you do when the inevitable happens and you are looking for a job?
Judging from the response here, I'd say about half of us would be strongly opposed to hiring or working with someone who worked for SCO at this late stage, especially with the justification you give. Do you really want to bet your all-important employment that everyone will have forgotten about SCO, and will be happy to hire you, two weeks after it collapses?
What's stopping you from looking for a new job now, and not quitting SCO until you find one? One could answer ethics, but that doesn't seem to concern you.
P.S. I find it amazing that everyone has accepted on faith that you're really from SCO.
Because it doesn't matter - life + 50 or life + 70, either way, I'll be dead by then, so why should I care? Which is, of course, exactly the point, but oh well.
Of course - excessive quoting is just as bad. In your example, I'd have snipped all but the question.
There's a few features that many mailers implement to ease this problem, though. First, when replying, if the cursor goes to the bottom, the poster is inspired to snip the cruft. Some programs let you select part of the message before hitting reply, and only that is quoted. And some programs let you choose how many previous mails to quote. On the recipient's side, it's easy to make the reader scroll down to the first non-quoted line, to color-code quotes, or to optionally hide them.
So the best thing is to quote only a question you respond to. But my point is, giving email a "Nested" view like Slashdot would be redundant if everybody bottom-posted, which they probably would if not for Microsoft's email client not doing any of the above.
Seriously - this problem was solved long ago in newsgroups (and on Slashdot). Instead of top-posting, quote the relevant material and write below it. Before Outlook Express became the de-facto email/news client, there was no problem. Then OE ruined that custom, and now they want it back. It's a simple change - fix the horrible line-wrapping for replies to text emails, and make the cursor show up on the bottom for replies.
Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. > Why is top-posting a bad thing? >> Top-posting. >>> What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in email?
Yay, finally a chance, however slight, to be heard. But so I don't feel like I've totally wasted my time, here's what I said to the freeform questions:
What could be improved about Windows?
Better politics.
Anyone who tells you the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause is about piracy is lying or stupid - it's about destroying fair use. DRM, implemented with Palladium and legally protected by the DMCA, is the path to a cable-TV, Minority Report, Fahrenheit 451 Internet(tm), the antithesis of what the Internet is and how I hope it will remain.
Copyright is good, but software patents are very bad. Anyone, even I, can own copyrights, but only corporations which can afford lawyers can weild patents. In the software industry, ideas are nothing - it's the implementation that takes effort to create, so it's the implementation that should be protected. I don't like the idea that after I write software, someone who only did the easy part can steal my effort, saying "I thought of it first" and assailing me with lawsuits I can't afford.
I could go on for pages about the evils of SCO's crazed attempts to usurp Linux.
These are my beliefs, and it seems Microsoft disagrees with me on all points. You've bought and paid for the DMCA, you're investing in DRM and Palladium, you lobby for strong software patents, and you invest in SCO.
I don't like my money going to those disgusting causes. Stop trying to change the world and stick to selling software.
Slashdot Mirror
Interestingly, that image comes from here and she's violating their policy.
How would one collect such numbers?
I'm really tired of that attitude. No issue will ever be so important that everyone cares about it. Especially technical issues. Duh. So is it really necessary, whenever someone expresses an opinion, to say, "I don't care, nobody else cares, and anyone who does is a contrary, self-important egomaniac."? Apathy is fine, but it's nothing to be proud of.
I'm not so naively optimistic to think it'll ever get fixed, though. Oh, well.
Of course, it could be much more difficult to fix, mostly because it might be difficult to access the actual pressure-bearing skin. Or it might be a seal, in which case you'd need a lot of chewing gum.
I think that's an unfair generalization - Linux users have no trouble paying for things (Even when they don't have to - e.g., shrinkwrapped RedHat.) As Microsoft is fond of saying, the initial cost isn't as important as TCO, or the value. There's technical value in Linux. Speaking for myself, cost never entered into my decision to use Linux - Windows would have been cheap anyway, because it comes with computers, I'm a dependant, and next year it'll be cheap through the university. Besides technical issues, my biggest problem is giving money to a group which takes a "leadership position" towards things I don't want - DRM, software patents, etc.
the RIAA won't let Apple continue distributing in an easily-pirated format. Hello? Files that can be burnt to CD-RW (and subsequently re-encoded) are very easily pirated. The RIAA doesn't like piracy (hence the lawsuits), but it's capitalizing on piracy as an excuse to push DRM to the masses.
No. For starters, iTunes was insecure from the very start - CDs are easy to copy, and software -> soundcard audio path isn't secure, and of course there's the analog hole. Pirates can't be bothered to listen for clicks, they don't care about the difference between 128 kbps AAC and 128 kbps AAC -> 160 kbps MP3.
iTunes got the industry's backing because, by having essentially no limits, and by pushing hardware, iTunes is helping the industry push DRM to the unwashed masses. This recent slight increase in the convenience and quality of DRM-free iTunes music won't interfere with that goal at all. In fact, it will further it, because those who are resigned to DRM can now say, "Why are you worried? It will be cracked in a month anyway!"
That may not always be the case.
Also, probably to expand the precedent. It's about time the legal community recoginized that every single copying device, while it can be used to infringe copyrights, has very significant legitimate uses, and absoultely shouldn't be banned.
It will be interesting to see how he got files and keys to experiment with, however. But perhaps some interested party sent him an iTunes-laden computer from America. It's actually pretty likely, when you think about it.
I think the reason the RIAA allowed iTunes to exist was to build infrastructure and public acceptance for DRM. Now there's tons of hardware and software that can support DRM, and even on Slashdot there are people defending it. Suffice it to say that I personally view this as a bad thing.
This 50-60 mm weakness certainly applies to me, but it's interesting that this should be so. Consider that you can look all the way to the side, so it should be possible to diverge your eyes farther than parallel. But few people (nobody?) can.
And the short answer: selling support, dual licensing, bounties for features, or perhaps experience, fame, chrity, or a way to pass the time. And for the common case, companies using but not creating OSS - it saves money.
They can't - just as the GPL requires copyrights, their GPL-ish license requires patents, which they probably don't have. Which, BTW, is why patents are bad while copyrights are good - anyone can own copyrights automatically, but patents are costly to obtain and even more so to defend.
It won't be immediate, because the first goal is to make DRM commonplace. Then, barring some unforseen competition, fair use rights can be destroyed.
A very good question, but nobody will see an AC. Is there any candidate in either party who isn't in the {MP,RI}AA's pockets? If so, which ones?
And what name would you, in your infinite wisdom, suggest?
Yes, but please ask yourself: why does the RIAA demand these DRM concessions? As grandparent said, the iTunes DRM does nothing to stop mass copyright infringement or even casual trading with friends.
It also doesn't keep me from enjoying my music in any way. Thus I, personally, don't care about it.
That's rather myopic. The RIAA sees iTunes as a way to build both infrastructure for and public acceptance of DRM. It's working, because many people like you accept the instant gratification of iTunes but never question the necessity of DRM. After DRM becomes the status quo, do you really trust the industry (which is currently attempting to exempt itself from antitrust laws) not to increase prices and remove rights?
[long pause] Bob, I'd like to buy your elephant repellent.
Judging from the response here, I'd say about half of us would be strongly opposed to hiring or working with someone who worked for SCO at this late stage, especially with the justification you give. Do you really want to bet your all-important employment that everyone will have forgotten about SCO, and will be happy to hire you, two weeks after it collapses?
What's stopping you from looking for a new job now, and not quitting SCO until you find one? One could answer ethics, but that doesn't seem to concern you.
P.S. I find it amazing that everyone has accepted on faith that you're really from SCO.
Because it doesn't matter - life + 50 or life + 70, either way, I'll be dead by then, so why should I care? Which is, of course, exactly the point, but oh well.
You mispelled "absolutely no DRM."
There's a few features that many mailers implement to ease this problem, though. First, when replying, if the cursor goes to the bottom, the poster is inspired to snip the cruft. Some programs let you select part of the message before hitting reply, and only that is quoted. And some programs let you choose how many previous mails to quote. On the recipient's side, it's easy to make the reader scroll down to the first non-quoted line, to color-code quotes, or to optionally hide them.
So the best thing is to quote only a question you respond to. But my point is, giving email a "Nested" view like Slashdot would be redundant if everybody bottom-posted, which they probably would if not for Microsoft's email client not doing any of the above.
What could be improved about Windows?
The radio buttons work, but after I click Done>>, did you see anything but a blank page? 'Cause that's all I get.