Yep, totally circular. Inviting flames, but here's another example of circular reasoning that is considered credible.
Is there a god?
I don't know. How else did I get here?
Well, since I'm here, that proves there is a god.
Circular reasoning is very destructive, because you can prove anything with it.:)
In the case of computers, though, it's just not that hard to learn a new application. When you put two office suites next to each other, each is a GUI implementing the same concepts. Fact is, a word processor is a word processor is a word processor. There just aren't that many ways to make a word processor so completely different as to actually require retraining. I used to use LPD Writer, back in the day, and I didn't have any trouble learning how to use Word from that. The concepts are always the same, and the interface implementation must therefore be similar. That's why all windowing interfaces act basically the same. There's room for variation, but not nearly as much as people seem to think.
Fact is, people are afraid of change. Even in this ever-changing society, people are afraid of change. Show a man how it's better for him to live outside a cage, and if he's lived in a cage all his life he'll be skeptical. In fact, he'll be afraid.
Re:Computer lab or vocational education?
on
Maine School & Linux
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Therefore, a lot of our users are still using Office 97. We are in the midst of planning an upgrade to Office XP, but that will take at least a year and half to achieve.
*Plus* most users don't know a lick about Linux, and quite frankly, don't have the inclination to go through the 'hassle' of learning how it works and how to install the various packages required for a given application.
Reconcile these two statements, if you don't mind.:) In a business, do the individual users who don't know jack about computers handle such mission-critical tasks as upgrading software on their machines?
Furthermore, to upgrade the software on a GNU/Linux network, you only need to upgrade the software on the server. Mount/usr on all the clients and it's magically done. Does that take a year and a half to perform? Not when you do it during your initial setup, it doesn't. Then upgrades are just a matter of installing the new software on the server. There's some fine points, still, such as upgrading the kernel. But since you can spend a small amount of money putting small hard drives in a machine (or no hard drive at all!) and having it boot from the network, you can easily make it possible to upgrade kernels as simply as changing a floppy.
Bring on the flame, but Linux still isn't ready for prime-user use. It just isn't and it's gonna take a very long time before it gets to the point that companies are going to be ready to adopt it.
My 4-year-old doesn't have any trouble at all using KDE, and you mean to tell me that a grown adult can't use it? My little girl can barely read, but she has an easier time understanding single-clicking over double-clicking to open an application. (read: game)
The #1 reason GNU/Linux isn't ready for prime-time use is because people don't believe it is. It has nothing to do with technical capabilities or anything else of the sort. It's all about believing in it, or not, as the case may be. In a business setting, it's not only irresponsible, but blatantly stupid to depend on everyone in the company to be able to install software. Let the administrators do it, and you'll find GNU/Linux is not only ready for prime-time use, but indeed it is the best solution available.
Everyone is better off if everyone uses Linux over Windows, but if a single school gives students experience with Linux and the rest Windows, it's doing a worse job of helping its students.
You seem to be totally missing the point. There's not a chance in hell that the whole world will just pick a day and switch to LInux. You have to do it damn near one person at a time. First this school does it (they're not first, I know), then another school sees it and does it. Especially if this school starts spewing out higher test scores because their students are using an OS that respects them. It's called a "snowball" or a "domino" effect, and it's the only way change can be enacted.
And simply using Linux does not turn students into experienced computer scientists or IT personnel, doesn't make them suddenly far more capable of learning to use different software packages.
Actually, it does.:) Just like once upon a time DOS hackers instantly became transformed into "experts". Nowadays everyone can use windows, and one reason for that is because of a dictated "this is how an app should work" standard. While I think such things are good things, and many GNU/Linux apps follow some sort of standard interface, there's still a lot of variety. Free Software is about choice as much as it is anything else. Freedom of choice is the first, and foremost freedom, without which all other freedoms fall by the wayside. Most KDE apps work in similar fashions, so when yo uknow how to use one KDE app you quickly learn how to use the rest. Most GNOME apps also work in similar fashions. However, most KDE apps and most GNOME apps do not work similar. And it's damn near impossible to get one desktop or the other to do everything for you. Inevitably, you *will* run a GNOME app under KDE or vice versa. ANd this is where it happens that people who use GNU/Linux automatically learn how to adapt to changing interfaces.
This last point is mostly irrelevant, however, because you forgot the most important thing this school is doing. It's teaching kids about their freedom by showing them a free OS. Whether or not the kids learn it is up to them, but the school is making the information available. You don't even have *that* in a windows-dominated school. Furthermore, it's freeing the kids as individuals to chose their own OS, their own platform in general, and showing them *how* to stand up for themselves. (I realize it's different than standing up to the playground bully)
I disagree that a school's purpose is to prepare kids for the workplace, because that smacks of slavery to me. We should all be preparing our kids to live as responsible, free adults. Education is the single most valuable tool we can give them, and that is what school is for. It's not about just teaching them how to be good worker drones. We also have to teach our kids how to cook, clean their homes, mend their pants (it's not always possible to buy new pants), make and maintain relationships, and so forth. We have to hand this world down to our kids when they reach adulthood, and we fuckin' better prepare them.
Speaking as a parent of two, with a third on the way.:)
It's also entirely possible that there will be a community lead effort similar to debian. They already have an insane amount of RPM contributions and such.
IMHO, iif (and I say if) Mandrake dies, then the best thing to do is take their fancy control panel and graphical installer and shove them up debian's ass. Since that's really the only thing that differentiates Mandrake from Debian, then take the good stuff and give it to Debian. Then all the packagers can go learn how to make debian packages and so forth. Rather than having another volunteer distribution. I'm all for choice, but what about the idiocy of duplicating work?
No shit, dude. If that idiot played poker, I'd clean the floor with him. community buys out mandrake and forces them to open the source....
Whoever heard of such an absurd idea as buying out a free software company and forcing them to publish source? Does he want it in a computer-readable format, too? Really? Or does he intend to type it in by hand off some old 8-pin dot matrix printout?
From my own use it was just a code to identify the type of equipment and manufacter nothing really encrypted. Also for most newest universal remotes you can point the old remote at the new one and press buttons, the universal remove will record the signal given for play back.
That's been my experience too. If your remote doesn't directly support a manufacturer, you could just point then at each other and it would figure out the remote. I have an old Radio Shack remote that works that way that I'm saving for when I get an IRC for my computer and build the ultimate media station.:)
However it is a worry if manufacturer started to encrypt the signals. I am not much worried for hi-fi equipment because if someone did that people would know about it and reviews would kill the device.
I'm gonna have to respectfully disagree with you on this point. I've been running into a lot of sentiment around here where people actually think that corporations have a right to screw them over to protect their IP (actually, nobody will admit that the corporation can screw *them* over, just the "pirates". Of course, the people that the corporations go after deserve what they get, 'cause they were infringing, right?). Of course, I live about 10 miles south of Redmond (in Bellevue), so I may not have a proper statistical sampling of the country.
Acciording to the founding fathers, you also have the right to own slaves. They just didn't make it explicitly clear in the constitution, although it is alluded to in the census provision. My point is that those founding fathers shouldn't be considered the epitome of wisdom applicable to all times and circumstances.
I agree with your point, however, it is clear in several of the writings of the founding fathers (this is hearsay, I haven't read the writings, someone back me up!:) ) that the reason we have the right to bear arms (doesn't say "guns", says "bear arms") is for:
1. National defense
2. National defense
Furthermore, defending this nation against invaders of any kind, be they outside invaders, or our own government, is a responsibility we each have. It is the biggest responsibility we have in exchange for our freedom, that is, we must fight for it whenever such action is needed. Defending against tyranny of all kinds is the reason we have the right to bear arms, and it doesn't matter if that tyranny is Soviet Russia or the Imperial Senate in Washington DC.
Notice to lawyers: start policing your own profession or you'll NEVER shed your image problem. At least doctors take the Hippocratic Oath. When they act in a dishonorable or unscruplous manner, they catch hell for it--from their own. You guys need to start doing something like this.
2 things. First, last time I checked doctors are no longer required to take the Hippocratic oath.
Second, Doctors are like inmates. They never rat on each other. If they did, there'd be all kinds of problems for them. It's kinda like assembly line work. You get someone to sit down for a long time doing several things (yeah, some assembly lines rotate people so they don't get bored). After having 100+ parts go by them each day, a person may make an average of 1 mistake a week (1/500 = 0.002%). This is considered acceptable. However, if a doctor, through his normal human faults, makes mistakes 0.002% of the time, that translates to 1 multi-million dollar lawsuit a week. They are expected to perform above superhuman standards and get raped, burned, and thrown in the dump if they don't. They stick up for each other, believe me.
If would be if the the signal from remote to the tv was encrypted. As it is currently tv companies don't encrypt thier signals.
And when this case is wrong by the company bringing the case, I don't think many tv manufacters will bother to do so since the market for additional remotes is not big enough to hassel the customer about.
Admitted, I haven't owned a tv in quite a long time, but...
I seem to recall that interoperability of components (tv, vcr, cd player, receiver, tuner) was a big deal at one point. If your vcr was made by phillips, but your cd player by sony, you needed two remotes. So companies tried to get you to buy only their stuff and they made them all interoperate, but only with their stuff (no cry of monopoly, none needed, there was plenty of competition, although this is exactly what Microsoft does). So, if you had a good-sized hi-fi setup you literally could find yourself with 4+ remote controls to control them all.
Has this problem just gone away? Or is it still there? I suspect it's still there, in which case the market for additional remotes is growing, even if it's not big enough to hurt anybody.
If you go back and read the whole thread, you'll find that we were discussing the GPL and no other licenses, and comparing it to proprietary software, and the business methods associated with the two. I chose my phrases in order to avoid a lot of verbiage, but in the context of the thread, it's quite clear what I"m talking about.
Your second point is wrong. GPL allows you to charge as much as you want for binaries, but with source code you may charge no more than the costs of physically distributing it.
Um, it wasn't there. All it said was that there is a limit on the fee associated with source code. I wish I could give a link. I'll google harder for it, but later. I read something that said specifically that the fee was limited to the price of the original software.
Now that is interesting. That leads to my original point which I poorly communicated - when you sell Free Software (as in GNU) users have the right to legally get that software for free-as-in-beer. (By means of purchasing it originally, then posting it on a website for free.) Isn't this a serious flaw in the business model?
It's a serious flaw in the business model if you depend on software sales because you're stuck in the "software-as-product" mindset. "Software-as-service" has proven to be a very valuable business model. In fact, considering that 80% of programmers are employed to program in non-production capacities (ie they write software to be used internally by companies), perhaps we should look at this as a sure sign that there is money in service. Red Hat makes a ton of money because of the services they sell, both to would-be administrators (that will after they're certified) and to companies directly.
Look at Microsoft. They're sitting here with 90% of the desktops in the world running Windows. Many of them are *not* upgrading because they're happy with what they have. Same with Office. So in order to try to spur sales in these areas (the ones that actually make money for the company) they've had to revise their licensing scheme to try to extort more money from people. In the process, they are learning that they need to have more value-add services to their own software products! IBM learned the same lesson during the '90's and have managed to turn themselves around as well. They sell hardware, but it's their services that make the money now.
Software-as-product is a failing business model for the same reason that NASA is a successful bureaucracy. When Microsoft delivered a product that satisfied people (win98) and then took 3 years to release an upgrade (winXP), everyone got used to windows 98. At this time, the only people I've seen that actually upgraded existing machines were techies. Value-add services are the way to go.
We just acknowledge that ahead of time so we don't get into too much trouble later.
Now, Mandrake is having a different problem. Like Commodore, they got screwed over by top guys. Unlike Commodore, they have a chance to turn it around before they die.
Other options? Like extinction? If a drowning man is clutching at your pant leg as he descends to his watery grave - and you can barely swim as is - what other option is there than to kick him off? There is another option. To drown.
I don't know for sure about Mandrake, but the way the scenario usually works is:
You're a drowning man and a bunch of creditors are standing on the dock stripping you of your valuables and preventing you from coming up. When they finish stripping everything of value, they push you down until you die. If that doesn't work, they strap valueless but heavy things to pull you down.
It's important to note, I think, that I haven't yet seen any exceptions to this rule. I haven't seen anyone starting on Mandrake use Linux for more than a month, and I haven't seen anyone starting on SuSE not switch to Linux primarily within 2 years.
I started with Mandrake almost a year ago, and now it's my primary OS. My wife loves it too, and she's not a techy like me.:) (my kids love it, but at 4 and 2 it's kinda hard to place a lot of confidence in their recommendation at this time, but give a few years)
But you are right.. people will not buy when they can get for free... look at all the knee jerk bullshit on this very board of people on one hand going "I wont support a company that cannot make money on its own" and "its allright to steal from the music industry, because they make money on their own and have the temerity to get pissed when I am stealing from them"
I disagree.:)
People will pay for something they can get for free for a lot of reasons. Take the prostitution post made farther down. Why pay for it? Because otherwise you have to deal with seduction, and whether you're successful or not, it's going to take a lot of time. There are plenty of other places, but I need not go into detail. Reason is: for many things you are also absolutely correct. Best thing, IMO, is for businesses to acknowledge that people will pay for free stuff, and people will steal stuff that's not free. Adapt to these facts, I say. And free software requires such an adaptation for any such business to succeed.
Great, I made point, proved it, then contradicted it.
Wonder if those same people would be pissed if I borrowed their car for several hours a night, but filled the gas back up when I parked it?
If you manage to start my truck and back it out of the driveway, I'll be surprised. Even if you don't, I'll fucking kill you.:)
But I guess you can't do that in the real-world, because someone would buy your software and re-release it free-as-in-beer, which they would be legally entitled to do.
That happens already, except when it's not GPLd software it's called "piracy". When it's GPLd software it's called "exercising your rights of ownership". I wish we had one word that summed up the proper meaning that we could throw back at all the people calling us pirates for committing piracy.
Correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't the GPL mean require them to release the source code freely? (As in publicly downloadable?) So a user could compile Mandrake free of charge? I'm not sure about this, but it seems to me that Free-as-in-GNU is a superset of free-as-in-beer. When you have to release your source under the GPL, how do you have to do that? If you CAN release it on a CD, how much can you charge for that? $5? $50? $500? Where does it cross the line?
Now, it wouldn't be free as in freedom if you weren't allowed to charge a fee, now would it?
I couldn't find a link to give you, but I have read documentation written by Richard Stallman about this exact subject. Basically, what it comes down to is that you can:
Charge for free software (it's free as in speech, not free as in beer)
Charge for the source (see above), but no more than you charged for the binary. That means that if you charge $50 for the binary, you may charge up to $50 more for the source, for a grand total of $100. Charging more for the source would not be considered giving free access to the source (free as in speech, again).
Prevent people from acquiring a copy of the software through your own distribution channels until they pay your requested fee. This includes things like holding the box until they pay at the register, or using authenticated servers to prevent them from downloading until your credit card clears.
However, you can *not*:
Prevent someone who has bought the software from copying it for their friends, provided they make the copy available under the same license (GPL) under which you gave it to them.
Prevent someone who has acquired the software by copying it from their friends from passing it along as well, including posting it on a website for free (as in beer) download, or even charging a fee themselves!
Prevent someone who has acquired the software from viewing and/or modifying the source code.
Prevent someone who has modified the source code from distributing it with their modifications. You may require them to notate that they modified it somehow so as to distinguish it from your "genuine" product.
This isn't a complete list of cans and can'ts. The important thing to remember is that the purpose of the GPL is protect freedom. It's not about making software available non-gratis, it's about making software available without sacrificing the end-user's rights to protect corporate interests. When a company decides to make/distribute free software, they have to make a serious commitment to protecting their end-users' freedom, or they will fail somehow.
As far as mandrake is concerned, they have worked damn hard to stick to the GPL, and have had a LOT of problems besides that. I love their distribution, and I'd hate to see it go (although I'm willing to try out something besides just switching to RedHat), and I really want them to pull through. However, I agree with some of these other posters, that if they failed they've failed. We should move on.
But filing for bankruptcy protection doesn't mean disappearing completely. They may still have a chance and make a comeback, so I'll be watching for that.:)
Actually, Gandalf is almost directly modelled on Odin, an old bearded man with a crumpled grey cloak and hat [heathen.info]. Odin's spear became Gandalf's staff, and there are many other similarities. Equally, many other themes in Tolkein's works are lifted from Norse and Anglo Saxon mythology.
Thank you! Even if I'm wrong, your statement still backs up my premise, which is that Tolkien's work is still a derivative work. The poster I was responding to was obviously trying to invoke some well-loved work of fiction on/. to try to get someone to say something like "Well, Tolkien's different, he should be protected" so he could call hypocrite.:) I had to oppose him just for that.:)
Intellectual property is a comodity that can be bought and sold just as easily as computer monitors and tea bags.
So how would we dump intellectual property into the Boston Bay?
I *hate* the idea of burning books and so forth, because of the destruction that it causes when you are in fact burning the last of them. Furthermore, it usually indicates a protest of the ideas present in the books (such as burning a copy of the Bible would show that I hate christianity, which, while true, I would never burn the Bible).
However, perhaps we can still stage a protest along the lines of teh Boston Tea Party? First we *steal* a bunch of copyrightted works. Then we *destroy* them somehow in a public protest. Then we hide, because George'll be after us as terrorists. This would be even better if we had the original creator of the works on our side (think: all the bands who've gone out of print and don't own the music they created).
J.R.R. Tolkien's family doesn't have the right to own copyright on the Lord of the Ring's. Why? Why should his work become public domain? What gives you the right to it?
Because it's a derivative work. I'm not just trolling. Consider all the fairy tales and kid stories that went into the Lord of the Rings, eh? Many elements derive from previous stories.
Take Gandalf, for example. He's a shootin' image of Moses, if you ask me. Leading his people around with a big staff in front of him, performing miracles.
Frodo being chosen to carry the ring? Come on! The only things Tolkien did to the whole mess was to string the elements together (basic engineering) and add characterization (albeit 2-dimensional).
Face it, this work of Fantasy which is considered the Sun Source of All Fantasy is a derivative work that derives from many of the fairy tales we learn while we're growing up. Why should Tolkien be attributed ownership of such a collection of Fairy Tales?
This is like the GNU/Linux argument. Why should Linus be given sole credit to a work when all he added was the kernel?
Furthermore, if Tolkien was given a monopoly over the stories he wrote, and he was able to prevent further derivative works, he wouldn't be the father of fantasy, because Fantasy as a genre would have been squelched!
Same goes for science fiction. If Jules Vernes hadn't been able to string together elements from stories he may or may not have read (from Edgar Allen Poe, possibly, or others), would science fiction have become the genre it is today?
My contribution to the 'amazingly simple game' genre are game buttons [kisrael.com], reasonably rich games each played entirely within a single CGI form grey pushbutton, as both controller and display. I still come back to these every once in a while, especially Dashteroids and Happy Eater.
Not something I really want to spend a lot of time playing (I remember trashing joysticks with the original Summer Games), but really cool stuff, dude.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, totally circular. Inviting flames, but here's another example of circular reasoning that is considered credible.
Is there a god?
I don't know. How else did I get here?
Well, since I'm here, that proves there is a god.
Circular reasoning is very destructive, because you can prove anything with it. :)
In the case of computers, though, it's just not that hard to learn a new application. When you put two office suites next to each other, each is a GUI implementing the same concepts. Fact is, a word processor is a word processor is a word processor. There just aren't that many ways to make a word processor so completely different as to actually require retraining. I used to use LPD Writer, back in the day, and I didn't have any trouble learning how to use Word from that. The concepts are always the same, and the interface implementation must therefore be similar. That's why all windowing interfaces act basically the same. There's room for variation, but not nearly as much as people seem to think.
Fact is, people are afraid of change. Even in this ever-changing society, people are afraid of change. Show a man how it's better for him to live outside a cage, and if he's lived in a cage all his life he'll be skeptical. In fact, he'll be afraid.
Therefore, a lot of our users are still using Office 97. We are in the midst of planning an upgrade to Office XP, but that will take at least a year and half to achieve.
*Plus* most users don't know a lick about Linux, and quite frankly, don't have the inclination to go through the 'hassle' of learning how it works and how to install the various packages required for a given application.
Reconcile these two statements, if you don't mind. :) In a business, do the individual users who don't know jack about computers handle such mission-critical tasks as upgrading software on their machines?
Furthermore, to upgrade the software on a GNU/Linux network, you only need to upgrade the software on the server. Mount /usr on all the clients and it's magically done. Does that take a year and a half to perform? Not when you do it during your initial setup, it doesn't. Then upgrades are just a matter of installing the new software on the server. There's some fine points, still, such as upgrading the kernel. But since you can spend a small amount of money putting small hard drives in a machine (or no hard drive at all!) and having it boot from the network, you can easily make it possible to upgrade kernels as simply as changing a floppy.
Bring on the flame, but Linux still isn't ready for prime-user use. It just isn't and it's gonna take a very long time before it gets to the point that companies are going to be ready to adopt it.
My 4-year-old doesn't have any trouble at all using KDE, and you mean to tell me that a grown adult can't use it? My little girl can barely read, but she has an easier time understanding single-clicking over double-clicking to open an application. (read: game)
The #1 reason GNU/Linux isn't ready for prime-time use is because people don't believe it is. It has nothing to do with technical capabilities or anything else of the sort. It's all about believing in it, or not, as the case may be. In a business setting, it's not only irresponsible, but blatantly stupid to depend on everyone in the company to be able to install software. Let the administrators do it, and you'll find GNU/Linux is not only ready for prime-time use, but indeed it is the best solution available.
Everyone is better off if everyone uses Linux over Windows, but if a single school gives students experience with Linux and the rest Windows, it's doing a worse job of helping its students.
You seem to be totally missing the point. There's not a chance in hell that the whole world will just pick a day and switch to LInux. You have to do it damn near one person at a time. First this school does it (they're not first, I know), then another school sees it and does it. Especially if this school starts spewing out higher test scores because their students are using an OS that respects them. It's called a "snowball" or a "domino" effect, and it's the only way change can be enacted.
And simply using Linux does not turn students into experienced computer scientists or IT personnel, doesn't make them suddenly far more capable of learning to use different software packages.
Actually, it does. :) Just like once upon a time DOS hackers instantly became transformed into "experts". Nowadays everyone can use windows, and one reason for that is because of a dictated "this is how an app should work" standard. While I think such things are good things, and many GNU/Linux apps follow some sort of standard interface, there's still a lot of variety. Free Software is about choice as much as it is anything else. Freedom of choice is the first, and foremost freedom, without which all other freedoms fall by the wayside. Most KDE apps work in similar fashions, so when yo uknow how to use one KDE app you quickly learn how to use the rest. Most GNOME apps also work in similar fashions. However, most KDE apps and most GNOME apps do not work similar. And it's damn near impossible to get one desktop or the other to do everything for you. Inevitably, you *will* run a GNOME app under KDE or vice versa. ANd this is where it happens that people who use GNU/Linux automatically learn how to adapt to changing interfaces.
This last point is mostly irrelevant, however, because you forgot the most important thing this school is doing. It's teaching kids about their freedom by showing them a free OS. Whether or not the kids learn it is up to them, but the school is making the information available. You don't even have *that* in a windows-dominated school. Furthermore, it's freeing the kids as individuals to chose their own OS, their own platform in general, and showing them *how* to stand up for themselves. (I realize it's different than standing up to the playground bully)
I disagree that a school's purpose is to prepare kids for the workplace, because that smacks of slavery to me. We should all be preparing our kids to live as responsible, free adults. Education is the single most valuable tool we can give them, and that is what school is for. It's not about just teaching them how to be good worker drones. We also have to teach our kids how to cook, clean their homes, mend their pants (it's not always possible to buy new pants), make and maintain relationships, and so forth. We have to hand this world down to our kids when they reach adulthood, and we fuckin' better prepare them.
Speaking as a parent of two, with a third on the way. :)
It's also entirely possible that there will be a community lead effort similar to debian. They already have an insane amount of RPM contributions and such.
IMHO, iif (and I say if) Mandrake dies, then the best thing to do is take their fancy control panel and graphical installer and shove them up debian's ass. Since that's really the only thing that differentiates Mandrake from Debian, then take the good stuff and give it to Debian. Then all the packagers can go learn how to make debian packages and so forth. Rather than having another volunteer distribution. I'm all for choice, but what about the idiocy of duplicating work?
Dammit man you should play POKER for a living :)
No shit, dude. If that idiot played poker, I'd clean the floor with him. community buys out mandrake and forces them to open the source....
Whoever heard of such an absurd idea as buying out a free software company and forcing them to publish source? Does he want it in a computer-readable format, too? Really? Or does he intend to type it in by hand off some old 8-pin dot matrix printout?
From my own use it was just a code to identify the type of equipment and manufacter nothing really encrypted. Also for most newest universal remotes you can point the old remote at the new one and press buttons, the universal remove will record the signal given for play back.
That's been my experience too. If your remote doesn't directly support a manufacturer, you could just point then at each other and it would figure out the remote. I have an old Radio Shack remote that works that way that I'm saving for when I get an IRC for my computer and build the ultimate media station. :)
However it is a worry if manufacturer started to encrypt the signals. I am not much worried for hi-fi equipment because if someone did that people would know about it and reviews would kill the device.
I'm gonna have to respectfully disagree with you on this point. I've been running into a lot of sentiment around here where people actually think that corporations have a right to screw them over to protect their IP (actually, nobody will admit that the corporation can screw *them* over, just the "pirates". Of course, the people that the corporations go after deserve what they get, 'cause they were infringing, right?). Of course, I live about 10 miles south of Redmond (in Bellevue), so I may not have a proper statistical sampling of the country.
Acciording to the founding fathers, you also have the right to own slaves. They just didn't make it explicitly clear in the constitution, although it is alluded to in the census provision. My point is that those founding fathers shouldn't be considered the epitome of wisdom applicable to all times and circumstances.
I agree with your point, however, it is clear in several of the writings of the founding fathers (this is hearsay, I haven't read the writings, someone back me up! :) ) that the reason we have the right to bear arms (doesn't say "guns", says "bear arms") is for:
1. National defense
2. National defense
Furthermore, defending this nation against invaders of any kind, be they outside invaders, or our own government, is a responsibility we each have. It is the biggest responsibility we have in exchange for our freedom, that is, we must fight for it whenever such action is needed. Defending against tyranny of all kinds is the reason we have the right to bear arms, and it doesn't matter if that tyranny is Soviet Russia or the Imperial Senate in Washington DC.
Notice to lawyers: start policing your own profession or you'll NEVER shed your image problem. At least doctors take the Hippocratic Oath. When they act in a dishonorable or unscruplous manner, they catch hell for it--from their own. You guys need to start doing something like this.
2 things. First, last time I checked doctors are no longer required to take the Hippocratic oath.
Second, Doctors are like inmates. They never rat on each other. If they did, there'd be all kinds of problems for them. It's kinda like assembly line work. You get someone to sit down for a long time doing several things (yeah, some assembly lines rotate people so they don't get bored). After having 100+ parts go by them each day, a person may make an average of 1 mistake a week (1/500 = 0.002%). This is considered acceptable. However, if a doctor, through his normal human faults, makes mistakes 0.002% of the time, that translates to 1 multi-million dollar lawsuit a week. They are expected to perform above superhuman standards and get raped, burned, and thrown in the dump if they don't. They stick up for each other, believe me.
If would be if the the signal from remote to the tv was encrypted. As it is currently tv companies don't encrypt thier signals. And when this case is wrong by the company bringing the case, I don't think many tv manufacters will bother to do so since the market for additional remotes is not big enough to hassel the customer about.
Admitted, I haven't owned a tv in quite a long time, but...
I seem to recall that interoperability of components (tv, vcr, cd player, receiver, tuner) was a big deal at one point. If your vcr was made by phillips, but your cd player by sony, you needed two remotes. So companies tried to get you to buy only their stuff and they made them all interoperate, but only with their stuff (no cry of monopoly, none needed, there was plenty of competition, although this is exactly what Microsoft does). So, if you had a good-sized hi-fi setup you literally could find yourself with 4+ remote controls to control them all.
Has this problem just gone away? Or is it still there? I suspect it's still there, in which case the market for additional remotes is growing, even if it's not big enough to hurt anybody.
Ok Troll, I'm biting. I hope you're happy.
If you go back and read the whole thread, you'll find that we were discussing the GPL and no other licenses, and comparing it to proprietary software, and the business methods associated with the two. I chose my phrases in order to avoid a lot of verbiage, but in the context of the thread, it's quite clear what I"m talking about.
Bitch. :)
Your second point is wrong. GPL allows you to charge as much as you want for binaries, but with source code you may charge no more than the costs of physically distributing it.
Um, it wasn't there. All it said was that there is a limit on the fee associated with source code. I wish I could give a link. I'll google harder for it, but later. I read something that said specifically that the fee was limited to the price of the original software.
Now that is interesting. That leads to my original point which I poorly communicated - when you sell Free Software (as in GNU) users have the right to legally get that software for free-as-in-beer. (By means of purchasing it originally, then posting it on a website for free.) Isn't this a serious flaw in the business model?
It's a serious flaw in the business model if you depend on software sales because you're stuck in the "software-as-product" mindset. "Software-as-service" has proven to be a very valuable business model. In fact, considering that 80% of programmers are employed to program in non-production capacities (ie they write software to be used internally by companies), perhaps we should look at this as a sure sign that there is money in service. Red Hat makes a ton of money because of the services they sell, both to would-be administrators (that will after they're certified) and to companies directly.
Look at Microsoft. They're sitting here with 90% of the desktops in the world running Windows. Many of them are *not* upgrading because they're happy with what they have. Same with Office. So in order to try to spur sales in these areas (the ones that actually make money for the company) they've had to revise their licensing scheme to try to extort more money from people. In the process, they are learning that they need to have more value-add services to their own software products! IBM learned the same lesson during the '90's and have managed to turn themselves around as well. They sell hardware, but it's their services that make the money now.
Software-as-product is a failing business model for the same reason that NASA is a successful bureaucracy. When Microsoft delivered a product that satisfied people (win98) and then took 3 years to release an upgrade (winXP), everyone got used to windows 98. At this time, the only people I've seen that actually upgraded existing machines were techies. Value-add services are the way to go.
We just acknowledge that ahead of time so we don't get into too much trouble later.
Now, Mandrake is having a different problem. Like Commodore, they got screwed over by top guys. Unlike Commodore, they have a chance to turn it around before they die.
Other options? Like extinction? If a drowning man is clutching at your pant leg as he descends to his watery grave - and you can barely swim as is - what other option is there than to kick him off? There is another option. To drown.
I don't know for sure about Mandrake, but the way the scenario usually works is:
You're a drowning man and a bunch of creditors are standing on the dock stripping you of your valuables and preventing you from coming up. When they finish stripping everything of value, they push you down until you die. If that doesn't work, they strap valueless but heavy things to pull you down.
It's important to note, I think, that I haven't yet seen any exceptions to this rule. I haven't seen anyone starting on Mandrake use Linux for more than a month, and I haven't seen anyone starting on SuSE not switch to Linux primarily within 2 years.
I started with Mandrake almost a year ago, and now it's my primary OS. My wife loves it too, and she's not a techy like me. :) (my kids love it, but at 4 and 2 it's kinda hard to place a lot of confidence in their recommendation at this time, but give a few years)
But you are right.. people will not buy when they can get for free... look at all the knee jerk bullshit on this very board of people on one hand going "I wont support a company that cannot make money on its own" and "its allright to steal from the music industry, because they make money on their own and have the temerity to get pissed when I am stealing from them"
I disagree. :)
People will pay for something they can get for free for a lot of reasons. Take the prostitution post made farther down. Why pay for it? Because otherwise you have to deal with seduction, and whether you're successful or not, it's going to take a lot of time. There are plenty of other places, but I need not go into detail. Reason is: for many things you are also absolutely correct. Best thing, IMO, is for businesses to acknowledge that people will pay for free stuff, and people will steal stuff that's not free. Adapt to these facts, I say. And free software requires such an adaptation for any such business to succeed.
Great, I made point, proved it, then contradicted it.
Wonder if those same people would be pissed if I borrowed their car for several hours a night, but filled the gas back up when I parked it?
If you manage to start my truck and back it out of the driveway, I'll be surprised. Even if you don't, I'll fucking kill you. :)
But I guess you can't do that in the real-world, because someone would buy your software and re-release it free-as-in-beer, which they would be legally entitled to do.
That happens already, except when it's not GPLd software it's called "piracy". When it's GPLd software it's called "exercising your rights of ownership". I wish we had one word that summed up the proper meaning that we could throw back at all the people calling us pirates for committing piracy.
Oh yeah, we do.
"Freedom"
If we're not prepared to build a charity to keep Commodore alive, we certainly shouldn't be pulling out all the stops to save Mandrakesoft.
Maybe in the last 10 years of Microsoft dominance that might have otherwise been prevented we've had a chance to review our attitudes. Eh?
Correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't the GPL mean require them to release the source code freely? (As in publicly downloadable?) So a user could compile Mandrake free of charge? I'm not sure about this, but it seems to me that Free-as-in-GNU is a superset of free-as-in-beer. When you have to release your source under the GPL, how do you have to do that? If you CAN release it on a CD, how much can you charge for that? $5? $50? $500? Where does it cross the line?
Now, it wouldn't be free as in freedom if you weren't allowed to charge a fee, now would it?
I couldn't find a link to give you, but I have read documentation written by Richard Stallman about this exact subject. Basically, what it comes down to is that you can:
However, you can *not*:
This isn't a complete list of cans and can'ts. The important thing to remember is that the purpose of the GPL is protect freedom. It's not about making software available non-gratis, it's about making software available without sacrificing the end-user's rights to protect corporate interests. When a company decides to make/distribute free software, they have to make a serious commitment to protecting their end-users' freedom, or they will fail somehow.
As far as mandrake is concerned, they have worked damn hard to stick to the GPL, and have had a LOT of problems besides that. I love their distribution, and I'd hate to see it go (although I'm willing to try out something besides just switching to RedHat), and I really want them to pull through. However, I agree with some of these other posters, that if they failed they've failed. We should move on.
But filing for bankruptcy protection doesn't mean disappearing completely. They may still have a chance and make a comeback, so I'll be watching for that. :)
Actually, Gandalf is almost directly modelled on Odin, an old bearded man with a crumpled grey cloak and hat [heathen.info]. Odin's spear became Gandalf's staff, and there are many other similarities. Equally, many other themes in Tolkein's works are lifted from Norse and Anglo Saxon mythology.
Thank you! Even if I'm wrong, your statement still backs up my premise, which is that Tolkien's work is still a derivative work. The poster I was responding to was obviously trying to invoke some well-loved work of fiction on /. to try to get someone to say something like "Well, Tolkien's different, he should be protected" so he could call hypocrite. :) I had to oppose him just for that. :)
Intellectual property is a comodity that can be bought and sold just as easily as computer monitors and tea bags.
So how would we dump intellectual property into the Boston Bay?
I *hate* the idea of burning books and so forth, because of the destruction that it causes when you are in fact burning the last of them. Furthermore, it usually indicates a protest of the ideas present in the books (such as burning a copy of the Bible would show that I hate christianity, which, while true, I would never burn the Bible).
However, perhaps we can still stage a protest along the lines of teh Boston Tea Party? First we *steal* a bunch of copyrightted works. Then we *destroy* them somehow in a public protest. Then we hide, because George'll be after us as terrorists. This would be even better if we had the original creator of the works on our side (think: all the bands who've gone out of print and don't own the music they created).
J.R.R. Tolkien's family doesn't have the right to own copyright on the Lord of the Ring's. Why? Why should his work become public domain? What gives you the right to it?
Because it's a derivative work. I'm not just trolling. Consider all the fairy tales and kid stories that went into the Lord of the Rings, eh? Many elements derive from previous stories.
Take Gandalf, for example. He's a shootin' image of Moses, if you ask me. Leading his people around with a big staff in front of him, performing miracles.
Frodo being chosen to carry the ring? Come on! The only things Tolkien did to the whole mess was to string the elements together (basic engineering) and add characterization (albeit 2-dimensional).
Face it, this work of Fantasy which is considered the Sun Source of All Fantasy is a derivative work that derives from many of the fairy tales we learn while we're growing up. Why should Tolkien be attributed ownership of such a collection of Fairy Tales?
This is like the GNU/Linux argument. Why should Linus be given sole credit to a work when all he added was the kernel?
Furthermore, if Tolkien was given a monopoly over the stories he wrote, and he was able to prevent further derivative works, he wouldn't be the father of fantasy, because Fantasy as a genre would have been squelched!
Same goes for science fiction. If Jules Vernes hadn't been able to string together elements from stories he may or may not have read (from Edgar Allen Poe, possibly, or others), would science fiction have become the genre it is today?
(flash game) [happyworm.com]
Warning for people using a real browser with popups disabled, this game requires a popup and you will have to disable it to play it.
and her leg fell asleep so when she got out of her chair she fell on her leg just right and broke it.
Forget her leg, her brain must have been asleep for her not to notice her leg sleeping!
In fact the first time I saw Tetris was as a shareware clone for my Amiga.
I still haven't played the original. :)
My contribution to the 'amazingly simple game' genre are game buttons [kisrael.com], reasonably rich games each played entirely within a single CGI form grey pushbutton, as both controller and display. I still come back to these every once in a while, especially Dashteroids and Happy Eater.
Not something I really want to spend a lot of time playing (I remember trashing joysticks with the original Summer Games), but really cool stuff, dude.