It seems that every country other than the US is trying to build on open source software, while the US is trying to protect Microsoft under the guise of "free" markets. (Now that's doublespeak!)
It's only a matter time when the US will be the only country stuck with proprietary software, while the rest of the world will be light years a head because their tools will not be hidden and obscured.
If you think the tech economy is bad in the US now, wait about ten years! All of our technology will come from abroad.
Yeah, but don't most people go on movies on Friday night? I'll repeat myself since you don't seem to get it. When it was free no one watched it. Why would anyone watch it when you have to drive and pay to see it?!
Still, I hope it suceeds. I'd be first in line to see Flo the Motion Picture!
No one would watch the show when it was broadcast into the comfort of our living rooms for FREE. But yet we're going to run out and watch it at our local theater after paying high ticket prices.
Heck, if it succeeds on the big screen, here's my vote for his next project: Flo the Motion Picture!
The RIAA is insane if they expect people to permanently stop using peer-to-peer to download free music merely because it sent some letters. Do crack dealers permanently stop selling crack every time a cop drives by?!
People are just waiting for the lawsuits to blow over.
I totally agree. I'm near my 40s and basically stopped buying new music after Nirvana broke. It was ironic that once alternative music broke into the mainsream, it became more difficult to hear new music.
Between about 1994 through the time Napster came out I bought exactly three CDs and they merely replaced LPs I already owned.
All that changed when Napster/peer-to-peer came out. Now everytime I hear about some good music, I download some of it, and buy it if I like it.
Here's a good example, some slashdotter had a sig line about the Japanese pop duet Puffy. When I got home, I downloaded some of their stuff, fell in love, and immediately bought a CD from Amazon.
There are countless other examples. I consider peer-to-peer to be even BETTER than radio for the music industry. Peer-to-peer is essentially music on demand while radio is stuck with boring corporate play lists.
A friend of mine analogized the RIAA's attempts to stop file sharers to Wile E. Coyote's attempt to catch the Road Runner. It seems like every month they have a new tactic that utterly fails.
I see the RIAA's attempts as trying to stop a speeding freight train by laying on the track.
Either way the RIAA will fail. Peer-to-peer sharing is a fact of life. I'm not saying it's legal. I'm not saying it's moral. I'm just saying it's here to stay for the foreseeable future.
If SCO's allegations did have merit, and if SCO really wanted to get money from Linux users, why wouldn't they simply show the evidence they have?! Then business would see the evidence and would be compelled to pay and SCO would get a windfall.
But SCO is not doing that. They hide the alleged evidence and still demand payment. Thus, assuming SCO has evidence makes no sense. The ONLY way it makes sense is if SCO has no evidence and is merely trying to inflate its stock prices.
It's a little more complicated than what was stated. A Linux group sued SCO in a German court for an injunction to stop SCO from making its claims without proof. The Linux group probably wanted to see the alleged proof and thought that SCO would turn over it over once it was sued.
The fact that SCO has still refused to show its proof is pretty good evidence to me that they don't have any.
First, you tell people to shut up, but then you admit that if they call and bitched enough the problem will be fixed, i.e., the computer will be taken back. Thus, I'm not really sure what you're saying here.
Second, all computers do not have the same EULA crap. Apples don't. The ones I build do not.
Third, I have a major problem with your "I know it's wrong but it's always been this way mentality." If you know it's wrong, why are you against people complaining about it?! You're so lazy that you can't even deal with the issue WHEN YOU'RE PAID TO DO SO!!!
With lazy f#cks like you around, it's no wonder the world is so screwed up.
Yes, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a consumer was bound by a mandatory arbitration provision which was contained in a EULA that came with the computer.
Need any fat and ugly attorneys over in Germany? It's begining to sound like a great place to live. You love Linux, love consumers, and love sausage. Sounds like heaven to me!
Considering that nearly every writer (except those who work for Forbes) realizes that the entire fiasco is about the manipulation of stock prices, that every bit of evidence they've provided has been utterly contradicted, including a major lie and backpedaling regarding the MIT researchers, I think the SCO case is on its way out.
You're absolutely correct, except that I never said that loaning software was NOT a copyright infringment. I just said it wasn't piracy. According to the RIAA, merely humming a song while in the shower is an act of piracy, i.e., it's an an unauthorized copy without compensation.
My father-in-law worked as a travel agent at one time. He said travel agents never give more than three choices to a client. If you gave them more, they'd have to go home and think about it.
People don't like making choices, it takes away time, energy, and they risk being wrong. That's one thing Windows (and Apple) does well, all choices are made for you.
The problem I have with the post is that it does NOT have to be a zero-sum game. If someone wants to make a distro of linux that provides limited choices, what's stopping them? Why does every distro have to be limited in choices. That mentality makes no sense.
Name ONE statute that defines copyright infringement as piracy. Just one. Guess what, there is not one. Piracy was a term created by copyright holders because the term infringe didn't invoke enough fear.
Piracy used to refer to organizations that would bootleg music and movies for profit. Then it was applied to bootleg software sold for profit. Now the copyright industry applies to making a copy of your CD to use in your car. I don't consider that piracy. I don't considering installing software I buy on two computers piracy. Nor do I consider loaning software to a friend piracy.
I've never met a pirate who worked without a profit motive. Thus, when you remove the profit motive from copyright infringement, you remove the piracy.
You're confused. With product activation you'd buy three copies, one for each computer. The five activations means that if your computer crashes, or if you buy a new one, you can reactivate it five times without being forced to buy a new one. That does not mean you can use it on five different machines.
That's the real point of product activation. It does not protect consumers. It does not stop piracy (look at the corporate copy of XP Professional for proof of that!). It simply stops people from using their software on more than one computer and sharing it with their friends and family. It forces consumers to buy more, thus it increases the profit margins of the manufacturer.
Imagine if every bit of software on your computer was tied to that one computer. All of your games, all of your utilities, your office software, etc. Everything.
Now imagine thinking about buying a new computer. You have all of that money invested in software which is tied to old computer. Suddenly, the cost of that new computer is a LOT more because you have to buy your software all over again.
Of course, defenders of product activation will say that you'll be able to remove the software from the old system and install it on the new system. But do we know that for certain?! It certainly didn't work that way for TurboTax users.
Essentially, switching will become a risk. You might be able to use some of your software, but some you will not. Plus, that old computer will have absolutely no software on it, thus, it'll be rendered useless.
Some will argue that installing software on two computers you own is illegal. They'd be right, BUT, and this is a big BUT, CONSUMERS ARE USED TO IT. They've been doing it that way from the very beginning. When consumers get used to doing something one way, they get pissed when it changes.
When product activation is widespread, Dell, Gateway, and every other computer manufacturer can kiss their asses goodbye.
The point of sci-fi isn't to mirror what's currently believed scientifical circles. The point is to entertain.
Complaining that sci-fi doesn't use real science is like criticizing porn because it doesn't represent real sex. When was the last time your pizza was delivered by a set of hot buxom twins?!
First, Microsoft has lied and deceived in the past. (And if you don't work for them, you should as a paid apologist. I can hear your spin now, "The various flavors of XP do not fragment the market, but merely supplement different market potentials.")
Second, Microsoft has used third parties to perpetrate their lies and deceptions.
Third, Microsoft has numerous business relations with InfoSpace.
Fourth, Linuxsucks.com is utterly and completely owned by Infospace.
Thus, my point still stands. Linuxsucks.com is NOT objective. It is owned and under the complete control of a Microsoft business partner. If you choose to believe that Microsoft is not behind Linuxsuck.com, that's your right. In the US we have the right to wear blinders.
First, the domain IS owned by InfoSpace. You assume that it's merely hosting, but it IS owned by Infospace, that's a fact.
You assume without ANY facts that LinuxSuck.com is an amateur effort. Remember, it IS owned by InfoSpace.
You utterly failed to read my post. There are MANY connections between Microsoft and InfoSpace. Like I said, do a search on Google and you can read them yourself.
Furthermore, Microsoft has out right LIED in the past. It stated under oath in the anti-trust lawsuit that it could not unbundle IE from the OS, but yet the government showed how it could be done.
Microsoft said under oath that it should not be forced to sell multiple versions of its OS because it would fragment the market (as well as other reasons). But, Microsoft now sells XP Home, XP Professional, XP MultiMedia, and XP Tablet editions.
Microsoft stated under oath that it could not divulge its source code for national security reasons. Then it proceeded to give the source code to India, China, and to various former Soviet Union countries.
Microsoft paid a third party to create a fictional character who switched from OSX to WinXP. (Seems pretty similar to what's happening to linuxsucks.com to me!)
Microsoft placed ads in South African magazines stating XP is completely and utterly hack proof. The government agency there made the company pull the ads.
I could go on and on. Microsoft has lied and deceived SO much in the past that if I'm faced with a possibility that they're lying and deceiving, I'll believe it. And furthermore, anyone who doesn't, is the moron wearing tin foil over his eyes and ears!
The domain www.linuxsucks.com is owned by a company called InfoSpace Inc. Microsoft has VERY strong ties to InfoSpace Inc. as Microsoft featured it as a company that saved money and improved reliability by using Microsoft's garbage... er... I mean software:
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/casestudies/C as eStudy.asp?CaseStudyID=13920
And there's more than that, do a search for "Infospace inc" and Microsoft on Google and you'll find many more connections between the companies.
So, don't let the amateurish appearance fool you, while linuxsucks.com appears to be written by ordinary people simply expressing a point of view, it's actually a well funded website with a clear agenda.
They were important because no one thought it was possible to create a side-scroller on the PC at the time because they were so underpowered. However, Carmack discovered a way to make it possible. The entire PC/gaming industry grew out of that.
Post when you know the topic, feel free to remain silent when you don't!
Slashdot Mirror
It seems that every country other than the US is trying to build on open source software, while the US is trying to protect Microsoft under the guise of "free" markets. (Now that's doublespeak!)
It's only a matter time when the US will be the only country stuck with proprietary software, while the rest of the world will be light years a head because their tools will not be hidden and obscured.
If you think the tech economy is bad in the US now, wait about ten years! All of our technology will come from abroad.
Yeah, but don't most people go on movies on Friday night? I'll repeat myself since you don't seem to get it. When it was free no one watched it. Why would anyone watch it when you have to drive and pay to see it?!
Still, I hope it suceeds. I'd be first in line to see Flo the Motion Picture!
No one would watch the show when it was broadcast into the comfort of our living rooms for FREE. But yet we're going to run out and watch it at our local theater after paying high ticket prices.
Heck, if it succeeds on the big screen, here's my vote for his next project: Flo the Motion Picture!
The RIAA is insane if they expect people to permanently stop using peer-to-peer to download free music merely because it sent some letters. Do crack dealers permanently stop selling crack every time a cop drives by?!
People are just waiting for the lawsuits to blow over.
I totally agree. I'm near my 40s and basically stopped buying new music after Nirvana broke. It was ironic that once alternative music broke into the mainsream, it became more difficult to hear new music.
Between about 1994 through the time Napster came out I bought exactly three CDs and they merely replaced LPs I already owned.
All that changed when Napster/peer-to-peer came out. Now everytime I hear about some good music, I download some of it, and buy it if I like it.
Here's a good example, some slashdotter had a sig line about the Japanese pop duet Puffy. When I got home, I downloaded some of their stuff, fell in love, and immediately bought a CD from Amazon.
There are countless other examples. I consider peer-to-peer to be even BETTER than radio for the music industry. Peer-to-peer is essentially music on demand while radio is stuck with boring corporate play lists.
A friend of mine analogized the RIAA's attempts to stop file sharers to Wile E. Coyote's attempt to catch the Road Runner. It seems like every month they have a new tactic that utterly fails.
I see the RIAA's attempts as trying to stop a speeding freight train by laying on the track.
Either way the RIAA will fail. Peer-to-peer sharing is a fact of life. I'm not saying it's legal. I'm not saying it's moral. I'm just saying it's here to stay for the foreseeable future.
If SCO's allegations did have merit, and if SCO really wanted to get money from Linux users, why wouldn't they simply show the evidence they have?! Then business would see the evidence and would be compelled to pay and SCO would get a windfall.
But SCO is not doing that. They hide the alleged evidence and still demand payment. Thus, assuming SCO has evidence makes no sense. The ONLY way it makes sense is if SCO has no evidence and is merely trying to inflate its stock prices.
It's a little more complicated than what was stated. A Linux group sued SCO in a German court for an injunction to stop SCO from making its claims without proof. The Linux group probably wanted to see the alleged proof and thought that SCO would turn over it over once it was sued.
The fact that SCO has still refused to show its proof is pretty good evidence to me that they don't have any.
Why would I care about punative damages when I had sausage?!
First, you tell people to shut up, but then you admit that if they call and bitched enough the problem will be fixed, i.e., the computer will be taken back. Thus, I'm not really sure what you're saying here.
Second, all computers do not have the same EULA crap. Apples don't. The ones I build do not.
Third, I have a major problem with your "I know it's wrong but it's always been this way mentality." If you know it's wrong, why are you against people complaining about it?! You're so lazy that you can't even deal with the issue WHEN YOU'RE PAID TO DO SO!!!
With lazy f#cks like you around, it's no wonder the world is so screwed up.
Yes, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a consumer was bound by a mandatory arbitration provision which was contained in a EULA that came with the computer.
Hill v. Gateway 2000, 105 F.3d 1147
Need any fat and ugly attorneys over in Germany? It's begining to sound like a great place to live. You love Linux, love consumers, and love sausage. Sounds like heaven to me!
Considering that nearly every writer (except those who work for Forbes) realizes that the entire fiasco is about the manipulation of stock prices, that every bit of evidence they've provided has been utterly contradicted, including a major lie and backpedaling regarding the MIT researchers, I think the SCO case is on its way out.
You're absolutely correct, except that I never said that loaning software was NOT a copyright infringment. I just said it wasn't piracy. According to the RIAA, merely humming a song while in the shower is an act of piracy, i.e., it's an an unauthorized copy without compensation.
My father-in-law worked as a travel agent at one time. He said travel agents never give more than three choices to a client. If you gave them more, they'd have to go home and think about it.
People don't like making choices, it takes away time, energy, and they risk being wrong. That's one thing Windows (and Apple) does well, all choices are made for you.
The problem I have with the post is that it does NOT have to be a zero-sum game. If someone wants to make a distro of linux that provides limited choices, what's stopping them? Why does every distro have to be limited in choices. That mentality makes no sense.
Name ONE statute that defines copyright infringement as piracy. Just one. Guess what, there is not one. Piracy was a term created by copyright holders because the term infringe didn't invoke enough fear.
Piracy used to refer to organizations that would bootleg music and movies for profit. Then it was applied to bootleg software sold for profit. Now the copyright industry applies to making a copy of your CD to use in your car. I don't consider that piracy. I don't considering installing software I buy on two computers piracy. Nor do I consider loaning software to a friend piracy.
I've never met a pirate who worked without a profit motive. Thus, when you remove the profit motive from copyright infringement, you remove the piracy.
You're right, due to complaints Microsoft has dropped product activation in some asian countries.
You're confused. With product activation you'd buy three copies, one for each computer. The five activations means that if your computer crashes, or if you buy a new one, you can reactivate it five times without being forced to buy a new one. That does not mean you can use it on five different machines. That's the real point of product activation. It does not protect consumers. It does not stop piracy (look at the corporate copy of XP Professional for proof of that!). It simply stops people from using their software on more than one computer and sharing it with their friends and family. It forces consumers to buy more, thus it increases the profit margins of the manufacturer.
Imagine if every bit of software on your computer was tied to that one computer. All of your games, all of your utilities, your office software, etc. Everything.
Now imagine thinking about buying a new computer. You have all of that money invested in software which is tied to old computer. Suddenly, the cost of that new computer is a LOT more because you have to buy your software all over again.
Of course, defenders of product activation will say that you'll be able to remove the software from the old system and install it on the new system. But do we know that for certain?! It certainly didn't work that way for TurboTax users.
Essentially, switching will become a risk. You might be able to use some of your software, but some you will not. Plus, that old computer will have absolutely no software on it, thus, it'll be rendered useless.
Some will argue that installing software on two computers you own is illegal. They'd be right, BUT, and this is a big BUT, CONSUMERS ARE USED TO IT. They've been doing it that way from the very beginning. When consumers get used to doing something one way, they get pissed when it changes.
When product activation is widespread, Dell, Gateway, and every other computer manufacturer can kiss their asses goodbye.
The point of sci-fi isn't to mirror what's currently believed scientifical circles. The point is to entertain.
Complaining that sci-fi doesn't use real science is like criticizing porn because it doesn't represent real sex. When was the last time your pizza was delivered by a set of hot buxom twins?!
I'll repeat the point again because you're slow:
First, Microsoft has lied and deceived in the past. (And if you don't work for them, you should as a paid apologist. I can hear your spin now, "The various flavors of XP do not fragment the market, but merely supplement different market potentials.")
Second, Microsoft has used third parties to perpetrate their lies and deceptions.
Third, Microsoft has numerous business relations with InfoSpace.
Fourth, Linuxsucks.com is utterly and completely owned by Infospace.
Thus, my point still stands. Linuxsucks.com is NOT objective. It is owned and under the complete control of a Microsoft business partner. If you choose to believe that Microsoft is not behind Linuxsuck.com, that's your right. In the US we have the right to wear blinders.
Idiotic?
First, the domain IS owned by InfoSpace. You assume that it's merely hosting, but it IS owned by Infospace, that's a fact.
You assume without ANY facts that LinuxSuck.com is an amateur effort. Remember, it IS owned by InfoSpace.
You utterly failed to read my post. There are MANY connections between Microsoft and InfoSpace. Like I said, do a search on Google and you can read them yourself.
Furthermore, Microsoft has out right LIED in the past. It stated under oath in the anti-trust lawsuit that it could not unbundle IE from the OS, but yet the government showed how it could be done.
Microsoft said under oath that it should not be forced to sell multiple versions of its OS because it would fragment the market (as well as other reasons). But, Microsoft now sells XP Home, XP Professional, XP MultiMedia, and XP Tablet editions.
Microsoft stated under oath that it could not divulge its source code for national security reasons. Then it proceeded to give the source code to India, China, and to various former Soviet Union countries.
Microsoft paid a third party to create a fictional character who switched from OSX to WinXP. (Seems pretty similar to what's happening to linuxsucks.com to me!)
Microsoft placed ads in South African magazines stating XP is completely and utterly hack proof. The government agency there made the company pull the ads.
I could go on and on. Microsoft has lied and deceived SO much in the past that if I'm faced with a possibility that they're lying and deceiving, I'll believe it. And furthermore, anyone who doesn't, is the moron wearing tin foil over his eyes and ears!
The domain www.linuxsucks.com is owned by a company called InfoSpace Inc. Microsoft has VERY strong ties to InfoSpace Inc. as Microsoft featured it as a company that saved money and improved reliability by using Microsoft's garbage... er... I mean software:
C as eStudy.asp?CaseStudyID=13920
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/casestudies/
And there's more than that, do a search for "Infospace inc" and Microsoft on Google and you'll find many more connections between the companies.
So, don't let the amateurish appearance fool you, while linuxsucks.com appears to be written by ordinary people simply expressing a point of view, it's actually a well funded website with a clear agenda.
So you kept the receipt to your toilet?!
They were important because no one thought it was possible to create a side-scroller on the PC at the time because they were so underpowered. However, Carmack discovered a way to make it possible. The entire PC/gaming industry grew out of that.
Post when you know the topic, feel free to remain silent when you don't!