That was my biggest disappointment with the way DS-9 ended.
I liked the Founder Virus and the Cardassian Reversal......but I wanted to see Federation & Klingon Dreadnaughts developed by Section 31 and their Klingon equivalent. ( Sub-Space Weapons, Fire when cloaked, etc.... )
The Alpha Quadrant was fighting for its very survival....how far would you go to persevere?....what principles were you willing to jettison?....
Intead, "Link with me and I'll show you the error of your ways."
No, I called your analogies asinine. The debate on both sides will never be useful if we continue to promote attempts at swaying public opinion by misappropriating language. No one was talking about taking their galleons out to sea to commandeer a shipment of Promise Cards. No one was depriving another person of a physical possession.
Maybe my analogies weren't the greatest, but that doesn't invalidate my position [perhaps a better analogy yet would be downloading a crack that turns demo software into commercial software].
Again, not a valid analogy. The best one I can think of would be a crack or change in configuration that would allow a greater number of users or features in software you already legally possessed. As per my original post, the downloading of firmware is what the specific rights issue at hand is.
You haven't really said anything in your entire response other than vaguely stating your opinion of the way things should be.
And giving an opinion is invalid because? It is through learned discourse that the advancement of knowledge is perpetuated.
And even then all you have really said is some vague and completely unsupported claims that these practices stifle progress.
I didn't think they were particularly vague. If progress is defined as the advancement of knowledge and prosperity for the citizens in a democracy, then anything which slows the adoption of technologies that will advance that society by definition "stifles" progress. If progress is defined by the protection of artificial scarcity in order to benefit mainly elite interests, then the status quo is working fine.
What it boils down to is that you [flames aside] actually think that a company doesn't have the right to charge a fair price for their product.
FAIR is the key word. Look, I'm not some anarcho-socialist, I just don't buy into libertarian capitalism either. I prefer the concept that brought us such minor advancements like The Internet, The Mixed Economy. And as a citizen in a democratic mixed economy, as much as I would like to see growth of commerce, I don't believe it should go un-tempered. My pet peeve that relates to the topic at hand, is the use of forced scarcity (i.e. denying greater functionality of technology by crippling a product in order to create an artificial price barrier) as a tool to maximize profits, where greater advancement of technology and greater efficiency of commerce would be more beneficial. If you need it spelled out for you, you would get greater deployment of technology if it were more affordable. This technology could be used to further progress. You would more than likely make more money in the long run because you would be shipping more units, and you would save on less duplication of design/engineering/manufacturing/marketing/support . Some good examples that immediately come to mind are, Long-Distance Phone Calls, Computers, Commercial Software & Cellular. Once manufacturers stopped chasing margin percentage, and switched to margin dollars, it became more profitable for them, and the citizenry benefited by the ability to afford the advancements.
It isn't like Promise has a monopoly on RAID devices.
What other cards offer the same functionality as the IDE RAID card in a similar price range to the Non-RAIDed card?? (I haven't looked in a while, but Promise seemed to have the most ubiquity)
It isn't like this is price fixing.
No, your right, collusion would be much worse. But just as collusion is one form of an artificial price barrier, so is this.
They just are charging a fair price for a product that gives more functionality than one of their other products. Would you think it would be fair for [going back to my "asinine" analogies] say Ford to charge you as much for a 4cyl Mustang as for the 5.0 version?
Again, fairness. What is the cost to Ford for the bigger engine? There is physically more material. There would be greater engineering work to account for heat, weight, fuel efficiency, safety. Would it require different tooling and molds? Would it require different assembly runs, etc...? These are very real physical costs. What I am talking about is when you design a product from the get-go to include a set a features, and then cripple some of those features in order to differentiate price, when there isn't a commensurate decrease in manufacturing cost.
When you get right down to it, that car doesn't cost much more to manufacture either [in fact, essentially no more]. The difference is the amount of engineering time that went into designing that higher performance engine.
I don't know what your background is, but I actually know someone who engineers cars, and as per above there are real costs above and beyond engineering. The other factor is your market. The reason for different engines in your mustang example is that some people want the look and feel of the car, without the added fuel & insurance costs. I have yet to hear anyone say "No I just refuse to pay that extra $5 because I don't foresee myself ever needing RAID functionality in my host adapter, so I will not be purchasing that product". (I have seen people be cheap, but even the cheap people I know wouldn't go to that extreme)
The problem is that there are a lot of idiots out there that don't seem to get that one simple point.
Agreed, there are a lot of idiots that can't seem to grasp a simple point.
They just ignore it and spout off some irrelevant fodder about how the "Free market economists are ruining everything"
Actually I think the abdication of responsibility is what's ruining things. What I disapprove of are attempts by people with the Neo-Conservative agenda to attempt to ruin my social democracy by gutting it of its values with threats of capital flight. I'm not some fresh out of Philosophy 101 Marxist. I've given great thought to the current socio-economic climate and have concluded that this mixed economy is moving too far towards what could become a system where corporate rights are taken more seriously than individual rights. You're living a pipe dream if you think this is a "Free Market". But unlike those who think the answer is to dismantle all regulation, I have come to the conclusion that the greater threat is from what is now being termed "Corporate Welfare" or from what are becoming De-Facto monopolies and oligopolies. Before you just write this off as a loony political rant, one of the methods that is used to exert control is as per my original post the use of artificial market barriers. What incentive is there for me to make a more functional product to service a market, when all it will take to bankrupt me is for my competitor to un-cripple their product? This reduces consumer choice, which slows the advancement of technology, which stifles progress.
Companies charge more for certain product not ONLY because they can but ALSO because they want to recoup their costs.
As someone who has witnessed first hand the failure of artificial price barriers to recoup costs (The Tandy Example) and as someone who has witnessed first hand the example of the switch from margin percentage to margin dollars, (The I.S.P. industry, and the others above) what I can tell you is that in the long run companies are better off reducing productions costs and increasing volume.
Rather than waste any more of my time picking apart your completely incoherent argument,
I'll leave it to others to speculate in public the reasons.
I'll just let the truly educated readers decide for themselves.
The real crime here is that businesses are allowed to engage in this sort of practice.
The issue is clouded by the firmware argument (although your asinine Piracy and Physical Theft analogies do nothing to sway educated minds to your position) but the fact remains this is just another example of forced price differentiation.
Electronics companies have been doing it for years, whether it is leaving off components that would have a negligible cost addition to manufacturing, actually crippling circuits, or just limiting features with switches or software.
The mentality used to justify this behavior doesn't support progress, it in fact stifles it.
The laws shouldn't favour protecting "Intellectual Property" rights. They should favour protecting consumers rights.
Make no mistake, this is about maximizing profits only, not encouraging innovation. So the Neo-Con's among you say "Great 'Free Market' Rah...Rah..Rah..you think you can build a better mouse trap, go ahead!" So I go ahead, spend the capital investment on engineering, manufacturing & marketing the product. Only guess what, now that I've entered the market, all they do is un-cripple their product, taking away my market, putting me out of business, so they can do it again. The fact that it would be more efficient for that company to only engineer, manufacture, market & support one model, has no bearing in this economy. Competition My Ass.
Instead of the DMCA & UCITA, what we really need are limits on the ability of corporations to sell products of similar manufacturing costs at vastly different retail prices. I know this is seemingly a novel concept to you anti-interventionist types, but we already have a precedent with Usury Laws.
If you ever want an example of how much progress was potentially stalled and how bad things could get, do a search on Tandy Computer for some of the shenanigans they used to pull. For those that will say their demise is a fine example of "The Market" working, just remember their ultimate downfall was that they just got too greedy. A little less greed and you have what you have now; Less consumer choice and ever more profit maximizing at large Trans-National Corporations.
The antithesis of progress for the citizenry in a democracy.
It is more a cosmetic appearance thing. If you look 'dignified' versus you look like 'a punk'.
Bang On.
Age of course plays a factor. A grizzled old bum wouldn't get hassled for drug paraphernalia no matter how scruffy he looked
Wrong, it's precisely because of his socio-economic status that he will get hassled.
and a kid in his 20's would probably get hassled no matter how 'respectable' his appearance might be.
As a white man in his late 20's I have never been hassled by the police for carrying a briar. (And I started enjoying the occasional bowl in my teens, which I am sure contravened a statute or two) The difference is though I engage in such subversive and nefarious activities in these strange times such as; pipe-smoking, attending evil musical displays like George Clinton & The P-Funk All-Stars, going to hockey games & horse racing, defending civil liberties, advocating political & judicial reform and most subversive of all: canoeing; I look like someone who might have fallen out of a Big'n'Tall commercial, and speak like someone (in public anyway) enamoured with the Queen's English.
This is the real point, if you dress like, act like & speak like a hoodlum, don't be surprised if you attract the attention of law enforcement.
<RANT> One of the things that really bothers me are punks (the worst ones are suburban white kids) who look, speak & act like they just stepped out of a Rap Video, then wonder why they get hassled by The Man!
The great irony here is that these supposed "subversives" buy into the mass consumerism that fuels the masters who seek to oppress them.
You want a real subversive? It's someone who looks like they shop at Brooks Brothers, who sounds clarion calls against the status quo, and goes home and pops in their favourite NWA CD.(Mind you, this could just be my bias toward "Old-School")</RANT>
A lot of this just depends on the jurisdiction in question, perhaps you live in a community that isn't quite so crazy when it comes to the 'war on drugs'.
Indeed, in Canada we aren't as insane with our drug policy as our neighbours to the south, (Mandatory Minimums, Harsher treatment of "Ghetto" drugs, Vast sums of money toward a policing operation that is ineffective and has a disregard for civil liberties, Lining the pockets of a "Prison Industry", Giving Afghans Money/Arms/Expertise to defeat Communists which allow them to control a drug trade, which allows them to sell to the U.S. market, which gives them the money to fund terrorist activities against said country, with the help of "Ex-Communist Cleptocrats" who launder the funds, which gives slick politicians the ability to dupe the public into allocating more funds, which allows the Russians to also take money to combat the "War on Drugs" which...Etc...Man I'm getting dizzy.) but even the Canadian public has been duped. We lock up non-violent drug offenders (out of political expediency, and to appease our American cousins) meanwhile the public wonders why there are no jails cells available for violent criminals.
Although I sometimes wish someone might bring me his head on a platter for bastardizing one of the greatest musical accomplishments of the last century, (Jimmy Page's involvement not withstanding) I leave you with the immortal words of a certain American lyricist;
My own personal opinion is that you should only be able to Patent a design or process if;
You "Chanced" upon it after exhausting considerable Time/Effort/Money (i.e. research discoveries)
or
The only way it is obvious, after the fact, to someone in your field would be if they had to have engaged in the same or similar research to come to the conclusion at hand. (i.e. cut down on the "Professional Thinkers" who do little research but patent things in what really amounts to an attempt at what would be called extortion in most other settings)
Also, merely being the first shouldn't be enough. If two people in the same field engage in the same or similar research, just because one finishes early shouldn't mean all the work is for naught. (Of course as long as it was arrived at independently)
Maybe then we could get back to the original intent of patents, to promote, not hinder progress.
Imagining what the world would be like if someone had been able to patent hockey...
Technically zig-zag type rolling papers and old-man type tobacco pipes are illegal under the current laws. Of course those items are sold openly at tobacco shops and drug stores, etc. Old geezers would never get bothered about possessing such things. The law isn't applied uniformly of course. If someone who is say under 40 had such items, they would likely be considered dangerous contraband.
I am under 40 and can assure you that I have never been harassed by the local constabulary for exposing a fine briar in public.
I tried to Nominate GNUstep, but most people would apparently rather stick with a bad rip-off of Windows (itself a bad rip-off of NeXTSTEP/MacOS ), that will get developed regardless of any award.
GNUstep has come a long way, and could really use the Spotlight and Money. Not to mention the real power Linux/BSD/Hurd could have with a set of Libraries and Development tools based on OpenStep.
It's too bad the most vocal members of the./ community seem to be;
A) A bunch of kids who while they more than likely rebel from their mainstream communities, choose to conform with whatever the current "Hip" (which for some reason seems to be whatever is Windows-Like) open-source software is. (I guess they just trade one conformity for another)
B) The I hate Microsoft/Bill Gates/Windows at all cost types, who again for some reason seem to have as their goal, replication of the Windows paradigm. (Albeit Pro Gratis)
C) The I will trade REAL POWER for a cool looking but almost non-functional windowing theme.
Now for the rest of you whom I haven't offended, I would enjoy seeing a discussion on the relative Merits of why KDE/GNOME deserves more attention than GNUstep. That is, from those that actually understand the issues involved.
Go ahead, flame away, moderate me down, in other words, prove my point.
Big Z
...I don't give a fuck, God sent me to piss the world off... --Eminem
I saw the film in the theater way back when it was released (Imperial Six, T.O.), and on video and T.V. a few times. One time though I remember seeing a longer version on WUTV in Buffalo. Does anyone have any info on the extended version?
Slashdot Mirror
That was my biggest disappointment with the way DS-9 ended.
..but I wanted to see Federation & Klingon Dreadnaughts developed by Section 31 and their Klingon equivalent. ( Sub-Space Weapons, Fire when cloaked, etc.... )
I liked the Founder Virus and the Cardassian Reversal....
The Alpha Quadrant was fighting for its very survival....how far would you go to persevere?....what principles were you willing to jettison?....
Intead, "Link with me and I'll show you the error of your ways."
Horse-shit.
Since last I looked XM isn't a licenced broadcast undertaking in Canada.
You call my argument asinine?
t . Some good examples that immediately come to mind are, Long-Distance Phone Calls, Computers, Commercial Software & Cellular. Once manufacturers stopped chasing margin percentage, and switched to margin dollars, it became more profitable for them, and the citizenry benefited by the ability to afford the advancements.
No, I called your analogies asinine. The debate on both sides will never be useful if we continue to promote attempts at swaying public opinion by misappropriating language. No one was talking about taking their galleons out to sea to commandeer a shipment of Promise Cards. No one was depriving another person of a physical possession.
Maybe my analogies weren't the greatest, but that doesn't invalidate my position [perhaps a better analogy yet would be downloading a crack that turns demo software into commercial software].
Again, not a valid analogy. The best one I can think of would be a crack or change in configuration that would allow a greater number of users or features in software you already legally possessed. As per my original post, the downloading of firmware is what the specific rights issue at hand is.
You haven't really said anything in your entire response other than vaguely stating your opinion of the way things should be.
And giving an opinion is invalid because? It is through learned discourse that the advancement of knowledge is perpetuated.
And even then all you have really said is some vague and completely unsupported claims that these practices stifle progress.
I didn't think they were particularly vague. If progress is defined as the advancement of knowledge and prosperity for the citizens in a democracy, then anything which slows the adoption of technologies that will advance that society by definition "stifles" progress. If progress is defined by the protection of artificial scarcity in order to benefit mainly elite interests, then the status quo is working fine.
What it boils down to is that you [flames aside] actually think that a company doesn't have the right to charge a fair price for their product.
FAIR is the key word. Look, I'm not some anarcho-socialist, I just don't buy into libertarian capitalism either. I prefer the concept that brought us such minor advancements like The Internet, The Mixed Economy. And as a citizen in a democratic mixed economy, as much as I would like to see growth of commerce, I don't believe it should go un-tempered. My pet peeve that relates to the topic at hand, is the use of forced scarcity (i.e. denying greater functionality of technology by crippling a product in order to create an artificial price barrier) as a tool to maximize profits, where greater advancement of technology and greater efficiency of commerce would be more beneficial. If you need it spelled out for you, you would get greater deployment of technology if it were more affordable. This technology could be used to further progress. You would more than likely make more money in the long run because you would be shipping more units, and you would save on less duplication of design/engineering/manufacturing/marketing/suppor
It isn't like Promise has a monopoly on RAID devices.
What other cards offer the same functionality as the IDE RAID card in a similar price range to the Non-RAIDed card?? (I haven't looked in a while, but Promise seemed to have the most ubiquity)
It isn't like this is price fixing.
No, your right, collusion would be much worse. But just as collusion is one form of an artificial price barrier, so is this.
They just are charging a fair price for a product that gives more functionality than one of their other products. Would you think it would be fair for [going back to my "asinine" analogies] say Ford to charge you as much for a 4cyl Mustang as for the 5.0 version?
Again, fairness. What is the cost to Ford for the bigger engine? There is physically more material. There would be greater engineering work to account for heat, weight, fuel efficiency, safety. Would it require different tooling and molds? Would it require different assembly runs, etc...? These are very real physical costs. What I am talking about is when you design a product from the get-go to include a set a features, and then cripple some of those features in order to differentiate price, when there isn't a commensurate decrease in manufacturing cost.
When you get right down to it, that car doesn't cost much more to manufacture either [in fact, essentially no more]. The difference is the amount of engineering time that went into designing that higher performance engine.
I don't know what your background is, but I actually know someone who engineers cars, and as per above there are real costs above and beyond engineering. The other factor is your market. The reason for different engines in your mustang example is that some people want the look and feel of the car, without the added fuel & insurance costs. I have yet to hear anyone say "No I just refuse to pay that extra $5 because I don't foresee myself ever needing RAID functionality in my host adapter, so I will not be purchasing that product". (I have seen people be cheap, but even the cheap people I know wouldn't go to that extreme)
The problem is that there are a lot of idiots out there that don't seem to get that one simple point.
Agreed, there are a lot of idiots that can't seem to grasp a simple point.
They just ignore it and spout off some irrelevant fodder about how the "Free market economists are ruining everything"
Actually I think the abdication of responsibility is what's ruining things. What I disapprove of are attempts by people with the Neo-Conservative agenda to attempt to ruin my social democracy by gutting it of its values with threats of capital flight. I'm not some fresh out of Philosophy 101 Marxist. I've given great thought to the current socio-economic climate and have concluded that this mixed economy is moving too far towards what could become a system where corporate rights are taken more seriously than individual rights. You're living a pipe dream if you think this is a "Free Market". But unlike those who think the answer is to dismantle all regulation, I have come to the conclusion that the greater threat is from what is now being termed "Corporate Welfare" or from what are becoming De-Facto monopolies and oligopolies. Before you just write this off as a loony political rant, one of the methods that is used to exert control is as per my original post the use of artificial market barriers. What incentive is there for me to make a more functional product to service a market, when all it will take to bankrupt me is for my competitor to un-cripple their product? This reduces consumer choice, which slows the advancement of technology, which stifles progress.
Companies charge more for certain product not ONLY because they can but ALSO because they want to recoup their costs.
As someone who has witnessed first hand the failure of artificial price barriers to recoup costs (The Tandy Example) and as someone who has witnessed first hand the example of the switch from margin percentage to margin dollars, (The I.S.P. industry, and the others above) what I can tell you is that in the long run companies are better off reducing productions costs and increasing volume.
Rather than waste any more of my time picking apart your completely incoherent argument,
I'll leave it to others to speculate in public the reasons.
I'll just let the truly educated readers decide for themselves.
Indeed.
Without Malice,
Tom
The real crime here is that businesses are allowed to engage in this sort of practice.
The issue is clouded by the firmware argument (although your asinine Piracy and Physical Theft analogies do nothing to sway educated minds to your position) but the fact remains this is just another example of forced price differentiation.
Electronics companies have been doing it for years, whether it is leaving off components that would have a negligible cost addition to manufacturing, actually crippling circuits, or just limiting features with switches or software.
The mentality used to justify this behavior doesn't support progress, it in fact stifles it.
The laws shouldn't favour protecting "Intellectual Property" rights. They should favour protecting consumers rights.
Make no mistake, this is about maximizing profits only, not encouraging innovation. So the Neo-Con's among you say "Great 'Free Market' Rah...Rah..Rah..you think you can build a better mouse trap, go ahead!" So I go ahead, spend the capital investment on engineering, manufacturing & marketing the product. Only guess what, now that I've entered the market, all they do is un-cripple their product, taking away my market, putting me out of business, so they can do it again. The fact that it would be more efficient for that company to only engineer, manufacture, market & support one model, has no bearing in this economy. Competition My Ass.
Instead of the DMCA & UCITA, what we really need are limits on the ability of corporations to sell products of similar manufacturing costs at vastly different retail prices. I know this is seemingly a novel concept to you anti-interventionist types, but we already have a precedent with Usury Laws.
If you ever want an example of how much progress was potentially stalled and how bad things could get, do a search on Tandy Computer for some of the shenanigans they used to pull. For those that will say their demise is a fine example of "The Market" working, just remember their ultimate downfall was that they just got too greedy. A little less greed and you have what you have now; Less consumer choice and ever more profit maximizing at large Trans-National Corporations.
The antithesis of progress for the citizenry in a democracy.
Tom
Well, its not really a hard and fast age thing.
Agreed.
It is more a cosmetic appearance thing. If you look 'dignified' versus you look like 'a punk'.
Bang On.
Age of course plays a factor. A grizzled old bum wouldn't get hassled for drug paraphernalia no matter how scruffy he looked
Wrong, it's precisely because of his socio-economic status that he will get hassled.
and a kid in his 20's would probably get hassled no matter how 'respectable' his appearance might be.
As a white man in his late 20's I have never been hassled by the police for carrying a briar. (And I started enjoying the occasional bowl in my teens, which I am sure contravened a statute or two) The difference is though I engage in such subversive and nefarious activities in these strange times such as; pipe-smoking, attending evil musical displays like George Clinton & The P-Funk All-Stars, going to hockey games & horse racing, defending civil liberties, advocating political & judicial reform and most subversive of all: canoeing; I look like someone who might have fallen out of a Big'n'Tall commercial, and speak like someone (in public anyway) enamoured with the Queen's English.
This is the real point, if you dress like, act like & speak like a hoodlum, don't be surprised if you attract the attention of law enforcement.
<RANT> One of the things that really bothers me are punks (the worst ones are suburban white kids) who look, speak & act like they just stepped out of a Rap Video, then wonder why they get hassled by The Man!
The great irony here is that these supposed "subversives" buy into the mass consumerism that fuels the masters who seek to oppress them.
You want a real subversive? It's someone who looks like they shop at Brooks Brothers, who sounds clarion calls against the status quo, and goes home and pops in their favourite NWA CD.(Mind you, this could just be my bias toward "Old-School")</RANT>
A lot of this just depends on the jurisdiction in question, perhaps you live in a community that isn't quite so crazy when it comes to the 'war on drugs'.
Indeed, in Canada we aren't as insane with our drug policy as our neighbours to the south, (Mandatory Minimums, Harsher treatment of "Ghetto" drugs, Vast sums of money toward a policing operation that is ineffective and has a disregard for civil liberties, Lining the pockets of a "Prison Industry", Giving Afghans Money/Arms/Expertise to defeat Communists which allow them to control a drug trade, which allows them to sell to the U.S. market, which gives them the money to fund terrorist activities against said country, with the help of "Ex-Communist Cleptocrats" who launder the funds, which gives slick politicians the ability to dupe the public into allocating more funds, which allows the Russians to also take money to combat the "War on Drugs" which...Etc...Man I'm getting dizzy.) but even the Canadian public has been duped. We lock up non-violent drug offenders (out of political expediency, and to appease our American cousins) meanwhile the public wonders why there are no jails cells available for violent criminals.
Although I sometimes wish someone might bring me his head on a platter for bastardizing one of the greatest musical accomplishments of the last century, (Jimmy Page's involvement not withstanding) I leave you with the immortal words of a certain American lyricist;
It's all about the Benjamin's baby...
Tom
Don Lancaster's Patent Avoidance Library
My own personal opinion is that you should only be able to Patent a design or process if;
You "Chanced" upon it after exhausting considerable Time/Effort/Money (i.e. research discoveries)
or
The only way it is obvious, after the fact, to someone in your field would be if they had to have engaged in the same or similar research to come to the conclusion at hand. (i.e. cut down on the "Professional Thinkers" who do little research but patent things in what really amounts to an attempt at what would be called extortion in most other settings)
Also, merely being the first shouldn't be enough. If two people in the same field engage in the same or similar research, just because one finishes early shouldn't mean all the work is for naught. (Of course as long as it was arrived at independently)
Maybe then we could get back to the original intent of patents, to promote, not hinder progress.
Imagining what the world would be like if someone had been able to patent hockey...
Tom
Technically zig-zag type rolling papers and old-man type tobacco pipes are illegal under the current laws. Of course those items are sold openly at tobacco shops and drug stores, etc. Old geezers would never get bothered about possessing such things. The law isn't applied uniformly of course. If someone who is say under 40 had such items, they would likely be considered dangerous contraband.
I am under 40 and can assure you that I have never been harassed by the local constabulary for exposing a fine briar in public.
Now where's my Aromatic Cavendish,
Tom
A good first attempt would have been to peer to something like TorIX.
You could then get lists from all the peers of subnets that contained local ports, then only serve to those IP's.
A side benefit of this "Killer Application" could be the encouragement of more local peering and perhaps even implimentation of Multicast.
Oh Well, back to dreaming,
Tom
I tried to Nominate GNUstep, but most people would apparently rather stick with a bad rip-off of Windows (itself a bad rip-off of NeXTSTEP/MacOS ), that will get developed regardless of any award.
GNUstep has come a long way, and could really use the Spotlight and Money. Not to mention the real power Linux/BSD/Hurd could have with a set of Libraries and Development tools based on OpenStep.
It's too bad the most vocal members of the
A) A bunch of kids who while they more than likely rebel from their mainstream communities, choose to conform with whatever the current "Hip" (which for some reason seems to be whatever is Windows-Like) open-source software is. (I guess they just trade one conformity for another)
B) The I hate Microsoft/Bill Gates/Windows at all cost types, who again for some reason seem to have as their goal, replication of the Windows paradigm. (Albeit Pro Gratis)
C) The I will trade REAL POWER for a cool looking but almost non-functional windowing theme.
Now for the rest of you whom I haven't offended, I would enjoy seeing a discussion on the relative Merits of why KDE/GNOME deserves more attention than GNUstep. That is, from those that actually understand the issues involved.
Go ahead, flame away, moderate me down, in other words, prove my point.
Big Z
GNUstep has come a long way, and has the potential of allowing for easier development of more robust applications for "The Movement".
I saw the film in the theater way back when it was released (Imperial Six, T.O.), and on video and T.V. a few times. One time though I remember seeing a longer version on WUTV in Buffalo. Does anyone have any info on the extended version?
Tom
On a Related Note, Am I just imagining things, or did Dr. Stapp recently pass away?
Depending on who is telling the story, He is either an inspiration or the inspiration for Murphy's Law
... Citizens of the Universe, Recording Angels. We have returned to claim the Pyramids. Partying on the Mothership. I am the Mothership Connection.
The Truth is Out There!
"Unfortunaty when the mothership does land, George Clinton and Bootsy Collins will be the only ones aboard."
For the record,
Bigz
I will concede that I just might be getting old...
...But I can't listen to CFNY for any length of time nowadays.
They were great in the 80's, but with the exception of a couple of brief periods in the 90's, they are really just as bad as AOR.
Oh for the days of Marsdon...Waking up to Ivor Biggun's "Has Anybody Seen My Cock"
Regards,
Tom