A lot of people use a PC at work, and most corporate seat licenses allow you to install Windows on one additional machine at home, so not everybody has to run out and buy retail Windows to be legal.
Good idea. The first time somebody convinced me of that I was pretty sure they were full of crap. What license code does one use in that situation?
It's well documented, eh? Where? I think it's rather absurd for me to say 'We have no evidence for X', and you to say 'Nuh-uh!' and not provide it.
I'm at work so I've hardly got time, but it's pretty well known that the unemployment rate by any measure is currently very low. This despite having a ton of foreigners in this country. However you cut it, if we sent them all home, we wouldn't have enough people to do the jobs. At 5% unemployment (a very high estimate), that's about 15 million people out of work. We have many, many more foreigners than that in the country, and they're doing the crappy jobs by far.
The minimum wage was designed as the mimimum amount you could live on.
Well, that was 'designed' when there weren't a lot of people in the work force who aren't supporting families. These days, people making minimum wage are either high schoolers or morons who flip jobs every week. I have no pity for these people. I'd rather support a hard-working foreigner than a lazy American.
Businesses already are leaving if they can, and they're leaving when the cost of their employees are way above min wage. The only way to fix that is tariffs and taxes on imported goods.
Yay, protectionist economics! Yeah, that always works. I'd suggest an econ course before you regurgitate any more of the economics according to Ludd. If you substitute "Mexicans" for "machines" you're making the same outdated arguments.
And it's not worry that any specific person can do the job any better. People coming to this country for work are often taken advantage of, being paid less that min wage, or, for visas, trapped in contracts they cannot get out of without being expelled.
Legalization would nuke that argument.
And, more to the point, there's not any evidence we have enough low-level jobs to go around. Ergo, everyone who comes to this country to take a job is, indeed, taking away it away from an American.
Completely untrue, adn this is well documented. First, Americans won't take those low level jobs. See, we've gotten our economy to the point where we generate more work than there are people to do it. We take the good jobs, but somebody has to do the crap we don't want to do. Same thing with Germany in the 80's - they didn't have anyone to do the menial labor, so they let in a ton of Turks (Gastarbeiter). And again, if we legalize them, your "trapped" argument falls.
all we've done is introduced more people to compete with us.
For what, minimum wage jobs? They can have them.
and raise the minimum wage to the point that Americans can live on it.
Dunno if you've noticed, but the de facto minimum wage right now is around $8 an hour. Here in the DC area, fast food restaurants are starting people with no experience near $10. And the minimum wage was never meant to be "lived on," as if you've been working more than a year and you're making minimum...there's something wrong with you. Minimum wage is for high school students working at KMart like I did 10 years ago.
And don't forget, raising wages through artificial labor restrictions raises costs. Also, if we keep workers out and there aren't enough people to fill the jobs, businesses leave. I'd rather have businesses hiring foreigners here so we can tax them rather than businesses hiring foreigners in foreign countries.
The only thing to complain about is the high price of non-OEM Windows. If you want to run Windows games on your Mac, you still have to pay a few hundred dollars for Windows XP to run them on.
Surely you can dig up an old license somewhere? Or does that not work on XP? I honestly don't know, I haven't used Windows XP at home. Still prefer 2K for my occasional windows needs.
The UK is an ally--since they're bringing so much money to our (remarkably depressive) economy, we should give them the code for any auditing or modifications they wish to undertake, AND we should help them solve any problems they perceive with the deployment of these aircraft, and just be done with it.
Maybe. But realistically, now is NOT the time to be bringing this up. Maybe I'm old school, but if a deal was made, you stick to it. If you wanted the source then, you should have asked for it. I might be willing to give them the API, but the full source, I dunno.
I'm not against throwing a few bucks in the direction of something useful,
but I usually wait until said useful thing is in my possession before
deciding.
Don't worry. Any random donations from slashdotters will be FAR outweighed by his bandwidth bill this month. For Chrissakes, he posted *movies!* Sure, he pulled them now, but the damage is done.
Oh, enough with this revolt thing. What you have to understand, the Declaration of Independence (which is the document you're actually citing, not the constitution) was very romantic and was written while we were still British subjects. The Constitution, written later, most certainly makes no mention of a right to revolt. Revolts have never been tolerated in this country, dating back to Washingon himself quashing the Whiskey Rebellion, and more famously the civil war.
None of which matters here. A journalist broke a just law, a warrant was filed for seizure of evidence, and said evidence was seized in compliance with the 4th Amendment. Forget for a second this was a journalist - what's the problem again?
Since businesses do a better job obtaining and preserving their protections than the public seems to do, just look to them for the precedent. They refuse to release things all the time claiming "irrepairable harm". Admittedly those are usually civil cases involving trade secrets and the like. However, the point stands.
And if these things are used in the commission of a criminal act, that is moot.
The Bill of Rights protects against unreasonable search and seizure for exactly that reason. Leaking information that can be used for retribution against citizen or, almost more importantly, against the press causes irrepairable harm. The belief of the paper is that the seizure, in this case, was far beyond what a constitution warrant would allow.
Then they're insane. Ask yourself: if you used your computer to illegally hack into a police database, would the cops get a warrant and seize your computer? The answer is an unqualified "yes!" As such, the answer should be exactly the same for a newspaper, or any other business.
The claim could be made that the police made the most limited seizure practical, but I don't believe that's provides a defense against a clear Fourth Amendment claim (IANAL). The Fourth Amendment sends a clear message. Unfettered search and seizure is at odds with a citizen's ability to participate in a democracy because of the potential it creates for abuse. Any pretense of a crime can be used as a gateway to retribution. Especially considering that computers actually have made it easier to search and seize.
The fact that they made the most limited search practical is a complete defense against 4th Amendment, and the fact that a judge sided with them indicates such.
Any pretense of a crime can be used as a gateway to retribution. Especially considering that computers actually have made it easier to search and seize.
I agree in general, but with the pretty strong evidence in this case, this isn't the one to fight. Journalists got caught with their hands in the cookie jar here, and now they want "freedom of the press" to bail them out. Not happening. They have to obey the laws too.
"Journalist are understandably upset that confidential information, that has nothing to do with the investigation, will be found"
And presumably that unrelated confidential information wouldn't fall under the scope of the warrant. But the cops *definitely* have enough for a warrant. They have traced blatantly illegal activity back to a computer and seized it. Any private citizen would have faced the same. Freedom of the press isn't a blanket right to break the law with complete impunity and immunity.
I mean, think about what you're saying. It's like saying anyone with confidential information in their house (ie, everyone) shouldn't ever be subject to a legal, warranted search. There are mechanisms to restrict the scope of warrants.
In general, if one is worried about such confidential information, I'd strongly suggest not doing completely illegal shit with the computer containing it.
It's just an element. The scientists in question aren't particularly concerned with its attractiveness, seemingly mystical attraction, or monetary worth. Like any other chemical, it has a range of uses. Here, it's fairly inert from an oxidative standpoint, yet is relatively easy to attach thiol groups to. In addition, it's conductive. Nothing to see here...
His advice, I expect, is to look for the things industry isn't doing *but should be.* At that point, of course, his advice becomes the domain of Captain Obvious. I think, sometimes, that people consider what they say to be insightful by simply mentioning words like "disruptive technology."
Why in the world are they trying to compare a software suite (Windows Media Center) to a computer with a remote (Mac Mini)?
Front row? Mini is a computer *and* a software suite, so the comparison is apt on that level. As to hardware comparisons...MS brings that on itself by not taking a more active role in what hardware its OS runs on, particularly for not-so-standard PC tasks like home theater.
Admittedly, the article was completely biased, but the comparison between mini and MS HTPC needs to be made, since those are the leading products in the market. Will the comparison necessarily make assumptions about the hardware the HTPC runs on? Yes, necessarily, but a good review will take that into account.
So I'm supposed to believe that the reason both the music and movie business experienced big drops in profitability at the same time as mass piracy in both fields became practical, is that both art form went through an unprecedented quality drop at the same time? And it has nothing to do with piracy?
If those were the only variables over the time span, you might be correct. First, critics in general agree that both *have* gone through a serious drop in quality. Second, other things compound the problem. For movies, one has the advent of Netflix and DVD sales cannibalizing movie revenue. More people are waiting for the DVD since they'll want to keep it and the audio/video quality is high. For music, they're comparing sales to the mid/late 90s when people were still replacing tape/vinyl collections. Third, in both fields execs are focusing increasingly on big budget "safe" bets as opposed to a variety of smaller budget attempts. The result is a bunch of "safe" products that do OK but not great. Finally, for movies, the increasing budgets are quickly pricing their tickets out of the casual date market - it's no longer something people will do once a weekend.
So there's a lot going on here. You can't just find two variables that happen to have a correlation and assume causality.
That seems like quite a big coincidence, doesn't it? Unlikely so, even?
I once read a study that showed a 0.9 correlation between National league batting averages and the GNP of Sweden for a few years. That best illustrates my point. If you have enough variables, two of them are guaranteed to be correlated for a while.
correct. attempting to invalidate someone's statements by pointing out they have been paid to make them is ad hominem. just because a person, in a worst case scenario, makes a cynical statement merely for personal profit has absolutely no bearing on the truth of that statement whatsoever.
now, having said that, i went and read the article and have come to the conclusion that the real purpotrator of fallicies in this thread is Jonathan Zuck himself. the entire rambling piece is little more than a bag of poor analogies propped up as straw men, miscontextualized quotes and mild ad hominem. this is a gross exercise in rhetoric that brings approprixmately zero new insight to discussion about the future of the gpl.
I'm not so sure what part of his analogy was poor, really. I certainly believe Stallman's beliefs verge on the religious. I also think GPL3 is his attempt to cut off the ideology that was his original goal from the practical applications it has spawned. As such, I think the article's analogies fit pretty well, actually.
Wow, that's a hell of a filter. Basically, they said they were mulling the idea of licensing them to some other company who would produce them for ~$170 (including some profit) and sell them for $200, kicking back $30 to the program.
The more they sell, the cheaper the laptops are to make. They could be sold in the first world at a 100% markup and still come out VERY cheap, allowing a second laptop to be provided to the third world at the cost of shipping.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait - how did Dungeon Siege require math skills?
Yeah, I don't know why non-newbies would want to waste time doing all that crap by hand either.
Good idea. The first time somebody convinced me of that I was pretty sure they were full of crap. What license code does one use in that situation?
Yup. Smacks of a lack of creativity and historical perspective.
That's reasonable. I mean, verisign would never do anything to violate an agreement with ICANN, right?
I'm at work so I've hardly got time, but it's pretty well known that the unemployment rate by any measure is currently very low. This despite having a ton of foreigners in this country. However you cut it, if we sent them all home, we wouldn't have enough people to do the jobs. At 5% unemployment (a very high estimate), that's about 15 million people out of work. We have many, many more foreigners than that in the country, and they're doing the crappy jobs by far.
The minimum wage was designed as the mimimum amount you could live on.
Well, that was 'designed' when there weren't a lot of people in the work force who aren't supporting families. These days, people making minimum wage are either high schoolers or morons who flip jobs every week. I have no pity for these people. I'd rather support a hard-working foreigner than a lazy American.
Businesses already are leaving if they can, and they're leaving when the cost of their employees are way above min wage. The only way to fix that is tariffs and taxes on imported goods.
Yay, protectionist economics! Yeah, that always works. I'd suggest an econ course before you regurgitate any more of the economics according to Ludd. If you substitute "Mexicans" for "machines" you're making the same outdated arguments.
Legalization would nuke that argument.
And, more to the point, there's not any evidence we have enough low-level jobs to go around. Ergo, everyone who comes to this country to take a job is, indeed, taking away it away from an American.
Completely untrue, adn this is well documented. First, Americans won't take those low level jobs. See, we've gotten our economy to the point where we generate more work than there are people to do it. We take the good jobs, but somebody has to do the crap we don't want to do. Same thing with Germany in the 80's - they didn't have anyone to do the menial labor, so they let in a ton of Turks (Gastarbeiter). And again, if we legalize them, your "trapped" argument falls.
all we've done is introduced more people to compete with us.
For what, minimum wage jobs? They can have them.
and raise the minimum wage to the point that Americans can live on it.
Dunno if you've noticed, but the de facto minimum wage right now is around $8 an hour. Here in the DC area, fast food restaurants are starting people with no experience near $10. And the minimum wage was never meant to be "lived on," as if you've been working more than a year and you're making minimum...there's something wrong with you. Minimum wage is for high school students working at KMart like I did 10 years ago.
And don't forget, raising wages through artificial labor restrictions raises costs. Also, if we keep workers out and there aren't enough people to fill the jobs, businesses leave. I'd rather have businesses hiring foreigners here so we can tax them rather than businesses hiring foreigners in foreign countries.
Surely you can dig up an old license somewhere? Or does that not work on XP? I honestly don't know, I haven't used Windows XP at home. Still prefer 2K for my occasional windows needs.
Do you even pay attention to your own propaganda? I'm pretty sure Republicans aren't in favor of open borders.
And what's with the xenophobia? Worried that a foreigner can do your job better than you?
Maybe. But realistically, now is NOT the time to be bringing this up. Maybe I'm old school, but if a deal was made, you stick to it. If you wanted the source then, you should have asked for it. I might be willing to give them the API, but the full source, I dunno.
Don't worry. Any random donations from slashdotters will be FAR outweighed by his bandwidth bill this month. For Chrissakes, he posted *movies!* Sure, he pulled them now, but the damage is done.
None of which matters here. A journalist broke a just law, a warrant was filed for seizure of evidence, and said evidence was seized in compliance with the 4th Amendment. Forget for a second this was a journalist - what's the problem again?
Since businesses do a better job obtaining and preserving their protections than the public seems to do, just look to them for the precedent. They refuse to release things all the time claiming "irrepairable harm". Admittedly those are usually civil cases involving trade secrets and the like. However, the point stands.
And if these things are used in the commission of a criminal act, that is moot.
The Bill of Rights protects against unreasonable search and seizure for exactly that reason. Leaking information that can be used for retribution against citizen or, almost more importantly, against the press causes irrepairable harm. The belief of the paper is that the seizure, in this case, was far beyond what a constitution warrant would allow.
Then they're insane. Ask yourself: if you used your computer to illegally hack into a police database, would the cops get a warrant and seize your computer? The answer is an unqualified "yes!" As such, the answer should be exactly the same for a newspaper, or any other business.
The claim could be made that the police made the most limited seizure practical, but I don't believe that's provides a defense against a clear Fourth Amendment claim (IANAL). The Fourth Amendment sends a clear message. Unfettered search and seizure is at odds with a citizen's ability to participate in a democracy because of the potential it creates for abuse. Any pretense of a crime can be used as a gateway to retribution. Especially considering that computers actually have made it easier to search and seize.
The fact that they made the most limited search practical is a complete defense against 4th Amendment, and the fact that a judge sided with them indicates such.
Any pretense of a crime can be used as a gateway to retribution. Especially considering that computers actually have made it easier to search and seize.
I agree in general, but with the pretty strong evidence in this case, this isn't the one to fight. Journalists got caught with their hands in the cookie jar here, and now they want "freedom of the press" to bail them out. Not happening. They have to obey the laws too.
And presumably that unrelated confidential information wouldn't fall under the scope of the warrant. But the cops *definitely* have enough for a warrant. They have traced blatantly illegal activity back to a computer and seized it. Any private citizen would have faced the same. Freedom of the press isn't a blanket right to break the law with complete impunity and immunity.
I mean, think about what you're saying. It's like saying anyone with confidential information in their house (ie, everyone) shouldn't ever be subject to a legal, warranted search. There are mechanisms to restrict the scope of warrants.
In general, if one is worried about such confidential information, I'd strongly suggest not doing completely illegal shit with the computer containing it.
It's just an element. The scientists in question aren't particularly concerned with its attractiveness, seemingly mystical attraction, or monetary worth. Like any other chemical, it has a range of uses. Here, it's fairly inert from an oxidative standpoint, yet is relatively easy to attach thiol groups to. In addition, it's conductive. Nothing to see here...
His advice, I expect, is to look for the things industry isn't doing *but should be.* At that point, of course, his advice becomes the domain of Captain Obvious. I think, sometimes, that people consider what they say to be insightful by simply mentioning words like "disruptive technology."
Wow. Anyone who puts newlines in a filename should be beaten publically.
Front row? Mini is a computer *and* a software suite, so the comparison is apt on that level. As to hardware comparisons...MS brings that on itself by not taking a more active role in what hardware its OS runs on, particularly for not-so-standard PC tasks like home theater.
Admittedly, the article was completely biased, but the comparison between mini and MS HTPC needs to be made, since those are the leading products in the market. Will the comparison necessarily make assumptions about the hardware the HTPC runs on? Yes, necessarily, but a good review will take that into account.
No offense - I'm honestly curious - how is the iPod interface "hard?"
I have electronic fuel injection and I've had to flash my BIOS many times, thank you very much.
If those were the only variables over the time span, you might be correct. First, critics in general agree that both *have* gone through a serious drop in quality. Second, other things compound the problem. For movies, one has the advent of Netflix and DVD sales cannibalizing movie revenue. More people are waiting for the DVD since they'll want to keep it and the audio/video quality is high. For music, they're comparing sales to the mid/late 90s when people were still replacing tape/vinyl collections. Third, in both fields execs are focusing increasingly on big budget "safe" bets as opposed to a variety of smaller budget attempts. The result is a bunch of "safe" products that do OK but not great. Finally, for movies, the increasing budgets are quickly pricing their tickets out of the casual date market - it's no longer something people will do once a weekend.
So there's a lot going on here. You can't just find two variables that happen to have a correlation and assume causality.
That seems like quite a big coincidence, doesn't it? Unlikely so, even?
I once read a study that showed a 0.9 correlation between National league batting averages and the GNP of Sweden for a few years. That best illustrates my point. If you have enough variables, two of them are guaranteed to be correlated for a while.
I'm not so sure what part of his analogy was poor, really. I certainly believe Stallman's beliefs verge on the religious. I also think GPL3 is his attempt to cut off the ideology that was his original goal from the practical applications it has spawned. As such, I think the article's analogies fit pretty well, actually.
Wow, that's a hell of a filter. Basically, they said they were mulling the idea of licensing them to some other company who would produce them for ~$170 (including some profit) and sell them for $200, kicking back $30 to the program.
Actually, I'd heard they were going to do just that - sell them to anyone for $200, using the proceeds presumably to help fund the program.
Unless you live in Sudan or somewhere else fun like that, for you the answer is "never."