Time to learn about Docterine of Lasches... what is that you might ask?
Well, its illegal to sit on a patent that you own, and purposely delay patent litigation for your own financial gain. If you didn't know about the infringement, then its fine. Not every company can act as a world-wide watchdog for patent infringers. But if you knew somebody was using your patent, and you held off on enforcing it for your own financial gain, there are precendents that make this illegal.
In the real world, if you're designing large systems, you're not a programmer, youre a systems architect.
Think.. architects design the huge thing.. programmers build it, and make localized design decisions.
But I dont think its fair to say programmers must be good at large scale design since thats a career path unto itself. And those who can design large scale systems are usually not so good at the nitty gritty... so I think your point is more one of semantics.
Its terribly depressing to think that you didn't notice the poster knew all the answers you provided him with.. he was posting satire. You do have satire in your country, right?
You cant cartel whats cheap to produce and easily available. Oil cartels require control over the land the oil is. Explain to me how a coffee cartel could control all coffee fertile land again?
go into explorer and drag an.exe onto your desktop
i wonder what other types of files result in a shortcut instead of a move?
the right click drag option is the only thing I use, but only cause what should be the normal way is so gosh darn tempermental. especially if you dont know where youre moving something to until you get there.. once you get there, what happens is entirely dependant on the physical layout of your partitions. thats frusterating!:)
and were talking usability here, which should be natural.. its not usable if you need a power user to tip you off on the superior way of doing things.. ive never seen a new user figure out the right click method themselves so I cant really include its existance in a discussion about windows user friendliness.:)
Well, my point was, you only find out once you get to where you're dragging, even if the cursor tips you off when you get there.
Lets say I claim that usability is the quality by which software acts 'naturally', thus I shouldnt have to memorize that d&d'ing to another drive is a copy, not a move.
Now I pick up a file, intending to move it.. start dragging it... and finaly get there, and then the curson changes to a copy (cause i just moused-over a different drive.) But I wanted to move! Now I have to cancel my action and go back.. I know its obvious once you get there, but the point is, I should be 100% of the result of my actions when I start my actions, not finish them.:) Usability frustration is 50% having to re-do your work because you only found out at the end of the use case scenario that you started the whole procedure incorrectly.
Its a nitpick, but hey, thats the problem with Windows.. it doesn't do anything 100% terribly.. but it definately has the most amount of my nitpicks out of any of the other OSes by a long shot.
LOL, sometimes I wonder about these people that went to Econ 101.. remember physics 101? Remember how what you learned in physics 101 is a vast oversimplifaction of the mechanics of markets
you know how time isnt constant?
Well, no market is transparent. No consumer is aware of all their choices. And no Econ 101 course is going to teach you anything about how the economy really works.
The way people like you talk, executives have no jobs.. all they do is pay their employees to make the product. Here's a clue-stick: executives jobs are to influence the sale of their product, independant of the quality of that product, by using various tactics to influence the -ahem- 'free market'.
Any fucking econ dude that did post grad work will tell you that Econ 101 is to give you the very basic rules. When you start to factor in various innovations in influencing markets and consumer behaviour (gee, what the fuck is advertising if consumers magically buy the right product as per your theory)... drivel like yours almost isnt worth the time to refute.
But dont believe me. Check the other replies to your post.
Starbucks employed the most agressive expansion strategy in the history of retail.
They themselves are responsible for the term 'clusterbombing' neighbourhoods.. by buying 4 or 5 stores (they admit to going specifically after trying to buy the leases out of already-existing entrenched local coffee shops) in a 3 or 4 span block, you couldn't escape them.
It was only people's desire to think they had control over their little universe that led them to think Starbucks multiplied in size a zillion times over the span of 5 years because they innately discovered a better coffee than all existing coffee shops.
What a joke. Anybody that takes an interest in corperate strategy either revears Starbucks as a hero, for successfully expanding faster than any retail gig in known history, for pioneering a few new coperate-expantion strategies like clusterbombing, for gutlessly buying out the leases of local favorite coffee shops (despite protests by local populations and local celebrities and dignataries).. or as pure evil for somehow getting my fellow man into thinking they made it based on the merit of their product.
I wont even touch on what they did to international coffee prices. Now, 0.5% of their coffee beans are bought, in their words, "at a fair price." This was to silence those who rallied valiently to save the livings of coffee farmers the world over.
er, sorry, I meant left click drag, but you left out the following scnearios:
Drag onto desktop (makes short cut)
- from same drive as desktop is on (not sure if this changes anything)
- from different drive as desktop is on (ditto) Drag from desktop (makes short cut)
- to same drive (unsure if this changes anything)
- to differnt drive (ditto)
Drag.exe (makes short cut) Drag file (makes copy if going to anther drive, move if on same drive, as you pointed out)
The right-click drag is a hack.. usability experts will say that the TO and FROM should have no effect on the action.
Dragging should always either copy or move (I vote move).. modified dragging (with ctrl or shift or something) should copy, and another modifier for make shortcut.
Compound that your source might be obscured via the auto-scrolling that happens in an exporer window, so by the time you end up over the destination, you can lose sight of the source. Then you'll have to go back after you let go of the drag to figure out whether you just moved the file or copy.
Its not rocket science, I know. Its not insanely complicated. But its not user-friendly, especially since you need to (but might not always) have both your source and destination in sight to implicitly know what the result of the drag and drop will be.
And what happens when you want to move a file, but dont know if you _will_ be moving it onto another drive? MS's way means that the result at the end of my drag and drop is doing to depend on the drive I'm going to. I contend that I know what I want to do when I *start* the drag and drop.. I dont want to find out at the end that when I meant to do a move, I'm going to be doing it onto another drive, neccessitating a cancel or undo, and me having to back to my source to do the right click modifier.
There are tons of scenarios where the MS way is kind of half-baked. Its the classic situation where MS was trying to make Windows more 'automated and intelligent', but really only ended up training a generation of users who really cant (you included) describe all possible results of dragging and dropping. The 'fix', the right click drag, is the ONLY action in ANY WindowsOS or windows software that results in popping up a context menu in the middle of nowhere after a drag and drop. They developed a completely new use for the context menu to fix a problem they should have solved by making the whole process very simple:
- drag is move - drag/w shift is copy - drag/w control is shortcut - file type or source/dest should not have any effect on these actions
(Aside: Real mice have as many buttons as they need to support the graphical interface. Depending on how well the graphical interface is designed, and how well the keyboard shortcut conventions are adhered to, real mice are entirely dependant on the success of the usability aspects of the graphical interface it is designed to control.)
The paragraph on clicking is worth the whole article alone. Why are the funniest things always the closest to the truth.:)
Always reminded me of the "mac needs a second mouse button" rant. Its true that power users love the second mouse button, but it still makes me want to pull my hair out when people single click on shit that needs double clicking, and even worse, trying to guide somebody through the gui and having them double clicking where they should be single clicking.
Say what you will about Windows, but the clicking conventions are a complete and utter mess. I'm not even sure power users can predict with 100% certainty when a particular drag and drop in a particular context will result in a move, copy, or make shortcut action. (And yes I know about the left click drag - its hilarious, that feature is a total hack for how confusing the drag & drop heuristics are.)
Re:For the most part, looks like the exhibit sucks
on
Review: Illegal Art
·
· Score: 1
Well, thats the implementation of copyright you're talking about. Copyright law is all fucked up right now. I know that.:)
I was speaking purely about art and effort - often the simplest, most seemingly 'obvious' works.. somebody came up with it and wrote it in the first place. The way we pay artists (or not pay them, case in point), both in terms of money and rights, is completetly fucked up right now. Maybe "Frere Jaques" would have been a better example (since the copyright has expired on that).. my point was only that the simplest works, requiring the least amount of 'effort' to write can become some of the most prolific respected artistic works.
Re:For the most part, looks like the exhibit sucks
on
Review: Illegal Art
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Oh come now. Equating art with effort is rediculous. Art is art, buddy, and its okay that you didnt like the CDs. But by virtue of the artist calling it art, its art.
Feel free to make your own, work as hard as you like on it, but dont expect people to honestly critique your work based on the effort you put into it. By your measure, you should be the most famous artist in the world, regardless of artistic ability, so long as you work 20 hours more than the next best artist.
The asthetic, the message,.. there are tons of qualities you can analyse in art.
And how you can spin a 6th grade project into a case for what is art - uh.. no comment:)
I think your reaction is natural tho; imagine how many people should feel upset at whoever wrote the song "Happy Birthday".. its such a simple song, it seems like anyone could come up with it. The point is, nobody did until the composer did. So the composer deserves the credit (like the artist for the CD piece) for recognizing that something so simple could still become a point of conversation, of thought, for other people.
Art isnt a meritocracy - in line with the definition, by working against nature, art is made to escape any value judgement you can place on it by quantitative analysis (how big is it, how long did it take to make) alone.
I think your questions are valid, but you'd have a very difficult time convincing anybody remotely affiliated with the artistic community that art can be discounted as being such based soley on the effort that went into it. More effort goes into producing , in terms of how many people worked on it, for how long, etc. So now is some shitty blockbuster that took 500 people 3 years to make better than, the mona lisa, which only took one guy a few months to make in the comfort of his own home? Of course not.
(I should point out that I didnt agree with the troll mod.)
Re:The opening was off the hook
on
Review: Illegal Art
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Good sounding CD. I thought I'd expand on the appropriateness of some of those artsts:
Invisbl Skratch Piklz - turntablist group that uses presumably copywritten recordings, deconstructing and reconstructing COMPLETETLY original music from prerecorded vinyl records.
De La Soul - first rap group involved in sample-litigation for a sample they used from some Turtles (I think) song. Top 40 R&B Rap today is very canned, and rarely self-referential.. producers today obscure source samples as to not get caught using them, or create much of their sound from the ground up. Not that theres anything wrong with it, but De La ended up being the poster child for a persecuted movement in the progression of music. (Interested parties may also note that classical music greats would 'borrow' 3 or 4 bar melodies from each other verbatim.. what De La Soul got sued for has been happening, safely and positively, between musicians for centuries. Too bad the lawyers dont get it.)
Negativeland - I _think_ they coined the term "Culture Jamming"..
Just felt like I should point out why these groups would be involved in an exhibit like this.
Re:For the most part, looks like the exhibit sucks
on
Review: Illegal Art
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Art can be purely asthetic, or it can be a message. Anything can be art.
If you copied all your CDs, and called it art, poof! Its art!
Whether is good art, or not, thats for you to decide. You didn't like it, good stuff.
But art is a message (in this case).. if you copied your CDs and put them on display, then its art. And think about it.. if you copy all your music (illegal) and put them on display (ie, youre not ripping the artist off because youre not even listning to their product, youre just making a point).. why should that be illegal?
I think thats the message there.. by putting the CDs on display, they cease being usable for their intended purpose, and become art - but, for reasons other than keeping artists from making free "CD Collection Exibits", its illegal to do that, and the point is made! The message is the irony that its illegal to copy information if you dont use that information in such a fasion that the original creator of the information should be compensated. Presumably, he could have copied anyones CDs.. the actual product (the music) is being completetly disregarded in this case, so no artist should get paid.. youre left wondering if this piece of illegal art, should, in fact be illegal.
So who cares if its good or not.. should it be illegal to create art by copying data off of CDs, when the infomation on those CDs is never used by the purchaser? Should the purchaser owe the musicians on the CDs money for using their creations to make a statement.. should we not consider the context in which the information is being used before the law states that copying that information is illegal? Is this fair use? Etc, etc...
Nintendo pays who to not release what on who's console?
Maybe you meant that Sony does for the FF series...
I still have to say that Microsoft is probably the closest (visible) company to abusing a monopoly.
Sony is a megacorperation, but as far as I know, doesnt have upwards of 90% market share in any given market. MS does. People frequently seem to think that folks who take the monopoly argument are just saying it because MS is rich. It has nothing to do with their reserves, and everything to do with their market share in a particular market.
Now, fair enough, they have to use their monopoly to be called on anti-competative behavior, not just the money they _make_ from the monopoly, but when 90% of games are made for your OS because 90% of OSes out there are Windows, then isn't making a Windows-based console an abuse of their market share in operating systems because they can leverage the existing non-choice most computer-game developers have in terms of what platform they develop towards? It seems to me that they have an unfair advantage in having people develop towards their console simply by virtue of their monopoly in the Desktop Operating System market.
Michael Moore's "culture of fear" point, as explained in Bowling for Columnbine comes into play here.
I personally think its fear. Company men _fear_ doing the wrong thing, to they want to play it as aggresively as possible so they cant be left holding the buck.
The better we get at analysing the consequences of our actions, the worse it'll get. Trusted computing is nothing.. imagine when companies put processes in place that could systematically prevent employees from taking action (or not taking action) that would result in potential lost revenue. ("Warning: System detects employee 4530 has not yet instigated copyright litigation against infringer XM43[XMLReuters:8493/02/04/03]. Potential lost revenue detected, job priviledges revoked.") The shareholders would be in support of such a thing until they realized humans are humans because we can see and predict beyond the short term quantifiable results of our actions.
I might sound like a luddite in saying it, but the closer we get to the trees, the less and less we are able to navigate the forest.
Then you reinforce the impression that some people would rather spend more time on making sure nobody can fuck with their life than having one worth fucking to begin with.:)
Why the hell is the US working on a missle defence system? Wouldnt it be more logical to make a country-sized tinfoil dome?
(On a more serious note, I can trash your credit rating by sitting at a restaurant you pay credit with. Your waitress can trash your credit rating. Anybody with access to your garbage can trash your credit rating. What on earth are you people so terrified of?)
The key point was that Jay Leno doesn't want to get *richer*. Just like many OSS developers. Once they are living at a financial level they are happy with, you can't call their projects failures because they dont make money from them.
Thats the point. Its not about the money once your needs or wants are met. The people I feel sorry for are the ones who truly believe they should actually *resist* lifting a finger until somebody forks them some cash. (Ie, people that believe that a contribution isn't really a contribution unless you make money from it.)
_Thats_ the attitude I find depressing, but all too common.
> Those who were rich while they were alive get into Heaven or Hell MUCH faster than everyone else.
This is sarcasm, right? In the grant scheme of things NOTHING matters, but making people around me happy is certainly alot more important to me than making money in the short term. I'd easily take making a positive social contribution than making lots of money. Sure, I need *some* money to live, but I don't judge my success (nor other peoples') on money.. I judge their success based on whether I feel that their efforts have gone towards improving the state of our society. Yes, its subjective. But we know judging people by money doesn't work, and generates a whole wack load of false positives, so why try?
Slashdot Mirror
er, I'll learn to link, first .. but herer it is
You! Yes, you.
... what is that you might ask?
Time to learn about Docterine of Lasches
Well, its illegal to sit on a patent that you own, and purposely delay patent litigation for your own financial gain. If you didn't know about the infringement, then its fine. Not every company can act as a world-wide watchdog for patent infringers. But if you knew somebody was using your patent, and you held off on enforcing it for your own financial gain, there are precendents that make this illegal.
Link and learn
In the real world, if you're designing large systems, you're not a programmer, youre a systems architect.
.. architects design the huge thing .. programmers build it, and make localized design decisions.
... so I think your point is more one of semantics.
Think
But I dont think its fair to say programmers must be good at large scale design since thats a career path unto itself. And those who can design large scale systems are usually not so good at the nitty gritty
fair enough, i was just impressed you felt it worth your time. :)
it wasnt meant as an attack =) no harm intended, so i offer my apologies
Its terribly depressing to think that you didn't notice the poster knew all the answers you provided him with .. he was posting satire. You do have satire in your country, right?
The funniest thing is that you replied to his point about free markets with a comment about coffee!
Way to refute the notion that no market is transparent to the consumer and that advertising and location planning exists for a reason!
You cant cartel whats cheap to produce and easily available. Oil cartels require control over the land the oil is. Explain to me how a coffee cartel could control all coffee fertile land again?
go into explorer and drag an .exe onto your desktop
.. once you get there, what happens is entirely dependant on the physical layout of your partitions. thats frusterating! :)
.. its not usable if you need a power user to tip you off on the superior way of doing things .. ive never seen a new user figure out the right click method themselves so I cant really include its existance in a discussion about windows user friendliness. :)
i wonder what other types of files result in a shortcut instead of a move?
the right click drag option is the only thing I use, but only cause what should be the normal way is so gosh darn tempermental. especially if you dont know where youre moving something to until you get there
and were talking usability here, which should be natural
Well, my point was, you only find out once you get to where you're dragging, even if the cursor tips you off when you get there.
.. start dragging it ... and finaly get there, and then the curson changes to a copy (cause i just moused-over a different drive.) But I wanted to move! Now I have to cancel my action and go back .. I know its obvious once you get there, but the point is, I should be 100% of the result of my actions when I start my actions, not finish them. :) Usability frustration is 50% having to re-do your work because you only found out at the end of the use case scenario that you started the whole procedure incorrectly.
.. it doesn't do anything 100% terribly .. but it definately has the most amount of my nitpicks out of any of the other OSes by a long shot.
Lets say I claim that usability is the quality by which software acts 'naturally', thus I shouldnt have to memorize that d&d'ing to another drive is a copy, not a move.
Now I pick up a file, intending to move it
Its a nitpick, but hey, thats the problem with Windows
LOL, sometimes I wonder about these people that went to Econ 101 .. remember physics 101? Remember how what you learned in physics 101 is a vast oversimplifaction of the mechanics of markets
.. all they do is pay their employees to make the product. Here's a clue-stick: executives jobs are to influence the sale of their product, independant of the quality of that product, by using various tactics to influence the -ahem- 'free market'.
... drivel like yours almost isnt worth the time to refute.
you know how time isnt constant?
Well, no market is transparent. No consumer is aware of all their choices. And no Econ 101 course is going to teach you anything about how the economy really works.
The way people like you talk, executives have no jobs
Any fucking econ dude that did post grad work will tell you that Econ 101 is to give you the very basic rules. When you start to factor in various innovations in influencing markets and consumer behaviour (gee, what the fuck is advertising if consumers magically buy the right product as per your theory)
But dont believe me. Check the other replies to your post.
What a sick joke.
.. by buying 4 or 5 stores (they admit to going specifically after trying to buy the leases out of already-existing entrenched local coffee shops) in a 3 or 4 span block, you couldn't escape them.
.. or as pure evil for somehow getting my fellow man into thinking they made it based on the merit of their product.
Starbucks employed the most agressive expansion strategy in the history of retail.
They themselves are responsible for the term 'clusterbombing' neighbourhoods
It was only people's desire to think they had control over their little universe that led them to think Starbucks multiplied in size a zillion times over the span of 5 years because they innately discovered a better coffee than all existing coffee shops.
What a joke. Anybody that takes an interest in corperate strategy either revears Starbucks as a hero, for successfully expanding faster than any retail gig in known history, for pioneering a few new coperate-expantion strategies like clusterbombing, for gutlessly buying out the leases of local favorite coffee shops (despite protests by local populations and local celebrities and dignataries)
I wont even touch on what they did to international coffee prices. Now, 0.5% of their coffee beans are bought, in their words, "at a fair price." This was to silence those who rallied valiently to save the livings of coffee farmers the world over.
er, sorry, I meant left click drag, but you left out the following scnearios:
.exe (makes short cut)
.. usability experts will say that the TO and FROM should have no effect on the action.
.. modified dragging (with ctrl or shift or something) should copy, and another modifier for make shortcut.
.. I dont want to find out at the end that when I meant to do a move, I'm going to be doing it onto another drive, neccessitating a cancel or undo, and me having to back to my source to do the right click modifier.
/w shift is copy /w control is shortcut
Drag onto desktop (makes short cut)
- from same drive as desktop is on (not sure if this changes anything)
- from different drive as desktop is on (ditto)
Drag from desktop (makes short cut)
- to same drive (unsure if this changes anything)
- to differnt drive (ditto)
Drag
Drag file (makes copy if going to anther drive, move if on same drive, as you pointed out)
The right-click drag is a hack
Dragging should always either copy or move (I vote move)
Compound that your source might be obscured via the auto-scrolling that happens in an exporer window, so by the time you end up over the destination, you can lose sight of the source. Then you'll have to go back after you let go of the drag to figure out whether you just moved the file or copy.
Its not rocket science, I know. Its not insanely complicated. But its not user-friendly, especially since you need to (but might not always) have both your source and destination in sight to implicitly know what the result of the drag and drop will be.
And what happens when you want to move a file, but dont know if you _will_ be moving it onto another drive? MS's way means that the result at the end of my drag and drop is doing to depend on the drive I'm going to. I contend that I know what I want to do when I *start* the drag and drop
There are tons of scenarios where the MS way is kind of half-baked. Its the classic situation where MS was trying to make Windows more 'automated and intelligent', but really only ended up training a generation of users who really cant (you included) describe all possible results of dragging and dropping. The 'fix', the right click drag, is the ONLY action in ANY WindowsOS or windows software that results in popping up a context menu in the middle of nowhere after a drag and drop. They developed a completely new use for the context menu to fix a problem they should have solved by making the whole process very simple:
- drag is move
- drag
- drag
- file type or source/dest should not have any effect on these actions
*zip*
..... *
No, real mice have four buttons.
*wizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
(Aside: Real mice have as many buttons as they need to support the graphical interface. Depending on how well the graphical interface is designed, and how well the keyboard shortcut conventions are adhered to, real mice are entirely dependant on the success of the usability aspects of the graphical interface it is designed to control.)
Its funny!
:)
The paragraph on clicking is worth the whole article alone. Why are the funniest things always the closest to the truth.
Always reminded me of the "mac needs a second mouse button" rant. Its true that power users love the second mouse button, but it still makes me want to pull my hair out when people single click on shit that needs double clicking, and even worse, trying to guide somebody through the gui and having them double clicking where they should be single clicking.
Say what you will about Windows, but the clicking conventions are a complete and utter mess. I'm not even sure power users can predict with 100% certainty when a particular drag and drop in a particular context will result in a move, copy, or make shortcut action. (And yes I know about the left click drag - its hilarious, that feature is a total hack for how confusing the drag & drop heuristics are.)
Well, thats the implementation of copyright you're talking about. Copyright law is all fucked up right now. I know that. :)
.. somebody came up with it and wrote it in the first place. The way we pay artists (or not pay them, case in point), both in terms of money and rights, is completetly fucked up right now. Maybe "Frere Jaques" would have been a better example (since the copyright has expired on that) .. my point was only that the simplest works, requiring the least amount of 'effort' to write can become some of the most prolific respected artistic works.
I was speaking purely about art and effort - often the simplest, most seemingly 'obvious' works
Oh come now. Equating art with effort is rediculous. Art is art, buddy, and its okay that you didnt like the CDs. But by virtue of the artist calling it art, its art.
.. there are tons of qualities you can analyse in art.
.. no comment :)
.. its such a simple song, it seems like anyone could come up with it. The point is, nobody did until the composer did. So the composer deserves the credit (like the artist for the CD piece) for recognizing that something so simple could still become a point of conversation, of thought, for other people.
Feel free to make your own, work as hard as you like on it, but dont expect people to honestly critique your work based on the effort you put into it. By your measure, you should be the most famous artist in the world, regardless of artistic ability, so long as you work 20 hours more than the next best artist.
The asthetic, the message,
And how you can spin a 6th grade project into a case for what is art - uh
I think your reaction is natural tho; imagine how many people should feel upset at whoever wrote the song "Happy Birthday"
Art isnt a meritocracy - in line with the definition, by working against nature, art is made to escape any value judgement you can place on it by quantitative analysis (how big is it, how long did it take to make) alone.
I think your questions are valid, but you'd have a very difficult time convincing anybody remotely affiliated with the artistic community that art can be discounted as being such based soley on the effort that went into it. More effort goes into producing , in terms of how many people worked on it, for how long, etc. So now is some shitty blockbuster that took 500 people 3 years to make better than, the mona lisa, which only took one guy a few months to make in the comfort of his own home? Of course not.
(I should point out that I didnt agree with the troll mod.)
Good sounding CD. I thought I'd expand on the appropriateness of some of those artsts:
.. producers today obscure source samples as to not get caught using them, or create much of their sound from the ground up. Not that theres anything wrong with it, but De La ended up being the poster child for a persecuted movement in the progression of music. (Interested parties may also note that classical music greats would 'borrow' 3 or 4 bar melodies from each other verbatim .. what De La Soul got sued for has been happening, safely and positively, between musicians for centuries. Too bad the lawyers dont get it.)
..
Invisbl Skratch Piklz - turntablist group that uses presumably copywritten recordings, deconstructing and reconstructing COMPLETETLY original music from prerecorded vinyl records.
De La Soul - first rap group involved in sample-litigation for a sample they used from some Turtles (I think) song. Top 40 R&B Rap today is very canned, and rarely self-referential
Negativeland - I _think_ they coined the term "Culture Jamming"
Just felt like I should point out why these groups would be involved in an exhibit like this.
Art can be purely asthetic, or it can be a message. Anything can be art.
.. if you copied your CDs and put them on display, then its art. And think about it .. if you copy all your music (illegal) and put them on display (ie, youre not ripping the artist off because youre not even listning to their product, youre just making a point) .. why should that be illegal?
.. by putting the CDs on display, they cease being usable for their intended purpose, and become art - but, for reasons other than keeping artists from making free "CD Collection Exibits", its illegal to do that, and the point is made! The message is the irony that its illegal to copy information if you dont use that information in such a fasion that the original creator of the information should be compensated. Presumably, he could have copied anyones CDs .. the actual product (the music) is being completetly disregarded in this case, so no artist should get paid .. youre left wondering if this piece of illegal art, should, in fact be illegal.
.. should it be illegal to create art by copying data off of CDs, when the infomation on those CDs is never used by the purchaser? Should the purchaser owe the musicians on the CDs money for using their creations to make a statement .. should we not consider the context in which the information is being used before the law states that copying that information is illegal? Is this fair use? Etc, etc ...
If you copied all your CDs, and called it art, poof! Its art!
Whether is good art, or not, thats for you to decide. You didn't like it, good stuff.
But art is a message (in this case)
I think thats the message there
So who cares if its good or not
Not a bad post, but:
...
..
> You mean like Nintendo does for the FF series?
Nintendo pays who to not release what on who's console?
Maybe you meant that Sony does for the FF series
I still have to say that Microsoft is probably the closest (visible) company to abusing a monopoly.
Sony is a megacorperation, but as far as I know, doesnt have upwards of 90% market share in any given market. MS does. People frequently seem to think that folks who take the monopoly argument are just saying it because MS is rich. It has nothing to do with their reserves, and everything to do with their market share in a particular market.
Now, fair enough, they have to use their monopoly to be called on anti-competative behavior, not just the money they _make_ from the monopoly, but when 90% of games are made for your OS because 90% of OSes out there are Windows, then isn't making a Windows-based console an abuse of their market share in operating systems because they can leverage the existing non-choice most computer-game developers have in terms of what platform they develop towards? It seems to me that they have an unfair advantage in having people develop towards their console simply by virtue of their monopoly in the Desktop Operating System market.
I'd like to hear what some folks think of that
you're bang on, man
;)
again, we think, who combines the awesomeness of *nix with the gui wikedness of XP? Oh yeah, apple!
How do you think international business could function if contracts couldn't be held across borders?!
Michael Moore's "culture of fear" point, as explained in Bowling for Columnbine comes into play here.
.. imagine when companies put processes in place that could systematically prevent employees from taking action (or not taking action) that would result in potential lost revenue. ("Warning: System detects employee 4530 has not yet instigated copyright litigation against infringer XM43[XMLReuters:8493/02/04/03]. Potential lost revenue detected, job priviledges revoked.") The shareholders would be in support of such a thing until they realized humans are humans because we can see and predict beyond the short term quantifiable results of our actions.
I personally think its fear. Company men _fear_ doing the wrong thing, to they want to play it as aggresively as possible so they cant be left holding the buck.
The better we get at analysing the consequences of our actions, the worse it'll get. Trusted computing is nothing
I might sound like a luddite in saying it, but the closer we get to the trees, the less and less we are able to navigate the forest.
Then you reinforce the impression that some people would rather spend more time on making sure nobody can fuck with their life than having one worth fucking to begin with. :)
Why the hell is the US working on a missle defence system? Wouldnt it be more logical to make a country-sized tinfoil dome?
(On a more serious note, I can trash your credit rating by sitting at a restaurant you pay credit with. Your waitress can trash your credit rating. Anybody with access to your garbage can trash your credit rating. What on earth are you people so terrified of?)
The key point was that Jay Leno doesn't want to get *richer*. Just like many OSS developers. Once they are living at a financial level they are happy with, you can't call their projects failures because they dont make money from them.
.. I judge their success based on whether I feel that their efforts have gone towards improving the state of our society. Yes, its subjective. But we know judging people by money doesn't work, and generates a whole wack load of false positives, so why try?
Thats the point. Its not about the money once your needs or wants are met. The people I feel sorry for are the ones who truly believe they should actually *resist* lifting a finger until somebody forks them some cash. (Ie, people that believe that a contribution isn't really a contribution unless you make money from it.)
_Thats_ the attitude I find depressing, but all too common.
> Those who were rich while they were alive get into Heaven or Hell MUCH faster than everyone else.
This is sarcasm, right? In the grant scheme of things NOTHING matters, but making people around me happy is certainly alot more important to me than making money in the short term. I'd easily take making a positive social contribution than making lots of money. Sure, I need *some* money to live, but I don't judge my success (nor other peoples') on money