Public institution funded by my (and your) dollars. Its not 'their' schools.. its our schools. Who do you think owns the schools? And who do you think should have a say in what is and what is not allowed in schools?
Gasp, it couldn't be the parents who pay for it, and the kids who are taught there, could it?
The sad thing is that it took them this long to figure it out. How many windows users would there be if we had to pay for windows?
It's an interesting effect on 'supply and demand' however. How do you evaluate demand and scarcity when there is unlimited product available and production costs (ie, duplication) are nil? How does the market work when you're trying to sell information that can be free?
but what about the submitters who read about Google and/. now being indundated with submission sluts happily submitting from their newfound well of articles? I'm putting my money on them.:P
mom worked with PHD holder. PHD holder faked PHD. faked results. mom tells university. university tells mom to keep quiet or she gets fired. university quietly lets go of him 2 years later.
thusly, im impressed. way to can the liars. now if only we could do this with sales teams...
My point is, prove it. Go ahead and prove what you just said. Its difficult.
Renderware, kernals.. its easier to proove. Make sure your benchmark isn't biased and reflects real world use as close as you can, and then compare numbers.
Interface stuff is way more subjective, the science isn't fully trusted by the IT community, and thus you're always going to have way more arguments and FUD from people deveoping and critiquing it.
It's like people have confused 'freedom' with 'freedom do you whatever the hell you want without actually being subjected to what other people _think_ of it'. Which is a shame, because peer discussion and judgement is about the most important check/balance in society. While we try and limit the actions that can result from peer judgement (to avoid mob justice, for instance), we should try and avoid attempting to squash criticism just because its not 'productive'... ripping shit down to rebuild, rejecting norms, rejecting opinions and denouncing things we percieve as misguided or wrong is a key part of the process required to arrive at newer and superior solutions.
When people are free to do crap, don't forget others are well within their rights to freedom to voice dissatisfaction.. and even quit your job if you like, although the way people go on here, you'd think they were envious or scared of the freedom to do just that.
Holy crap, what does it say about the state of labour in the IT world when quitting a job because you're being asked to do something you don't want to do is grounds for others suggesting you're trying to be a martyr??
He's not trying to be a martyr. He's trying to have a job in which he agrees with the things he's asked to do. It's those who remain in the job at the expense of their happiness that are the dumb and childish ones. Whether or not KDE is "cripplewear" in RH is besides the point; he has set of values, he's actually going to do something about it.. thats cause for applause, even if I have no personal opinion on the nature of the disagreement between him and his former employer.
People are naturally going to fight over interfaces more than blackboxes.
When I implement rendering software, its very easy to tell if my approach or your approach is better; bench mark.
Now hell me how to objectively detemine which interface is better: KDE or GNOME?
I think its obvious that there is always going to be way more arguments about what the handles and knobs looks like than whether or not that engine is implemented in the best way possible. You can quantitatively test and compare all the kinds of software you say that doesn't suffer from the problems KDE/GNOME do.. interface stuff is way more shades of grey when it comes to the Right Way or the Wrong Way.
An employee of RH was being asked to work on something he disagreed with. So he left.
KDE is free to moan, RH is free to mod KDE, and this guy is free to get employment elsewhere.
Personally, it restores some of my confidence in humans. At least we're not all wage slaves who couldn't give a rats ass what they were working for and who they were serving.
> I thought the Internet was already decentralized, so I'm curious about what exactly they're fixing.
The only thing that needs fixing is the spammers. You know, so they can't have kids who take up the family business. We could even have Bob Barker provide the PSA at the end of Price Is Right episodes. ("Remeber to have your spammers spayed or neutered.")
No, people like stuff in the way they want it.. but will pay for it if somebody can figure out where to put the cash register.
Example: set up a store with all kinds of goods. Do not put a cashier in store. Allow people to walk in, peruse. Because people can't pay the store back due to the stores complete lack of payment options, they're going to think, well, tough crap, they don't make it easy for me to pay so they deserve to get ripped off. Now put a chashier in that store.. you won't need to hire 10 body gaurds to make sure people pay; they'll pay because the ability to pay is actually offered.
The whole concept of fair price is that people think its a fair repayment for value given. If you don't provide a means of payment, people arn't going to pay, but if you do, they will because the price is fair. You can't alter the definition of the word fair price.. you don't have to force somebody into doing something they perceive as fair.
Mind you, some people say that 20$ a CD isn't fair, so that might drive people to infringe the copyright of works, but only because the market doesn't seem to be working as advertised. A small peek into how 'competative' the market is, and a quick rundown of the payola and price fixing charges that the RIAA has been found guilty of, and that explains that angle.
So there you have it; people will take whats available, but I feel sorry for people who assume that people want something for nothing. It's when people have the ability or means to aquire goods in a form that the producer refuses to offer, will people go ahead and opt for enjoying the fruits of progress instead of self-disciplining themselves into abstinance.
People wouldn't object to a free Napster, but unless suddenly people start storming Barnes and Noble demanding they should get the books for free, they would prefer a pay for Napster if somebody would make one that was technically equal or superior to Naspter. And that's where were headed. If the market is relatively free and music is offered at prices people perceive to be fair, nobody will be demanding a return to the Napster days of old.
> Record labels know what consumers want. We all do. They want a Napster you pay for.
Read it again. "They" seems to imply the record labels, not people, the way its quoted.
But as an aside, I find it interesting how there are alot of people who want a pay-for Napster (mysql included), but nearly anybody that wants a free napster remains fairly voiceless, outed by a handful of people intent on reducing everybody but themselves as a freeloader.
When you can choose from RIAA Media (CDs), Naspter, Pay-Napster, most people seem to comprehend that the "Pay Napster" is what is going to keep the music being made.
But when you can choose from RIAA Media or just Naspter, people are going to use Naspter because they know that the Pay For Napster could exist.. its just the RIAA is dragging its feet. People won't turn down advancements in technologies, but they certainly will compensate for it if they have the opportunity.
Thats what the RIAA doesn't get. People will take what they want, but will only repay for it if its actually feasible to do so (ie, price is fair and method of payment exists). Its not that everybody wants something for nothing, its simply that they won't deny themselves something if the supplier is too lazy, reluctant, or scared to figure out where to put the tip jar.
>And does the first paragraph, as the Register asked, mean that Microsoft accepts liability for their own software?
Thats just the funniest part about this whole OS/CS business. The CS folks have their lawyers ensure they are never liable for use of their software, and then turn around and bash OS because theres no legal liability.
I suppose b2b contracts for software might contain certain 'performance metrics', meaning companies can back out of contracts if the software doesn't perform up to spec, but do they usually include legal liability for malfunctions, etc? Can anybody tell me this? Doesn't it just come down to the ability to pass the buck? I mean, by now, "Well, we thought we were okay because it was an MS product" is nearly an allowable defence for IT projects gone wrong.
You can't say the same thing with OS because nobody is making the $$ off of it to be the figure^H^H^Hscapegoat that you can claim should have been a good choice because gee, they make tons of money, and that means good products and culpability gosh darnit!
Re:Down with specialized pieces
on
Lego Addictions
·
· Score: 2
Mmmmmm yummy, that is some nice technical shit!
I designed with basic and specialized pieces up to BlackTron.. but always added things like bays, making.. hrm, 4x8 cars that would fold up to fit into a bay on the back of the ship. The ramp would come up and be the cargo door. Lots of uses of the magnets. I would always design using good colour schemes and stuff. To me, there was no greater reward than designing some awesome new thing in space lego.. also used alot of technique. Man, I miss lego.
The mind storms, well, I do music now so thats what I spend all my time on.. but lego for me has always been about being technical and not just building variations on the set specified in the instructions. Thats a nice link.:)
just make sure you're using it the right side up unless you want to be the basis of an ER urban legend..
Down with specialized pieces
on
Lego Addictions
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I identify with him when he laments about the lack of good pieces. There was a golden age, when space lego got.. lets see.. MTron (the magnets were ultra cool) and Dark Space (was that what it was called) when the right balance between specialized pieces and generic blocks (and suitable colors for cool models!) was found.
Since then, all their forays into branding, that evil of evils, have caused them to have to design all these specialized pre-made pieces. God damn it this world would be better off if it were illegal to position yourself horizontally in the market place.
.. at which point you'll own a 2nd computer, with standardized parts, in your living room.
It won't be a 'console' anymore, it'll just be a living-room-friendly frozen-spec computer. Sure, people might go for that but personally, maybe for purely esotaric reasons, I consider console games and PC games worlds apart in terms of the nuances games for both platforms tend to have (more options when the game is on PC, less loading times when the game in on console, shit like that.)
Most of what people are saying here is that they'll own a pre-packaged computer in their livingroom at some point, negating the neccessity to keep their main rig at State-of-The-Art-Gaming levels of performance. And it'll be owned by Microsoft or Sony. The irony.
Thats why I love my Gamecube. Zero bootup, nice controllers (lets debate that on another thread tho), and games which are made to go On-Play-Off. I like consoles because they are like arcade machines. I like PCs because they give you the options and control you need if you want to do something like particpate in clans and generally treat a game as more of a hobby or sport than a simple pass-time.
ATI was the company that provided the in depth talk with a chip engineer. With NVIDIA, Andtech had to settle to having lunch with their lead architect. NVIDIA was okay with pictures, but ATI was the one that provided real information.
Giving away stuff for free is anti-American. Employing contractors in the latest country to misplace its labour laws (whoops! now where'd they go?) is as American as apple pie.
> to some degree, you decrease the value of the song by listening to it, since the best time is the first time
Many songs take _more_ than one listening in order for you to appreciate the value (in fact, most, unless you're really lacking in any appreciation for music.)
What you're proposing is perposterous. By your logic, we should prevent friends from hearing the album we just bought because they should buy it themselves. Think about what you're saying. Do you really owe studios a buck when you watch a movie at a friends house? You've just decreased the value of the product! No.. because labels know that if your friend likes it, they'll buy it themselves.
You sound like the reason you buy a CD is to listen to a song once. The poor pop music industry sure makes it feel that way, doesn't it? People forget that you buy albums because you want to hear the song many times. If you listen to something once, what you want is the radio to play it, or to go over to your friends house to hear it (uhoh, call the police!)
You have to be kidding me that you really consider that when you go over to a friends house to check out a new album, you're decreasing the value of the product. I suppose that should be illegal too?
> What's the significant legal use of KaZaa, again?
Until it is shown that most people pirate content that they either already own, have owned, or purchase legally in the future, there's not much one can say to that. This would really be the "smoking gun" - getting a statistic that really spells out what percentage of KaZaa downloads are listened too "illegaly" (in that once its listened too, the listener should either own the song , purchase it in the future, or decide s/he doesnt like the song and never listen to it again). I really have my suspicions that the number is not nearly as high as the RIAA is trying to spin it to.
I don't have much sympathy for the RIAA tho. Yes, the rules are in their favour, but they are really abusing the system to stymie any possibility of competitors in the online music distribution industry. Its an industry that should already exist, but the RIAA's tactics just delay the maturation of the industry for us consumers.
All of this belies this simple fact, a fact that many others here have echoed: were it not for Napster, the RIAA would have *less* money in its pockets thanks to the music I discovered that I wanted to buy. It's as simple as that.
Slashdot Mirror
Public institution funded by my (and your) dollars. Its not 'their' schools .. its our schools. Who do you think owns the schools? And who do you think should have a say in what is and what is not allowed in schools?
Gasp, it couldn't be the parents who pay for it, and the kids who are taught there, could it?
This is called The Photoshop Effect.
The sad thing is that it took them this long to figure it out. How many windows users would there be if we had to pay for windows?
It's an interesting effect on 'supply and demand' however. How do you evaluate demand and scarcity when there is unlimited product available and production costs (ie, duplication) are nil? How does the market work when you're trying to sell information that can be free?
but what about the submitters who read about Google and /. now being indundated with submission sluts happily submitting from their newfound well of articles? I'm putting my money on them. :P
checks and balances huh. good thing companies are working desperately to keep that bullshit out of computer security!
118? how do you know? I think they're falsifying their data ;)
mom worked with PHD holder. PHD holder faked PHD. faked results. mom tells university. university tells mom to keep quiet or she gets fired. university quietly lets go of him 2 years later.
...
thusly, im impressed. way to can the liars. now if only we could do this with sales teams
My point is, prove it. Go ahead and prove what you just said. Its difficult.
.. its easier to proove. Make sure your benchmark isn't biased and reflects real world use as close as you can, and then compare numbers.
Renderware, kernals
Interface stuff is way more subjective, the science isn't fully trusted by the IT community, and thus you're always going to have way more arguments and FUD from people deveoping and critiquing it.
Hello dolly!
... ripping shit down to rebuild, rejecting norms, rejecting opinions and denouncing things we percieve as misguided or wrong is a key part of the process required to arrive at newer and superior solutions.
.. and even quit your job if you like, although the way people go on here, you'd think they were envious or scared of the freedom to do just that.
It's like people have confused 'freedom' with 'freedom do you whatever the hell you want without actually being subjected to what other people _think_ of it'. Which is a shame, because peer discussion and judgement is about the most important check/balance in society. While we try and limit the actions that can result from peer judgement (to avoid mob justice, for instance), we should try and avoid attempting to squash criticism just because its not 'productive'
When people are free to do crap, don't forget others are well within their rights to freedom to voice dissatisfaction
Holy crap, what does it say about the state of labour in the IT world when quitting a job because you're being asked to do something you don't want to do is grounds for others suggesting you're trying to be a martyr??
.. thats cause for applause, even if I have no personal opinion on the nature of the disagreement between him and his former employer.
He's not trying to be a martyr. He's trying to have a job in which he agrees with the things he's asked to do. It's those who remain in the job at the expense of their happiness that are the dumb and childish ones. Whether or not KDE is "cripplewear" in RH is besides the point; he has set of values, he's actually going to do something about it
People are naturally going to fight over interfaces more than blackboxes.
.. interface stuff is way more shades of grey when it comes to the Right Way or the Wrong Way.
When I implement rendering software, its very easy to tell if my approach or your approach is better; bench mark.
Now hell me how to objectively detemine which interface is better: KDE or GNOME?
I think its obvious that there is always going to be way more arguments about what the handles and knobs looks like than whether or not that engine is implemented in the best way possible. You can quantitatively test and compare all the kinds of software you say that doesn't suffer from the problems KDE/GNOME do
Its not about whether RH or KDE is right.
An employee of RH was being asked to work on something he disagreed with. So he left.
KDE is free to moan, RH is free to mod KDE, and this guy is free to get employment elsewhere.
Personally, it restores some of my confidence in humans. At least we're not all wage slaves who couldn't give a rats ass what they were working for and who they were serving.
> I thought the Internet was already decentralized, so I'm curious about what exactly they're fixing.
The only thing that needs fixing is the spammers. You know, so they can't have kids who take up the family business. We could even have Bob Barker provide the PSA at the end of Price Is Right episodes. ("Remeber to have your spammers spayed or neutered.")
uhoh, is it that mysql -u root -p obvious? ;)
No, people like stuff in the way they want it .. but will pay for it if somebody can figure out where to put the cash register.
.. you won't need to hire 10 body gaurds to make sure people pay; they'll pay because the ability to pay is actually offered.
.. you don't have to force somebody into doing something they perceive as fair.
Example: set up a store with all kinds of goods. Do not put a cashier in store. Allow people to walk in, peruse. Because people can't pay the store back due to the stores complete lack of payment options, they're going to think, well, tough crap, they don't make it easy for me to pay so they deserve to get ripped off. Now put a chashier in that store
The whole concept of fair price is that people think its a fair repayment for value given. If you don't provide a means of payment, people arn't going to pay, but if you do, they will because the price is fair. You can't alter the definition of the word fair price
Mind you, some people say that 20$ a CD isn't fair, so that might drive people to infringe the copyright of works, but only because the market doesn't seem to be working as advertised. A small peek into how 'competative' the market is, and a quick rundown of the payola and price fixing charges that the RIAA has been found guilty of, and that explains that angle.
So there you have it; people will take whats available, but I feel sorry for people who assume that people want something for nothing. It's when people have the ability or means to aquire goods in a form that the producer refuses to offer, will people go ahead and opt for enjoying the fruits of progress instead of self-disciplining themselves into abstinance.
People wouldn't object to a free Napster, but unless suddenly people start storming Barnes and Noble demanding they should get the books for free, they would prefer a pay for Napster if somebody would make one that was technically equal or superior to Naspter. And that's where were headed. If the market is relatively free and music is offered at prices people perceive to be fair, nobody will be demanding a return to the Napster days of old.
> Record labels know what consumers want. We all do. They want a Napster you pay for.
.. its just the RIAA is dragging its feet. People won't turn down advancements in technologies, but they certainly will compensate for it if they have the opportunity.
Read it again. "They" seems to imply the record labels, not people, the way its quoted.
But as an aside, I find it interesting how there are alot of people who want a pay-for Napster (mysql included), but nearly anybody that wants a free napster remains fairly voiceless, outed by a handful of people intent on reducing everybody but themselves as a freeloader.
When you can choose from RIAA Media (CDs), Naspter, Pay-Napster, most people seem to comprehend that the "Pay Napster" is what is going to keep the music being made.
But when you can choose from RIAA Media or just Naspter, people are going to use Naspter because they know that the Pay For Napster could exist
Thats what the RIAA doesn't get. People will take what they want, but will only repay for it if its actually feasible to do so (ie, price is fair and method of payment exists). Its not that everybody wants something for nothing, its simply that they won't deny themselves something if the supplier is too lazy, reluctant, or scared to figure out where to put the tip jar.
>And does the first paragraph, as the Register asked, mean that Microsoft accepts liability for their own software?
Thats just the funniest part about this whole OS/CS business. The CS folks have their lawyers ensure they are never liable for use of their software, and then turn around and bash OS because theres no legal liability.
I suppose b2b contracts for software might contain certain 'performance metrics', meaning companies can back out of contracts if the software doesn't perform up to spec, but do they usually include legal liability for malfunctions, etc? Can anybody tell me this? Doesn't it just come down to the ability to pass the buck? I mean, by now, "Well, we thought we were okay because it was an MS product" is nearly an allowable defence for IT projects gone wrong.
You can't say the same thing with OS because nobody is making the $$ off of it to be the figure^H^H^Hscapegoat that you can claim should have been a good choice because gee, they make tons of money, and that means good products and culpability gosh darnit!
Mmmmmm yummy, that is some nice technical shit!
.. but always added things like bays, making .. hrm, 4x8 cars that would fold up to fit into a bay on the back of the ship. The ramp would come up and be the cargo door. Lots of uses of the magnets. I would always design using good colour schemes and stuff. To me, there was no greater reward than designing some awesome new thing in space lego .. also used alot of technique. Man, I miss lego.
.. but lego for me has always been about being technical and not just building variations on the set specified in the instructions. Thats a nice link. :)
I designed with basic and specialized pieces up to BlackTron
The mind storms, well, I do music now so thats what I spend all my time on
use the pieces with the one smooth side >:)
..
just make sure you're using it the right side up unless you want to be the basis of an ER urban legend
I identify with him when he laments about the lack of good pieces. There was a golden age, when space lego got .. lets see .. MTron (the magnets were ultra cool) and Dark Space (was that what it was called) when the right balance between specialized pieces and generic blocks (and suitable colors for cool models!) was found.
Since then, all their forays into branding, that evil of evils, have caused them to have to design all these specialized pre-made pieces. God damn it this world would be better off if it were illegal to position yourself horizontally in the market place.
.. at which point you'll own a 2nd computer, with standardized parts, in your living room.
It won't be a 'console' anymore, it'll just be a living-room-friendly frozen-spec computer. Sure, people might go for that but personally, maybe for purely esotaric reasons, I consider console games and PC games worlds apart in terms of the nuances games for both platforms tend to have (more options when the game is on PC, less loading times when the game in on console, shit like that.)
Most of what people are saying here is that they'll own a pre-packaged computer in their livingroom at some point, negating the neccessity to keep their main rig at State-of-The-Art-Gaming levels of performance. And it'll be owned by Microsoft or Sony. The irony.
Thats why I love my Gamecube. Zero bootup, nice controllers (lets debate that on another thread tho), and games which are made to go On-Play-Off. I like consoles because they are like arcade machines. I like PCs because they give you the options and control you need if you want to do something like particpate in clans and generally treat a game as more of a hobby or sport than a simple pass-time.
What's even funnier is imaging the thousands of Microtemps caring about their jobs enough to make better software than open source software.
ATI was the company that provided the in depth talk with a chip engineer. With NVIDIA, Andtech had to settle to having lunch with their lead architect. NVIDIA was okay with pictures, but ATI was the one that provided real information.
Giving away stuff for free is anti-American. Employing contractors in the latest country to misplace its labour laws (whoops! now where'd they go?) is as American as apple pie.
> to some degree, you decrease the value of the song by listening to it, since the best time is the first time
.. because labels know that if your friend likes it, they'll buy it themselves.
Many songs take _more_ than one listening in order for you to appreciate the value (in fact, most, unless you're really lacking in any appreciation for music.)
What you're proposing is perposterous. By your logic, we should prevent friends from hearing the album we just bought because they should buy it themselves. Think about what you're saying. Do you really owe studios a buck when you watch a movie at a friends house? You've just decreased the value of the product! No
You sound like the reason you buy a CD is to listen to a song once. The poor pop music industry sure makes it feel that way, doesn't it? People forget that you buy albums because you want to hear the song many times. If you listen to something once, what you want is the radio to play it, or to go over to your friends house to hear it (uhoh, call the police!)
You have to be kidding me that you really consider that when you go over to a friends house to check out a new album, you're decreasing the value of the product. I suppose that should be illegal too?
> What's the significant legal use of KaZaa, again?
Until it is shown that most people pirate content that they either already own, have owned, or purchase legally in the future, there's not much one can say to that. This would really be the "smoking gun" - getting a statistic that really spells out what percentage of KaZaa downloads are listened too "illegaly" (in that once its listened too, the listener should either own the song , purchase it in the future, or decide s/he doesnt like the song and never listen to it again). I really have my suspicions that the number is not nearly as high as the RIAA is trying to spin it to.
I don't have much sympathy for the RIAA tho. Yes, the rules are in their favour, but they are really abusing the system to stymie any possibility of competitors in the online music distribution industry. Its an industry that should already exist, but the RIAA's tactics just delay the maturation of the industry for us consumers.
All of this belies this simple fact, a fact that many others here have echoed: were it not for Napster, the RIAA would have *less* money in its pockets thanks to the music I discovered that I wanted to buy. It's as simple as that.