The only way to reduce traffic is to increase the price as much as possible.
Or more generally, to increase the cost (which is not necessarily congruent to "price"). You could instead keep the price the same but decrease the convenience, for example.
I would support this kind of thing in Atlanta, GA, USA (my neck of the woods): right now the Interstates going through the city have one HOV (High-Occupancy Vehicle) lane each. I think they ought to increase that to two, not by adding an additional lane, but by converting an existing one. This would allow carpoolers to be able to pass busses, and would also further constrict non-carpooling drivers (which I consider a good thing), as the goal would be to encourage carpooling and transit).
Are you just failing at reading comprehension? He was talking about copyleft software included within* other third-party software. In other words, when he said "see who is using GPL software without compliance" what he meant was "see [which third-party developer] is [distributing copyleft software as part of their proprietary app] without compliance."
(*Yes, it's also possible to interpret his sentence as referring to "mere aggregation," i.e., bundling, but it's obvious from the rest what he really meant.)
But yeah, you're right that it would be better if the program could do this explicitly. I would go a long way towards making it seem less biased against Free Software.
You forgot about -20,000 points for proprietary media formats (MemoryStick and UMD; MiniDisc and BetaMax would be included too, except that they're old enough to fall off the record) and -30,000 points for Blu-Ray DRM (AACS and BD+).
First, Sony releases CD's with a rootkit, and I'm supposed to hate them for it.
Yes, hate them for putting a rootkit on their CDs. Full stop.
Once they've done that, nothing they have or might do (short of releasing the infect^Waffected music into the Public Domain) can redeem them!
Maybe a decade from now, if that entire interval is free of anti-customer fuck-ups, they might be forgiven (as Nintendo has been forgiven for its early '90s censorship and anti-competitive tactics).
I do not want to assume that the reason was just that, but we'll see.
Considering the timing, the only explanation that makes sense to me is that Apple wanted to prevent a switch to GPLv3.
Of course, if we assumed that were the case, then the next question becomes "why?" What printing-related technology does Apple have (or is planning to get) a patent on, that it's worried about having to license?
Actually, it's exactly the opposite of irrelevant. When Michael Sweet owned the copyright, he could possibly have chosen to change the license (e.g. to GPLv3). Now that Apple owns the copyright, Apple gets to choose when/if to change the license (e.g. to a proprietary one). In particular, the timing of this makes one highly suspiciouts that Apple was scared of the possibility of GPLv3, and bought CUPS to prevent a switch.
Yeah, but there's a difference: GNU is run by the FSF, but CUPS is (now) run by Apple. One of these organizations is a non-profit dedicated to freedom while the other is a for-profit with a history of lock-in.
I never said he wasn't a decent guy. It's just that, by themselves, the facts that he was the "world's toughest bouncer," played likable fictional characters, or donated a lot to charity don't say anything about his stance on various issues or whether he'd make a good politician in general. It may be that he'd make the best President since Jefferson, but we just don't know without a lot more information (gained via interviews, debates, etc.).
Why would they need any kind of "permission" from Games Workshop to begin with? Games Workshop sells miniatures, i.e., objects. Saying that the people buying the miniatures aren't allowed to make a movie with them is as absurd as IKEA saying I can't make a movie featuring my coffee table!
USA, the land of the obvious... is it *really* necessary to add a warning label of "DO NOT SHAKE THE CONSOLE WHILE PLAYING"???
Hey, it works for portable CD players. It works for automobile CD players. It works for (spinning-disc based) iPods. It works for the hard drive in my laptop*. Why shouldn't people expect any spinning-disc drive to be well-designed enough to withstand the minor shocks of being moved around?
It seems to me that we (as a society) have become conditioned to have lower and lower expectations for the quality of goods we buy, especially when those goods are electronic. I don't know why this has happened, but we need to fucking snap out of it and start demanding quality again!
(*My laptop has no optical drive, and has an accelerometer that parks the HD head when it senses a shock)
3. According to the game companies, we aren't buying a disk or a game. We're buying a license to use the ip contained on the disk. And, according to the license and associated DRM, there are several things we aren't allowed to do, like make backup copies, copy to a hard drive, whatever. Since we have already paid for a license, and are thus allowed to use the IP, why should we be required to pay the same premium again just for replacement media?
Or in other words, with a car you're allowed to make as many copies as you want (aside from the fact that it's physically impossible since Star Trek replicators don't exist). If one were instead buying a license to use a car (such as with services like Flexcar), then heck yes he should expect a relacement copy!
you are the one that clearly needs to re-assess your priorities.
WTF?! No, you need to get down off your fucking high horse for a minute and re-read what I said before you assume anything of me! Did I ever say anything about my "priorities?" No, all I did was make a factual statement that had nothing to do with my personal opinion of the matter, whatever it might be.
Clearly, you need to re-assess your habit of putting words in other people's mouths and making an ass out of yourself by talking down to them!
The guy in this video isn't a "rich kid with too much free money to spend," he's the owner (I think) of a blender company trying to advertise his product.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, then they're failing miserably at it! "Good guys" don't use DRM. Period.
Or more generally, to increase the cost (which is not necessarily congruent to "price"). You could instead keep the price the same but decrease the convenience, for example.
I would support this kind of thing in Atlanta, GA, USA (my neck of the woods): right now the Interstates going through the city have one HOV (High-Occupancy Vehicle) lane each. I think they ought to increase that to two, not by adding an additional lane, but by converting an existing one. This would allow carpoolers to be able to pass busses, and would also further constrict non-carpooling drivers (which I consider a good thing), as the goal would be to encourage carpooling and transit).
The solution is this: don't use DRM!
Seriously, it's as simple as that. In fact, it's mathematically proven to be the only solution.
The problem is that the premise -- i.e., the desire to use DRM -- is itself the flaw!
Nope, you got it wrong. It should read thus:
"We can use a proprietary "freeware" scanner to eliminate Free Software [note capitalization] inside my anti-Free Software organization."
It (ironically) isn't Free Software itself, so, no.
Are you just failing at reading comprehension? He was talking about copyleft software included within* other third-party software. In other words, when he said "see who is using GPL software without compliance" what he meant was "see [which third-party developer] is [distributing copyleft software as part of their proprietary app] without compliance."
(*Yes, it's also possible to interpret his sentence as referring to "mere aggregation," i.e., bundling, but it's obvious from the rest what he really meant.)
(Commercial apps) = (Installed apps) - (Free Software apps)
But yeah, you're right that it would be better if the program could do this explicitly. I would go a long way towards making it seem less biased against Free Software.
If you want that, isn't it simpler just to use a Linux distribution that doesn't include non-Free software (and not enable any non-Free repositories)?
"Home Basic Edition" is irrelevant; Vista Business sucks just as bad!
Hey, could you re-post? I think your last word got cut-off; I couldn't see it.
You forgot about -20,000 points for proprietary media formats (MemoryStick and UMD; MiniDisc and BetaMax would be included too, except that they're old enough to fall off the record) and -30,000 points for Blu-Ray DRM (AACS and BD+).
Yes, hate them for putting a rootkit on their CDs. Full stop.
Once they've done that, nothing they have or might do (short of releasing the infect^Waffected music into the Public Domain) can redeem them!
Maybe a decade from now, if that entire interval is free of anti-customer fuck-ups, they might be forgiven (as Nintendo has been forgiven for its early '90s censorship and anti-competitive tactics).
Considering the timing, the only explanation that makes sense to me is that Apple wanted to prevent a switch to GPLv3.
Of course, if we assumed that were the case, then the next question becomes "why?" What printing-related technology does Apple have (or is planning to get) a patent on, that it's worried about having to license?
Actually, it's exactly the opposite of irrelevant. When Michael Sweet owned the copyright, he could possibly have chosen to change the license (e.g. to GPLv3). Now that Apple owns the copyright, Apple gets to choose when/if to change the license (e.g. to a proprietary one). In particular, the timing of this makes one highly suspiciouts that Apple was scared of the possibility of GPLv3, and bought CUPS to prevent a switch.
Yeah, but there's a difference: GNU is run by the FSF, but CUPS is (now) run by Apple. One of these organizations is a non-profit dedicated to freedom while the other is a for-profit with a history of lock-in.
Ah, good point!
I never said he wasn't a decent guy. It's just that, by themselves, the facts that he was the "world's toughest bouncer," played likable fictional characters, or donated a lot to charity don't say anything about his stance on various issues or whether he'd make a good politician in general. It may be that he'd make the best President since Jefferson, but we just don't know without a lot more information (gained via interviews, debates, etc.).
I PITY THE FOOL who wants to elect somebody based on their performances as fictional characters!
Why would they need any kind of "permission" from Games Workshop to begin with? Games Workshop sells miniatures, i.e., objects. Saying that the people buying the miniatures aren't allowed to make a movie with them is as absurd as IKEA saying I can't make a movie featuring my coffee table!
Hey, it works for portable CD players. It works for automobile CD players. It works for (spinning-disc based) iPods. It works for the hard drive in my laptop*. Why shouldn't people expect any spinning-disc drive to be well-designed enough to withstand the minor shocks of being moved around?
It seems to me that we (as a society) have become conditioned to have lower and lower expectations for the quality of goods we buy, especially when those goods are electronic. I don't know why this has happened, but we need to fucking snap out of it and start demanding quality again!
(*My laptop has no optical drive, and has an accelerometer that parks the HD head when it senses a shock)
Or in other words, with a car you're allowed to make as many copies as you want (aside from the fact that it's physically impossible since Star Trek replicators don't exist). If one were instead buying a license to use a car (such as with services like Flexcar), then heck yes he should expect a relacement copy!
WTF?! No, you need to get down off your fucking high horse for a minute and re-read what I said before you assume anything of me! Did I ever say anything about my "priorities?" No, all I did was make a factual statement that had nothing to do with my personal opinion of the matter, whatever it might be.
Clearly, you need to re-assess your habit of putting words in other people's mouths and making an ass out of yourself by talking down to them!
Unless you get your frozen strawberries packed in metal or something, any reasonable blender ought to be able to handle the box too.
The guy in this video isn't a "rich kid with too much free money to spend," he's the owner (I think) of a blender company trying to advertise his product.