That pretty much sums up why the files aren't being updated. I bought a copy of Nortons once, and stayed with it until they decided to change the rules (which is their right, I suppose, but the book said "lifetime free updates"). I wish we could disallow arbitrary changes in licenses like that. Otherwise, I should be able to change the terms of the EULA at will, also. Alas, coming from me, this mens nothing, since I don't believe in any of this "license" crap anyway. Speaking of licenses, have these guys who are distributing and sharing all this virus code decided on what license they're going to use?
I figure somebody must have donated a house full of lawyers. Shows what happens when things get too big. There's a great movie called "Network" which demonstrates this all too well. In the movie the network creates a reality show based on the exploits of a fictional revolutionary group, and the show turns ultra-radicals into greedy TV stars. Instead of discussing anything remotely related to their cause, they're bitching about which show is going to be the lead in to theirs, among other things. So, it looks like now that mozilla has some money, they're going to quit the software biz and go into IP enforcement. It just makes the upcoming steel cage free-for-all that much more entertaining.
There's just something lacking in a show that focuses on such riveting legal issues as "should a player with a super-accurate bionic eye be allowed to play professional baseball?"
Not too many people find copyright law and open source law rulings terribly entertaining.
Hey, if they get the babes from "All My Children", I'll watch. Hell, Matlock and Perry Mason have nothing on SCO and the patent/copyright soap operas currently online. This is even better than Professional Wrestling, because the outcome hasn't been fixed.(as far as I know)
If insurance like this got more popular, it could seriously weaken SCO's business model.
It would strengthen the insurance company's business model. Not necessarily a good thing. This could catch on, and later the insurance companies will start lobbying to make this mandatory.
It's insurance capitalism at its finest. When it becomes mandatory, it will be extortion by insurance companies at its finest. Just like auto insurance. If that were to happen, I would demand no fault insurance.
That's the nice thing about not owning anything. I can always tell them, "Bring it on." I don't need no stinkin' lawyer to tell you I'm one broke MOFO.
Yes, but now they're blowing away the illusion of anonymity. That might not be a good idea. If a person thinks that he/she is anonymous, they probably won't check to see if they are really anonymous. They keep on surfing merrily(?) away, handing out all sorts of info to everybody and be none the wiser. Now, you take away that illusion, people may actually try to become anonymous. Of course, as long as we are tied to a wire, that will be impossible. If true wireless internet ever comes about, then we have a chance if we're not dependant on an ISP. Go wireless!!:-)
...will lead to increased awareness and eventually smarter users.
I don't know. When a dog gets hit by a car, you might think that because he can't reproduce, the future generations of survivors would be smarter and avoid cars. But dogs keep on getting hit by cars in roughly (ruff-ly?) the same numbers. Now, apply that to your average AOL user:-)
One of my contentions against IP is that it wouldn't cost billions to do drug research. That's a whole nother bloated industry created by IP. I contend that without IP the drugs would probably be found in a naturally growing plant or something. The IP might make R&D very profitable, but it doesn't necessarily make it more productive.
Without IP people WILL do it. They aren't going to let their loved ones die off without a fight. They will produce the medicine. The drug companies are letting millions die from malaria and AIDS, because they won't allow generic drugs on the market. Making things scarce in order to make a buck is a pretty evil way of doing business. The fact that goods are easier to produce with less makes it very important that we find another way of interacting with each other. It's only going to get harder to "sell refridgerators to the Eskimos".
If money is going to be THE motivating force behind everything that we do then we deserve whatever happens to us. Yeah, the guy inventing the cancer drug might do it to save the life of someone he cares about. Some people might invent something because it might improve their own lives. Do you think they would feel better to suppress it simply because there's not a million dollars waiting for him? They might even cooperate with with each other to get the invention out. (That would be a first now, wouldn't it?) I hope that some day we can use something other than money to motivate people. Otherwise we're doomed. And yes, more than ever, I'm convinced that this is a very good idea. It's just not patentable. Or maybe it is, in today's times.:-)
You can't reform a system that encourages a person to "sit on" their ideas until some millionaire offers to buy it from them. There are many inventions out there that could save lives, money, whatever, that won't get to market beacuse the greedy inventer won't release it without a million dollar buyout. The drug companies are a prime example of this. They will watch millions of people suffer and die rather than give up even a penny to make a possibly life saving drug available. This is what all IP gives us. It's turning the creative process into a poorly run lottery. Doing away with IP can only help weed out the chaff. (Aw, jeez. No more "Pet Rocks"). Doing away with IP can insure that good inventions will be available to all, instead of rotting on the shelf waiting for those mythical millions to appear. Doing away with IP will insure that old works won't be sold again and again as new. All the creative geniuses(sp) can work for hire, like the rest of us, instead reaping millions from great grandpa's 75 year old cartoons.
...the answer is to provide incentive to authors to invest considerable effort
Oh, no. The tired old "incentive to create" argument. More likely, it provides incentive to create something and then sit on it (lock it down) until someone comes along and offers you a million dollars for it. It provides incentive to clog up a gov't beaurocracy(sp) with useless "inventions, creations, etc. for the same purpose. We're innovating simply to make money, not to produce anything really useful or needed. It's like computers. They generate so much useless information. Yet, now we seem to need all that useless information on even the simplest transactions. I can't buy a video cassette without watching the cashier punch in a 20 digit code and then get a foot long reciept. If you want to see REAL innovation then the system has to go. Anything less is just show. It is obsolete. Computers and the net just made it painfully obvious. Like the RIAA, etc. you just have to find a new business model. Furthermore, there will be no solution to the problem until we completely re-think how we deal with each other. This whole idea of creating wealth through scarcity is getting pretty lame also.
One helpful description might be boot-up time. My 16mhz Mac IIx booted up just as fast as my multi-ghz Intel "flim-flam". But I have to admit, Sim Earth runs a bit faster now.
Slashdot Mirror
...making home users PAY for dat file updates.
That pretty much sums up why the files aren't being updated. I bought a copy of Nortons once, and stayed with it until they decided to change the rules (which is their right, I suppose, but the book said "lifetime free updates"). I wish we could disallow arbitrary changes in licenses like that. Otherwise, I should be able to change the terms of the EULA at will, also. Alas, coming from me, this mens nothing, since I don't believe in any of this "license" crap anyway. Speaking of licenses, have these guys who are distributing and sharing all this virus code decided on what license they're going to use?
I figure somebody must have donated a house full of lawyers. Shows what happens when things get too big. There's a great movie called "Network" which demonstrates this all too well. In the movie the network creates a reality show based on the exploits of a fictional revolutionary group, and the show turns ultra-radicals into greedy TV stars. Instead of discussing anything remotely related to their cause, they're bitching about which show is going to be the lead in to theirs, among other things. So, it looks like now that mozilla has some money, they're going to quit the software biz and go into IP enforcement. It just makes the upcoming steel cage free-for-all that much more entertaining.
I guess what's good enough for SCO...Come on in. The water's fine. I sure wish I could remember who made the comment about peeing in your own pool.
There's just something lacking in a show that focuses on such riveting legal issues as "should a player with a super-accurate bionic eye be allowed to play professional baseball?"
Yet another case ripped from the headlines
Not too many people find copyright law and open source law rulings terribly entertaining.
Hey, if they get the babes from "All My Children", I'll watch. Hell, Matlock and Perry Mason have nothing on SCO and the patent/copyright soap operas currently online. This is even better than Professional Wrestling, because the outcome hasn't been fixed.(as far as I know)
you're an imbecile.
Just call me a nazi so we can end this, you're embarassing yourself.
Ladies, ladies, please. Let's keep it civilised. This isn't an AOL forum.
If insurance like this got more popular, it could seriously weaken SCO's business model.
It would strengthen the insurance company's business model. Not necessarily a good thing. This could catch on, and later the insurance companies will start lobbying to make this mandatory.
It's open source capitalism at its finest.
It's insurance capitalism at its finest. When it becomes mandatory, it will be extortion by insurance companies at its finest. Just like auto insurance. If that were to happen, I would demand no fault insurance.
So, they took you to Palm Springs, too...eh?
And anyone can sue you over damned near anything.
That's the nice thing about not owning anything. I can always tell them, "Bring it on." I don't need no stinkin' lawyer to tell you I'm one broke MOFO.
A few hundred or thousand bucks for peace of mind is a small price to pay in this day and age.
:-)
Don't give in. "That's just what they'll be expecting us to do"
In other words, if they don't like being called stupid, they should stop doing stupid things!
Yes, while they're distracting us with that "stupid thing", they're also expanded the death penalty to include people who put Linux on their X-Box.
This gives me great confidence in our legaslative bodies.
What about the fools that vote for and re-elect them over and over?
Yes, but now they're blowing away the illusion of anonymity. That might not be a good idea. If a person thinks that he/she is anonymous, they probably won't check to see if they are really anonymous. They keep on surfing merrily(?) away, handing out all sorts of info to everybody and be none the wiser. Now, you take away that illusion, people may actually try to become anonymous. Of course, as long as we are tied to a wire, that will be impossible. If true wireless internet ever comes about, then we have a chance if we're not dependant on an ISP. Go wireless!! :-)
...will lead to increased awareness and eventually smarter users.
:-)
I don't know. When a dog gets hit by a car, you might think that because he can't reproduce, the future generations of survivors would be smarter and avoid cars. But dogs keep on getting hit by cars in roughly (ruff-ly?) the same numbers. Now, apply that to your average AOL user
One of my contentions against IP is that it wouldn't cost billions to do drug research. That's a whole nother bloated industry created by IP. I contend that without IP the drugs would probably be found in a naturally growing plant or something. The IP might make R&D very profitable, but it doesn't necessarily make it more productive.
...those who can write it off as a business expense. Unless the price drops precipitously...
The gov't will have to raise taxes to make up for lost revenue.
"connects first time, every time."
I want some of those tires for my Pinto! They'll make it that much faster!
:-)
Yeah, maybe you'll be able to out run the fire in your gas tank.
Without IP people WILL do it. They aren't going to let their loved ones die off without a fight. They will produce the medicine. The drug companies are letting millions die from malaria and AIDS, because they won't allow generic drugs on the market. Making things scarce in order to make a buck is a pretty evil way of doing business. The fact that goods are easier to produce with less makes it very important that we find another way of interacting with each other. It's only going to get harder to "sell refridgerators to the Eskimos".
If money is going to be THE motivating force behind everything that we do then we deserve whatever happens to us. Yeah, the guy inventing the cancer drug might do it to save the life of someone he cares about. Some people might invent something because it might improve their own lives. Do you think they would feel better to suppress it simply because there's not a million dollars waiting for him? They might even cooperate with with each other to get the invention out. (That would be a first now, wouldn't it?) I hope that some day we can use something other than money to motivate people. Otherwise we're doomed. And yes, more than ever, I'm convinced that this is a very good idea. It's just not patentable. Or maybe it is, in today's times. :-)
You can't reform a system that encourages a person to "sit on" their ideas until some millionaire offers to buy it from them. There are many inventions out there that could save lives, money, whatever, that won't get to market beacuse the greedy inventer won't release it without a million dollar buyout. The drug companies are a prime example of this. They will watch millions of people suffer and die rather than give up even a penny to make a possibly life saving drug available. This is what all IP gives us. It's turning the creative process into a poorly run lottery. Doing away with IP can only help weed out the chaff. (Aw, jeez. No more "Pet Rocks"). Doing away with IP can insure that good inventions will be available to all, instead of rotting on the shelf waiting for those mythical millions to appear. Doing away with IP will insure that old works won't be sold again and again as new. All the creative geniuses(sp) can work for hire, like the rest of us, instead reaping millions from great grandpa's 75 year old cartoons.
...the answer is to provide incentive to authors to invest considerable effort
Oh, no. The tired old "incentive to create" argument. More likely, it provides incentive to create something and then sit on it (lock it down) until someone comes along and offers you a million dollars for it. It provides incentive to clog up a gov't beaurocracy(sp) with useless "inventions, creations, etc. for the same purpose. We're innovating simply to make money, not to produce anything really useful or needed. It's like computers. They generate so much useless information. Yet, now we seem to need all that useless information on even the simplest transactions. I can't buy a video cassette without watching the cashier punch in a 20 digit code and then get a foot long reciept. If you want to see REAL innovation then the system has to go. Anything less is just show. It is obsolete. Computers and the net just made it painfully obvious. Like the RIAA, etc. you just have to find a new business model. Furthermore, there will be no solution to the problem until we completely re-think how we deal with each other. This whole idea of creating wealth through scarcity is getting pretty lame also.
One helpful description might be boot-up time. My 16mhz Mac IIx booted up just as fast as my multi-ghz Intel "flim-flam". But I have to admit, Sim Earth runs a bit faster now.
What really matters is real power.
:-)
Yeah, and Intel consumes plenty of that.