That's crap. The "...cause of one bad apple" knee jerk mentality has caused a lot of the stupid laws and customer unfriendly business practices and policies that plague us "good" customers/citizens today.
My solution: Don't mistreat your good customers/citzens because of one bad apple. Instead, take the bad apple. Drag them out in the street by the hair. And flog them soundly.
Maybe I misunderstand but, by it I think this means the Constitution and not the Federal Government. In that, powers not directly given by the Constitution to the United States i.e. Federal Government are the States (or people, or county, etc.) powers to decide.
This is why there is the check that Amendments to the Constitution need to be ratified by 2/3 of the States (or by other means), so that powers granted to the Federal Government in the Amendment are decided by the States.
As a corallary, the Federal Government uses Money (grants, etc) as carrots in the matters that the Constitution does not grant them rights. As an example the National Speed Limits that have recently gone away were imposed by not a law or the Constitution, but by the Federal Goverment's refusal to give Federal Highway money to the States that did not comply.
Side note: slicks for drag racing and circle track racing have no tread. More tire to ground contact = better traction (on smooth surfaces) so bald tires, with "sticky rubber" could, on a smooth surface, make your car go faster.
To post on topic, I have DSL and bald tires, and neither my car's or my connection's speed is anything to brag about. Also, I like cheese!
Since many people claim that theft can only occur when a physical object is taken then how about electricity
I think a more appropriate disctinction is not one of physical-ness (is that a word?), but of, as Eben Moglen in his speech to Harvard points out, non-zero marginal cost things (i.e. houses, cds, electricity), and zero-marginal cost things (i.e. software, digital music/movies, things that don't have an associtated reproduction cost). In copying zero-marignal cost things you haven't deprived anyone of any "thing" in particular since the cost is in the initial development and not the reproduction. But, you have deprived them of the ability to sell you something. So when you copy music/movies your stealing their ability to sell you the thing you just copied. Its a little different that your examples.
I may have misunderstood what your meaning, but, execpt for a few states, (Mississippi, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Wisconsin) the goverment requires mandatory liability insurance on cars. See for yourself here. The laws are at the state goverment level, and vary from state to state, but it's still a goverment insurance mandate.
mistake one in interface design is thinking its graphic design! Better looking buttons lead to user interface improvement with about the same frequencey that a new paintjob fixes your car's transmission.
You are correct, pretty buttons does not a good UI make, however, UI design -- user-centered UI design (layout, workflow, etc., etc.) is VERY important. To continue with your analogy, your car has power-steering. But, human-interface designers made it so you get some tactile feedback from your car's steering wheel at speed (as opposed to the 60's Caddies which you could steer at 65 with your pinkie).
It's the "design" process that's important. 1. What is this "thing" supposed to do. 2. What does the user(s) expect/know. 3. How's the user(s) going to act/react based on #2. 4. What's the simplest, most effecient and effective way to get to the desired end result given #1 #2 and #3 for as many cases as possible.
Photoshop doesn't make you a graphic designer; programming skills don't make you a UI deisigner.
Do what you do. Engineers engineer, programmers program, and designers design, but just like you wouldn't have a electical engineer engineer a bridge, or a web developer programming embedded system, you shouldn't have a graphic designer designing a UI... IMO.
I don't use a Mac much, but I have to say, as far as GUIs go, they take the cake. The OS and its respsective progs (that I've used) are the easiest to use, setup, and/or work productively in, especially from a noobs perspective to the OS/Platform, that I have ever used. As a designer/code-monkey myself, user-centered UI design is one of the most challenging things I do. So my hat's off to the Mac OS and Prog UI designers.
For OSS to gain mind/market share in the consumer OS world, UI design is the key. It must be accessable by Joe-moron, who doesn't know his printer from his bunghole, also allow the technical (read:geek) user to configure and customize to his hearts delight, and fill all the gaps in between. This is one of the most difficult challenges a designer faces, but one that must be solved effectively to have the "big year of OSS" I keep hearing reference to.
As a side-note: programing and UI design don't mix (at least in my world) I have to take of my code-monkey hat off and give myself some time to get into design mode before I can do anything useful in a design sense. I dunno, but if someone, as an OSS contributor/programer, doesn't have the design sense God gave a goat it might be a good idea to holler at a designer (who does this stuff every day) to help ya work out the kinks of a tricky UI problem.
Call it a "culture movement" or whatever you like, but it's not about ripping anybody off. The thought process is about art, not demonizing the RIAA or thief. It happens, to people with this mindset, that these are causalities in a dilemma of understanding. Understand that the mindset is that music, like any other art form, is created by those who have a passion for it, those who want to give/explain/justify their view of the world to the world. That those people would be doing this not matter what, money, fame, whatever. Call it a purist view of the world, but don't miss understand it.
Given that viewpoint, the RIAA and those "shiny, Barbie doll artists" would be the antithesis of the purists view on music as art, seeking (only?) to profit from an art form. But this is the nature of a capitalist economy driven by consumerism.
As to the legality issue, there is no question that the law bodes against the practice of file sharing. I will remind you however, that the law was also, once, in favor of slavery, civil rights abuses, women's rights, etc. The "LAW" is a living document subject to change with the ebbs and flows of society.
The question remains, would you take the same stance on the issue, if you were charged $12-18 per painting or collection at your local art gallery for sub par works of artists seeking a profit. Most likely not.
So yes, under the current model, artist, labels, and the organizations that represent them deserve to be paid. But, I think the point that everyone is trying to make is that the model needs to be changed.
Why then did the Camaro from a few years back (can't remember what year) with the same exact engine as the Corvette put out less peak horse power?
its called detuning, they'd say it was for gas mileage and engine longevity, truth is IMO, it'd look bad if the Camaro was cranking out as many HP's as the Corvette
Slashdot Mirror
it only takes one bad apple...
That's crap. The "...cause of one bad apple" knee jerk mentality has caused a lot of the stupid laws and customer unfriendly business practices and policies that plague us "good" customers/citizens today.
My solution: Don't mistreat your good customers/citzens because of one bad apple. Instead, take the bad apple. Drag them out in the street by the hair. And flog them soundly.
Maybe I misunderstand but, by it I think this means the Constitution and not the Federal Government. In that, powers not directly given by the Constitution to the United States i.e. Federal Government are the States (or people, or county, etc.) powers to decide.
This is why there is the check that Amendments to the Constitution need to be ratified by 2/3 of the States (or by other means), so that powers granted to the Federal Government in the Amendment are decided by the States.
As a corallary, the Federal Government uses Money (grants, etc) as carrots in the matters that the Constitution does not grant them rights. As an example the National Speed Limits that have recently gone away were imposed by not a law or the Constitution, but by the Federal Goverment's refusal to give Federal Highway money to the States that did not comply.
Also... Magnatune.com
You are correct.
Side note: slicks for drag racing and circle track racing have no tread. More tire to ground contact = better traction (on smooth surfaces) so bald tires, with "sticky rubber" could, on a smooth surface, make your car go faster. To post on topic, I have DSL and bald tires, and neither my car's or my connection's speed is anything to brag about. Also, I like cheese!
Since many people claim that theft can only occur when a physical object is taken then how about electricity
I think a more appropriate disctinction is not one of physical-ness (is that a word?), but of, as Eben Moglen in his speech to Harvard points out, non-zero marginal cost things (i.e. houses, cds, electricity), and zero-marginal cost things (i.e. software, digital music/movies, things that don't have an associtated reproduction cost). In copying zero-marignal cost things you haven't deprived anyone of any "thing" in particular since the cost is in the initial development and not the reproduction. But, you have deprived them of the ability to sell you something. So when you copy music/movies your stealing their ability to sell you the thing you just copied. Its a little different that your examples.
I may have misunderstood what your meaning, but, execpt for a few states, (Mississippi, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Wisconsin) the goverment requires mandatory liability insurance on cars. See for yourself here. The laws are at the state goverment level, and vary from state to state, but it's still a goverment insurance mandate.
Probably been said... but, you know what they say about when you assume. = )
mistake one in interface design is thinking its graphic design! Better looking buttons lead to user interface improvement with about the same frequencey that a new paintjob fixes your car's transmission.
You are correct, pretty buttons does not a good UI make, however, UI design -- user-centered UI design (layout, workflow, etc., etc.) is VERY important. To continue with your analogy, your car has power-steering. But, human-interface designers made it so you get some tactile feedback from your car's steering wheel at speed (as opposed to the 60's Caddies which you could steer at 65 with your pinkie).
It's the "design" process that's important. 1. What is this "thing" supposed to do. 2. What does the user(s) expect/know. 3. How's the user(s) going to act/react based on #2. 4. What's the simplest, most effecient and effective way to get to the desired end result given #1 #2 and #3 for as many cases as possible.
Photoshop doesn't make you a graphic designer; programming skills don't make you a UI deisigner.
Do what you do. Engineers engineer, programmers program, and designers design, but just like you wouldn't have a electical engineer engineer a bridge, or a web developer programming embedded system, you shouldn't have a graphic designer designing a UI... IMO.
Lemme say, I'm not a mac nut, but I play one on /.
I don't use a Mac much, but I have to say, as far as GUIs go, they take the cake. The OS and its respsective progs (that I've used) are the easiest to use, setup, and/or work productively in, especially from a noobs perspective to the OS/Platform, that I have ever used. As a designer/code-monkey myself, user-centered UI design is one of the most challenging things I do. So my hat's off to the Mac OS and Prog UI designers.
For OSS to gain mind/market share in the consumer OS world, UI design is the key. It must be accessable by Joe-moron, who doesn't know his printer from his bunghole, also allow the technical (read:geek) user to configure and customize to his hearts delight, and fill all the gaps in between. This is one of the most difficult challenges a designer faces, but one that must be solved effectively to have the "big year of OSS" I keep hearing reference to.
As a side-note: programing and UI design don't mix (at least in my world) I have to take of my code-monkey hat off and give myself some time to get into design mode before I can do anything useful in a design sense. I dunno, but if someone, as an OSS contributor/programer, doesn't have the design sense God gave a goat it might be a good idea to holler at a designer (who does this stuff every day) to help ya work out the kinks of a tricky UI problem.
Anyways, just food for thought...
Call it a "culture movement" or whatever you like, but it's not about ripping anybody off. The thought process is about art, not demonizing the RIAA or thief. It happens, to people with this mindset, that these are causalities in a dilemma of understanding. Understand that the mindset is that music, like any other art form, is created by those who have a passion for it, those who want to give/explain/justify their view of the world to the world. That those people would be doing this not matter what, money, fame, whatever. Call it a purist view of the world, but don't miss understand it.
Given that viewpoint, the RIAA and those "shiny, Barbie doll artists" would be the antithesis of the purists view on music as art, seeking (only?) to profit from an art form. But this is the nature of a capitalist economy driven by consumerism.
As to the legality issue, there is no question that the law bodes against the practice of file sharing. I will remind you however, that the law was also, once, in favor of slavery, civil rights abuses, women's rights, etc. The "LAW" is a living document subject to change with the ebbs and flows of society.
The question remains, would you take the same stance on the issue, if you were charged $12-18 per painting or collection at your local art gallery for sub par works of artists seeking a profit. Most likely not.
So yes, under the current model, artist, labels, and the organizations that represent them deserve to be paid. But, I think the point that everyone is trying to make is that the model needs to be changed.
Why then did the Camaro from a few years back (can't remember what year) with the same exact engine as the Corvette put out less peak horse power? its called detuning, they'd say it was for gas mileage and engine longevity, truth is IMO, it'd look bad if the Camaro was cranking out as many HP's as the Corvette
I think I saw that on SNL once... Anyone?
A-Men