So Jonny watching lesbian sex is not as bad as Jonny watching last action hero. Make sense to you?
You're right! If we let Jonny watch violence, he might just become violent, but if we let Jonny watch lesbian sex, he might become a lesbian, uh, what a minute.
"Violence on TV only affects children whose parents act like TV personalities." -- David Byrne
You know, this is as good a place to get this idea out as any.
There've been a number of times recently when Slashdot articles have been critical of traditional information sources. The one that stands out is The Gartner Group's analysis of Linux.
These Analysts are listened to by a lot of the Industry. These guys are not audited for accuracy, nor do they have to demonstrate credentials, but they can be tremendously influential. Sometimes, it seems that analysts like Gartner and Giga create the future rather than just predict based on trends.
The situation could be better. It seems to me that moderated up comments on Slashdot are at least as good as the insight of the Analysts, and are often much better.
By and large, CIOs are not going to read Slashdot, although perhaps they should. Would it be possible to have a new Slashdot section called "Industry Analysis" (or something). Articles could be posted here which would pose specific Industry Trend types of questions/issues for review and analysis. There could also be a standard review Article posted every month/quarter/year to capture analysis for a recurring report on the upcoming state of the Industry. These "Industry Analysis" articles could become a trusted source for Industry News and Trends.
It might be a good idea to have an Editorial Board for this that would take the "Industry Analysis" articles and collect them just into the gems (highly moderated comments). The Editorial Board might exercise some discretion on Comments, editing them for brevity, possibly consolidating similar Comments into single sub-sections of the report.
In each case, the collated sub-sections would have by-lines that give information about the authors. This would be an important function of the Editorial Board. They would gather information about the authors for the final edited version of the reports. This information would be important to identify potential biases of the authors. We don't want some guy working for HP playing up the fact that the next release of HP-UX with UltraECommerce+ will be a world beater, without a by-line that makes it clear that the author might be partisan. I wouldn't exclude articles where bias is a factor. After all, the articles still have to pass through moderation. The best marketing information provides you with a lot of data to work from and it could be included, it just has to be completely clear as to the bias of the author. I would allow Anonymous Coward by-lines or even by-lines by authors who don't want to give information about themselves, but the by-line would state the fact that the author prefers not to disclose information about themselves.
Perhaps the final product would go through a final Slashdot Community review so as to be a check on the Editorial Board and to allow for the Community to point out potential biases that may have been missed by the editors but should be noted.
Maybe the Editorial Board is unnecessary, I don't know. Without some editing, I doubt it would ever be taken seriously in the industry. I would like to think that this could be taken seriously and help to create the future the way the Gartner's and Giga's create the future with their predictions.
These final reports could stand alone as Web-Based documents. An Industry Analysis that is for and by the geek community.
Hey, the Slashdot Community is increasingly being used for Industry Analysis anyway. There are a lot of Industy Press stories that say "the geeks of on Slashdot are saying...". We might as well publish our own industry analysis that is free of outside editing.
This whole process could be called Open Analysis, or think up another name...
I could even see Slashdot getting paid to address specific issues with the Open Analysis process. Maybe Slashdot could distribute some of this to the contributors (as Jane's was going to do), but I'm not opposed to Slashdot benefitting from this. What's good for Slashdot is good for the Slashdot Community.
Uhm. Except for the fact that they refer to it as GNU+Linux at least once in the product listing.
True, but the product is "RMS Linux". Stallman, you know RMS, has said that Linux should be used in reference to the kernel only and that the entire system should be "The GNU system" or "GNU/Linux".
Licenses are not legally binding on the copyright holder. The reason the FSF insists on copyright to everything...
Well, I have to admit that this is an angle that never occurred to me. I didn't know that the GPL did not apply to the copyright holder.
However, I've seen a lot of GPLd software, including things distributed by the FSF that contained copyrights other than the FSF. gnuchess comes to mind immediately, but I'm sure I've seen many others.
I can't find where the GPL requires that changes must become copyrighted to the FSF. In fact, quite the contrary, the GPL uses the terms "Copyright Holders" in several places apparently acknowledging that multiple parties would hold copyright.
It seems that if we were to submit changes back to the FSF with our own copyrights on them, and these changes were accepted by the FSF and the FSF made these available to others, that the GPL would be binding on both by the following provision (GPL Version 2, June 1991, full text available here:
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
This could bring about a bizaare situation if the FSF tried to reissue software under a different license on which others held copyrights. The FSFs license to use any changes contributed by these other copyright holders could be terminated, yet the FSF might have made changes that were dependent on these changes. Other people's rights to redistribute, change, etc. etc. etc would not be affected. The FSF would only be allowed to distribute changes prior to the other copyright holder's additions and they could distribute patches that are dependent on the other copyright holders, but not the entire work.
This applies to those who might try and encumber a piece by making a change, putting their copyright on the change, but releasing under the GPL, too. They could, theoretically, change the license for their addition, but then they would have lost all rights to the base code.
In truth, I think it's outlandishly unlikely that the FSF will be releasing anything under a fee-based license, ever.
Getting back to the original topic of this thread. I don't find it at all unlikely that Sun might re-release StarOffice (or any of the other things that they're throwing out under SCSL) under a fee-based license in the future. Also, as you point out, the SCSL (unlike the GPL) does not prevent the copyright holder (licensor) to remove the right to use something so licensed at a later time. I believe, but I'm not certain about this as the SCSL is a lot harder to understand than the GPL, that Sun could get you addicted to StarOffice and have you paying for it later. There's no question in my mind that they could get you to pay for later releases, including releases that have changes required to run on newer hardware.
If those who are calling for Sun to change the provisions of the SCSL are listening, I think this should be #1 on the list. That once you are using SCSLd software, you have a grandfathered right to use it and derived works (changes you or others who are using this software might make to get it to run on newer hardware, for example), at least for your own use, in perpetuity. This is not asking for the viral nature of the GPL, just that you have the right not to have a given set of SCSLd code out yanked from under you.
This would be allowing SCSLd software to branch out into "limited universe GPLd versions". These "limited universes" being the Community that is using a given release of some SCSLd software.
Now that I think about it, it's extremely unlikely that Sun would do this. This would allow MS, for example, to create a Java++ and go their own direction, which is what the SCSL was originally designed to prevent.
Sheesh, it would have been so much simpler had Sun just used GPL... Which is taking us all the way back to the topic of the story in the first place. I knew I could get back on topic if I tried!
That pattern matching stuff to detect URLs is annoying. MS Outlook client does this and it's mostly a pain. It sometimes catches things that aren't intended to be URLs. If you're sending mail that tries to explain how to do something with HTML tags in this mode, it can be very confusing. Also, URLs can and do have embedded spaces and there's no good way to deal with that.
All in all, I think it's a bad thing.
The wwwthreads package has a system of markup tags that make things more convenient. You just enclose a link in... and it makes a link based on the enclosed URL. You can also use HTML much like Slashdot does. I don't know if the free clone of wwwthreads supports this.
An HTML editor that had a mode to support only those tags that Slashdot supports would be nice.
The next version of gcc, or any other software which has had its copyrights transfered to the FSF, could be released under fee-licensing only. In fact, it's already proprietary, since they own it and restrict its use, in the same manner, if not extent, that Sun (or M$) does. If information is not in the public domain, it's proprietary, regardless of the nonsense comming out of the FSF.
I guess I should be careful about the term 'proprietary'. I would agree that the only intellectual property that is not 'proprietary' in some way is public domain and GPLd software definitely is not in the public domain.
GPLd software is proprietary in a very odd way. Anyone can do anything they want with it except make derived works not covered by the GPL. There's also some positive responsibilities of someone distributing something derived from GPLd works to include the text of the license, FSF copyright notice, change history, source code to changes, or provide a pointer where the source code can be obtained, etc.
However, your assertion that the FSF could release a GPLd work, such as a modification of gcc, under fee-licensing only is not true.
Quoting from the GPL (Version 2, June 1991) full text available here:
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
Or, are you saying, as is sometimes heard, that the GPL is not legally binding and thus could be broken at whim?
That's funny, considering Sun's 'warranty' is for 90 days on the media with no warranty on the software whatsoever.
Yeah, this is pretty silly.
I just don't get it. GPL doesn't prevent Sun from releasing their version and only providing warranties and indemnities on that. Now, there's a pretty funny claim on their part "One big problem with GPL is that it's hard to give the customer indemnification and product warranties.". I bet Sun never indemnifies any use of StarOffice/Portal against any claim whatsoever. Their lawyers would never allow it. Can you imagine their fielding claims from somebody who didn't get a contract because the proposal came out garbled, or due to software 'glitches' the proposal wouldn't print in time?
The biggest single problem I have with SCSL is that they can take the code proprietary any time they want. I don't see how that benefits anyone but Sun. They can get everyone using a product and then the next release, with a whole raft of added features, will be proprietary. Seems only a benefit to them.
Uhhh....AT&T Was a GOVERNMENT ENFORCED monopoly! Like Con Edison in New York, and Network Solutions. Think any differently now?
Check out the case that broke them up. It was a typical anti-trust case which had nothing to do with their local phone service monopolies. The suit was all about long distance, and there was no government enforced monopoly on providing long distance service.
MCI filed suit because AT&T refused to sell them long distance line time at anything but a retail rate, making certain that AT&T retained the monopoly on long distance communication.
Now, there was an interaction with their so-called 'natural' (that's what people call a government enforced monopoly) monopoly and the long distance business. It was decided that AT&T could not be in both the long distance business and the retail phone service market, which is why they had to divest of the RBOCs.
I suppose you think it's just fine if AT&T has a monopoly on long distance lines and doesn't provide wholesale price breaks to other carriers. In itself, that situation would have made it extremely difficult for anyone else to enter the long distance market. You would have to have tremendous capitalization to lay down lines to compete with AT&T and while you were building you would not be able to compete at all in any areas that your lines don't go to yet. In those days AT&T was allowed to charge whatever people could pay.
I do agree that there are some bad anti-trust cases, like IT&T in the 70s, but there have been some very good ones too.
"...You are the one who spuriously throws in the comment about what "Countless scholars and professionals" think knowing full well that much of that is simple Microsoft propaganda."
I don't know that "full well", and to claim as much would be a blatant lie.
Well, it's clear that much of it is. Check out the so-called "Independent Institute's" ad, for example. Perhaps I shouldn't make claims as to what you know.
Criminal acts are a completely different subject. You know the difference between a criminal trial and a civil suit, am I right?
And so, someone attempting to manipulate the government to their own benefit in a civil suit is OK, it's only a problem if it's a criminal suit? So, had OJ bribed the judge in the civil suit, no problem, but in the criminal suit, well that's another matter?
Actually, there can be criminal penalties for willfully violating a consent decree. Or, there's the criminal offense of contempt of court, which if I were the judge in the Microsoft case, I would slap them with this for falsification of evidence (the video demonstration that they claimed was real-time but was in fact edited).
How can either of us say whether it has "benefitted" when neither of us know what would have happened had government stayed its hand? Pretending to know the past that did not happen is as ridiculous as claiming to predict the future.
Sure, we can't know the result had the Government not intervened. I'm certain that AT&T out of the goodness of their hearts would have driven long distance prices down dramatically (what by 3x in constant dollars or somesuch?). I'm certain that Rockefeller continuing to collude with others to make sure that there was no competition in Oil would ultimately have been a good thing.
You know, we can't know what would happen if we removed penalties for rape and murder. Why don't we do this, just to see, huh?
Antitrust legislation was instituted to counter a real and serious problem. Not just because some politicians decided one day that they didn't like big business. I need a compelling argument for removing it, not just "we wouldn't know what it would be like, so let's try it!"
This is ridiculous. An unjust government practice does not become just simply because Microsoft agreed to it, no more than a forced confession is admissible in criminal proceedings simply because everyone agrees that the defendant is guilty.
I've never heard the claim before right now that Microsoft was coerced into signing the consent decree. Microsoft is quite capable of accessing the media to protest coercion. Microsoft's claim is that they did not violate the consent decree, a clear lie. Sorry, unless you're Clinton, you're not allowed to lie in Court. We can't allow it. Our system of law is based on it.
Their chance to make claims about the unfairness of the law was before they signed the consent decree, or if coercion was in effect, they need to stand up and say so. Unfortunately, if you give in to "tyranny" it gets more difficult to extricate yourself all the time. I'm afraid I don't know what to do for someone who was coerced into a confession and will not stand up and say so. Poor Microsoft, beaten down by an unfair system of law.
"Oh yes, Microsoft is a bastion of principle here."
Nobody has made this claim, because it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand. This is about Microsoft's rights, not about whether or not you like the company.
You were the one who brought up the unprincipled nature of those who testified in this case against Microsoft. Seems the principles or lack thereof of those who testify is pretty irrelevant. If you bring up the issue of principle on one side of the issue, I think it's fair to point out the lack of principle on the other.
Of course they did, what's your point? And what does this have to do with anti-trust activity? You are attempting to snow the conversation, apparently.
I am trying to snow the conversation? You are the one who spuriously throws in the comment about what "Countless scholars and professionals" think knowing full well that much of that is simple Microsoft propaganda. By using such ambiguous terms like "Countless scholars" you give the impression that many or most scholars are in agreement with your rather minority position that antitrust laws are oppressive.
You also were careful not to address my gibe about the benefits of antitrust legislation. It appears you seem to think that nothing was wrong with Rockefeller's Standard Oil or that the breakup of AT&T hasn't actually benefitted consumers and the economy. Isn't only picking out the points you want to address in an argument a way to "snow" the conversation?
"Manipulate the government into leaving them alone", now that is expert spin control. The ironic thing is, I totally agree. I would love to "manipulate the government into leaving me alone".
Criminals bribing judges are manipulating the government into leaving them alone, Chinese agents close to the Clinton administration apparently manipulated the government into leaving an agent at Los Alamos alone and Microsoft attempts to manipulate the legislature to change the law to leave them alone.
Microsoft is not a victim here. They signed a consent decree in 1995 agreeing that they would change their business practices and they didn't, in fact they committed even worse offenses. If they didn't agree with the consent decree, they shouldn't have signed it. Had they took a principled stand in 1995, maybe you would have an argument. As it stands, they were caught in the act, they can't win in a court of law, so they try to influence the legislature to wiggle out from under the consequences of their actions.
I have to agree here. It would be much better for everyone if we had just let Standard Oil set gasoline prices. Also, that breakup of AT&T?? What a nightmare, long distance phone prices have not been stable since!
Microsoft makes no secret of the fact that it takes antitrust legislation to be a breach of free-market principles. Countless scholars and professionals have weighed in with agreement...
Not even Robert Bork, a long time enemy of Anti-Trust legislation "takes antitrust legislation to be a breach of free-market principles." Most of what you see from "Countless scholars and professionals" is just MS propaganda. Some of those "Countless scholars" said they never would have "weighed in" if they had known that Microsoft was footing the bill for the "Independent" council that ran the NYT ad.
Funny how principles change when you realize that the government can be manipulated into doing your dirty work...
Microsoft has noticed that too. That's why they are using their considerable influence to manipulate the government into leaving them alone.
Funny how they take a stand on principle only after it threatens them...
What no one seems to understand is that elephant dung is symbolic of rebirth in Africa.
If this is a religious statement with deep significance, then it has no place being supported with public funds. That would be consistent with what our Civil Libertarians typically say about this subject.
In London, it was the image of a child murderer done using the handprints of children that upset the locals about this exhibit. In the US, that's no biggie.
So, would you assume that the people in the US are wrong to object to the Madonna image and the people in Britain are wrong to object to the murderer's portrait, or that both are right?
It is Jon Katz who confuses Societal disapproval with legal rights in quotes like:
"The First Amendment has never been a particularly popular one. Americans have always embraced freedom until somebody says something they don't like. Then they like to fire the offenders, chase them away, close them down. "
What exactly is he saying here? We should make sure to patronize, support, listen to, pay for and keep close those with abhorent belief systems? I bet Jon doesn't actively support the views of devout Roman Catholics very much. Sure, he defends their right to say what they want, but he wouldn't pay to hear it or pay to make sure it's a view that is widely heard. That's what he's criticizing. Because the Republican's don't want to actively support Pat Buchanan, he's somehow being silenced. It's makes no sense whatsoever.
He goes on to say that Jesse Ventura and Pat Buchanan aren't "free" to express their ideas. Funny how I'm hearing their ideas expressed widely, dissemenated daily on News, talk shows, interviews, print media...
I would agree that Jon Katz has a kernel of a good article buried in there somewhere about how emotion clouds debate and understanding. But, as others have pointed out, he's guilty of exactly the thing that he decries. Using charged language "we're not free because", "boneheads", etc. etc. etc. to destroy real understanding of the issues.
Microsoft has standards for doing this kind of thing. It's just that people have a strange ability to ignore them at times.
I'm a Windows developer. I know that the only things that go in the System directory are: Microsoft system libraries and system components. Device drivers provided by Microsoft. Windows configuration files and data (provided by Microsoft). Kernel files.
Does all this imply that only Microsoft should write programs that depend on system components? Is there any way to sort out which DLL version a given program was originally built and tested against.
Although testing may be overrated in it's ability to really uncover program flaws, we normally expect a minimal amount of testing of a component before it is given to the end user. With the present situation, huge code bases are fitted together in ways that have never been tested together before the user tries it.
From the horror stories I hear with Service Pack installations, I'm convinced that even Microsoft doesn't always make sure that all of their programs work with a given DLL they may be installing.
I personally like the way OpenVMS handles this situation. Identifiers are maintained with programs identifying specifically which shared library that it was built against. The program will not load if these don't match. It does require that you sort out which programs were built to work against which shared library before you try and use them, but it's the only way to guarantee consistency.
In OpenVMS, if you feel you must release code to work against multiple versions of the shared libraries, then you release object files and have the installation link them against the currently available shared libraries. Then, the installation can check which shared libraries are available and possibly use object modules specific to the available shared libraries or refuse to build if the environment is unknown to the installation procedure. Also, the application will refuse to work in the future if the shared libraries change out from under them, requiring you to run the installation procedure again, which can revalidate that the currently available shared libraries are OK to use with this application. Of course, you will have to go back to the application developer if the new shared libraries are unknown to the installation procedure you are trying to use, but isn't this exactly what you want? This mechanism implies positive responsibility on the part of the app developer to test their application against various shared library versions.
The situation with Linux may not be as clean as it is with OpenVMS, but at least with Open Source an app developer has some chance of determining what has changed in the shared libraries and what areas should be examined for compatibility. With Microsoft DLLs, you just have to guess where potential problems could be. Does Microsoft always document thoroughly any API changes that may be present in a new DLL? In real world apps, it's not just documented API behavior, but also timing and resource usage that you have to be concerned with. I bet Microsoft doesn't document all those issues, and even if they did, who could understand it all? Only testing and experience can really validate that a combination works together well.
On the other hand, Giuliani is using his elected office to try to eliminate something with which he doesn't agree. That is censorship: government censorship.
I disagree. Rather than repeat myself, I will just point you to what I've said here on this subject.
They have a First Amendment right to say so, but they do not have a First Amendment right to say so in this forum.
You are right that I don't have a First Amendment right to speak in this forum. Neither do you have a First Amendment right to say wht you just said in Slashdot. It would not be a violation of our rights if the Editors were to delete these postings. I bet they wouldn't dream of it.
/. prospers because lots of people agree with the editorial choices of The Taco Consortium. They happen to like to print what Katz writes. People arguing that there's some external reason why they "shouldn't" are not just wrong, they're talking completely sideways to the true situation.
I bet the editors support my right to give my opinion that Mr. Katz should, perhaps, not be an Feature writer here. I just expressed an opinion, like so many others do here. Slashdot prospers not only because of the editorial decisions made but because of the opinions that the participants, you and me and all the others, express here.
I'm not sure what you're point is. Are you saying that I should not post my opinion concerning editorial policy here? I wouldn't dream of invoking the First Amendment if my posts were deleted and I was prohibited from using Slashdot.
Well, there is a kernel of this in this extract from the Feature:
Personally, I haven't even begun to formulate what I think about this idea. But I want-need to read, mull and talk about it. The wanton use of terms like "murder" and "genocide" make that impossible,
If he'd stuck to that theme, about how the issues are so clouded by these emotional terms as to make debate and understanding impossible, it would have been a much better article. But, even in this very sentence quoted above, he has to ruin it at the end with:
and that means we aren't free either.
This has nothing to do with freedom. Somehow, in the Katz world view, we aren't free if we are emotional and closed minded. I feel that our freedom to be reasoned and open minded implies a freedom to be emotional and closed minded. If freedom is only freedom to be noble then we've given up freedom to whoever is in charge of determining what noble is.
Ultimately, what do have but opinion? A Museum would not display a particular artist if they felt that this artist's work was pointless or just "bad" art. That's an opinion.
Art that challenges people isn't always popular. That is why it needs the subsidies.
It's popular with the art intelligensia, and rich patrons, the Brooklyn Exhibit is getting a lot of support from visitors, it appears.
Subsidies based on tax monies would be mechanism for REAL censorship. If the government were to tax us so heavily so that real art couldn't be supported, but they drove these funds into "breand and circuses" art like Monster Truck pulls, then this would be a form of censorship. Now, I'm not suggesting that this is happening, but it's a possibility with subsidies. Best not to have subsidies and risk this problem.
Ultimately, what the Government supports is based on what's popular, at least it is in a democracy. Or, should the Government subsidize all exprssion as long as the author claims it is "art".
I'm not content to live in a world where "Friends" and monster truck pulls are our most challenging experiences just because that is what the market bears.
Well, you have the freedom to support that art that you enjoy. If enough people agree with you, then you'll probably be able to enjoy it more often. Of course, if nobody likes it, then it's probably not worthy of support. Maybe not, but how would we know?
Why do you insist that "good" art would disappear if it didn't have tax support? Don't you think a lot of those rich patrons of the arts would want to support it if the government did not?
This is a strawman anyway. I think you'll find that philanthropy currently supports more "fine" art like classical music than is provided by government subsidies. I wonder if those resources might not be even more available if the philanthropists felt that it was, to some extent, the job of the Government to provide support.
Whereas rich people's taxes don't have any kind of positive affect upon poor people's lives?
By your argument, we should just let them starve. Screw 'em if they can't compete.\
We support poor people in this society because they are unable to support themselves and we feel it's wrong to let them starve. I, for one, don't think it's wrong for the Brooklyn Exhibition not to see the light of day AND I feel that those who enjoy that sort of thing could support it if they didn't require others to do so. Those with bizaare taste in art (witness the huge popularity of the Brookly Exhibition), or those who enjoy classical music have demonstrated that they are quite capable of supporting themselves.
In my opinion, oops can't base policy on opinion that would be "wrong" - I believe, that if someone can support those things which they enjoy (the rich), then they should support those things and not require those who don't enjoy those things with less resources to be supporting it for them.
I suppose you would propose that the government should subsidize fine architecture for the homes of the rich because the art of fine architecture ennobles us as a society and the rich are best capable of enjoying it?
This is the worst piece on Free Speech and what it means to be a free people that I think I've ever read. Jon Katz should perhaps read something about the philosophical underpinnings of our rights and the responsibilities that these rights imply.
Somehow, supporting the right of someone to express an opinion has become conflated with supporting someone in expressing an opinion.
Pat Buchanan, Jesse Ventura, The Brooklyn Museum, none of these are examples of censorship. There are examples of people freely expressing desenting views and people exercising their right of association (in these cases disassociating themselves with, and withdrawing their active support for, opinions they find wrong or offensive).
There are so many absurd examples in this article that I don't have time to go over them all. The worst might be that Pat Buchanan is having some First Amendment right taken away because the Republicans don't agree with his views and don't feel that he represents their principles. I suppose if Clinton suddenly started spouting Stalinist slogans and calling for a centralized economy that it would be an abridgement of his First Amendment Rights if the Democratic party were to oust him? Patently absurd.
Pat Buchanan is exercising his right to associate with those who agree with him by going to the Reform Party. If the Reform Party makes Pat Buchanan their Presidential candidate would the rights of Donald Trump be trampled on because the Reform Party would be withdrawing their support from him? It would seem to follow from Katzian logic.
It's a complete strawman that H.L. Mencken couldn't get a job in any newspaper today. I see a lot of columnists who make a practice of poking fun at religion, or expressing anti-religious views, and they just seem to get more popular. Molly Ivans and Ellen Goodman come immediately to mind.
Confusing this issue is the case of Mr. Singer. Mr. Singer enjoys the academic freedom which we have bestowed upon people with tenure. I do believe that it would be wrong, although not an abridgement of a Constitutionally guaranteed right, to fire Mr. Singer for expressing his view.
I think it would be right for Slashdot, for example, to stop supporting a certain Feature writer. Slashdot makes frequent editorial decisions. They don't publish every feature submitted, after all. Are they censoring those that they don't print? One of the editorial criteria is supposed to be that it's well thought out and coherent. This feature doesn't pass the test, if you ask me.
I wonder if I'll now be ostracized for suggesting that Jon Katz should be "censored"?
It is a simple fact that artists are not compensated appropriately for their work. Public funding *IS* needed to support most forms of art. Even acceptable, highly-popular art like classical music needs public funding. So, pulling that funding is most definitely a form of censorship.
Baloney. Non-support is not censorship.
This "art" is defended as being political or at least provocative speech. Free Speech advocates like to say that that the First Amendment to the American Constitution places a "wall of separation" between the church and the state and thus, the state is not allowed to forward religious speech in any way. It seems ironic that the same First Amendment is used to justify anti-religious speech. Anti-religious speech is just religious speech from an opposing religion, in one way to look at it. In fairness, shouldn't New York City now be supporting Catholic clergy to give the opposing view?
As to it being "a simple fact that artists are not compensated appropriately for their work", I disagree. Compensation for work is the function of the marketplace. If you like this art, then you should support it. Perhaps I would approve of some Education money being spent in the support of Art, Education being a function of our government, but any other support should come from the people who enjoy it.
Whatever happened to the enhanced perspective gained by an artist being under appreciated? Van Gogh is an excellent example of someone who was unappreciated in his time. Would his art have been better had he been fat and happy? I doubt it. In fact, it's often the case that State supported art is not the best that every age has to offer. So, for example, Salieri gets State support and Mozart does not.
I challenge the belief that "highly-popular" art like classical music "needs" public funding. If it were indeed "highly-popular" then public funding wouldn't be required. Both this display in Brooklyn and classical music are widely acclaimed by upper-middle class people who use their considerable political influence to get the State to pay for it. These are particularly eggregious examples of the poor paying for the upper class' entertainment through their taxes.
Remember this story a few weeks back about the Microsoft guy trying to install some Loki game on Linux at work to perform useability studies?
Microsoft is working this angle already. They know that gaming is an important market in it's own right. The ability to play games well gives also gives the platform a lot of credibility. As others have pointed out, a lot of low-cost-but-high-end graphics development is done to support games too, which in turn benefits the platform in other areas.
As others have said, Intel doesn't want to be too closely identified with Redmond. See the Intel people's testimony in the anti-trust suit for details. Their afraid that MS is going to suffer a lot in the next few years and Intel is afraid to suffer with them.
I think Intel has recognized that the current Linux offerings can pretty well be deployed on current hardware or AMD processors. There may be some advantage to running on the latest, hottest processor, but not much.
With bloatware, Intel could count on people starving for the fastest that Intel could provide. The new marketplace will have people upgrading far less often, and more often they'll be looking at better I/O throughput (SCSI disks - several to balance workload, better networking, faster bus speeds) rather than higher processor power. Bloatware (CERTAINLY Win95/95, this is probably less true of NT) isn't very good at taking advantage of lots of concurrent I/O anyway, so people just don't go for all these I/O throughput upgrades now. They just buy the latest processor in the vain hope that it can keep up.
Intell sees that they'll be looking at a slump in their bread-and-butter processor sales if something doesn't happen.
Their only hope is to try and get Linux vendors in hot feature competition in the hopes that all this new functionality will lead to the bloatware heaven that they've enjoyed in the last 5 years.
I didn't say there was anything wrong with it - it's just that Intel can't do it. They'd risk a lawsuit from their shareholders.
Say what?
Somebody better inform the shareholders of all of those companies that have donated money to the FSF down through the years...
I'd sure like to see the shareholders suit prove that donating money to an organization that is producing tools to help develop your target market is a breach of fudiciary responsibility (the usual shareholder suit). You could also pretty easily argue that a donation to Debian is just to develop good will. If shareholders could sue over donations to non-profits, we'd sure see a lot less corporate philanthropy.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right! If we let Jonny watch violence, he might just become violent, but if we let Jonny watch lesbian sex, he might become a lesbian, uh, what a minute.
"Violence on TV only affects children whose parents act like TV personalities." -- David Byrne
There've been a number of times recently when Slashdot articles have been critical of traditional information sources. The one that stands out is The Gartner Group's analysis of Linux.
These Analysts are listened to by a lot of the Industry. These guys are not audited for accuracy, nor do they have to demonstrate credentials, but they can be tremendously influential. Sometimes, it seems that analysts like Gartner and Giga create the future rather than just predict based on trends.
The situation could be better. It seems to me that moderated up comments on Slashdot are at least as good as the insight of the Analysts, and are often much better.
By and large, CIOs are not going to read Slashdot, although perhaps they should. Would it be possible to have a new Slashdot section called "Industry Analysis" (or something). Articles could be posted here which would pose specific Industry Trend types of questions/issues for review and analysis. There could also be a standard review Article posted every month/quarter/year to capture analysis for a recurring report on the upcoming state of the Industry. These "Industry Analysis" articles could become a trusted source for Industry News and Trends.
It might be a good idea to have an Editorial Board for this that would take the "Industry Analysis" articles and collect them just into the gems (highly moderated comments). The Editorial Board might exercise some discretion on Comments, editing them for brevity, possibly consolidating similar Comments into single sub-sections of the report.
In each case, the collated sub-sections would have by-lines that give information about the authors. This would be an important function of the Editorial Board. They would gather information about the authors for the final edited version of the reports. This information would be important to identify potential biases of the authors. We don't want some guy working for HP playing up the fact that the next release of HP-UX with UltraECommerce+ will be a world beater, without a by-line that makes it clear that the author might be partisan. I wouldn't exclude articles where bias is a factor. After all, the articles still have to pass through moderation. The best marketing information provides you with a lot of data to work from and it could be included, it just has to be completely clear as to the bias of the author. I would allow Anonymous Coward by-lines or even by-lines by authors who don't want to give information about themselves, but the by-line would state the fact that the author prefers not to disclose information about themselves.
Perhaps the final product would go through a final Slashdot Community review so as to be a check on the Editorial Board and to allow for the Community to point out potential biases that may have been missed by the editors but should be noted.
Maybe the Editorial Board is unnecessary, I don't know. Without some editing, I doubt it would ever be taken seriously in the industry. I would like to think that this could be taken seriously and help to create the future the way the Gartner's and Giga's create the future with their predictions.
These final reports could stand alone as Web-Based documents. An Industry Analysis that is for and by the geek community.
Hey, the Slashdot Community is increasingly being used for Industry Analysis anyway. There are a lot of Industy Press stories that say "the geeks of on Slashdot are saying...". We might as well publish our own industry analysis that is free of outside editing.
This whole process could be called Open Analysis, or think up another name...
I could even see Slashdot getting paid to address specific issues with the Open Analysis process. Maybe Slashdot could distribute some of this to the contributors (as Jane's was going to do), but I'm not opposed to Slashdot benefitting from this. What's good for Slashdot is good for the Slashdot Community.
True, but the product is "RMS Linux". Stallman, you know RMS, has said that Linux should be used in reference to the kernel only and that the entire system should be "The GNU system" or "GNU/Linux".
Just goes to show what a treacherous business selling distributions can be.
Heh, RMS probably will not like his namesake distribution because it's not being presented as GNU/Linux.
Somehow, I'd be surprised if RedHat made that ad. Debian maybe, but not RedHat...
Well, I have to admit that this is an angle that never occurred to me. I didn't know that the GPL did not apply to the copyright holder.
However, I've seen a lot of GPLd software, including things distributed by the FSF that contained copyrights other than the FSF. gnuchess comes to mind immediately, but I'm sure I've seen many others.
I can't find where the GPL requires that changes must become copyrighted to the FSF. In fact, quite the contrary, the GPL uses the terms "Copyright Holders" in several places apparently acknowledging that multiple parties would hold copyright.
It seems that if we were to submit changes back to the FSF with our own copyrights on them, and these changes were accepted by the FSF and the FSF made these available to others, that the GPL would be binding on both by the following provision (GPL Version 2, June 1991, full text available here:
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
This could bring about a bizaare situation if the FSF tried to reissue software under a different license on which others held copyrights. The FSFs license to use any changes contributed by these other copyright holders could be terminated, yet the FSF might have made changes that were dependent on these changes. Other people's rights to redistribute, change, etc. etc. etc would not be affected. The FSF would only be allowed to distribute changes prior to the other copyright holder's additions and they could distribute patches that are dependent on the other copyright holders, but not the entire work.
This applies to those who might try and encumber a piece by making a change, putting their copyright on the change, but releasing under the GPL, too. They could, theoretically, change the license for their addition, but then they would have lost all rights to the base code.
In truth, I think it's outlandishly unlikely that the FSF will be releasing anything under a fee-based license, ever.
Getting back to the original topic of this thread. I don't find it at all unlikely that Sun might re-release StarOffice (or any of the other things that they're throwing out under SCSL) under a fee-based license in the future. Also, as you point out, the SCSL (unlike the GPL) does not prevent the copyright holder (licensor) to remove the right to use something so licensed at a later time. I believe, but I'm not certain about this as the SCSL is a lot harder to understand than the GPL, that Sun could get you addicted to StarOffice and have you paying for it later. There's no question in my mind that they could get you to pay for later releases, including releases that have changes required to run on newer hardware.
If those who are calling for Sun to change the provisions of the SCSL are listening, I think this should be #1 on the list. That once you are using SCSLd software, you have a grandfathered right to use it and derived works (changes you or others who are using this software might make to get it to run on newer hardware, for example), at least for your own use, in perpetuity. This is not asking for the viral nature of the GPL, just that you have the right not to have a given set of SCSLd code out yanked from under you.
This would be allowing SCSLd software to branch out into "limited universe GPLd versions". These "limited universes" being the Community that is using a given release of some SCSLd software.
Now that I think about it, it's extremely unlikely that Sun would do this. This would allow MS, for example, to create a Java++ and go their own direction, which is what the SCSL was originally designed to prevent.
Sheesh, it would have been so much simpler had Sun just used GPL... Which is taking us all the way back to the topic of the story in the first place. I knew I could get back on topic if I tried!
All in all, I think it's a bad thing.
The wwwthreads package has a system of markup tags that make things more convenient. You just enclose a link in ... and it makes a link based on the enclosed URL. You can also use HTML much like Slashdot does. I don't know if the free clone of wwwthreads supports this.
An HTML editor that had a mode to support only those tags that Slashdot supports would be nice.
I guess I should be careful about the term 'proprietary'. I would agree that the only intellectual property that is not 'proprietary' in some way is public domain and GPLd software definitely is not in the public domain.
GPLd software is proprietary in a very odd way. Anyone can do anything they want with it except make derived works not covered by the GPL. There's also some positive responsibilities of someone distributing something derived from GPLd works to include the text of the license, FSF copyright notice, change history, source code to changes, or provide a pointer where the source code can be obtained, etc.
However, your assertion that the FSF could release a GPLd work, such as a modification of gcc, under fee-licensing only is not true.
Quoting from the GPL (Version 2, June 1991) full text available here:
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
Or, are you saying, as is sometimes heard, that the GPL is not legally binding and thus could be broken at whim?
Yeah, this is pretty silly.
I just don't get it. GPL doesn't prevent Sun from releasing their version and only providing warranties and indemnities on that. Now, there's a pretty funny claim on their part "One big problem with GPL is that it's hard to give the customer indemnification and product warranties.". I bet Sun never indemnifies any use of StarOffice/Portal against any claim whatsoever. Their lawyers would never allow it. Can you imagine their fielding claims from somebody who didn't get a contract because the proposal came out garbled, or due to software 'glitches' the proposal wouldn't print in time?
The biggest single problem I have with SCSL is that they can take the code proprietary any time they want. I don't see how that benefits anyone but Sun. They can get everyone using a product and then the next release, with a whole raft of added features, will be proprietary. Seems only a benefit to them.
Check out the case that broke them up. It was a typical anti-trust case which had nothing to do with their local phone service monopolies. The suit was all about long distance, and there was no government enforced monopoly on providing long distance service.
MCI filed suit because AT&T refused to sell them long distance line time at anything but a retail rate, making certain that AT&T retained the monopoly on long distance communication.
Now, there was an interaction with their so-called 'natural' (that's what people call a government enforced monopoly) monopoly and the long distance business. It was decided that AT&T could not be in both the long distance business and the retail phone service market, which is why they had to divest of the RBOCs.
I suppose you think it's just fine if AT&T has a monopoly on long distance lines and doesn't provide wholesale price breaks to other carriers. In itself, that situation would have made it extremely difficult for anyone else to enter the long distance market. You would have to have tremendous capitalization to lay down lines to compete with AT&T and while you were building you would not be able to compete at all in any areas that your lines don't go to yet. In those days AT&T was allowed to charge whatever people could pay.
I do agree that there are some bad anti-trust cases, like IT&T in the 70s, but there have been some very good ones too.
"...You are the one who spuriously throws in the comment about what "Countless scholars and professionals" think knowing full well that much of that is simple Microsoft propaganda."
I don't know that "full well", and to claim as much would be a blatant lie.
Well, it's clear that much of it is. Check out the so-called "Independent Institute's" ad, for example. Perhaps I shouldn't make claims as to what you know.
Criminal acts are a completely different subject. You know the difference between a criminal trial and a civil suit, am I right?
And so, someone attempting to manipulate the government to their own benefit in a civil suit is OK, it's only a problem if it's a criminal suit? So, had OJ bribed the judge in the civil suit, no problem, but in the criminal suit, well that's another matter?
Actually, there can be criminal penalties for willfully violating a consent decree. Or, there's the criminal offense of contempt of court, which if I were the judge in the Microsoft case, I would slap them with this for falsification of evidence (the video demonstration that they claimed was real-time but was in fact edited).
How can either of us say whether it has "benefitted" when neither of us know what would have happened had government stayed its hand? Pretending to know the past that did not happen is as ridiculous as claiming to predict the future.
Sure, we can't know the result had the Government not intervened. I'm certain that AT&T out of the goodness of their hearts would have driven long distance prices down dramatically (what by 3x in constant dollars or somesuch?). I'm certain that Rockefeller continuing to collude with others to make sure that there was no competition in Oil would ultimately have been a good thing.
You know, we can't know what would happen if we removed penalties for rape and murder. Why don't we do this, just to see, huh?
Antitrust legislation was instituted to counter a real and serious problem. Not just because some politicians decided one day that they didn't like big business. I need a compelling argument for removing it, not just "we wouldn't know what it would be like, so let's try it!"
This is ridiculous. An unjust government practice does not become just simply because Microsoft agreed to it, no more than a forced confession is admissible in criminal proceedings simply because everyone agrees that the defendant is guilty.
I've never heard the claim before right now that Microsoft was coerced into signing the consent decree. Microsoft is quite capable of accessing the media to protest coercion. Microsoft's claim is that they did not violate the consent decree, a clear lie. Sorry, unless you're Clinton, you're not allowed to lie in Court. We can't allow it. Our system of law is based on it.
Their chance to make claims about the unfairness of the law was before they signed the consent decree, or if coercion was in effect, they need to stand up and say so. Unfortunately, if you give in to "tyranny" it gets more difficult to extricate yourself all the time. I'm afraid I don't know what to do for someone who was coerced into a confession and will not stand up and say so. Poor Microsoft, beaten down by an unfair system of law.
"Oh yes, Microsoft is a bastion of principle here."
Nobody has made this claim, because it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand. This is about Microsoft's rights, not about whether or not you like the company.
You were the one who brought up the unprincipled nature of those who testified in this case against Microsoft. Seems the principles or lack thereof of those who testify is pretty irrelevant. If you bring up the issue of principle on one side of the issue, I think it's fair to point out the lack of principle on the other.
I am trying to snow the conversation? You are the one who spuriously throws in the comment about what "Countless scholars and professionals" think knowing full well that much of that is simple Microsoft propaganda. By using such ambiguous terms like "Countless scholars" you give the impression that many or most scholars are in agreement with your rather minority position that antitrust laws are oppressive.
You also were careful not to address my gibe about the benefits of antitrust legislation. It appears you seem to think that nothing was wrong with Rockefeller's Standard Oil or that the breakup of AT&T hasn't actually benefitted consumers and the economy. Isn't only picking out the points you want to address in an argument a way to "snow" the conversation?
"Manipulate the government into leaving them alone", now that is expert spin control. The ironic thing is, I totally agree. I would love to "manipulate the government into leaving me alone".
Criminals bribing judges are manipulating the government into leaving them alone, Chinese agents close to the Clinton administration apparently manipulated the government into leaving an agent at Los Alamos alone and Microsoft attempts to manipulate the legislature to change the law to leave them alone.
Microsoft is not a victim here. They signed a consent decree in 1995 agreeing that they would change their business practices and they didn't, in fact they committed even worse offenses. If they didn't agree with the consent decree, they shouldn't have signed it. Had they took a principled stand in 1995, maybe you would have an argument. As it stands, they were caught in the act, they can't win in a court of law, so they try to influence the legislature to wiggle out from under the consequences of their actions.
Oh yes, Microsoft is a bastion of principle here.
Microsoft makes no secret of the fact that it takes antitrust legislation to be a breach of free-market principles. Countless scholars and professionals have weighed in with agreement...
Not even Robert Bork, a long time enemy of Anti-Trust legislation "takes antitrust legislation to be a breach of free-market principles." Most of what you see from "Countless scholars and professionals" is just MS propaganda. Some of those "Countless scholars" said they never would have "weighed in" if they had known that Microsoft was footing the bill for the "Independent" council that ran the NYT ad.
Funny how principles change when you realize that the government can be manipulated into doing your dirty work...
Microsoft has noticed that too. That's why they are using their considerable influence to manipulate the government into leaving them alone.
Funny how they take a stand on principle only after it threatens them...
If this is a religious statement with deep significance, then it has no place being supported with public funds. That would be consistent with what our Civil Libertarians typically say about this subject.
In London, it was the image of a child murderer done using the handprints of children that upset the locals about this exhibit. In the US, that's no biggie.
So, would you assume that the people in the US are wrong to object to the Madonna image and the people in Britain are wrong to object to the murderer's portrait, or that both are right?
"The First Amendment has never been a particularly popular one. Americans have always embraced freedom until somebody says something they don't like. Then they like to fire the offenders, chase them away, close them down. "
What exactly is he saying here? We should make sure to patronize, support, listen to, pay for and keep close those with abhorent belief systems? I bet Jon doesn't actively support the views of devout Roman Catholics very much. Sure, he defends their right to say what they want, but he wouldn't pay to hear it or pay to make sure it's a view that is widely heard. That's what he's criticizing. Because the Republican's don't want to actively support Pat Buchanan, he's somehow being silenced. It's makes no sense whatsoever.
He goes on to say that Jesse Ventura and Pat Buchanan aren't "free" to express their ideas. Funny how I'm hearing their ideas expressed widely, dissemenated daily on News, talk shows, interviews, print media...
I would agree that Jon Katz has a kernel of a good article buried in there somewhere about how emotion clouds debate and understanding. But, as others have pointed out, he's guilty of exactly the thing that he decries. Using charged language "we're not free because", "boneheads", etc. etc. etc. to destroy real understanding of the issues.
I'm a Windows developer. I know that the only things that go in the System directory are: Microsoft system libraries and system components. Device drivers provided by Microsoft. Windows configuration files and data (provided by Microsoft). Kernel files.
Does all this imply that only Microsoft should write programs that depend on system components? Is there any way to sort out which DLL version a given program was originally built and tested against.
Although testing may be overrated in it's ability to really uncover program flaws, we normally expect a minimal amount of testing of a component before it is given to the end user. With the present situation, huge code bases are fitted together in ways that have never been tested together before the user tries it.
From the horror stories I hear with Service Pack installations, I'm convinced that even Microsoft doesn't always make sure that all of their programs work with a given DLL they may be installing.
I personally like the way OpenVMS handles this situation. Identifiers are maintained with programs identifying specifically which shared library that it was built against. The program will not load if these don't match. It does require that you sort out which programs were built to work against which shared library before you try and use them, but it's the only way to guarantee consistency.
In OpenVMS, if you feel you must release code to work against multiple versions of the shared libraries, then you release object files and have the installation link them against the currently available shared libraries. Then, the installation can check which shared libraries are available and possibly use object modules specific to the available shared libraries or refuse to build if the environment is unknown to the installation procedure. Also, the application will refuse to work in the future if the shared libraries change out from under them, requiring you to run the installation procedure again, which can revalidate that the currently available shared libraries are OK to use with this application. Of course, you will have to go back to the application developer if the new shared libraries are unknown to the installation procedure you are trying to use, but isn't this exactly what you want? This mechanism implies positive responsibility on the part of the app developer to test their application against various shared library versions.
The situation with Linux may not be as clean as it is with OpenVMS, but at least with Open Source an app developer has some chance of determining what has changed in the shared libraries and what areas should be examined for compatibility. With Microsoft DLLs, you just have to guess where potential problems could be. Does Microsoft always document thoroughly any API changes that may be present in a new DLL? In real world apps, it's not just documented API behavior, but also timing and resource usage that you have to be concerned with. I bet Microsoft doesn't document all those issues, and even if they did, who could understand it all? Only testing and experience can really validate that a combination works together well.
I disagree. Rather than repeat myself, I will just point you to what I've said here on this subject.
They have a First Amendment right to say so, but they do not have a First Amendment right to say so in this forum.
You are right that I don't have a First Amendment right to speak in this forum. Neither do you have a First Amendment right to say wht you just said in Slashdot. It would not be a violation of our rights if the Editors were to delete these postings. I bet they wouldn't dream of it.
I bet the editors support my right to give my opinion that Mr. Katz should, perhaps, not be an Feature writer here. I just expressed an opinion, like so many others do here. Slashdot prospers not only because of the editorial decisions made but because of the opinions that the participants, you and me and all the others, express here.
I'm not sure what you're point is. Are you saying that I should not post my opinion concerning editorial policy here? I wouldn't dream of invoking the First Amendment if my posts were deleted and I was prohibited from using Slashdot.
Personally, I haven't even begun to formulate what I think about this idea. But I want-need to read, mull and talk about it. The wanton use of terms like "murder" and "genocide" make that impossible,
If he'd stuck to that theme, about how the issues are so clouded by these emotional terms as to make debate and understanding impossible, it would have been a much better article. But, even in this very sentence quoted above, he has to ruin it at the end with:
and that means we aren't free either.
This has nothing to do with freedom. Somehow, in the Katz world view, we aren't free if we are emotional and closed minded. I feel that our freedom to be reasoned and open minded implies a freedom to be emotional and closed minded. If freedom is only freedom to be noble then we've given up freedom to whoever is in charge of determining what noble is.
Ultimately, what do have but opinion? A Museum would not display a particular artist if they felt that this artist's work was pointless or just "bad" art. That's an opinion.
Art that challenges people isn't always popular. That is why it needs the subsidies.
It's popular with the art intelligensia, and rich patrons, the Brooklyn Exhibit is getting a lot of support from visitors, it appears.
Subsidies based on tax monies would be mechanism for REAL censorship. If the government were to tax us so heavily so that real art couldn't be supported, but they drove these funds into "breand and circuses" art like Monster Truck pulls, then this would be a form of censorship. Now, I'm not suggesting that this is happening, but it's a possibility with subsidies. Best not to have subsidies and risk this problem.
Ultimately, what the Government supports is based on what's popular, at least it is in a democracy. Or, should the Government subsidize all exprssion as long as the author claims it is "art".
I'm not content to live in a world where "Friends" and monster truck pulls are our most challenging experiences just because that is what the market bears.
Well, you have the freedom to support that art that you enjoy. If enough people agree with you, then you'll probably be able to enjoy it more often. Of course, if nobody likes it, then it's probably not worthy of support. Maybe not, but how would we know?
Why do you insist that "good" art would disappear if it didn't have tax support? Don't you think a lot of those rich patrons of the arts would want to support it if the government did not?
This is a strawman anyway. I think you'll find that philanthropy currently supports more "fine" art like classical music than is provided by government subsidies. I wonder if those resources might not be even more available if the philanthropists felt that it was, to some extent, the job of the Government to provide support.
Whereas rich people's taxes don't have any kind of positive affect upon poor people's lives?
By your argument, we should just let them starve. Screw 'em if they can't compete.\
We support poor people in this society because they are unable to support themselves and we feel it's wrong to let them starve. I, for one, don't think it's wrong for the Brooklyn Exhibition not to see the light of day AND I feel that those who enjoy that sort of thing could support it if they didn't require others to do so. Those with bizaare taste in art (witness the huge popularity of the Brookly Exhibition), or those who enjoy classical music have demonstrated that they are quite capable of supporting themselves.
In my opinion, oops can't base policy on opinion that would be "wrong" - I believe, that if someone can support those things which they enjoy (the rich), then they should support those things and not require those who don't enjoy those things with less resources to be supporting it for them.
I suppose you would propose that the government should subsidize fine architecture for the homes of the rich because the art of fine architecture ennobles us as a society and the rich are best capable of enjoying it?
This is the worst piece on Free Speech and what it means to be a free people that I think I've ever read. Jon Katz should perhaps read something about the philosophical underpinnings of our rights and the responsibilities that these rights imply.
Somehow, supporting the right of someone to express an opinion has become conflated with supporting someone in expressing an opinion.
Pat Buchanan, Jesse Ventura, The Brooklyn Museum, none of these are examples of censorship. There are examples of people freely expressing desenting views and people exercising their right of association (in these cases disassociating themselves with, and withdrawing their active support for, opinions they find wrong or offensive).
There are so many absurd examples in this article that I don't have time to go over them all. The worst might be that Pat Buchanan is having some First Amendment right taken away because the Republicans don't agree with his views and don't feel that he represents their principles. I suppose if Clinton suddenly started spouting Stalinist slogans and calling for a centralized economy that it would be an abridgement of his First Amendment Rights if the Democratic party were to oust him? Patently absurd.
Pat Buchanan is exercising his right to associate with those who agree with him by going to the Reform Party. If the Reform Party makes Pat Buchanan their Presidential candidate would the rights of Donald Trump be trampled on because the Reform Party would be withdrawing their support from him? It would seem to follow from Katzian logic.
It's a complete strawman that H.L. Mencken couldn't get a job in any newspaper today. I see a lot of columnists who make a practice of poking fun at religion, or expressing anti-religious views, and they just seem to get more popular. Molly Ivans and Ellen Goodman come immediately to mind.
Confusing this issue is the case of Mr. Singer. Mr. Singer enjoys the academic freedom which we have bestowed upon people with tenure. I do believe that it would be wrong, although not an abridgement of a Constitutionally guaranteed right, to fire Mr. Singer for expressing his view.
I think it would be right for Slashdot, for example, to stop supporting a certain Feature writer. Slashdot makes frequent editorial decisions. They don't publish every feature submitted, after all. Are they censoring those that they don't print? One of the editorial criteria is supposed to be that it's well thought out and coherent. This feature doesn't pass the test, if you ask me.
I wonder if I'll now be ostracized for suggesting that Jon Katz should be "censored"?
Baloney. Non-support is not censorship.
This "art" is defended as being political or at least provocative speech. Free Speech advocates like to say that that the First Amendment to the American Constitution places a "wall of separation" between the church and the state and thus, the state is not allowed to forward religious speech in any way. It seems ironic that the same First Amendment is used to justify anti-religious speech. Anti-religious speech is just religious speech from an opposing religion, in one way to look at it. In fairness, shouldn't New York City now be supporting Catholic clergy to give the opposing view?
As to it being "a simple fact that artists are not compensated appropriately for their work", I disagree. Compensation for work is the function of the marketplace. If you like this art, then you should support it. Perhaps I would approve of some Education money being spent in the support of Art, Education being a function of our government, but any other support should come from the people who enjoy it.
Whatever happened to the enhanced perspective gained by an artist being under appreciated? Van Gogh is an excellent example of someone who was unappreciated in his time. Would his art have been better had he been fat and happy? I doubt it. In fact, it's often the case that State supported art is not the best that every age has to offer. So, for example, Salieri gets State support and Mozart does not.
I challenge the belief that "highly-popular" art like classical music "needs" public funding. If it were indeed "highly-popular" then public funding wouldn't be required. Both this display in Brooklyn and classical music are widely acclaimed by upper-middle class people who use their considerable political influence to get the State to pay for it. These are particularly eggregious examples of the poor paying for the upper class' entertainment through their taxes.
Yes, but they are made up of atoms actually found in nature. Although I'm not entirely sure of this with regard to the creamy filling.
The molecules, well, most of those are chemical engineering.
Microsoft is working this angle already. They know that gaming is an important market in it's own right. The ability to play games well gives also gives the platform a lot of credibility. As others have pointed out, a lot of low-cost-but-high-end graphics development is done to support games too, which in turn benefits the platform in other areas.
I think Intel has recognized that the current Linux offerings can pretty well be deployed on current hardware or AMD processors. There may be some advantage to running on the latest, hottest processor, but not much.
With bloatware, Intel could count on people starving for the fastest that Intel could provide. The new marketplace will have people upgrading far less often, and more often they'll be looking at better I/O throughput (SCSI disks - several to balance workload, better networking, faster bus speeds) rather than higher processor power. Bloatware (CERTAINLY Win95/95, this is probably less true of NT) isn't very good at taking advantage of lots of concurrent I/O anyway, so people just don't go for all these I/O throughput upgrades now. They just buy the latest processor in the vain hope that it can keep up.
Intell sees that they'll be looking at a slump in their bread-and-butter processor sales if something doesn't happen.
Their only hope is to try and get Linux vendors in hot feature competition in the hopes that all this new functionality will lead to the bloatware heaven that they've enjoyed in the last 5 years.
Say what?
Somebody better inform the shareholders of all of those companies that have donated money to the FSF down through the years...
I'd sure like to see the shareholders suit prove that donating money to an organization that is producing tools to help develop your target market is a breach of fudiciary responsibility (the usual shareholder suit). You could also pretty easily argue that a donation to Debian is just to develop good will. If shareholders could sue over donations to non-profits, we'd sure see a lot less corporate philanthropy.