You can say whatever you please, but the fact is that trademarks must be protected by their owners explicitly and at length in order to remain trademarked.
Go take a look through some of those cheezy "Writers Market" magazines, the ones that are aimed at June Housewife hoping to get her steamy boy-toy sex novel published. You'll find them choc-a-bloc full of advertising from trademark owners, spelling out in great detail how their trademarks are to be used.
Yes, it's probably foolish that the system works this way. But that's how it works, anyway.
Kee-rist. You hang out exclusively at the commercial sites, don't you? That's the only way you could be so ignorant of the wealth of small sites that publish information that you simply couldn't have access to in any other format.
Slashdot is a commercial site. Commander Taco isn't footing the bill. Slashdot lives and dies by its corporate backers. It's a prime example of the concentration of power.
Go take a look at http://www.vacman.com/. There's no way you'd have that as a resource if it weren't for the very low cost of Internet publication. Yes, I realize the guy may be a bit loony: that's not the point.
Is this site costing the fellow a shit-load of money? No (not until I got him slashdotted!) Could he ever have been effectively published on paper? No. Is it a site that corporate interests wouldn't mind seeing disappear? Yes.
The mediacracy would like to see free, informative little sites like that disappear. Vacman is costing the media companies money. The free dispersal of information is the antithesis to their making of money.
Hell's bells, man, the big publishing houses are currently making noises about having libraries pay them licensing fees on the books they stock!
Free/cheap information has to be eliminated if the media wish to continue to make a buck!
No, dummy: there's effectively no overhead for the publisher. I get something like 5Mb free webspace with my costs-dick-all ADSL account.
There is considerably less entry barrier for the web than there is for paper. It would cost me several tens of thousands of dollars to publish and distribute a book; on the web, I can do it for jack-squat.
There's no two ways about it: the Internet must become commercialized.
Not because we, the joe-blow users of the Internet want it commercialized. Rather, because it is the biggest threat to the mediacracy since the invention of the printing press.
And what makes the Internet even more threatening than the press is that the actual publishing is as good as cost-free. At least with paper, you have the overhead of layout, paper, and shipping. With the net, you have the overhead of... nothing.
The media conglomerates simply aren't going to allow that. They can't afford to.
And I believe the government isn't particularly happy about it, either. If you care to dig, you can get all sorts of truthful information about the bad-ass things our governments and corporations are doing.
An information-empowered people are a dangerous people: they know things they shouldn't, they can coordinate too easily, and they get smarter.
Between the media conglomerates and the government, you damn well bet that the glory days are over!
Er, what's that, then? Everything it can do, or everything that it can do well, or everything that it can do that other OSes can't do? Please, clarify; as-is, your comment seems a little... frightening.
I think another important thing for the Linux community to "get" is that merely cloning isn't enough. When I say I'd make the leap to Linux if my B&B apps were cloned, it's only because I generally don't like the MS OS, and not because it'd be particularly beneficial to me to change.
It's not enough to clone: to hook the general population, the products must also have greater functionality. They need to do things just as easily as the MS-platform proprietary wares, plus they must do something additional, powerful, and broadly desirable.
Lessons learned:
1) Taunting the moderators by boasting about throwing away karma seems to work extremely well.
2) A startling number of people feel the need to point out the obvious -- namely, that Microsoft didn't write Visio nor Illustrator. I suppose I should have used the term "platform" somewhere in there. I'd have thought the last sentence did the trick, but I guess not.
3) Word isn't a clone of anything. Clones are identical. But Word's menu structure is different than the other products. [Speaking from my own experience, this presents a considerable barrier to using the other products: I'm fast with Word, and have forgotten all I knew about WordPerfect. Although I'd like to make the transition back to WP2002, I just can't work up the energy to fight the different UI.]
4) Only one person made a good response: it's necesary to create exact clones, because it lowers the entry barrier. See point 3. If there were exact Linux clones for my bread-and-butter apps, I'd start using Linux. But I'm not about to invest weeks and months of my time into relearning my skills just to use someone else's software. I may despise MS, but I'm not going to shoot myself in the foot over it!
5) Some one modded the post "flamebait." I think a better choice would have been "troll." I know fully well that it's necessary to make exact clones, but just couldn't resist teasing the community about their two-facedness: on the one hand, Microsoft/proprietary products are just Evile Incarnate... but on the other hand, it's worth stealing their functionality and UI! Speaks volumes to me: as Evile as Evile is, a lot of the time it's still better than what the open source guys can do on their independent own...
(Hell, for that matter, Linux itself is seriously lacking originality. What's it got that's new and revolutionary and unique and not just a duplicate of existing functionality, API, or suchlike of bog-standard Unix?)
(Nonetheless, I understand the need for this lack of originality. That's why the parent post is a troll...)
Ooooh, let's give those lamer moderators a big ol' present this Boxing Day: I got points to burn, guys.
Microsoft once again leads the way for Linux. Amazing, isn't it, how many Linux projects are simply clones of existing Microsoft software.
Need a word processor? Get a Word clone. Need a flowchart tool? Get a Visio clone. Need a vector illustrator? Get an Illustrator clone. Can't find a clone? Run WINE and use the original!
For a community that loathes Microsoft, there certainly seems to be a lot of effort to re-create Windows and Windows apps.
LOL! And the scary thing is, he probably wouldn't remove them. And he'd never, ever put two-and-two together: the boy seems utterly ignorant of how his behaviour creates his problems.
It's not radio, alas. If I could rig up a directional EMP, though...
Blowing his speakers remotely, while not blowing out the speakers of anyone who's behaving responsibly. Neat concept.:-)
The guy isn't all there: there's a vacant look in his eyes that kinda indicates he isn't firing on all six cylinders. I think his tiny little confused brain sees red a lot. Messing with him face-to-face isn't much of an option, not if I value my property and safety.
He's living proof that inbreeding isn't just a bad idea, it's against the laws of nature.
For my neighbour, that is, and with a simple modification: I want to be able to press a button on a remote control, and zap the bastard.
Starting at midnight last night, the S.O.B. started playing his car stereo at ungodly decibel levels. Pictures on my wall were rattling. And when I phoned in the complaint to the cops, did they show? Hell, no: not in the hour and a half they had to come by and experience it all!
So I want something embedded into this moron, that I can control. Swear to god, if he acts like a reasonably decent human being, I'll never, ever press the button. But pull another stunt like he did last night, and he can writhe on the ground screaming in electronic agony.
I, of course, don't need an implant. I never piss people off.:-)
Er... isn't that passage describing VI Sales Accounting: V.I.S.A.? If the company could have its way, no man might buy or sell, save that he has the credit card number of the beast. Even more scary is that the VISA name has sixes throughout it!
[but, then, everything does. Numerology is so much fun that way!]
WTF are moderators up to, sending your post to -1? Fucking clueless gits, they are.
Anyway, re: limit -- I'm sure I break 6Gb PDQ, too, and I've yet to be capped. Or billed... but, then, my download connection only really picked up volume this past two months, so perhaps they haven't caught on.
I can't find a price for over-limit, either, and that's going to be my defense. If they don't publish it, and don't make it possible for me to know when I've exceeded it, they can't charge for it. I'll do a small claims court if necessary.
Good post. Can't resist following up on this, though: "Here's a quick hint. The U.S. government tried to do this in the 30's with alcohol. It ended up being one of the single greatest failures of the government and has created criminal and social problems that live on today."
The US government is also trying to do this with (recreational, illegal) drugs, and is experiencing failure that is even worse than that of prohibition.
However, it doesn't matter to them: the drug lords in the DEA are employed and wealthy, and will continue to protect themselves by insisting that this idiocy continue.
The US government might very well attempt to control the entertainment media as well, and will experience the same high level of ineffectiveness. But that's not important: what is important is that the media lords will have money and power. Joe Common Citizen will take it up the ass with a broken glass bottle *yet again*, and will take it more or less willingly, just as he did for booze and pot.
I'm not sure where you, personally, want to draw the line between macro and micro payments. Suffice to say that I believe the equitable solution for recording artists will have each track priced at something well below a buck. At less than a buck, ain't many people who are going to bother with piracy, not if it's just as easy to download from the artist as it is from the usenet/kazaa/whatever.
I don't think anyone wants to go about worrying about forwarding each and every one of these piddling payments. I expect any workable solution would just keep tally, and send the artist a cheque every week or every $1000, whichever comes last.
Whoever sets this system up will probably skim a few percent for themselves. I just hope they're reasonable about it: pay the costs of the physical plant (servers, pipe, etc) and pocket a reasonable living wage -- nothing six-figure, *especially* if the work isn't full-time. Let's keep the money going to the rightful recipients: the artists themselves.
Here's an idea: don't fight RIAA in Congress. Don't invest the money in making an already corrupt government even more corrupt. And don't play RIAA's game.
If you're pissed with RIAA, quit making music. Pull a Prince: make yourself such a pain in the ass that they're glad to get rid of you.
Elton can leave RIAA and set up an alternative organization that isn't corrupt, stupid, and lazy. He's got hundreds of millions of dollars: put a tenth of that to use, and it'd revolutionize the music industry.
All that's *really* needed is a micropayment system that ensures artists get paid for music downloads, and a database that makes it dead easy to explore genres and artists. "If you like X, try Y."
Yes, yes, it's expensive to record. But anyone that's serious about making their music can drum up the money to do it. Hell, we have people making independent *movies* on their credit cards, second mortgage, and friends' money. Surely anyone who's a decent musician can do much the same.
The only significant obstacle at this point is technical: the micropayment system and database that will enable the revolution.
Let me help you understand it: the RIAA is the mafia. There are no customers: there are only dupes, who are going to damn well do what they're fucking told to do, or Guido is gonna come down and bust kneecaps. Yagaddaproblemwitat?
The problem of exposure is technical, not financial.
Again and again, I see the argument that if it weren't for RIAA, artists would remain unknown.
This is bullshit.
Multi-million dollar television advertising campaigns, MTV videos, and store promos are not necessary to create a successful artists.
Easy access to music is necessary.
Through my explorations with music-sharing technologies, I've been exposed to dozens of artists that are new to me, and I've discovered genres that I'd never known about before.
India Aria: she's neo-R&B, I've never heard of her before stumbling across one of her songs, and I wouldn't hesitate to purchase her works now. RIAA did fuck-all for her, as far as I'm concerned.
Doc Watson: he's old bluegrass. I found out I like (some) bluegrass because I was given a Grateful Dead album ages ago. I love the Dead, so I'm doing searches for Garcia's name. Find him linked with Doc. Download a track -- wowsa! Next thing you know, I'm listening to dueling banjos. RIAA had fuck-all to do with this discovery.
Cajun/Zydeco: RIAA hasn't done fuck-all to promote it. I have a Gumby (!) CD, came across it in a used CD bin and just had to buy it out of curiousity. There's a Zydeco track. So I search for Zydeco, see what else is out there. Yowsa! And once again, RIAA has fuck-all to contribute to this.
And on and on.
Do artists need RIAA in order to become popular? NO.
What artists need is a way to make their music available to the Internet-browsing public, in such a way as to encourage exploration of music (ie. "if you like X, try Y"), and with a micro-payment system that ensures they get paid on a per-song download basis.
The end result would be a lot more artists making a good living wage, instead of the current asinine system in which a handful of artists make millions and everyone else starves.
What it says to me is that (a) his roommate is incompetent and (b) his resume format is out to lunch.
I don't use Word much any more; my documents are running hundreds of pages with hundreds of graphics, and require more powerful tools than Word.
But I used to use Word extensively. And through the judicious use of styles and frames, I got it to do rather remarkable things... including several resume formats, none of which require much time at all for revisions -- including generation of new resumes for entirely different people. These formats include columnar text, frames, headers, pictures, and so on.
I've no doubt that dumb little monkeys get themselves into trouble when they begin to get fancy with Word. You really do need to know what you're doing... but the same is true of LaTex. Difference is, Word is easier for newbies to use, has a decent GUI, and is common as dirt.
Slashdot Mirror
You can say whatever you please, but the fact is that trademarks must be protected by their owners explicitly and at length in order to remain trademarked.
Go take a look through some of those cheezy "Writers Market" magazines, the ones that are aimed at June Housewife hoping to get her steamy boy-toy sex novel published. You'll find them choc-a-bloc full of advertising from trademark owners, spelling out in great detail how their trademarks are to be used.
Yes, it's probably foolish that the system works this way. But that's how it works, anyway.
Kee-rist. You hang out exclusively at the commercial sites, don't you? That's the only way you could be so ignorant of the wealth of small sites that publish information that you simply couldn't have access to in any other format.
Slashdot is a commercial site. Commander Taco isn't footing the bill. Slashdot lives and dies by its corporate backers. It's a prime example of the concentration of power.
Go take a look at http://www.vacman.com/. There's no way you'd have that as a resource if it weren't for the very low cost of Internet publication. Yes, I realize the guy may be a bit loony: that's not the point.
Is this site costing the fellow a shit-load of money? No (not until I got him slashdotted!) Could he ever have been effectively published on paper? No. Is it a site that corporate interests wouldn't mind seeing disappear? Yes.
The mediacracy would like to see free, informative little sites like that disappear. Vacman is costing the media companies money. The free dispersal of information is the antithesis to their making of money.
Hell's bells, man, the big publishing houses are currently making noises about having libraries pay them licensing fees on the books they stock!
Free/cheap information has to be eliminated if the media wish to continue to make a buck!
No, dummy: there's effectively no overhead for the publisher. I get something like 5Mb free webspace with my costs-dick-all ADSL account.
There is considerably less entry barrier for the web than there is for paper. It would cost me several tens of thousands of dollars to publish and distribute a book; on the web, I can do it for jack-squat.
There's no two ways about it: the Internet must become commercialized.
Not because we, the joe-blow users of the Internet want it commercialized. Rather, because it is the biggest threat to the mediacracy since the invention of the printing press.
And what makes the Internet even more threatening than the press is that the actual publishing is as good as cost-free. At least with paper, you have the overhead of layout, paper, and shipping. With the net, you have the overhead of... nothing.
The media conglomerates simply aren't going to allow that. They can't afford to.
And I believe the government isn't particularly happy about it, either. If you care to dig, you can get all sorts of truthful information about the bad-ass things our governments and corporations are doing.
An information-empowered people are a dangerous people: they know things they shouldn't, they can coordinate too easily, and they get smarter.
Between the media conglomerates and the government, you damn well bet that the glory days are over!
"Take everything that Windows can do..."
Er, what's that, then? Everything it can do, or everything that it can do well, or everything that it can do that other OSes can't do? Please, clarify; as-is, your comment seems a little... frightening.
Mmm, yes. Agreed; very insightful.
I think another important thing for the Linux community to "get" is that merely cloning isn't enough. When I say I'd make the leap to Linux if my B&B apps were cloned, it's only because I generally don't like the MS OS, and not because it'd be particularly beneficial to me to change.
It's not enough to clone: to hook the general population, the products must also have greater functionality. They need to do things just as easily as the MS-platform proprietary wares, plus they must do something additional, powerful, and broadly desirable.
Heckuva challenge.
Lessons learned:
1) Taunting the moderators by boasting about throwing away karma seems to work extremely well.
2) A startling number of people feel the need to point out the obvious -- namely, that Microsoft didn't write Visio nor Illustrator. I suppose I should have used the term "platform" somewhere in there. I'd have thought the last sentence did the trick, but I guess not.
3) Word isn't a clone of anything. Clones are identical. But Word's menu structure is different than the other products. [Speaking from my own experience, this presents a considerable barrier to using the other products: I'm fast with Word, and have forgotten all I knew about WordPerfect. Although I'd like to make the transition back to WP2002, I just can't work up the energy to fight the different UI.]
4) Only one person made a good response: it's necesary to create exact clones, because it lowers the entry barrier. See point 3. If there were exact Linux clones for my bread-and-butter apps, I'd start using Linux. But I'm not about to invest weeks and months of my time into relearning my skills just to use someone else's software. I may despise MS, but I'm not going to shoot myself in the foot over it!
5) Some one modded the post "flamebait." I think a better choice would have been "troll." I know fully well that it's necessary to make exact clones, but just couldn't resist teasing the community about their two-facedness: on the one hand, Microsoft/proprietary products are just Evile Incarnate... but on the other hand, it's worth stealing their functionality and UI! Speaks volumes to me: as Evile as Evile is, a lot of the time it's still better than what the open source guys can do on their independent own...
(Hell, for that matter, Linux itself is seriously lacking originality. What's it got that's new and revolutionary and unique and not just a duplicate of existing functionality, API, or suchlike of bog-standard Unix?)
(Nonetheless, I understand the need for this lack of originality. That's why the parent post is a troll...)
Ooooh, let's give those lamer moderators a big ol' present this Boxing Day: I got points to burn, guys.
Microsoft once again leads the way for Linux. Amazing, isn't it, how many Linux projects are simply clones of existing Microsoft software.
Need a word processor? Get a Word clone. Need a flowchart tool? Get a Visio clone. Need a vector illustrator? Get an Illustrator clone. Can't find a clone? Run WINE and use the original!
For a community that loathes Microsoft, there certainly seems to be a lot of effort to re-create Windows and Windows apps.
And let's not forget Pratchett's "Hogfather," who delivered... ??? ... to the residents of DiscWorld.
LOL! And the scary thing is, he probably wouldn't remove them. And he'd never, ever put two-and-two together: the boy seems utterly ignorant of how his behaviour creates his problems.
:-)
It's not radio, alas. If I could rig up a directional EMP, though...
Blowing his speakers remotely, while not blowing out the speakers of anyone who's behaving responsibly. Neat concept.
c/InSIde/InDesign/
The guy isn't all there: there's a vacant look in his eyes that kinda indicates he isn't firing on all six cylinders. I think his tiny little confused brain sees red a lot. Messing with him face-to-face isn't much of an option, not if I value my property and safety.
He's living proof that inbreeding isn't just a bad idea, it's against the laws of nature.
For my neighbour, that is, and with a simple modification: I want to be able to press a button on a remote control, and zap the bastard.
:-)
Starting at midnight last night, the S.O.B. started playing his car stereo at ungodly decibel levels. Pictures on my wall were rattling. And when I phoned in the complaint to the cops, did they show? Hell, no: not in the hour and a half they had to come by and experience it all!
So I want something embedded into this moron, that I can control. Swear to god, if he acts like a reasonably decent human being, I'll never, ever press the button. But pull another stunt like he did last night, and he can writhe on the ground screaming in electronic agony.
I, of course, don't need an implant. I never piss people off.
Er... isn't that passage describing VI Sales Accounting: V.I.S.A.? If the company could have its way, no man might buy or sell, save that he has the credit card number of the beast. Even more scary is that the VISA name has sixes throughout it!
[but, then, everything does. Numerology is so much fun that way!]
WTF are moderators up to, sending your post to -1? Fucking clueless gits, they are.
Anyway, re: limit -- I'm sure I break 6Gb PDQ, too, and I've yet to be capped. Or billed... but, then, my download connection only really picked up volume this past two months, so perhaps they haven't caught on.
I can't find a price for over-limit, either, and that's going to be my defense. If they don't publish it, and don't make it possible for me to know when I've exceeded it, they can't charge for it. I'll do a small claims court if necessary.
Tell more about this 4Gb limit. I'm fairly sure I break that the first week of the month. So far, no signs of being limited...
Mantle of industry leadership? In the tech industry?
Funny. I thought most of the cool tech stuff was being developed and manufactured in the far East...
The squid wasn't necessarily attempting to eat the whale. It may very well have been attempting to *not be eaten* by the whale.
Good post. Can't resist following up on this, though: "Here's a quick hint. The U.S. government tried to do this in the 30's with alcohol. It ended up being one of the single greatest failures of the government and has created criminal and social problems that live on today."
The US government is also trying to do this with (recreational, illegal) drugs, and is experiencing failure that is even worse than that of prohibition.
However, it doesn't matter to them: the drug lords in the DEA are employed and wealthy, and will continue to protect themselves by insisting that this idiocy continue.
The US government might very well attempt to control the entertainment media as well, and will experience the same high level of ineffectiveness. But that's not important: what is important is that the media lords will have money and power. Joe Common Citizen will take it up the ass with a broken glass bottle *yet again*, and will take it more or less willingly, just as he did for booze and pot.
USA. Land of the free.
I'm not sure where you, personally, want to draw the line between macro and micro payments. Suffice to say that I believe the equitable solution for recording artists will have each track priced at something well below a buck. At less than a buck, ain't many people who are going to bother with piracy, not if it's just as easy to download from the artist as it is from the usenet/kazaa/whatever.
I don't think anyone wants to go about worrying about forwarding each and every one of these piddling payments. I expect any workable solution would just keep tally, and send the artist a cheque every week or every $1000, whichever comes last.
Whoever sets this system up will probably skim a few percent for themselves. I just hope they're reasonable about it: pay the costs of the physical plant (servers, pipe, etc) and pocket a reasonable living wage -- nothing six-figure, *especially* if the work isn't full-time. Let's keep the money going to the rightful recipients: the artists themselves.
Here's an idea: don't fight RIAA in Congress. Don't invest the money in making an already corrupt government even more corrupt. And don't play RIAA's game.
If you're pissed with RIAA, quit making music. Pull a Prince: make yourself such a pain in the ass that they're glad to get rid of you.
Elton can leave RIAA and set up an alternative organization that isn't corrupt, stupid, and lazy. He's got hundreds of millions of dollars: put a tenth of that to use, and it'd revolutionize the music industry.
All that's *really* needed is a micropayment system that ensures artists get paid for music downloads, and a database that makes it dead easy to explore genres and artists. "If you like X, try Y."
Yes, yes, it's expensive to record. But anyone that's serious about making their music can drum up the money to do it. Hell, we have people making independent *movies* on their credit cards, second mortgage, and friends' money. Surely anyone who's a decent musician can do much the same.
The only significant obstacle at this point is technical: the micropayment system and database that will enable the revolution.
What happened to pleasing the customer?
Let me help you understand it: the RIAA is the mafia. There are no customers: there are only dupes, who are going to damn well do what they're fucking told to do, or Guido is gonna come down and bust kneecaps. Yagaddaproblemwitat?
The problem of exposure is technical, not financial.
Again and again, I see the argument that if it weren't for RIAA, artists would remain unknown.
This is bullshit.
Multi-million dollar television advertising campaigns, MTV videos, and store promos are not necessary to create a successful artists.
Easy access to music is necessary.
Through my explorations with music-sharing technologies, I've been exposed to dozens of artists that are new to me, and I've discovered genres that I'd never known about before.
India Aria: she's neo-R&B, I've never heard of her before stumbling across one of her songs, and I wouldn't hesitate to purchase her works now. RIAA did fuck-all for her, as far as I'm concerned.
Doc Watson: he's old bluegrass. I found out I like (some) bluegrass because I was given a Grateful Dead album ages ago. I love the Dead, so I'm doing searches for Garcia's name. Find him linked with Doc. Download a track -- wowsa! Next thing you know, I'm listening to dueling banjos. RIAA had fuck-all to do with this discovery.
Cajun/Zydeco: RIAA hasn't done fuck-all to promote it. I have a Gumby (!) CD, came across it in a used CD bin and just had to buy it out of curiousity. There's a Zydeco track. So I search for Zydeco, see what else is out there. Yowsa! And once again, RIAA has fuck-all to contribute to this.
And on and on.
Do artists need RIAA in order to become popular? NO.
What artists need is a way to make their music available to the Internet-browsing public, in such a way as to encourage exploration of music (ie. "if you like X, try Y"), and with a micro-payment system that ensures they get paid on a per-song download basis.
The end result would be a lot more artists making a good living wage, instead of the current asinine system in which a handful of artists make millions and everyone else starves.
Fuck RIAA.
Either that, or he's smart enough not to ride bareback...
What it says to me is that (a) his roommate is incompetent and (b) his resume format is out to lunch.
I don't use Word much any more; my documents are running hundreds of pages with hundreds of graphics, and require more powerful tools than Word.
But I used to use Word extensively. And through the judicious use of styles and frames, I got it to do rather remarkable things... including several resume formats, none of which require much time at all for revisions -- including generation of new resumes for entirely different people. These formats include columnar text, frames, headers, pictures, and so on.
I've no doubt that dumb little monkeys get themselves into trouble when they begin to get fancy with Word. You really do need to know what you're doing... but the same is true of LaTex. Difference is, Word is easier for newbies to use, has a decent GUI, and is common as dirt.