The price is too high. I often complain about high prices. Sometimes people listen and lower them.
Then don't pay the price and get something more suitable.
You seem to really have trouble with that eh?
wrt the kernel modules, nvidia is one exanple. Go look at what Linksysdoes with their routers and the modules for the broadcom ethernet switch and wireless hardware, there are many more examples.
1. The emperor talked about using the dark side to keep things alive. This appears to have completely evaporated in the second half of the movie. Thus it may have been a lie.
Maybe, Sidious is full of lies.
However, what I have wondered about in episode 3 is how Anakin survived the battle with Ben and managed to stay alive long enough to be picked up by Sidious while in ROTJ he cannot survive for more then a few mins without his breathing mask.. It might be there is some truth (hrm.. truth?? ah well, within the context of the story) in it also.
2. Was the emperor "faking" losing to Windu for the purpose of turning Anakin? It seems so, although allowing his face to become mutilated seems a bit extreme. Although maybe not for the Sith Lord. Also their tech could clearly repair it so it's more of a temporary badge of honor. Or a badge of "see how bad those power hungry Jedi council people are?"
I am pretty sure he faked weakness in order to lure Anakin.
With regards to his deformed face, I seem to recall (but will have to watch again to confirm) that whenever we see Sidious in holographic communications with those who know his real identity, his face is deformed, even before the fight with Windu.
Could it be that he was just able to mask that deformation? I seem to remember that such deception is quite within the ability of a somewhat capable force user.
I'll stop whining as soon as GPL zealots stop insisting that using GPL code doesn't restrict your rights. It all depends on how you use it. If you use it as a component within existing code, you have to sacrifice the right to use proprietry third party code with it
Hmm yes... that is why I can use a machine with nvidia video hardware, running Linux with a non GPLed nvidia kernel module for example.
There are people who strongly believe in the goal that the GPL tries to achieve, you are obviously not among them, and that is fine, I am not among those either. I do however respect the choice that people made with regards to what license they use.
Except the preamble and clause 7. My point is that if we use a patented algorithm, then however hard we try, there is no way to release our software in a manner compliant with the GPL. If we don't use patented algorithms, then our equipment is no longer compatible with the standard and therefore useless.
Well, if you choose to use something that puts up additional restrictions then that indeed can mean you cannot use GPLed code, but that is not always the case, it depends on how exactly things are intefgrated with eachother. See my example from above.
If you use a patented algorithm on which you own the patent, and you do not put additional restrictions on its use in GPLed software, then you can use a patented algorithm.
If you don't own the patent then well, that is not going to work, but in that case you may find that the GPL is not unique, it is a consequence of using a patented algorithm.
Yes, but that's splitting hairs. It doesn't actually help does it?
It does not help you for the simple reason that you want something that the GPL will not offer you, get the things you need for no price whatsoever.
You seem to still not understand that this is all about choices. If you make choices incompatible with the GPL then that is your problem, not that of the GPL.
Fine, but if you're dictating terms, stop claiming that you're providing me with freedom. I'm only "free" to do things your way.
You are free to do whatever you want, but if you are going to distribute what you built using a GPLed work then you have to comply with the GPL in many cases. You have a choice to use something else.
The GPL is about freedom, but not about the freedom to rip off someone elses work, but about preservation of the freedom to see and modify the source code of software you use. The restriction you have such an issue with guarantees that.
It is indeed not total and complete freedom, but it is a lot more freedom then most software licenses offer you.
It is exactly because of people who want the thing that you are asking for that the GPL contains this specific restriction.
Again, I don't like the GPL much, but I won't go whine about it, rather, I pick something more suitable, and with regards to the thing this discussion started with, Linux, there are very good alternatives that do not impose this kind of restriction..
Where are you going to get a GPL compatible licence for a proprietry CODEC?
You don't, you write your own, or you use a setup where you do not have to link to it.
Well, yes. We could write totally different software. Alternatively we could open a shoe shop.
Thats your choice.
Which is hardly practical, and still not always possible. What about patents?
Hardly practical? There are thousands of examples of how practical this is. It will cost you something in the form of time and efford.
Patents have nothing to do with the GPL.
or make the choice to not use GPLed software.
yerrrsss... Which is hardly what I'd call "complying" with the GPL. Certainly not what I meant by it anyway.
You do comply that way, it is simply the alternative to using GPLed software.
Yes... We'd like to do a lot more too. We're a business. We want to make as much money for as little as possible.
Yeah, and the people who write GPLed software dont work for free either. Too bad, but you simply get what you pay for, you are not prepared to pay the price? your problem, stop whining.
We'd quite like to use some GPL code as well. We'd be quite happy to abide by the terms, however, we can't. The reason is that the GPL insists on inflicting its terms on everyone else's code.
Only if you use GPLed code. I don't when I have a better alternative for exactly this reason, but I don't whine at authors of GPLed software for not giving away their work without asking something back. If I use someone elses work, that someone else dictates the terms on which I can use it, simple.
But are they aware that some companies are incapable of complying with the GPL?
No, for the simple reason that this is not true.
Your inability to comply with the GPL is the consequence of choices you are making. Those choices may work better for you but they are choices. Make a different choice and you can comply.
The choice might be to write your own implementations of things that currently make it impossible for you to comply with the GPL, or make the choice to not use GPLed software.
2. I can release no modifications to GPL-licensed code under a BSD-license. (Unless I'm the original author of the GPL'ed code)
It does not prevent you from making this combination, that the end result will be GPL licensed does not change that. It is a limitation on what you can do, sure. You can argue that that means that they are not compatible there.
The GPL is a very special license and does only serve some very special purposes. For many cases there are better licenses.
No argument there, you might have read my previous posts in this thread a bit better, it states that I am not too fond of the GPL. I just get extremely tired of people wanting to use GPLed software as part of their own product but do not want to comply with it, stop whining and use something else.
I do wonder if they realise that it actually means that some organisations are therefore incapable of using their code.
Depends on your definition of "use".
Use as in running such software for whatever purpose? the GPL is very clear about that, it puts NO restrictions on that whatsoever.
Use as in incorporate it into their own products or derive from it? That you cannot do that unless you (can) comply with the GPL is the entire point of the GPL, so I would somehow think they are aware of that....
Ah yes. Okay,I'll grant you, there are a few free licences around that are compatible. Of course, the BSD licence had to be modified explicitely because of GPL compatibility problems.
Not exactly.
The GPL may have played a role there, but the advertising clause was problematic in general.
Btw, the x.org license is also compatible with the GPL.
Yes, but the basic point that GPL software is incompatible with a lot of other software, purely for legal reasons, still remains. It is the only licence that causes this problem.
Those who made the GPL and those who use it did that on purpose. You may disagree with that purpose, fine, go spend the time and money to build equivalent software yourself then.
Just to be clear, I am myself not a big fan of the GPL, but I do respect the choice of those who use it, and will not complain about their use of it, rather, I will pick an alternative when needed.
I can not use GPL code with other code that is not licensed under the GPL. The GPL is incompatible with every other licence I've seen. Every other licence I've seen is incompatible with precisely one licence
I suggest you take a look at the 2 clause BSD license, you may find that: 1. It is compatible with the GPL 2. The GPL is compatible with it 3. There is quite a bit of software around that uses it and you might find the things you need among thoat.
Not to mention the fact that while you have to distribute source code for your modifications on a GPLed program, there is nothing whatsoever preventing you from building an application on top of Linux for example and distribute only the binaries for that application.
While I am pissed at the money wasted, I am really pissed that I WASTED my time on this piece of shit.
Well, everyone his own opinion, but you make me wonder... do you like getting pissed? because you just spend some more time on this in your opinion terrible movie by reading and commenting here.
> George Lucas doesn't owe me anything, and I'm glad he continued to make these movies. I've found myself wishing he'd redo 4, 5, and 6 as well, but now we're into _my_ opinion, and nobody but me should give a shit about that.
Hmm, I think GL should.. not so much about your individual opinion, but about what his 'fanbase' thinks.
I personally would want him to do episodes VII-IX, but then, thats my opinion:)
I suggest you watch battlestar galactica, while not perfect, it is a lot more realistic with regards to such things, and actually one of the first times that this was tried and done succesfully while also staying interesting to watch.
c) Jedi who can actually detect the most powerful Sith lord in existense while standing right next to him.
Darth Sidious was Sith lord but by far not the most powerfull one (at least not of all time). One could even argue (as he says himself actually) that Anakin is more powerfull (in potential at least).
Jedi not being able to 'see' him follows the same logic as the Emperor not being able to spot Zoda on Dagobah. In case of Sidious, his presence was masked by the overwhelming presence of the light side there. It is surprisingly consistent.
1. There is the idea of promotion of art by allowing those who create such art a temoprary monopoly on distribution of their creation.
2. There is the idea that the public domain can be enriched after expiration of the temporary monopoly.
The combination of those two results in both the creators of art and society benefitting from copyright.
Since especially the MPAA's members have frustrated 2. completely, it is first of all them not supporting copyright (as it was intended) and if they complain about piracy, that pretty much is a case of pot calling kettle black.
In direct answer to your post, you might just consider that supporting copyright as it is now is indeed not very insigtfull, rather, it is short sighted because current copyright just ignores half of what copyright is about (and if you don't believe this, I suggest you go read the relevant parts of the US constitution and the letters of the founding fathers regarding copyright)
As I have mentioned in the previous discussion, I went to go see it in the cinema in part to reward those who made the movie, and in part to get the full experience. That said, I will also watch a pirated copy in the comming days, this for reasons somewhat specific for my situation (altho it is shared by a few milion others on this planet). Check my post in the previous discussion to see why.
I saw episode 3 in the cinema last friday, just like I saw all Starwars movies within short time after release.
That said, I saw episode 1 and 2 also as a 'pirated' copy on my big tv screen at home, why? because I am one of the milions of people on this planet who is visually impaired. Not bad enough to not be able to watch TV from a relative short (1 1/2 yards) distance, but bad enough still to not be able to catch most of the details when seeing something on a big screen in a cinema. Siye makes NO difference, the ONLY thing that makes a difference is distance.
Basicly, this leaves me with a simple choice: waiting for the official DVD release before I can watch something, with the simple consequence that I cannot share the experience with my friends who go see it when it appears in the cinema, or watch a pirated copy shortly after release.
As said, I go see them in the cinema as well simply for the experience, and indeed to reward the people who made the movie.
If I cannot also watch it from nearby on my own big screen then there is NO use whatsoever for me to go see it in the cinema either.
Now, if the MPAA would offer me a chance to watch it in a way that I can actually catch the details also, there would be no need whatsoever for me to go look for a pirated version, but they don't.
Is my situation special? well, it does not apply to most people, yet it still applies to milions of people, milions of potential customers for them that they simply exclude, and who thanks to 'piracy' still do have a way to enjoy what the MPAA members make and release.
But well, it is a lot easier to just go whine about the unproven theory that such piracy reduces their income and blame technology for it. I have yet to see any sign of such piracy really reducing their income and I know for a fact that for me personally, it makes me spend more money on MPAA stuff then I would without it.
In short, being able to watch it on my own setup (which is adapted for my visual impairment) allows me to actually catch the visual detail and that in turn makes it an option for me to also go see it in a cinema (where I will lack the visual detail). The comination will still give me the complete experience. Without this possibility, there is simply no point whatsoever for me to go see things in a cinema.
Interesting. I always interpreted Yoda's statement about two Sith to mean "You'll never just find one wandering around killing people, there's always a master and an apprentice working as a team."
NOT that there are only two in existence at any one given time...
Well, according to many references, that is what it means. Ever since the Sith had to go into hiding, there were only 2 of them.
It seems to be confirmed also by episode 3 where Sidious has to get Anakin to kill cont Duku before he can lure Anakin into becomming his new apprentice.
That said, the Sith are not the only ones involved with the dark side of the force,
Also, that the Jedi wiped out the Sith much the same way that the Sith in turn wiped out the Jedi, so the Sith are in hiding, just like Yoda and Ben in the original trilogy.
Supposedly, part of the wiping out of the Sith was an internal affair and had very little to do with the jedi.
Hmm, sorry, my initial post was a bit harsh there.
Wow - from the sound of it I must have missed that day in B-School. Of course I have to stick by some of my original ideas. Microsoft has managed to keep loading the Corporate world with more and more solutions. An entire desktop suite, replacing a number of better competitors. A web/e-commerce solution, an Email solution. All areas outside of their original (assumed)core-technical emphasis, operating systems. I believe they did this by having an exceptionally aggressive and energetic corporate sales focus. Balmer sounds more like a salesman than a Executive. And what do I hear from Google's executives....? I dont like M$'s products but I respect the company.
Oh, I don't think we are in disagreement with regards to the result, rather, we are in disagreement about how MS achieved it.
While I agree that they did some briliant marketing to get where they are (and I do respect them for managing this), what I observed while working for a big competitor to them in the 90s is that their primary entrence into the corporate world was by means of the end-user and by promoting a situation where there would be no real choice when looking at the short term outcome. The board of directors of the average corporation was mostly involved after they already achieved those things.
The big money is in corporaions, but big numbers are in the home user and small business markets. By achieving some nice marketshare there, they created a market for applications for their platform, making it very attractive to bigger corporations also due to such easily available applications (with reasonable prices, compared to those on min/mainframe computers that is, which was at the time the prices big corporations were used to).
You are right of course that this was decided in the 'boardroom', but I don't think you are right with regards to how MS played that game, from my observation at least it was not by being there with their salesmen so much as by confronting corporations with a situation where chosing something other then their platform was going to be quite a bit more expensive upfront.
Going back to Google, they have the end-user, and as long as they manage to keep it that way, they will get the number of views that makes advertising proffitable. They have the best advertising system currently around, which makes many people help them making their proffits (and getting a share in it). Their salesmen? I never saw them, yet I do use their products, like most users on the net do.
Bottomline, Google's market power is with numbers, just like it used to be with MS. Those numbers come from people like you and me, not from the corporate world. Unlike MS, Google seems to have a way to make money from those numbers without depending on the corporate world intensively. That said, I did see some ads for some real big corporations among the google ads I have on my own website.
I have enough experience with voice recognition software... and have been disappointed and pleasantly surprised at the same time. But, even at it's best I find the constraints burdensome for any day to day or common use. For restricted idiomatic uses as you pointed out speech recognition is very good, and very useful.
Well, the thing is to differentiate between technically working and being usefull in practise.
It is however not limited to very specific idiomic use, I have been playing text adventures and muds with it, write all kinds of general mail and documents etc, and it works pretty well for those.
Too many constraints for day to day use? definitely, but those are seldom of a technical nature.
Imagine an office land of cubicles where people sit and gab all day to and with their computers as a main interface. It's just not going to happen. And that social setting isn't solved by giving everyone headsets, that hasn't worked even for using phones! (Yeah, there's a such thing as call centers where everyone uses headsets, but that's their defined job, and that's just how they do it... doesn't mean people LIKE having headsets on all day.)
So, back to my main and original point in my original post..., I think Mr. Gates' motivation is way different than yours. He isn't talking about making the world a better place by making computers easier to use, he's talking about making the world a hungrier place where people continue to be coaxed into the upgrade vacuum.... with empty promises of technological nirvana...
Those are real issues, and tell quite a bit about whz speech recognition and todays use of computers are just not a very good match for most people.
All I wanted to point out is that more then a decade ago, the main technical issues were under control already. That we didnt get much further then that has all to do with demand for the tech and little with its capabilities.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm, yes, you are right of course. He was no master but still a lord.
The price is too high. I often complain about high prices. Sometimes people listen and lower them.
Then don't pay the price and get something more suitable.
You seem to really have trouble with that eh?
wrt the kernel modules, nvidia is one exanple. Go look at what Linksysdoes with their routers and the modules for the broadcom ethernet switch and wireless hardware, there are many more examples.
1. The emperor talked about using the dark side to keep things alive. This appears to have completely evaporated in the second half of the movie. Thus it may have been a lie.
Maybe, Sidious is full of lies.
However, what I have wondered about in episode 3 is how Anakin survived the battle with Ben and managed to stay alive long enough to be picked up by Sidious while in ROTJ he cannot survive for more then a few mins without his breathing mask.. It might be there is some truth (hrm.. truth?? ah well, within the context of the story) in it also.
2. Was the emperor "faking" losing to Windu for the purpose of turning Anakin? It seems so, although allowing his face to become mutilated seems a bit extreme. Although maybe not for the Sith Lord. Also their tech could clearly repair it so it's more of a temporary badge of honor. Or a badge of "see how bad those power hungry Jedi council people are?"
I am pretty sure he faked weakness in order to lure Anakin.
With regards to his deformed face, I seem to recall (but will have to watch again to confirm) that whenever we see Sidious in holographic communications with those who know his real identity, his face is deformed, even before the fight with Windu.
Could it be that he was just able to mask that deformation? I seem to remember that such deception is quite within the ability of a somewhat capable force user.
I'll stop whining as soon as GPL zealots stop insisting that using GPL code doesn't restrict your rights. It all depends on how you use it. If you use it as a component within existing code, you have to sacrifice the right to use proprietry third party code with it
Hmm yes... that is why I can use a machine with nvidia video hardware, running Linux with a non GPLed nvidia kernel module for example.
There are people who strongly believe in the goal that the GPL tries to achieve, you are obviously not among them, and that is fine, I am not among those either. I do however respect the choice that people made with regards to what license they use.
Except the preamble and clause 7. My point is that if we use a patented algorithm, then however hard we try, there is no way to release our software in a manner compliant with the GPL. If we don't use patented algorithms, then our equipment is no longer compatible with the standard and therefore useless.
Well, if you choose to use something that puts up additional restrictions then that indeed can mean you cannot use GPLed code, but that is not always the case, it depends on how exactly things are intefgrated with eachother. See my example from above.
If you use a patented algorithm on which you own the patent, and you do not put additional restrictions on its use in GPLed software, then you can use a patented algorithm.
If you don't own the patent then well, that is not going to work, but in that case you may find that the GPL is not unique, it is a consequence of using a patented algorithm.
Yes, but that's splitting hairs. It doesn't actually help does it?
It does not help you for the simple reason that you want something that the GPL will not offer you, get the things you need for no price whatsoever.
You seem to still not understand that this is all about choices. If you make choices incompatible with the GPL then that is your problem, not that of the GPL.
Fine, but if you're dictating terms, stop claiming that you're providing me with freedom. I'm only "free" to do things your way.
You are free to do whatever you want, but if you are going to distribute what you built using a GPLed work then you have to comply with the GPL in many cases. You have a choice to use something else.
The GPL is about freedom, but not about the freedom to rip off someone elses work, but about preservation of the freedom to see and modify the source code of software you use. The restriction you have such an issue with guarantees that.
It is indeed not total and complete freedom, but it is a lot more freedom then most software licenses offer you.
It is exactly because of people who want the thing that you are asking for that the GPL contains this specific restriction.
Again, I don't like the GPL much, but I won't go whine about it, rather, I pick something more suitable, and with regards to the thing this discussion started with, Linux, there are very good alternatives that do not impose this kind of restriction..
Look for example at this operating system.
You still want to use Linux because it gets you a better marketing position_ then fucking pay the price and stop your whining.
Where are you going to get a GPL compatible licence for a proprietry CODEC?
You don't, you write your own, or you use a setup where you do not have to link to it.
Well, yes. We could write totally different software. Alternatively we could open a shoe shop.
Thats your choice.
Which is hardly practical, and still not always possible. What about patents?
Hardly practical? There are thousands of examples of how practical this is. It will cost you something in the form of time and efford.
Patents have nothing to do with the GPL.
or make the choice to not use GPLed software.
yerrrsss... Which is hardly what I'd call "complying" with the GPL. Certainly not what I meant by it anyway.
You do comply that way, it is simply the alternative to using GPLed software.
Yes... We'd like to do a lot more too. We're a business. We want to make as much money for as little as possible.
Yeah, and the people who write GPLed software dont work for free either. Too bad, but you simply get what you pay for, you are not prepared to pay the price? your problem, stop whining.
We'd quite like to use some GPL code as well. We'd be quite happy to abide by the terms, however, we can't. The reason is that the GPL insists on inflicting its terms on everyone else's code.
Only if you use GPLed code. I don't when I have a better alternative for exactly this reason, but I don't whine at authors of GPLed software for not giving away their work without asking something back. If I use someone elses work, that someone else dictates the terms on which I can use it, simple.
Again, stop whining.
But are they aware that some companies are incapable of complying with the GPL?
No, for the simple reason that this is not true.
Your inability to comply with the GPL is the consequence of choices you are making. Those choices may work better for you but they are choices. Make a different choice and you can comply.
The choice might be to write your own implementations of things that currently make it impossible for you to comply with the GPL, or make the choice to not use GPLed software.
You want to eat your cake and have it.
2. I can release no modifications to GPL-licensed code under a BSD-license. (Unless I'm the original author of the GPL'ed code)
It does not prevent you from making this combination, that the end result will be GPL licensed does not change that. It is a limitation on what you can do, sure. You can argue that that means that they are not compatible there.
The GPL is a very special license and does only serve some very special purposes. For many cases there are better licenses.
No argument there, you might have read my previous posts in this thread a bit better, it states that I am not too fond of the GPL. I just get extremely tired of people wanting to use GPLed software as part of their own product but do not want to comply with it, stop whining and use something else.
I do wonder if they realise that it actually means that some organisations are therefore incapable of using their code.
Depends on your definition of "use".
Use as in running such software for whatever purpose? the GPL is very clear about that, it puts NO restrictions on that whatsoever.
Use as in incorporate it into their own products or derive from it? That you cannot do that unless you (can) comply with the GPL is the entire point of the GPL, so I would somehow think they are aware of that....
Ah yes. Okay,I'll grant you, there are a few free licences around that are compatible. Of course, the BSD licence had to be modified explicitely because of GPL compatibility problems.
Not exactly.
The GPL may have played a role there, but the advertising clause was problematic in general.
Btw, the x.org license is also compatible with the GPL.
Yes, but the basic point that GPL software is incompatible with a lot of other software, purely for legal reasons, still remains. It is the only licence that causes this problem.
Those who made the GPL and those who use it did that on purpose. You may disagree with that purpose, fine, go spend the time and money to build equivalent software yourself then.
Just to be clear, I am myself not a big fan of the GPL, but I do respect the choice of those who use it, and will not complain about their use of it, rather, I will pick an alternative when needed.
I can not use GPL code with other code that is not licensed under the GPL. The GPL is incompatible with every other licence I've seen. Every other licence I've seen is incompatible with precisely one licence
I suggest you take a look at the 2 clause BSD license, you may find that:
1. It is compatible with the GPL
2. The GPL is compatible with it
3. There is quite a bit of software around that uses it and you might find the things you need among thoat.
Not to mention the fact that while you have to distribute source code for your modifications on a GPLed program, there is nothing whatsoever preventing you from building an application on top of Linux for example and distribute only the binaries for that application.
You seem to be lacking a bit of information here.
not really the right word I think, what I mean is that you could see the steps in the lines where they crossed scan-lines
I think the word you are looking for is aliassing.
While I am pissed at the money wasted, I am really pissed that I WASTED my time on this piece of shit.
Well, everyone his own opinion, but you make me wonder... do you like getting pissed? because you just spend some more time on this in your opinion terrible movie by reading and commenting here.
Natalie Portman managed to look unsexy through the entire movie.
Maybe she just didn't feel like another 5 years of slashdot geeks drooling over her?
I saw it in German, and to my surprise, the dialog in it was actually decent (often the German versions are somewhat crappy in this)
From what I gather here and from other sources, it really helps a lot when someone rewrites GL's dialogues.
> George Lucas doesn't owe me anything, and I'm glad he continued to make these movies. I've found myself wishing he'd redo 4, 5, and 6 as well, but now we're into _my_ opinion, and nobody but me should give a shit about that.
:)
Hmm, I think GL should.. not so much about your individual opinion, but about what his 'fanbase' thinks.
I personally would want him to do episodes VII-IX, but then, thats my opinion
I suggest you watch battlestar galactica, while not perfect, it is a lot more realistic with regards to such things, and actually one of the first times that this was tried and done succesfully while also staying interesting to watch.
Dooku was a mere Sith apprentice, not a Sith lord.
You are right however that he was a jedi master before that, trained by Yoda no less.
Too much ambiant light makes shadows invisible.
c) Jedi who can actually detect the most powerful Sith lord in existense while standing right next to him.
Darth Sidious was Sith lord but by far not the most powerfull one (at least not of all time). One could even argue (as he says himself actually) that Anakin is more powerfull (in potential at least).
Jedi not being able to 'see' him follows the same logic as the Emperor not being able to spot Zoda on Dagobah. In case of Sidious, his presence was masked by the overwhelming presence of the light side there. It is surprisingly consistent.
There are 2 sides to copyright.
1. There is the idea of promotion of art by allowing those who create such art a temoprary monopoly on distribution of their creation.
2. There is the idea that the public domain can be enriched after expiration of the temporary monopoly.
The combination of those two results in both the creators of art and society benefitting from copyright.
Since especially the MPAA's members have frustrated 2. completely, it is first of all them not supporting copyright (as it was intended) and if they complain about piracy, that pretty much is a case of pot calling kettle black.
In direct answer to your post, you might just consider that supporting copyright as it is now is indeed not very insigtfull, rather, it is short sighted because current copyright just ignores half of what copyright is about (and if you don't believe this, I suggest you go read the relevant parts of the US constitution and the letters of the founding fathers regarding copyright)
As I have mentioned in the previous discussion, I went to go see it in the cinema in part to reward those who made the movie, and in part to get the full experience. That said, I will also watch a pirated copy in the comming days, this for reasons somewhat specific for my situation (altho it is shared by a few milion others on this planet). Check my post in the previous discussion to see why.
I saw episode 3 in the cinema last friday, just like I saw all Starwars movies within short time after release.
That said, I saw episode 1 and 2 also as a 'pirated' copy on my big tv screen at home, why? because I am one of the milions of people on this planet who is visually impaired. Not bad enough to not be able to watch TV from a relative short (1 1/2 yards) distance, but bad enough still to not be able to catch most of the details when seeing something on a big screen in a cinema. Siye makes NO difference, the ONLY thing that makes a difference is distance.
Basicly, this leaves me with a simple choice: waiting for the official DVD release before I can watch something, with the simple consequence that I cannot share the experience with my friends who go see it when it appears in the cinema, or watch a pirated copy shortly after release.
As said, I go see them in the cinema as well simply for the experience, and indeed to reward the people who made the movie.
If I cannot also watch it from nearby on my own big screen then there is NO use whatsoever for me to go see it in the cinema either.
Now, if the MPAA would offer me a chance to watch it in a way that I can actually catch the details also, there would be no need whatsoever for me to go look for a pirated version, but they don't.
Is my situation special? well, it does not apply to most people, yet it still applies to milions of people, milions of potential customers for them that they simply exclude, and who thanks to 'piracy' still do have a way to enjoy what the MPAA members make and release.
But well, it is a lot easier to just go whine about the unproven theory that such piracy reduces their income and blame technology for it. I have yet to see any sign of such piracy really reducing their income and I know for a fact that for me personally, it makes me spend more money on MPAA stuff then I would without it.
In short, being able to watch it on my own setup (which is adapted for my visual impairment) allows me to actually catch the visual detail and that in turn makes it an option for me to also go see it in a cinema (where I will lack the visual detail). The comination will still give me the complete experience. Without this possibility, there is simply no point whatsoever for me to go see things in a cinema.
Let the MPAA come up with a solution for that.
The latest social engineering trick arrives via e-mail with an attachment that purports to be a 'cumulative patch' for May 2005.'"
Hrm, the date may have changed, but this 'latest trick' has been around for a long time..
Interesting. I always interpreted Yoda's statement about two Sith to mean "You'll never just find one wandering around killing people, there's always a master and an apprentice working as a team."
NOT that there are only two in existence at any one given time...
Well, according to many references, that is what it means. Ever since the Sith had to go into hiding, there were only 2 of them.
It seems to be confirmed also by episode 3 where Sidious has to get Anakin to kill cont Duku before he can lure Anakin into becomming his new apprentice.
That said, the Sith are not the only ones involved with the dark side of the force,
Also, that the Jedi wiped out the Sith much the same way that the Sith in turn wiped out the Jedi, so the Sith are in hiding, just like Yoda and Ben in the original trilogy.
Supposedly, part of the wiping out of the Sith was an internal affair and had very little to do with the jedi.
Hmm, sorry, my initial post was a bit harsh there.
Wow - from the sound of it I must have missed that day in B-School. Of course I have to stick by some of my original ideas. Microsoft has managed to keep loading the Corporate world with more and more solutions. An entire desktop suite, replacing a number of better competitors. A web/e-commerce solution, an Email solution. All areas outside of their original (assumed)core-technical emphasis, operating systems. I believe they did this by having an exceptionally aggressive and energetic corporate sales focus. Balmer sounds more like a salesman than a Executive. And what do I hear from Google's executives....? I dont like M$'s products but I respect the company.
Oh, I don't think we are in disagreement with regards to the result, rather, we are in disagreement about how MS achieved it.
While I agree that they did some briliant marketing to get where they are (and I do respect them for managing this), what I observed while working for a big competitor to them in the 90s is that their primary entrence into the corporate world was by means of the end-user and by promoting a situation where there would be no real choice when looking at the short term outcome. The board of directors of the average corporation was mostly involved after they already achieved those things.
The big money is in corporaions, but big numbers are in the home user and small business markets. By achieving some nice marketshare there, they created a market for applications for their platform, making it very attractive to bigger corporations also due to such easily available applications (with reasonable prices, compared to those on min/mainframe computers that is, which was at the time the prices big corporations were used to).
You are right of course that this was decided in the 'boardroom', but I don't think you are right with regards to how MS played that game, from my observation at least it was not by being there with their salesmen so much as by confronting corporations with a situation where chosing something other then their platform was going to be quite a bit more expensive upfront.
Going back to Google, they have the end-user, and as long as they manage to keep it that way, they will get the number of views that makes advertising proffitable. They have the best advertising system currently around, which makes many people help them making their proffits (and getting a share in it). Their salesmen? I never saw them, yet I do use their products, like most users on the net do.
Bottomline, Google's market power is with numbers, just like it used to be with MS. Those numbers come from people like you and me, not from the corporate world. Unlike MS, Google seems to have a way to make money from those numbers without depending on the corporate world intensively. That said, I did see some ads for some real big corporations among the google ads I have on my own website.
I have enough experience with voice recognition software... and have been disappointed and pleasantly surprised at the same time. But, even at it's best I find the constraints burdensome for any day to day or common use. For restricted idiomatic uses as you pointed out speech recognition is very good, and very useful.
Well, the thing is to differentiate between technically working and being usefull in practise.
It is however not limited to very specific idiomic use, I have been playing text adventures and muds with it, write all kinds of general mail and documents etc, and it works pretty well for those.
Too many constraints for day to day use? definitely, but those are seldom of a technical nature.
Imagine an office land of cubicles where people sit and gab all day to and with their computers as a main interface. It's just not going to happen. And that social setting isn't solved by giving everyone headsets, that hasn't worked even for using phones! (Yeah, there's a such thing as call centers where everyone uses headsets, but that's their defined job, and that's just how they do it... doesn't mean people LIKE having headsets on all day.)
So, back to my main and original point in my original post..., I think Mr. Gates' motivation is way different than yours. He isn't talking about making the world a better place by making computers easier to use, he's talking about making the world a hungrier place where people continue to be coaxed into the upgrade vacuum.... with empty promises of technological nirvana...
Those are real issues, and tell quite a bit about whz speech recognition and todays use of computers are just not a very good match for most people.
All I wanted to point out is that more then a decade ago, the main technical issues were under control already. That we didnt get much further then that has all to do with demand for the tech and little with its capabilities.