Clicking on icons is clicking on icons, I have watched a lot of people sit down on my Deb system and just start "doing stuff".
I wish I had a mod point for you. I had pretty much the same experience with my now-16-year-old daughter about three years ago. At that time, I was trying out Red Hat on a dual-boot system. The kids' computer, on Win98, wasn't working because of a hard drive problem I hadn't fixed yet.
So the kid needs to use the computer to look up something on the net for school. I let her sit down at my computer. She finds the Mozilla icon on the desktop, and off she goes. Looks up what she needs, and then -- as she'll do -- visits some other web sites she likes, checks Yahoo mail, etc.
Then it's time to write her report. She finds the Open Office icon, clicks on it, writes the report and prints it out with no comment except that this is a different word processor than the one she has on her computer. But she was able to figure out how to use it because she had used word processors before.
The only time I had to intervene was to find her a place on the hard drive to save her file (which I would have had to do in Windows as well). And the whole time, she never had any inkling that she wasn't in Windows.
All three kids have been using Linux since shortly after that, and they love it.
I hate how we allow ourselves to be called taxpayers because what that means is that we are seen by the politicians as nothing more than those people who give them money.
I hate how we allow ourselves to be called consumers on exactly the same grounds.
At least with the word "taxpayer" there's some sort of pretense that that status gives us some rights (although, too often, that pretense doesn't stand up under scrutiny).
he people who flew jets into the world trade centers believed in a cause too.
Nah. They were just gullible fools who allowed themselves to be talked into doing something horribly destructive. The only difference between the 9/11 hijackers and the nerdy kid we talked into jumping off the garage roof with a bath towel pinned to his shirt as a superhero cape, thereby breaking his leg, is simply the magnitude of the act.
When I was out house shopping a couple years back, of the many homes I was in that had a computer, EVERY SINGLE ONE WAS A MAC. I saw no Windows PCs AT ALL. Very strange if the Mac are only 5% of computer users, eh?
I doubt that that's meaningful, as houses you look at wouldn't be a random sample. I would bet that if you were looking at houses in working-class neighborhoods (at whatever the lower end of the price range would be in your market for something that's basic yet "livable"), whatever computers you see would be heavily in favor of Windows.
I think what skews the stats is that, for whatever reason, PC users are likely to buy more computers than Mac users. So you can talk about the number of units sold, or you can talk about the number of users for each, but the two won't directly correspond.
*sigh*. It's the concepts of wp we are teaching (center, bold, select range, etc), not the specific button sequence of a specific program in which to do those commands. That's aping, not learning.
This is true.
People talk about the so-called "learning curve" of switching from Windows to Linux. But that's the wrong way to think about it. If you already have the concepts down, it's more a matter of adaptation. And a lot of stuff is exactly the same, anyway. Control-B is going to toggle bold regardless of which software I'm using.
That's nonsense. One way I might choose to profit from my work is to sell the rights to it. If those rights become worthless when I die, then they'll be less valuable to sell, and I benefit less from them.
Any sort of limited term is open to a similar criticism.
But yeah, I'd agree that once the copyright is sold, the lifetime of the artist should no longer be a consideration. After all, he could be a 25-year-old healthy guy looking forward to a long and productive life -- and get smashed by a garbage truck as he walks out of the bank after cashing the check. That's a possibility the buyer shouldn't have to worry about.
Copyright should have a limited term (because we want to encourage publishing, but not at any price; because after too much time has passed it becomes too hard to find the copyright owner; etc.), but tying that term to the creator's lifetime is just an unnecessary complication. It rewards healthy creators more than sick ones, young creators more than old ones. Why would we want to do that? We don't do it with stock options.
Any system that pays royalties is going to benefit young/healthy more than old/sick people regardless of how copyright law is structured, if you're talking about the total amount collected. On the other hand, a terminally ill artist could consider six months of royalties as income for life.
Similarly, any work-for-hire agreement or the sale of the copyright is going to produce a one-time check that'll have the same figure on it regardless of the age or health of the artist.
After you die, you'll no longer be able to benefit from your money, or your home, or any other possession. So don't bother with a will, we'll just claim all of your possessions as public property.
Think about the reasons why copyright laws were first written. Not the reasons why Disney and companies like that want to change it, but the orginal reasons -- namely, to encourage writers to write by providing them with the exclusive opportunity to profit from their work. This opportunity is for a limited time in order to provide an incentive to write more works.
That reason doesn't apply to your money or your home. Nor does it apply to intellectual property after the creator dies.
The reason I like a fixed term is because it doesn't make sense to me that the life of the author should play a part. There are enough imponderables in trying to value a copyright (how popular will the song be next year, etc.); why add another one, namely the lifetime of the author?
I don't see the author's lifetime as an "imponderable." You have only two possibilities; he's either alive or dead at any given time. Either way, the status of the copyright is easy to determine.
Could one of you please explain to me why you think the lifetime of the author should play any part at all?
Why should it not? After his death, the author can no longer benefit from any rights associated with his work.
The difference between this case and that of waiters, doctors, etc., is that in this case the work was produced before death, but the full value has not yet been collected.
That's why I'd include a provision for a minimum term that could extend beyond the creator's death. Maybe 5, 10, 15 years. I don't know how long. Significantly less than 50, though. Say it's 15 years. When the artist dies, any work of his that's older than 15 years goes into PD. Anything newer than that gets its term extended by whatever length of time is necessary to give it 15 years.
This loss of income is exactly what happens to the families of waiters, doctors, engineers, train drivers and arctic explorers when they die. If the author is concerned about his family's financial well being after his death then he needs to use some of his royalties to buy life assurance. You know, like the rest of us do?
That's exactly my thought. And as I mentioned earlier, the heirs would still free to market the work in question. It's not as if the expiration of the copyright cuts them off from doing anything with it.
But I would be inclined to add to "50 years or the lifetime of the author, whichever is shorter," a provision for some sort of minimum term as well. I would think that in a case like someone else brought up, where someone records a hit song and dies a week later, the family should get some exclusivity for a time. I don't know how long it would be, though.
Then go for something like a term of either "the lifetime of the artist" or 50 years, whichever is shorter.
As already mentioned, the "shelf life" of most copyrighted works isn't going to be anywhere near that long, anyway.
And if you happen to be the heir of someone who creates an enduring masterpiece, the lapse of the copyright doesn't prevent you from continuing to publish the work anyway. It merely dilutes the commercial value it might have. As an heir, you might be in a position to include some "value-added" material to make your edition a better buy.
If the goal of the site is to create the largest international audience possible and help them to converse with each other, then English is the best choice.
Why do they need a "choice?" What's wrong with just trying to get English speakers to issue more invitations?
- Some random branch of Sony (or some other japanese conglomerate) gets a JP patent on some random software/hardware thingie.
- Sony builds it into their laptops and wants Microsoft to support it.
Maybe I'm missing something, but it wouldn't be a patent violation if Sony asks Microsoft to support the thingie, would it?
Remember people, be careful with email forms. They may reduce the spam to you, but can contribute to the global spam problem.
What you need to do is write your script so that none of the user's input goes into the headers of the e-mail that gets sent to you. Hard-code the headers into the script. There won't be anything in it that absolutely has to come from a variable, anyway.
Then put all the user's input into the body of the e-mail, up at the top of the message.
Re:Not ONLY Faster, lighter, but also IE-compatibl
on
Browser Wars 2004
·
· Score: 1
So, while MS does not respect W3C standards, the only way to compete with IE is being able to render the pages exactly like IE does.
Either that, or a couple more news stories about IE security holes might do the trick.
But seriously, one man's experience, for what it's worth, which might be nothing... I haven't used IE at home in at least four years. Now, I admit that I don't actually know how the sites I visit are supposed to look when they're in IE. But if a web page looks bad because I'm not using the browser the developer wants me to use, it just make his work look bad on my screen. That's not my problem. I don't care as long as the page is functional, and I don't recall ever having any problems in that regard.
Wait, I take that back. I once hit a site that refused to load, giving me a smug message that the reason was because I "need" IE. (I hit the mailto link and told them to go screw themselves -- if you want to design an IE only site, fine by me. But don't be an asshole about it and tell me what I need.)
From what I can tell of watching people use their computers, often what people want is one good app. to do whatever their current task is, not lots of choice.
Well, I'll agree, in that I'm usually not concerned about choices after the installation. Get what I want installed, and go with it.
But during the installation, I appreciate having choices.
As for other content, such as album covers and art, you get the artwork as part of your download from iTMS. If you look in iTunes there is an option to view the artwork for a song or for an album.
Ah, yes, but downloaded artwork doesn't get you the cool Exile on Main Street Postcards or the Jefferson Airplane cigar box or the Dark Side of the Moon stickers or the Led Zep 3 wheel or the Queen bicycle race poster. It doesn't get you the gatefold album cover, oh-so-useful for cleaning... uh... maybe I'd better shut up now.
On the one hand the wealthy plebs will simply pay their subscriptions and have music on demand, enjoying plenty of convenience, and on the other, the music geeks will file share the free music until the cows come home.
Screw subscriptions. I grew up buying it once, then playing it with impunity. I'm not about to change.
Of course, I've bought very few CDs in the last few years, anyway. At least 90 percent of the music I've collected in that time has been trading and downloading shows by jam bands. If I never accumulated any more music at all, I'd still have enough stockpiled to last the rest of my life.
The question is, which market will musicians go to in order to build up their audience? Perhaps some will make their initial music free in order to virally market themselves, but once their audience is at a critical mass they'll switch over to iTunes et al...?
Very possible. I've seen a lot of discussions about bands offering free music over the net to build up a following, so therefore the big-name bands should do it, too, to promote themselves.
But yes, I wonder... are these local bands giving away music only because they don't see an alternative that looks better? If they had an opportunity to sign with a major label and get some big-time promotion, would that be an alternative that looks better?
Moore just pulled that scandal out of his a**. He knew from the first day that it wasn't going to be distributed by Disney.
True. Moore's chief product is not his movies, but himself.
It's pretty well-documented that Disney told Moore at least a year ago that they wouldn't distribute it. And no one at Disney tried to suppress it. Moore knew what the deal was, he had plenty of time to make other arrangements, and he was free to do so. As to their reasons for not distributing it, I'm prepared to admit anything could be possible, but still... that's their decision to make as long as there's nothing illegal going on.
And this is not a partisan post. I don't like any of the people involved in this story. Not Moore, not Bush, not the Disney execs. (nor Kerry, Limbaugh, Franken, etc.)
I used to write for a business-oriented publication, and I met and interviewed dozens of successful small- and medium-sized business owners.
Of course, they made the decision to start a business because they wanted to make money.
But without execption, they chose their particular types of businesses based on what they loved doing. Each one had a passion for what he or she was doing and looked forward to going to work every day. That's not a sufficient condition to be successful, but it's a necessary one.
Once upon a time, I think, even Bill Gates had that.
Slashdot Mirror
I wish I had a mod point for you. I had pretty much the same experience with my now-16-year-old daughter about three years ago. At that time, I was trying out Red Hat on a dual-boot system. The kids' computer, on Win98, wasn't working because of a hard drive problem I hadn't fixed yet.
So the kid needs to use the computer to look up something on the net for school. I let her sit down at my computer. She finds the Mozilla icon on the desktop, and off she goes. Looks up what she needs, and then -- as she'll do -- visits some other web sites she likes, checks Yahoo mail, etc.
Then it's time to write her report. She finds the Open Office icon, clicks on it, writes the report and prints it out with no comment except that this is a different word processor than the one she has on her computer. But she was able to figure out how to use it because she had used word processors before.
The only time I had to intervene was to find her a place on the hard drive to save her file (which I would have had to do in Windows as well). And the whole time, she never had any inkling that she wasn't in Windows.
All three kids have been using Linux since shortly after that, and they love it.
My approach to this type of thing is simply to avoid it: "An octopus with several of his friends..."
Since the MS spokes person said, "we ... have been the market leader in reducing prices..."
I hate how we allow ourselves to be called consumers on exactly the same grounds.
At least with the word "taxpayer" there's some sort of pretense that that status gives us some rights (although, too often, that pretense doesn't stand up under scrutiny).
Nah. They were just gullible fools who allowed themselves to be talked into doing something horribly destructive. The only difference between the 9/11 hijackers and the nerdy kid we talked into jumping off the garage roof with a bath towel pinned to his shirt as a superhero cape, thereby breaking his leg, is simply the magnitude of the act.
Yeah, and I hear the French think Jerry Lewis is a genius. Go figure.
I doubt that that's meaningful, as houses you look at wouldn't be a random sample. I would bet that if you were looking at houses in working-class neighborhoods (at whatever the lower end of the price range would be in your market for something that's basic yet "livable"), whatever computers you see would be heavily in favor of Windows.
I think what skews the stats is that, for whatever reason, PC users are likely to buy more computers than Mac users. So you can talk about the number of units sold, or you can talk about the number of users for each, but the two won't directly correspond.
This is true.
People talk about the so-called "learning curve" of switching from Windows to Linux. But that's the wrong way to think about it. If you already have the concepts down, it's more a matter of adaptation. And a lot of stuff is exactly the same, anyway. Control-B is going to toggle bold regardless of which software I'm using.
Any sort of limited term is open to a similar criticism.
But yeah, I'd agree that once the copyright is sold, the lifetime of the artist should no longer be a consideration. After all, he could be a 25-year-old healthy guy looking forward to a long and productive life -- and get smashed by a garbage truck as he walks out of the bank after cashing the check. That's a possibility the buyer shouldn't have to worry about.
Copyright should have a limited term (because we want to encourage publishing, but not at any price; because after too much time has passed it becomes too hard to find the copyright owner; etc.), but tying that term to the creator's lifetime is just an unnecessary complication. It rewards healthy creators more than sick ones, young creators more than old ones. Why would we want to do that? We don't do it with stock options.
Any system that pays royalties is going to benefit young/healthy more than old/sick people regardless of how copyright law is structured, if you're talking about the total amount collected. On the other hand, a terminally ill artist could consider six months of royalties as income for life.
Similarly, any work-for-hire agreement or the sale of the copyright is going to produce a one-time check that'll have the same figure on it regardless of the age or health of the artist.
Sure that's all part of the car. So are the spinner hubcaps, the knob on the end of the stick shift and the cup holder.
But the real point is that no one makes any pretense that any of those items are a tightly integrated part of the car that can't be removed.
Think about the reasons why copyright laws were first written. Not the reasons why Disney and companies like that want to change it, but the orginal reasons -- namely, to encourage writers to write by providing them with the exclusive opportunity to profit from their work. This opportunity is for a limited time in order to provide an incentive to write more works.
That reason doesn't apply to your money or your home. Nor does it apply to intellectual property after the creator dies.
I don't see the author's lifetime as an "imponderable." You have only two possibilities; he's either alive or dead at any given time. Either way, the status of the copyright is easy to determine.
Could one of you please explain to me why you think the lifetime of the author should play any part at all?
Why should it not? After his death, the author can no longer benefit from any rights associated with his work.
That's why I'd include a provision for a minimum term that could extend beyond the creator's death. Maybe 5, 10, 15 years. I don't know how long. Significantly less than 50, though. Say it's 15 years. When the artist dies, any work of his that's older than 15 years goes into PD. Anything newer than that gets its term extended by whatever length of time is necessary to give it 15 years.
That's exactly my thought. And as I mentioned earlier, the heirs would still free to market the work in question. It's not as if the expiration of the copyright cuts them off from doing anything with it.
But I would be inclined to add to "50 years or the lifetime of the author, whichever is shorter," a provision for some sort of minimum term as well. I would think that in a case like someone else brought up, where someone records a hit song and dies a week later, the family should get some exclusivity for a time. I don't know how long it would be, though.
As already mentioned, the "shelf life" of most copyrighted works isn't going to be anywhere near that long, anyway.
And if you happen to be the heir of someone who creates an enduring masterpiece, the lapse of the copyright doesn't prevent you from continuing to publish the work anyway. It merely dilutes the commercial value it might have. As an heir, you might be in a position to include some "value-added" material to make your edition a better buy.
Why do they need a "choice?" What's wrong with just trying to get English speakers to issue more invitations?
- Sony builds it into their laptops and wants Microsoft to support it.
Maybe I'm missing something, but it wouldn't be a patent violation if Sony asks Microsoft to support the thingie, would it?
What you need to do is write your script so that none of the user's input goes into the headers of the e-mail that gets sent to you. Hard-code the headers into the script. There won't be anything in it that absolutely has to come from a variable, anyway.
Then put all the user's input into the body of the e-mail, up at the top of the message.
Either that, or a couple more news stories about IE security holes might do the trick.
But seriously, one man's experience, for what it's worth, which might be nothing... I haven't used IE at home in at least four years. Now, I admit that I don't actually know how the sites I visit are supposed to look when they're in IE. But if a web page looks bad because I'm not using the browser the developer wants me to use, it just make his work look bad on my screen. That's not my problem. I don't care as long as the page is functional, and I don't recall ever having any problems in that regard.
Wait, I take that back. I once hit a site that refused to load, giving me a smug message that the reason was because I "need" IE. (I hit the mailto link and told them to go screw themselves -- if you want to design an IE only site, fine by me. But don't be an asshole about it and tell me what I need.)
Well, I'll agree, in that I'm usually not concerned about choices after the installation. Get what I want installed, and go with it.
But during the installation, I appreciate having choices.
Ah, yes, but downloaded artwork doesn't get you the cool Exile on Main Street Postcards or the Jefferson Airplane cigar box or the Dark Side of the Moon stickers or the Led Zep 3 wheel or the Queen bicycle race poster. It doesn't get you the gatefold album cover, oh-so-useful for cleaning... uh... maybe I'd better shut up now.
Screw subscriptions. I grew up buying it once, then playing it with impunity. I'm not about to change.
Of course, I've bought very few CDs in the last few years, anyway. At least 90 percent of the music I've collected in that time has been trading and downloading shows by jam bands. If I never accumulated any more music at all, I'd still have enough stockpiled to last the rest of my life.
The question is, which market will musicians go to in order to build up their audience? Perhaps some will make their initial music free in order to virally market themselves, but once their audience is at a critical mass they'll switch over to iTunes et al...?
Very possible. I've seen a lot of discussions about bands offering free music over the net to build up a following, so therefore the big-name bands should do it, too, to promote themselves.
But yes, I wonder... are these local bands giving away music only because they don't see an alternative that looks better? If they had an opportunity to sign with a major label and get some big-time promotion, would that be an alternative that looks better?
True. Moore's chief product is not his movies, but himself.
It's pretty well-documented that Disney told Moore at least a year ago that they wouldn't distribute it. And no one at Disney tried to suppress it. Moore knew what the deal was, he had plenty of time to make other arrangements, and he was free to do so. As to their reasons for not distributing it, I'm prepared to admit anything could be possible, but still... that's their decision to make as long as there's nothing illegal going on.
And this is not a partisan post. I don't like any of the people involved in this story. Not Moore, not Bush, not the Disney execs. (nor Kerry, Limbaugh, Franken, etc.)
I'd like to see David Cronenberg take a shot at one of Dick's books.
Of course, they made the decision to start a business because they wanted to make money.
But without execption, they chose their particular types of businesses based on what they loved doing. Each one had a passion for what he or she was doing and looked forward to going to work every day. That's not a sufficient condition to be successful, but it's a necessary one.
Once upon a time, I think, even Bill Gates had that.