Do you mean stealing, as in shoplifting game boxes from a store?
Then I'd guess you're right.
But I think you're referring to unauthorized copies, i.e. copyright law infringement.
My take is that the use of the term piracy was a successful marketing feat of the pro-IP lobbies. In order to associate copyright law infringement with the negative views on the violence and cruelty depicted in popular culture and commonly associated with robbery committed at sea.
Such associations have the hidden intent to liken copyright law infringement with the infringement of natural law rights (the right to life and to property - although the right to property can be debated).
The effect is that copyright and patent law are increasingly deemed as natural law: The authors and inventors must be rewarded. We owe them so. They deserve protection.
In fact, some little research will show that copyright and patent law were created not so long ago as incentives (even called privileges in some countries). Before these laws were created, the natural law was to copy what was useful with the means available at the time.
I'd say that continuing to use the term piracy, instead of copyright or patent law infringement, is to inadvertently cave in to marketing tactics of industries that have established and maintained themselves mainly because of the human created systems of state granted privileges (and not necessarily the value of their work).
Not to say that I'm against the granting of temporary and limited privileges, when they are actual incentives to the production of something useful, that wouldn't be produced otherwise.
But I'm surely against the granting of disproportionate privileges without regards to their actual need as incentives and the disincentives they weigh, curbing innovation in many ways.
The main trouble the pro-IP industries now face is that the means to copy are nowadays much more generally accessible. The "natural law" or "natural ways" of copying what is useful or pleasing is increasingly more accessible. With such, the industries that maintain themselves mainly because of the privileges they were granted, instead of the value they create, are being challenged. It's the case of old business models.
It really is time to think of exchanging patent and copyright law for more effective and proportionate incentives: such as temporary tax exemptions instead of monopolies and artificial controls on the common and natural ability to copy, modify and distribute.
If it was the year of the linux desktop (finally) then why would ASUS be making such an effort with MS to get rid of the linux on their EEE PC?
Because ASUS wants to sell eee PCs (make money), with whatever software people are willing or wanting to dump their money for -- even if it is Windows, if it runs slower than Linux on the eee, if it is only because of FUD fed fear of Linux, etc.
ASUS may have concluded that Linux was the best suited OS for their PC, performance and feature wise. But if a Windows version will be bought by people that wouldn't buy it otherwise, then ASUS is more than likely to welcome Microsoft and ship a WindowsXPLite version of the eee.
They chose Linux not because it was free software, but because it was the best suited OS. And that may be a reason to consider that it is the year of Linux, on the eee PC at least:
* Linux is the best suited OS for the platform, performance and feature wise;
* The dominant OS developer is playing catch up, and still not delivering the goods.
If the true goal of a computer program for a school is to ready its students for the workplace, then is linux really the best method of doing so? [...]
Well, Linux in such a context ("to ready students") isn't a method. It can be a tool (and so can Windows) of a given method. And the method can be adequate or inadequate.
As to the method, who knows what students will use in the future? At work or at home?
Schools (if they are not to be short-sighted) should enable students with skills that will allow them to use any tool, existing ones and specially future ones, unknown ones. Training to use one program instead of another based on current market shares is short-sighted.
I read a circa 1969 book by Lauro de Oliveira Lima commenting on a 1960 text by Marshall McLuhan. Both wrote how education would (or should) be in the future (and wrote about the future itself). Lauro de Oliveira Lima made quite a compelling argument about how education is about the future and the unknown. For the students are supposedly being prepared for a future life, work and a society that is unknown and unpredictable.
My point is, training someone to use Windows or Office is short-sighted education (and possibly inadequate education, if the student doesn't develop skills to learn to use any tool he may encounter. And he may encounter Windows, Linux, Solaris etc).
But the point of using gnu/linux or any other free or open source software in an education context is goes beyond the possibility of using certain tools. It's about the possibilty of understanding those tools, modifying those tools and creating new tools. It's about empowerment. And even if it remains as an unfulfilled possibility it remains as a door that can still be opened.
From such a point of view the use of linux, inkscape etc in an education context could be part of an open-ended education effort which aims at the future. And then comes to mind a Robert Heinlein quote:
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
Education should not be about Windows or Linux, but about being able to use any one of them, understand the differences, be prepared to choose and to deal with whatever the future brings.
Cheers,
P.S.: I use Ubuntu at home since 2004. And before that Gentoo and Debian.
Two days ago I bought a computer for my mother. They'll deliver it tomorrow. It's an upgrade from her 486DX 80MHz, with 40MB of RAM, a 1MB video card and a CD-ROM drive. It's hard disk is less than 2GB for sure (I think it's a 540MB HDD). It runs Windows 95, Word 2000 and IE.
With this equipment she browses, uses Gmail (before she used Outlook Express), and recently has begun working as a translator.
The new one comes with Linux preloaded (I'll probably install Ubuntu on it), is a Sempron 3000, has 512 MB of RAM, a 80GB HDD, a DVD-RW drive, and everything-else on-board.
Until three and a half years ago I had a 486DX4 100MHZ with 48MB of RAM, a 1MB video card and some 4GB of HD space. That took me through college, on Windows 95 and OS/2, and lately Linux (Debian then Gentoo).
Then my first upgrade was to an Athlon XP 2500+ Barton, with 512MB, a nVidia FX5200 with 128MB, 120GB HDD. That now runs Ubuntu.
Disclaimer: I can understand which reasons may justifiy a text contained in a wiki not being considered useful or acceptable from a legal (positivist) point of view. [Although I try to disagree with such a point of view. And it is hard, for we live in a quite positivist world...]
Nevertheless...
[...] Wiki citations are most surely toilet paper, and not just from a legal POV.
Why are they toilet paper? Because they come from a wiki? Or because their author and his credentials cannot be identified?
Arguing that all texts contained in wikis toilet paper is sort of an ad hominem fallacy:
The author of texts on wikis cannot be identified.
Texts whose author cannot be identified are toilet paper.
[Therefore] Texts on wikis are toilet paper.
The thing is that we aren't able of immediately ascertaining the quality or truth of practically all texts we read because of our own ignorance.
A text in a wiki sure can be toilet paper. But only if toilet paper it is. I.e. irrespective of which support contains the text and irrespective of who it's author is and which are his credentials.
Accepting texts or discarding them based solely on the identity and credentials of the author is logically fallacious (ad verecundiam or ad hominem), because truth is a matter which we can accept or not as a choice either based on faith, incredulity or critical thinking.
But the point here isn't a matter of faith or critical thinking, because it is a matter of lack of identity or credentials.
Therefore, what about the text itself? What do the credentials of the author tell about the text? Appealing to the credentials reveals a lack of ability (or time, or willingness etc) of ascertaining the quality of hte text itself. And that may be all right depending on the case. But a generalisation in such matters can be greatly misleading being a fallacy in itself:
This text is false.
The author of this text and his credentials cannot be identified.
[Therefore] Texts whose author and his credentials cannot be identified are (or ought to be considered) false.
I think citations should exist so that we can reference other's works, so we do not have to redo it, so we do not have to reproduce it in it's entirety, so we can attribute proper authorship, so arguments can be traced to the reasoning which lead to such assertions etc. Not as a means to discourage critical thinking or induce uncritical acceptance.
<Digression on> As a Masters student, I think citations are used to much as a way to rebuke or discourage criticism. Texts with insufficient citations are regarded as being of low quality, irrespective of their content. While texts filled with citations are regarded at least as well made texts. Sometimes it seems to me as fear of independent thought and possible criticism, which is solved by appealing to authority, and happens to mute creativity... and turns much of academic work in to bureaucratic mimetism, as a means to gaining entrance in the academic world and gain the necessary credentials to stay in.
</Digression>
Such lists appear to me as part historical reveries, part advertising for the companies listed (those that still exist) as if they were the most innovative (i.e. as if they were the most worthy of our gratefulness for improving our lives with such great technology, without which we would not have all the benefits technology gives us today).
Such lists have so much of a scent of propaganda. And they do have some effect on how these companies are perceived today by people in general. And that's what some find disturbing, for these lists surely are not representative of the "best tech of all times". They are misleading. They are published as a definitive list, despite the "obligatory" disclaimers, yet they contribute very little to our comprehension of the role and effects of technology on our lives.
They are a gimmick to sell magazines and online-ads.
Why exactly are they morons? Having no relation with the company makes their opinion less or not valuable, or worthy of consideration? Did they call the company only for "religious" reasons?
Maybe some/one/all of them are mainly/partly/incidentally trying to make a point and express themselves about what they feel are sensible technical policy/political/philosophical issues?
Maybe such/other motivation is significant enough to them, that having no formal/financial/work relation with the company isn't an impediment for expressing themselves in order to contribute to society what they feel is right or best, or simply offer a company some insightful/informative/interesting/funny opinions.
Nevertheless, you're right that it still is the company's choice which OS they run. And it will continue to be so, despite any email they recieve.
But it is quite in the spirit of free software, or more precisely, the spirit of freedom, that people give themselves the freedom to express what's on their mind, (some of them at least) in order to contribute to a better and more just world, in which people can still ignore their opinions or can hear them, think about them, respond to them, talk about them, and maybe emerge from the whole experience somewhat changed, hopefully for the best.
Or they are publishing it because "it will take the entire world to interpret [that] data".
I.e, since they cannot hope to interpret it by themselves, therefore not being able to leverage it commercially, they publish as a last resort, so that they can benefit in some (unforeseen by them? to a greater or lesser degree) form after the whole world has worked to interpret the data.
It doesn't look like generosity, fraternal love or willful cooperation.
And depending on the need or, more precisely, the intent in constructing a communication piece, not even paragraphs may be needed.
But, if paragraphs is all the graphic layout one wants in constructing a message, plain/text is enough, and the message can be as effective as was intended it to be.
On the other hand, if other graphical elements and resources are needed and wanted to construct any given message, to communicate, then only by leveraging those elements and resources the message could be as effective as it was intended to be.
And by writing that I do assume that graphical communication happens differently than textual communication. Meaning that, these differences can serve different purposes when constructing a communication piece. And, depending on the intent of who constructs the message, such intent can be better served by textual or graphical elements and techniques in various degrees (which I deem to not be quantifiable and measurable).
Therefore, effectiveness would a matter of intent by the creator of the message. And as such, could well depend only on paragraphs, or on other white space layouts, or etc.
Neither textual or graphical elements and techniques are superior. They are tools. They are different and serve different purposes. Thus, email design shouldn't be restricted to textual or specific graphical elements and techniques, for it would restrict the possible messages that could be constructed.
And I deem such perspective to be even more true, since graphical elements have been extensively used and become common in emails, and are perceived by many (I assume) as an essential email feature. Thinking of that now, I do find it strange that Microsoft would extinguish such features that are used quite a lot by maybe the majority of their customers who may have never written a plain/text email.
That would be true if one would think that graphical layout and design communicate nothing.
Some simple white space between text, creates what we call paragraphs. These are used in quite specific ways to convey meaning and intent by the creator of a text. (This was the first example that sprung to my mind as I thought of the possibilities of graphically designing a communication).
Communication and graphic design can be used "to get in, communicate, and get out", in ways that unformatted text can't. (It isn't necessarily better, for it's a tool. But, being a tool, if well employed it can achieve what unformatted text can't, in the same way).
The only legal chance (assuming the Cisco registration is otherwise valid) Apple could have would be if Cisco didn't use the mark for some (five?) years.
Then the Cisco registration could be overturned for lack of use. And, as far as I know, Apple could then obtain the registration of the mark, by filing a trademark registration application.
Rich geeks today are just the robber barons of the 20th century, and now they're doing the same thing those 19th century robber barons did, giving away their money to make themselves feel better.
And sometimes not even to feel better, but only to look better to the eyes of future and old consumers.
But the question that should be asked, once one agrees with your post (I do), is why "philanthropy is becoming dominated by" "geeks". It isn't a castle, meaning that only one can be king. Are "geeks" doing so much more than others? Or others lacking in doing something? I don't know. But couldn't but think that philanthropy cannot be dominated, unless by the negligence of others, since it isn't a prize to be seized and taken out of reach.
As to giving what people want or need, as opposed to giving what is convenient to the "giver", that would take some public spirit, meaning being motivated by public interest (not a simple concept), instead of self-centered interest (either (a) self-interest such as giving the products of one's corporation to create demand or brand loyalty, or (b) self-mindedness, giving what one perceives as being needed in a somewhat pretentious way).
Public interest should be the only motivation of governments. But I do not think that private endeavors (of any kind or scale) should be totally deprived of a public spirit, in the same way common persons should have a genuine interest in the wellbeing and sustainability of their surroundings and the surrounding people (be that their parents, neighbors, coworkers, strangers, servants, waiters, etc).
Some would then say that organizations have no will, or that they have a specific purpose (as rewarding monetarily their investors). I would say that organizations do not exist without people, and these should imbue the organizations they create and maintain with a public spirit too. This responsibility cannot be limited or simply waived by any signed law. And I do think that this spirit applies to any relation.
Nevertheless, some will insist in disagreeing motivated by their egoism, and support the theory that can give them some false peace of mind. And some will disagree for other reasons (non-egoistic reasons).
If the public spirit were pervasive in all people, organizations (the people who own and run them) and governments, I can but only imagine that their would be less poverty, famine, disease, unemployment, wars, sadness etc, and more beauty, cooperation, prosperity (in its deepest sense), health and happiness.
These are only the opinion of a mere human being. Not much.
I assume the parent wrote about ebook versions of printed books, which governments already buy to give to students in public schools. It would make sense then.
If these books were produced without the costs of printing and distributing physical books, they would certainly cost less, for they could be digitally copied and distributed.
If ebooks sold to the general public actually do not cost less than their physical counterparts (I don't know if this is so), it's because the printing corporations are extracting even more profit buy charging relatively more, given the less work their employees have to produce and distribute ebooks, compared to the cost of producing and distributing physical books.
I, for one, do think ebooks must be less expensive (given the reduced costs of production and distribution) -- even if ebooks have their own features and advantages over physical books, for they have disadvantages and lack features too.
"If it has the "same" UI as Windows, then the UI ceases to be a reason to switch?"
Yes, of course. Why somebody would change just to stay the same?
The question above was a rhetoric one. To emphasize the point being made that when changing from Windows to GNU/Linux, the main reason isn't the UI, but the freedoms of the GPL. I.e. the UI isn't a reason to switch.
Furthermore the point being made was that GNU/Linux's UI is rather a challenge or barrier to a switcher-would-be, because it is different. It's a difference that demotivates switchers because it imposes (re)learning procedures, common and new.
On the other hand, your counter-question -- Why somebody would change just to stay the same? -- could lead someone to think that if the UI is the same, or similar, then changing from Windows to GNU/Linux, would be "staying the same". The main difference isn't the UI, it's the GPL freedoms and the development model. These are the first reasons (together with their many implications) to switch to GNU/Linux.
"I thought and felt that the UI differences were more of a challenge against my decision to switch than an incentive"
Then, the most you can say is that having the same GUI wouldn't be a deterrent for you to change but it's obvious it's not a decision maker either!
-Why do you use Magick Soap instead of Ultrawhite soap?
-Uhhh... because Magick Soap cleans the same, costs the same and I can find it exactly in the same shops than Ultrawhite.
No: you make your decision (either to stay or to move) because of the *differences*.
In my case, if the UI were the same, I would still have changed. And with less worry with having to relearn how to do (UI-wise) what I had already mastered in Windows, because my main reasons to change were the GPL freedoms and the GNU/Linux security.
But for others, the different UI could well be a deterrent, and, therefore, a decision maker. And that deterrence is what some try to avert by making the UI more similar with what people are used to with Windows.
However, after having used GNU/Linux, I must say it's UI does have features I miss when I have to use Windows. Simple things, as having multiple workplaces and shading windows. As well as more innovative GUI features of XGL/Beryl, which have gradually become features I depend on for organizing my work, and that Windows lacks.
These innovative UI features are differences that could additionally motivate a switcher. This is another GNU/Linux UI development strategy: (A) making the UI a reason to switch, instead of (B) making the UI not be a deterrent to switch. This one (B) is more simple, since it doesn't require innovation, but only mimicking the most common UI features. It can be more effective, in the short-term, but it doesn't add value.
Developing an innovative albeit different UI adds much more value, and can well add up to the GPL Freedoms and the GNU/Linux development model as a reason to switch. This strategy (A) has more of a personality and, I think, would be more in the interest of those who actually use GNU/Linux: to have an improved, innovative and intelligent UI.
As soon as such innovative UI features become stable they should also be advocated as reasons to switch. Then the UI would be a decision maker motivator towards switching, because of it's values instead of it's absence of dissimilarities. Nevertheless, having to relearn OS managing procedures will always be a deterrent in some degree, for demanding time and productivity losses. These could be offset by gained time and productivity made possible by innovative intelligent features.
But the better they get at copying the Windows look and feel, the less reason there is to switch.
So your assumption is that Linux's different UI is one of the reasons which would motivate someone to switch from MS Windows to Linux?
If it has the "same" UI as Windows, then the UI ceases to be a reason to switch?
Well, I did not switch for this reason (and frankly don't think anyone switches to Linux because of it's UI). On the contrary. I thought and felt that the UI differences were more of a challenge against my decision to switch than an incentive. I knew that I would have a lot of learning and readjusting to do, having used Windows and DOS for so long.
At the end, in my case, the UI differences weren't much of a barrier, since I had some experience with an other UI (had used OS/2) and was well motivated by the freemdoms of the GPL and the absence of a license fee. Actually learning a new UI that has it's own virtues was actually fun for me.
Nevertheless, I generally regard UIs that need active learning to use as a barrier to technology adoption. (I.e. except when the challenge is fun.)
Therefore, UI similarities with Windows are not a virtue, but a chosen tactic to lower the difference barrier that can avert switchers. (And that doesn't mean Linux does not have UI features/virtues that I use and I miss when I have to use Windows at work. It has and I do.)
Therefore, having the "same" UI doesn't mean one less reason to switch, nor is it considered a virtue.
____________________
On the other hand, if aliens started mimicking the Windows Start button and UI on their systems, UseIt.com wouldn't have much to "complain" about Usability in the Movies and the UIs in the movies would be a lot more dull:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Do you mean stealing, as in shoplifting game boxes from a store?
Then I'd guess you're right.
But I think you're referring to unauthorized copies, i.e. copyright law infringement.
My take is that the use of the term piracy was a successful marketing feat of the pro-IP lobbies. In order to associate copyright law infringement with the negative views on the violence and cruelty depicted in popular culture and commonly associated with robbery committed at sea.
Such associations have the hidden intent to liken copyright law infringement with the infringement of natural law rights (the right to life and to property - although the right to property can be debated).
The effect is that copyright and patent law are increasingly deemed as natural law: The authors and inventors must be rewarded. We owe them so. They deserve protection.
In fact, some little research will show that copyright and patent law were created not so long ago as incentives (even called privileges in some countries). Before these laws were created, the natural law was to copy what was useful with the means available at the time.
I'd say that continuing to use the term piracy, instead of copyright or patent law infringement, is to inadvertently cave in to marketing tactics of industries that have established and maintained themselves mainly because of the human created systems of state granted privileges (and not necessarily the value of their work).
Not to say that I'm against the granting of temporary and limited privileges, when they are actual incentives to the production of something useful, that wouldn't be produced otherwise.
But I'm surely against the granting of disproportionate privileges without regards to their actual need as incentives and the disincentives they weigh, curbing innovation in many ways.
The main trouble the pro-IP industries now face is that the means to copy are nowadays much more generally accessible. The "natural law" or "natural ways" of copying what is useful or pleasing is increasingly more accessible. With such, the industries that maintain themselves mainly because of the privileges they were granted, instead of the value they create, are being challenged. It's the case of old business models.
It really is time to think of exchanging patent and copyright law for more effective and proportionate incentives: such as temporary tax exemptions instead of monopolies and artificial controls on the common and natural ability to copy, modify and distribute.
Cheers,
Because ASUS wants to sell eee PCs (make money), with whatever software people are willing or wanting to dump their money for -- even if it is Windows, if it runs slower than Linux on the eee, if it is only because of FUD fed fear of Linux, etc.
ASUS may have concluded that Linux was the best suited OS for their PC, performance and feature wise. But if a Windows version will be bought by people that wouldn't buy it otherwise, then ASUS is more than likely to welcome Microsoft and ship a WindowsXPLite version of the eee.
They chose Linux not because it was free software, but because it was the best suited OS. And that may be a reason to consider that it is the year of Linux, on the eee PC at least:
Cheers,
...doing whatever they feel like doing, however ridiculous it may be.
It starts to seem that the law really does not apply to them.
As a matter of fact (as opposed to a matter of law), the law isn't the same for everyone.
Cheers,
However much we wish or strongly think that that should happen, does anyone realistically think that anything alike would ever happen to him?
Cheers,
Well, Linux in such a context ("to ready students") isn't a method. It can be a tool (and so can Windows) of a given method. And the method can be adequate or inadequate.
As to the method, who knows what students will use in the future? At work or at home?
Schools (if they are not to be short-sighted) should enable students with skills that will allow them to use any tool, existing ones and specially future ones, unknown ones. Training to use one program instead of another based on current market shares is short-sighted.
I read a circa 1969 book by Lauro de Oliveira Lima commenting on a 1960 text by Marshall McLuhan. Both wrote how education would (or should) be in the future (and wrote about the future itself). Lauro de Oliveira Lima made quite a compelling argument about how education is about the future and the unknown. For the students are supposedly being prepared for a future life, work and a society that is unknown and unpredictable.
My point is, training someone to use Windows or Office is short-sighted education (and possibly inadequate education, if the student doesn't develop skills to learn to use any tool he may encounter. And he may encounter Windows, Linux, Solaris etc).
But the point of using gnu/linux or any other free or open source software in an education context is goes beyond the possibility of using certain tools. It's about the possibilty of understanding those tools, modifying those tools and creating new tools. It's about empowerment. And even if it remains as an unfulfilled possibility it remains as a door that can still be opened.
From such a point of view the use of linux, inkscape etc in an education context could be part of an open-ended education effort which aims at the future. And then comes to mind a Robert Heinlein quote:
Education should not be about Windows or Linux, but about being able to use any one of them, understand the differences, be prepared to choose and to deal with whatever the future brings.
Cheers,
P.S.: I use Ubuntu at home since 2004. And before that Gentoo and Debian.
Not worldwide.
Now let's play safe, and work with a theoretical 640 core limit.
It doesn't compete?
I now use OpenOffice.org at work, on a Windows IBM ThinkCentre PC. (And many other coworkers.)
And at home I also use OpenOffice.org, on Linux.
Before I used MS Office on Windows, both at home and work.
Two days ago I bought a computer for my mother. They'll deliver it tomorrow. It's an upgrade from her 486DX 80MHz, with 40MB of RAM, a 1MB video card and a CD-ROM drive. It's hard disk is less than 2GB for sure (I think it's a 540MB HDD). It runs Windows 95, Word 2000 and IE.
:-)))
With this equipment she browses, uses Gmail (before she used Outlook Express), and recently has begun working as a translator.
The new one comes with Linux preloaded (I'll probably install Ubuntu on it), is a Sempron 3000, has 512 MB of RAM, a 80GB HDD, a DVD-RW drive, and everything-else on-board.
Until three and a half years ago I had a 486DX4 100MHZ with 48MB of RAM, a 1MB video card and some 4GB of HD space. That took me through college, on Windows 95 and OS/2, and lately Linux (Debian then Gentoo).
Then my first upgrade was to an Athlon XP 2500+ Barton, with 512MB, a nVidia FX5200 with 128MB, 120GB HDD. That now runs Ubuntu.
How's that
Such a clear evidence of B-Ark-descending...
;_;
The commas are tears under the dots that are the eyes. The line is the mouth.
It took me a moment of thought to figure it out also.
Oh... :-)
Why not?
Disclaimer: I can understand which reasons may justifiy a text contained in a wiki not being considered useful or acceptable from a legal (positivist) point of view. [Although I try to disagree with such a point of view. And it is hard, for we live in a quite positivist world...]
Nevertheless...
Why are they toilet paper? Because they come from a wiki? Or because their author and his credentials cannot be identified?
Arguing that all texts contained in wikis toilet paper is sort of an ad hominem fallacy:
The thing is that we aren't able of immediately ascertaining the quality or truth of practically all texts we read because of our own ignorance.
A text in a wiki sure can be toilet paper. But only if toilet paper it is. I.e. irrespective of which support contains the text and irrespective of who it's author is and which are his credentials.
Accepting texts or discarding them based solely on the identity and credentials of the author is logically fallacious (ad verecundiam or ad hominem), because truth is a matter which we can accept or not as a choice either based on faith, incredulity or critical thinking.
But the point here isn't a matter of faith or critical thinking, because it is a matter of lack of identity or credentials.
Therefore, what about the text itself? What do the credentials of the author tell about the text? Appealing to the credentials reveals a lack of ability (or time, or willingness etc) of ascertaining the quality of hte text itself. And that may be all right depending on the case. But a generalisation in such matters can be greatly misleading being a fallacy in itself:
I think citations should exist so that we can reference other's works, so we do not have to redo it, so we do not have to reproduce it in it's entirety, so we can attribute proper authorship, so arguments can be traced to the reasoning which lead to such assertions etc. Not as a means to discourage critical thinking or induce uncritical acceptance.
<Digression on> As a Masters student, I think citations are used to much as a way to rebuke or discourage criticism. Texts with insufficient citations are regarded as being of low quality, irrespective of their content. While texts filled with citations are regarded at least as well made texts. Sometimes it seems to me as fear of independent thought and possible criticism, which is solved by appealing to authority, and happens to mute creativity... and turns much of academic work in to bureaucratic mimetism, as a means to gaining entrance in the academic world and gain the necessary credentials to stay in. </Digression>
Cheers,
Such lists appear to me as part historical reveries, part advertising for the companies listed (those that still exist) as if they were the most innovative (i.e. as if they were the most worthy of our gratefulness for improving our lives with such great technology, without which we would not have all the benefits technology gives us today).
Such lists have so much of a scent of propaganda. And they do have some effect on how these companies are perceived today by people in general. And that's what some find disturbing, for these lists surely are not representative of the "best tech of all times". They are misleading. They are published as a definitive list, despite the "obligatory" disclaimers, yet they contribute very little to our comprehension of the role and effects of technology on our lives.
They are a gimmick to sell magazines and online-ads.
What do you think?
Cheers.
Why exactly are they morons?
:-)
Having no relation with the company makes their opinion less or not valuable, or worthy of consideration?
Did they call the company only for "religious" reasons?
Maybe some/one/all of them are mainly/partly/incidentally trying to make a point and express themselves about what they feel are sensible technical policy/political/philosophical issues?
Maybe such/other motivation is significant enough to them, that having no formal/financial/work relation with the company isn't an impediment for expressing themselves in order to contribute to society what they feel is right or best, or simply offer a company some insightful/informative/interesting/funny opinions.
Nevertheless, you're right that it still is the company's choice which OS they run. And it will continue to be so, despite any email they recieve.
But it is quite in the spirit of free software, or more precisely, the spirit of freedom, that people give themselves the freedom to express what's on their mind, (some of them at least) in order to contribute to a better and more just world, in which people can still ignore their opinions or can hear them, think about them, respond to them, talk about them, and maybe emerge from the whole experience somewhat changed, hopefully for the best.
What do you think of this?
Cheers
Or they are publishing it because "it will take the entire world to interpret [that] data".
I.e, since they cannot hope to interpret it by themselves, therefore not being able to leverage it commercially, they publish as a last resort, so that they can benefit in some (unforeseen by them? to a greater or lesser degree) form after the whole world has worked to interpret the data.
It doesn't look like generosity, fraternal love or willful cooperation.
And depending on the need or, more precisely, the intent in constructing a communication piece, not even paragraphs may be needed.
But, if paragraphs is all the graphic layout one wants in constructing a message, plain/text is enough, and the message can be as effective as was intended it to be.
On the other hand, if other graphical elements and resources are needed and wanted to construct any given message, to communicate, then only by leveraging those elements and resources the message could be as effective as it was intended to be.
And by writing that I do assume that graphical communication happens differently than textual communication. Meaning that, these differences can serve different purposes when constructing a communication piece. And, depending on the intent of who constructs the message, such intent can be better served by textual or graphical elements and techniques in various degrees (which I deem to not be quantifiable and measurable).
Therefore, effectiveness would a matter of intent by the creator of the message. And as such, could well depend only on paragraphs, or on other white space layouts, or etc.
Neither textual or graphical elements and techniques are superior. They are tools. They are different and serve different purposes. Thus, email design shouldn't be restricted to textual or specific graphical elements and techniques, for it would restrict the possible messages that could be constructed.
And I deem such perspective to be even more true, since graphical elements have been extensively used and become common in emails, and are perceived by many (I assume) as an essential email feature. Thinking of that now, I do find it strange that Microsoft would extinguish such features that are used quite a lot by maybe the majority of their customers who may have never written a plain/text email.
That would be true if one would think that graphical layout and design communicate nothing.
Some simple white space between text, creates what we call paragraphs. These are used in quite specific ways to convey meaning and intent by the creator of a text. (This was the first example that sprung to my mind as I thought of the possibilities of graphically designing a communication).
And why should email communication possibilities be restricted, when one can leverage graphic forms of expression and communication design?
Communication and graphic design can be used "to get in, communicate, and get out", in ways that unformatted text can't. (It isn't necessarily better, for it's a tool. But, being a tool, if well employed it can achieve what unformatted text can't, in the same way).
I hadn't noticed that the iPhone mark on the specimen file with the Declaration of Use was actually a sticker, as point out in this article.
As the article states, such fact opens new possibilities regarding the cancellation of the iPhone mark registration for lack of use.
The only legal chance (assuming the Cisco registration is otherwise valid) Apple could have would be if Cisco didn't use the mark for some (five?) years.
Then the Cisco registration could be overturned for lack of use. And, as far as I know, Apple could then obtain the registration of the mark, by filing a trademark registration application.
But Cisco has filed a Declaration of Use of Mark in Commerce Under Section 8 with specimens.
Other documents regarding the Cisco registration can also be accessed at the USPTO site.
And sometimes not even to feel better, but only to look better to the eyes of future and old consumers.
But the question that should be asked, once one agrees with your post (I do), is why "philanthropy is becoming dominated by" "geeks". It isn't a castle, meaning that only one can be king. Are "geeks" doing so much more than others? Or others lacking in doing something? I don't know. But couldn't but think that philanthropy cannot be dominated, unless by the negligence of others, since it isn't a prize to be seized and taken out of reach.
As to giving what people want or need, as opposed to giving what is convenient to the "giver", that would take some public spirit, meaning being motivated by public interest (not a simple concept), instead of self-centered interest (either (a) self-interest such as giving the products of one's corporation to create demand or brand loyalty, or (b) self-mindedness, giving what one perceives as being needed in a somewhat pretentious way).
Public interest should be the only motivation of governments. But I do not think that private endeavors (of any kind or scale) should be totally deprived of a public spirit, in the same way common persons should have a genuine interest in the wellbeing and sustainability of their surroundings and the surrounding people (be that their parents, neighbors, coworkers, strangers, servants, waiters, etc).
Some would then say that organizations have no will, or that they have a specific purpose (as rewarding monetarily their investors). I would say that organizations do not exist without people, and these should imbue the organizations they create and maintain with a public spirit too. This responsibility cannot be limited or simply waived by any signed law. And I do think that this spirit applies to any relation.
Nevertheless, some will insist in disagreeing motivated by their egoism, and support the theory that can give them some false peace of mind. And some will disagree for other reasons (non-egoistic reasons).
If the public spirit were pervasive in all people, organizations (the people who own and run them) and governments, I can but only imagine that their would be less poverty, famine, disease, unemployment, wars, sadness etc, and more beauty, cooperation, prosperity (in its deepest sense), health and happiness.
These are only the opinion of a mere human being. Not much.
I assume the parent wrote about ebook versions of printed books, which governments already buy to give to students in public schools. It would make sense then.
If these books were produced without the costs of printing and distributing physical books, they would certainly cost less, for they could be digitally copied and distributed.
If ebooks sold to the general public actually do not cost less than their physical counterparts (I don't know if this is so), it's because the printing corporations are extracting even more profit buy charging relatively more, given the less work their employees have to produce and distribute ebooks, compared to the cost of producing and distributing physical books.
I, for one, do think ebooks must be less expensive (given the reduced costs of production and distribution) -- even if ebooks have their own features and advantages over physical books, for they have disadvantages and lack features too.
The question above was a rhetoric one. To emphasize the point being made that when changing from Windows to GNU/Linux, the main reason isn't the UI, but the freedoms of the GPL. I.e. the UI isn't a reason to switch.
Furthermore the point being made was that GNU/Linux's UI is rather a challenge or barrier to a switcher-would-be, because it is different. It's a difference that demotivates switchers because it imposes (re)learning procedures, common and new.
On the other hand, your counter-question -- Why somebody would change just to stay the same? -- could lead someone to think that if the UI is the same, or similar, then changing from Windows to GNU/Linux, would be "staying the same". The main difference isn't the UI, it's the GPL freedoms and the development model. These are the first reasons (together with their many implications) to switch to GNU/Linux.
In my case, if the UI were the same, I would still have changed. And with less worry with having to relearn how to do (UI-wise) what I had already mastered in Windows, because my main reasons to change were the GPL freedoms and the GNU/Linux security.
But for others, the different UI could well be a deterrent, and, therefore, a decision maker. And that deterrence is what some try to avert by making the UI more similar with what people are used to with Windows.
However, after having used GNU/Linux, I must say it's UI does have features I miss when I have to use Windows. Simple things, as having multiple workplaces and shading windows. As well as more innovative GUI features of XGL/Beryl, which have gradually become features I depend on for organizing my work, and that Windows lacks.
These innovative UI features are differences that could additionally motivate a switcher. This is another GNU/Linux UI development strategy: (A) making the UI a reason to switch, instead of (B) making the UI not be a deterrent to switch. This one (B) is more simple, since it doesn't require innovation, but only mimicking the most common UI features. It can be more effective, in the short-term, but it doesn't add value.
Developing an innovative albeit different UI adds much more value, and can well add up to the GPL Freedoms and the GNU/Linux development model as a reason to switch. This strategy (A) has more of a personality and, I think, would be more in the interest of those who actually use GNU/Linux: to have an improved, innovative and intelligent UI.
As soon as such innovative UI features become stable they should also be advocated as reasons to switch. Then the UI would be a decision maker motivator towards switching, because of it's values instead of it's absence of dissimilarities. Nevertheless, having to relearn OS managing procedures will always be a deterrent in some degree, for demanding time and productivity losses. These could be offset by gained time and productivity made possible by innovative intelligent features.
So your assumption is that Linux's different UI is one of the reasons which would motivate someone to switch from MS Windows to Linux?
If it has the "same" UI as Windows, then the UI ceases to be a reason to switch?
Well, I did not switch for this reason (and frankly don't think anyone switches to Linux because of it's UI). On the contrary. I thought and felt that the UI differences were more of a challenge against my decision to switch than an incentive. I knew that I would have a lot of learning and readjusting to do, having used Windows and DOS for so long.
At the end, in my case, the UI differences weren't much of a barrier, since I had some experience with an other UI (had used OS/2) and was well motivated by the freemdoms of the GPL and the absence of a license fee. Actually learning a new UI that has it's own virtues was actually fun for me.
Nevertheless, I generally regard UIs that need active learning to use as a barrier to technology adoption. (I.e. except when the challenge is fun.)
Therefore, UI similarities with Windows are not a virtue, but a chosen tactic to lower the difference barrier that can avert switchers. (And that doesn't mean Linux does not have UI features/virtues that I use and I miss when I have to use Windows at work. It has and I do.)
Therefore, having the "same" UI doesn't mean one less reason to switch, nor is it considered a virtue.
____________________
On the other hand, if aliens started mimicking the Windows Start button and UI on their systems, UseIt.com wouldn't have much to "complain" about Usability in the Movies and the UIs in the movies would be a lot more dull :-)