you can't possibly draw contract document quality drawings with software at the same speed that you could with a pen and a good parallel bar.
Bullshit. You're certainly not the first architectural sophist to posit their ineptitude is really a skill. Idiot rantings like yours are an insult to every bona-fide architect who's actually spent the time and effort to properly learn their trade. Just because you know how to use crayolas does not mean you are an artist. The building is the art, not the design document. Not the construction documents. The building.
This is not to say you can't design with pencils. Obviously you can. Many great architects have. And for sketching initial design concepts, a pencil, some graph paper, and some trace can't be beat.
But if you don't then move quickly into CAD, you're wasting time. You're fudging dimensions when you don't have to. You're making mistakes you don't have to. And it shows up in the final product. Things don't quite fit right. Seat counts don't add up. The mechanical systems interfere with the structural systems.
The biggest problem with CAD is that when you are untrained, you can use the power of CAD to just as quickly make a huge mess as you can to make a good design. The best thing in this instance about using pencil and paper is that it slows the poor designers down so they don't screw stuff up too badly.
But the better reason for not drawing with some software package is that they don't design.
Neither do pencils. Good designs are iterative. Apples don't fall on people's heads, knocking functional designs in all their crystalline beauty loose into the world.
With pencils, you use trace. How long does it take you to trace the whole frickin' floor plan? Option 'A'.. Option 'B'.. Option 'Z'. Too long. You don't. Do you meticulously create stencils for each lab configuration you'd like to trace onto each new iteration of the floor plan? No. You fudge it. Lots and lots of fudge. Later someone who actually knows how to draw, in CAD, and hence design, will fix all of your stupid mistakes.
...deliberately dled kid porn - which is clearly the majority of people with kp on their machines
This is a serious issue. It does absolutely no one any good when people like you make up bullshit facts to prop up your dubious point of view.
Lots of people who enjoy legitimate porn view it offline. E.G. - they suck entire newsgroups to their local computer. Only later do they peruse what they have. Perhaps much later. Perhaps never. What if someone injected some kiddie porn into the newsgroup? How do you distinguish kiddie porn from legitimate porn when you're downloading anyway? A lot of legitimate porn consists of middle-aged women in pigtails pretending to be teenagers. I'm not saying this is a turn-on or anything, but it is legitimate.
Your statement that people who have kiddie porn on their machine obtained it intentionally is what's really sick. It's sick because twisted made-up worldviews like that are what cause ignorant juries to put innocent defendants in jail. So straighten your head out, or shut the fuck up.
I'm as anti TIA call up pictures of my mom on a whim as anyone. But I'm pro-technology. In other discussions (p2p, for example) I often argue that the luddites should get out of the way. Technology is progress! If you're not with us, then you are a candlemaker in the age of electricity. Too bad for you.
I think the same argument applies here. Like it or not, using databases to correlate huge repositories of information is just not that difficult. It's going to happen. How can it be stopped?
Are there any constitutional provisions protecting us from such technology? Not that I know of. Quite frankly, the constitution is rather ambiguous on the subject of your privacy. Witness the recent bruhaha vis-a-vis sodomy in Texas for example. In that case the Supreme court came down on the side of privacy. How the supremes feel about your medical records, your social security number, your photograph, your fingerprints, your school record, your criminal record, your address, etc. has yet to be determined. It's not so clear that anything in the US constitution protects you from the potential abuses inherent to correlating all that information. The constitution proper primarily concerns itself with what the goverment can do. The Bill of Rights primarily concerns itself with what the government cannot do. As far as I know, there's nothing in there that says the government can't make a database. Funny, it probably never occured to them.
On the other hand, the constitution doesn't protect you from the abuses inherent to giving everyone ready access to gasoline, either. Are you afraid of gasoline?
So here's an idea. If the government is going to create vast databases of information about its citizens - fine. But make those databases public. The problem is one of power. If only a few people have access, they have too much power. Give *everyone* access. It's not o.k for John Poindexter to look up pictures of my mom on a whim. But it's o.k. if anyone in the world can do so.
The truth is the truth. Who's afraid of the truth? The biggest lotto winner who gave millions to churches just had hundreds of thousands of dollars recovered behind the dumpster of the brothel he was visiting. That's the truth. You can read it in the papers. Throw open the bathroom doors! What you do with yourself is the Truth! Let it show, baby!
Yeah, whatever. I want to poop in private. I believe its my right to do so. I want to fuck in private too. And talk to my doctor about my vascectomy in private. I want my school records to remain private. I want my criminal record, meager as it may be, to remain private also. But I want to know if my neighbor is a child molester.
My main point is - this is goddamn complicated issue. And I'm getting pretty sick of the typical slashdot rhetoric. I'm not one to post statements to/. about how people how post statements to/. are idiots. Those people truly are. But come on. I don't think the issue or answers here are at all obvious. They are worthy of deep thoughtful discussion. So screw on your thinking caps, and the next time this topic comes up (probably within the next 24 hours) try to add some depth to the conversation. This is a great forum in which to do so. Slashdot is read by millions. Take advantage. Get some good ideas out there. God knows we need them.
Your point is completely moot, unless you can explain what makes Java "optimal" for this application. As I said, it was a capricious choice, with unfortunate consequences. There are many non-incumbered ways this application could have been written.
And don't go around talking about what I "expect" people to do. I don't "expect" people to do anything. But I'm free to speak my mind, and do. And you're free to disagree with me. But it would really be a lot more productive if you stuck to the point, rather than drawing sick analogies involving child molestation.
Free communication is a different cause than free software. I never said I disagreed. My point was simply that since the code was so close to being free, that it's really too bad that it ended up being programmed in an incumbered language like Java. There are many equally adept languages that wouldn't suffer this limitation.
...does not mean that Freenet should spend its resources advancing the Free Software/Open Source agenda at the expense of its own.
Well, the problem could have been avoided in the first place by choosing not to develop Freenet using Java. There's nothing so special about java that warrants abrogating your freedom. Seems like an easily avoided goof to me. Probably someone knew java, wanted to learn java, or some silly thing, and now we're stuck w/ a dependancy on non-free software. Too bad, because now that the mistake has been made, and so much effort has been expended, it would in fact be a chore to remedy.
One way out of this imbroglio would be to not rely on bleeding edge java features, so that the free java alternatives have a chance to become viable.
That will likely change. Google for '"instant on" computer'.
But anyway, you're right. For now. However, I'd like to see the general purpose PC usurp the PDA. The problem is, laptops are inherently large, for three primary reasons: (1) more horsepower, (2) bona-fide keyboards, (3) big displays. I might add (4), more ports/plugs, etc.
I don't want to give any of those things up. But I want them to fit in my pocket. I think it can happen. Moore's law will take care of number 1. A soon-to-rich inventor will concoct an extremely small form factor input mechanism to replace keyboards, mice, joysticks etc. which permits 80+ word/minute input speeds. That takes care of 2. Google for 'retinal display' or 'mems display' for the answer to 3. As for 4, who needs all those damn ports anyway? Daisy chained peripherals on an ultra fast serial bus is the future. One bus uber alles. That's fine with me.
Most of the music being swapped would be protected even under the original 14-year copyright term
I wonder about that. Most of the music I would like to get my hands on is music I once purchased. I'd like to listen to old songs I have on old vinyl that is warped, scratched, etc. All of this is more than 14 years old.
I really have no idea what people trade on p2p.
Ironically, as passionately as I feel about the subject, I've only even looked at p2p clients once or twice. I don't use them. Why? Because the purposes for which I'd like to use them are illegal. Yes, that's right. As strongly as I disagree with the law, as vociferously as I rail against it, I obey it.
Using a p2p client to download a copy of a song which I purchased many years ago should not be illegal. It shouldn't be illegal whether I previously purchased the song before or not. If the song reaches a certain age, it should revert to the public domain. Congress has broken the public trust. The people responsible for this misdirection should be handed their walking papers.
I should probably be more specific. I'm speaking in the context of the current conversion - i.e. current IP law is tyrannical. E.G. - software patents, indefinite copyright extensions, goverment granted exchange carrier monopolies, a corrupt FCC, a corrupt ICANN, the DMCA, and on and on and on.
Normally, I think one would like to let an informed populace, living in a democracy, correct the situation. But what do you do when the laws in question are advocated by and for the media, who's job is to educate the general population? Do you think Time-Warner is going to launch an expose on the harm to the general welfare caused by monopolistic corporations holding title to all manner of so-called "intellectual property" for indefinite periods of time? Don't hold your breath.
It's a perplexing situation. A situation which by it's very nature indicates the value of p2p, anonymized communication, etc. These technologies are necessary to wrest control of our communications infrastructure from a self-interested oligarchy. Do you really think these people care solely about their patents and copyrights? Or do you see that perhaps they are also attempting to usurp the whole notion of end-to-end communication? The media giants cannot abide the notion that their world may crumble, so they're going to stomp on anyone who threatens to undermine their control of our communications infrastructure.
Well, for one, there's the fallacy of building the 20th country music station in country music country. If you built a rock-and-roll station instead you might get a larger audience than if you capture 1/20th of the more popular country market.
If you buy an mp3 player today, you have a plethora of choices. They all compete for the same mindshare. If you buy an ogg player, you look to Neuros. Neuros is going to make some good money (and acquire a lot of goodwill) by being the first to support a desireable but previously unsupported format.
The people who should be laid off are the nitwit executives who have so completely underestimated the value of their own assets. Mozilla is headed for ass-kicking country, and AOL is cozying up to Microsoft. What a bunch of idiots. No wonder they have so many problems. If I were a shareholder, I'd be seriously pissed. But then again, I'd never be a shareholder in a company that's so badly mismanaged.
Mistake: thinking that's there's only one source of metadata. Multiple metadata sources may exist for any particular object. The w3c attempts to address this issue with their rdf standard.
The first (the worst) option you mention, while not entirely apropriate, may indeed be closest to the ideal. Because we are not talking about a separate metadata file, but files. Now I wish I had a clever answer about how to maintain linkage between metadata and the things metadata describes as things move around, but I don't. But my main point is that metadata should likely be dissassociated from the thing it describes.
...about 75% of the moaning I've heard will go away when and if browsers build a better text entry field
No, I think Bray is way off base here. The browser's page based metaphor greatly impedes the design of appropriate database interfaces.
I basically disagree with any argument premised on the notion that you shouldn't give people too much power, because they don't know what to do with it and they'll screw stuff up. Sure, if you give form designers the gamut of imaginable tools, you'll see some pretty horrendous results. So what? You'll also see some good stuff. And in the end, the market will make sensible choices about design sensibilities.
Junior school bands would sound a lot better if we didn't allow students to play woodwind instruments. Or cymbals. Or, well, quite frankly, most of them would sound better if they didn't play at all. But what a horrible world that would be. Because eventually they get better. Or quit.
what's with the phony generousity?
on
AOL: Amazon Who?
·
· Score: 1
...a digital music store that will let users burn as many songs to CDs as they want
I burn as many songs to CD as want already. Nobody has to let me. As long as it's non-commercial, etc., it's everyone's right to do so.
They should also realize that they're not more important, but simply have a different role to play. If this single wish of mine came true, I think society would improve a thousandfold.
Oh yeah. Thank goodness the pinstriped nebbishes at Harvard B-School have taken it upon themselves to bless us with their wisdom. I mean, if they didn't deign to poorly describe a phenomena that was created without them, managed without them, and works very well without them - thank you very much - what would we do!?
...the management of *people*... you know... those things that spit out code for you.
Here's a clue. Most of these people don't spit out code for you. That's the whole F'ing point. In fact, they're doing quite well without you. They are doing well precisely because floppy duckling Havard B-School grads have absolutely no involvement. Thank god.
As other have said, a browser more or less merely renders underlying protocols, and provides navigation facilities. The protocols themselves define what you can do with a page. And that's where the problem lies. HTML isn't rich enough.
I don't mean to knock HTML. It has been good enough to be hugely useful. But it's lacking.
HTML's shortcoming become readily apparent whenever you (1) attempt to build a rich distributed forms based application or (2) want to strictly control the presentation. I realize that's not what HTML set out to do. Nevertheless, some people want to do those things. Or other things. And can't.
Things are happening, however. Take the tabbed browsing people are holding up as an example of progress. I don't think most people realize how right they are. Sure, tabs are a neat new navigation feature. But the real innovation is that Mozilla renders those tabs by processing XUL. It's the whole XPFE framework that ties together javascript, XUL, and CSS that's truly innovative. It's all good because now you can create distributed applications that use open standards to render rich content.
Now imagine adding native database support. Let's also have standards based calendar support. Who knows, maybe someone will tie this all together someday to come up with a bona-fide Exchange killer. I think it will happen. And more.
...by what spade do you call the conglomeration of concepts known individually as copyright, patent, trademark, servicemark, and tradename? I think this was the original question.
The original question posits that IP is an oxymoron. So you're right, we're supposed to find a term that merely circumscribes the individual concepts - without introducing prejudicial concepts.
I'm a big fan of RMS and his ideas, but personally I think he over does it with his semantic quibbling. The term "Intellectual Property" is perfectly fine, as far as I'm concerned. Property, after all, is simply something that is owned. But owned by who? RMS's beef lies primarily with individual/corporate claims of entitlement. But there's nothing about the definition of property that stipulates ownership cannot be shared. Before striving to avoid using prejudicial terminology, perhaps RMS would do well to examine his own apparent prejudice that "property" can only be individually appropriated.
Semantic quibbling detracts from the debate: who should control the disposition of so-called "intellectual" assets? Regulations governing the control of these assets vary according to the type of the asset - hence copyrights, patents, trademarks, and so forth. Within those particular categories, further divisions may be drawn. We might like to discuss software patents quite apart from mechanical inventions, for example. I've never noticed that there was any great confusion about this matter, either in the general population, or any branch of government. Why RMS confounds the obvious with his continuous semantic bickering is beyond me.
Strip RMS of his semantic peccadillos, however, and you will find a font of wisdom.
Wha? People using Windows can't print, use the internet, or get programs to run. So therefore they should keep using Windows?!
Your argument might make sense if everyone who had to print had to install and configure linux from scratch. Do these people who can't print install and configure Windows from scratch? Doubt it.
Any sysadmin worth half a nickle could get either Windows or Linux to work better than what you're describing. I think the frustration you're feeling is misdirected. It's not your users who have problems, it's your sysadmin.
What does this 'six year' figure mean? Does it mean they will buy all the computers now, and MS will support them for six years? Or does it mean that they are committing to this platform for six years? I'd guess the later, since current MS licensing practice tends to compell upgrades.
This practice basically amounts to selling vaporware. What will MS be putting on Army computers five years from now? Who knows? Nobody. Microsoft doesn't even know.
Personally, I'm more than a little apprehensive about Microsoft's future plans. DRM everywhere, for example. Yippie, the Army will be generating buttloads of documents that they will never be able to use without indefinately continuing to license Microsoft software. Of all the organizations in the world, you'd think the US military would be a little more concerned about being so vulnerable.
The army and Microsoft, together in perpetuity. Great.
Slashdot Mirror
you can't possibly draw contract document quality drawings with software at the same speed that you could with a pen and a good parallel bar.
.. Option 'B' .. Option 'Z'. Too long. You don't. Do you meticulously create stencils for each lab configuration you'd like to trace onto each new iteration of the floor plan? No. You fudge it. Lots and lots of fudge. Later someone who actually knows how to draw, in CAD, and hence design, will fix all of your stupid mistakes.
Bullshit. You're certainly not the first architectural sophist to posit their ineptitude is really a skill. Idiot rantings like yours are an insult to every bona-fide architect who's actually spent the time and effort to properly learn their trade. Just because you know how to use crayolas does not mean you are an artist. The building is the art, not the design document. Not the construction documents. The building.
This is not to say you can't design with pencils. Obviously you can. Many great architects have. And for sketching initial design concepts, a pencil, some graph paper, and some trace can't be beat.
But if you don't then move quickly into CAD, you're wasting time. You're fudging dimensions when you don't have to. You're making mistakes you don't have to. And it shows up in the final product. Things don't quite fit right. Seat counts don't add up. The mechanical systems interfere with the structural systems.
The biggest problem with CAD is that when you are untrained, you can use the power of CAD to just as quickly make a huge mess as you can to make a good design. The best thing in this instance about using pencil and paper is that it slows the poor designers down so they don't screw stuff up too badly.
But the better reason for not drawing with some software package is that they don't design.
Neither do pencils. Good designs are iterative. Apples don't fall on people's heads, knocking functional designs in all their crystalline beauty loose into the world.
With pencils, you use trace. How long does it take you to trace the whole frickin' floor plan? Option 'A'
It ups their processing costs A LOT if they have to do this everywhere.
What's a port?
Do I have any?
How can I check?
A place where ships are safe from storms. See also 'port of entry'.
You have an output port on your behind.
Do yoga.
...deliberately dled kid porn - which is clearly the majority of people with kp on their machines
This is a serious issue. It does absolutely no one any good when people like you make up bullshit facts to prop up your dubious point of view.
Lots of people who enjoy legitimate porn view it offline. E.G. - they suck entire newsgroups to their local computer. Only later do they peruse what they have. Perhaps much later. Perhaps never. What if someone injected some kiddie porn into the newsgroup? How do you distinguish kiddie porn from legitimate porn when you're downloading anyway? A lot of legitimate porn consists of middle-aged women in pigtails pretending to be teenagers. I'm not saying this is a turn-on or anything, but it is legitimate.
Your statement that people who have kiddie porn on their machine obtained it intentionally is what's really sick. It's sick because twisted made-up worldviews like that are what cause ignorant juries to put innocent defendants in jail. So straighten your head out, or shut the fuck up.
...the Governments of Germany and Peru won't see it that way
Actually, what would they see? Does this case have any standing outside of the US? I'm a total nincompoop when it comes to international law.
I'm as anti TIA call up pictures of my mom on a whim as anyone. But I'm pro-technology. In other discussions (p2p, for example) I often argue that the luddites should get out of the way. Technology is progress! If you're not with us, then you are a candlemaker in the age of electricity. Too bad for you.
/. about how people how post statements to /. are idiots. Those people truly are. But come on. I don't think the issue or answers here are at all obvious. They are worthy of deep thoughtful discussion. So screw on your thinking caps, and the next time this topic comes up (probably within the next 24 hours) try to add some depth to the conversation. This is a great forum in which to do so. Slashdot is read by millions. Take advantage. Get some good ideas out there. God knows we need them.
I think the same argument applies here. Like it or not, using databases to correlate huge repositories of information is just not that difficult. It's going to happen. How can it be stopped?
Are there any constitutional provisions protecting us from such technology? Not that I know of. Quite frankly, the constitution is rather ambiguous on the subject of your privacy. Witness the recent bruhaha vis-a-vis sodomy in Texas for example. In that case the Supreme court came down on the side of privacy. How the supremes feel about your medical records, your social security number, your photograph, your fingerprints, your school record, your criminal record, your address, etc. has yet to be determined. It's not so clear that anything in the US constitution protects you from the potential abuses inherent to correlating all that information. The constitution proper primarily concerns itself with what the goverment can do. The Bill of Rights primarily concerns itself with what the government cannot do. As far as I know, there's nothing in there that says the government can't make a database. Funny, it probably never occured to them.
On the other hand, the constitution doesn't protect you from the abuses inherent to giving everyone ready access to gasoline, either. Are you afraid of gasoline?
So here's an idea. If the government is going to create vast databases of information about its citizens - fine. But make those databases public. The problem is one of power. If only a few people have access, they have too much power. Give *everyone* access. It's not o.k for John Poindexter to look up pictures of my mom on a whim. But it's o.k. if anyone in the world can do so.
The truth is the truth. Who's afraid of the truth? The biggest lotto winner who gave millions to churches just had hundreds of thousands of dollars recovered behind the dumpster of the brothel he was visiting. That's the truth. You can read it in the papers. Throw open the bathroom doors! What you do with yourself is the Truth! Let it show, baby!
Yeah, whatever. I want to poop in private. I believe its my right to do so. I want to fuck in private too. And talk to my doctor about my vascectomy in private. I want my school records to remain private. I want my criminal record, meager as it may be, to remain private also. But I want to know if my neighbor is a child molester.
My main point is - this is goddamn complicated issue. And I'm getting pretty sick of the typical slashdot rhetoric. I'm not one to post statements to
Your point is completely moot, unless you can explain what makes Java "optimal" for this application. As I said, it was a capricious choice, with unfortunate consequences. There are many non-incumbered ways this application could have been written.
And don't go around talking about what I "expect" people to do. I don't "expect" people to do anything. But I'm free to speak my mind, and do. And you're free to disagree with me. But it would really be a lot more productive if you stuck to the point, rather than drawing sick analogies involving child molestation.
Free communication is a different cause than free software. I never said I disagreed. My point was simply that since the code was so close to being free, that it's really too bad that it ended up being programmed in an incumbered language like Java. There are many equally adept languages that wouldn't suffer this limitation.
...does not mean that Freenet should spend its resources advancing the Free Software/Open Source agenda at the expense of its own.
Well, the problem could have been avoided in the first place by choosing not to develop Freenet using Java. There's nothing so special about java that warrants abrogating your freedom. Seems like an easily avoided goof to me. Probably someone knew java, wanted to learn java, or some silly thing, and now we're stuck w/ a dependancy on non-free software. Too bad, because now that the mistake has been made, and so much effort has been expended, it would in fact be a chore to remedy.
One way out of this imbroglio would be to not rely on bleeding edge java features, so that the free java alternatives have a chance to become viable.
doesn't boot in less than a second
That will likely change. Google for '"instant on" computer'.
But anyway, you're right. For now. However, I'd like to see the general purpose PC usurp the PDA. The problem is, laptops are inherently large, for three primary reasons: (1) more horsepower, (2) bona-fide keyboards, (3) big displays. I might add (4), more ports/plugs, etc.
I don't want to give any of those things up. But I want them to fit in my pocket. I think it can happen. Moore's law will take care of number 1. A soon-to-rich inventor will concoct an extremely small form factor input mechanism to replace keyboards, mice, joysticks etc. which permits 80+ word/minute input speeds. That takes care of 2. Google for 'retinal display' or 'mems display' for the answer to 3. As for 4, who needs all those damn ports anyway? Daisy chained peripherals on an ultra fast serial bus is the future. One bus uber alles. That's fine with me.
Now why do we need a PDA?
concede McVoy's point - it's his product, protected by his license, and he can do anything he damn well pleases with it
That's right. And RMS can also do what he damn well pleases, and suggest BK should be replaced. Do you have a problem with that?
Most of the music being swapped would be protected even under the original 14-year copyright term
I wonder about that. Most of the music I would like to get my hands on is music I once purchased. I'd like to listen to old songs I have on old vinyl that is warped, scratched, etc. All of this is more than 14 years old.
I really have no idea what people trade on p2p.
Ironically, as passionately as I feel about the subject, I've only even looked at p2p clients once or twice. I don't use them. Why? Because the purposes for which I'd like to use them are illegal. Yes, that's right. As strongly as I disagree with the law, as vociferously as I rail against it, I obey it.
Using a p2p client to download a copy of a song which I purchased many years ago should not be illegal. It shouldn't be illegal whether I previously purchased the song before or not. If the song reaches a certain age, it should revert to the public domain. Congress has broken the public trust. The people responsible for this misdirection should be handed their walking papers.
I should probably be more specific. I'm speaking in the context of the current conversion - i.e. current IP law is tyrannical. E.G. - software patents, indefinite copyright extensions, goverment granted exchange carrier monopolies, a corrupt FCC, a corrupt ICANN, the DMCA, and on and on and on.
Normally, I think one would like to let an informed populace, living in a democracy, correct the situation. But what do you do when the laws in question are advocated by and for the media, who's job is to educate the general population? Do you think Time-Warner is going to launch an expose on the harm to the general welfare caused by monopolistic corporations holding title to all manner of so-called "intellectual property" for indefinite periods of time? Don't hold your breath.
It's a perplexing situation. A situation which by it's very nature indicates the value of p2p, anonymized communication, etc. These technologies are necessary to wrest control of our communications infrastructure from a self-interested oligarchy. Do you really think these people care solely about their patents and copyrights? Or do you see that perhaps they are also attempting to usurp the whole notion of end-to-end communication? The media giants cannot abide the notion that their world may crumble, so they're going to stomp on anyone who threatens to undermine their control of our communications infrastructure.
That is tyranny.
What tyranny? File sharers (i.e. those that share music to which they don't own the copyright) are breaking the law
You're missing the point. The law is tyrannical.
Well, for one, there's the fallacy of building the 20th country music station in country music country. If you built a rock-and-roll station instead you might get a larger audience than if you capture 1/20th of the more popular country market.
If you buy an mp3 player today, you have a plethora of choices. They all compete for the same mindshare. If you buy an ogg player, you look to Neuros. Neuros is going to make some good money (and acquire a lot of goodwill) by being the first to support a desireable but previously unsupported format.
The people who should be laid off are the nitwit executives who have so completely underestimated the value of their own assets. Mozilla is headed for ass-kicking country, and AOL is cozying up to Microsoft. What a bunch of idiots. No wonder they have so many problems. If I were a shareholder, I'd be seriously pissed. But then again, I'd never be a shareholder in a company that's so badly mismanaged.
Mistake: thinking that's there's only one source of metadata. Multiple metadata sources may exist for any particular object. The w3c attempts to address this issue with their rdf standard.
The first (the worst) option you mention, while not entirely apropriate, may indeed be closest to the ideal. Because we are not talking about a separate metadata file, but files . Now I wish I had a clever answer about how to maintain linkage between metadata and the things metadata describes as things move around, but I don't. But my main point is that metadata should likely be dissassociated from the thing it describes.
How do you place a value on damages?
...about 75% of the moaning I've heard will go away when and if browsers build a better text entry field
No, I think Bray is way off base here. The browser's page based metaphor greatly impedes the design of appropriate database interfaces.
I basically disagree with any argument premised on the notion that you shouldn't give people too much power, because they don't know what to do with it and they'll screw stuff up. Sure, if you give form designers the gamut of imaginable tools, you'll see some pretty horrendous results. So what? You'll also see some good stuff. And in the end, the market will make sensible choices about design sensibilities.
Junior school bands would sound a lot better if we didn't allow students to play woodwind instruments. Or cymbals. Or, well, quite frankly, most of them would sound better if they didn't play at all. But what a horrible world that would be. Because eventually they get better. Or quit.
...a digital music store that will let users burn as many songs to CDs as they want
I burn as many songs to CD as want already. Nobody has to let me. As long as it's non-commercial, etc., it's everyone's right to do so.
They should also realize that they're not more important, but simply have a different role to play. If this single wish of mine came true, I think society would improve a thousandfold.
Oh yeah. Thank goodness the pinstriped nebbishes at Harvard B-School have taken it upon themselves to bless us with their wisdom. I mean, if they didn't deign to poorly describe a phenomena that was created without them, managed without them, and works very well without them - thank you very much - what would we do!?
...the management of *people*... you know... those things that spit out code for you.
Here's a clue. Most of these people don't spit out code for you. That's the whole F'ing point. In fact, they're doing quite well without you. They are doing well precisely because floppy duckling Havard B-School grads have absolutely no involvement. Thank god.
I think things can stand some improvement.
As other have said, a browser more or less merely renders underlying protocols, and provides navigation facilities. The protocols themselves define what you can do with a page. And that's where the problem lies. HTML isn't rich enough.
I don't mean to knock HTML. It has been good enough to be hugely useful. But it's lacking.
HTML's shortcoming become readily apparent whenever you (1) attempt to build a rich distributed forms based application or (2) want to strictly control the presentation. I realize that's not what HTML set out to do. Nevertheless, some people want to do those things. Or other things. And can't.
Things are happening, however. Take the tabbed browsing people are holding up as an example of progress. I don't think most people realize how right they are. Sure, tabs are a neat new navigation feature. But the real innovation is that Mozilla renders those tabs by processing XUL. It's the whole XPFE framework that ties together javascript, XUL, and CSS that's truly innovative. It's all good because now you can create distributed applications that use open standards to render rich content.
Now imagine adding native database support. Let's also have standards based calendar support. Who knows, maybe someone will tie this all together someday to come up with a bona-fide Exchange killer. I think it will happen. And more.
...by what spade do you call the conglomeration of concepts known individually as copyright, patent, trademark, servicemark, and tradename? I think this was the original question.
The original question posits that IP is an oxymoron. So you're right, we're supposed to find a term that merely circumscribes the individual concepts - without introducing prejudicial concepts.
I'm a big fan of RMS and his ideas, but personally I think he over does it with his semantic quibbling. The term "Intellectual Property" is perfectly fine, as far as I'm concerned. Property, after all, is simply something that is owned. But owned by who? RMS's beef lies primarily with individual/corporate claims of entitlement. But there's nothing about the definition of property that stipulates ownership cannot be shared. Before striving to avoid using prejudicial terminology, perhaps RMS would do well to examine his own apparent prejudice that "property" can only be individually appropriated.
Semantic quibbling detracts from the debate: who should control the disposition of so-called "intellectual" assets? Regulations governing the control of these assets vary according to the type of the asset - hence copyrights, patents, trademarks, and so forth. Within those particular categories, further divisions may be drawn. We might like to discuss software patents quite apart from mechanical inventions, for example. I've never noticed that there was any great confusion about this matter, either in the general population, or any branch of government. Why RMS confounds the obvious with his continuous semantic bickering is beyond me.
Strip RMS of his semantic peccadillos, however, and you will find a font of wisdom.
Wha? People using Windows can't print, use the internet, or get programs to run. So therefore they should keep using Windows?!
Your argument might make sense if everyone who had to print had to install and configure linux from scratch. Do these people who can't print install and configure Windows from scratch? Doubt it.
Any sysadmin worth half a nickle could get either Windows or Linux to work better than what you're describing. I think the frustration you're feeling is misdirected. It's not your users who have problems, it's your sysadmin.
Or is every infrantryman a sysadmin of one?
What does this 'six year' figure mean? Does it mean they will buy all the computers now, and MS will support them for six years? Or does it mean that they are committing to this platform for six years? I'd guess the later, since current MS licensing practice tends to compell upgrades.
This practice basically amounts to selling vaporware. What will MS be putting on Army computers five years from now? Who knows? Nobody. Microsoft doesn't even know.
Personally, I'm more than a little apprehensive about Microsoft's future plans. DRM everywhere, for example. Yippie, the Army will be generating buttloads of documents that they will never be able to use without indefinately continuing to license Microsoft software. Of all the organizations in the world, you'd think the US military would be a little more concerned about being so vulnerable.
The army and Microsoft, together in perpetuity. Great.