I wasn't specifically referring to religious groups so much. Wikipedia link for info on Canada's stuff.... It appears that a lot of those laws actually specifically mention "offend" or "affront" more than "incite to violence," the general idea being that you can be accused of "hate speech" for less than inciting to violence, more along the lines of being publically offensive. And "offensive" can refer to "God hates [insert something here]" or "[insert something here] causes [insert disease here]" or "[insert something here] causes social breakdown."
I realize that most people are going to be complaining about this without reading the article.
So my question is, how is this different than shielding from "hate speech" about... say, homosexuality? Go look at Canada's laws. It's pretty much against the law to say anything bad about homosexuality up there, from what I understand from some Canadian friends that I have.
I'm not saying this law is a good thing. I'm a pretty conservative Christian, in fact, and I don't particularly think this is a good law, and I think if anything it will drive more people away. Plus it kind of implies a religion-set-up-by-government, which - Ireland being "Catholic" and thus claiming to believe in Jesus Christ from the Bible - is NOT what Jesus talked about. I don't think it's necessarily wrong to have the law - and I don't see how anyone else can say "this law is wrong!" without some basis for what is right or wrong. However, I don't see that it's necessarily right either. Just explaining my conservative Christian viewpoint. I think most slashdotters are going to be thinking that conservative Christians are going to think this is a great thing.
Anyways. I'm still interested in knowing why this is any more frightening, annoying, upsetting, infuriating, unfair, or censoring than saying I can't tell people that being gay is... hmmm, let's say, condemned by God, or... bad for humanity... or morally bad... or bad for society... or any number of other "bad" things that would be "hate" speech in some countries.
I'm not asking if it IS condemned, bad, or hateful. I'm asking how this is different, just because it's a different belief. Yes, belief. Homosexuality being good or bad for society is a belief, too...
One problem that is easily foreseeable: this would require very distinct and very specific libraries to be installed on all computers you want it to run on. That may work if all you use is DirectX, but if you use any other libraries of code... well, this really severely limits it. (example: I the exe I downloaded for the 4k demo crashed).
I would rather have to have an entire CD (incidentally, I wouldn't be able to use a floppy anymore) and be able to run it without downloading this, that, and one other library.:)
Well, duh. We don't need to enforce the Geneva Conventions. After all, the entire world is basically good and just waiting for someone to tell them what they should do to treat their fellow countries right!...
And if they don't, we can always remind them. Sternly, if necessary. Or give them a "time out" and make them sit in the corner. I'm sure that will take care of all but the most desperate dictators!
Ah, but may I mention that this time you don't need to be fooled by believing pre-release hype. You could have tried the beta and you can try the RC. I'm running the RC at home. I like it. If/when/whatever I buy Win 7 it won't be because of hype. It will be because I've run the RC for ~6 months and have found it to work well.
What Apple is trying to prevent is people connecting a Palm and getting a tab in iTunes that has multiple occurrences of the word "iPod". This can be seen as a subtle case of trademark dilution.
What Apple is trying to do is not let a non-Apple device sync with iTunes, isn't it? Without, I presume, some form of licensing or fee or something from the manufacturer. If that's not what they are doing, if all they really want to do is protect the trademark "iPod," then there is a major communication breakdown between Palm and Apple.
has many more reasons to be on their best behavior.
Many people have a lot of reasons to be on their best behavior, and many people have a lot of reasons to be on their worst behavior. That rarely stops many people from doing what they want to do or feel like doing...
... the interview was actually somewhat interesting. I have to say that, whatever I think about MS, Gates is a pretty interesting guy... and appears to be pretty smart and "well rounded. IMO, he made a pretty insightful (mod him +1;) ) comment about Google... the more vague it is, the more interesting it is.
Meh. I didn't like Vista, and kinda like 7 so far. Some MS products are cool. Some are awful. But I do have to say that Gates doesn't usually appear to be a stupid little upstart that got lucky or something like that.
There may be a time to debate whether or not Windows should exist at all. People also argue that automatic transmissions are stupid. (car analogy purpose: people argue about a lot of really stupid things:) ). IMO, Windows should exist because a company should be allowed to build software and should be allowed to not care about a standards committee.
But saying that Windows is the problem behind IE6 not being standards compliant seems a little far fetched. I suppose you could argue that MS is trying to get a vendor lock-in for their operating system or something like that... that's what the EU appeared to be trying to say and made a pretty stupid argument out of it, IMO.
IE6 is separate from Windows. You can upgrade to IE8. Or IE9 when it comes out. Or use Firefox, Safari, or Chrome. Windows is not the problem behind IE6. No more than Linux is the problem behind KDE4.
Hit yourself on the head with a crowbar, making you forget the password. Problem solved.
Maybe the information-hiding-people don't want to potentially allow themselves to be subjected to information-gathering techniques (*ahem* torture) by knowing the password. It's easier to just have the data destroyed after a certain period of time. Once it's gone, you don't have to forget a password and you don't have any password to be persuaded to remember?
MS has pretty good PR. Just not with the Slashdot crowd.
Which is good. Hopefully, Google PR doesn't affect the slashdot crowd either. After all, presumably, the "techies" should be more interested in the truth, not the PR. Whether it comes from Google, Apple, or Microsoft. I hate to break it to any fanboys of any of those three, but they are ALL in it for money. Neither Apple nor Google (and nobody thinks MS is) are altruistic "I just want to be your friend and help you do good things!" companies.:)
Sounds like we mostly agree at the root issue: we, as the creator, want the freedom to do as we see fit with what we create. If that means selling, then selling. If it means giving it away for free, then giving it away for free.
I don't think either of us wants to be forced to do either one.
In the end, I'd like to be listened to and be able to make a living out of being listened to. That requires a change of money from the consumer to me (yay).
At the moment, I make my living from a Large Computer Company, and write in the evenings.
Ultimately, I agree. I don't have to get rich. IMO, musicians (and actors, and artists, and authors, etc.) do nothing any more special than any other person... a programmer, a plumber, or whatever. Most people would rather go without another $20 CD of rock music that sounds like the other $20 CD of rock music than have to go without running water. Entertainment, though, has been blown out of proportion and is overpaid. On the other hand, some really good "artists" (let's lump everyone into that word) get paid well, and I think it should be that way (example.. Weird Al:)).
Short answer, I agree with you except that free-downloads-for-all won't help all musicians. If I was only able to sell one piece of sheet music, and after that it was public domain, I'm guessing there would be very few repeat sales. And if there WAS a repeat sale, and that person found out he could have gotten it for free, he'd probably be upset.
Relying on the generosity of my fellow man to give out of the depths of their gratitude for my sheet music doesn't seem like a very good business model. Sure, some people would... donate, shall we say, but I think most people wouldn't.
(on the other hand, I'm all for getting publishers out and just delivering it online, and I don't particularly like DRM either. I have a bunch of iTunes DRM protected music that I need to "convert" so I can play it on Linux. *sigh*)
enjoyable discussion, thanks.:) hope I wasn't too sarcastic.
Yes, I assume the patron of the arts will be one person. That's because the person I replied to is assuming that the First Sale should be enough. I'm saying that the First Sale price will then go up, and the group of people that can afford to buy the First Sale and then release it to the public for free is going to get smaller and smaller.
Yeah, if people all contribute a dime to its release, that's great. But that system seems pretty strange. It's almost more like a "Donate to the cause of releasing this song!" I'm not sure that's a viable model. It'd be hard to organize. I think it'd end up just not being organized. Why would I want to put down the first dime and wait indefinitely for the artist to release his music? I want it now. Pay online with PayPal and download instantly. And I don't see why I shouldn't be able to do that:)
So, you make a living doing live performances. Or, well, that's your... preferred venue. You use recordings as publicity. That's fine.
I happen to be a composer, actually (but software engineer is my work title;) ). I started with the piano at age 6... picked up trumpet, French horn, bass guitar, working on upright bass, some Irish whistle in there, alto recorder (have a great pearwood alto that is pretty cool... and a few others, had 10 sopranos at one point), can play a little guitar, hand drums, etc.
Some of my sheet music I give for free. Some if it, I wouldn't mind being paid for... especially concert pieces that groups will be playing for money (e.g., Christmas or patriotic music).
I'm sure other musicians don't make money from live performances but prefer to make money from recorded performances. Just because you use your recordings for publicity doesn't mean I or someone else has to. I don't care at all if you do. Be my guest:) I use free sheet music as "publicity." I give it away. It's one reason I am resisting going through a publisher... I would lose the rights to my own music... self-publishing sounds like a good idea.
But if I recorded something that was good, I wouldn't mind having the option of charging money for it.
Slashdot Mirror
I wasn't specifically referring to religious groups so much. Wikipedia link for info on Canada's stuff.... It appears that a lot of those laws actually specifically mention "offend" or "affront" more than "incite to violence," the general idea being that you can be accused of "hate speech" for less than inciting to violence, more along the lines of being publically offensive. And "offensive" can refer to "God hates [insert something here]" or "[insert something here] causes [insert disease here]" or "[insert something here] causes social breakdown."
I realize that most people are going to be complaining about this without reading the article.
So my question is, how is this different than shielding from "hate speech" about... say, homosexuality? Go look at Canada's laws. It's pretty much against the law to say anything bad about homosexuality up there, from what I understand from some Canadian friends that I have.
I'm not saying this law is a good thing. I'm a pretty conservative Christian, in fact, and I don't particularly think this is a good law, and I think if anything it will drive more people away. Plus it kind of implies a religion-set-up-by-government, which - Ireland being "Catholic" and thus claiming to believe in Jesus Christ from the Bible - is NOT what Jesus talked about. I don't think it's necessarily wrong to have the law - and I don't see how anyone else can say "this law is wrong!" without some basis for what is right or wrong. However, I don't see that it's necessarily right either. Just explaining my conservative Christian viewpoint. I think most slashdotters are going to be thinking that conservative Christians are going to think this is a great thing.
Anyways. I'm still interested in knowing why this is any more frightening, annoying, upsetting, infuriating, unfair, or censoring than saying I can't tell people that being gay is ... hmmm, let's say, condemned by God, or ... bad for humanity ... or morally bad ... or bad for society... or any number of other "bad" things that would be "hate" speech in some countries.
I'm not asking if it IS condemned, bad, or hateful. I'm asking how this is different, just because it's a different belief. Yes, belief. Homosexuality being good or bad for society is a belief, too...
One problem that is easily foreseeable: this would require very distinct and very specific libraries to be installed on all computers you want it to run on. That may work if all you use is DirectX, but if you use any other libraries of code... well, this really severely limits it. (example: I the exe I downloaded for the 4k demo crashed).
I would rather have to have an entire CD (incidentally, I wouldn't be able to use a floppy anymore) and be able to run it without downloading this, that, and one other library. :)
Well, duh. We don't need to enforce the Geneva Conventions. After all, the entire world is basically good and just waiting for someone to tell them what they should do to treat their fellow countries right! ...
And if they don't, we can always remind them. Sternly, if necessary. Or give them a "time out" and make them sit in the corner. I'm sure that will take care of all but the most desperate dictators!
[dripping with sarcasm]
Hehe. For the record (whoever is keeping one), comes from Monkey Island.
Have to hand it to them... they're pretty creative ;)
I have a masochistic love of hitting my head against the wall. ;)
Ah, but may I mention that this time you don't need to be fooled by believing pre-release hype. You could have tried the beta and you can try the RC. I'm running the RC at home. I like it. If/when/whatever I buy Win 7 it won't be because of hype. It will be because I've run the RC for ~6 months and have found it to work well.
I hope that's not considered "hype."
What Apple is trying to prevent is people connecting a Palm and getting a tab in iTunes that has multiple occurrences of the word "iPod". This can be seen as a subtle case of trademark dilution.
What Apple is trying to do is not let a non-Apple device sync with iTunes, isn't it? Without, I presume, some form of licensing or fee or something from the manufacturer. If that's not what they are doing, if all they really want to do is protect the trademark "iPod," then there is a major communication breakdown between Palm and Apple.
has many more reasons to be on their best behavior.
Many people have a lot of reasons to be on their best behavior, and many people have a lot of reasons to be on their worst behavior. That rarely stops many people from doing what they want to do or feel like doing...
I guess you don't want to have a Palm Pre or use Verizon's network, do you. :)
... the interview was actually somewhat interesting. I have to say that, whatever I think about MS, Gates is a pretty interesting guy... and appears to be pretty smart and "well rounded. IMO, he made a pretty insightful (mod him +1 ;) ) comment about Google... the more vague it is, the more interesting it is.
Meh. I didn't like Vista, and kinda like 7 so far. Some MS products are cool. Some are awful. But I do have to say that Gates doesn't usually appear to be a stupid little upstart that got lucky or something like that.
I barely use it, but the voicemail transcription and text-messaging "conversation" history is cool.
I don't see the need. They tell people themselves. ;)
There may be a time to debate whether or not Windows should exist at all. People also argue that automatic transmissions are stupid. (car analogy purpose: people argue about a lot of really stupid things :) ). IMO, Windows should exist because a company should be allowed to build software and should be allowed to not care about a standards committee.
But saying that Windows is the problem behind IE6 not being standards compliant seems a little far fetched. I suppose you could argue that MS is trying to get a vendor lock-in for their operating system or something like that... that's what the EU appeared to be trying to say and made a pretty stupid argument out of it, IMO.
IE6 is separate from Windows. You can upgrade to IE8. Or IE9 when it comes out. Or use Firefox, Safari, or Chrome. Windows is not the problem behind IE6. No more than Linux is the problem behind KDE4.
Some people like reaching a much of their potential audience as possible. Even if that means extra coding.
Maybe they didn't know how to program Expect (tcl). This would make Python much easier to maintain. ;)
Maybe if they lost it and thus can't reach it with a hammer? :)
Hit yourself on the head with a crowbar, making you forget the password. Problem solved.
Maybe the information-hiding-people don't want to potentially allow themselves to be subjected to information-gathering techniques (*ahem* torture) by knowing the password. It's easier to just have the data destroyed after a certain period of time. Once it's gone, you don't have to forget a password and you don't have any password to be persuaded to remember?
MS has pretty good PR. Just not with the Slashdot crowd.
Which is good. Hopefully, Google PR doesn't affect the slashdot crowd either. After all, presumably, the "techies" should be more interested in the truth, not the PR. Whether it comes from Google, Apple, or Microsoft. I hate to break it to any fanboys of any of those three, but they are ALL in it for money. Neither Apple nor Google (and nobody thinks MS is) are altruistic "I just want to be your friend and help you do good things!" companies. :)
Sounds like we mostly agree at the root issue: we, as the creator, want the freedom to do as we see fit with what we create. If that means selling, then selling. If it means giving it away for free, then giving it away for free.
I don't think either of us wants to be forced to do either one.
In the end, I'd like to be listened to and be able to make a living out of being listened to. That requires a change of money from the consumer to me (yay).
At the moment, I make my living from a Large Computer Company, and write in the evenings.
Ultimately, I agree. I don't have to get rich. IMO, musicians (and actors, and artists, and authors, etc.) do nothing any more special than any other person... a programmer, a plumber, or whatever. Most people would rather go without another $20 CD of rock music that sounds like the other $20 CD of rock music than have to go without running water. Entertainment, though, has been blown out of proportion and is overpaid. On the other hand, some really good "artists" (let's lump everyone into that word) get paid well, and I think it should be that way (example.. Weird Al :)).
Short answer, I agree with you except that free-downloads-for-all won't help all musicians. If I was only able to sell one piece of sheet music, and after that it was public domain, I'm guessing there would be very few repeat sales. And if there WAS a repeat sale, and that person found out he could have gotten it for free, he'd probably be upset.
Relying on the generosity of my fellow man to give out of the depths of their gratitude for my sheet music doesn't seem like a very good business model. Sure, some people would ... donate, shall we say, but I think most people wouldn't.
(on the other hand, I'm all for getting publishers out and just delivering it online, and I don't particularly like DRM either. I have a bunch of iTunes DRM protected music that I need to "convert" so I can play it on Linux. *sigh*)
enjoyable discussion, thanks. :) hope I wasn't too sarcastic.
No. Not too many people. I mean, who watches the Olympics?
Yes, I assume the patron of the arts will be one person. That's because the person I replied to is assuming that the First Sale should be enough. I'm saying that the First Sale price will then go up, and the group of people that can afford to buy the First Sale and then release it to the public for free is going to get smaller and smaller.
Yeah, if people all contribute a dime to its release, that's great. But that system seems pretty strange. It's almost more like a "Donate to the cause of releasing this song!" I'm not sure that's a viable model. It'd be hard to organize. I think it'd end up just not being organized. Why would I want to put down the first dime and wait indefinitely for the artist to release his music? I want it now. Pay online with PayPal and download instantly. And I don't see why I shouldn't be able to do that :)
So, you make a living doing live performances. Or, well, that's your ... preferred venue. You use recordings as publicity. That's fine.
I happen to be a composer, actually (but software engineer is my work title ;) ). I started with the piano at age 6... picked up trumpet, French horn, bass guitar, working on upright bass, some Irish whistle in there, alto recorder (have a great pearwood alto that is pretty cool... and a few others, had 10 sopranos at one point), can play a little guitar, hand drums, etc.
Some of my sheet music I give for free. Some if it, I wouldn't mind being paid for... especially concert pieces that groups will be playing for money (e.g., Christmas or patriotic music).
I'm sure other musicians don't make money from live performances but prefer to make money from recorded performances. Just because you use your recordings for publicity doesn't mean I or someone else has to. I don't care at all if you do. Be my guest :) I use free sheet music as "publicity." I give it away. It's one reason I am resisting going through a publisher... I would lose the rights to my own music... self-publishing sounds like a good idea.
But if I recorded something that was good, I wouldn't mind having the option of charging money for it.