The fact remains that if I was a terrorist trying to cause maximum chaos -- I sure wouldn't bother with anything remotely near the airport. Why go through the hassle? Everyone has a heightened sense of awareness about the whole thing - and you have to spend all that time training to learn to fly the plane, before you're even ready to do anything with it.
Why not look into sabotaging trucks carrying hazardous chemicals, or blowing up an arena or stadium during a huge concert or ball-game, or derailing trains, or any slew of other relatively unprotected means of transport and venues that are out there?
You're inherently "unsafe" any time you venture out in public. The airport is no different than any other place, other than the fear people have of getting on planes. (If they crash, you're nearly certain to die.)
I'm more concerned with the possibility of a mechanical failure than some wacko hijaacking the plane. At least I have the possibility of stopping a hijaacker. I don't forsee being able to climb out on the wing and do a quick engine repair before the plane crashes....
I've actually seen systems that started acting up when someone stuck a fairly powerful refrigerator magnet to the side of the case.
Every time I saw it happen, it was because the hard drive was mounted in the system almost directly behind where they stuck their magnet. Apparently, the magnet was actually tugging on the metal drive head assembly and inducing disk I/O errors.
It's been around 6 years since I dealt with this kind of thing though (used to be a PC tech and system builder at one of the "mom and pop" shops, that are almost all extinct nowdays). Systems may be better protected against magnetic fields now.
Yep! I didn't own one when they were still being sold new, but I bought a used one (and got a broken, second one thrown in free, to use for spare parts) at a used computer store in town, not *too* long after Osborne went out of business.
What's pretty funny now (but was actually pretty useful at the time!) is the screen magnifier accessory I got with mine. It was a big square magnifying glass on a metal rod that velcro'd to the top of the Osborne, so it sat about 6 inches in front of the tiny monitor display. Presto, more readable screen!
My guess was that either A) he's talking about an *old* laptop, back when memory was still expensive and some models used upgradable, socketed CPUs that were identical to the ones used in desktop systems, or B) someone with an identical model notebook (except a broken one) did a quick switch with his, and he didn't notice the different serial number.
I think the point was, the guy didn't really have any other way back home. The airline let him through on the initial trip. His problem was with the return trip.
What people fail to look at is the income being generated by these companies. Most people "hacking" DirecTV are still subscribing to it! The cheapest package they'll sell someone is $21.99 per month (going up to $24.99 per month next month!) - and hackers need to pay for this so their unique encrypted key won't get "blacklisted", effectively locking them out of using an "emulator" to get all the channels.
As I keep saying about these intellectual property issues; you as an individual or business always have the right to *attempt* to protect your IP from piracy/duplication. If, however, you fail to do so - I think that should be considered your loss, and not something worthy of tying up the legal system.
Yeah, it's probably far too early to tell what they really have in mind. (I doubt MS is really sure yet. If anything, they're probably still in the early stages of experimenting with different ideas to see what works best for them.)
The rough idea I got was that they want to make the file system a giant database, though. This would be a vast departure from NTFS, FAT32, or any other file system used today. They're saying "instead of creating database files on a hard drive, each for a specific application - and then creating all of these independent files and folders for the applications themselves, why not dump *everything* into one large database that *is* the file system?"
I would think that they wouldn't *have* to rewrite apps like Office in this scenario, but they'd *want* to - to take advantage of the new functionality possible with such a "database as filesystem" concept. Without a code rewrite, the Office apps wouldn't be able to import content via advanced search features. (EG. Import all photos on my drive related to the company I'm writing my letter to, above, and let me browse these thumbnails so I can find the ones I need.)
Exactly... Attempting to make a comparison between people's grasp of how to use a television and how to use a computer is pointless.
Can a device really get much simpler to use than a TV? You press "power" and it starts working. Then you select a station to watch. All the rest of the stuff is generally unnecessary. (How often do you play with the "tint" control, really?) In fact, try messing up all of the controls (contrast, color, tint, etc.) on your average set, and then turn it off and wait for someone to come along and try to watch TV. I bet you'd be surprised how many people freak out and exclaim "My TV is broken!" - and can't figure out on their own how to fix it.
Computers are supposed to be much more complex than a television. Otherwise, they'd be too limiting to serve all of their intended purposes.
From the beginning, computers were designed by and for people who found them interesting enough to invest a large amount of time in learning and mastering them. (Remember how the early home computers included a BASIC programming reference guide as part of the users' manual?) They never intended *everyone* to become proficient with computers. Like many things, they were a hobby for those who were inclined to tinker with them.
Sure, we've come a long way in the last 10 years or so. But still, computers (like medicine) evolve so rapidly, you still have to be committed to an ongoing time investment to keep up. Otherwise, you'll be stuck knowing nothing but, say, Windows 3.1.
Personally, I think the Sony memory stick isn't really such a bad little product. Granted, it *is* another example of Sony making a new standard, rather than using something else that already exists.
Still, I had a Toshiba camera that used those smartmedia cards, and I thought they were rather flimsy and prone to breakage. The memory stick takes up less space, due to its "stick of chewing gum" shape (instead of a more square "shrunken floppy disk" shape) - and you can buy 3rd. party clones (Lexar, Sandisk, etc.) that work just fine. Therefore, you're not really locked into paying an inflated price just because the stick says "Sony" on the front of it.
I tend to agree. I didn't buy any of the Loki software at all, and this is a big reason why. When you buy software, you're really entering into a legal contract with the developer - paying for the legal rights to use the product on limited terms (for use with only 1 PC, etc.) On their end of the contract, they promise to give you technical support and update patches to the product.
Why bother doing this with a developer that's expected to go down the tubes shortly? You'll still be held to your end of the contract (thanks to copyright law), even though they won't be upholding theirs after they go bankrupt.
True - not to mention, it probably looks pretty darn impressive on a resume for your next job if you show that you were that dedicated to completing the project(s) at hand.
That's one "fringe benefit" of programming for a living: While you crank out work for your employer, you also better yourself. Sometimes, the things you learn are worth much more than your paycheck.
Hmm... actually, I think you might be looking at things just a tad bit too cynically. I'm not in complete disagreement with you, obviously -- but you do get certain things when you vote Republican or Democrat.
I think it's fair to say that in general, the Republicans are going to push less for solutions that involve charitable hand-outs and programs, and more for tax-breaks and perks aimed at businesses. They'll also tend to side with socially conservative beliefs (hence the association with Republicans and the "war on drugs", as well as occasional pushes to "keep prayer in the schools" and so forth).
On the other hand, Democrats tend to be a little less predictable - but generally want to campaign based on promises of "improvements". This translates to funneling tax dollars towards aiding the poor, free public facilities, and any other changes that they think the "common man" will be pleased with. They're likely to give less value to a strong military, and see it as a good place to make budget cuts, in favor of their other projects.
I've talked to several people who commented that they like both the Green party and the Libertarian party. I think this just shows that people are frustrated and want something different.
Personally, I take issue with the fundamental philosophy of the Green party that government needs to intervene for the good of the consumer against "big business". I'm all for enforcing laws related to false advertising, because I think the consumer has a right to make well-informed puchasing decisions. To me though, that's pretty much where govt. interference should end. There's nothing inherently bad about big business. In fact, the more of them we have, the more jobs can be filled - improving the quality of more people's lives.
Finally, as far as govt. turning software decisions into a "state religion" -- I'm not sure that it's quite the same thing, but I see your point. Really, I think govt. needs to worry less about standardization across all of its branches and offices, and let the I.T. people they hired call the shots. If there's a need for office A to be able to network with office B, then write out the requirements - but don't specify the tools that must be purchased to do the job. If Linux and Samba networks fine with an NT server in another building, great.
Re:They'll never get me
on
Penguin2Apple
·
· Score: 2
Yep Dan, I totally agree with you (although I'm not a Mac user at this time). Actually, I did experiment with a Mac (Performa 6300) once, and had a fairly "blah" experience with it. Of course, OS X and the current crop of Mac systems is a good bit better than that old Performa....
I still stick to what I've been saying for quite a while now. Linux or BSD is the best and most cost-effective solution for a server today. That's one reason you see so many Novell houses migrating to a Linux or BSD environment. They're used to the concept of dedicated servers and aren't generally afraid of using a command line when it's the quickest way to get a task done.
For a workstation, for the typical user (or many power-users, even), the key thing is making your work easier, and providing the most pleasurable experience possible when using it for entertainment. Linux still pales in comparison to Windows or MacOS X in this.
Like you said, sure - some people already invested the time to learn VI, EMacs, and LaTeX. They're obviously going to champion the OS that gives them the tools they're used to using. Great, but don't cram it down the throats of those who haven't learned (or mastered) those tools. The important thing is the end results. When my document is printed out, nobody can look at it and say "Ah yeah, he typed this up using VI."
Yeah, I felt a little bit of that when I saw it for the first time. I was very interested in computers back then (even if all I had was a Timex Sinclair 1000 and 16K RAM expansion pack). I found it just a little too much that we're supposed to believe that inside a computer is all of this "life", and that you could somehow be beamed into that world to explore it as a person.
I saw it again, not that long ago, on satellite though - and I found it sort of enjoyable. I think it's old enough now that it's easier to smile at it, call it a "classic", and appreciate the advances we've made in computer graphics since then - while still realizing all the work that went into producing it.
Sometimes you just have to "let go" of reality enough to enjoy a movie or a book, and not let believability get in the way. I think this is something it took me a long time to come to terms with, as generally - I prefer movies to tell stories that are fathomable and believable, even if "far fetched".
Ok, I don't necessarily disagree with you there. The problem is, completely eliminating piracy is a very unrealistic goal. Many things would work in a utopia, but there's no point trying to achieve the unattainable. It's much more practical to find the best solution that works within the existing structure.
I think you even proved my point, to an extent, with your comment that "whether the product is $20 or $40, the same people will still copy them illegally". Those are the people that will never be satisfied with an argument that "complete elimination of piracy has brought you much better prices on your software".
I don't see it as a good news/bad news thing at all!
The people who are motivated to freely give away some of their bandwidth for the good of the community won't suddenly say "Oh darn, now I have to charge for it because this new wireless gateway is designed around a fee structure! There goes my idea for a freenet!" They'll just use other tools to get the job done. It's much easier to offer free access than to find ways of limiting access to paying customers.
This venture simply makes controlled wireless access more feasible (at a reasonable price), and gives more people a new option to share part of their bandwidth while charging for it.
This can't be a bad thing at all. Worst case: It ends up being a rather unpopular thing.
Much more realistic case: It doesn't have massive impact on the industry, but coffee houses and hotels start to catch on, and some of them make good use of it. So do a few enterprising individuals.
Yep, agreed! (Only, the software industry tries just as hard to alienate their customer-base. Look at how often people running computer bulletin boards in the pre-Inet days got a nasty FBI visit and confiscation of their property over alleged software piracy.)
(See my web site, for just one example.)
No matter what type of "intellectual property" is being peddled, the industries need to come to grips with the fact that it can and will be copied a certain percentage of the time without them receiving payment. This has *always* been the "nature of the beast", and attempts to reign it in are futile and self-destructive.
Despite what the letter of the law says, most people have no moral problem with making a duplicate of a video, song, article, or computer program once in a while. Common sense prevails, and it tells people that an artist, programmer, or even an entire industry is not going to suffer or collapse just because you copy one of their works.
I have no problem with taking legal action against someone trying to resell pirated works for profit on a commercial scale. That's a different situation (attempting to compete directly for sales of the work(s) in question).
Anything short of this, however, is just as likely to generate more future sales for the author of the work as it is to rob them of a sale.
I think it's rather clear that Gilmore isn't really running an open relay because he truly has concerns that some of his "friends" (who he doesn't trust enough to give accounts to on his system) might not be able to send out email.
He's merely trying to start trouble, for the sake of raising awareness that open-relay blocking won't eliminate spam.
I say fine, point taken - but you're still not part of the solution. Instead of bickering with an ISP over their rights to kick you off for breaking your terms of service agreement, why not help develop new tools to better filter out spam? That would do everyone much more good!
Well, while not wanting to wish "abject poverty" on anyone - I think reality is, we'll always have a large percentage of people falling into that classification. Some of it is due to the geography. There are certain places in the world that just aren't good to inhabit if you want to earn money and live a good quality of life.
If the Internet does eventually reach 30% of the population, I'd say that's due to the "trickle down" effect. PCs that the wealthier 10% discard as useless get recycled into quite usable Internet terminals for people who can't afford something newer.
Of course, the communications infrastructure is the limiting factor, ultimately. You can sit there with the nicest PC in the world, but you can't get online if nobody will give you a connection.
What kind of creative math brings you to *that* conclusion?
Again, let's examine who most of the game players are? As a general rule, they're younger people... teens, pre-teens, and a number of "20-somethings". These are exactly the demographics that don't generally tend to earn high incomes.
Just how many $50 games do you expect these people to buy in a year? Of course many of them have hundreds of pirated games - but they just copied them because it cost them nothing but the free time and a miniscule amount for the blank media.
Game developers need to face the facts that they'll *never* achieve more than a fractional number of people in the game-buying demographic who will buy any given game title. If you could completely stamp out *all* piracy tomorrow, I'd wager that software sales wouldn't go up noticeably.
The most successful games made recently sold as they did primarily because they worked well for LAN gaming and Internet play. This is the quickest way to achieve improved sales. (If you're on a limited budget, and you're ready to buy 1 new title, you're more likely to give in to peer pressure of your friends saying "Dude, you need to buy 'Cool Networked Battle-Bots' so we can duke it out this weekend!", than to just pick out a single-player game, based on some promises listed on the box.)
Ok, let me try one last time to clarify some things about my position. Maybe then, you won't find it quite so "baffling" (or maybe you will?).
1. I, first of all, don't believe it was wise to grant the telco a monopoly status in the first place. It created a big mess that we're still trying to sort out. If this was "nipped in the bud" by letting the free market work itself out, we'd probably have a system in place where several competitors *willingly* paid usage fees to use their share of the copper. Perhaps, a business would have spawned off that did nothing but maintain and run the copper wire itself?
2. As best I understand it, the telco was granted a monopoly status only after people complained about the mess of wires being strung all over on poles from competitors, all trying to have their own circuits.
3. 100 years + later, I feel confident we have little to fear about becoming overrun with unsightly copper wires everywhere if we deregulate the telco.
4. Since we really screwed things up a long time ago and needlessly restricted a thriving industry, it's time we take a fresh look at everything.
5. The companies that want so badly to share the existing copper infrastructure are just trying to take the "easy road" to some quick cash - rather than taking a long-term approach which would be far superior and benefit both them and the consumers.
6. Yes, the existing copper is profitable, to an extent - but only if you place a number of limitations on what types of services you'll be providing, and at what costs. As you point out, plenty of people use copper for T1 lines - but look at the pricing! Close to $1000 per month!?
7. If you just let the ILECs keep what they've got to themselves, but take an "anything else goes" attitude towards new communications technologies - I think you'll be surprised with what happens. If you give CLEC's free use of the lines, then you stiffle innovation. (What's the incentive to innovate, when you can use this "status-quo" stuff at no cost to you?)
8. Regarding the argument that "everyone should be able to use the network because it was essentially govt. owned for all these years".... That's sort of like saying I should be able to break into the homes of welfare recipients and eat food out of their fridge. (After all, I work and pay taxes into the system, right?)
Why do you think that the concept of a 3rd. party such as the Libertarian party is bad because the "country isn't split 50/50"?
If more Republicans really voted than Democrats by a 2:1 margin, we would never have any Democrats in office. The fact is, you're making very broad, generalized statements that don't hold up.
I also find it amusing that people still feel the voting system let them down in the last election. Sure, there was a lot of attempted corruption, and some incredibly stupid suggestions for making things right. "Yes, I can tell by the thumbprint on the right-hand side of the ballot, he meant to punch out this circle here." Whatever....
Still, common sense prevailed and we got through another election year with a winner and a loser. (Those who feel the wrong man was elected should consider pushing for an amendment to the Constitution next time it's up for discussion. The whole Electoral Congress thing has been debated before, after all....)
As for MS (more "on-topic" for this discussion thread), I don't think government really should do anything about them. At best, punish them for perjuring themselves during the trial, and be done with it. We've wasted I don't know how many tax dollars on this fiasco already, and in the end - the products people want to buy/use will win out.
I love Linux, but I also know it still has SERIOUS weaknesses as a mainstream desktop platform. If you disagree, I'd dare say you're looking at it through some dark-tinted glasses. Unix has always been a server OS, and it'll take a LOT to hammer and chisel it into a user-friendly desktop OS. Microsoft, on the other hand, started with a desktop OS and tried hammering and chiseling it into a large server OS. They're still struggling at that.
Most of the "competition" to MS hasn't been all that competitive, in hind-sight. Take OS/2, for example. IBM had a strong competitor going there - but they blew it by their own free will. (They were too greedy, and decided it was easier money to get in bed with MS and Windows NT than to compete.) BeOS, well - they never had the financial backing to do too much. If I want to go up against a BIG company, it takes some BIG dollars to do it properly. A superior product is the most important item, but you have to leverage that by peddling it to venture capitalists or other investors who see the potential and give you the funding to make it do big things. BeOS just didn't get there with it.
IMHO, it's pretty lame of people to cry out for govt. intervention when the real problem is that the vast majority *like* the MS products enough to keep buying them, over and over again.
Well, in my limited experience with the new Morpheus Preview software, I'd recommend deleting it too - but dunno what alternate client I'd recommend.
I grabbed it the first night they made it available, to see what they'd done to it. Fired it up and decided to let it run overnight, to see who would download my files. The next day, I found the Morpheus Preview had completely shut down on my machine. I tried to launch it again, and it refused to run. I had to reboot my PC (running Win2K SP2) before I could make it run again.
If it's that unstable, people aren't going to be sharing many files through it.... I can't say if the stability issues are rooted in the Gnucleus software it came from either. (Never tried Gnucleus.) But it's rather suspect.
Good for you. Let's hope that eventually, enough people become "enlightened" and vote Libertarian that the vote will actually make a difference!
As it was recently pointed out, although MS themselves donated a large percentage of their political contributions to the Republican party, their employees pretty much offset it by contributing mostly to the Democratic party. The 2 party system is pretty much a joke. People just cancel each other's votes out, bickering over the "issue du jour", while whichever party gains power will just follow the money anyway.
Your "game of Monopoly" metaphor would be much more fitting if you pointed out that the rules of the new game would be modified to include some new methods of monopolizing squares on the board.
That's the situation we're in today. Bell's copper wires aren't essential for transferring data (unlike Monopoly money, which is essential for buying properties in the game).
Just like a business full of old IBM XT computers, they might have been worth millions of dollars and been state of the art when they were first installed - but now, what value is left in them? Next to nothing....
That's rather like Bell in today's marketplace. They've got all of this legacy equipment that works reliably (and sure, there's something to be said for that!), but is no longer the best way to accomplish the tasks they're paid to perform.
All things being equal, 99% of the people out there would prefer having a single phone number that works no matter where they go. They don't want to worry about disconnect orders and reconnect orders, number changes, new area codes, and DSL that's only fast on download speed, not upload speed. They like wireless.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact remains that if I was a terrorist trying to cause maximum chaos -- I sure wouldn't bother with anything remotely near the airport. Why go through the hassle? Everyone has a heightened sense of awareness about the whole thing - and you have to spend all that time training to learn to fly the plane, before you're even ready to do anything with it.
Why not look into sabotaging trucks carrying hazardous chemicals, or blowing up an arena or stadium during a huge concert or ball-game, or derailing trains, or any slew of other relatively unprotected means of transport and venues that are out there?
You're inherently "unsafe" any time you venture out in public. The airport is no different than any other place, other than the fear people have of getting on planes. (If they crash, you're nearly certain to die.)
I'm more concerned with the possibility of a mechanical failure than some wacko hijaacking the plane. At least I have the possibility of stopping a hijaacker. I don't forsee being able to climb out on the wing and do a quick engine repair before the plane crashes....
I've actually seen systems that started acting up when someone stuck a fairly powerful refrigerator magnet to the side of the case.
Every time I saw it happen, it was because the hard drive was mounted in the system almost directly behind where they stuck their magnet.
Apparently, the magnet was actually tugging on the metal drive head assembly and inducing disk I/O errors.
It's been around 6 years since I dealt with this kind of thing though (used to be a PC tech and system builder at one of the "mom and pop" shops, that are almost all extinct nowdays). Systems may be better protected against magnetic fields now.
Yep! I didn't own one when they were still being sold new, but I bought a used one (and got a broken, second one thrown in free, to use for spare parts) at a used computer store in town, not *too* long after Osborne went out of business.
What's pretty funny now (but was actually pretty useful at the time!) is the screen magnifier accessory I got with mine. It was a big square magnifying glass on a metal rod that velcro'd to the top of the Osborne, so it sat about 6 inches in front of the tiny monitor display. Presto, more readable screen!
My guess was that either A) he's talking about an *old* laptop, back when memory was still expensive and some models used upgradable, socketed CPUs that were identical to the ones used in desktop systems, or B) someone with an identical model notebook (except a broken one) did a quick switch with his, and he didn't notice the different serial number.
I think the point was, the guy didn't really have any other way back home. The airline let him through on the initial trip. His problem was with the return trip.
What people fail to look at is the income being generated by these companies. Most people "hacking" DirecTV are still subscribing to it! The cheapest package they'll sell someone is $21.99 per month (going up to $24.99 per month next month!) - and hackers need to pay for this so their unique encrypted key won't get "blacklisted", effectively locking them out of using an "emulator" to get all the channels.
As I keep saying about these intellectual property issues; you as an individual or business always have the right to *attempt* to protect your IP from piracy/duplication. If, however, you fail to do so - I think that should be considered your loss, and not something worthy of tying up the legal system.
Yeah, it's probably far too early to tell what they really have in mind. (I doubt MS is really sure yet. If anything, they're probably still in the early stages of experimenting with different ideas to see what works best for them.)
The rough idea I got was that they want to make the file system a giant database, though. This would be a vast departure from NTFS, FAT32, or any other file system used today. They're saying "instead of creating database files on a hard drive, each for a specific application - and then creating all of these independent files and folders for the applications themselves, why not dump *everything* into one large database that *is* the file system?"
I would think that they wouldn't *have* to rewrite apps like Office in this scenario, but they'd *want* to - to take advantage of the new functionality possible with such a "database as filesystem" concept. Without a code rewrite, the Office apps wouldn't be able to import content via advanced search features. (EG. Import all photos on my drive related to the company I'm writing my letter to, above, and let me browse these thumbnails so I can find the ones I need.)
Exactly... Attempting to make a comparison between people's grasp of how to use a television and how to use a computer is pointless.
Can a device really get much simpler to use than a TV? You press "power" and it starts working. Then you select a station to watch. All the rest of the stuff is generally unnecessary. (How often do you play with the "tint" control, really?) In fact, try messing up all of the controls (contrast, color, tint, etc.) on your average set, and then turn it off and wait for someone to come along and try to watch TV.
I bet you'd be surprised how many people freak out and exclaim "My TV is broken!" - and can't figure out on their own how to fix it.
Computers are supposed to be much more complex than a television. Otherwise, they'd be too limiting to serve all of their intended purposes.
From the beginning, computers were designed by and for people who found them interesting enough to invest a large amount of time in learning and mastering them. (Remember how the early home computers included a BASIC programming reference guide as part of the users' manual?) They never intended *everyone* to become proficient with computers. Like many things, they were a hobby for those who were inclined to tinker with them.
Sure, we've come a long way in the last 10 years or so. But still, computers (like medicine) evolve so rapidly, you still have to be committed to an ongoing time investment to keep up. Otherwise, you'll be stuck knowing nothing but, say, Windows 3.1.
Personally, I think the Sony memory stick isn't really such a bad little product. Granted, it *is* another example of Sony making a new standard, rather than using something else that already exists.
Still, I had a Toshiba camera that used those smartmedia cards, and I thought they were rather flimsy and prone to breakage. The memory stick takes up less space, due to its "stick of chewing gum" shape (instead of a more square "shrunken floppy disk" shape) - and you can buy 3rd. party clones (Lexar, Sandisk, etc.) that work just fine. Therefore, you're not really locked into paying an inflated price just because the stick says "Sony" on the front of it.
I tend to agree. I didn't buy any of the Loki software at all, and this is a big reason why. When you buy software, you're really entering into a legal contract with the developer - paying for the legal rights to use the product on limited terms (for use with only 1 PC, etc.)
On their end of the contract, they promise to give you technical support and update patches to the product.
Why bother doing this with a developer that's expected to go down the tubes shortly? You'll still be held to your end of the contract (thanks to copyright law), even though they won't be upholding theirs after they go bankrupt.
True - not to mention, it probably looks pretty darn impressive on a resume for your next job if you show that you were that dedicated to completing the project(s) at hand.
That's one "fringe benefit" of programming for a living: While you crank out work for your employer, you also better yourself. Sometimes, the things you learn are worth much more than your paycheck.
Hmm... actually, I think you might be looking at things just a tad bit too cynically. I'm not in complete disagreement with you, obviously -- but you do get certain things when you vote Republican or Democrat.
I think it's fair to say that in general, the Republicans are going to push less for solutions that involve charitable hand-outs and programs, and more for tax-breaks and perks aimed at businesses. They'll also tend to side with socially conservative beliefs (hence the association with Republicans and the "war on drugs", as well as occasional pushes to "keep prayer in the schools" and so forth).
On the other hand, Democrats tend to be a little less predictable - but generally want to campaign based on promises of "improvements". This translates to funneling tax dollars towards aiding the poor, free public facilities, and any other changes that they think the "common man" will be pleased with. They're likely to give less value to a strong military, and see it as a good place to make budget cuts, in favor of their other projects.
I've talked to several people who commented that they like both the Green party and the Libertarian party. I think this just shows that people are frustrated and want something different.
Personally, I take issue with the fundamental philosophy of the Green party that government needs to intervene for the good of the consumer against "big business". I'm all for enforcing laws related to false advertising, because I think the consumer has a right to make well-informed puchasing decisions. To me though, that's pretty much where govt. interference should end. There's nothing inherently bad about big business. In fact, the more of them we have, the more jobs can be filled - improving the quality of more people's lives.
Finally, as far as govt. turning software decisions into a "state religion" -- I'm not sure that it's quite the same thing, but I see your point. Really, I think govt. needs to worry less about standardization across all of its branches and offices, and let the I.T. people they hired call the shots. If there's a need for office A to be able to network with office B, then write out the requirements - but don't specify the tools that must be purchased to do the job. If Linux and Samba networks fine with an NT server in another building, great.
Yep Dan, I totally agree with you (although I'm not a Mac user at this time). Actually, I did experiment with a Mac (Performa 6300) once, and had a fairly "blah" experience with it. Of course, OS X and the current crop of Mac systems is a good bit better than that old Performa....
I still stick to what I've been saying for quite a while now. Linux or BSD is the best and most cost-effective solution for a server today. That's one reason you see so many Novell houses migrating to a Linux or BSD environment. They're used to the concept of dedicated servers and aren't generally afraid of using a command line when it's the quickest way to get a task done.
For a workstation, for the typical user (or many power-users, even), the key thing is making your work easier, and providing the most pleasurable experience possible when using it for entertainment. Linux still pales in comparison to Windows or MacOS X in this.
Like you said, sure - some people already invested the time to learn VI, EMacs, and LaTeX.
They're obviously going to champion the OS that gives them the tools they're used to using. Great, but don't cram it down the throats of those who haven't learned (or mastered) those tools. The important thing is the end results. When my document is printed out, nobody can look at it and say "Ah yeah, he typed this up using VI."
Yeah, I felt a little bit of that when I saw it for the first time. I was very interested in computers back then (even if all I had was a Timex Sinclair 1000 and 16K RAM expansion pack). I found it just a little too much that we're supposed to believe that inside a computer is all of this "life", and that you could somehow be beamed into that world to explore it as a person.
I saw it again, not that long ago, on satellite though - and I found it sort of enjoyable. I think it's old enough now that it's easier to smile at it, call it a "classic", and appreciate the advances we've made in computer graphics since then - while still realizing all the work that went into producing it.
Sometimes you just have to "let go" of reality enough to enjoy a movie or a book, and not let believability get in the way. I think this is something it took me a long time to come to terms with, as generally - I prefer movies to tell stories that are fathomable and believable, even if "far fetched".
Ok, I don't necessarily disagree with you there. The problem is, completely eliminating piracy is a very unrealistic goal. Many things would work in a utopia, but there's no point trying to achieve the unattainable. It's much more practical to find the best solution that works within the existing structure.
I think you even proved my point, to an extent, with your comment that "whether the product is $20 or $40, the same people will still copy them illegally". Those are the people that will never be satisfied with an argument that "complete elimination of piracy has brought you much better prices on your software".
I don't see it as a good news/bad news thing at all!
The people who are motivated to freely give away some of their bandwidth for the good of the community won't suddenly say "Oh darn, now I have to charge for it because this new wireless gateway is designed around a fee structure! There goes my idea for a freenet!" They'll just use other tools to get the job done. It's much easier to offer free access than to find ways of limiting access to paying customers.
This venture simply makes controlled wireless access more feasible (at a reasonable price), and gives more people a new option to share part of their bandwidth while charging for it.
This can't be a bad thing at all. Worst case: It ends up being a rather unpopular thing.
Much more realistic case: It doesn't have massive impact on the industry, but coffee houses and hotels start to catch on, and some of them make good use of it. So do a few enterprising individuals.
Yep, agreed! (Only, the software industry tries just as hard to alienate their customer-base. Look at how often people running computer bulletin boards in the pre-Inet days got a nasty FBI visit and confiscation of their property over alleged software piracy.)
(See my web site, for just one example.)
No matter what type of "intellectual property" is being peddled, the industries need to come to grips with the fact that it can and will be copied a certain percentage of the time without them receiving payment. This has *always* been the "nature of the beast", and attempts to reign it in are futile and self-destructive.
Despite what the letter of the law says, most people have no moral problem with making a duplicate of a video, song, article, or computer program once in a while. Common sense prevails, and it tells people that an artist, programmer, or even an entire industry is not going to suffer or collapse just because you copy one of their works.
I have no problem with taking legal action against someone trying to resell pirated works for profit on a commercial scale. That's a different situation (attempting to compete directly for sales of the work(s) in question).
Anything short of this, however, is just as likely to generate more future sales for the author of the work as it is to rob them of a sale.
I think it's rather clear that Gilmore isn't really running an open relay because he truly has concerns that some of his "friends" (who he doesn't trust enough to give accounts to on his system) might not be able to send out email.
He's merely trying to start trouble, for the sake of raising awareness that open-relay blocking won't eliminate spam.
I say fine, point taken - but you're still not part of the solution. Instead of bickering with an ISP over their rights to kick you off for breaking your terms of service agreement, why not help develop new tools to better filter out spam? That would do everyone much more good!
Well, while not wanting to wish "abject poverty" on anyone - I think reality is, we'll always have a large percentage of people falling into that classification. Some of it is due to the geography. There are certain places in the world that just aren't good to inhabit if you want to earn money and live a good quality of life.
If the Internet does eventually reach 30% of the population, I'd say that's due to the "trickle down" effect. PCs that the wealthier 10% discard as useless get recycled into quite usable Internet terminals for people who can't afford something newer.
Of course, the communications infrastructure is the limiting factor, ultimately. You can sit there with the nicest PC in the world, but you can't get online if nobody will give you a connection.
What kind of creative math brings you to *that* conclusion?
Again, let's examine who most of the game players are? As a general rule, they're younger people... teens, pre-teens, and a number of "20-somethings". These are exactly the demographics that don't generally tend to earn high incomes.
Just how many $50 games do you expect these people to buy in a year? Of course many of them have hundreds of pirated games - but they just copied them because it cost them nothing but the free time and a miniscule amount for the blank media.
Game developers need to face the facts that they'll *never* achieve more than a fractional number of people in the game-buying demographic who will buy any given game title. If you could completely stamp out *all* piracy tomorrow, I'd wager that software sales wouldn't go up noticeably.
The most successful games made recently sold as they did primarily because they worked well for LAN gaming and Internet play. This is the quickest way to achieve improved sales. (If you're on a limited budget, and you're ready to buy 1 new title, you're more likely to give in to peer pressure of your friends saying "Dude, you need to buy 'Cool Networked Battle-Bots' so we can duke it out this weekend!", than to just pick out a single-player game, based on some promises listed on the box.)
Ok, let me try one last time to clarify some things about my position. Maybe then, you won't find it quite so "baffling" (or maybe you will?).
1. I, first of all, don't believe it was wise to grant the telco a monopoly status in the first place. It created a big mess that we're still trying to sort out. If this was "nipped in the bud" by letting the free market work itself out, we'd probably have a system in place where several competitors *willingly* paid usage fees to use their share of the copper. Perhaps, a business would have spawned off that did nothing but maintain and run the copper wire itself?
2. As best I understand it, the telco was granted a monopoly status only after people complained about the mess of wires being strung all over on poles from competitors, all trying to have their own circuits.
3. 100 years + later, I feel confident we have little to fear about becoming overrun with unsightly copper wires everywhere if we deregulate the telco.
4. Since we really screwed things up a long time ago and needlessly restricted a thriving industry, it's time we take a fresh look at everything.
5. The companies that want so badly to share the existing copper infrastructure are just trying to take the "easy road" to some quick cash - rather than taking a long-term approach which would be far superior and benefit both them and the consumers.
6. Yes, the existing copper is profitable, to an extent - but only if you place a number of limitations on what types of services you'll be providing, and at what costs. As you point out, plenty of people use copper for T1 lines - but look at the pricing! Close to $1000 per month!?
7. If you just let the ILECs keep what they've got to themselves, but take an "anything else goes" attitude towards new communications technologies - I think you'll be surprised with what happens. If you give CLEC's free use of the lines, then you stiffle innovation. (What's the incentive to innovate, when you can use this "status-quo" stuff at no cost to you?)
8. Regarding the argument that "everyone should be able to use the network because it was essentially govt. owned for all these years".... That's sort of like saying I should be able to break into the homes of welfare recipients and eat food out of their fridge. (After all, I work and pay taxes into the system, right?)
Why do you think that the concept of a 3rd. party such as the Libertarian party is bad because the "country isn't split 50/50"?
If more Republicans really voted than Democrats by a 2:1 margin, we would never have any Democrats in office. The fact is, you're making very broad, generalized statements that don't hold up.
I also find it amusing that people still feel the voting system let them down in the last election. Sure, there was a lot of attempted corruption, and some incredibly stupid suggestions for making things right. "Yes, I can tell by the thumbprint on the right-hand side of the ballot, he meant to punch out this circle here." Whatever....
Still, common sense prevailed and we got through another election year with a winner and a loser.
(Those who feel the wrong man was elected should consider pushing for an amendment to the Constitution next time it's up for discussion. The whole Electoral Congress thing has been debated before, after all....)
As for MS (more "on-topic" for this discussion thread), I don't think government really should do anything about them. At best, punish them for perjuring themselves during the trial, and be done with it. We've wasted I don't know how many tax dollars on this fiasco already, and in the end - the products people want to buy/use will win out.
I love Linux, but I also know it still has SERIOUS weaknesses as a mainstream desktop platform. If you disagree, I'd dare say you're looking at it through some dark-tinted glasses. Unix has always been a server OS, and it'll take a LOT to hammer and chisel it into a user-friendly desktop OS. Microsoft, on the other hand, started with a desktop OS and tried hammering and chiseling it into a large server OS. They're still struggling at that.
Most of the "competition" to MS hasn't been all that competitive, in hind-sight. Take OS/2, for example. IBM had a strong competitor going there - but they blew it by their own free will. (They were too greedy, and decided it was easier money to get in bed with MS and Windows NT than to compete.) BeOS, well - they never had the financial backing to do too much. If I want to go up against a BIG company, it takes some BIG dollars to do it properly. A superior product is the most important item, but you have to leverage that by peddling it to venture capitalists or other investors who see the potential and give you the funding to make it do big things. BeOS just didn't get there with it.
IMHO, it's pretty lame of people to cry out for govt. intervention when the real problem is that the vast majority *like* the MS products enough to keep buying them, over and over again.
Well, in my limited experience with the new Morpheus Preview software, I'd recommend deleting it too - but dunno what alternate client I'd recommend.
I grabbed it the first night they made it available, to see what they'd done to it. Fired it up and decided to let it run overnight, to see who would download my files. The next day, I found the Morpheus Preview had completely shut down on my machine. I tried to launch it again, and it refused to run. I had to reboot my PC (running Win2K SP2) before I could make it run again.
If it's that unstable, people aren't going to be sharing many files through it.... I can't say if the stability issues are rooted in the Gnucleus software it came from either. (Never tried Gnucleus.) But it's rather suspect.
Good for you. Let's hope that eventually, enough people become "enlightened" and vote Libertarian that the vote will actually make a difference!
As it was recently pointed out, although MS themselves donated a large percentage of their political contributions to the Republican party, their employees pretty much offset it by contributing mostly to the Democratic party. The 2 party system is pretty much a joke. People just cancel each other's votes out, bickering over the "issue du jour", while whichever party gains power will just follow the money anyway.
Your "game of Monopoly" metaphor would be much more fitting if you pointed out that the rules of the new game would be modified to include some new methods of monopolizing squares on the board.
That's the situation we're in today. Bell's copper wires aren't essential for transferring data (unlike Monopoly money, which is essential for buying properties in the game).
Just like a business full of old IBM XT computers, they might have been worth millions of dollars and been state of the art when they were first installed - but now, what value is left in them? Next to nothing....
That's rather like Bell in today's marketplace.
They've got all of this legacy equipment that works reliably (and sure, there's something to be said for that!), but is no longer the best way to accomplish the tasks they're paid to perform.
All things being equal, 99% of the people out there would prefer having a single phone number that works no matter where they go. They don't want to worry about disconnect orders and reconnect orders, number changes, new area codes, and DSL that's only fast on download speed, not upload speed. They like wireless.