"Somebody needs to pay you for something"
This is actually not true. You may *want very much to get money for something you've done, such as compose a melody or arranged your toenail clippings into a heart shape. But in a free society decisions about who *actually gets paid are made in a distributed way. Namely, they are made based on the marginal utility of what you've created, and the availability and price of the next-best substitute.
hm. I would be willing to bet that you have exhaled some carbon dioxide recently. Do you have any particular right to control what happens to it from now on?
"the transformation to digital methods of production and distribution therefore poses to the twenty-first century a fundamental moral problem. If I can provide to everyone all goods of intellectual value or beauty, for the same price that I can provide the first copy of those works to anyone, why is it ever moral to exclude anyone from anything?"
I don't think you're right about how they see it "They see it as theft because pirates are depriving them of money that would otherwise..."
I assure you they are lawyers, and businessmen, or at least that they frequently talk to such. They know perfectly well that it's not theft, and that their "lost sales" figures are insanely hyperbolic.
I have long since stopped giving the RIAA the benefit of the doubt -- attributing their tactics to innocent ignorance. They are trying to subvert our justice system to hold on to illegitimate market power based on a government-granted monopoly. They know exactly what they are doing.
That is why I use RIAA radar (http://www.riaaradar.com/) and steadfastly stay clear of any of the RIAA's offerings. This has not been without pain -- Bjork and TMBG both made recordings last year that i would have otherwise been first in line to buy.
You can call QuickBooks a "Virtual CPA" if you want, but that doesn't make QuickBooks a service -- as in, a service that a person does for example in exchange for money or camels.
TFA: "Sun would have to grow MySQL's revenues to $500 million per year to bring it into sync with the purchase price"
That's a 7X increase, no small potatoes, but if Sun is thinking long term (esp., hopefully, w/r/t international markets), I don't think this is as unlikely as the article writer seems to.
As the good doctor never gets tired of pointing out, the problem with World of Warcraft currency is its artificial manipulation by the Federal Orlock reserve. This is why I support RP in his longshot bid for WoW sysadmin.
Your hotmail contacts are a data set. Reading them, even automagically using technology that was boring in 1975, is not a service but a natural human faculty.
"And besides, 25 cents per user per year?"
Not a huge number, but "25 cents per user per year per relevant dataset" would be a dealbreaker for every startup I know.
That's because only Genuine Windows Vista Home Premium's Digital Rights Management Trustation Computing can secure Intellectual Property for your Enterprise etc.
"It's not that I'm narrow minded, it's that every person I know who is religious doesn't seem to understand everyday events (easily explained by science)"
It sounds as though your sample size may be insufficient to support your generalization
I agree with Pseud you're trying to have it both ways. Your earlier statement: "It's just that we label people who research the past "Historians" rather than "Scientists", even when they use evidence and scientific methods in their approach." applies here.
If people use logical reasoning to explore religious questions, we call them theologians. My whole point in here is that such people are *different from anti-darwin, anti-science "religious".
Using your analogy, the anti-Darwin mob is more like those people who deny we landed on the moon: they're like bad historians, but the existence of bad historians doesn't mean there's no such thing as History.
"To reach the level of perjury you need to show that she knowingly and intentionally lied. There are two problems here -- First, she only said it once and claims that she didn't hear the question."
How on earth could anyone ever be tried for perjury then? Tell your lie, under oath, then claim that you didn't hear the question.
"Your answer was false" "Yes, your honor, but it's not perjury 'cause that *is a *true answer to some other question. Just not the one I was asked"
"Why does anyone need to invent more meaning than the occurrence itself? It occurred, that is exactly it means,"
I don't agree w/r/t occurrences that come from our actions. Those are not simple, independently observed events, but derive meaning from factors such as what-we-intended. "A guy died" is a description of a simple occurrence. "I killed a guy" is quite different.
See, that's my point. "Magic man dunnit" is no more the core of religious belief than "people came from monkeys" is the core of evolutionary science. When people attack evolution on those grounds, you can't do much but recommend they read S.J. Gould et al.
Likewise, I recommend people look at, say, Martin Buber, Paul Tillich, Hans Kung, Simone Weil, to get an idea of what a sophisticated religious outlook can be.
Nope, but I'd like it if they were taught that war (like religion) can be the cause of great human suffering and that for this reason it (like religion) must be analyzed with every ounce of critical thinking we can muster.
I know it's optimistic to hope for critical thinking in schools, but the alternative -- simply not discussing such topics -- amounts not to education, but vocational prep.
Slashdot Mirror
"Somebody needs to pay you for something" This is actually not true. You may *want very much to get money for something you've done, such as compose a melody or arranged your toenail clippings into a heart shape. But in a free society decisions about who *actually gets paid are made in a distributed way. Namely, they are made based on the marginal utility of what you've created, and the availability and price of the next-best substitute.
hm. I would be willing to bet that you have exhaled some carbon dioxide recently. Do you have any particular right to control what happens to it from now on?
"the transformation to digital methods of production and distribution therefore poses to the twenty-first century a fundamental moral problem. If I can provide to everyone all goods of intellectual value or beauty, for the same price that I can provide the first copy of those works to anyone, why is it ever moral to exclude anyone from anything?"
Moglen
I don't think you're right about how they see it
"They see it as theft because pirates are depriving them of money that would otherwise..."
I assure you they are lawyers, and businessmen, or at least that they frequently talk to such. They know perfectly well that it's not theft, and that their "lost sales" figures are insanely hyperbolic.
I have long since stopped giving the RIAA the benefit of the doubt -- attributing their tactics to innocent ignorance. They are trying to subvert our justice system to hold on to illegitimate market power based on a government-granted monopoly. They know exactly what they are doing.
That is why I use RIAA radar (http://www.riaaradar.com/) and steadfastly stay clear of any of the RIAA's offerings. This has not been without pain -- Bjork and TMBG both made recordings last year that i would have otherwise been first in line to buy.
You can call QuickBooks a "Virtual CPA" if you want, but that doesn't make QuickBooks a service -- as in, a service that a person does for example in exchange for money or camels.
The proprietary, non-free software product is part of their "better support."
Yes, it's the non-support part. That's why it's called the "product"
People will pay you for exactly two things (excluding charity):
1) Giving them something (a product)
2) Doing something for them (a service)
FWIW, I have heard that MySQL's support services are *great, and well worth the money.
TFA: "Sun would have to grow MySQL's revenues to $500 million per year to bring it into sync with the purchase price"
That's a 7X increase, no small potatoes, but if Sun is thinking long term (esp., hopefully, w/r/t international markets), I don't think this is as unlikely as the article writer seems to.
"They're offering better support"
No, as per the quote they're offering a proprietary, non-free software product. Hence the criticism.
Note: I don't say they're evil for doing this, only that they're definitely "guilty" of it.
We can rely on that now? I hadn't heard...
As the good doctor never gets tired of pointing out, the problem with World of Warcraft currency is its artificial manipulation by the Federal Orlock reserve. This is why I support RP in his longshot bid for WoW sysadmin.
Your hotmail contacts are a data set. Reading them, even automagically using technology that was boring in 1975, is not a service but a natural human faculty.
"And besides, 25 cents per user per year?"
Not a huge number, but "25 cents per user per year per relevant dataset" would be a dealbreaker for every startup I know.
"Drop Microsoft! Just drop them"
You're actually suggesting there are viable substitutes for Hotmail?!@!?
Sure.
When you're done, can I ask why you are apparently barred from accessing google?
just a joke, all in good fun.
http://www.surgicalassistant.org/html/TermsofUse.html
Maybe CNET forbids linking to their site, y'know, to protect their intellectual property
That's because only Genuine Windows Vista Home Premium's Digital Rights Management Trustation Computing can secure Intellectual Property for your Enterprise etc.
I'll indulge as soon as they buy me a windows machine with IE and tasty WMP DRM etc.
You guys are kind of optimistic. I expect the TV-B-Gone to be banned as somehow violating someone's "intellectual property" or some such.
"It's not that I'm narrow minded, it's that every person I know who is religious doesn't seem to understand everyday events (easily explained by science)"
It sounds as though your sample size may be insufficient to support your generalization
I agree with Pseud you're trying to have it both ways. Your earlier statement:
"It's just that we label people who research the past "Historians" rather than "Scientists", even when they use evidence and scientific methods in their approach."
applies here.
If people use logical reasoning to explore religious questions, we call them theologians. My whole point in here is that such people are *different from anti-darwin, anti-science "religious".
Using your analogy, the anti-Darwin mob is more like those people who deny we landed on the moon: they're like bad historians, but the existence of bad historians doesn't mean there's no such thing as History.
"To reach the level of perjury you need to show that she knowingly and intentionally lied. There are two problems here -- First, she only said it once and claims that she didn't hear the question."
How on earth could anyone ever be tried for perjury then? Tell your lie, under oath, then claim that you didn't hear the question.
"Your answer was false"
"Yes, your honor, but it's not perjury 'cause that *is a *true answer to some other question. Just not the one I was asked"
"Why does anyone need to invent more meaning than the occurrence itself? It occurred, that is exactly it means,"
I don't agree w/r/t occurrences that come from our actions. Those are not simple, independently observed events, but derive meaning from factors such as what-we-intended. "A guy died" is a description of a simple occurrence. "I killed a guy" is quite different.
"So what is the core of religious belief?"
Well, a full discussion thereof would be outside the scope of a slashdot thread, but off the cuff I'd say:
the core idea of religion is that there is *meaning in, around, behind, or through the things that occur in the universe.
See, that's my point. "Magic man dunnit" is no more the core of religious belief than "people came from monkeys" is the core of evolutionary science. When people attack evolution on those grounds, you can't do much but recommend they read S.J. Gould et al.
Likewise, I recommend people look at, say, Martin Buber, Paul Tillich, Hans Kung, Simone Weil, to get an idea of what a sophisticated religious outlook can be.
Nope, but I'd like it if they were taught that war (like religion) can be the cause of great human suffering and that for this reason it (like religion) must be analyzed with every ounce of critical thinking we can muster.
I know it's optimistic to hope for critical thinking in schools, but the alternative -- simply not discussing such topics -- amounts not to education, but vocational prep.