I am named after Rabelais's "Jehan le Fou", who appears in a marvelous fable about externalities and the inability to control their benefits and/or charge for them.
I actually had a bit in my submission wherein I indicated that I'm not totally convinced by TFA's reasoning. As I stated above, the safest and best thing is to just get away from RIAA music altogether. I don't have an iPod or use iTunes at all, so I defer to the/. consensus, which is that TFA is making a mountain out of a molehill.
I don't totally buy the argument that personal data is included in order to deter p2p sharing. That struck me as tenuous. This may be a non-story, but the best response is, in my opinion, simply to get away from RIAA music altogether.
Things that should *not cause us to abandon literal interpretation of the Genesis account: science Things that *should cause us to abandon literal interpretation of the Genesis account: covering up naughtybits
Yeah, but the 95 following days would suck, as the BSA and everyone else with a vested interest in software patents lobbies the fsck out of the Congress and waters down patent reform until it poses no threat to the file-and-sue business model.
"No Visions, no Causes, no lawyers, no Compliance and papers-please-style-development"
I understand where you're coming from but would like to point out that acceptance of the status quo is *not ideologically neutral. The status quo was created by ideologues who didn't like the previous status quo.
That doesn't mean you have be up in arms, or a "zealot" as people like to call anyone who talks about values. But be intellectually honest, and say that the prevailing Vision/Cause (and I guess lawyers) are, in sum, acceptable to you.
'cause the barriers to entry in this market are so incredibly high that you often have no choice. If two providers (the cable and DSL co for a region) do this, that's sufficient.
They hate us 'cause we're *over *there -- we've been bombing San Antonio for 10 years. I'm suggesting we listen to our enemies and the CIA when it teaches about blowback...
#5 was my fave: "Reduced revenues for record companies mean less money available to take a risk on "underground" artists and more inclination to invest in "bankers" like American Idol stars. "
Think about that a sec. The suggestion is that they put a certain amount of their revenue toward sure things, and a certain amount toward high-risk, high reward speculation. This is the right way to invest.
But you don't change the % devoted to each kind of investment based on the size of the portfolio, do you?
Yes, the "amount" would increase, but the overall inclination (which, I think, is *heavily toward boring, homogenous revamps of previous successes) doesn't.
The fact that Google and IBM have a more sophisticated understanding of free software and its value does not "invite the shill accusation". Nor does it invite the other names you call the FSF here: "idealist" (which you seem to understand as a pejorative term?), and "holier-than-thou".
I heard you were doing this thing where you -- generously, I must say -- agree not to sue a distrbution's customers for infringing a bunch of patents that you won't name. I also heard -- and this is why I'm writing -- that *you are paying *them for this. So...
I'd like in on this. I'm going to create a new distro every day from now until August 7. In exchange for you not suing the people who buy or download it, I'd like you to give me, say, $5 million per distro. I can come down a bit, though.
"if you start looking at people with viewers, at least SOME of them will be watching the commercials. That's much 'better' than just assuming none of them ever do."
If you mean "better" in terms of scientific accuracy, you are right. But I'd like to suggest that "assuming none of them ever do" has a useful purpose too:
If you assume none of them ever do, you can convince Congress that the sky is falling and get technological control measures such as the DMCA or worse in place.
Digging into the email exchange I found Jamie saying:
1) You said that by using Intellisense I may be in breach of the dissasembly clause in the VS SDK license. 2) You said that by working out how to use an API by looking at the public type and method names I may be in breach of the reverse engineering clause in the VS SDK license. 3) You said that by adding a button to the Express SKU interface I may be in breach of Microsoft's copyright.
It's so old that it's carved in stone. Just kidding, but it's printed with a daisywheel. It says
"Encourage the perception of openness by occasionally tossing out a free version of something-or-other. Cripple these free versions mercilessly. If someone manages a workaround that makes them actually kinda useful maybe, sue himher out of existence"
"What is it about Microsoft and reinventing perfectly good tools. "
new here?
"I use TestDriven every single day I'm in work and I can tell you that this makes the licensed copy of Visual Studio 2005 (paid at full price) a much more functional piece of software. To me, this is validation of the ecology; the open source product made me feel that I'm getting more value out of the purchase."
k, but validating the ecology is of no interest to Microsoft. If the open source package makes MS product A more valuable, this is a *problem to be solved.
"This is even more hopeless than the War on Drugs."
The ineffectiveness of this stuff is so painfully obvious that I often wonder if even the dense skulls in the 'content industry' aren't fully aware of it. Maybe I'm paranoid, but it seems that all these "content industry" gripes result in one or another form of technology control measures. Does anyone wonder if controlling and restricting citizens' access to technology is the real purpose of all this parading?
"Why should consumers abide by or even care about an agreement between the MLB and the broadcaster?"
Because after the MLB and broadcaster come to an agreement, they go arm-in-arm to the Federal Government with stories about the "theft" of their "intellectual property". Lather, rinse, repeat for a decade or two and you get a situation where you can no longer use your own devices to pick up the signals shooting all around (and through) you. You will be *presumed *forbidden from doing anything with radio waves until you jump through a few hoops, i.e. discovering whether anyone claims to "own" those waves and what they'll allow you to do with them.
This is the logical conclusion of the argument "it's their content, they can dictate what you do with it"
Slashdot Mirror
If these stupid criminals and indentured servants would stop filling up the docks I would've colonized the galaxy awhile ago
I am named after Rabelais's "Jehan le Fou", who appears in a marvelous fable about externalities and the inability to control their benefits and/or charge for them.
I actually had a bit in my submission wherein I indicated that I'm not totally convinced by TFA's reasoning. As I stated above, the safest and best thing is to just get away from RIAA music altogether. I don't have an iPod or use iTunes at all, so I defer to the /. consensus, which is that TFA is making a mountain out of a molehill.
I don't totally buy the argument that personal data is included in order to deter p2p sharing. That struck me as tenuous. This may be a non-story, but the best response is, in my opinion, simply to get away from RIAA music altogether.
Now can someone name one (1) show that it's worth going to all this trouble to record?
I can't think of a show in the last 5 years that I have been the slightest bit bummed out about missing.
Things that should *not cause us to abandon literal interpretation of the Genesis account:
science
Things that *should cause us to abandon literal interpretation of the Genesis account:
covering up naughtybits
"OOh, THAT would be a happy day indeed."
Yeah, but the 95 following days would suck, as the BSA and everyone else with a vested interest in software patents lobbies the fsck out of the Congress and waters down patent reform until it poses no threat to the file-and-sue business model.
Disable this whole "internet" thing altogether. It's been full of security problems for Windows ever since someone dreamed it up.
"No Visions, no Causes, no lawyers, no Compliance and papers-please-style-development"
I understand where you're coming from but would like to point out that acceptance of the status quo is *not ideologically neutral. The status quo was created by ideologues who didn't like the previous status quo.
That doesn't mean you have be up in arms, or a "zealot" as people like to call anyone who talks about values. But be intellectually honest, and say that the prevailing Vision/Cause (and I guess lawyers) are, in sum, acceptable to you.
'cause the barriers to entry in this market are so incredibly high that you often have no choice. If two providers (the cable and DSL co for a region) do this, that's sufficient.
They hate us 'cause we're *over *there -- we've been bombing San Antonio for 10 years. I'm suggesting we listen to our enemies and the CIA when it teaches about blowback...
#5 was my fave:
"Reduced revenues for record companies mean less money available to take a risk on "underground" artists and more inclination to invest in "bankers" like American Idol stars. "
Think about that a sec. The suggestion is that they put a certain amount of their revenue toward sure things, and a certain amount toward high-risk, high reward speculation. This is the right way to invest.
But you don't change the % devoted to each kind of investment based on the size of the portfolio, do you?
Yes, the "amount" would increase, but the overall inclination (which, I think, is *heavily toward boring, homogenous revamps of previous successes) doesn't.
Which part of "truth" did you not understand?
The fact that Google and IBM have a more sophisticated understanding of free software and its value does not "invite the shill accusation". Nor does it invite the other names you call the FSF here: "idealist" (which you seem to understand as a pejorative term?), and "holier-than-thou".
I heard you were doing this thing where you -- generously, I must say -- agree not to sue a distrbution's customers for infringing a bunch of patents that you won't name. I also heard -- and this is why I'm writing -- that *you are paying *them for this. So...
I'd like in on this. I'm going to create a new distro every day from now until August 7. In exchange for you not suing the people who buy or download it, I'd like you to give me, say, $5 million per distro. I can come down a bit, though.
"what happened to closing the ASP loophole? :-) I guess the FSF doesn't want to cause too much pain to folk like Google."v 3-saas
http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/2007-03-29-gpl
(PS: the 'RMS fanboys' might be angry with you because you repeatedly call them names and suggest that the FSF is pandering to IBM and/or Google)
http://judiciary.house.gov/committeestructure.aspx ?committee=3
"if you start looking at people with viewers, at least SOME of them will be watching the commercials. That's much 'better' than just assuming none of them ever do."
If you mean "better" in terms of scientific accuracy, you are right. But I'd like to suggest that "assuming none of them ever do" has a useful purpose too:
If you assume none of them ever do, you can convince Congress that the sky is falling and get technological control measures such as the DMCA or worse in place.
Digging into the email exchange I found Jamie saying:
1) You said that by using Intellisense I may be in breach of the
dissasembly clause in the VS SDK license.
2) You said that by working out how to use an API by looking at the
public type and method names I may be in breach of the reverse
engineering clause in the VS SDK license.
3) You said that by adding a button to the Express SKU interface I may
be in breach of Microsoft's copyright.
#3 is particularly funny
It's so old that it's carved in stone. Just kidding, but it's printed with a daisywheel. It says
"Encourage the perception of openness by occasionally tossing out a free version of something-or-other. Cripple these free versions mercilessly. If someone manages a workaround that makes them actually kinda useful maybe, sue himher out of existence"
"What is it about Microsoft and reinventing perfectly good tools. "
new here?
"I use TestDriven every single day I'm in work and I can tell you that this makes the licensed copy of Visual Studio 2005 (paid at full price) a much more functional piece of software. To me, this is validation of the ecology; the open source product made me feel that I'm getting more value out of the purchase."
k, but validating the ecology is of no interest to Microsoft. If the open source package makes MS product A more valuable, this is a *problem to be solved.
"This is even more hopeless than the War on Drugs."
The ineffectiveness of this stuff is so painfully obvious that I often wonder if even the dense skulls in the 'content industry' aren't fully aware of it. Maybe I'm paranoid, but it seems that all these "content industry" gripes result in one or another form of technology control measures. Does anyone wonder if controlling and restricting citizens' access to technology is the real purpose of all this parading?
"Why should consumers abide by or even care about an agreement between the MLB and the broadcaster?"
Because after the MLB and broadcaster come to an agreement, they go arm-in-arm to the Federal Government with stories about the "theft" of their "intellectual property". Lather, rinse, repeat for a decade or two and you get a situation where you can no longer use your own devices to pick up the signals shooting all around (and through) you. You will be *presumed *forbidden from doing anything with radio waves until you jump through a few hoops, i.e. discovering whether anyone claims to "own" those waves and what they'll allow you to do with them.
This is the logical conclusion of the argument "it's their content, they can dictate what you do with it"
no text
the word they're looking for is not "clone" but "competition". This is, therefore, a Very Special agreement indeed:
"We will not sue you for patent infringement as long as your products are not similar to ours."