"you really are the worst kind of fanboi if you've managed to entirely blind yourself to the benefits of using Windows. I really would rather have people who can make a reasonsed arguments without distorting the facts as advocates for my platforms of choice."
Of course there are advantages to using windows. There are 'advantages' to doing anything, including drinking cyanide (you learn what cyanide tastes like, maybe other people learn more about its effects from your corpse). GP is saying the advantages of free software are incomparably greater. I sum it up this way:
With free software, you can do anything you want if you set your mind to it (including, btw, running any windows-targeted game via Cedega, WINE, etc.)
With Windows, you can do anything you want if enough programmers in Redmond set their minds to it, and the managerial force thinks it fits in with the user experience they're targeting, and the RIAA & MPAA bless the endeavor, and so on and so on...
It turns out we're in a historical situation where a lot of the things people want to do pass through all those "checks". That doesn't mean they don't exist.
You'll have to forgive some of these guys, WNight. See, we in the U.S. have gone through roughly a century in which every single thing that could conceivably benefit anyone had a UPC symbol attached to it and started getting traded on the commodities market.
Criterion, it's like this: it is only rational to exchange scarce tokens (i.e. money) for scarce resources (CPU cycles). Pretend your brain is an SL server. Now picture two things:
1. A ten-foot by ten-foot square 2. A ten-mile by ten-mile square
During which of those did you use up more of your breakfast?
Dang, look at this bit in TFA; it's from True.com's TOS
'You also agree not to dispute any authorized charge by True.com or its authorized agents." And "if you fraudulent[ly] report that an authorized charge by True.com or its authorized agents is unauthorized, you shall be liable to True.com for liquidated damages of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) per incident.'
Citizens: never, ever, ever "agree not to dispute"...
But what, for example, would be wrong with having a thin client in every home, if people want the complicated stuff taken care of by someone else?
This also addresses the post below that makes an analogy to the phone network. That's a very complicated network, but ordinary phones can only do a few simple things to/on it.
The full-featured PC in every home sometimes just seems like having a Class 4 telephone switch in every home; it's not necessary, and it has the potential to create serious havoc.
"How do you propose removing the value from information? Is this the typical "steal everything so it has no value" concept, or the "force everyone to contribute with no expectation of anything in return" concept, or do you have something different in mind?"
Lots of issues, and questions of terminology, in there.
On "removing the value from information" the question of what *kind of value you're talking about is pertinent. Information's *use-value cannot be "removed" -- it depends solely on the situation of the person learning the information. As an example take "E=mc squared". This is a piece of information, and if you can put it to use, it's extremely valuable because it allows you to generate tremendous amounts of energy.
Information's *exchange value, however, is a different story. If I can persuade you to pay me $10 for the secret relationship between mass and energy, you might agree. But after I've revealed it, it costs you nothing to duplicate that information as many times as you want. You can immediately become my competitor in the "industry" of this particular piece of information by selling the secret for $5 a pop. And nothing prevents me telling my sister for free if I want. (She, however, can start charging $4...ow)
Your suggestion that one can deflate the value of something by stealing it is puzzling. When I tell my sister what E equals, I do not steal anything, because you still possess everything you formerly did, including the $10. I've deflated the exchange-value of this information insofar as you probably cannot now sell it to my sister.
It is also logically impossible to force people to do anything with no expectation of return. If I threaten your life and say "do X or I will beat you" then not-being-beaten is what you expect in return for doing X. Your expectations might be unrealistic; I might beat you anyway. However, as a libertarian, I'm more inclined to leave you alone and let you do whatever you want, so long as you don't harm me.
Will you discover that E=mc squared, or how to make a million dollars in Real Estate? Maybe, maybe not. But if you do, I don't understand why I should pretend your discovery is not what it is: information. You can refuse to tell me what E equals, of course. But if I discover it -- whether by experiment, or because you talk in your sleep -- then its exchange value is deflated because of its nature.
My turn for a question: where do you think information gets its value?
You missed the point. Computers are like cars that can do a tremendous amount of damage to the driving experience of others without the operator even necessarily knowing about it.
No, drivers don't *want to be mechanics. They don't even *want to take drivers ed. These things are required of them by law in accordance with the externalities that the resepective devices do/can generate. If there were a flux capacitor in your car, so that it was potentially capable of blowing up your city, the driver's license test for that car would require some knowledge of nuclear physics.
I'm guilty of some sneering at the 'average' computer user, and I'm working on that, but I'd like to point something out:
Computing -- especially in a *globally networked environment -- is *in *fact complicated. Doing it responsibly, in a way that doesn't wreck the environment for others (Cf. botnets) is difficult. Many of the users who "just want to get some work done" outsource the complexity, but don't mind if the network suffers the externalities because they don't feel like learning what true security requires.
If someone doesn't want to learn to drive, they have public transportation and taxis available to them and God bless 'em. But taxis and buses don't damage the roadways and the other vehicles on it during ordinary use.
Basically I sometimes wonder whether putting a PC in every home was such a hot idea after all.
I predict he attach a signing statement to the effect that
"The Executive Branch shall construe this bill in a manner consistent with the requirements that state and federal courts rely on and defer to presidential signing statements as a source of authority."
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) introduced the Presidential Signing Statements Act of 2006 on July 26, 2006. [2]The bill would:
1. Instruct all state and federal courts to ignore presidential signing statements. ("No State or Federal court shall rely on or defer to a presidential signing statement as a source of authority.")
2. Instruct the Supreme Court to allow the U.S. Senate or U.S. House of Representatives to file suit in order to determine the constitutionality of signing statements. [3]
* Google collects personal information when you register for a Google service or otherwise voluntarily provide such information. We may combine personal information collected from you with information from other Google services or third parties to provide a better user experience, including customizing content for you.
* Google uses cookies and other technologies to enhance your online experience and to learn about how you use Google services in order to improve the quality of our services.
* Google's servers automatically record information when you visit our website or use some of our products, including the URL, IP address, browser type and language, and the date and time of your request.
* Read more in the full privacy policy.
Uses
* We may use personal information to provide the services you've requested, including services that display customized content and advertising.
* We may also use personal information for auditing, research and analysis to operate and improve Google technologies and services.
* We may share aggregated non-personal information with third parties outside of Google.
* When we use third parties to assist us in processing your personal information, we require that they comply with our Privacy Policy and any other appropriate confidentiality and security measures.
* We may also share information with third parties in limited circumstances, including when complying with legal process, preventing fraud or imminent harm, and ensuring the security of our network and services.
* Google processes personal information on our servers in the United States of America and in other countries. In some cases, we process personal information on a server outside your own country.
* Read more in the full privacy policy.
Your choices
* We offer you choices when we ask for personal information, whenever reasonably possible. You can find more information about your choices in the privacy notices or FAQs for specific services.
* You may decline to provide personal information to us and/or refuse cookies in your browser, although some of our features or services may not function properly as a result.
* We make good faith efforts to provide you access to your personal information upon request and to let you correct such data if it is inaccurate and delete it, when reasonably possible.
* Read more in the full privacy policy.
Yes I think the populist support is coming from the fact that people are recognizing that copyright doesn't accomplish what it's supposed to, viz: reward the creation of culture at the *least possible cost to the public domain.
No. This is *not a good basis to oppose Draconian copyright (viz., the idea that most people don't feel it's wrong, so it's not). That leads to utter relativism, and as soon as most people think redheads are subhuman, or smoker's don't have rights, you've got ordinary fascism.
File sharing should be legal because it doesn't impinge on anyone's right to control their own person and enjoy their own property.
They definitely try to do the same thing (prevent corporate migrations) in different ways. For the last couple years, it's mostly been "don't migrate 'cause Vista is going to rock yr world zomg!" Well, turns out Vista adds almost nothing of value to any company, so it'll be back to the IP FUD for awhile.
Slashdot Mirror
"you really are the worst kind of fanboi if you've managed to entirely blind yourself to the benefits of using Windows. I really would rather have people who can make a reasonsed arguments without distorting the facts as advocates for my platforms of choice." Of course there are advantages to using windows. There are 'advantages' to doing anything, including drinking cyanide (you learn what cyanide tastes like, maybe other people learn more about its effects from your corpse). GP is saying the advantages of free software are incomparably greater. I sum it up this way: With free software, you can do anything you want if you set your mind to it (including, btw, running any windows-targeted game via Cedega, WINE, etc.) With Windows, you can do anything you want if enough programmers in Redmond set their minds to it, and the managerial force thinks it fits in with the user experience they're targeting, and the RIAA & MPAA bless the endeavor, and so on and so on... It turns out we're in a historical situation where a lot of the things people want to do pass through all those "checks". That doesn't mean they don't exist.
You'll have to forgive some of these guys, WNight. See, we in the U.S. have gone through roughly a century in which every single thing that could conceivably benefit anyone had a UPC symbol attached to it and started getting traded on the commodities market.
Criterion, it's like this: it is only rational to exchange scarce tokens (i.e. money) for scarce resources (CPU cycles). Pretend your brain is an SL server. Now picture two things:
1. A ten-foot by ten-foot square
2. A ten-mile by ten-mile square
During which of those did you use up more of your breakfast?
Dang, look at this bit in TFA; it's from True.com's TOS
...
'You also agree not to dispute any authorized charge by True.com or its authorized agents." And "if you fraudulent[ly] report that an authorized charge by True.com or its authorized agents is unauthorized, you shall be liable to True.com for liquidated damages of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) per incident.'
Citizens: never, ever, ever "agree not to dispute"
Central Market pwns Whole Foods, and its not even close. Technical, CM is San Antonio-based, but the first one was in Austin.
heh. Yeah, I'm still working on it.
But what, for example, would be wrong with having a thin client in every home, if people want the complicated stuff taken care of by someone else?
This also addresses the post below that makes an analogy to the phone network. That's a very complicated network, but ordinary phones can only do a few simple things to/on it.
The full-featured PC in every home sometimes just seems like having a Class 4 telephone switch in every home; it's not necessary, and it has the potential to create serious havoc.
"How do you propose removing the value from information? Is this the typical "steal everything so it has no value" concept, or the "force everyone to contribute with no expectation of anything in return" concept, or do you have something different in mind?"
Lots of issues, and questions of terminology, in there.
On "removing the value from information" the question of what *kind of value you're talking about is pertinent. Information's *use-value cannot be "removed" -- it depends solely on the situation of the person learning the information. As an example take "E=mc squared". This is a piece of information, and if you can put it to use, it's extremely valuable because it allows you to generate tremendous amounts of energy.
Information's *exchange value, however, is a different story. If I can persuade you to pay me $10 for the secret relationship between mass and energy, you might agree. But after I've revealed it, it costs you nothing to duplicate that information as many times as you want. You can immediately become my competitor in the "industry" of this particular piece of information by selling the secret for $5 a pop. And nothing prevents me telling my sister for free if I want. (She, however, can start charging $4...ow)
Your suggestion that one can deflate the value of something by stealing it is puzzling. When I tell my sister what E equals, I do not steal anything, because you still possess everything you formerly did, including the $10. I've deflated the exchange-value of this information insofar as you probably cannot now sell it to my sister.
It is also logically impossible to force people to do anything with no expectation of return. If I threaten your life and say "do X or I will beat you" then not-being-beaten is what you expect in return for doing X. Your expectations might be unrealistic; I might beat you anyway. However, as a libertarian, I'm more inclined to leave you alone and let you do whatever you want, so long as you don't harm me.
Will you discover that E=mc squared, or how to make a million dollars in Real Estate? Maybe, maybe not. But if you do, I don't understand why I should pretend your discovery is not what it is: information. You can refuse to tell me what E equals, of course. But if I discover it -- whether by experiment, or because you talk in your sleep -- then its exchange value is deflated because of its nature.
My turn for a question: where do you think information gets its value?
You missed the point. Computers are like cars that can do a tremendous amount of damage to the driving experience of others without the operator even necessarily knowing about it. No, drivers don't *want to be mechanics. They don't even *want to take drivers ed. These things are required of them by law in accordance with the externalities that the resepective devices do/can generate. If there were a flux capacitor in your car, so that it was potentially capable of blowing up your city, the driver's license test for that car would require some knowledge of nuclear physics.
"the article also cites David Thomas, executive director of the Software & Information Industry Association..."
I think the idea that information is an industry is part of the problem.
I'm guilty of some sneering at the 'average' computer user, and I'm working on that, but I'd like to point something out:
Computing -- especially in a *globally networked environment -- is *in *fact complicated. Doing it responsibly, in a way that doesn't wreck the environment for others (Cf. botnets) is difficult. Many of the users who "just want to get some work done" outsource the complexity, but don't mind if the network suffers the externalities because they don't feel like learning what true security requires.
If someone doesn't want to learn to drive, they have public transportation and taxis available to them and God bless 'em. But taxis and buses don't damage the roadways and the other vehicles on it during ordinary use.
Basically I sometimes wonder whether putting a PC in every home was such a hot idea after all.
I predict he attach a signing statement to the effect that
"The Executive Branch shall construe this bill in a manner consistent with the requirements that state and federal courts rely on and defer to presidential signing statements as a source of authority."
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) introduced the Presidential Signing Statements Act of 2006 on July 26, 2006. [2]The bill would:
n troversy_over_George_W._Bush.27s_use_of_signing_st atements
1. Instruct all state and federal courts to ignore presidential signing statements. ("No State or Federal court shall rely on or defer to a presidential signing statement as a source of authority.")
2. Instruct the Supreme Court to allow the U.S. Senate or U.S. House of Representatives to file suit in order to determine the constitutionality of signing statements. [3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement#Co
"contrary to the rule of law and our Constitutional system of separation of powers" New here?
is stated here:
http://www.google.com/privacy.html
Personal information and other data we collect
* Google collects personal information when you register for a Google service or otherwise voluntarily provide such information. We may combine personal information collected from you with information from other Google services or third parties to provide a better user experience, including customizing content for you.
* Google uses cookies and other technologies to enhance your online experience and to learn about how you use Google services in order to improve the quality of our services.
* Google's servers automatically record information when you visit our website or use some of our products, including the URL, IP address, browser type and language, and the date and time of your request.
* Read more in the full privacy policy.
Uses
* We may use personal information to provide the services you've requested, including services that display customized content and advertising.
* We may also use personal information for auditing, research and analysis to operate and improve Google technologies and services.
* We may share aggregated non-personal information with third parties outside of Google.
* When we use third parties to assist us in processing your personal information, we require that they comply with our Privacy Policy and any other appropriate confidentiality and security measures.
* We may also share information with third parties in limited circumstances, including when complying with legal process, preventing fraud or imminent harm, and ensuring the security of our network and services.
* Google processes personal information on our servers in the United States of America and in other countries. In some cases, we process personal information on a server outside your own country.
* Read more in the full privacy policy.
Your choices
* We offer you choices when we ask for personal information, whenever reasonably possible. You can find more information about your choices in the privacy notices or FAQs for specific services.
* You may decline to provide personal information to us and/or refuse cookies in your browser, although some of our features or services may not function properly as a result.
* We make good faith efforts to provide you access to your personal information upon request and to let you correct such data if it is inaccurate and delete it, when reasonably possible.
* Read more in the full privacy policy.
IIRC, this is why there are no more radio stations.
Is anyone going after the antivirus/antispyware companies whose offerings gave the rootkit a pass?
Things radically change a couple times a week for me.
I think you can just turn that off.
Which, of course, everyone will do. And which, of course makes ya wonder: is this thing going to be even the itsy-bitsy-tiniest bit more secure?
How do you figure? http://www.hyperosforum.co.uk/images/LAURENT/VISTA /Vista15a%20-%20Games,%20Chess%20Titans.jpg
Windows Genuine(TM) TCP/IP Experience(TM)?
ain't it a bit hypocritacalist that so many nuns also work part time as strippers?
Yes I think the populist support is coming from the fact that people are recognizing that copyright doesn't accomplish what it's supposed to, viz: reward the creation of culture at the *least possible cost to the public domain.
No. This is *not a good basis to oppose Draconian copyright (viz., the idea that most people don't feel it's wrong, so it's not). That leads to utter relativism, and as soon as most people think redheads are subhuman, or smoker's don't have rights, you've got ordinary fascism.
File sharing should be legal because it doesn't impinge on anyone's right to control their own person and enjoy their own property.
"Obviously doing what's best for the customer isn't good for the business"
Best line ever. I hope you become a CEO someday. Unless you already are one (Darl?)
They definitely try to do the same thing (prevent corporate migrations) in different ways. For the last couple years, it's mostly been "don't migrate 'cause Vista is going to rock yr world zomg!" Well, turns out Vista adds almost nothing of value to any company, so it'll be back to the IP FUD for awhile.
yeah... and, um ... did you see the ones that got perfect scores? (on /. awhile back)