a very valid reason for the NYT to block OSes which they don't make. I'm sorry where did you get the idea that the New York Times created Windows and Mac OS?
To respond to what I think was your point: I think that the NYT, the movie theaters, and the kid with the lemonade stand next door have the right to set the terms of the deals they offer. This was never in dispute.
If a movie theater wants to require that you buy a brand new Porsche 911 before they will let you see "The Covenant" then that's just really great for them.
My suspicions arise from the fact that there is no advantage to the NYT of shutting out a large number of their customers, when these customers could be satisfied at no additional cost to NYT.
I agree that this would make sense if the New York Times had created Windows or Mac OS, or Safari or IE. They'd be leveraging their content in order to sell the tool that one uses to access that content.
If my analogy stinks, yours does whatever is worse than that. 'Cause you don't need food to see the movie. Also 'cause the NY Times does not create/sell the product (windows/Mac OS) that they require before they alllow you to see what you are technically capable of seeing -- with or without permission.
The point of TFA is that their site works fine on Linux. They don't have to include Linux in their list of supported systems (requirements) if they don't want to "support" it. "If you are having trouble, please be sure to use a supported browser & media player..."
But what NYT has done here is to make sure that you are having trouble if you use Linux.
It's hard to come up with an analogy here, but what the hell I'll try: A movie theater exhibits 3-D films, and there's a station outside to buy the "approved" 3-D glasses. Now a penguin walks up with some DIY glasses he's been experimenting with. He buys a ticket and goes through the line to the theater door.
And they won't let him in
"Sorry, sir, we don't support those glasses."
"I don't want you to support my glasses; just let me in."
"Sorry, you'll have to go buy glasses from the station outside"
Would you get a little suspicious? Would you wonder how the guy running that station got such a gig?
I think you'll see Tons of requests for AJAX as it continues to soak in. I just did a draft page for a new client. Front page had three links -- two of these used AJAX and the other used ye olde http redirect. Took all of 5 seconds for client to say "you'll fix that one so it works like the others, right?"
"Brandware" n., software that actually doesn't do anything other than attach a company's logos, slogans, and other corporate branding to protocols & functionality that are available in at least 15 other ways.
I've never used AOL software, and probably never will. But as I understand it there is No Purpose to using it unless you buy actual internet access from AOL and are somehow forced to.
Is AOL's "software" still just a webpage that says "News" "Sports" "Entertainment" "Politics" -- brought to you by America Online, Inc.! Where surfing the internet is fun!
1. Your parentheses are faulty. Anarchy does not equal piracy nor does capitalism equal corporatism. 2. Middle ground would be attained much easier by setting copyright terms to a duration that can be reasonably argued to be necessary for "culture" to "proceed" at the desired rate. I think that somewhere around 5 years would do it.
If there's some evidence that no one will write books unless the copyright term is 6 years, or 16 years, let the evidence be presented.
0% of NY Times video visitors are Linux users. The obvious inference to be drawn is that Linux users don't care about current events probably. That, or maybe Linux was just a passing fad... etc.
Free tinfoil: the OS check is so bizarre and unnecessary that I think it should be looked into. Did any money change hands to make this happen?
Continuing to live in a city represents an agreement that you will abide by that city's laws. Including zoning/eyesore laws if applicable. There's an implied ongoing agreement, by which you surrender your right to do certain things that you would otherwise be free to do, because they don't hurt anyone.
The "content industry" would like to have an implied ongoing agreement that you will do nothing at all with "their" content unless you get permission. They want you to buy each individual experience of listening to the song or viewing the film, etc. This would cause such serious backlash, though, that they're left with approximating that situation as best they can.
You should have no dealings with people who attempt to "rent" your culture to you.
Spinoza said that we often argue over matters of taste, not out of a desire to control what others like & don't like, but out of the understandable and very human desire that other people love what we love.
I love Linux and want other people to love it as well; but it is not the software or the functionality that I love; it's the freeness. It's the fact that it arises from humans sharing ideas and advancements with each other. This is, I believe, a draft model for how a cooperative civilization might work. I love linux on principle
Some codecs/drivers/snazzy video effects and games aren't going to sway me.
I think it's because it asserts that systems remain free of viruses through obscurity -- that is, low market share -- which is not true. The biggest counterexample to this thesis is Apache, with huge market share and far fewer security exploits.
After many years of excellent service, it's almost time to retire the BillGatesBorg icon for Microsoft stories. Esp. since he won't be with them any more, sorta. I vote for a chair icon. It can be a borg chair, I guess.
My favorite (this week) is Austrumi. 50MB and I can't imagine anything my mother would need to do that it doesn't do. It loads itself into RAM ('cause see it's 50MB and not bloated). I remember when I used to squeeze my whole System into RAM on a 512K Macintosh ("FatMac" !!). Runs like greased lightning. I could name a dozen others, but I'll let everyone else talk first.
"We have a word for almost-late; it's called on time."
Likewise a word for almot-unethical is "ethical". Except not. Becuase "ethical" has the connotation "honorable". Almost-unethical really means barely-permissible, and the person who constantly engages in the barely-permissible is far from honorable
What does "good" mean? We hear about how good these lawyers are for engaging in the barely-permissible, but the right word for that type of goodness is probably "skilled". "Skilled at what?"
Why, at exploiting legal loopholes in order to obtain an advantage for their clients! Which is to say at acting in their own self interest with no regard for other people or for principles of right and wrong. Which is completely ordinary behavior. It is the behavior of animals -- snakes, for example.
If a person's reasoning ability is very advanced, and they are "better at exploiting" than others, it is a mere accident of nature. They have "more brains" and this is not praiseworthy, any more than a lottery winner's possession of $10 million is praiseworthy. It is what she chooses to do with this gift that makes her "good".
"My boyfriend suffered a stroke which crippled his short-term memory....he was distracted by something and put the phone down, and I had to yell to get his attention and remind him that I was still on the line."
Geez, you're a/. geek and you fell for the old I-had-a-stroke-which-crippled-my-short-term-memory line? How disappointing...
I believe his point is that there will be enough general users using Linux forthwith. I think for example in India, China, and Africa. And a good number of them will have used Office/Windows. They'll be soothed by the familiar Office when their companies go to Ubuntu/Red Flag/etc.
Chapter Two: I think there will always -- no matter how big ODF gets -- be things that MS makes it difficult to do from a non-windows box. "You want that spreadsheet updated with stuff from an IIS-based intranet... easiest thing will be to dump OOo and just use Excel for Linux..."
I don't know what GP is insinuating, but I'm personally tired of this attitude to the discussion. As explained in many many places, the free software movement is about building free software because (they/I feel) it is the right thing to do. On principle. The priorities are 1) Freedom; 2) Practicality. You can (and apparently do) order them differently and peace be with you. Why do you want to pick a fight with GP?
"I outright disagree with software as a basic human right"
I don't think anyone argues that software is a basic human right. But well-established basic human rights underpin the moral imperative to build free software. Using your own property in the whatever way you see fit is a basic human right; controlling your own computer requires that the software on it be available to read/modify/copy.
I don't know... IBM hasn't been out and about announcing how open-source AIX and OS/2 are (going to be) (any day now). The problem here is that Sun seems to want all the PR that a "leader of the FOSS community" deserves without actually dipping more than their big toe in the water.
Slashdot Mirror
a very valid reason for the NYT to block OSes which they don't make. I'm sorry where did you get the idea that the New York Times created Windows and Mac OS?
To respond to what I think was your point: I think that the NYT, the movie theaters, and the kid with the lemonade stand next door have the right to set the terms of the deals they offer. This was never in dispute.
If a movie theater wants to require that you buy a brand new Porsche 911 before they will let you see "The Covenant" then that's just really great for them.
My suspicions arise from the fact that there is no advantage to the NYT of shutting out a large number of their customers, when these customers could be satisfied at no additional cost to NYT.
I agree that this would make sense if the New York Times had created Windows or Mac OS, or Safari or IE. They'd be leveraging their content in order to sell the tool that one uses to access that content.
If my analogy stinks, yours does whatever is worse than that. 'Cause you don't need food to see the movie. Also 'cause the NY Times does not create/sell the product (windows/Mac OS) that they require before they alllow you to see what you are technically capable of seeing -- with or without permission.
The point of TFA is that their site works fine on Linux. They don't have to include Linux in their list of supported systems (requirements) if they don't want to "support" it. "If you are having trouble, please be sure to use a supported browser & media player..."
But what NYT has done here is to make sure that you are having trouble if you use Linux.
It's hard to come up with an analogy here, but what the hell I'll try: A movie theater exhibits 3-D films, and there's a station outside to buy the "approved" 3-D glasses. Now a penguin walks up with some DIY glasses he's been experimenting with. He buys a ticket and goes through the line to the theater door.
And they won't let him in
"Sorry, sir, we don't support those glasses."
"I don't want you to support my glasses; just let me in."
"Sorry, you'll have to go buy glasses from the station outside"
Would you get a little suspicious? Would you wonder how the guy running that station got such a gig?
I think you'll see Tons of requests for AJAX as it continues to soak in. I just did a draft page for a new client. Front page had three links -- two of these used AJAX and the other used ye olde http redirect. Took all of 5 seconds for client to say "you'll fix that one so it works like the others, right?"
"Brandware" n., software that actually doesn't do anything other than attach a company's logos, slogans, and other corporate branding to protocols & functionality that are available in at least 15 other ways. I've never used AOL software, and probably never will. But as I understand it there is No Purpose to using it unless you buy actual internet access from AOL and are somehow forced to. Is AOL's "software" still just a webpage that says "News" "Sports" "Entertainment" "Politics" -- brought to you by America Online, Inc.! Where surfing the internet is fun!
Looks like they're too clever for us. They really really want to keep the article unreadable.
1. Your parentheses are faulty. Anarchy does not equal piracy nor does capitalism equal corporatism.
2. Middle ground would be attained much easier by setting copyright terms to a duration that can be reasonably argued to be necessary for "culture" to "proceed" at the desired rate. I think that somewhere around 5 years would do it.
If there's some evidence that no one will write books unless the copyright term is 6 years, or 16 years, let the evidence be presented.
0% of NY Times video visitors are Linux users. The obvious inference to be drawn is that Linux users don't care about current events probably. That, or maybe Linux was just a passing fad... etc.
Free tinfoil: the OS check is so bizarre and unnecessary that I think it should be looked into. Did any money change hands to make this happen?
Continuing to live in a city represents an agreement that you will abide by that city's laws. Including zoning/eyesore laws if applicable. There's an implied ongoing agreement, by which you surrender your right to do certain things that you would otherwise be free to do, because they don't hurt anyone.
The "content industry" would like to have an implied ongoing agreement that you will do nothing at all with "their" content unless you get permission. They want you to buy each individual experience of listening to the song or viewing the film, etc. This would cause such serious backlash, though, that they're left with approximating that situation as best they can.
You should have no dealings with people who attempt to "rent" your culture to you.
Is that it doesn't harm someone else. That's generally assumed whenever someone says people have the right to _______.
the DR17 desktop. Beautiful.
Spinoza said that we often argue over matters of taste, not out of a desire to control what others like & don't like, but out of the understandable and very human desire that other people love what we love.
I love Linux and want other people to love it as well; but it is not the software or the functionality that I love; it's the freeness. It's the fact that it arises from humans sharing ideas and advancements with each other. This is, I believe, a draft model for how a cooperative civilization might work. I love linux on principle
Some codecs/drivers/snazzy video effects and games aren't going to sway me.
I think it's because it asserts that systems remain free of viruses through obscurity -- that is, low market share -- which is not true. The biggest counterexample to this thesis is Apache, with huge market share and far fewer security exploits.
After many years of excellent service, it's almost time to retire the BillGatesBorg icon for Microsoft stories. Esp. since he won't be with them any more, sorta. I vote for a chair icon. It can be a borg chair, I guess.
My favorite (this week) is Austrumi. 50MB and I can't imagine anything my mother would need to do that it doesn't do. It loads itself into RAM ('cause see it's 50MB and not bloated). I remember when I used to squeeze my whole System into RAM on a 512K Macintosh ("FatMac" !!). Runs like greased lightning. I could name a dozen others, but I'll let everyone else talk first.
"We have a word for almost-late; it's called on time."
Likewise a word for almot-unethical is "ethical". Except not. Becuase "ethical" has the connotation "honorable". Almost-unethical really means barely-permissible, and the person who constantly engages in the barely-permissible is far from honorable
What does "good" mean? We hear about how good these lawyers are for engaging in the barely-permissible, but the right word for that type of goodness is probably "skilled". "Skilled at what?"
Why, at exploiting legal loopholes in order to obtain an advantage for their clients! Which is to say at acting in their own self interest with no regard for other people or for principles of right and wrong. Which is completely ordinary behavior. It is the behavior of animals -- snakes, for example.
If a person's reasoning ability is very advanced, and they are "better at exploiting" than others, it is a mere accident of nature. They have "more brains" and this is not praiseworthy, any more than a lottery winner's possession of $10 million is praiseworthy. It is what she chooses to do with this gift that makes her "good".
"My boyfriend suffered a stroke which crippled his short-term memory. ...he was distracted by something and put the phone down, and I had to yell to get his attention and remind him that I was still on the line."
Geez, you're a /. geek and you fell for the old I-had-a-stroke-which-crippled-my-short-term-memory line? How disappointing...
"Cohen compared the expected Linux Microsoft Office version to Oracle's Database 10g Express Edition application launched in November."
Didn't he just say that it would be F/OSS? It would be a closed/binary app? I'd compare it to a flash player, or Acrobat, or something...
I believe his point is that there will be enough general users using Linux forthwith. I think for example in India, China, and Africa. And a good number of them will have used Office/Windows. They'll be soothed by the familiar Office when their companies go to Ubuntu/Red Flag/etc.
Chapter Two: I think there will always -- no matter how big ODF gets -- be things that MS makes it difficult to do from a non-windows box. "You want that spreadsheet updated with stuff from an IIS-based intranet... easiest thing will be to dump OOo and just use Excel for Linux..."
i Said N/T dammit!
I don't know what GP is insinuating, but I'm personally tired of this attitude to the discussion. As explained in many many places, the free software movement is about building free software because (they/I feel) it is the right thing to do. On principle. The priorities are 1) Freedom; 2) Practicality. You can (and apparently do) order them differently and peace be with you. Why do you want to pick a fight with GP?
"I outright disagree with software as a basic human right"
I don't think anyone argues that software is a basic human right. But well-established basic human rights underpin the moral imperative to build free software. Using your own property in the whatever way you see fit is a basic human right; controlling your own computer requires that the software on it be available to read/modify/copy.
Rainfall isn't a basic human right. But when it does rain, people have a basic human right to collect it and drink it. If the water supply is privatized and the government makes it illegal to collect rainwater, it is an injustice because of the nature of rain as a free resource, not because people have a basic right to have water given to them.
Personally, I wouldn't locate any part of any software business in the U.S. Major risk of litigious annoyance + no real advantage that I can see.
On a sidenote: do you think the US govt and patent office considered this when they decided to make everything patentable?
I predict PS3 will only get 43%, not 44. I based this on some research and stuff.
I don't know... IBM hasn't been out and about announcing how open-source AIX and OS/2 are (going to be) (any day now). The problem here is that Sun seems to want all the PR that a "leader of the FOSS community" deserves without actually dipping more than their big toe in the water.