Copyright etc. is a form of planned economy:
"Ppl won't create the *correct number of books/movies/etc. unless the government 'incentivizes' the production thereof by enforcing the creators' exclusive rights to copy/modify/etc."
*where "correct" is determined by said government...
'Meanwhile research firm Gartner has warned that the benefits of open source might not deliver unless properly managed.
"Do not expect to automatically save money with open source software, or OSS, or any technology without effective financial management," said analyst Mark Driver. '
...no... it almost sounds like they're saying that if you want to save billions of dollars you have to do.. some.. (no!)... work!?!?
The good news, for people who start crying river when GM or MS or any other dinosaurs start downsizing, is that those people don't just throw in the towel.
There are *very cool auto companies trying to make green cars. If the big 3 perish, the cost-effectiveness of things like ultracapacitors will be greatly enhanced, as thousnads of experienced auto builders enter the labor market for real.
Plenty of good, progressive companies would like to pick up experienced programmers cheap, even if they have to wean them off Genuine Visual StuidoDev.NET
The RIAA is not stupid. I repeat: the RIAA is not stupid.
Their assault on technology is not the result of misguided or clueless decision makers.
Their assault on technology has gone beyond being attributed to ignorance. Too many people have explained (publically and, privately, to them) what's up.
This is malice. I believe malice is an acceptable response.
This requires that good people, and good lawyers, fight much *harder against these azzholes. Please remember that the French RIAA (forgot its acronym) recently sued motherfscking *sourceforge!
"Repeat users" of things like wget, aria2, and sourceforge need to beware.
When you actually had to break the law in order to get the RIAA all up in your jock, non-law-breakers such as myself were left in relative peace.
Since they've now explicitly and announcedly decided to adopt a strategy of technology control measures, they just became a thorn in every geek's side.
"Another difference is that you are saying that they will "essentially own" the laptops. This is likely to make them feel that they have the right to do what they want with them.
It would be far better to do what employers do and say: this is our laptop, use it for what we say..."
Just thought I'd point out that the EULAs for certain operating systems essentially say this as well.
Do you want to prepare the kids for the world of proprietary or free technology?
If the former, filtering and lockdown are appropriate.
If the latter, legal/ethical ones are, viz: you say "Even though the machine is capable of doing X and Y, you will incur penalty A (loss of laptop?) if you do them"
I think the former invites kids to look for workarounds for the technical limitations, and the latter shows some respect for their freedom.
To really prepare them for proprietary technology, you can (DMCA-style) have super-severe penalties for "looking for workarounds"
Post #1 "Those disks and their distribution are perfectly legal and even if he was "disruptive", you cannot keep his property. "
Post #1 " The lad was being disruptive, but that wasn't mentioned."
I'm not also buying the "she didn't know-what-kind-o'-filth-might-be-on-the-discs" line, since she explicitly mentions that trying to wean people off Windows is the problem.
Software patents generally suck, but it's generally not because of "prior art".
It's because the general trend of progress in this industry is to make small, incremental improvements on what exists. Patents are supposed to encourage big, radical (and *clearly radical) breakthroughs in technology.
When you focus on prior art, you fall into an argumentative trap where the troll says "yes, $priorArt did A, B, C, D, E, and F.. but see! I added G! Them's tasty intellectual properties!"
This line in particular caught my eye: "...the death knell to some, if not all, of the RIAA's efforts to use American university staff as copyright cops"
I thought, well... hm. They just got a federal law passed creating those copyright cops, didn't they? Minor setback here, if that?
"...he quote's obvious link to copyright law rather than patent law.."
Survey says... ZZZZ!!! Sorry
Q in interview was: "In recent years, there's been a lot of people clamoring to reform and restrict intellectual-property rights. It started out with just a few people, but now there are a bunch of advocates saying, "We've got to look at patents, we've got to look at copyrights." What's driving this, and do you think intellectual-property laws need to be reformed? " http://news.cnet.com/Gates-taking-a-seat-in-your-den---page-4/2008-1041_3-5514121-4.html
Slashdot Mirror
In the thread your title got cut off to
"Reservoir Dogs is a remake of http://en.wikipedia.org/"
Now *that would be an awesome movie.
640,000 false positives should be enough for anyone.
I just got an email about improving that sort of thing... let me forward it to you...
Copyright etc. is a form of planned economy: "Ppl won't create the *correct number of books/movies/etc. unless the government 'incentivizes' the production thereof by enforcing the creators' exclusive rights to copy/modify/etc." *where "correct" is determined by said government...
"Do not expect to automatically save money with open source software, or OSS, or any technology without effective financial management," said analyst Mark Driver. '
Big announcement about MS generously discounting licenses, citing the need for everyone to tighten their belts and get US through these hard times.
"The tuna .. with a heart!"
Terrorists have persistent habit of breathing in oxygen and exhaling carbon dioxide.
The good news, for people who start crying river when GM or MS or any other dinosaurs start downsizing, is that those people don't just throw in the towel.
There are *very cool auto companies trying to make green cars. If the big 3 perish, the cost-effectiveness of things like ultracapacitors will be greatly enhanced, as thousnads of experienced auto builders enter the labor market for real.
Plenty of good, progressive companies would like to pick up experienced programmers cheap, even if they have to wean them off Genuine Visual StuidoDev .NET
about 2% of web users are technically capable of turning ads off. Businesses with good presentation will continue to do fine hitting the other 98%.
Tell people: "If **AA can refer to unauthorized copying as piracy, it should be fine if we refer to the filing of SLAPPs as 'rape'"
"So let them chase after this mythical solution. It'll keep them busy"
It will also degrade performance and reliably of the Net, through which I make my living.
Second Georgia?
Ew.
The RIAA is not stupid.
I repeat: the RIAA is not stupid.
Their assault on technology is not the result of misguided or clueless decision makers.
Their assault on technology has gone beyond being attributed to ignorance. Too many people have explained (publically and, privately, to them) what's up.
This is malice. I believe malice is an acceptable response.
This requires that good people, and good lawyers, fight much *harder against these azzholes. Please remember that the French RIAA (forgot its acronym) recently sued motherfscking *sourceforge!
"Repeat users" of things like wget, aria2, and sourceforge need to beware.
When you actually had to break the law in order to get the RIAA all up in your jock, non-law-breakers such as myself were left in relative peace.
Since they've now explicitly and announcedly decided to adopt a strategy of technology control measures, they just became a thorn in every geek's side.
Ultracapacitors ftw
"Another difference is that you are saying that they will "essentially own" the laptops. This is likely to make them feel that they have the right to do what they want with them.
It would be far better to do what employers do and say: this is our laptop, use it for what we say..."
Just thought I'd point out that the EULAs for certain operating systems essentially say this as well.
Do you want to prepare the kids for the world of proprietary or free technology?
If the former, filtering and lockdown are appropriate.
If the latter, legal/ethical ones are, viz: you say "Even though the machine is capable of doing X and Y, you will incur penalty A (loss of laptop?) if you do them"
I think the former invites kids to look for workarounds for the technical limitations, and the latter shows some respect for their freedom.
To really prepare them for proprietary technology, you can (DMCA-style) have super-severe penalties for "looking for workarounds"
Post #1
"Those disks and their distribution are perfectly legal and even if he was "disruptive", you cannot keep his property. "
Post #1
" The lad was being disruptive, but that wasn't mentioned."
I'm not also buying the "she didn't know-what-kind-o'-filth-might-be-on-the-discs" line, since she explicitly mentions that trying to wean people off Windows is the problem.
If you mean what common parlance means by "politics" -- i.e. "getting elected"
If you mean "running a social unit, such as a state" then most of them suck.
While there's a whiff of tinfoiling in Helios's reply, I thought I'd point out:
Last I checked, MS has cut-rate licensing deals in place with many schools -- *on *condition that they adhere to an MS-only software policy.
It is not that farfetched to think that there's a deliberate "Windows only" mentality in these schools.
Well, it looks like the actual relieving will (hopefully) occur when Starks meets with the teacher and the AISD superintendent.
"They shouldn't have taken your computer if they had no evidence you were doing anything wrong with it"
WHAT?!?! The guy was *computing -- in broad *daylight -- without having got permission from Microsoft! How much evidence do you need?
Software patents generally suck, but it's generally not because of "prior art".
It's because the general trend of progress in this industry is to make small, incremental improvements on what exists. Patents are supposed to encourage big, radical (and *clearly radical) breakthroughs in technology.
When you focus on prior art, you fall into an argumentative trap where the troll says "yes, $priorArt did A, B, C, D, E, and F .. but see! I added G! Them's tasty intellectual properties!"
This line in particular caught my eye:
"...the death knell to some, if not all, of the RIAA's efforts to use American university staff as copyright cops"
I thought, well ... hm. They just got a federal law passed creating those copyright cops, didn't they? Minor setback here, if that?
"...he quote's obvious link to copyright law rather than patent law.."
Survey says ... ZZZZ!!! Sorry
Q in interview was: "In recent years, there's been a lot of people clamoring to reform and restrict intellectual-property rights. It started out with just a few people, but now there are a bunch of advocates saying, "We've got to look at patents, we've got to look at copyrights." What's driving this, and do you think intellectual-property laws need to be reformed? "
http://news.cnet.com/Gates-taking-a-seat-in-your-den---page-4/2008-1041_3-5514121-4.html