Once I thought there should be a sequel to Godwin's Law whereby any comparison made to Limbaugh (or maybe W) would result in loss-of-argument. But then I realized the formulation & articulation of this law would, itself, violate Godwin I, thereby making it invalid.
Wait.... it can be done? No Way! My point holds for anyone who uses MySQL-specific, Oracle-specific, or whatever "dialect" of SQL. Don't blame SQL when someone asks you if you can port to a different dB and you can't.
"He also might grab the door and get in quickly behind you anyway. These are college kids, remember? So the next question is... would you report him?"
Here's the weird, counterintuitive bit: No. A predator would not grab a door and force hisher way in. Would draw attention (yours). So a person behaving rudely like this is almost certainly harmless.
'Course now that I've posted this theory on/., all the stalkers know about it and we'll have to figure something else out.
TFA: "All the reasons are tied up in one truth: every time you fix a bug, you risk introducing another. Don't we all start out with the belief that software only gets better as we work on it?"
Advice: Share your software's source code freely, and it will get better as you sit around poolside drinking lemonade.
Parent: "Trying to come up with a featureset for some vague "target market" is a horrbile way to write software...Software is unique because it is both engineering and design at every phase of its creation... don't work in a closedsource / many customers environment... it's bad for the brain."
I just made a new friend. It is an almost-perfect tradeoff: the larger your potential market, the more difficult it will be to service it profitably, because of the proliferation of situation details/uncertainty.
On the other hand, if you develop software for its use-value to you, rather than its exchange-value, you deal with a single set of requirements. Free the code, and this use-value can only increase, anywhere from not-much to Tons, depending on how common that set of requirements is.
You made my friends list with this; I'm surprised no one else replied.
I agree and think Vista presents a good window for a strong push. I do not see the value-add of switching to Vista outweighing the costs, especially for govt purchases. I suspect most govts could get their databases and web pages built on Red Hat 6, or W98.
"Cost: Very high. Vault's backend makes extensive use of features specific to Microsoft SQL Server"
Read: we got embraced and extended all to hell. What do to? Blame SQL! That's right, the language itself! It "isn't portable". Also blame users! "People who refuse to use SQL Server can't use Vault."
And here's some typical MS morality for you: "I'd probably even patent this algorithm even though, in principle, I believe software patents are fundamentally evil."
I don't expect bug-free software of any real complexity to be shipped often. But the examples are both interoperability problems, and not actual bugs. Looks like an excuse to marginalize the non-windows crowd. "...only affects users on non-Windows platforms, a rather small percentage of our user base."
"are you really going to slam it shut in the face of the guy who says he lost his keycard, and is hovering right outside the door"
No. It's not polite to slam doors in people's faces. But you could say "Sorry, I can't let you in" and just "close" the door. That guy might think you're a dick but the potential rape victims won't.
I think it's wonderful that you care about freedom and openness. I hope you try to encourage others to think about this as well.
Microsoft and many others rely on the truth of the situation, which is that most people happily chuck these values out the window for convenience. For example if the assorted Vista/Office 13 programs use this new image format as the standard and/or make it easier to email, blog, flickr them... it's going to start dominating.
Further: when someone like rms uses the "f" word a lot, MS can count of legions of people to call him impractical, an idealist, a zealot, a fanatic.
Favorite quote of the day: "I'm not sure that the license agreement is enforceable if the licensee doesn't agree to it"
Not sure is he? Sad times...
I don't know what's worse: this guy being considered an 'expert in retail law'
or...
The nagging suspicion that, for all I know, the "content industry" really *has worked it so that you no longer have to agree to a license for it to be enforceable upon you...
I'm 100% in agreement; see my other comments for clarification. My point is that mainstream press is talking about this like it's an inadvertent error/flaw that somehow got into the product. Like faulty wiring in a toaster. In fact, this "flaw" was a design decision, arising from the fact that the provider's interests are contrary to the customers' interests.
TFA: "Sony BMG still faces a separate lawsuit "over materially the same subject matter" from the Texas attorney general."
I've been trying to get Greg Abbott (TX's AG) to go after the antivirus companies, refuse to settle, and various other things that might keep this from getting swept under the rug. This was a devious and dangerous product that was released, not a minor technical flaw in a few CDs.
That's why I take Major issue (below) with the phrase "flawed digital rights management (DRM) software". It is as though someone sold microwave ovens that secretly (by design) emitted chloroform and put you to sleep when someone at a remote location pushed a button, so they could come rob you. And it is as though someone figure this out, and the nice rich guys came to a settlement with the other nice rich guys over "flawed microwave oven buttons"
This comments thread is weird; I looked at this thing and thought: "hm. I might actually be talked into buying a cell phone now"
You heard me: I don't own a cell phone. I actually can't stand phones in general. My friends who have figured this out call me and our conversations go like this:
Me: Hello?
Him: Hey, when does Drop Trio start?
Me: 9:30
Him: Cool, see you there
(hangs up)
I like strong, quick entry-and-exit points for conversations. An audio version of what is essentially a message board is just what *my doctor ordered.
That said, I shudder to think about entangling myself in spam, etc. I'd rather this turn into an audio layer on SMS, open code using Gizmo/Ekida/whatev. (NB: I know dick about this stuff, I'm just dropping relevant technology names)
Some people want to use commercial software, and they get value out of not sharing with other people in the community. Other people want the reliability and the dependability that comes from a community-based software model. And again, at the end of the day, you make the choice based on what has the highest value to you.
You will observe that my points are as well-researched, supported by evidence, and clearly explained as Mr. Murray's. I expect a phone call from Ingrid Marson any minute now.
You're actually suggesting that Microsoft would negotiate a deal where you had to pay for things you don't actually need or want, in order to get something you do? Whatever. I'll believe that when I see it.
That's a great point. Almost none of the laissez-fairies I come across evade the central, really-hard-to-surmount difficulty in the argument:
By their own principles, any market that is subject to govt regulations is non-free. i.e. all markets that exist right now.
If the market does not start out free, the free-market, Darwinistic forces don't operate right. Something else -- maybe cronyism -- is operating.
Therefore, when they say "just leave it to the market" they're not saying "leave it to the free market". They're saying "leave it to whatever sort of market there is out there."
To me, this is like saying "whatever power structures exist are free/fair".
I'm tempted to reply at this point 'well... government regulations exist...'
Seriously, I'm not trying to bait people. Someone who has this view please explain to me.
"giving them enough money to live on before they've done so, helping get their name out there...does deserve protection, and reward."
You are so right on. I agree wholeheartedly. This is difficult and deserves reward.
I can go you one better and be Very Specific about what a bunch of people deserve. Trey Anastasio deserves a steady income of $2 million a year. So does Leon Parker. They're that good.
"You got a better idea how to make sure that happens, everybody's all ears."
Piece of Cake: give me dictatorial rule over everyone's property; I will start by siezing Dr. Phil's house and selling it. It is my opinion that he deserves only, like, $2000 a year for what he does. This sale will fund Anastasio's & Parker's well-deserved income while I think of more ideas. Everyone will get the amount of money they deserve. According to me.
Back in the free market, how much money you get depends on one thing: is your product/service better, in the buyer's opinion, than a substitute that can be obtained for the same price?
You may or may not get what you "deserve". And it isn't government's responsibility to make sure you do. Since you brought up the Constitution, it says that government is allowed to pass copyright laws in order to promote science and the useful arts. It doesn't say they have to; I think if they're going to continue to do so (and expand scope & length) they need to make a case for it.
I mean, the Congress is also allowed to declare war. But we generally ask that they have reasons to do so.
Standard propertarian line: the market will fix it. This is true only if the provider of the service/commodity in question can capture (most of) the value it generates in the form of profit.
Access generates a huge amount of value. And it does so in so many different ways that the transaction costs from trying to sort them all out and bill for them would eat a lot of the profit (as another post in here pointed out w/r/t the mail system).
Furthermore, the net being neutral generates additional value. Specifically, it favors experimentation & entrepreneurship over dealmaking and conglomeration among the large corp's. The market can fix this -- and generate a neutral net -- only if corporate players can turn this value into profit. And indeed they can, over the long term, but the short term profit to be had from dealmaking & extortion is probably more attractive to most of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Once I thought there should be a sequel to Godwin's Law whereby any comparison made to Limbaugh (or maybe W) would result in loss-of-argument. But then I realized the formulation & articulation of this law would, itself, violate Godwin I, thereby making it invalid.
Wait.... it can be done? No Way! My point holds for anyone who uses MySQL-specific, Oracle-specific, or whatever "dialect" of SQL. Don't blame SQL when someone asks you if you can port to a different dB and you can't.
"He also might grab the door and get in quickly behind you anyway. These are college kids, remember? So the next question is... would you report him?"
/., all the stalkers know about it and we'll have to figure something else out.
Here's the weird, counterintuitive bit: No. A predator would not grab a door and force hisher way in. Would draw attention (yours). So a person behaving rudely like this is almost certainly harmless.
'Course now that I've posted this theory on
Advice: Share your software's source code freely, and it will get better as you sit around poolside drinking lemonade.
Parent: "Trying to come up with a featureset for some vague "target market" is a horrbile way to write software...Software is unique because it is both engineering and design at every phase of its creation... don't work in a closedsource / many customers environment... it's bad for the brain."
I just made a new friend. It is an almost-perfect tradeoff: the larger your potential market, the more difficult it will be to service it profitably, because of the proliferation of situation details/uncertainty.
On the other hand, if you develop software for its use-value to you, rather than its exchange-value, you deal with a single set of requirements. Free the code, and this use-value can only increase, anywhere from not-much to Tons, depending on how common that set of requirements is.
I agree and think Vista presents a good window for a strong push. I do not see the value-add of switching to Vista outweighing the costs, especially for govt purchases. I suspect most govts could get their databases and web pages built on Red Hat 6, or W98.
Read: we got embraced and extended all to hell. What do to? Blame SQL! That's right, the language itself! It "isn't portable". Also blame users! "People who refuse to use SQL Server can't use Vault."
And here's some typical MS morality for you: "I'd probably even patent this algorithm even though, in principle, I believe software patents are fundamentally evil."
I don't expect bug-free software of any real complexity to be shipped often. But the examples are both interoperability problems, and not actual bugs. Looks like an excuse to marginalize the non-windows crowd. "...only affects users on non-Windows platforms, a rather small percentage of our user base."
No. It's not polite to slam doors in people's faces. But you could say "Sorry, I can't let you in" and just "close" the door. That guy might think you're a dick but the potential rape victims won't.
Microsoft and many others rely on the truth of the situation, which is that most people happily chuck these values out the window for convenience. For example if the assorted Vista/Office 13 programs use this new image format as the standard and/or make it easier to email, blog, flickr them... it's going to start dominating.
Further: when someone like rms uses the "f" word a lot, MS can count of legions of people to call him impractical, an idealist, a zealot, a fanatic.
Not sure is he? Sad times...
I don't know what's worse: this guy being considered an 'expert in retail law'
or...
The nagging suspicion that, for all I know, the "content industry" really *has worked it so that you no longer have to agree to a license for it to be enforceable upon you...
I don't care if it 'catches up' that much. So long as it remains free. As in shiny declarations.
I'm 100% in agreement; see my other comments for clarification. My point is that mainstream press is talking about this like it's an inadvertent error/flaw that somehow got into the product. Like faulty wiring in a toaster. In fact, this "flaw" was a design decision, arising from the fact that the provider's interests are contrary to the customers' interests.
TFA: "Sony BMG still faces a separate lawsuit "over materially the same subject matter" from the Texas attorney general."
I've been trying to get Greg Abbott (TX's AG) to go after the antivirus companies, refuse to settle, and various other things that might keep this from getting swept under the rug. This was a devious and dangerous product that was released, not a minor technical flaw in a few CDs.
That's why I take Major issue (below) with the phrase "flawed digital rights management (DRM) software". It is as though someone sold microwave ovens that secretly (by design) emitted chloroform and put you to sleep when someone at a remote location pushed a button, so they could come rob you. And it is as though someone figure this out, and the nice rich guys came to a settlement with the other nice rich guys over "flawed microwave oven buttons"
I believe the software did exactly what it was supposed to do. Shouldn't there be mention of a flawed *DRM *strategy being foisted upon consumers?
You heard me: I don't own a cell phone. I actually can't stand phones in general. My friends who have figured this out call me and our conversations go like this:
Me: Hello?
Him: Hey, when does Drop Trio start?
Me: 9:30
Him: Cool, see you there
(hangs up)
I like strong, quick entry-and-exit points for conversations. An audio version of what is essentially a message board is just what *my doctor ordered.
That said, I shudder to think about entangling myself in spam, etc. I'd rather this turn into an audio layer on SMS, open code using Gizmo/Ekida/whatev. (NB: I know dick about this stuff, I'm just dropping relevant technology names)
Without copyright protection for life + 75 years, people will not make movies. Everyone knows that.
Anyone who gets my nntn joke earns a cookie.
t/n
n/t
Some people want to use commercial software, and they get value out of not sharing with other people in the community. Other people want the reliability and the dependability that comes from a community-based software model. And again, at the end of the day, you make the choice based on what has the highest value to you.
You will observe that my points are as well-researched, supported by evidence, and clearly explained as Mr. Murray's. I expect a phone call from Ingrid Marson any minute now.
just kidding
That made me laugh a bit. What are the odds, you think? When it actually PlaysSometimes is there an actionable claim in there ?
You're actually suggesting that Microsoft would negotiate a deal where you had to pay for things you don't actually need or want, in order to get something you do? Whatever. I'll believe that when I see it.
- By their own principles, any market that is subject to govt regulations is non-free. i.e. all markets that exist right now.
- If the market does not start out free, the free-market, Darwinistic forces don't operate right. Something else -- maybe cronyism -- is operating.
- Therefore, when they say "just leave it to the market" they're not saying "leave it to the free market". They're saying "leave it to whatever sort of market there is out there."
- To me, this is like saying "whatever power structures exist are free/fair".
- I'm tempted to reply at this point 'well... government regulations exist...'
Seriously, I'm not trying to bait people. Someone who has this view please explain to me.You are so right on. I agree wholeheartedly. This is difficult and deserves reward.
I can go you one better and be Very Specific about what a bunch of people deserve. Trey Anastasio deserves a steady income of $2 million a year. So does Leon Parker. They're that good.
"You got a better idea how to make sure that happens, everybody's all ears."
Piece of Cake: give me dictatorial rule over everyone's property; I will start by siezing Dr. Phil's house and selling it. It is my opinion that he deserves only, like, $2000 a year for what he does. This sale will fund Anastasio's & Parker's well-deserved income while I think of more ideas. Everyone will get the amount of money they deserve. According to me.
Back in the free market, how much money you get depends on one thing: is your product/service better, in the buyer's opinion, than a substitute that can be obtained for the same price?
You may or may not get what you "deserve". And it isn't government's responsibility to make sure you do. Since you brought up the Constitution, it says that government is allowed to pass copyright laws in order to promote science and the useful arts. It doesn't say they have to; I think if they're going to continue to do so (and expand scope & length) they need to make a case for it.
I mean, the Congress is also allowed to declare war. But we generally ask that they have reasons to do so.
Access generates a huge amount of value. And it does so in so many different ways that the transaction costs from trying to sort them all out and bill for them would eat a lot of the profit (as another post in here pointed out w/r/t the mail system).
Furthermore, the net being neutral generates additional value. Specifically, it favors experimentation & entrepreneurship over dealmaking and conglomeration among the large corp's. The market can fix this -- and generate a neutral net -- only if corporate players can turn this value into profit. And indeed they can, over the long term, but the short term profit to be had from dealmaking & extortion is probably more attractive to most of them.