"they do in fact deserve protection for finding and supporting and publishing new music"
Why? Is there some principle of political economy by which people who find things get 'protection'? What's that, anyway? I found a flea in my desk a minute ago. What do I deserve?
Y'know what, yesterday I found and supported new music, too. My son was in the living room singing a song that he made up. I said "That's a great song". I haven't published it yet, though. What do I "deserve" when I do? Where do I fill out the paperwork?
Having the government decide what people deserve and making sure they get it is called a "planned economy". Here's how we do it in the free market:
Paypal me $1 and I'll email you a cc-licensed mp3 of my son singing. addy is why(Delete this)yousee@yahoo.com
"Since when did Linux not read jpeg files"
Note: 'camcorder' -- video formats are mostly the problem. Admittedly, I only did a tiny bit of asking around.
This occurred to me as I was reading TFA, which is pretty well-balanced overall. When I went shopping for digital camcorders the other day, I was keenly interested in output format, since I use Linux. Seems like every single camera had developed "proprietary format" for their output, but thankfully offered software ('round $40) that would help you look at this output. Thanks. Oh, but it requires XP of course.
The line: "Like the other Linux distributions, though, Xandros had problems viewing some online video files, playing DVDs and downloading pictures from my digital camera" really hits home for the average Joe. I wonder how many of their ears perked up at this line: "Generally, open-source software can't legally play encrypted DVDs in the U.S."
That second one is a better clue to the real "problems" Linux has with these things.
Something certainly has killed or mortally wounded music in the last couple decades, but saying what would probably require a lot of research. Me, I'd incline toward the payola and merger frenzy, prima facie. Those things, after all, have verifiably led to fewer kinds of music getting public attention. It's possible that someone's livelihood was ruined -- and creative output stopped -- by hisher music being shared among huge numbers of people, but I haven't heard the tale yet.
If someone has a monopoly on desktops, it's *obviously because their OS is the best. The free market picked a winner! They deserve the spoils of war for all that innovating.
Just like Titanic is *obviously the best movie ever made. Look at the box office.
Well those are nice definitions, and they both serve to refute your previous assertion:
"they're also trying to get me to hold to them. And in many cases (e.g. Pamela Jones in TFA) in rather heated terms. If that doesn't justify calling them fanatical, tell me what does."
Your def: trying to persuade you + (sometimes) heated terms = fanaticism.
It is on you to demonstrate that trying to persuade and (sometimes) using heated terms automatically qualifies as excessive/extreme/unreasonable/uncritical
To put it another way: even those dictionaries don't suggest that devotion & enthusiasm are sufficient in themselves.
First time I've ever been accused of being pro-microsoft. I should clarify:
I don't think hiding complexity is a good thing to do. As an example: establishing the credentials of a piece of executable code, and running it in a safe zone so that it cannot crash your whole system, is complicated.
You can hide this complexity by, for example, having the OS just go ahead and run every damn piece of exectuable code it ever encounters... with administrative privileges. Probably "dodging complexity" is a better term for that.
But the user thinks: "installing software is easy! you just click this link and the software installs itself! Also, thank god the browser is linked into the core of the OS! Makes things so simple! Why the hell does Linux make everything so complicated?"
"Microsoft of Linux" simply means that in the eyes of potential customers, you are the one to go to if you want to go Linux, that's all. Right now with Windows - it's MS(obviously)
MS is who you go to if you want to go Windows? Making microsoft the "microsoft of..." Microsoft ? And I'm the one talking in circles?
Sorry, guys... philosopher by training so I might get abstract here.
Microsoft is the microsoft of software, obviously. What does it mean to be the "microsoft" of something, though? I think it means to provide a very specific service: hiding complexity. I'm reminded of Neal Stephenson's analysis of what the Windows startup routine looks like to the user, as against that of Linux. If you're used to a blue screen that says "Here comes Windows! Aren't you happy?" then the screen output while Linux starts up is going to look broken.
What would it mean to hide the complexity of Linux? Ubuntu, Linspire, et. al. sorta do this, but note:
Hidden Linux is not Linux. It's very nature is to be transparent. Linspire and Ubuntu are still Linuces b/c it is still possible to get in there and fiddle with the code. What they hide (or rather, de-emphasize) is simply the 'invitation' to come in and fiddle.
So if being-microsoft means "making it easy to do the lowest-common-denominator things with software" then there will be one of those for Linux.
But if it means "achieving the above by limiting what the user can do, and what she can modify" there cannot be one.
Actually that part was the one bit that wasn't off the top of my head
"The difference between a fan and a fanatic is that while both have an overwhelming liking or interest in a given subject, behaviour of a fanatic will be viewed as violating prevailing social norms, while that of a fan will not violate those norms (although is usually considered unusual).(Thorne&Bruner 2006)"
Wik entry Original source (req. req'd)
they're also trying to get me to hold to them. And in many cases (e.g. Pamela Jones in TFA) in rather heated terms. If that doesn't justify calling them fanatical, tell me what does.
Will do:
If someone values X -- let's say, um, coffee -- highly, she has reasons to do so. It seems "right" to her to value coffee and when offered an opportunity she explains those reasons and tries to get other people to value it.
If she is noticeably fervent about this, it's usually because people who do not value coffee have a negative impact on her life.
For example, not cofee: let's say, um, the freedom to share software. When people who do not value software freedom make deals to bring an entire industry to a crawl, she might get pretty upset and -- *gasp -- use heated terms to talk about it. This is normal human psychological response.
Fanaticism is when violence, or other contraventions of social norms, are used to force people to espouse values. Especially when the values that those people hold has little impact on the fanatic's life.
"But people who are not so fanatical need not restrict themselves to one or the other."
Look, you don't have to have ethics, principles, or values. I don't care. But when someone else has them they're not automatically fanatical.
I eat meat and vegetables. Lots of people just eat vegetables, for ethical reasons. I don't hold the same ethical principles, but I don't dismiss them as fanatics.
Matter of fact, one ethical principle I *am a little fanatical about is: Don't dismiss people you don't agree with/understand.
We should be talking about Pipes, not oil. IIRC, common carrier rules apply to the owners of pipes; they have to be neutral about who is allowed to buy for oil-width. If internet access had been defined as what it is -- a *communications medium, rather than an "information service" -- the same carrier rules would already apply to it. I think net neutrality people should focus their efforts on that.
If it is an "information service" you would expect service's provider to be the source of the information I obtain through it. It is not that; when my sister sends me email she is the provider of whatever information is in it.
I figured it was an economic system -- orthogonal to the political structure. e.g. if the government/people own the means of production in a monarchy, it's a socialist monarchy...
It is astonishing to me that USPTO might be getting a bit of a clue after decades of sucking. They deserve our applause and our help; remember, we're the ones who have been so pissed at them for screwing up the software industry. They look sincere, so bury the hatchet and edit that wiki!
Yes. Microsoft's response to ODF has been a year-long version of that stupid dialog box that comes up and says "you are about to save in a text-only format. are you sure? you might, y'know lose some formatting or features or something"
I'd love to rewrite that dialog so that it says something like
"you are about to save in a text-only format. are you sure? if you do this, you will be able to access this information for the rest of your life, even if you don't continue to buy our software. Think about it very carefully, then press continue...
But it's definitely one of those jokes that comes off Insightful if you "get it".
Has there ever been an impartial, legitimate impact study? For every "lost sales" claim like this there's a "downloaders actually buy *more music" claim and then there's a "no, they buy less, but not much" one...
I thought it was brand new. If it took off like a rocket, please link me. I'm lazy.
I have a double standard and can explain why
on
Explorer Destroyer
·
· Score: 1
One browser makes developers' lives easier as it increases in popularity. It adheres to published standards, and the way to make things happen correctly in it are public knowledge. The other browser makes developers' lives more difficult as it increases in popularity. It requires that a number of presentation routines have to have forks in them to accomodate its cute little way of doing things.
As a web developer, I have *zero problem with people favoring the fox over IE, even through the mechanism of annoying users (assuming that method is effective, which it might not be).
Slashdot Mirror
Why? Is there some principle of political economy by which people who find things get 'protection'? What's that, anyway? I found a flea in my desk a minute ago. What do I deserve?
Y'know what, yesterday I found and supported new music, too. My son was in the living room singing a song that he made up. I said "That's a great song". I haven't published it yet, though. What do I "deserve" when I do? Where do I fill out the paperwork?
Having the government decide what people deserve and making sure they get it is called a "planned economy". Here's how we do it in the free market:
Paypal me $1 and I'll email you a cc-licensed mp3 of my son singing. addy is why(Delete this)yousee@yahoo.com
"Since when did Linux not read jpeg files" Note: 'camcorder' -- video formats are mostly the problem. Admittedly, I only did a tiny bit of asking around.
The line: "Like the other Linux distributions, though, Xandros had problems viewing some online video files, playing DVDs and downloading pictures from my digital camera" really hits home for the average Joe. I wonder how many of their ears perked up at this line: "Generally, open-source software can't legally play encrypted DVDs in the U.S."
That second one is a better clue to the real "problems" Linux has with these things.
Something certainly has killed or mortally wounded music in the last couple decades, but saying what would probably require a lot of research. Me, I'd incline toward the payola and merger frenzy, prima facie. Those things, after all, have verifiably led to fewer kinds of music getting public attention. It's possible that someone's livelihood was ruined -- and creative output stopped -- by hisher music being shared among huge numbers of people, but I haven't heard the tale yet.
Just like Titanic is *obviously the best movie ever made. Look at the box office.
(note: set sarcasm detectors on 'stun')
"they're also trying to get me to hold to them. And in many cases (e.g. Pamela Jones in TFA) in rather heated terms. If that doesn't justify calling them fanatical, tell me what does."
Your def: trying to persuade you + (sometimes) heated terms = fanaticism.
It is on you to demonstrate that trying to persuade and (sometimes) using heated terms automatically qualifies as excessive/extreme/unreasonable/uncritical
To put it another way: even those dictionaries don't suggest that devotion & enthusiasm are sufficient in themselves.
I don't think hiding complexity is a good thing to do. As an example: establishing the credentials of a piece of executable code, and running it in a safe zone so that it cannot crash your whole system, is complicated.
You can hide this complexity by, for example, having the OS just go ahead and run every damn piece of exectuable code it ever encounters ... with administrative privileges. Probably "dodging complexity" is a better term for that.
But the user thinks: "installing software is easy! you just click this link and the software installs itself! Also, thank god the browser is linked into the core of the OS! Makes things so simple! Why the hell does Linux make everything so complicated?"
MS is who you go to if you want to go Windows? Making microsoft the "microsoft of ..." Microsoft ? And I'm the one talking in circles?
Microsoft is the microsoft of software, obviously. What does it mean to be the "microsoft" of something, though? I think it means to provide a very specific service: hiding complexity. I'm reminded of Neal Stephenson's analysis of what the Windows startup routine looks like to the user, as against that of Linux. If you're used to a blue screen that says "Here comes Windows! Aren't you happy?" then the screen output while Linux starts up is going to look broken.
What would it mean to hide the complexity of Linux? Ubuntu, Linspire, et. al. sorta do this, but note:
Hidden Linux is not Linux. It's very nature is to be transparent. Linspire and Ubuntu are still Linuces b/c it is still possible to get in there and fiddle with the code. What they hide (or rather, de-emphasize) is simply the 'invitation' to come in and fiddle.
So if being-microsoft means "making it easy to do the lowest-common-denominator things with software" then there will be one of those for Linux.
But if it means "achieving the above by limiting what the user can do, and what she can modify" there cannot be one.
"The difference between a fan and a fanatic is that while both have an overwhelming liking or interest in a given subject, behaviour of a fanatic will be viewed as violating prevailing social norms, while that of a fan will not violate those norms (although is usually considered unusual).(Thorne&Bruner 2006)"
Wik entry
Original source (req. req'd)
Will do:
If someone values X -- let's say, um, coffee -- highly, she has reasons to do so. It seems "right" to her to value coffee and when offered an opportunity she explains those reasons and tries to get other people to value it.
If she is noticeably fervent about this, it's usually because people who do not value coffee have a negative impact on her life.
For example, not cofee: let's say, um, the freedom to share software. When people who do not value software freedom make deals to bring an entire industry to a crawl, she might get pretty upset and -- *gasp -- use heated terms to talk about it. This is normal human psychological response.
Fanaticism is when violence, or other contraventions of social norms, are used to force people to espouse values. Especially when the values that those people hold has little impact on the fanatic's life.
Just off the top of my head, you see..
Look, you don't have to have ethics, principles, or values. I don't care. But when someone else has them they're not automatically fanatical.
I eat meat and vegetables. Lots of people just eat vegetables, for ethical reasons. I don't hold the same ethical principles, but I don't dismiss them as fanatics.
Matter of fact, one ethical principle I *am a little fanatical about is: Don't dismiss people you don't agree with/understand.
We should be talking about Pipes, not oil. IIRC, common carrier rules apply to the owners of pipes; they have to be neutral about who is allowed to buy for oil-width. If internet access had been defined as what it is -- a *communications medium, rather than an "information service" -- the same carrier rules would already apply to it. I think net neutrality people should focus their efforts on that. If it is an "information service" you would expect service's provider to be the source of the information I obtain through it. It is not that; when my sister sends me email she is the provider of whatever information is in it.
I figured it was an economic system -- orthogonal to the political structure. e.g. if the government/people own the means of production in a monarchy, it's a socialist monarchy...
Many of the biggest problems began or worsened while Bruce Lehman was at the helm, so for a long time they also didn't have the WILL
Take it easy. It's a startup. Let the experiment run for a bit.
It is astonishing to me that USPTO might be getting a bit of a clue after decades of sucking. They deserve our applause and our help; remember, we're the ones who have been so pissed at them for screwing up the software industry. They look sincere, so bury the hatchet and edit that wiki!
I'd love to rewrite that dialog so that it says something like
"you are about to save in a text-only format. are you sure? if you do this, you will be able to access this information for the rest of your life, even if you don't continue to buy our software. Think about it very carefully, then press continue...
But it's definitely one of those jokes that comes off Insightful if you "get it". Has there ever been an impartial, legitimate impact study? For every "lost sales" claim like this there's a "downloaders actually buy *more music" claim and then there's a "no, they buy less, but not much" one...
n/t
Employed many times by MS: viz. "Don't switch to FOSS/Mac/Whatev because there's a big great new system coming out any day/month/decade now"
Allow/deny policy. I love it.
I thought it was brand new. If it took off like a rocket, please link me. I'm lazy.
As a web developer, I have *zero problem with people favoring the fox over IE, even through the mechanism of annoying users (assuming that method is effective, which it might not be).
Just a guess