Considering blackberry, android and iOS are all recent and new entries i see no reason why nokia couldn't reform the symbian platform to a new look, while retaining backward compatibility.
Of course they could give it a new look. I don't see how that would help, though. A pig with lipstick on it is still a pig.
If you need better software, then why not actually hire great developers to work for you? You know, like think about the quality of your product and dedicate resources to it over the medium-long term, rather than staging flashy gimmicks? I guess that just makes too much sense.
This will include the output of the BBC, which is funded by the licence paying public and should therefore belong to the licence paying public. We will amend the BBC's charter to prevent the BBC from using DRM technology, and to require the BBC to release all their content under a Creative Commons licence.
So, you basically want to eliminate an important source of income for the BBC, licensing shows internationally. So, you'll discourage creativity and increase the cost of running the BBC for the citizens. Nice job there.
Is freedom of expression likewise "a fairly coherent, holistic philosophy"?
Mostly, but that's not what the Pirate Party's position is. Even if it were, I don't think it's enough, as it doesn't provide any guidance on things like expenditure and infrastructure.
They thought that the "Pirate" name was key to draw attention to the issue and they tried to ride on that PR wave
Yeah, not really such a good idea. Contrary to popular sayings, not all attention is good attention. It's kind of like calling a marijuana legalization party the "Getting Really Fucked Up On Drugs Party." That will certainly win much attention, but not votes.
In terms of single-issue party or not, they figured they could do it like the Greens, who started out as an environmentalist and pacifist movement that over time took positions on all of the issues.
Well, yeah. Whether you agree with it or not, environmentalism is a fairly coherent, holistic philosophy. There's enough broad support and substance behind the ideas to make a workable government. Opposing copyright just isn't in the same ballpark of useful ideas.
Being the decisive small part that determines who governs a country was a pretty serious plan, I would say.
It might be a serious goal, but I don't see anything that indicates they had any kind of plan for achieving that.
If they were serious, why did they name their party the "Pirate Party" and where are their policy positions on other issues not related to copyright and similar issues? You know, the issues that people vote on, and want their government to address?
I've commented on the Pirate Party's failure to evolve into a serious political force.
Err, what? That hardly seems worth commenting on. To become a "serious political force" they'd need to actually make some effort and have some desire to become such a force.
I wasn't aware that anyone thought they were serious about it.
I understand the general public not getting the difference between say, lossy and lossless compression, but a geek?
Huh? I think that geeks typically know less than the general public. For example, your average member of the general public is intelligent enough to not choose a career that involves biting the heads off chickens. I'm not sure why you think that this particular career choice would involve specific knowledge about video compression.
Why does it have to be "for geeks"? Why can't it just be for people who are interested in digital video? I guess people who bite the heads off chickens at carnivals need their own special perspective on the topic, but I can't imagine that those people constitute a very significant market segment when it comes to video.
Accessibility accommodations for all those materials are well known and currently in use.
Really? So, how exactly does a blind person read the handwritten scrawl in my notebook? Half the time, I can't even read my own handwriting, so I'm not sure how somebody else, sighted or not, would be able to.
At my institution, a student who jailbreaks an iPad would be in violation of university policies, and could face disciplinary action
I assume you mean an iPad provided by the institution, as I don't see how they would have the authority to dictate what a student does with his/her own device.
In This case, it is not the student's device, it is the institution. So your example just shows that the institution is able to do have control over their own device. The same would hold for any other device. If the University supplies a laptop running Windows 7 with Office and Adobe Creative Suite, a student would probably be disciplined if they erased that and replaced with Ubuntu.
So instead of a 6 hour trip from DC to my weekend home, I'd have an 8 hour trip.
That's a pretty insignificant price to pay to fight against government tyranny. Unless, of course, you're just a whiny little bitch who doesn't actually care about principles and has a sense of entitlement without responsibility.
The UK Government has announced that it will consider open-source software on an equal footing with proprietary commercial software when awarding multi-million-pound IT contracts.
Why wouldn't you consider Open Source on equal footing with commercial software by default? It seems like a redundant statement.
They very well might have been considering Open Source as an option since that announcement - the question is whether Open Source has ever actually made the the grade and been accepted as a better solution.
So, if it's about money, then just drive at the speed limit and screw them out of the money. If everybody did this, then the cameras would disappear because revenue would dry up (assuming it is about money).
I think you are overstating the ease with which a camera may be moved. A speed camera has to be aligned exactly (angle/height/equipment etc) to measure the correct and valid speed of a passing vehicle. You cannot simply move it within a few minutes
Sure you can - they have car-mounted units and hand-held units. The car-mounted ones can even snap you while the police car is traveling at high speed in the opposite direction. It's not like accurate speed detection is difficult.
our argument of "property must exist because that's what we have now" isn't an argument, but a declarative.
Firstly, that's not my argument. That's just your twisted misinterpretation of my argument.
Look, you've gone way off track. Let's go ack to the beginning:
Darkness404 argued that "property by nature is scarce and not unlimited." I objected to this, because there is nothing in the definition of property that requires it to be limited. Scarcity is a completely separate concept. I wasn't arguing that we must always have systems of property.
So, the only way to rebut my argument would be to prove that it is impossible to have property without having scarcity. I can demonstrate that property does not require scarcity: Imagine an infinite two-dimensional plane. Anybody can own their own 1 mile square plot of land on that plane. Yet there is an infinite amount of land plots available. So, property exists independently of scarcity.
I was not arguing about the rightness of the concept of property, or whether it is possible to have a society without property. I was arguing about the definition of property. Talking about hypothetical worlds without property has no relevance to what I was talking about.
Because, without scarcity, there is no need for the exclusive need of property.
Again, this argument just isn't complete. Just because there is no scarcity does not mean there is no property. Anyway, how do you propose a society without scarcity would come about? No matter how much we have, there are always people who want more, who want to own it all.
I read your argument as "If homes are unique, and thus there's a scarcity of any individual house, scarcity won't exist but property will." Again, you are begging the question.
How so? If individuals own houses, then property exists, even if houses are not scarce.
You are assuming there is the concept of property and scarcity (even with infinite resources) and then arguing from that point.
Of course I am, because that's reality. You can't make the concept of property un-exist. Even if the concept is not used in practice, the concept exists, unless we somehow erase it from our memories.
There were a number of cultures without a concept of property like we have now.
That they live without it, does not make the concept disappear. And even those cultures that do not have "a concept of property like we do now" still had some concept of property, even if it is not like ours.
You only argue where the assumption is that you are right and your argument is "the assumption is that there is property, so there is property." That logic won't convince anyone.
I never said anything about the "rightness" of property. Merely that the concept exists and is independent of scarcity or abundance. Being able to think of the idea of property means it exists as a concept. You can't un-think it.
Digital recreations may have more "value" to one person than another, but they are most certainly interchangeable. Again, that they are 100% interchangeable (even if of different values) proves you are wrong.
Because digital entertainment is interchangeable, that means that all forms of property are interchangeable? Sorry, I'm not seeing the logic there.
Go read a few books about the societies (there weren't many, so it shouldn't take long) without a strong idea of property. Sure, most had the idea of personal property, but for lots, anything you weren't holding at the time was not "property"
I've read plenty about them. And, as you admit, even those with supposedly have no concept of property, have a concept of property. QED.
You are applying your existing standards on a hypothetical that would change the standards. There'd be no property because there'd be no need, so the concept would disappear.
Why would plentiful resources eliminate the concept of property? Say there is infinite land (which there probably is, if you consider the Universe to be infinite). You would still want your own home for the privacy aspects. Just because there is infinite land, doesn't mean you necessary want to live communally with others. It doesn't mean that every house will be identical.
Or in the case of the "infinite fruit tree" the distribution of resources matters. For example, if you live by a river, fresh water is essentially free. But if you are stranded in the desert, a small bottle of water approaches infinite value.
Then there' sentimental value, nostalgia and history. A photograph of your lover, or your dead child might be much more valuable than the paper it's printed on. An original artwork signed by the artists is more valuable than a reproduction.
You'd need a lot more than infinite resources to eliminate the concept of property. Not everything is an interchangeable resource.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, Symbian "only" has 44% of the worldwide market share of smartphones.
They must be using some bizarre definition of "smartphone" to get those numbers.
Considering blackberry, android and iOS are all recent and new entries i see no reason why nokia couldn't reform the symbian platform to a new look, while retaining backward compatibility.
Of course they could give it a new look. I don't see how that would help, though. A pig with lipstick on it is still a pig.
If you need better software, then why not actually hire great developers to work for you? You know, like think about the quality of your product and dedicate resources to it over the medium-long term, rather than staging flashy gimmicks? I guess that just makes too much sense.
As soon as they do that, they're no longer "the Pirate Party". They're just another easily ignored ho-hum political group with no constituency.
Isn't that what they already are?
This will include the output of the BBC, which is funded by the licence paying public and should therefore belong to the licence paying public. We will amend the BBC's charter to prevent the BBC from using DRM technology, and to require the BBC to release all their content under a Creative Commons licence.
So, you basically want to eliminate an important source of income for the BBC, licensing shows internationally. So, you'll discourage creativity and increase the cost of running the BBC for the citizens. Nice job there.
the name "Tory" derrives from tóraidhe- meaning outlaw or robber.
But isn't Tory and epithet for the Conservative Party? I've never heard it used in a positive sense.
Is freedom of expression likewise "a fairly coherent, holistic philosophy"?
Mostly, but that's not what the Pirate Party's position is. Even if it were, I don't think it's enough, as it doesn't provide any guidance on things like expenditure and infrastructure.
They thought that the "Pirate" name was key to draw attention to the issue and they tried to ride on that PR wave
Yeah, not really such a good idea. Contrary to popular sayings, not all attention is good attention. It's kind of like calling a marijuana legalization party the "Getting Really Fucked Up On Drugs Party." That will certainly win much attention, but not votes.
In terms of single-issue party or not, they figured they could do it like the Greens, who started out as an environmentalist and pacifist movement that over time took positions on all of the issues.
Well, yeah. Whether you agree with it or not, environmentalism is a fairly coherent, holistic philosophy. There's enough broad support and substance behind the ideas to make a workable government. Opposing copyright just isn't in the same ballpark of useful ideas.
Being the decisive small part that determines who governs a country was a pretty serious plan, I would say.
It might be a serious goal, but I don't see anything that indicates they had any kind of plan for achieving that.
If they were serious, why did they name their party the "Pirate Party" and where are their policy positions on other issues not related to copyright and similar issues? You know, the issues that people vote on, and want their government to address?
I've commented on the Pirate Party's failure to evolve into a serious political force.
Err, what? That hardly seems worth commenting on. To become a "serious political force" they'd need to actually make some effort and have some desire to become such a force.
I wasn't aware that anyone thought they were serious about it.
I understand the general public not getting the difference between say, lossy and lossless compression, but a geek?
Huh? I think that geeks typically know less than the general public. For example, your average member of the general public is intelligent enough to not choose a career that involves biting the heads off chickens. I'm not sure why you think that this particular career choice would involve specific knowledge about video compression.
Don't be evil sill means a little something sometimes.
I'll remember that next time I'm baking a non-evil pie, and set it out to cool on my evil windowsill.
Why does it have to be "for geeks"? Why can't it just be for people who are interested in digital video? I guess people who bite the heads off chickens at carnivals need their own special perspective on the topic, but I can't imagine that those people constitute a very significant market segment when it comes to video.
Anyone who thinks this is a good idea has been smoking too much of the Apple kool-aid.
Well, that person must be some kind of genius. Smoking Kool-Aid would be pretty difficult, as it's kind of wet.
Accessibility accommodations for all those materials are well known and currently in use.
Really? So, how exactly does a blind person read the handwritten scrawl in my notebook? Half the time, I can't even read my own handwriting, so I'm not sure how somebody else, sighted or not, would be able to.
At my institution, a student who jailbreaks an iPad would be in violation of university policies, and could face disciplinary action
I assume you mean an iPad provided by the institution, as I don't see how they would have the authority to dictate what a student does with his/her own device.
In This case, it is not the student's device, it is the institution. So your example just shows that the institution is able to do have control over their own device. The same would hold for any other device. If the University supplies a laptop running Windows 7 with Office and Adobe Creative Suite, a student would probably be disciplined if they erased that and replaced with Ubuntu.
So instead of a 6 hour trip from DC to my weekend home, I'd have an 8 hour trip.
That's a pretty insignificant price to pay to fight against government tyranny. Unless, of course, you're just a whiny little bitch who doesn't actually care about principles and has a sense of entitlement without responsibility.
The UK Government has announced that it will consider open-source software on an equal footing with proprietary commercial software when awarding multi-million-pound IT contracts.
Why wouldn't you consider Open Source on equal footing with commercial software by default? It seems like a redundant statement.
They very well might have been considering Open Source as an option since that announcement - the question is whether Open Source has ever actually made the the grade and been accepted as a better solution.
It's not about safety. It's about money
So, if it's about money, then just drive at the speed limit and screw them out of the money. If everybody did this, then the cameras would disappear because revenue would dry up (assuming it is about money).
I think you are overstating the ease with which a camera may be moved. A speed camera has to be aligned exactly (angle/height/equipment etc) to measure the correct and valid speed of a passing vehicle. You cannot simply move it within a few minutes
Sure you can - they have car-mounted units and hand-held units. The car-mounted ones can even snap you while the police car is traveling at high speed in the opposite direction. It's not like accurate speed detection is difficult.
our argument of "property must exist because that's what we have now" isn't an argument, but a declarative.
Firstly, that's not my argument. That's just your twisted misinterpretation of my argument.
Look, you've gone way off track. Let's go ack to the beginning:
Darkness404 argued that "property by nature is scarce and not unlimited." I objected to this, because there is nothing in the definition of property that requires it to be limited. Scarcity is a completely separate concept. I wasn't arguing that we must always have systems of property.
So, the only way to rebut my argument would be to prove that it is impossible to have property without having scarcity. I can demonstrate that property does not require scarcity: Imagine an infinite two-dimensional plane. Anybody can own their own 1 mile square plot of land on that plane. Yet there is an infinite amount of land plots available. So, property exists independently of scarcity.
I was not arguing about the rightness of the concept of property, or whether it is possible to have a society without property. I was arguing about the definition of property. Talking about hypothetical worlds without property has no relevance to what I was talking about.
Because, without scarcity, there is no need for the exclusive need of property.
Again, this argument just isn't complete. Just because there is no scarcity does not mean there is no property. Anyway, how do you propose a society without scarcity would come about? No matter how much we have, there are always people who want more, who want to own it all.
I read your argument as "If homes are unique, and thus there's a scarcity of any individual house, scarcity won't exist but property will." Again, you are begging the question.
How so? If individuals own houses, then property exists, even if houses are not scarce.
You are assuming there is the concept of property and scarcity (even with infinite resources) and then arguing from that point.
Of course I am, because that's reality. You can't make the concept of property un-exist. Even if the concept is not used in practice, the concept exists, unless we somehow erase it from our memories.
There were a number of cultures without a concept of property like we have now.
That they live without it, does not make the concept disappear. And even those cultures that do not have "a concept of property like we do now" still had some concept of property, even if it is not like ours.
You only argue where the assumption is that you are right and your argument is "the assumption is that there is property, so there is property." That logic won't convince anyone.
I never said anything about the "rightness" of property. Merely that the concept exists and is independent of scarcity or abundance. Being able to think of the idea of property means it exists as a concept. You can't un-think it.
Digital recreations may have more "value" to one person than another, but they are most certainly interchangeable. Again, that they are 100% interchangeable (even if of different values) proves you are wrong.
Because digital entertainment is interchangeable, that means that all forms of property are interchangeable? Sorry, I'm not seeing the logic there.
Go read a few books about the societies (there weren't many, so it shouldn't take long) without a strong idea of property. Sure, most had the idea of personal property, but for lots, anything you weren't holding at the time was not "property"
I've read plenty about them. And, as you admit, even those with supposedly have no concept of property, have a concept of property. QED.
The results were surprising. IE9 held its own pretty well (with a few caveats), and the latest Firefox 4 beta came in dead last."
Why is this surprising? Firefox has been the slowest of the current crop of browsers (IE8 excepted) for quite a while now.
don't you remember the popup era? ads do not make money anymore.
If ads don't make money, then why does slashdot run them? For charity?
You are applying your existing standards on a hypothetical that would change the standards. There'd be no property because there'd be no need, so the concept would disappear.
Why would plentiful resources eliminate the concept of property? Say there is infinite land (which there probably is, if you consider the Universe to be infinite). You would still want your own home for the privacy aspects. Just because there is infinite land, doesn't mean you necessary want to live communally with others. It doesn't mean that every house will be identical.
Or in the case of the "infinite fruit tree" the distribution of resources matters. For example, if you live by a river, fresh water is essentially free. But if you are stranded in the desert, a small bottle of water approaches infinite value.
Then there' sentimental value, nostalgia and history. A photograph of your lover, or your dead child might be much more valuable than the paper it's printed on. An original artwork signed by the artists is more valuable than a reproduction.
You'd need a lot more than infinite resources to eliminate the concept of property. Not everything is an interchangeable resource.