I also consider bug reports and feature requests to be a very important contribution. I'm always shocked to hear OSS devs say that this kind of feedback is essentially useless.
While these things are not useless by any stretch of the imagination, it certainly doesn't require an open source program to get them. They are useful to all programmers and are turned in by users on all programs. OSS has always been talked about with the idea that people will not only report bugs, but will also sumbit bug fixes. It's not the fact they they are only getting bug reports that is the problem, it's the fact that they aren't getting any of the benefits that are supposed to come with open source.
Why are we so conerned with keeping children away from porn? Let's take a worst-case scenario, and ask what exactly the results are supposed to be if some seven year old girl stumbles across "Debbie Does Dallas"? The unspoken assumption seems to be that she will be irrepairably harmed by such material, but I challenge that statement. I remember running across a Penthouse once when I was a pre-pubescent kid; I thought it was interesting, but after a while I just went back to playing other decidedly non-sexual games.
If this was the extent of porn on the net, I would agree with you completely. The real question is, have you looked at the porn on the net? Daily I get spam in my inbox for incest, beastiality, and occasionally necrophila. The problem isn't kids seeing "nudie pictures", it's kids seeing women having sex with a dog or donkey. And this doesn't even take into account the number of sites with pictures of decomposing bodies and gaping chest wounds. Saying all this is about pictures of naked women is to ignore the reality of what is available on the internet.
That being said, I don't support use of blocking software in public libraries until it is at least 99% accurate (and it's a far way from there).
Okay, so this "per-seat licensing" consists of them not offering the binaries for free download. The source will still be "freely available". You will have to pay to get the binaries, and I would assume once you have the binaries, you can freely get the source. Where exactly is the problem here. this is all abiding by the GPL exactly. Nowhere does it say you cannot sell your software, nor does it say you must give your binaries away for free. It says if someone gets the binaries, the source must be available to them (which in this case it will be). Where exactly is the problem here? Oh wait, it's RMS, so the problem must be someone might make money off of software, so he has to object.
The CD layer should be freely available for personal copying such as to a computer or portable digital player. These 2 basic concepts are a model that can be applied in the future, when better formats become available. It may also serve as a model for digital visual recordings. Perhaps we can get the artists, publishing companies, electronics manufacturers and the federal trade commision to all agree on this compromise: 1.The high quality recording allows only one copy of itself to be made for archival purposes. 2.The lower quality recordings are available for personal copying.
SO, the CD version is completely copiable, meaning it can be ripped into MP3 or whatever format you wish, but there is another "protected" version of the song that is "higher quality" and can only be copied once? What is to stop people from taking the CD layer and ripping it to whatever high-quality format they want? And what happens when the "high quality only copy once" scheme is broken? How does having things exactly as they are now offer the artist/RIAA anymore protection than uncopyprotected CDs?
The two (well, 3) cases are pretty much incomparable. The bootleg versions of AotC and Spidey are much poorer quality than you will see in the theatre. Comparing a compressed DivX version taken from a guy with a camcorder in the theatre (which is the version of AotC that I saw making the rounds on the net) is nothing like seeing it in the theatre for yourself. The Eminem bootleg sounds (for most people) exactly like what they would get from the real thing. For most people, they have already bought their copy of the Cd, and unless there is some "super secret" extra on the official release, there isn't a reason to buy another version. The liner notes are not enough incentive for most people to spend $15 on a cd they already bought without liner notes for $5. But seeing a decent version of AotC is worth $15 even though they already spent $5 on a crappy pirated version that isn't near the quality.
We don't want to be annoyed. We hated Scrappy Doo, we hated Oliver on the Brady Bunch. And we hate Jar Jar. I was HOPING that I wouldn't hear the word "meesa" come out of his mouth, but I did. That's point one.
But the reason we hate these characters is not because they are "add-ons". These characters (Jar Jar included) were added in to save a dying show/movie. The add-ons are not the problem, the problem is that the shows were dying already these the add-ons were a last ditch effort to turn the show around. The Brady Bunch was already stale when Cousin Oliver was added to "liven things up". Scooby Doo was already done to death when Scrappy was added to "spice it up". TPM was already boring when Jar Jar was added to add some "humour". The "add-ons" aren't the problem, the problem is the show was already dead when the add-ons came on board.
Current damages are based on how much money people make on selling the stuff. However they want that changed to the full retail price... which allows companies to set there own damages by overinflating the value of their software then giving everyone a discount. Have a copy of 2000 Enterprise server, your why not just give your house to Bill!
The only way this allows companies to "set their own damages" is if they want to set the retail price so high that no one else will buy it. Retail price is a fairly specific number, it's the amount charged to a regular buyer in stores. It's not like a company could sue and then claim the retail price is $5000 when the software is selling in the store for $50. What this does is allow them to actually sue for the money the lost. The problem is that if they sell the pirated software cheaply, the damages will be relatively small, even though it may have cost the company a much larger amount of money. It also takes into account P2P system, where people aren't making money off of it, but they are still breaking the copyright.
It's entertainment, the superflous recreation that we fill our idle time with. While it generates a lot of money (and ergo political influence), entertainment has, ultimately, zero effect or worth to a population. Sure, music, film, and so forth are part of what defines a culture. But what the public agrees to support are the arts, works of inherant cultural value, not "Dude, Where's My Car?" While I agree with the general sentiment of your post, I have to take great exception to this piece. Entertainment is art, whether you like it or not. You may not like "Dude, Where's My Car" (and trust me, I agree with you), but that does not make it any less art than Shakespeare, who in his time was a playwright playing directly to the lower class and under educated, just as "Due, Where's My Car" is. There are many good arguements against the RI/MPAA and the tactics they are employing, but the one that always sticks out as old fogeys looking at a younger culture they no longer understand is the "but all they put out anymore is crap" arguement. I do not like Britney Spears, but there are millions who do (for whatever reason it may be). My not liking her does not keep her from being art anymore than my not liking Van Gogh keeps him from being art.
Consumers will be able to find something to do without being bombarded by ads when they pay for everything. The reason free TV is free is because the costs are paid with advertising. The reason many web sites are (or were) free was because the costs were paid by advertising. You can watch TV without ads, it will just cost you $10 per channel to get HBO or Cinemax. You want web sites without ads, find one that is members only and join it, most of them are ad free. Everything costs money. That cost has to be paid by something. If it isn't ads, it will probably be by you.
I'm sure everyone is going to lambaste this idea, but I find nothing wrong with it. It is completely voluntary. It basically creates a subset of internet sites parents will know for sure are safe for their children. It is the equivalent to the children's section of the library. Everything in that section is "safe" for kids, but there is no rule saying kids cannot go into the adult section. Same thing here. The.kids.us section will be safe for kids, but they can still go into the "adult" section of the net. It basically helps parents do their job of parenting and watching their kids. Put a simple filter that only allows.kids.us sites through, and if the kid wants to see the "adult" side of the net, the parent can let him and decide what they can and can't see.
Now, RMS' views on the naming of GNU/Linux are well-known, and often derired. But it *is* an important point that too much emphasis is given to the kernel, and that too many people believe Linus Torvalds was somehow responsible for the entire system. Who can blame RMS for feeling a little bitter about it - if not for his sake, then for that of all the other GNU developers whose work and effort is often trivialised? How many of us would enjoy seeing our efforts appropriated by others without due credit being given, and particularly without our beliefs - central to our reasons for developing the software in the first place - being given proper consideration? The kernel IS Linux. GNU has some good tools to use with Linux, but they certainly aren't as important as the kernel. These tools can be used with many systems. They are used with the BSD system (and probably a lot more that I don't know of). They can be used with different kernels. Therefore Linux is Linux. IT is a kernel that you can use a wide variety of tools with. In theory, it would be possible to use Linux and never use a GNU tool. Gnu was important (and still is) to Linux, but it is by no means Linux. Saying Linux should be GNU/Linux is the same as saying Windows should be LiteStep/Windows because I use Litestep on it. GNU is important, but it can be used with multiple kernels, which means it is just another tool.
He may think there is a good solution that doesn't require laws, but then it doesn't requeire him. Congress makes laws. Period. They don't enforce them, they don't set public opinion. Unless this is something that can be fixed by making a law, there isn't anything he can do. Making laws is what he does, and if there isn't a law to be made, he is wasting time that could be spent making laws.
I agree that TV ads are annoying and overall not all that desirable, but the key point is no one has come up with a good workable alternative that will still give TV to the masses. Paying per channel is likely to be expensive and cost prohibited to many people (think cable, but about 10 times as expensive as most cable channels also have ads). Placing ads in the corner of the screen is IMHO worse than regular ads. You end up losing part of the show because it's covered up with an ad. And eventually those will go the way of the banner ad and become more and more loud, obnoxious and annoying. Product placement has to be the worst choice though, as you will quickly end up losing creative control of the show to advertisers (much worse than now). Do you really think any product is going to want to pay to be used by the murderer or rapist on the show? Do we really want every person on the show wearing big banners on their chest for whatever product is paying the most? And what happens when a show takes a chance and has the good guys do something controversial? No one will want to advertise on them or the bad guys at that point, effectively eliminating that show (or at least that episode).
So the question is, if 30 second ads aren't the answer, what is?
Erm, the point is that Microsoft have been whining about how you can't make a modular version of Windows. The states have countered with "but you have this Windows XP Embedded Thingy which claims to be modular" It's not that the states want Microsoft to ship XP Embedded on a PC, it's that they want to prove that a modular version of Windows is possible. Microsoft has conveniently already developed something to make their case for them, which is why they've been fighting vigorously to keep it out of the court.
MS has never claimed it's impossible to create a modular windows, just that it's not feasible. Not even MS would try to claim that if you started from the ground up it would not be possible to rewrite windows to be modular. They claim that it is not feasible to REWRITE windows to be modular. Pointing to XP Embedded, which was written from the ground up to be modular, and saying "See Windows can be modular" is misleading at best. A rewritten windows could obviously be modular, the real question is can the current windows be modified within reason to be modular.
I came across this much more informative investigation of D.C.'s traffic cameras a few weeks ago. It's heavy on facts and figures, and hammers home the observation that an extra second of yellow light is at least as good at promoting good behavior, but much less lucrative for the local government and the contracting firm.
Adding an extra second of yellow light only promotes ""good behavior" because people have an extra second to run the yellow light. The key is that you aren't changing their bad behavior (the yellow light if there for people who don't have time to stop, not to speed up and rush the light which is what this is catching 99% of the time), you are just making their bad bahavior within the law. Behavior does not become "good" because it's within the law. Good behavior consists of stopping at a yellow light at all times unless you cannot stop safely.
While I disagree with saying PVR is basically theft, we have to consider the ramifications of TV with no commercials (or commercials which are watched by no one). Commercials are the only way commercial TV stations generate money. The only other way I can think of for them to generate money is to charge for their channel (and if this happen, cable prices would increase probably 20 times) or to include ads in the actual shows themselves. The problem with the first is obvious, but there is a bigger problem with the second solution. If ads are included in the show (say the cast of friends always have to mention how much they love Jif peanut butter) you start to lose show content and more importantly, show control. If the advertising is integrated with the show, advertisers will rightly want to control how their ads show up. They won't want the evil murder on Law and Order talking about how he loves to spread Jif peanut butter on dead bodies. SO creators lose control of at least part of the content of their shows, which makes for much worse television.
I don't agree that PVRs are theft, but I see no other ways TV can stay free (or even affordable for most people) and have no one watching the commercials.
"The meeting was told that in 2000 the software industry in Europe lost $3bn to pirates."
I am always curious where they actually come up with these numbers. Some kid in his basement downloading a $3,000 software package hasn't actually cost the industry anything b/c he wouldn't have bought it anyway. Now if a company like IBM bought 1 copy of office and installed on every corporate desktop then I think that is a real problem. The real question is how many companys are really in gross violations of the current laws?
I have no idea how they arrive at that number, but in reality ever copy of software that is downloaded (and used, so they people that just trade software and never use any of it don't count) usually costs someone something. If someone needs a photo editing program and they d/l a cracked copy of Photoshop, they most probably would not have paid for Photoshop, so they rightly did not cost Adobe $500 (or whatever the going rate is). Of course this is not always true, but in a general sense. It is the makers of the Gimp and small apps like Paint Shop Pro that have really lost the money (okay, Gimp lost users not money, but they still lost something). These people probably can't afford Photoshop and probably wouldn't have bought it, but they probably can afford a cheaper app (or a free app) but they don't use it because they can pirate Photoshop for free. If they need a photo editing app, they may not have bought Photoshop, but they would have bought something if they really needed it. But instead they bought nothing, choosing to get a pirated version instead. So no, ever person who d/ls and uses a cracked copy of Photoshop is not costing Adobe $500, but they are costing the smaller companies and free software instead.
I see lots of people talking about how Radlight doesn't inform the user (except in the EULA) that it will remove Adaware. They common arguement is that no one reads the EULA and it's not clear what is goin on, because the EULA is confusing. Is this much different than what Adaware does? IT just gives me a list of files it thinks are "offending" and asks if I want to remove them. It doesn't tell me what they are (outside of a name of the "spyware"), what they do, or any consequences of removing them. If I run Adaware and remove Cydoor, it doesn't give me any indication that it will stop Kazaa from working, and the average person has no idea that would be a consequence. Putting the notice in the EULA is not a good tactic as it somewhat obfuscates what is going on, but is Adaware not telling you the consequences of uninstalling the "spyware" (most of which isn't spyware, it's just software that shows ads) that mucg better?
You're probably talking about the last phase of the install that is run on the user's deployed machine. The actual Windows XP installer is based on NT's and text-menu based. And as I explained in my other comment, it is far inferior in functionality to all Linux installers (with the exception of hardware detection). I realize I probably shouldn't be feeding the troll, but WinXP has no command line process to its setup. Having installed XP Pro on 10 machines in the past week (all from scratch) I the only "command line" aspect of the setup is the very beginning where you have to press keys to select the partion you want it installed on (as in "Press C to create a partition"). Win XP is by far the easiest install I've ever seen (which admittedly doesn't include Mac installs). It's literally select a few options and your done.
While the cost of development is high the cost of production is really low. Now when you have a bunch of people that wouldnt be able to pay for the drugs anyway why not just give them the drug at lower or no cost. Such cost differentiation is not unheard of. for example some drugs for pets are cheap, while the identical drugs for humans are expensive. Thats because people wouldnt pay the high costs of a drug for a pet. Actually, the cost of production of a lot of drugs is fairly high (and I would bet the AIDS drugs fall into the very high category being a cocktail). And if they gave the drugs away or sold them at a reduced price, they would immediately be opening themselves up to a multitude of problems. First, how do you determine who get the drug for free? Is it just based on income? What about insurance? How do you stop people from defrauding the company? And there will be hundreds of lawsuits from people who are paying full price claiming they should get the discounted rate as well. Having 2 different pricing schemes for pets and humans is incredibly different (and incredibly easier to handle) than having 2 different pricing schemes based on income.
There's a claim that Windows' code is too complicated to document and it's not at all modular. Any good software developer knows that modular design is important in large projects. Only a monopoly could claim their software is poorly designed without fearing loss of customers. How many customers care or even understand if their software is modular? You you think that if Apple came out and said "Our software is too complicated to document and it's not modular" it would matter one bit to most of their user-base? Most people don't care how it works, as long as it does? Good coding does not equal a good product to the consumers.
While it may be a bad tiem for them to do an audit, I can't really fault MS for doing one if the VA is out of compliance by $20 million. this isn;t a few licenses shy, this sounds like whole departments that aren't licensed. This isn't MS being nit-picky and going after people that are 2 licenses short, these are people who knowingly are installing massive amounts of software that is not licensed. MS has every right to go after major offenders like this.
Corporations just pass it on to their customers. If the government (ie, ME, MY taxes) pays for some something, I want MY say. Corporations have no right to use MY software MY taxes paid for without passing on the source to their own customers. If they want to use MY software they can pay ME back in kind.
So what you are saying is that corporations pay taxes out of their profits. They do pay them, it;s just with the money they collect from whatever business they do. It's no different than saying you don't really pay taxes, you pass those taxes along to your employer. Corps pay taxes.
You also completely discount the idea of individuals using this software for closed-source apps. I may want to write an app, but not release the source. I am a taxpayer, I have as much right as you do to use this code any way I see fit. So how can you deny me the right to use this code in my closed-source app?
The comparison to the library is a faulty one, since no one goes to the library with the intent to buy something.
As for reselling it, they aren't trying to stop you from reselling it, they have no reason to link to someplace that encourages you to buy a book used as soon as it comes out. Even if they want a book (which you must, since you are clicking their link to buy it), most people take the cheaper option of a used book. Why should an author choose to send you to a link where you will likely buy a used book that won;t make him any money? That's like someone walking up to you on the street an trying to give you $5, and you tell him your wallet is too full, maybe tomorrow. The authors aren't denying you your rights to sell used books, they are exercising their rights to link to places that don't push used books instead of used.
Slashdot Mirror
I also consider bug reports and feature requests to be a very important contribution. I'm always shocked to hear OSS devs say that this kind of feedback is essentially useless.
While these things are not useless by any stretch of the imagination, it certainly doesn't require an open source program to get them. They are useful to all programmers and are turned in by users on all programs. OSS has always been talked about with the idea that people will not only report bugs, but will also sumbit bug fixes. It's not the fact they they are only getting bug reports that is the problem, it's the fact that they aren't getting any of the benefits that are supposed to come with open source.
Why are we so conerned with keeping children away from porn? Let's take a worst-case scenario, and ask what exactly the results are supposed to be if some seven year old girl stumbles across "Debbie Does Dallas"? The unspoken assumption seems to be that she will be irrepairably harmed by such material, but I challenge that statement. I remember running across a Penthouse once when I was a pre-pubescent kid; I thought it was interesting, but after a while I just went back to playing other decidedly non-sexual games.
If this was the extent of porn on the net, I would agree with you completely. The real question is, have you looked at the porn on the net? Daily I get spam in my inbox for incest, beastiality, and occasionally necrophila. The problem isn't kids seeing "nudie pictures", it's kids seeing women having sex with a dog or donkey. And this doesn't even take into account the number of sites with pictures of decomposing bodies and gaping chest wounds. Saying all this is about pictures of naked women is to ignore the reality of what is available on the internet.
That being said, I don't support use of blocking software in public libraries until it is at least 99% accurate (and it's a far way from there).
Okay, so this "per-seat licensing" consists of them not offering the binaries for free download. The source will still be "freely available". You will have to pay to get the binaries, and I would assume once you have the binaries, you can freely get the source. Where exactly is the problem here. this is all abiding by the GPL exactly. Nowhere does it say you cannot sell your software, nor does it say you must give your binaries away for free. It says if someone gets the binaries, the source must be available to them (which in this case it will be). Where exactly is the problem here? Oh wait, it's RMS, so the problem must be someone might make money off of software, so he has to object.
The CD layer should be freely available for personal copying such as to a computer or portable digital player. These 2 basic concepts are a model that can be applied in the future, when better formats become available. It may also serve as a model for digital visual recordings. Perhaps we can get the artists, publishing companies, electronics manufacturers and the federal trade commision to all agree on this compromise: 1.The high quality recording allows only one copy of itself to be made for archival purposes. 2.The lower quality recordings are available for personal copying.
SO, the CD version is completely copiable, meaning it can be ripped into MP3 or whatever format you wish, but there is another "protected" version of the song that is "higher quality" and can only be copied once? What is to stop people from taking the CD layer and ripping it to whatever high-quality format they want? And what happens when the "high quality only copy once" scheme is broken? How does having things exactly as they are now offer the artist/RIAA anymore protection than uncopyprotected CDs?
The two (well, 3) cases are pretty much incomparable. The bootleg versions of AotC and Spidey are much poorer quality than you will see in the theatre. Comparing a compressed DivX version taken from a guy with a camcorder in the theatre (which is the version of AotC that I saw making the rounds on the net) is nothing like seeing it in the theatre for yourself. The Eminem bootleg sounds (for most people) exactly like what they would get from the real thing. For most people, they have already bought their copy of the Cd, and unless there is some "super secret" extra on the official release, there isn't a reason to buy another version. The liner notes are not enough incentive for most people to spend $15 on a cd they already bought without liner notes for $5. But seeing a decent version of AotC is worth $15 even though they already spent $5 on a crappy pirated version that isn't near the quality.
We don't want to be annoyed. We hated Scrappy Doo, we hated Oliver on the Brady Bunch. And we hate Jar Jar. I was HOPING that I wouldn't hear the word "meesa" come out of his mouth, but I did. That's point one.
But the reason we hate these characters is not because they are "add-ons". These characters (Jar Jar included) were added in to save a dying show/movie. The add-ons are not the problem, the problem is that the shows were dying already these the add-ons were a last ditch effort to turn the show around. The Brady Bunch was already stale when Cousin Oliver was added to "liven things up". Scooby Doo was already done to death when Scrappy was added to "spice it up". TPM was already boring when Jar Jar was added to add some "humour". The "add-ons" aren't the problem, the problem is the show was already dead when the add-ons came on board.
Current damages are based on how much money people make on selling the stuff. However they want that changed to the full retail price... which allows companies to set there own damages by overinflating the value of their software then giving everyone a discount.
Have a copy of 2000 Enterprise server, your why not just give your house to Bill!
The only way this allows companies to "set their own damages" is if they want to set the retail price so high that no one else will buy it. Retail price is a fairly specific number, it's the amount charged to a regular buyer in stores. It's not like a company could sue and then claim the retail price is $5000 when the software is selling in the store for $50. What this does is allow them to actually sue for the money the lost. The problem is that if they sell the pirated software cheaply, the damages will be relatively small, even though it may have cost the company a much larger amount of money. It also takes into account P2P system, where people aren't making money off of it, but they are still breaking the copyright.
It's entertainment, the superflous recreation that we fill our idle time with. While it generates a lot of money (and ergo political influence), entertainment has, ultimately, zero effect or worth to a population. Sure, music, film, and so forth are part of what defines a culture. But what the public agrees to support are the arts, works of inherant cultural value, not "Dude, Where's My Car?"
While I agree with the general sentiment of your post, I have to take great exception to this piece. Entertainment is art, whether you like it or not. You may not like "Dude, Where's My Car" (and trust me, I agree with you), but that does not make it any less art than Shakespeare, who in his time was a playwright playing directly to the lower class and under educated, just as "Due, Where's My Car" is. There are many good arguements against the RI/MPAA and the tactics they are employing, but the one that always sticks out as old fogeys looking at a younger culture they no longer understand is the "but all they put out anymore is crap" arguement. I do not like Britney Spears, but there are millions who do (for whatever reason it may be). My not liking her does not keep her from being art anymore than my not liking Van Gogh keeps him from being art.
Consumers will be able to find something to do without being bombarded by ads when they pay for everything. The reason free TV is free is because the costs are paid with advertising. The reason many web sites are (or were) free was because the costs were paid by advertising. You can watch TV without ads, it will just cost you $10 per channel to get HBO or Cinemax. You want web sites without ads, find one that is members only and join it, most of them are ad free. Everything costs money. That cost has to be paid by something. If it isn't ads, it will probably be by you.
I'm sure everyone is going to lambaste this idea, but I find nothing wrong with it. It is completely voluntary. It basically creates a subset of internet sites parents will know for sure are safe for their children. It is the equivalent to the children's section of the library. Everything in that section is "safe" for kids, but there is no rule saying kids cannot go into the adult section. Same thing here. The .kids.us section will be safe for kids, but they can still go into the "adult" section of the net. It basically helps parents do their job of parenting and watching their kids. Put a simple filter that only allows .kids.us sites through, and if the kid wants to see the "adult" side of the net, the parent can let him and decide what they can and can't see.
Now, RMS' views on the naming of GNU/Linux are well-known, and often derired. But it *is* an important point that too much emphasis is given to the kernel, and that too many people believe Linus Torvalds was somehow responsible for the entire system. Who can blame RMS for feeling a little bitter about it - if not for his sake, then for that of all the other GNU developers whose work and effort is often trivialised? How many of us would enjoy seeing our efforts appropriated by others without due credit being given, and particularly without our beliefs - central to our reasons for developing the software in the first place - being given proper consideration?
The kernel IS Linux. GNU has some good tools to use with Linux, but they certainly aren't as important as the kernel. These tools can be used with many systems. They are used with the BSD system (and probably a lot more that I don't know of). They can be used with different kernels. Therefore Linux is Linux. IT is a kernel that you can use a wide variety of tools with. In theory, it would be possible to use Linux and never use a GNU tool. Gnu was important (and still is) to Linux, but it is by no means Linux. Saying Linux should be GNU/Linux is the same as saying Windows should be LiteStep/Windows because I use Litestep on it. GNU is important, but it can be used with multiple kernels, which means it is just another tool.
Eventually it occurred to me that the account might be in my wife's name along with mine.
And sure enough Rosy Palms did have an account listed.
He may think there is a good solution that doesn't require laws, but then it doesn't requeire him. Congress makes laws. Period. They don't enforce them, they don't set public opinion. Unless this is something that can be fixed by making a law, there isn't anything he can do. Making laws is what he does, and if there isn't a law to be made, he is wasting time that could be spent making laws.
I agree that TV ads are annoying and overall not all that desirable, but the key point is no one has come up with a good workable alternative that will still give TV to the masses. Paying per channel is likely to be expensive and cost prohibited to many people (think cable, but about 10 times as expensive as most cable channels also have ads). Placing ads in the corner of the screen is IMHO worse than regular ads. You end up losing part of the show because it's covered up with an ad. And eventually those will go the way of the banner ad and become more and more loud, obnoxious and annoying. Product placement has to be the worst choice though, as you will quickly end up losing creative control of the show to advertisers (much worse than now). Do you really think any product is going to want to pay to be used by the murderer or rapist on the show? Do we really want every person on the show wearing big banners on their chest for whatever product is paying the most? And what happens when a show takes a chance and has the good guys do something controversial? No one will want to advertise on them or the bad guys at that point, effectively eliminating that show (or at least that episode).
So the question is, if 30 second ads aren't the answer, what is?
Erm, the point is that Microsoft have been whining about how you can't make a modular version of Windows.
The states have countered with "but you have this Windows XP Embedded Thingy which claims to be modular"
It's not that the states want Microsoft to ship XP Embedded on a PC, it's that they want to prove that a modular version of Windows is possible.
Microsoft has conveniently already developed something to make their case for them, which is why they've been fighting vigorously to keep it out of the court.
MS has never claimed it's impossible to create a modular windows, just that it's not feasible. Not even MS would try to claim that if you started from the ground up it would not be possible to rewrite windows to be modular. They claim that it is not feasible to REWRITE windows to be modular. Pointing to XP Embedded, which was written from the ground up to be modular, and saying "See Windows can be modular" is misleading at best. A rewritten windows could obviously be modular, the real question is can the current windows be modified within reason to be modular.
I came across this much more informative investigation of D.C.'s traffic cameras a few weeks ago. It's heavy on facts and figures, and hammers home the observation that an extra second of yellow light is at least as good at promoting good behavior, but much less lucrative for the local government and the contracting firm.
Adding an extra second of yellow light only promotes ""good behavior" because people have an extra second to run the yellow light. The key is that you aren't changing their bad behavior (the yellow light if there for people who don't have time to stop, not to speed up and rush the light which is what this is catching 99% of the time), you are just making their bad bahavior within the law. Behavior does not become "good" because it's within the law. Good behavior consists of stopping at a yellow light at all times unless you cannot stop safely.
While I disagree with saying PVR is basically theft, we have to consider the ramifications of TV with no commercials (or commercials which are watched by no one). Commercials are the only way commercial TV stations generate money. The only other way I can think of for them to generate money is to charge for their channel (and if this happen, cable prices would increase probably 20 times) or to include ads in the actual shows themselves. The problem with the first is obvious, but there is a bigger problem with the second solution. If ads are included in the show (say the cast of friends always have to mention how much they love Jif peanut butter) you start to lose show content and more importantly, show control. If the advertising is integrated with the show, advertisers will rightly want to control how their ads show up. They won't want the evil murder on Law and Order talking about how he loves to spread Jif peanut butter on dead bodies. SO creators lose control of at least part of the content of their shows, which makes for much worse television.
I don't agree that PVRs are theft, but I see no other ways TV can stay free (or even affordable for most people) and have no one watching the commercials.
"The meeting was told that in 2000 the software industry in Europe lost $3bn to pirates."
I am always curious where they actually come up with these numbers. Some kid in his basement downloading a $3,000 software package hasn't actually cost the industry anything b/c he wouldn't have bought it anyway. Now if a company like IBM bought 1 copy of office and installed on every corporate desktop then I think that is a real problem. The real question is how many companys are really in gross violations of the current laws?
I have no idea how they arrive at that number, but in reality ever copy of software that is downloaded (and used, so they people that just trade software and never use any of it don't count) usually costs someone something. If someone needs a photo editing program and they d/l a cracked copy of Photoshop, they most probably would not have paid for Photoshop, so they rightly did not cost Adobe $500 (or whatever the going rate is). Of course this is not always true, but in a general sense. It is the makers of the Gimp and small apps like Paint Shop Pro that have really lost the money (okay, Gimp lost users not money, but they still lost something). These people probably can't afford Photoshop and probably wouldn't have bought it, but they probably can afford a cheaper app (or a free app) but they don't use it because they can pirate Photoshop for free. If they need a photo editing app, they may not have bought Photoshop, but they would have bought something if they really needed it. But instead they bought nothing, choosing to get a pirated version instead. So no, ever person who d/ls and uses a cracked copy of Photoshop is not costing Adobe $500, but they are costing the smaller companies and free software instead.
I see lots of people talking about how Radlight doesn't inform the user (except in the EULA) that it will remove Adaware. They common arguement is that no one reads the EULA and it's not clear what is goin on, because the EULA is confusing. Is this much different than what Adaware does? IT just gives me a list of files it thinks are "offending" and asks if I want to remove them. It doesn't tell me what they are (outside of a name of the "spyware"), what they do, or any consequences of removing them. If I run Adaware and remove Cydoor, it doesn't give me any indication that it will stop Kazaa from working, and the average person has no idea that would be a consequence. Putting the notice in the EULA is not a good tactic as it somewhat obfuscates what is going on, but is Adaware not telling you the consequences of uninstalling the "spyware" (most of which isn't spyware, it's just software that shows ads) that mucg better?
You're probably talking about the last phase of the install that is run on the user's deployed machine. The actual Windows XP installer is based on NT's and text-menu based. And as I explained in my other comment, it is far inferior in functionality to all Linux installers (with the exception of hardware detection).
I realize I probably shouldn't be feeding the troll, but WinXP has no command line process to its setup. Having installed XP Pro on 10 machines in the past week (all from scratch) I the only "command line" aspect of the setup is the very beginning where you have to press keys to select the partion you want it installed on (as in "Press C to create a partition"). Win XP is by far the easiest install I've ever seen (which admittedly doesn't include Mac installs). It's literally select a few options and your done.
While the cost of development is high the cost of production is really low. Now when you have a bunch of people that wouldnt be able to pay for the drugs anyway why not just give them the drug at lower or no cost. Such cost differentiation is not unheard of. for example some drugs for pets are cheap, while the identical drugs for humans are expensive. Thats because people wouldnt pay the high costs of a drug for a pet.
Actually, the cost of production of a lot of drugs is fairly high (and I would bet the AIDS drugs fall into the very high category being a cocktail). And if they gave the drugs away or sold them at a reduced price, they would immediately be opening themselves up to a multitude of problems. First, how do you determine who get the drug for free? Is it just based on income? What about insurance? How do you stop people from defrauding the company? And there will be hundreds of lawsuits from people who are paying full price claiming they should get the discounted rate as well. Having 2 different pricing schemes for pets and humans is incredibly different (and incredibly easier to handle) than having 2 different pricing schemes based on income.
There's a claim that Windows' code is too complicated to document and it's not at all modular. Any good software developer knows that modular design is important in large projects. Only a monopoly could claim their software is poorly designed without fearing loss of customers.
How many customers care or even understand if their software is modular? You you think that if Apple came out and said "Our software is too complicated to document and it's not modular" it would matter one bit to most of their user-base? Most people don't care how it works, as long as it does? Good coding does not equal a good product to the consumers.
While it may be a bad tiem for them to do an audit, I can't really fault MS for doing one if the VA is out of compliance by $20 million. this isn;t a few licenses shy, this sounds like whole departments that aren't licensed. This isn't MS being nit-picky and going after people that are 2 licenses short, these are people who knowingly are installing massive amounts of software that is not licensed. MS has every right to go after major offenders like this.
Corporations just pass it on to their customers. If the government (ie, ME, MY taxes) pays for some something, I want MY say. Corporations have no right to use MY software MY taxes paid for without passing on the source to their own customers. If they want to use MY software they can pay ME back in kind.
So what you are saying is that corporations pay taxes out of their profits. They do pay them, it;s just with the money they collect from whatever business they do. It's no different than saying you don't really pay taxes, you pass those taxes along to your employer. Corps pay taxes.
You also completely discount the idea of individuals using this software for closed-source apps. I may want to write an app, but not release the source. I am a taxpayer, I have as much right as you do to use this code any way I see fit. So how can you deny me the right to use this code in my closed-source app?
The comparison to the library is a faulty one, since no one goes to the library with the intent to buy something.
As for reselling it, they aren't trying to stop you from reselling it, they have no reason to link to someplace that encourages you to buy a book used as soon as it comes out. Even if they want a book (which you must, since you are clicking their link to buy it), most people take the cheaper option of a used book. Why should an author choose to send you to a link where you will likely buy a used book that won;t make him any money? That's like someone walking up to you on the street an trying to give you $5, and you tell him your wallet is too full, maybe tomorrow. The authors aren't denying you your rights to sell used books, they are exercising their rights to link to places that don't push used books instead of used.