I don't mean any disrespect but your music is not what makes the world go around. Fine, you don't make music for money. But many other people do. And it is their RIGHT to make money off of the music they make if people are willing to pay them for it.
I value the music I listen to and I don't mind paying in order to be able to enjoy it. If the money incentive was taken out of music I know I will lose the quality of music that is currently available because many of the artists I care to listen to would not be able to dedicate the time/effort or have the motivation to produce the music they do without the money incentive. Artists will lose a SIGNIFICANT incentive to create.
If you don't believe music is a commodity, refuse to pay for music and DON'T listen to it. You don't have a RIGHT to listen to someone elses production. The productions are offered as part of a contract - if you don't like the terms, don't agree to them. We all do this everyday. I see a Silence of the Lambs DVD for $30 and decide that is not acceptable to me and CHOOSE not to buy it. It's not that hard to do.
When I said everyone was pulling their weight and then some, I meant as opposed to slacking off. It does not mean they are overworked. It means people are eager to do their job and look for more responsibilities/tasks to take on.
There are several companies running their operations on SQL Server. Barnes and Nobles and Buy.com are two that spring to mind with the letter B. WAKE UP. STOP READING ALL THAT PROPOGANDA THAT IS BEING FED TO YOU WITH AN ENEMA TUBE.
And since you've obviously been asleep through the entire trial need I remind you that NO ONE argued that the OS monopoly was illegal. There is no credible argument to claim that the OS monopoly was arrived at illegally. THE DOJ DIDN'T EVEN CLAIM THAT! The case the DOJ made was about leveraging a monopoly in ONE AREA to get a foothold in another area. Anyone except the most dense idiot can tell you that. Regardless of how you arrive at a monopoly position it is illegal to try and leverage that in another area.
Most of the people that I met that hate MS hate it because they were either turned down for a job there or were offered a testing position that they considered below them or are jealous of Bill Gates' wealth. Maybe you should examine your own reasons for hating MS.
I'm not going to waste any more of my breath on such an egregious idiot who is completely unaware of facts as you.
Hmm.. at least Microsoft is considering saving documents in XML. I don't see LaTeX doing that yet. For that matter I can probably count on one hand the number of products which store non-text information who are even in the process of converting storage formats to XML. So who has their thumbs up their asses?
Are you trolling? You seem to be saying that scheduling should not be part of mail because it's "bundling" and leads to lack of choice.
Guess what? People who want to use applications to get work done don't care! They want to be able to schedule appointments and block rooms, times over email. They don't care whether some 20th Century purist thinks the two don't belong together.
There was a time when paintings and sculptures were overvalued, then it was celebrity hand-offs. Now the geeks have the money and it's machines otherwise headed for the scrap pile that will sell for a lot of money.
I'm waiting for the Jon Katz article about how the distribution of wealth among geeks suffering from a post-Columbine syndrome has led to the artificial valuation of tools of technology.
I didn't read what Orrin Hatch said about this particular case. I have read Orrin Hatch's comments about the Monica Lewinsky thingy, gun control, abortion and a whole lot of other issues, though, and I can't say I have any respect for him - yes, I know I sound prejudiced but I've formed my opinion of him already.
When I was a student, I'd stock up on the sample packs they handed out at the beginning of every quarter. I didn't have to buy any deodorant or shaving gel because I got plenty for free.
To quote you: On the Jupiter Communications website it says that Napster users have a higher increase in spending than other online music fans. (emphasis mine)
There in lies the fallacy of the causation you are inferring. To support your inference, a valid comparision would be between Napster users and people who stick to traditional distribution methods of music. The music industry would like to see the abolishment of all forms of free online music distribution, not just Napster. I'm not saying your conclusion is wrong, just that it doesn't follow from what you're saying.
You made some very good points but you give way too much credit to the members of Congress. Their thinking works more along the lines of: "millions of kids who'll become Republicans/Democrats for life v/s a few record industry people - guess which side I'm picking".
If using the tool means your car can go much faster and to places other cars can't do, then yes, the tool was important.
MS doesn't need to "extend its monopoly" with IE. The extensions to IE allow web developers to do things that they couldn't do otherwise. If they are right and these are things that developers wanted to do, they will use the extensions and MS will succeed. If they are wrong, they won't. It's that simple.
God intended fruit to be fruity-colored. NOT Computers... and NOT cars.
However, there is still a BunnyLovingTreeHuggingArtsyFartsyLunaticFringe (TM) that's willing to overlook these serious crimes against human sensibility and buys these silly contraptions that offer little in terms of functionality.
They probably think owning one makes them different and cool (like the other half a million idiots that do so).
Don't moderate a post down for the opinions expressed in the post. Even if you disagree with the posters viewpoint, the post was certainly not made for the sole purpose of inviting flames.
In Bangalore (the software capital) there are more computer users, and therefore more Linux users
I'm sorry, I fail to see the logic there. In India there are more people, therefore more computer users makes as much sense as what you just said.
Where did you hear anything about India?
on
Linux And Beijing
·
· Score: 1
I'm from India. None of my friends there used Linux the last time I checked (about a year ago). Admittedly, this is not a scientific survey, but I saw no evidence and no news reports about Linux being popular in India.
IANAMB (Molecular Biologist) but I believe what they did here was figure out what the individual pieces of the human genome were.
(For lack of the ability to come up with a better analogy) It's like if all cities had the same map, then they discovered the road map of cities. It's what is at each address in the city that makes the cities unique and gives them character. They are just telling you where the houses go, what makes people different is what the houses actually are.
I'd say if you did the grunt work and figured out the sequence you should be able to charge people for using this information. But if someone else goes ahead and re-does all the work, then you cannot deny them the right to use the results.
Of course, you could get a patent on some specific methods you developed to perform the sequencing and then other people would have to figure out other methods or pay you royalties for your patents.
Censorship, enforced by anyone is still censorship.
What if all theatres did this? Do I still have the freedom to choose not to go in? Yeah, you can claim I don't have to go in there. But no one had to buy computers with Windows installed either. What if Microsoft added something to Windows which (I'm stretching here) disallowed you from typing the word Linux? Would that be censorship?
Any sufficiently large or powerful group restricting freedom of thought, speech or other form of expression is committing censorship.
Disclaimer: I'm not claiming banning the use of cellphones is censorship - just that it doesn't have to be done by the government for it to be considered censorship
I don't see any number keys - also I assume you are typing IN ALL CAPS. (Yaay, go AOL). Also no special symbols like +, *, ", etc. I could imagine all of this getting pretty hard to live without.
I don't care how the UN ranks Canada. The simple truth is that I don't want to live or work there because I will get paid lower, taxed more and it's freaking cold there!
The Fed has NOT been raising interest rates for years now. Interest rates 10 years ago were higher than they are today. The Fed raises or lowers interest rates to keep the economy healthy. 100% employment will lead to the inevitable bursting of the bubble which will lead to poverty for all.
The Fed does what it does in order to prevent the occurence of and minimize the impact of a recession. Your allegation that the Fed is trying to engineer a recession is laughable at best.
You're a crackpot armchair economist who has no concept of all the economic research that has been undertaken over the past hundreds of years. It makes me angry to hear idiots like you rant and rave, seemingly making sense, when it's obvious to me that you have either not made any effort to think about the consequences of your suggestions or that you wilfully choose to ignore all the available evidence that your theories are bullshit.
Consumers should have a right to not pay high prices for goods.
I got into an argument the other night at a party with someone who was from one of the West Indian banana republics. Brittain, which was a former colonial overlord, used to encourage imports of bananas from his country and place inordinately high tarriffs on imports from other countries.
The WTO deemed that illegal and they are not allowed to place inordinately high tarriffs anymore. So the banana farmers in the West Indies can't compete anymore, they claim.
You could go on about evil corporations screwing poor banana farmers, but the bottomline remains that consumers in Brittain now have the right to choose what bananas they will buy.
If they choose to buy the cheaper bananas and thereby hurt the West Indians, it is their RIGHT to do so. Consumers have the right to buy the cheapest product available and not have to pay artificially high prices.
I picked this example because it represents an extreme case where the WTO is screwing the poor. In most cases, such as where it requires Indian textile exports be allowed an equal footing with those from Brittain by barring similar tarriffs, it actually benefits the poor countries.
I stand by my belief that opening up the global markets, while causing some pain in the short term, will in the long term benefit the world - just like when Russia freed its economy - there was short term pain, but in the long run it will lead to a stronger economy.
It's not in the interests of the richer countries or corporations to see abject poverty in third-world countries. It is in their interests to see greater wealth there so those people can buy their products and make them wealthier. This is the reason why several corporations choose to invest in these countries.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't mean any disrespect but your music is not what makes the world go around. Fine, you don't make music for money. But many other people do. And it is their RIGHT to make money off of the music they make if people are willing to pay them for it.
I value the music I listen to and I don't mind paying in order to be able to enjoy it. If the money incentive was taken out of music I know I will lose the quality of music that is currently available because many of the artists I care to listen to would not be able to dedicate the time/effort or have the motivation to produce the music they do without the money incentive. Artists will lose a SIGNIFICANT incentive to create.
If you don't believe music is a commodity, refuse to pay for music and DON'T listen to it. You don't have a RIGHT to listen to someone elses production. The productions are offered as part of a contract - if you don't like the terms, don't agree to them. We all do this everyday. I see a Silence of the Lambs DVD for $30 and decide that is not acceptable to me and CHOOSE not to buy it. It's not that hard to do.
It's amazing how stupid you are.
When I said everyone was pulling their weight and then some, I meant as opposed to slacking off. It does not mean they are overworked. It means people are eager to do their job and look for more responsibilities/tasks to take on.
There are several companies running their operations on SQL Server. Barnes and Nobles and Buy.com are two that spring to mind with the letter B. WAKE UP. STOP READING ALL THAT PROPOGANDA THAT IS BEING FED TO YOU WITH AN ENEMA TUBE.
And since you've obviously been asleep through the entire trial need I remind you that NO ONE argued that the OS monopoly was illegal. There is no credible argument to claim that the OS monopoly was arrived at illegally. THE DOJ DIDN'T EVEN CLAIM THAT! The case the DOJ made was about leveraging a monopoly in ONE AREA to get a foothold in another area. Anyone except the most dense idiot can tell you that. Regardless of how you arrive at a monopoly position it is illegal to try and leverage that in another area.
Most of the people that I met that hate MS hate it because they were either turned down for a job there or were offered a testing position that they considered below them or are jealous of Bill Gates' wealth. Maybe you should examine your own reasons for hating MS.
I'm not going to waste any more of my breath on such an egregious idiot who is completely unaware of facts as you.
Hmm.. at least Microsoft is considering saving documents in XML. I don't see LaTeX doing that yet. For that matter I can probably count on one hand the number of products which store non-text information who are even in the process of converting storage formats to XML. So who has their thumbs up their asses?
Are you trolling? You seem to be saying that scheduling should not be part of mail because it's "bundling" and leads to lack of choice.
Guess what? People who want to use applications to get work done don't care! They want to be able to schedule appointments and block rooms, times over email. They don't care whether some 20th Century purist thinks the two don't belong together.
There was a time when paintings and sculptures were overvalued, then it was celebrity hand-offs. Now the geeks have the money and it's machines otherwise headed for the scrap pile that will sell for a lot of money.
I'm waiting for the Jon Katz article about how the distribution of wealth among geeks suffering from a post-Columbine syndrome has led to the artificial valuation of tools of technology.
I didn't read what Orrin Hatch said about this particular case. I have read Orrin Hatch's comments about the Monica Lewinsky thingy, gun control, abortion and a whole lot of other issues, though, and I can't say I have any respect for him - yes, I know I sound prejudiced but I've formed my opinion of him already.
When I was a student, I'd stock up on the sample packs they handed out at the beginning of every quarter. I didn't have to buy any deodorant or shaving gel because I got plenty for free.
To quote you: On the Jupiter Communications website it says that Napster users have a higher increase in spending than other online music fans. (emphasis mine)
There in lies the fallacy of the causation you are inferring. To support your inference, a valid comparision would be between Napster users and people who stick to traditional distribution methods of music. The music industry would like to see the abolishment of all forms of free online music distribution, not just Napster. I'm not saying your conclusion is wrong, just that it doesn't follow from what you're saying.
You made some very good points but you give way too much credit to the members of Congress. Their thinking works more along the lines of: "millions of kids who'll become Republicans/Democrats for life v/s a few record industry people - guess which side I'm picking".
They left a phone number - let's spam it.
If using the tool means your car can go much faster and to places other cars can't do, then yes, the tool was important.
MS doesn't need to "extend its monopoly" with IE. The extensions to IE allow web developers to do things that they couldn't do otherwise. If they are right and these are things that developers wanted to do, they will use the extensions and MS will succeed. If they are wrong, they won't. It's that simple.
I trusted George Lucas to make a good film too until The Phantom Menace.
God intended fruit to be fruity-colored. NOT Computers... and NOT cars.
However, there is still a BunnyLovingTreeHuggingArtsyFartsyLunaticFringe (TM) that's willing to overlook these serious crimes against human sensibility and buys these silly contraptions that offer little in terms of functionality.
They probably think owning one makes them different and cool (like the other half a million idiots that do so).
Don't moderate a post down for the opinions expressed in the post. Even if you disagree with the posters viewpoint, the post was certainly not made for the sole purpose of inviting flames.
In Bangalore (the software capital) there are more computer users, and therefore more Linux users
I'm sorry, I fail to see the logic there. In India there are more people, therefore more computer users makes as much sense as what you just said.
I'm from India. None of my friends there used Linux the last time I checked (about a year ago). Admittedly, this is not a scientific survey, but I saw no evidence and no news reports about Linux being popular in India.
Dude, that was hilarious. Thanks for the good laugh.
IANAMB (Molecular Biologist) but I believe what they did here was figure out what the individual pieces of the human genome were.
(For lack of the ability to come up with a better analogy) It's like if all cities had the same map, then they discovered the road map of cities. It's what is at each address in the city that makes the cities unique and gives them character. They are just telling you where the houses go, what makes people different is what the houses actually are.
Copyright, yes. Patent, no.
I'd say if you did the grunt work and figured out the sequence you should be able to charge people for using this information. But if someone else goes ahead and re-does all the work, then you cannot deny them the right to use the results.
Of course, you could get a patent on some specific methods you developed to perform the sequencing and then other people would have to figure out other methods or pay you royalties for your patents.
Censorship can only be done by the government.
Censorship, enforced by anyone is still censorship.
What if all theatres did this? Do I still have the freedom to choose not to go in? Yeah, you can claim I don't have to go in there. But no one had to buy computers with Windows installed either. What if Microsoft added something to Windows which (I'm stretching here) disallowed you from typing the word Linux? Would that be censorship?
Any sufficiently large or powerful group restricting freedom of thought, speech or other form of expression is committing censorship.
Disclaimer: I'm not claiming banning the use of cellphones is censorship - just that it doesn't have to be done by the government for it to be considered censorship
I don't see any number keys - also I assume you are typing IN ALL CAPS. (Yaay, go AOL). Also no special symbols like +, *, ", etc. I could imagine all of this getting pretty hard to live without.
I don't care how the UN ranks Canada. The simple truth is that I don't want to live or work there because I will get paid lower, taxed more and it's freaking cold there!
The Fed has NOT been raising interest rates for years now. Interest rates 10 years ago were higher than they are today. The Fed raises or lowers interest rates to keep the economy healthy. 100% employment will lead to the inevitable bursting of the bubble which will lead to poverty for all.
The Fed does what it does in order to prevent the occurence of and minimize the impact of a recession. Your allegation that the Fed is trying to engineer a recession is laughable at best.
You're a crackpot armchair economist who has no concept of all the economic research that has been undertaken over the past hundreds of years. It makes me angry to hear idiots like you rant and rave, seemingly making sense, when it's obvious to me that you have either not made any effort to think about the consequences of your suggestions or that you wilfully choose to ignore all the available evidence that your theories are bullshit.
Consumers should have a right to not pay high prices for goods.
I got into an argument the other night at a party with someone who was from one of the West Indian banana republics. Brittain, which was a former colonial overlord, used to encourage imports of bananas from his country and place inordinately high tarriffs on imports from other countries.
The WTO deemed that illegal and they are not allowed to place inordinately high tarriffs anymore. So the banana farmers in the West Indies can't compete anymore, they claim.
You could go on about evil corporations screwing poor banana farmers, but the bottomline remains that consumers in Brittain now have the right to choose what bananas they will buy.
If they choose to buy the cheaper bananas and thereby hurt the West Indians, it is their RIGHT to do so. Consumers have the right to buy the cheapest product available and not have to pay artificially high prices.
I picked this example because it represents an extreme case where the WTO is screwing the poor. In most cases, such as where it requires Indian textile exports be allowed an equal footing with those from Brittain by barring similar tarriffs, it actually benefits the poor countries.
I stand by my belief that opening up the global markets, while causing some pain in the short term, will in the long term benefit the world - just like when Russia freed its economy - there was short term pain, but in the long run it will lead to a stronger economy.
It's not in the interests of the richer countries or corporations to see abject poverty in third-world countries. It is in their interests to see greater wealth there so those people can buy their products and make them wealthier. This is the reason why several corporations choose to invest in these countries.
I believe he was joking....