NO: that's exactly the PP's point. You provide a better service by returning the relevant error. My ISP started doing this some time ago and I was enraged at their idiotic page, not because they put ads on it, but because I need a frigging error when an error occurs. I am *not* provided a better service by a helpful know-it-all page that fails miserably at its purpose. I am also not given a better service by all those apps that want to think for me instead of letting my do my thing.
I am also installing my own DNS server as soon as I've finished other stuff that's in the queue right now.
A colm and calm exterior is not sufficient to guarantee the veracity of a message, however it is a prerequisite, because when you are right you don't need to scream, and in order to debunk your opponent all you need to do it is *prove* your position. As in, provide logically-valid proof.
"OMG you suX0r" is not logically-valid proof.
Then again maybe it's just me. I tend to distrust people a priori when they feel the need to scream into my ears and provide propaganda. That's why I'd never join a protest even if I agreed wholeheartedly with its intentions. It's just *not* the way to go about getting approval.
Well, *I* know that when somebody opposes XYZ's position on the grounds that XYZ are full of "blatant lies" and that "truthful information" is just a click away, over here, just take the red pill kthxbye, THEN I become suspicious of both parties' position and motives.
I don't know about your case, but my contract has "NO guarantees whatsoever" written all over it. They insist that no minimum speed is guaranteed, heck they even claim that they could be down 90% of the time and you still would have no case against them.
In other words, I know full well my provider could start throttling and it would be OK because that's what I agreed with. I also know that my provider is not throttle happy.
Won't somebody think of the gerbils?! More seriously, weapons are basically outlawed (sorry, but "you must have a license, be trackable and anyway NOT use the weapon or you're going down" equals "outlawed"), cars not so much but on the way... The problem is that unless you refuse censorship completely, the slippery slope starts getting very slimy indeed: it just becomes a matter of choosing what is acceptable and what is not. Something that society has proven itself not very good at - or anyway, something that cannot be done without resorting to unpleasant means to convince those who disagree with the majority.
I guess one could argue I'm in favour of legalizing snuff movies and all sorts of unpleasant things. Unfortunately sickos' right to produce snuff is my same right to eg have LAN parties w/ friends and pratice combat sports. Freedom goes both ways. Yes, it's a hard life. (BTW I hope snuff does not REALLY exists...)
Distributors don't need to provide offers of source code I seem to remember that you don't have to offer your code explicitely. You must provide the text of the license and provide source code to those who ask for it. I might be wrong but the Openoffice site said something very similar.
Mainly from RMS's GPL v3, which turns distributing data via the internet into having to give up the programs you used to create it, which you have written by yourself.
Make it 100% compatible with current standards, uncrashable, give it a much MUCH smaller memory footprint, integrate it with the main OSes (a skin does not integration make), make it fast in rendering. And please work WITH the community: most Linux distros are based on a package manager and don't like software to go all upgrade happy on itself every two days.
That would make it worth using again. After a promising start, it got worse and worse with every release.
But instead, they are focusing on marketing techniques and gimmicks in order to spread the fox. It would be cool to have a good, not a well marketed, browser. Besides, do they really think they're in MS's league when it comes to marketing software?
The same thing you do today: you suck it up. If you want you can start using another format which they cannot read. Or you can put your money where your mouth is and use the market to push your product against theirs. Funny how freedom takes on a whole new meaning when it's applied to people who disagree with you!
this sort of system design is designed to keep lusers dumb
No, it is designed to keep dumb lusers happy. See how much success hard to use Linux distros have? I mean... even on Windows I've seen lusers do such things. The horror... you don't want to hear the stories I brought back:D
I'm afraid most users *really* think the PC is out to get them, is playing tricks on them, or contains evil spirits or something. They lack the humility to admit that it's their lack of acknowledge that makes them powerless before the Beast.
Until humility is attained, the problem is here to stay.
the assumption that users are too dumb to ever learn their way around a heirarchy of folders is more correct than you're willing to admit. Lusers are dumb and make up for most of the market. Get over it.
Publicly funded science research for the good of mankind would constitute taking money from society in exchange for your work. A freely agreed upon exchange between responsible individuals does not. I do not need or want society's permission to make music now, do I?
DRM is theft in the same way renting you a car is theft: you are basically arguing that since you don't have "your" car anymore after X weeks, it's been stolen from you. It's never been yours in the first place. If music were "yours" after buying it, you should find it OK to sell it, rebrand it, broadcast it without crediting the author, etc, yet I guess you dislike such practices.
I think most problems stem from music labels trying to sell you their product twice (kinda like the car rent's company forcing you to use their very own proprietary motor-related thingy... sorry, I'm no good at car stuff:D): once when you buy it, once more if you lose it, break it, etc. Notice how iTunes and Steam are well tolerated: once you buy ACCESS to music (THAT is what you buy), you know you'll have it forever and it's really YOURS, as in you can redownload it/have your disc substituted, whatever.
Taking this simple step would silence most DRM critics and make most people happy. I don't really understand why they don't do it, the few companies that do it are highly admired and definitely well off financially. It makes perfect market sense!
The problem with this kind of issues is precisely what you point out: it's hard to find conclusive evidence. This is one of those debates that can go on endlessly with both parts coming up with examples to prove their point, like the one about the effect of widely available weapons on crime rate, where people will come up with different sets of data to skew opinions in their favour (eg: lots of crime in California, where most people have guns; but close to no crime in Norway, where 1 in 3 family has a frigging automatic rifle at home...). You point out that a lot of domestic abuse takes place in the Bible Belt, yet I could say that in my mostly christian country there is very little domestic abuse. How about this: rednecks tend to be more violent so they indulge in domestic abuse. Religion does not even come into play here. Yes, it IS simplistic and yes, it is wrong: just like your analysis. There are TONS of other factors that should be taken into consideration when arguing about the way society is affected by religion, set of laws, and generally socioeconomic elements. Blanket statements such as "lol christians r t3h suX0r" are certainly NOT an appropriate way to conduct such studies.
First of all, if you need an external "moral authority" to impose its value system on you, rather than using the moral authority that you have inside you, then you're pretty hopeless. Secondly, you keep mixing up moral and legal systems as if they were the same thing: again, if you don't understand the difference, there are bigger issues here than just the usage of DRM. Finally, you keep referring to the music you purchased as if it were the same kind of property as your house: that's like signing a rent agreement and then complaining because you're not treated like the owner.
You know full well the limitations that accompany such agreements as you enter when buying WMA. Your insisting on ignoring them after first accepting them makes your point kind of hard to defend. You know full well that a physical signature is not the only thing to define a contract - my DSL provider has never seen my signature yet we entered an agreement, by other means that are just as good. You keep referring to the law of men while I keep telling that the moral authority you have inside you should overrun it: I *know* that after I enter an agreement I should stick with it. Apparently you don't. This would explain your difficulty at understanding my point.
True; and the specific rights you acquire over your new shiny MP3 are defined by the terms of the transaction. In other words, if you sign the contract without reading, well that's too bad, so sad.
Oh and please stop using non sequiturs, it makes you look like you have no real points to make. Winged unicorns vs respecting property? Been drinking too much?
*You* are free to think copyright is not a moral right. *I* don't particularly like copyright, but I understand the author's desire to do with their stuff as they please. And a friggin *consitution* has nothing to do with morality whatsoever - it's a legal document. Morality and legality have little if anything to do with each other. (Besides, copyright was not invented by the US constitution...)
You're probably right if you think fair use agreements etc grant you the legal right to de-DRM stuff - but as I said before I don't particularly care for the laws of men. Are you trying to argue that because the law of men says something is legally right, then it is also morally right? Didn't think so.
I find it quite logical to lose credibility in the NYT precisely because of the reasons you quote. But this has nothing to do with *forcing* them to behave in a certain way.
I should've made clear I was discussing the issue from a morally-right rather than a legally-right POV. That happened because I don't particularly care about the laws of men but I often forget to make the distinction clear.
Truth is they made it and should be able to sell it anyway they choose. If society forces them to give up their rigths, well that's what I would not call a free society.
Slashdot Mirror
NO: that's exactly the PP's point. You provide a better service by returning the relevant error. My ISP started doing this some time ago and I was enraged at their idiotic page, not because they put ads on it, but because I need a frigging error when an error occurs. I am *not* provided a better service by a helpful know-it-all page that fails miserably at its purpose. I am also not given a better service by all those apps that want to think for me instead of letting my do my thing.
I am also installing my own DNS server as soon as I've finished other stuff that's in the queue right now.
A colm and calm exterior is not sufficient to guarantee the veracity of a message, however it is a prerequisite, because when you are right you don't need to scream, and in order to debunk your opponent all you need to do it is *prove* your position. As in, provide logically-valid proof.
"OMG you suX0r" is not logically-valid proof.
Then again maybe it's just me. I tend to distrust people a priori when they feel the need to scream into my ears and provide propaganda. That's why I'd never join a protest even if I agreed wholeheartedly with its intentions. It's just *not* the way to go about getting approval.
Well, *I* know that when somebody opposes XYZ's position on the grounds that XYZ are full of "blatant lies" and that "truthful information" is just a click away, over here, just take the red pill kthxbye, THEN I become suspicious of both parties' position and motives.
I don't know about your case, but my contract has "NO guarantees whatsoever" written all over it. They insist that no minimum speed is guaranteed, heck they even claim that they could be down 90% of the time and you still would have no case against them.
In other words, I know full well my provider could start throttling and it would be OK because that's what I agreed with. I also know that my provider is not throttle happy.
Holy crap we had to pay like 3500 euros last time that happened to by company! Spill the beans man, how do you get such prices?
What the foo? My PHP scripts I wrote myself.
If two sickos want to shove gerbils up their bums
Won't somebody think of the gerbils?!
More seriously, weapons are basically outlawed (sorry, but "you must have a license, be trackable and anyway NOT use the weapon or you're going down" equals "outlawed"), cars not so much but on the way... The problem is that unless you refuse censorship completely, the slippery slope starts getting very slimy indeed: it just becomes a matter of choosing what is acceptable and what is not. Something that society has proven itself not very good at - or anyway, something that cannot be done without resorting to unpleasant means to convince those who disagree with the majority.
I guess one could argue I'm in favour of legalizing snuff movies and all sorts of unpleasant things. Unfortunately sickos' right to produce snuff is my same right to eg have LAN parties w/ friends and pratice combat sports. Freedom goes both ways. Yes, it's a hard life. (BTW I hope snuff does not REALLY exists...)
Distributors don't need to provide offers of source code I seem to remember that you don't have to offer your code explicitely. You must provide the text of the license and provide source code to those who ask for it. I might be wrong but the Openoffice site said something very similar.
Mainly from RMS's GPL v3, which turns distributing data via the internet into having to give up the programs you used to create it, which you have written by yourself.
No, as in "Let's avoid spreading FUD and ludicrously exaggerating stuff, especially when we think we have a point".
Any other third world country, there would have been no libraries to begin with... We should strive to put things in perspective.
Make it 100% compatible with current standards, uncrashable, give it a much MUCH smaller memory footprint, integrate it with the main OSes (a skin does not integration make), make it fast in rendering. And please work WITH the community: most Linux distros are based on a package manager and don't like software to go all upgrade happy on itself every two days.
That would make it worth using again. After a promising start, it got worse and worse with every release.
But instead, they are focusing on marketing techniques and gimmicks in order to spread the fox. It would be cool to have a good, not a well marketed, browser. Besides, do they really think they're in MS's league when it comes to marketing software?
The same thing you do today: you suck it up. If you want you can start using another format which they cannot read. Or you can put your money where your mouth is and use the market to push your product against theirs. Funny how freedom takes on a whole new meaning when it's applied to people who disagree with you!
It's easy: you don't. If you respect other people's freedom, that is. Including the one to shoot themselves in the feet.
this sort of system design is designed to keep lusers dumb
:D
No, it is designed to keep dumb lusers happy. See how much success hard to use Linux distros have? I mean... even on Windows I've seen lusers do such things. The horror... you don't want to hear the stories I brought back
I'm afraid most users *really* think the PC is out to get them, is playing tricks on them, or contains evil spirits or something. They lack the humility to admit that it's their lack of acknowledge that makes them powerless before the Beast.
Until humility is attained, the problem is here to stay.
the assumption that users are too dumb to ever learn their way around a heirarchy of folders
is more correct than you're willing to admit. Lusers are dumb and make up for most of the market. Get over it.
Publicly funded science research for the good of mankind would constitute taking money from society in exchange for your work. A freely agreed upon exchange between responsible individuals does not. I do not need or want society's permission to make music now, do I? :D): once when you buy it, once more if you lose it, break it, etc. Notice how iTunes and Steam are well tolerated: once you buy ACCESS to music (THAT is what you buy), you know you'll have it forever and it's really YOURS, as in you can redownload it/have your disc substituted, whatever.
DRM is theft in the same way renting you a car is theft: you are basically arguing that since you don't have "your" car anymore after X weeks, it's been stolen from you. It's never been yours in the first place. If music were "yours" after buying it, you should find it OK to sell it, rebrand it, broadcast it without crediting the author, etc, yet I guess you dislike such practices.
I think most problems stem from music labels trying to sell you their product twice (kinda like the car rent's company forcing you to use their very own proprietary motor-related thingy... sorry, I'm no good at car stuff
Taking this simple step would silence most DRM critics and make most people happy. I don't really understand why they don't do it, the few companies that do it are highly admired and definitely well off financially. It makes perfect market sense!
The problem with this kind of issues is precisely what you point out: it's hard to find conclusive evidence. This is one of those debates that can go on endlessly with both parts coming up with examples to prove their point, like the one about the effect of widely available weapons on crime rate, where people will come up with different sets of data to skew opinions in their favour (eg: lots of crime in California, where most people have guns; but close to no crime in Norway, where 1 in 3 family has a frigging automatic rifle at home...).
You point out that a lot of domestic abuse takes place in the Bible Belt, yet I could say that in my mostly christian country there is very little domestic abuse. How about this: rednecks tend to be more violent so they indulge in domestic abuse. Religion does not even come into play here. Yes, it IS simplistic and yes, it is wrong: just like your analysis.
There are TONS of other factors that should be taken into consideration when arguing about the way society is affected by religion, set of laws, and generally socioeconomic elements. Blanket statements such as "lol christians r t3h suX0r" are certainly NOT an appropriate way to conduct such studies.
... whereas it's perfect OK for you to do it? Talk about double standards! What's next? Invasion of Iraq = bad, invasion of Tibet = good?
First of all, if you need an external "moral authority" to impose its value system on you, rather than using the moral authority that you have inside you, then you're pretty hopeless. Secondly, you keep mixing up moral and legal systems as if they were the same thing: again, if you don't understand the difference, there are bigger issues here than just the usage of DRM. Finally, you keep referring to the music you purchased as if it were the same kind of property as your house: that's like signing a rent agreement and then complaining because you're not treated like the owner.
You know full well the limitations that accompany such agreements as you enter when buying WMA. Your insisting on ignoring them after first accepting them makes your point kind of hard to defend. You know full well that a physical signature is not the only thing to define a contract - my DSL provider has never seen my signature yet we entered an agreement, by other means that are just as good.
You keep referring to the law of men while I keep telling that the moral authority you have inside you should overrun it: I *know* that after I enter an agreement I should stick with it. Apparently you don't. This would explain your difficulty at understanding my point.
True; and the specific rights you acquire over your new shiny MP3 are defined by the terms of the transaction. In other words, if you sign the contract without reading, well that's too bad, so sad.
Oh and please stop using non sequiturs, it makes you look like you have no real points to make. Winged unicorns vs respecting property? Been drinking too much?
*You* are free to think copyright is not a moral right. *I* don't particularly like copyright, but I understand the author's desire to do with their stuff as they please. And a friggin *consitution* has nothing to do with morality whatsoever - it's a legal document. Morality and legality have little if anything to do with each other. (Besides, copyright was not invented by the US constitution...)
You're probably right if you think fair use agreements etc grant you the legal right to de-DRM stuff - but as I said before I don't particularly care for the laws of men. Are you trying to argue that because the law of men says something is legally right, then it is also morally right? Didn't think so.
I find it quite logical to lose credibility in the NYT precisely because of the reasons you quote. But this has nothing to do with *forcing* them to behave in a certain way.
Big Internet company claims competitor's product is bad bad bad.
I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!
I should've made clear I was discussing the issue from a morally-right rather than a legally-right POV. That happened because I don't particularly care about the laws of men but I often forget to make the distinction clear.
Truth is they made it and should be able to sell it anyway they choose. If society forces them to give up their rigths, well that's what I would not call a free society.