I'm sorry, but with all the things that have been under discussion on Slashdot as being disastrous for America, you decide that the highest priority item is to launch an investigation (and probably a highly expensive one at that)? People across the world are dieing from combat or hunger, lives are being ruined by corporate organizations run amok, and you want to begin a witch hunt? I certainly can't disagree with any of your other four points, but certainly there are hundreds of things more important than tearing apart the previous administration. Whether you like it or not, we are where we are, and conducting a lengthy, expensive investigation of a previous administration will not change that fact. Solve the other problems first, and if you have time left in your term, then you can spend time judging past administrations.
As far as I know, there is no country in the world where someone can walk off the street and decide to start selling your music legally for whatever price they feel, just because they have unilaterally decided to grant themselves that right.That is not a true statment. Here in America I can decide to sell anything I've legally acquired. If I purchase several copies of CDs produced by your artist, I can stand on the corner of my street and sell them to people driving by, and it's perfectly legal. That's how businesses are started. You certainly don't have to sell me the CDs to begin with, but once I've paid for them, they are mine to do with as I please. Furthermore, if I legally record a band signed to your label, even just on a tape recorder in a park, I can make as many copies as I like and sell that all I want.
I believe what you meant to say was "As far as I know, there is no country in the world where someone can take a product, make copies of it, and sell the copies without the producer's permission, just because they have unilaterally decided to grant themselves the right."
I have a suspicion that what Wickline mean was Microsoft would only support software on Suse Linux that was Microsoft approved. What this could do is creat an imbalance in relation to commercial acceptance of open source software. Microsoft will say "We support package X, but not package Y or Z." So commercial companies who need the functionality provided by X, Y, or Z will choose X because it's supported, not necessarily because it's better. As an example, for customers using Suse Linux, Microsoft may say we only support Cedega, not Wine. More people will start using Cedega over Wine, and more money filters into Cedega over Wine. Taken to extreme, the Wine project may run out of money and have to shut down (it's not likely, but possible). Now, in Wine and Cedega's case, they are both open source, but Wickline may be worried that Microsoft will only support close sourced, commercial software running on Suse Linux, creating a shift of corporate funds away from the open source projects they may currently be supporting. Considering it's the Inquirer, I suspect they edited what Wickline said, but didn't fully understand it and screwed it up.
Unintentional incompetence really can't suddenly enter into things now without one hell of a good explanation.
Of which there is one. A voting machine is not an ATM machine. ATM machines are required by law to have many multiple logs, redundancies, and a verified paper trail leading back to the person performing the action (deposit, withdrawal, etc). Voting machines are not, and thus Diebold can save money but cutting those out. Furthermore, voting is suppose to be anonymous, meaning that if Diebold builds a machine that produces a trace directly back to the person that voted, the anonymity aspect is lost. Finally, expertise in one area does not imply expertise in another, and this is a fairly new technology. ATMs have existed since the 1940's, so they've had a long time to mature. The voting machines have not had anywhere near as long.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, but Drive was helmed by Tim Minear, not Joss (although Tim is a very close substitute).
I'm sorry, but with all the things that have been under discussion on Slashdot as being disastrous for America, you decide that the highest priority item is to launch an investigation (and probably a highly expensive one at that)? People across the world are dieing from combat or hunger, lives are being ruined by corporate organizations run amok, and you want to begin a witch hunt? I certainly can't disagree with any of your other four points, but certainly there are hundreds of things more important than tearing apart the previous administration. Whether you like it or not, we are where we are, and conducting a lengthy, expensive investigation of a previous administration will not change that fact. Solve the other problems first, and if you have time left in your term, then you can spend time judging past administrations.
As far as I know, there is no country in the world where someone can walk off the street and decide to start selling your music legally for whatever price they feel, just because they have unilaterally decided to grant themselves that right.That is not a true statment. Here in America I can decide to sell anything I've legally acquired. If I purchase several copies of CDs produced by your artist, I can stand on the corner of my street and sell them to people driving by, and it's perfectly legal. That's how businesses are started. You certainly don't have to sell me the CDs to begin with, but once I've paid for them, they are mine to do with as I please. Furthermore, if I legally record a band signed to your label, even just on a tape recorder in a park, I can make as many copies as I like and sell that all I want. I believe what you meant to say was "As far as I know, there is no country in the world where someone can take a product, make copies of it, and sell the copies without the producer's permission, just because they have unilaterally decided to grant themselves the right."
I have a suspicion that what Wickline mean was Microsoft would only support software on Suse Linux that was Microsoft approved. What this could do is creat an imbalance in relation to commercial acceptance of open source software. Microsoft will say "We support package X, but not package Y or Z." So commercial companies who need the functionality provided by X, Y, or Z will choose X because it's supported, not necessarily because it's better. As an example, for customers using Suse Linux, Microsoft may say we only support Cedega, not Wine. More people will start using Cedega over Wine, and more money filters into Cedega over Wine. Taken to extreme, the Wine project may run out of money and have to shut down (it's not likely, but possible). Now, in Wine and Cedega's case, they are both open source, but Wickline may be worried that Microsoft will only support close sourced, commercial software running on Suse Linux, creating a shift of corporate funds away from the open source projects they may currently be supporting. Considering it's the Inquirer, I suspect they edited what Wickline said, but didn't fully understand it and screwed it up.