I don't think that the alternatives are slower or more expensive today in most cases.
Slow: Depends on how you measure your time. While train etc may be slower from A to B, you can actually do something during that time, while when driving a car you are reduced to cell phone, CD, or radio.
And cost: depends on how much you use it. Many people in European cities own a car, but don't use it regularly, but instead use public transport for commute. In such a case you have huge upfront cost that just rots on the street.
While I like it, it does not solve the crucial issue about cars that also hampered other alternative attempts like car sharing: in car culture, the car is not just a vehicle for transport. It is/part of home/. Look at how people decorate cars. Look at what they carry with them: CDs, books, pillows, woollen blankets, drinks, etc. Many people have everything they need for say, a trip to the beach, in the car at all times (at least during summer). Not to speak of baby gear.
I didn't realize that for a long time because I didn't grow up in a car culture home, Austria in the 70ies just wasn't, and while my family always had one, it wasn't important. Most of my adult life I lived in Vienna, where you simply are better off without one if you aren't into trips to the countryside every weekend or have a baby, so I didn't have one until I moved to a bigger place at age 35.
And so I also only had looked at the transportation side of things and just couldn't understand why the alternatives didn't catch on when it was, to me, so obvious that they were better.
And now living in a mode and a place where a car is actually needed, I do try to carry stuff with me, because it/is/ cool to have, I just fail. After 3 years it still is empty as new except for the 2 CDs I currently listen to and a pen and such. All this to illustrate that old habits are hard to kill. I can imagine well that if one lives in his car, as so many people from car cultures do, that this would be the thing that PRT just doesn't do for you.
Slashdot does not have a double standard, it's different people with different opinions, and/. just lets them post them. It's no requirement for/. to be consistent.
Any argument that bases itself on the assumption that/. is one voice that says different things at different times is stupid and a false generalization, just as the thing with immigrants. GP is spot-on
telling people if your blog, e.g., is in the public domain, is exactly what CC does. It provides a uniform, readily understandable method for identifying works as public domain, or not.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no!!!! Posting number threehundredsomething in this story and still wrong.
CC lets you choose terms, like attribution or not, commercial use allowed or not, etc., over all giving you a choice from 11 license, ranging from essentially public domain (no attribution, no copyleft, commercial allowed) to all kinds of special arrangements. Thus it is not what you think it is.
I've been reading through hundreds of comments. Each thread starts with someone (astroturfers or what?) pretending to not get the whole thing in a similar way to Dvorak ("what do I need CC for, I already have all rights under copyright").
This although it is painfully obvious that the whole concept is just like free/open software license, just a bit organized, and with the goal of creating a pool of content searchable by license terms.
It _is_ working, as it assists in silent militarization of everyday life, just like the war on terror (now in most places, in the 70ies mostly in Europe (RAF, Brigate Rosse,...))
It has been explained a million times in the comments already (is this Dvorak himself posting under 50 aliases?), but here we go again.
Copyright gives the copyright holder _all_ rights, some minor uses are covered by fair use. The "user" has no distribution rights at all (and fair use is very different per legislation, and easy to disagree over)
Now the thing you have to grasp is this: CC is not about giving the creator/owner rights than he has under copyright, it is about the creator giving the "users" more rights than they have under copyright.
The owner might _want_ the user have the right to create complete copies for noncommercial distribution, but with attribution to the owner, and only unchanged. How does he do that with simple copyright? He can't, unless he pays a lawyer to craft a license.
CC makes this easier by giving boilerplate licenses to use for several combinations of rights the owner wants to give to the user.
I am seriously astonished that user id 14792 does not immediately grasp the concept. It is just as GPL, BSD, X, Artistic, whatever free or open software license, just organized in a way that the owner can combine what he wants with a few clicks.
Dvorak has completely messed up your grasp of the matter at hand:)
It's not so much about HIS rights (well, that too), but more it's about everybody else's rights.
He wants to give his readers more rights than copyright does (like distributing complete copies), even when fair use is taken into consideration (complete copies are not covered by fair use), while retaining some rights (distributing for money, attribution).
I haven't read a single comment yet, but I'm sure many will point out specific points in the article. I personally just want to go on record saying what I said in the subject. The guy has not understood one bit of what he's talking about.
Mostly true except for the following your dreams part. Dreams might seem less attainable for sure, but I doubt they in fact are. And you have the additional benefit knowing that even if everything goes utterly wrong, you mostly won't be left to die on the streets. The affinity to personal risk taking might be higher in the US though
Just commenting from my European point of view on the fact that in every/. thread about gas prices, some American will say "I don't understand why Europeans are not on the barricades about the gas prices over there". While from this side of the Atlantic it is very easy to see that higher gas prices have had a significant positive impact on overall quality of life. Of course this only works if you haven't restructured everything (public transport, highways, cities, suburbs, economy,...) with cars in mind, but this is exactly what happens if higher gas prices keep other forms of transportation and organisation competitive.
Because, you know, it might actually be better to not change your whole life and culture to confirm to the needs of cars, car culture, and car economy, but the other way round
"Biodiesel" is more competitive than you think in many regions. In Europe, many cars work with it (link is German, but list of brands should be comprehensible:) In rural areas, farming equipment is routinely powered by it (German again)
Other notable examples are the north of Africa and the northern mediterranean coast, e.g., Croatia.
In the north of Africa, the Romans managed to utterly ruin the land within a few hundred years, turning it into the arid mess it is today, when it previously had sustained a a terrace farming culture for thousands of years (Carthago). IIRC reason was overproduction, not understanding the terrace system, and wood production for ships.
In Croatia, it was wood production. All those bare lime rocks where grown with woods before the romans came who cut the wood and neglected to replant, or replanted with fast-growing stuff that did not survive the environment.
I still don't argue with the facts you put forward. I know that sound issues come up a lot on the Ubuntu mailing lists. But:
You need to edit your repositary (sp?) list and install additional software to play MP3s.
Well, that's "won't play out of the box" or something, but not "won't play", which was your original comment I originally replied to. The fact that it doesn't play MP3s out of the box surely doesn't make the question whether a soundcard works "moot".
I mean, come on. Windows, e.g., does not play DivX files out of the box (can't even download the fricking codec). Does that make the question whether sound or fullscreen video works "moot"? I don't think so.
About your Myth2 problem: look, I didn't say that GNU/Linux is a great gaming platform right now. But again, the fact your Myth game didn't run does not mean that anything linux-based won't play games, as evidenced by my link to Cedega, which does run games on Linux.
I think you want to be more cautious with your generalizations
I have no issues with what you say here, but that's not what you said in the comment I replied to. There it was "Ubuntu won't play MP3s, and anything linux-based won't play games, so unless you've already got a.ogg collection to listen to, the soundcard drivers are a bit of an academic issue..."
It may also be that they've gotten used to it. After all they are at war, and as terrible as this attack is, it's after all "only" 50 people or so, and in Iraq this happens on a regular basis
As far as I'm concerned, I wonder if the term "terrorist act" is even correct. They are at war, they have their troops in Iraq, they have killed, aided in killing, or created situations that assisted in killing, ca. 23,000 people. Now the war has come to their own soil. Tragedy? Sure. Atrocity? Hell, yeah. Terrorism? I don't think so
Slashdot Mirror
Honest question, not trolling, etc.
i ew i mage=screenshot e lease=110&slide=107
You sure?
http://www.ubuntulinux.org/screenshots/document_v
http://www.linspire.com/lindows_news_gallery.php?
http://shots.osdir.com/slideshows/slideshow.php?r
h, what the heck:
http://shots.osdir.com/
Looks as different to me as you can expect from themes and tweaks
To be fair to the OP, later on a girl with really big boobs can be seen *ducks*
Package is called electricsheep in Ubuntu, available since Warty. And he could have used System > Administration > Synaptic Package Manager.
;)
Congrats, you fed the troll
Open Source is very well defined, and so is Free Software
I don't think that the alternatives are slower or more expensive today in most cases.
Slow: Depends on how you measure your time. While train etc may be slower from A to B, you can actually do something during that time, while when driving a car you are reduced to cell phone, CD, or radio.
And cost: depends on how much you use it. Many people in European cities own a car, but don't use it regularly, but instead use public transport for commute. In such a case you have huge upfront cost that just rots on the street.
While I like it, it does not solve the crucial issue about cars that also hampered other alternative attempts like car sharing: /part of home/. Look at how people decorate cars. Look at what they carry with them: CDs, books, pillows, woollen blankets, drinks, etc.
/is/ cool to have, I just fail. After 3 years it still is empty as new except for the 2 CDs I currently listen to and a pen and such.
in car culture, the car is not just a vehicle for transport. It is
Many people have everything they need for say, a trip to the beach, in the car at all times (at least during summer).
Not to speak of baby gear.
I didn't realize that for a long time because I didn't grow up in a car culture home, Austria in the 70ies just wasn't, and while my family always had one, it wasn't important. Most of my adult life I lived in Vienna, where you simply are better off without one if you aren't into trips to the countryside every weekend or have a baby, so I didn't have one until I moved to a bigger place at age 35.
And so I also only had looked at the transportation side of things and just couldn't understand why the alternatives didn't catch on when it was, to me, so obvious that they were better.
And now living in a mode and a place where a car is actually needed, I do try to carry stuff with me, because it
All this to illustrate that old habits are hard to kill. I can imagine well that if one lives in his car, as so many people from car cultures do, that this would be the thing that PRT just doesn't do for you.
Slashdot does not have a double standard, it's different people with different opinions, and /. just lets them post them. It's no requirement for /. to be consistent.
/. is one voice that says different things at different times is stupid and a false generalization, just as the thing with immigrants. GP is spot-on
Any argument that bases itself on the assumption that
telling people if your blog, e.g., is in the public domain, is exactly what CC does. It provides a uniform, readily understandable method for identifying works as public domain, or not.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no!!!!
Posting number threehundredsomething in this story and still wrong.
CC lets you choose terms, like attribution or not, commercial use allowed or not, etc., over all giving you a choice from 11 license, ranging from essentially public domain (no attribution, no copyleft, commercial allowed) to all kinds of special arrangements.
Thus it is not what you think it is.
Thanks for a bit of light relief.
:)
I've been reading through hundreds of comments. Each thread starts with someone (astroturfers or what?) pretending to not get the whole thing in a similar way to Dvorak ("what do I need CC for, I already have all rights under copyright").
This although it is painfully obvious that the whole concept is just like free/open software license, just a bit organized, and with the goal of creating a pool of content searchable by license terms.
I got increasingly annoyed, so, thanks
It _is_ working, as it assists in silent militarization of everyday life, just like the war on terror (now in most places, in the 70ies mostly in Europe (RAF, Brigate Rosse, ...))
It never was meant to actually be about drugs
It has been explained a million times in the comments already (is this Dvorak himself posting under 50 aliases?), but here we go again.
Copyright gives the copyright holder _all_ rights, some minor uses are covered by fair use. The "user" has no distribution rights at all (and fair use is very different per legislation, and easy to disagree over)
Now the thing you have to grasp is this: CC is not about giving the creator/owner rights than he has under copyright, it is about the creator giving the "users" more rights than they have under copyright.
The owner might _want_ the user have the right to create complete copies for noncommercial distribution, but with attribution to the owner, and only unchanged. How does he do that with simple copyright? He can't, unless he pays a lawyer to craft a license.
CC makes this easier by giving boilerplate licenses to use for several combinations of rights the owner wants to give to the user.
I am seriously astonished that user id 14792 does not immediately grasp the concept. It is just as GPL, BSD, X, Artistic, whatever free or open software license, just organized in a way that the owner can combine what he wants with a few clicks.
Notice how Dvorak at least did a little bit of research?
Please show where in the article he demonstrate anything remotely like this. He didn't.
Dvorak has completely messed up your grasp of the matter at hand :)
It's not so much about HIS rights (well, that too), but more it's about everybody else's rights.
He wants to give his readers more rights than copyright does (like distributing complete copies), even when fair use is taken into consideration (complete copies are not covered by fair use), while retaining some rights (distributing for money, attribution).
I haven't read a single comment yet, but I'm sure many will point out specific points in the article.
I personally just want to go on record saying what I said in the subject. The guy has not understood one bit of what he's talking about.
Thank you
Mostly true except for the following your dreams part. Dreams might seem less attainable for sure, but I doubt they in fact are. And you have the additional benefit knowing that even if everything goes utterly wrong, you mostly won't be left to die on the streets.
The affinity to personal risk taking might be higher in the US though
Just commenting from my European point of view on the fact that in every /. thread about gas prices, some American will say "I don't understand why Europeans are not on the barricades about the gas prices over there". While from this side of the Atlantic it is very easy to see that higher gas prices have had a significant positive impact on overall quality of life. ...) with cars in mind, but this is exactly what happens if higher gas prices keep other forms of transportation and organisation competitive.
Of course this only works if you haven't restructured everything (public transport, highways, cities, suburbs, economy,
Because, you know, it might actually be better to not change your whole life and culture to confirm to the needs of cars, car culture, and car economy, but the other way round
"Biodiesel" is more competitive than you think in many regions. In Europe, many cars work with it (link is German, but list of brands should be comprehensible :)
In rural areas, farming equipment is routinely powered by it (German again)
Other notable examples are the north of Africa and the northern mediterranean coast, e.g., Croatia.
In the north of Africa, the Romans managed to utterly ruin the land within a few hundred years, turning it into the arid mess it is today, when it previously had sustained a a terrace farming culture for thousands of years (Carthago).
IIRC reason was overproduction, not understanding the terrace system, and wood production for ships.
In Croatia, it was wood production. All those bare lime rocks where grown with woods before the romans came who cut the wood and neglected to replant, or replanted with fast-growing stuff that did not survive the environment.
I still don't argue with the facts you put forward. I know that sound issues come up a lot on the Ubuntu mailing lists. But:
You need to edit your repositary (sp?) list and install additional software to play MP3s.
Well, that's "won't play out of the box" or something, but not "won't play", which was your original comment I originally replied to.
The fact that it doesn't play MP3s out of the box surely doesn't make the question whether a soundcard works "moot".
I mean, come on. Windows, e.g., does not play DivX files out of the box (can't even download the fricking codec). Does that make the question whether sound or fullscreen video works "moot"? I don't think so.
About your Myth2 problem: look, I didn't say that GNU/Linux is a great gaming platform right now. But again, the fact your Myth game didn't run does not mean that anything linux-based won't play games, as evidenced by my link to Cedega, which does run games on Linux.
I think you want to be more cautious with your generalizations
The concept of Ion together with cooperative applications would work much better for me.
I have no issues with what you say here, but that's not what you said in the comment I replied to. There it was "Ubuntu won't play MP3s, and anything linux-based won't play games, so unless you've already got a .ogg collection to listen to, the soundcard drivers are a bit of an academic issue..."
I seem to imagine this
Thanks :)
It may also be that they've gotten used to it. After all they are at war, and as terrible as this attack is, it's after all "only" 50 people or so, and in Iraq this happens on a regular basis
As far as I'm concerned, I wonder if the term "terrorist act" is even correct. They are at war, they have their troops in Iraq, they have killed, aided in killing, or created situations that assisted in killing, ca. 23,000 people. Now the war has come to their own soil.
Tragedy? Sure. Atrocity? Hell, yeah. Terrorism? I don't think so