If Linux starts to take off, you'll see Microsoft themselves start a distribution. I actually find it amazing that they have stuck with Windows. If they used Linux, they would be able to forget about needing to maintain all of the low-level operating system stuff and could put more effort into locking people into their brand of Linux.
This is something that the Free Software community will need to start thinking about, soon. How do we prevent that from happening?
For film, we have: - Product placement - Donations - Commercial use of trademarks (Maccas can't use them to sell happy meals without paying up) - Cinema contributions (people will still want to see movies on the big screen)
Something interesting about tech companies is that concern for the environment is something that comes in usually later in the company's lifetime--after they've become millionaires.
I don't find that too surprising. I think there's so much of a divide among large and small makers of computer hardware that smaller companies would be more focused just on competing with the larger companies.
I'd have thought that an online spreadsheet application would involve far less "IT bollocks", but I acknowledge that it could appear to be easier if you ignore all the things that could go wrong with it.
Google's server could go down, the company's internet access could go down, someone could attempt to brute-force their way into the account, and so on...
I still think one or two person companies would be far more interested in something like OpenOffice. I think Google Spreadsheets might have a niche market for personal users, though.
I agree that this is probably due to technical deficiency. I think a lot of discrimination is quite possibly due to people not realising that they are discriminating. For example, someone opening a shop might get a nice step put in from the street, without realising that this makes their shop inaccessible to people in wheelchairs.
Whatever the reasons, this is discrimination. Their intent does matter, but the results of their actions matter more. The discrimination should be pointed out to them, and they should be given a chance to rectify their mistake.
It is pretty difficult to see how any serious business would use Google Spreadsheets. I reckon most businesses would find OpenOffice to be a more attractive option. As a side-note... I loaded up OpenOffice Portable on a computer I was working on today, and a few people who saw it commented that MS Office wouldn't survive now that there's OpenOffice Portable. I found that interesting.
I didn't say it was illegal. I acknowledge that the NY Times discriminating against Linux users most likely isn't illegal. I don't see why it shouldn't be illegal, though. They're purposely excluding Linux users when Linux users could otherwise view the videos without problems.
You said that you don't mind a restaurant requiring a jacket. What if they required a jacket, but if you're wearing a particular brand of jacket, and they decide to exclude that one? That's a more accurate analogy, in this case.
Getting back to the legalities, is there a good reason why religion should be a protected class, whereas software shouldn't be protected? Software is particularly susceptible to discrimination.
I also am not a fan of laws that cause certain groups to receive special treatment.
In this case, I'm suggesting that the NY Times has a moral responsibility to treat everyone THE SAME way, though! You're confusing two separate issues.
It's THEIR product/service, THEY can do as they please with it.... IT'S THAT SIMPLE!
Uhh... yeah, thanks, but it's not really THAT simple.
Are you religious? Yes, no? How would you feel if you got barred from a restaurant based on whether or not you're religious?
What sort of car do you drive? How would you feel if you paid for a carpark but then got turned away because they don't accept your type of car, despite the fact that you could easily have fit into one of the parking spaces?
I'm not convinced that's the case. If I own a carpark, should I be allowed to turn away people based on what car they drive? If I own a hotel, should I be allowed to turn away people based on their religion? I don't think so.
The NYT website is a website being made available to the general public. Is there a reason why they should be allowed to discriminate against certain people based on something irrelevant?
I don't think this is as clear cut as you would like people to believe it is. This is called discrimination. Unlike most forms of discrimination, they are not discriminating against people based on their racial background or religion, but we need to ask ourselves whether or not that matters.
The New York Times does get to decide what goes on their site, but should they be allowed to purposely discriminate against users based on what software they use? I'm not convinced that they should be allowed to.
This is entirely possible and it works. The problem is not that Linux users can't do this, the problem is that the NYTimes is attempting to block them.
First of all, since when is discrimination okay as long as you are only discriminating against a minority?
Secondly, Linux is Free Software. Not just the operating system core, but graphics applications, an office suite, and so on. Don't underestimate the ability of Free Software to spread once people start to find out about it. See Firefox as an example. I predict that Ubuntu is about to become "cool" and take off in the same way Firefox did. It will happen sooner or later.
No, changing the useragent string DOES work! This is plain and simple discrimination against anyone using software that isn't from Microsoft/Apple.
I recommend letting the NYTimes know you're not happy about them not supporting Linux (and preferably Ogg Vorbis/Theora) in a language that everyone can understand...
I'd like to hear someone justify the US having nuclear weapons, especially taking into account that they are the only country to have used them to attack another country...
ESR has been irrelevant for years? Was he ever relevant at all? I doubt it.
Free Software and Linux are further along than they have ever been in terms of being supported and popularity. There's no reason to think that things will suddenly change back to the way they used to be.... and indeed, the goal isn't "beating Microsoft". Microsoft are a nuisance because they create proprietary formats that they use to try to exclude Free Software users from the rest of the world. It's a pity the anti-trust lawsuits didn't sort this out, because this is the worst thing that Microsoft does.
Slashdot Mirror
If Linux starts to take off, you'll see Microsoft themselves start a distribution. I actually find it amazing that they have stuck with Windows. If they used Linux, they would be able to forget about needing to maintain all of the low-level operating system stuff and could put more effort into locking people into their brand of Linux.
This is something that the Free Software community will need to start thinking about, soon. How do we prevent that from happening?
The US is a fascist state - they like to tell people what they can and cannot do. That's nothing to be proud of.
For film, we have:
- Product placement
- Donations
- Commercial use of trademarks (Maccas can't use them to sell happy meals without paying up)
- Cinema contributions (people will still want to see movies on the big screen)
Sure, it's likely that in a fully DRM-free Internet age that musicians won't be mega-millionaires, but I consider that a good thing.
Actually, any popular musician that still performs live would still be a millionaire.
Something interesting about tech companies is that concern for the environment is something that comes in usually later in the company's lifetime--after they've become millionaires.
I don't find that too surprising. I think there's so much of a divide among large and small makers of computer hardware that smaller companies would be more focused just on competing with the larger companies.
I'd have thought that an online spreadsheet application would involve far less "IT bollocks", but I acknowledge that it could appear to be easier if you ignore all the things that could go wrong with it.
Google's server could go down, the company's internet access could go down, someone could attempt to brute-force their way into the account, and so on...
I still think one or two person companies would be far more interested in something like OpenOffice. I think Google Spreadsheets might have a niche market for personal users, though.
I agree that this is probably due to technical deficiency. I think a lot of discrimination is quite possibly due to people not realising that they are discriminating. For example, someone opening a shop might get a nice step put in from the street, without realising that this makes their shop inaccessible to people in wheelchairs.
Whatever the reasons, this is discrimination. Their intent does matter, but the results of their actions matter more. The discrimination should be pointed out to them, and they should be given a chance to rectify their mistake.
It is pretty difficult to see how any serious business would use Google Spreadsheets. I reckon most businesses would find OpenOffice to be a more attractive option. As a side-note... I loaded up OpenOffice Portable on a computer I was working on today, and a few people who saw it commented that MS Office wouldn't survive now that there's OpenOffice Portable. I found that interesting.
Of course, one caveat is that they don't want people calling saying "I have debian potato and I can't watch your videos"
You prevent some Linux users from complaining about videos not working by making videos not work for ALL Linux users? That doesn't really make sense.
I didn't say it was illegal. I acknowledge that the NY Times discriminating against Linux users most likely isn't illegal. I don't see why it shouldn't be illegal, though. They're purposely excluding Linux users when Linux users could otherwise view the videos without problems.
You said that you don't mind a restaurant requiring a jacket. What if they required a jacket, but if you're wearing a particular brand of jacket, and they decide to exclude that one? That's a more accurate analogy, in this case.
Getting back to the legalities, is there a good reason why religion should be a protected class, whereas software shouldn't be protected? Software is particularly susceptible to discrimination.
I also am not a fan of laws that cause certain groups to receive special treatment.
In this case, I'm suggesting that the NY Times has a moral responsibility to treat everyone THE SAME way, though! You're confusing two separate issues.
It's THEIR product/service, THEY can do as they please with it. ...
IT'S THAT SIMPLE!
Uhh... yeah, thanks, but it's not really THAT simple.
Are you religious? Yes, no? How would you feel if you got barred from a restaurant based on whether or not you're religious?
What sort of car do you drive? How would you feel if you paid for a carpark but then got turned away because they don't accept your type of car, despite the fact that you could easily have fit into one of the parking spaces?
it's their site, they can do what they want
I'm not convinced that's the case. If I own a carpark, should I be allowed to turn away people based on what car they drive? If I own a hotel, should I be allowed to turn away people based on their religion? I don't think so.
The NYT website is a website being made available to the general public. Is there a reason why they should be allowed to discriminate against certain people based on something irrelevant?
I don't think this is as clear cut as you would like people to believe it is. This is called discrimination. Unlike most forms of discrimination, they are not discriminating against people based on their racial background or religion, but we need to ask ourselves whether or not that matters.
The New York Times does get to decide what goes on their site, but should they be allowed to purposely discriminate against users based on what software they use? I'm not convinced that they should be allowed to.
This is entirely possible and it works. The problem is not that Linux users can't do this, the problem is that the NYTimes is attempting to block them.
First of all, since when is discrimination okay as long as you are only discriminating against a minority?
Secondly, Linux is Free Software. Not just the operating system core, but graphics applications, an office suite, and so on. Don't underestimate the ability of Free Software to spread once people start to find out about it. See Firefox as an example. I predict that Ubuntu is about to become "cool" and take off in the same way Firefox did. It will happen sooner or later.
Yeah, exactly... but you might also like to let them know why you're not using their website:
president@nytimes.com; publisher@nytimes.com; public@nytimes.com; feedback@nytimes.com; clarosa@nytimes.com; schools@nytimes.com; wedinfo@nytimes.com; society@nytimes.com; nytnews@nytimes.com; executive-editor@nytimes.com; managing-editor@nytimes.com; news-tips@nytimes.com; the-arts@nytimes.com; bizday@nytimes.com; foreign@nytimes.com; metro@nytimes.com; national@nytimes.com; sports@nytimes.com; washington@nytimes.com; editorial@nytimes.com; oped@nytimes.com; circulation@nytimes.com
Yes, they could do that. That's exactly the point. Instead of doing that, they have chosen to discriminate based on what software people are using.
No, changing the useragent string DOES work! This is plain and simple discrimination against anyone using software that isn't from Microsoft/Apple.
I recommend letting the NYTimes know you're not happy about them not supporting Linux (and preferably Ogg Vorbis/Theora) in a language that everyone can understand...
president@nytimes.com; publisher@nytimes.com; public@nytimes.com; feedback@nytimes.com; clarosa@nytimes.com; schools@nytimes.com; wedinfo@nytimes.com; society@nytimes.com; nytnews@nytimes.com; executive-editor@nytimes.com; managing-editor@nytimes.com; news-tips@nytimes.com; the-arts@nytimes.com; bizday@nytimes.com; foreign@nytimes.com; metro@nytimes.com; national@nytimes.com; sports@nytimes.com; washington@nytimes.com; editorial@nytimes.com; oped@nytimes.com; circulation@nytimes.com
Exactly. Thank you for your post.
I'd like to hear someone justify the US having nuclear weapons, especially taking into account that they are the only country to have used them to attack another country...
ESR has been irrelevant for years? Was he ever relevant at all? I doubt it.
... and indeed, the goal isn't "beating Microsoft". Microsoft are a nuisance because they create proprietary formats that they use to try to exclude Free Software users from the rest of the world. It's a pity the anti-trust lawsuits didn't sort this out, because this is the worst thing that Microsoft does.
Free Software and Linux are further along than they have ever been in terms of being supported and popularity. There's no reason to think that things will suddenly change back to the way they used to be.
You're missing the fact that people are indifferent. They don't care about anything except money anymore.
Well, most people, anyway.
This sort of thing needs to happen more often to Microsoft. They need to be turned against software patents.