I really, really prefer reading books in dead tree form, regardless of what kind of book it is. I find I retain the information much better that way - I guess because I'm not constantly distracted by messenger, e-mail alerts, and so forth. As such...
...paper copy as well - I did that for e.g. Brandon Sanderson's Warbreaker. I...
...preordered a signed hardcover copy.
For programming books, I think all paper copies should come with a free electronic copy. It's nice to be able to pull up a...
...your bookshelf isn't handy. (And no, "google it" isn't always the best answer.)
On the other hand, cases like this are a pretty good way to sort Slashdot commenters into either actual libertarians (people with a thing for individual liberty, including freedom from fear) or corporatists (peasants who believe that corporate rule is infallible).
What about the people who hate the antics of huge corporations, but also don't mind paying taxes?
I would love to see companies forced to do something like:
1.) Ads must have the word "ADVERTISING" printed on an uninterrupted 1/3 of the ad. It must be instantly viewable when looking at the ad.
2.) Medication and legal advice cannot be advertised for in any form.
3.) Advertisements on radio or television must not raise their volume higher than what is normally heard in a television program.
4.) When someone is speaking about their experiences with a product, if they have received ANYTHING from the company in exchange for speaking, the words "PAID ENDORSEMENT" must be displayed in large letters that can be easily read from across the room during the entire duration of the endorsement.
Yes, I hate advertising. Yes, I hate marketing. Marketing/Advertising is filled full of mistruths and half-truths.
Okay, this whole "McDonald's Hot Coffee" thing is not what people think it is.
1.) The coffee wasn't just hot, it was scalding. The woman got 3rd degree burns, for Christ's sake. The woman had to be hospitalized for eight days and had to undergo skin grafting. She had to also undergo debridement treatments(basically, having dead and damaged tissue removed so that the healthier tissue around it can begin to heal).
2.) The woman was in the passenger seat and the car wasn't moving.
3.) The coffee was undrinkable at the temperature it was served at. 180 degrees(the temperature it was served at), will cause 3rd degree burns in 2 - 7 seconds. Basically, drinking the coffee as soon as you get it will cause your throat to almost instantly receive 3rd degree burns.
4.) McDonalds had settled 700 cases regarding their hot coffee, many instances involved similar 3rd degree burns.
So, basically, saying that the coffee was hot is a vast understatement. I know people love to point it out as an outlandish lawsuit, but once you know the facts, it is anything but outlandish.
What are you talking about? I was merely showing the two opposing viewpoints. I wasn't expressing personal opinion. Obviously, if there is a huge national debate about the issue, there are people who can see different sides of the coin. Hence the word confusion. Perhaps it was the incorrect word to use.
As far as your preconceived notions about me, I do not hang around Slashdot all day, I live in the country, and I've gone hunting far more times than you probably have(though I cannot prove it, as I do not know how often you go hunting, and you don't know how often I go hunting, and you are posting as an AC, so we will never know who goes more). No, I do not make Mennonite furniture(and since you called them mennonitish, I'm pretty sure you don't either). Cleaning your cannons? Give me a break. Calling your weapons cannons just makes you sound like a tool.
Next time you want to make claims about yourself(and accusations about others), don't post as anonymous. Be proud of who you are. Don't post as AC.
I'm not sure if you read my post correctly. I actually showed both points of view.
Here the the first argument(and the argument that you defend in your post)
One argument says that since everyone was in the State Militia at the time, everyone should be able to bear arms.
Here is the opposing point of view.
Another argument says that if someone wants to bear arms, they should join the military.
Note that I am not expressing my point of view in either part. I made sure not to in the post. I was merely using it as an example. Personally, I don't think there is any confusion. But, as there is a huge debate over the right to bear arms currently going on in America, obviously there does appear to be points of view contrary to my own. Hence, the confusion factor. I think that both sides make good points. I can see both sides of view. So please, do not confuse my explaining of the debate with my own views. Note that I did not express my point of view in this post, either.
So you are saying that if I like your car, I can come over and take it, because, hey, it's best for me, and since in the end we all die anyway, there's no reason I shouldn't steal your car, because it would be best for me to enjoy it while I can.
Is paying taxes to a government just because you were born in that particular country is much different from slavery?
Yes. It is completely different from slavery. Do you have the ability to leave? Yes. At any time. Do you have the ability to work your way up, to become rich? Yes. Are you whipped when you or merely appear to do something wrong, without the benefit of a trial? No.
Anti-government types and tax-haters piss me off. Do you use roads? Do you pay per mile on those roads? Do you use public services like police, fire, hospitals to keep you safe and healthy? If you have ever had to call the police or fire department, did they ask for a valid credit card number first, or did they just come? Did you go to a public elementary/middle/high school? Did you have to pay your way through those schools? Do you use the military to keep you free, or do you have your own private army?
Taxes are necessary because you live in a society. Part of living in a society means that everyone lends a hand to keep that society going. If you don't want to live in this society, where you have to pay taxes to support the infrastructure, nobody is stopping you from moving out and living on some tiny tropical island where you can live alone and make everything yourself and you'll never have to pay another cent to the government again.
Wait, what? Are they really criminals if all they did was exploit a loophole? I understood that a loophole, by definition, is a legal way of getting around a law. I also understood that a criminal is one to violates criminal law. But if a loophole was exploited, doesn't that mean that no law was broken, so the person cannot be considered a criminal?
How about, criminal in spirit, if not in actuality. If they are doing something that is against the law, but they find a loophole to keep doing said activity, they are criminals in spirit, though they did not get found guilty of the crime in actuality.
Vague laws like the type you describe are the reason that we have a huge debate over the 2nd Amendment.
For those who are not familiar with this amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Does this mean that everyone has a right to bear arms, or only those within the State Militia(the military, specifically, the National Guard)? One argument says that since everyone was in the State Militia at the time, everyone should be able to bear arms. Another argument says that if someone wants to bear arms, they should join the military. Because the Amendment was so vague, we have this debate now. Granted, at the time, the lawmakers knew what they were wanting to say. However, as people die and the common language adapts and changes, the 'spirit of the law' becomes lost. This is why lawmakers are specific in what the law is meant to do, so that people in the future, and currently, know what the law is and is not forbidding or granting.
While I agree that getting too specific results in little leeway in court cases where the 'spirit of the law' does not cover this or that, I disagree that laws should be as vague as possible. A law such as 'No distracted driving', to the right court, could mean that a parent with a screaming child in the backseat is breaking the law. Or playing the radio is breaking the law(auditory distraction). Or talking to someone in the passenger is distracted driving.
I would like to see all the types of distracted driving placed into a single law, with amendments to the law as they are needed. I am not a lawyer, but I would imagine it would make the court system much more efficient, if each 'type of law' had its own specific place, and amendments were added instead of new laws being written.
I'm quite happy to have a world with less lawyers. The profession itself is evidence that the Law is too complex.
If a law is written in such a fashion that the average citizen cannot understand it, let alone defend themselves in a court with it, liberty is damaged.
I would imagine that the reason that laws are so complex is due to the fact that too many people have used loopholes to cover up their wrongdoing, and lawmakers have had to react by making laws longer and more drawn out in order to ensure that any possible loopholes are filled. Don't blame the lawmakers. Blame the criminals who forced the lawmakers to make more and more complex laws.
But what if I want to use Google's OS, but I want to use Firefox as my browser, and I can't. That is anti-competitive. They may not have the largest market share, but they are still breaking the same rules.
Because my dad has any idea what that means, or how to do it... Remember, not everyone in the world is a techie (or even knows things aside from email and ebay). Especially those who are getting their first computer(which, believe it or not, still happens.) Not everyone owns a computer. Those who go to Best Buy or Walmart, and buy their first computer, will get home with it, expect to be able to check out 'this Internet thing,' hook it up, turn it on, and then sit there, dumbfounded, with no idea what to do next. Having IE come preloaded with Windows does more to help those with finding out about alternatives than forcing people to make a guess on their first day on the web. Given a list of browsers, most people will have very little idea which one to pick, and will invariably pick Microsoft Internet Explorer, because, since they have Microsoft Windows, Microsoft is the name they recognize, and hence, trust. After a couple of years of being online, they will hear more and more about things like Firefox, and a good number of them will be willing to give it a try, as they will probably ask people at their jobs about it, or their children, or relatives, and at least one of them will recommend a different browser. It just takes time.
I hate to sound trollish, but one thing that irritates me about the open-source community is their utter lack of patience. It's either people change now, or open source is being oppressed. Have patience. That's all I'm saying.
You can remove it, you just have to create a custom install disc, which is far more work than one should need to put in. Why MS can't conceive that people don't want a lot of that crap is beyond me.
If IE wasn't installed, most people wouldn't be able to download any alternative browsers, because they wouldn't know how. So, in all actuality, shipping IE with Windows does more to getting people onto the web in order to learn about alternatives than not shipping IE with Windows ever would. If it wasn't there, people just wouldn't get online. They would just complain that they had no way to get online, in which Microsoft would be able to show that the need for a built-in browser is there, which would erode any arguments the open-source community would have against a built-in browser. Imagine trying to go after Microsoft after that sort of backlash from 80% of the world. The open-source community would be seen as the bad guy, trying to keep Mom and Pop Smith from getting online.
Microsoft ships extras with Windows: That's bullshit, Microsoft is using their monopoly to make users jump through hoops to get alternative software by making them go through easy-to-use downloads on its competitor's sites!
Microsoft places extras in a separate download: That's bullshit, Microsoft is making users jump through hoops to get the software they like from Microsoft by making them go through an easy-to-use download on their site!
Now is the opportunity for opensource to show what it's good for. Someone whip together a small app to extract all info from the Sidekick, put it up on sourceforge for FREE and you have tons of goodwill for OSS. Of course, the app should be Linux-only, thus forcing all Sidekick users to install Ubuntu...
Thus eliminating any goodwill that would have been gained...
Really, if you think that open source is a viable option for the masses, you shouldn't care which operating system a powerful application like the one you describe is on. If you really care about using open source for goodwill, releasing it simultaneously on all operating systems should be your goal. How is forcing people to use Ubuntu via software applications any different from Microsoft forcing people to use Windows via software applications?
The Nintendo Wii development kit is $1,700.
The Sony PS3 development kit is $2,000 (non-Linux)
The XBox 360 development kit....$100
Compared to the others, the XBox 360 development kit is a steal. As for not offering anything in return, consider:
1.) Small indie teams can work on a major console without breaking the budget.
2.) The games created by the small indie teams can be hosted on a major console's server, allowing instant access to millions of possible customers.
3.) Small indie teams don't have to be major developers in order to use it (unlike Nintendo).
Depending on the price that the game ends up costing ($5, $3, or $1), given the millions of gamers who are on the marketplace, an indie game studio could somewhat easily recoup that year's losses($100) from having Microsoft host their game by selling anywhere between 20 and 100 copies of their game. If the game is good, they should have little problem. If it stinks, they may have more problems. If no one is buying the game, they will eventually take it off, freeing up the marketplace for others to try selling their games, which may or may not be good.
Also, if you think that the above prices are extreme, consider that licensing the Unreal Engine 3 costs $350,000. And that doesn't come with hosting. Plus, paying 3% royalties on all sales of games made with the engine.
People need to figure out that not everything Microsoft does is horribly horribly evil. They are a company. They do things to make money. They are more evil than some companies, less evil than others. Yes, they have done some pretty shitty things in the past. That doesn't mean that everything they do in the future is done in the name of Satan.
Oh, and before anyone accuses me, no, I don't work for Microsoft. I am just open-minded enough to realize that they are a company, not a church. Business is brutal. Some people can't handle this, and prefer to remain in an idealistic fantasy world. I used to be in that world. I hated everything Microsoft. But then I grew up, and I dealt with reality. And I've been much happier and less stressed than I ever could have been had I remained a die-hard anti-Microsoft zealot.
When Stallman started the GNU project, the software he was cloning had been created by a big, litigious, evil monopoly called "AT&T". There was a good chance that they were going to shut him down for copyright and patent infringement. He took that risk, and the rest is history.
The situation surrounding Mono is actually far less serious. Yes, Microsoft is a big, litigious, evil monopoly, but they actually have made a pretty watertight commitment to keeping those portions of.NET that Mono relies on open and free.
Stallman seems to believe that it's okay for someone to take the ideas and research that companies spent thousands of dollars on, rebuild them after the fact, and give them away for free, and thereby be considered without guilt, nay, a hero to the masses. The reason he believes that free open source software can be done is because he doesn't seem to realize that cloning existing software doesn't lead to innovation. I am not saying that free/open source software doesn't have innovation, but I am saying that there are an awful lot of free/open source clones of software that originally came about because a company spent a lot of money in R&D in order to produce that software.
Also, Stallman believes that making a copy of software and giving it to someone is being a good neighbor. So who is being a good neighbor to the programmers who spent the last year working on that software, only so that Stallman could make a copy of it and give it away? Because, you know, if only one person in the country buys that software, and simply makes a copy for everyone else, or puts the source code up online so that everyone can take that year of work for free, pretty soon the company that makes that software isn't going to be spending nearly as much on software, and alot of those programmers that he believes should be working on open source software aren't going to be working much at all. Or eating. But hey, they deserve it, right? They should know that working for evil companies that actually want to make money aren't worth it. Come work for the Free Software Foundation! Well, true, the FSF doesn't actually make software...But you can support the cause! Just click that little donate link, and Free Software will prevail! Wait, Mr. Programmer wants to support himself and his family? Well, just create a website and put a little Donate button on it, and everything will be fine! Of course people will donate money to your little piece of software that you give out for free on your website and only ask that people give an honest donation to your work...
Stallman has lost touch with reality. I am not against Free Software. But I am against the idea that companies wanting you to pay for their software, which they don't want people to just freely copy, being the root of all evil. People have to make a living. From what I can see, and I may be completely wrong, but I don't see free software as being capable of actually supporting all the programmers around. A few superstars made a bit of cash off of it. But, for the ordinary programmer, who might have a wife and kids to support, I don't see it ever having the widespread adoption that Stallman seems to think can happen. On paper, Free Software sounds great. Not to sound like a troll, but on paper, Communism sounds great, too. Unfortunately, in the real world, it doesn't work.
A cathedral - A generally beautiful building where people gather together to be filled with hope, listen to the Good Word with their families, give some money to the collection plate to help with expenses so that the cathedral can continue to operate and be a special place for future generations. It is a generally solemn place that people from all over visit because of the beauty and complexity of the architecture, as well as to simply join together in a shared set of beliefs that deal with hope and life.
A bazaar - A generally chaotic area, filled with men and women all around you shouting at you, trying to get business for mostly shoddy goods, that the merchants try to overcharge for. The goods generally fall apart after basic usage after a month, at which point, if you wish to continue using the goods, you must go back and hope for a better product if you can find the merchant again. The merchants generally care only about your business, and will hope to extort as much as they can from their customers before the customers figure out that the goods are generally crap. Granted, though, if a customer realizes that the goods are not going to be store-bought quality, and will not have many of the features that comes from more expensive product, they won't be as disappointed, but on the whole, if someone doesn't go to the bazaar, and goes to the store instead, they can get a better quality product with half the annoyance of going to the bazaar and checking out a dozen different merchants with marginally different products in order to the find the 'one' that most closely resembles what they want(though it is generally never 'quite' the same).
This is not to say that I am opposed to open source. But use a better analogy. Really.
Unfortunately, in order for you to go after this guy, you are going to have to reveal yourself. Also unfortunately for you, once you reveal yourself, you are no longer an anonymous coward, and thus are unable to claim that the other individual is pretending to be you. Yet still unfortunate for you, once you reveal yourself, the other individual can claim that you are pretending to be him, as you are obviously not anonymous, as you have revealed yourself, and he still is anonymous, as nobody knows who he is. In order for him to then go after you, he has to reveal himself, thus losing his anonymous status, in which case nobody can really go after anyone else.
Slashdot Mirror
A giant wikipedia?
God help us if anyone can put what they think the law is. I can only imagine all the urban legend laws that would get put onto the site.
I really, really prefer reading books in dead tree form, regardless of what kind of book it is. I find I retain the information much better that way - I guess because I'm not constantly distracted by messenger, e-mail alerts, and so forth. As such...
...paper copy as well - I did that for e.g. Brandon Sanderson's Warbreaker. I...
...preordered a signed hardcover copy.
For programming books, I think all paper copies should come with a free electronic copy. It's nice to be able to pull up a...
...your bookshelf isn't handy. (And no, "google it" isn't always the best answer.)
Sorry, what were you saying? I got distracted.
On the other hand, cases like this are a pretty good way to sort Slashdot commenters into either actual libertarians (people with a thing for individual liberty, including freedom from fear) or corporatists (peasants who believe that corporate rule is infallible).
What about the people who hate the antics of huge corporations, but also don't mind paying taxes?
I would love to see companies forced to do something like:
1.) Ads must have the word "ADVERTISING" printed on an uninterrupted 1/3 of the ad. It must be instantly viewable when looking at the ad.
2.) Medication and legal advice cannot be advertised for in any form.
3.) Advertisements on radio or television must not raise their volume higher than what is normally heard in a television program.
4.) When someone is speaking about their experiences with a product, if they have received ANYTHING from the company in exchange for speaking, the words "PAID ENDORSEMENT" must be displayed in large letters that can be easily read from across the room during the entire duration of the endorsement.
Yes, I hate advertising. Yes, I hate marketing. Marketing/Advertising is filled full of mistruths and half-truths.
Okay, this whole "McDonald's Hot Coffee" thing is not what people think it is.
1.) The coffee wasn't just hot, it was scalding. The woman got 3rd degree burns, for Christ's sake. The woman had to be hospitalized for eight days and had to undergo skin grafting. She had to also undergo debridement treatments(basically, having dead and damaged tissue removed so that the healthier tissue around it can begin to heal).
2.) The woman was in the passenger seat and the car wasn't moving.
3.) The coffee was undrinkable at the temperature it was served at. 180 degrees(the temperature it was served at), will cause 3rd degree burns in 2 - 7 seconds. Basically, drinking the coffee as soon as you get it will cause your throat to almost instantly receive 3rd degree burns.
4.) McDonalds had settled 700 cases regarding their hot coffee, many instances involved similar 3rd degree burns.
So, basically, saying that the coffee was hot is a vast understatement. I know people love to point it out as an outlandish lawsuit, but once you know the facts, it is anything but outlandish.
What are you talking about? I was merely showing the two opposing viewpoints. I wasn't expressing personal opinion. Obviously, if there is a huge national debate about the issue, there are people who can see different sides of the coin. Hence the word confusion. Perhaps it was the incorrect word to use.
As far as your preconceived notions about me, I do not hang around Slashdot all day, I live in the country, and I've gone hunting far more times than you probably have(though I cannot prove it, as I do not know how often you go hunting, and you don't know how often I go hunting, and you are posting as an AC, so we will never know who goes more). No, I do not make Mennonite furniture(and since you called them mennonitish, I'm pretty sure you don't either). Cleaning your cannons? Give me a break. Calling your weapons cannons just makes you sound like a tool.
Next time you want to make claims about yourself(and accusations about others), don't post as anonymous. Be proud of who you are. Don't post as AC.
Here the the first argument(and the argument that you defend in your post)
One argument says that since everyone was in the State Militia at the time, everyone should be able to bear arms.
Here is the opposing point of view.
Another argument says that if someone wants to bear arms, they should join the military.
Note that I am not expressing my point of view in either part. I made sure not to in the post. I was merely using it as an example. Personally, I don't think there is any confusion. But, as there is a huge debate over the right to bear arms currently going on in America, obviously there does appear to be points of view contrary to my own. Hence, the confusion factor. I think that both sides make good points. I can see both sides of view. So please, do not confuse my explaining of the debate with my own views. Note that I did not express my point of view in this post, either.
So you are saying that if I like your car, I can come over and take it, because, hey, it's best for me, and since in the end we all die anyway, there's no reason I shouldn't steal your car, because it would be best for me to enjoy it while I can.
Is paying taxes to a government just because you were born in that particular country is much different from slavery?
Yes. It is completely different from slavery. Do you have the ability to leave? Yes. At any time. Do you have the ability to work your way up, to become rich? Yes. Are you whipped when you or merely appear to do something wrong, without the benefit of a trial? No.
Anti-government types and tax-haters piss me off. Do you use roads? Do you pay per mile on those roads? Do you use public services like police, fire, hospitals to keep you safe and healthy? If you have ever had to call the police or fire department, did they ask for a valid credit card number first, or did they just come? Did you go to a public elementary/middle/high school? Did you have to pay your way through those schools? Do you use the military to keep you free, or do you have your own private army?
Taxes are necessary because you live in a society. Part of living in a society means that everyone lends a hand to keep that society going. If you don't want to live in this society, where you have to pay taxes to support the infrastructure, nobody is stopping you from moving out and living on some tiny tropical island where you can live alone and make everything yourself and you'll never have to pay another cent to the government again.
Wait, what? Are they really criminals if all they did was exploit a loophole? I understood that a loophole, by definition, is a legal way of getting around a law. I also understood that a criminal is one to violates criminal law. But if a loophole was exploited, doesn't that mean that no law was broken, so the person cannot be considered a criminal?
How about, criminal in spirit, if not in actuality. If they are doing something that is against the law, but they find a loophole to keep doing said activity, they are criminals in spirit, though they did not get found guilty of the crime in actuality.
Vague laws like the type you describe are the reason that we have a huge debate over the 2nd Amendment.
For those who are not familiar with this amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Does this mean that everyone has a right to bear arms, or only those within the State Militia(the military, specifically, the National Guard)? One argument says that since everyone was in the State Militia at the time, everyone should be able to bear arms. Another argument says that if someone wants to bear arms, they should join the military. Because the Amendment was so vague, we have this debate now. Granted, at the time, the lawmakers knew what they were wanting to say. However, as people die and the common language adapts and changes, the 'spirit of the law' becomes lost. This is why lawmakers are specific in what the law is meant to do, so that people in the future, and currently, know what the law is and is not forbidding or granting.
While I agree that getting too specific results in little leeway in court cases where the 'spirit of the law' does not cover this or that, I disagree that laws should be as vague as possible. A law such as 'No distracted driving', to the right court, could mean that a parent with a screaming child in the backseat is breaking the law. Or playing the radio is breaking the law(auditory distraction). Or talking to someone in the passenger is distracted driving.
I would like to see all the types of distracted driving placed into a single law, with amendments to the law as they are needed. I am not a lawyer, but I would imagine it would make the court system much more efficient, if each 'type of law' had its own specific place, and amendments were added instead of new laws being written.
I'm quite happy to have a world with less lawyers. The profession itself is evidence that the Law is too complex.
If a law is written in such a fashion that the average citizen cannot understand it, let alone defend themselves in a court with it, liberty is damaged.
I would imagine that the reason that laws are so complex is due to the fact that too many people have used loopholes to cover up their wrongdoing, and lawmakers have had to react by making laws longer and more drawn out in order to ensure that any possible loopholes are filled. Don't blame the lawmakers. Blame the criminals who forced the lawmakers to make more and more complex laws.
But what if I want to use Google's OS, but I want to use Firefox as my browser, and I can't. That is anti-competitive. They may not have the largest market share, but they are still breaking the same rules.
ftp ftp.mozilla.org
Because my dad has any idea what that means, or how to do it... Remember, not everyone in the world is a techie (or even knows things aside from email and ebay). Especially those who are getting their first computer(which, believe it or not, still happens.) Not everyone owns a computer. Those who go to Best Buy or Walmart, and buy their first computer, will get home with it, expect to be able to check out 'this Internet thing,' hook it up, turn it on, and then sit there, dumbfounded, with no idea what to do next. Having IE come preloaded with Windows does more to help those with finding out about alternatives than forcing people to make a guess on their first day on the web. Given a list of browsers, most people will have very little idea which one to pick, and will invariably pick Microsoft Internet Explorer, because, since they have Microsoft Windows, Microsoft is the name they recognize, and hence, trust. After a couple of years of being online, they will hear more and more about things like Firefox, and a good number of them will be willing to give it a try, as they will probably ask people at their jobs about it, or their children, or relatives, and at least one of them will recommend a different browser. It just takes time.
I hate to sound trollish, but one thing that irritates me about the open-source community is their utter lack of patience. It's either people change now, or open source is being oppressed. Have patience. That's all I'm saying.
You can remove it, you just have to create a custom install disc, which is far more work than one should need to put in. Why MS can't conceive that people don't want a lot of that crap is beyond me.
If IE wasn't installed, most people wouldn't be able to download any alternative browsers, because they wouldn't know how. So, in all actuality, shipping IE with Windows does more to getting people onto the web in order to learn about alternatives than not shipping IE with Windows ever would. If it wasn't there, people just wouldn't get online. They would just complain that they had no way to get online, in which Microsoft would be able to show that the need for a built-in browser is there, which would erode any arguments the open-source community would have against a built-in browser. Imagine trying to go after Microsoft after that sort of backlash from 80% of the world. The open-source community would be seen as the bad guy, trying to keep Mom and Pop Smith from getting online.
The two sides of the argument:
Microsoft ships extras with Windows: That's bullshit, Microsoft is using their monopoly to make users jump through hoops to get alternative software by making them go through easy-to-use downloads on its competitor's sites!
Microsoft places extras in a separate download: That's bullshit, Microsoft is making users jump through hoops to get the software they like from Microsoft by making them go through an easy-to-use download on their site!
Now is the opportunity for opensource to show what it's good for. Someone whip together a small app to extract all info from the Sidekick, put it up on sourceforge for FREE and you have tons of goodwill for OSS. Of course, the app should be Linux-only, thus forcing all Sidekick users to install Ubuntu...
Thus eliminating any goodwill that would have been gained...
Really, if you think that open source is a viable option for the masses, you shouldn't care which operating system a powerful application like the one you describe is on. If you really care about using open source for goodwill, releasing it simultaneously on all operating systems should be your goal. How is forcing people to use Ubuntu via software applications any different from Microsoft forcing people to use Windows via software applications?
If you eat candy as a replacement for love
Who would eat candy as a replacement for love? That's what the television is for!
All three major consoles charge to develop.
The Nintendo Wii development kit is $1,700.
The Sony PS3 development kit is $2,000 (non-Linux)
The XBox 360 development kit....$100
Compared to the others, the XBox 360 development kit is a steal. As for not offering anything in return, consider:
1.) Small indie teams can work on a major console without breaking the budget.
2.) The games created by the small indie teams can be hosted on a major console's server, allowing instant access to millions of possible customers.
3.) Small indie teams don't have to be major developers in order to use it (unlike Nintendo).
Depending on the price that the game ends up costing ($5, $3, or $1), given the millions of gamers who are on the marketplace, an indie game studio could somewhat easily recoup that year's losses($100) from having Microsoft host their game by selling anywhere between 20 and 100 copies of their game. If the game is good, they should have little problem. If it stinks, they may have more problems. If no one is buying the game, they will eventually take it off, freeing up the marketplace for others to try selling their games, which may or may not be good.
Also, if you think that the above prices are extreme, consider that licensing the Unreal Engine 3 costs $350,000. And that doesn't come with hosting. Plus, paying 3% royalties on all sales of games made with the engine.
People need to figure out that not everything Microsoft does is horribly horribly evil. They are a company. They do things to make money. They are more evil than some companies, less evil than others. Yes, they have done some pretty shitty things in the past. That doesn't mean that everything they do in the future is done in the name of Satan.
Oh, and before anyone accuses me, no, I don't work for Microsoft. I am just open-minded enough to realize that they are a company, not a church. Business is brutal. Some people can't handle this, and prefer to remain in an idealistic fantasy world. I used to be in that world. I hated everything Microsoft. But then I grew up, and I dealt with reality. And I've been much happier and less stressed than I ever could have been had I remained a die-hard anti-Microsoft zealot.
010010010010000001101011011011100110111101110111
001000000111010001101000011000010111010000100000
010010010010000001100001011011000111011101100001
011110010111001100100000011101000110000101101100
011010110010000001101100011010010110101101100101
001000000111010001101000011010010111001100100000
011101110110100001100101011011100010000001110011
011100000110010101100001011010110110100101101110
011001110010000001110100011011110010000001101111
011101000110100001100101011100100111001100101110
001000000010000001001001011001100010000001110100
011010000110010101111001001000000110001101100001
011011100010011101110100001000000111010101101110
011001000110010101110010011100110111010001100001
011011100110010000100000011100000111010101110010
011001010010000001101111011011100110010101110011
001000000110000101101110011001000010000001111010
011001010111001001101111011001010111001100101100
001000000111010001101000011001010110111000100000
011101000110100001100101011110010010000001100001
011100100110010101101110001001110111010000100000
011101110110111101110010011101000110100000100000
011101000110000101101100011010110110100101101110
011001110010000001110100011011110110111100101110
001000000010000001000001011011010010000001001001
001000000111001001101001011001110110100001110100
001111110010000000100000010000010110111001111001
01101111011011100110010100111111
Things are just falling apart all over!
On the contrary; things are falling together.
Oooohh!!!! Burn!!!
When Stallman started the GNU project, the software he was cloning had been created by a big, litigious, evil monopoly called "AT&T". There was a good chance that they were going to shut him down for copyright and patent infringement. He took that risk, and the rest is history.
The situation surrounding Mono is actually far less serious. Yes, Microsoft is a big, litigious, evil monopoly, but they actually have made a pretty watertight commitment to keeping those portions of .NET that Mono relies on open and free.
Stallman seems to believe that it's okay for someone to take the ideas and research that companies spent thousands of dollars on, rebuild them after the fact, and give them away for free, and thereby be considered without guilt, nay, a hero to the masses. The reason he believes that free open source software can be done is because he doesn't seem to realize that cloning existing software doesn't lead to innovation. I am not saying that free/open source software doesn't have innovation, but I am saying that there are an awful lot of free/open source clones of software that originally came about because a company spent a lot of money in R&D in order to produce that software.
Also, Stallman believes that making a copy of software and giving it to someone is being a good neighbor. So who is being a good neighbor to the programmers who spent the last year working on that software, only so that Stallman could make a copy of it and give it away? Because, you know, if only one person in the country buys that software, and simply makes a copy for everyone else, or puts the source code up online so that everyone can take that year of work for free, pretty soon the company that makes that software isn't going to be spending nearly as much on software, and alot of those programmers that he believes should be working on open source software aren't going to be working much at all. Or eating. But hey, they deserve it, right? They should know that working for evil companies that actually want to make money aren't worth it. Come work for the Free Software Foundation! Well, true, the FSF doesn't actually make software...But you can support the cause! Just click that little donate link, and Free Software will prevail! Wait, Mr. Programmer wants to support himself and his family? Well, just create a website and put a little Donate button on it, and everything will be fine! Of course people will donate money to your little piece of software that you give out for free on your website and only ask that people give an honest donation to your work...
Stallman has lost touch with reality. I am not against Free Software. But I am against the idea that companies wanting you to pay for their software, which they don't want people to just freely copy, being the root of all evil. People have to make a living. From what I can see, and I may be completely wrong, but I don't see free software as being capable of actually supporting all the programmers around. A few superstars made a bit of cash off of it. But, for the ordinary programmer, who might have a wife and kids to support, I don't see it ever having the widespread adoption that Stallman seems to think can happen. On paper, Free Software sounds great. Not to sound like a troll, but on paper, Communism sounds great, too. Unfortunately, in the real world, it doesn't work.
A cathedral - A generally beautiful building where people gather together to be filled with hope, listen to the Good Word with their families, give some money to the collection plate to help with expenses so that the cathedral can continue to operate and be a special place for future generations. It is a generally solemn place that people from all over visit because of the beauty and complexity of the architecture, as well as to simply join together in a shared set of beliefs that deal with hope and life.
A bazaar - A generally chaotic area, filled with men and women all around you shouting at you, trying to get business for mostly shoddy goods, that the merchants try to overcharge for. The goods generally fall apart after basic usage after a month, at which point, if you wish to continue using the goods, you must go back and hope for a better product if you can find the merchant again. The merchants generally care only about your business, and will hope to extort as much as they can from their customers before the customers figure out that the goods are generally crap. Granted, though, if a customer realizes that the goods are not going to be store-bought quality, and will not have many of the features that comes from more expensive product, they won't be as disappointed, but on the whole, if someone doesn't go to the bazaar, and goes to the store instead, they can get a better quality product with half the annoyance of going to the bazaar and checking out a dozen different merchants with marginally different products in order to the find the 'one' that most closely resembles what they want(though it is generally never 'quite' the same).
This is not to say that I am opposed to open source. But use a better analogy. Really.
The truth? OMGZ Linux is teh best!!!1! Leenux Trovalds is the smartest man ever to live!
Typical American arrogance.
You'll enjoy this American dick up your ass soon enough, Eurofag.
Hope you like cut cock.
Ah, I love a good intellectual debate.
Unfortunately, in order for you to go after this guy, you are going to have to reveal yourself. Also unfortunately for you, once you reveal yourself, you are no longer an anonymous coward, and thus are unable to claim that the other individual is pretending to be you. Yet still unfortunate for you, once you reveal yourself, the other individual can claim that you are pretending to be him, as you are obviously not anonymous, as you have revealed yourself, and he still is anonymous, as nobody knows who he is. In order for him to then go after you, he has to reveal himself, thus losing his anonymous status, in which case nobody can really go after anyone else.