The point of communism is that everything is distributed through a common pool. "From each and every one according to his abilities. To each and every one according to his needs". A nice philosophy. Doesn't seem to work very well in practice. Has absolutely nothing to do with corporations.
The point of capitalism is that *everybody* votes with their wallets. The idea is that everybody will vote for (== buy) the product that gives them most value for their money. There can be capitalism without a free market, it just doesn't work very well.
This is the game that Microsoft has played, and played extremely well. So well, in fact, that the DoJ thinks that they are threatening the whole system, by destroying the market.
MS did not get where they are by forcing their products on anyone (well not really). They got there because all those individual persons and companies found MS products to be the best buy.
Unfortunately, if everybody votes for candidate no 1 you can't survive as no 2. It doesn't matter if candidate no 2 is better in some areas.
Microsoft uses this. Of cource, they would be nuts if they did not. They use the system. The fact that they play the game better than the competition does not make them evil. Nor does the fact that I might gain something if they played it worse.
It is just a case of how the sum of many rational individual choices adds up to something irrational (monopoly)
On every page critical to a software company, put the words "By reading this text you agree not to take any legal action against the author or publisher"
On a web site hosting, for example, deCSS. Put the words "Any similarity between this program and any commercial products is purely coincidental. Reverse enginering of this program, wether by looking at the source or observing the operations of the program, for the sole purpose of finding such similarities is not permitted"
In the article, Fallows noted that a lot of his ideas for improving MSWord as a writing tool were brushed off, because the product managers ran the numbers. The true writers who would use it wouldn't be worth the development effort!
Don't forget that the feature *you* would kill for is the very thing that someone else will call bloat.
Trying to scratch everybodys itches at the same time will not work...
It is nice to work for a compay that is doing well.
There is a reason why MS is no 1 (marketwise)
You don't make it where MS is today without doing things right. Their goal never was to write the best software for everyone, it is to write software that as many people (and LORG's) as possible consider good enough.
Microsoft's main customers do not use the same criteria when they choose software as the average/.'er.
I dont like everything fom MS, but I have to hand it to them: Nobody is better at making selling software. They dont rely on clueless marketers they rely on *damn good* marketers.
But you see there are these special "space sounds" that will not travel very far. In space, sound waves will only go about a meter, then they suddenly stop. It is much easier to see this if you use light-waves instead. That is how they make light sabres!
Oh and there is also those special laser beams which travel at a detectable speed. Otherwise you would not be able to manouvre away from enemy fire and that would be very unfair (and forbidden in the space-geneva-convention)
PS I did not wear glasses, so I was probably cool.
If you enter the DeCSS code (code != speech according to some judge) via a speech recognition device...
Would *that* qualify as "free speech"?
Seriously, Voice interfaces probably have a very limited usage. Some disabled would benefit (much). Hands free applications are very useful in cars and such, but typing is generally less tiresome.
Sure many people type faster than they speak (at least if it is to be interpretable by a machine) but the main problem is that speaking for an hour is very tiresome (and irritating for those around), and commands by voice are difficult compared to mouse and keyboard. ("Swap those two words,... three sentences back" as opposed to drag and drop or the arrow key dance.).
Now, that was one of the more aintresting analyses of this I've seen on/.
This will probably lead to a bitter fight between the MPAA and the black barket. And who will lose?
Not the MPAA. Their "Products" will still be attractive, wether on celloloid, VHS, DVD or whatever. They have war chests big enough to survive a lost war over a standard.
Not the "pirates". Sure their business will not last, but they are well aware of that. The *real* pirates (not the 1337 dud35) will just collect their spoils and move on to their next scam.
The losers will be the honest types who just want to view a movie. Those who bought an expensive DVD device, that gets obsolete in five years. Those who legally bought a library of DVD's, that they cant back up which are slowly degrading.
Perhaps people will "learn the lesson" and be slower to adapt the next format. Perhaps it will be the same story all over agin. Who knows?
I changed job a year ago. My last job was computer programming for a (unnamed) company. Currently I work for a small (ten people) IT-consulting firm.
At my last job I worked 37.5 h + paid overtime. Here I work 40 h, without paid overtime.
The big improvement is that here it is not the hours in the office that counts, but the time billed to our clients. plus creative ideas.
So as long as I meet the goal of 80% of those 40h billed, and come up with some useful ideas nobody has anything to say.
At my last job there was a feeling of "Just get this done, you get paid for overtime don't you?" Here there is less pressure to work long hours since there is no personal gain from it. (We have a collective bonus, not a personal).
Those hours not billed, I spend the way I see fit. If I feel that I need to go away (skiing, fishing, walking) to think about a problem than I can do so. Everybody here seems to think that this is good for productivity.
Yeah, I know. Saying "Killfile" is much easier that implementing a/. equivalent to it.
Logged in AC's is probably the way to go. Perhaps combined with a "user must wait some time after registration to post"-rule.
Hey how about this:
AC posts require registration.
The poster of a AC comment is logged internally
Moderators (and possibly others) get the option of reporting a poster as a flooder.
If somebody is reported as a flooder, it is up to the staff to terminate the account.
After I report someone as a flooder, I don't see posts from that account. Therefore, if I'm moderating, I get the chance to concentrate on other posts.
If an AC is reported as a flooder, that will not affect non-AC posts by the same person (and vice versa)
This way moderators would have a chance to deal with abuse in bulk. It would (as said) require logged in AC's but that seems like a small cost to keep the discussion going.
Well, you just made me post instead of moderating in this (offtopic) thread...
You have a point (sadly). But your solution would not work. When I moderate, I browse at -1 (of course) I don't moderate down if I can help it since I rather spend my points pointing out good posts. I'm particulary happy to give a new post that first bonus that will get a newbie (which I btw still consider myself to be even after many posts and a decent karma) read by those who browse at 2.
How the heck can I find the gems when/. is filled with automated spamming? Why would anybody bother to filter the low point posts when 90% of them are pure trash? Moderation can deal with human trolling, but I (or anyone I guess) cannot keep up with a trollscript!!
The solution is not more human filtering, the solution must be a killfile to stop the autotrolls.
If you're a journalist who refuses to give up the name of your source in a critical case, you can also be thrown in jail for contempt of court.
Here (Sweden) it is actually *illegal* to even try to find out who a journalist's source is.
The real problem (as you pointed out) is that you can never prove that you do *not* have encrypted information. Hey, there might be a secret message hidden in this post. Perhaps I made the arrangement that "Start selling those drugs to children the moment I post three messages on the same subject on/."
The obvious conflict (and now my rant alert is flashing) is that the openness of the "net culture" makes it more motivated to encrypt and hide personal data. I might not want the whole world to see my private mail, however innocent.
Perfect crypto vs total freedom of information. It is just like that "Irresistable force vs unmovable object" question.
How is this meant to work? Presumably the police are smart enough to keep multiple copies of the cypher text...
Why not use something along the lines of those "secure digital music formats"
Perhaps the files cannot be read from any other media than the original hard disk (or whatever). Perhaps that will make CSS illegal? Oh what a sad moment that would be.
Or even better (if you really have something to hide, that is): One password that will decrypt the real data and one that will decrypt harmless cooking recipies AND destroy the original.
Obviously this would only be intresting for the real criminal, that stand more to lose from his files being decrypted than from losing them altogether.
Yes, I'm sure that the really ugly guys(tm) won't get caught by this law, only innocent geeks refusing to decrypt as a matter of principle and the clueless criminals.
Perhaps starting rumours about how a few MP's have suspicious material on their computers wouldn't be too bad.;-)
The web today is perhaps 95% junk. That is OK since I can filter out most of the junk with a search engine and then manually find what I'm looking for. I don't lose much except my own time
Enter a micropayment system. Who is likely to use it? As you say - professional content creators. The likes of AOL/TW, microsoft, RIAA etc. Companies that will make damn sure that there is no easy way to get the same information for free.
The result would (OK might) be that valuable information is locked up on the protected micropayment servers, while the free web is flooded with marketing material and FUD.
Remember "micropayment" does not stand for cheap payment. It stands for "a little amount per view" So it wont be "$0.05 a week" but "$0.02 a story".
This would be a web that suits companies like a glove. Not a web where I stumble on the occasional pearl browsing through annoying (but free) noise.
I've seen far too many business types drool at the thought of locking up their information (today freely available) in a micropayment system.
Give me a secure, reliable micropayment system, and we can eliminate these discussions of questionable motives altogether.
Give us micropayments and the web is destroyed.
Now there are free(beer) sites and some services that require a payment. With micropayment we would have to always keep an eye on the meter, no casual surfing around.
Once we get over the first speech/beer issue there still is one unique definition of freedom for each and every one of us.
Someone wants a ad-free web
Someone else wants to be free to put their banners on their pages.
Somebody wants to free the computer world from a monopoly.
Microsoft wants to be free from government regulation.
Let us be free from porn and spam
Don't regulate the net, save our freedom
Somebody wants to be free to view a DVD in any manner they like
Somebody wants to be free to use a closed format business model
Free the prisoners
Free the streets from criminals
I could go on and on. Point being: Everybody wants freedom. Everybody uses the word "freedom" to describe their vision.
Enormous amounts of bandwidth has been wasted, preaching that "freedom is good".
Is it not time to be precize? Is it not time to realize that your freedom might be someone elses encumberance?
Nobody wants to give up his own freedom for security. However reducing other peoples freedom for the same goal is suddenly OK.
Most peope on/. claim their freedom to influence politicians and courts in order to get the laws they like. Can you complain when the megacorps do the same?
If so, when do you lose your right to do politics? May Redhat lobby? May I lobby if I happen to have a small garage business?
You give some, you take some. It is called society. Global scale does not make a difference.
In my mind [rigged survey] == [crap] From a professional point of view that just means that survey institutes gets an even worse name. That means that friends of mine in that business who actually try to do honest surveys, will have a harder time competing with those that are not.
Of course you have a right to keep your thoughts to yourself, but as soon as you discuss them in public they are no longer exclusively your own, and you cannot claim any ownership of them.
Again, I'd like to be able to claim "ownership" of them. The question is what rights that "ownership" gives me. Do I claim (or grant others) the right to prevent people from access?, No!! What I do want is protection from misquotes, the chance to explain what I meant and so on.
Two times I've been asked permission to use texts I've written (actually, that I and some friends wrote) My answer has been "Yes feel free to use it, *if* you would make any money from it, give us what you consider fair"
I certainly don't consider myself an "enemy of the freedom of information" I just fear the possibilities for abuse. If information is free, how do I keep a secret? Where is the line between a private conversation in confidence and an open discussion? This reply is public (since I prefer an open discussion). The words of my post are definitely free. If I had responded by mail, would my words still be "public"?
Free information is generally much more useful than closed. Therefore let the best system win in each and every case Forcing an "all information is free"-doctrine is (almost;-) as worng as forcing "all information is closed"
OK I'm ranting. Keep screaming, revolutionary. The day everybody agrees either 100% or not att all will be a sad one.
(Note 1 I used to work for a survey company note 2 I'll try to be impartial here (wrt the survey))
Here is the survey:
I'm going to read a statement and would like you to tell me if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with it.
STATEMENT: Increased government regulation and litigation of the Technology industry will lead to consumers paying higher prices.
"Regulation" and "ligitation" will most likely be percieved as bad things just as "Higher prices" It is very likely that the respondant will link the two
QUESTION: Do you think increased government regulation, including the regulation of software design, will have a negative or positive effect on the high tech industry and companies, like Microsoft, to innovate and bring new products to consumers?
Government regulation of software design is not exacly what the monopoly case is about is it?
QUESTION: The U.S. Justice Department is currently suing Microsoft. How closely are you following the trial - very closely, somewhat closely, or not closely at all?
I'll just note this for now.
QUESTION: As you may know, the case impacts consumers. Some people say that Microsoft has repeatedly benefited consumers with its products. Others say Microsoft's business practices have hurt consumers. Which side do you agree with more?
Tricky one. But the two are *not* mutually exclusive. I benefit from Windows, even though I might be hurt by MS business practices.
QUESTION: Recent press reports suggest that the Justice Department will seek to break-up Microsoft into separate companies. Do you favor efforts by the government to break-up Microsoft, or do you think a penalty like break-up would be too extreme given what you know about the case?
This is a valid question. Keep in mind, though that 44% said that they did not follow the case at all
QUESTION: The Department of Justice is deciding what, if any, regulations to pursue against Microsoft. If you knew that the Department of Justice was proposing a regulation that would end up increasing the cost of software to consumers, would you support or oppose the regulation? Would you strongly (support/oppose) it or (support/oppose) it somewhat?
Duh! Mesa want chepa missosoft thingy That question is bogus.
QUESTION: If you knew that the Department of Justice was proposing a regulation that would end up slowing the pace of technological innovation, would you support or oppose the regulation? Would you strongly (support/oppose) it or (support/oppose) it somewhat?
Ditto
QUESTION: If you knew that the Department of Justice was proposing a regulation that would give government the power to decide how to design parts of Microsoft's software, would you support or oppose the regulation? Would you strongly (support/oppose) it or (support/oppose) it somewhat?
How many slashdotters would want government code in windows?
QUESTION: Some suggest that regulation of Microsoft will require the creation of a new government office or agency. Do you support or oppose the creation of a new government office or agency to regulate or monitor Microsoft's business practices? Do you strongly (support/oppose) it or (support/oppose) it somewhat?
Again, Who wants more bureaucracy?
QUESTION: Some people say Microsoft has strong competitors - they point to the recent merger of America Online and Time Warner, as well as companies like IBM, Sony, Sun, and Apple. Other people say Microsoft doesn't have strong competitors. Which side do you agree with more?
Why did they not mention GM as well?
To summarize: That survey said *nothing*
Also they fail to say wether knowledge of the case had any impact. And just calling registered voters creates a bias too (even if that probably does not matter here).
I actually *tried* not to be partial here, but that was one of the most crappy surveys I'vs seen (and i've seen some)
And this is not an attempt to justify mpaa-ish behaviour.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
Depending on your views you can read that as: "We want to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts. Therefore we secure the rights of the Authors and Inventors"
or: "The rights of the Authors and Inventors shall be secured. (We believe that it promotes the Progress of Science and useful Arts.)"
For obvious reasons, media companies prefer the second interpretation.
Can a person or organisation ever have the right to with threat of violence control the spread of information? If you answered yes, you can say goodbye to Freedom in the information age.
Let me state another question: Can a person or organisation (or society) ever have the right to with threat of violence expropriate your information?
If you answer yes to *that* question, you no longer have any right to complain about for example doubleclick or echelon-ish schemes.
My thoughs are information. Are they free too? Am I a bad guy when I choose to keep some of them for myself? I might have written something positive about my country. I would very much want the (legal) means to react if I was quoted out of context on a Nazi site.
Hobbex, you have made many good posts, but I think you are going a bit far here. The purpose of copyright *is* to protect the artist or innovator. The artist is in his/her full right to give up their rights, either by GPL-ing (or similar) or by selling out to a distributor. The problem is that there are not enough "good" distributors to tackle the megacorps.
The way to fight (MP|RI)AA and their clueless|evil likes is *not* by forcing them to free information. It is to demonstrate how flawed their business model is. Continuing down the path of the RIAA here will make consumers *and* artists lose and find alternative ways. How long do you think they will survive as middlemen of a vacuum?
Let the artists free their information because they *want* to, not because *you* want them to.
CERT actually recommends in their notice that users disable all scripting in their browsers!
Yeah, so? That has been good advice ever since the client-side scripting stuff started to show up.
Sorry, some scripting is good. See below
...From what I've seen, the main use of Javascript is that newbie webmeisters try to use it as a replacement for links.
Javascript is useful for two purposes (flashiness aside)
1) Validating webforms. Checking some input before the user submits (in both senses) saves a lot of frustration. Sure you can (and must) do a server side check, but waiting for a new page to download, simply to tell me that i forgot a compulsory field is a pain in the behind. Plus it takes some load off my server. 2) User friendliness. Now don't go. Call it "Luser friendliness" if you like to insult your customers, but the fact is that an URL does not mean much to the average Joe. You and I might be able to guess something about a link by looking at that url in the status bar. Joe User *can't*. When designing a good web UI, the main problem is how hard it is to provide instant feedback on a web page. You don't want to reload a page, simply to provide extra information about a link.
Browser makers could have shipping their browsers with all client-side execution "features" disabled by default, all along.
No, they could have made sure that client side scripts were "safe". Not accessing cookies with Javascript or allowing object.create in ActiveX for example. The main trouble here is that "Malicious code" actually can be malicious.
And you just showed that slashdots code is not flawless either:-)
I think it can be summoned up like this:
Never use any unvalidated free text entered by a user!!!
How many of you has tried entering a "%" in a search field? (making a badly designed script do a free text search through the whole database returning *everything*)
Slashdot Mirror
The point of capitalism is that *everybody* votes with their wallets. The idea is that everybody will vote for (== buy) the product that gives them most value for their money. There can be capitalism without a free market, it just doesn't work very well.
This is the game that Microsoft has played, and played extremely well. So well, in fact, that the DoJ thinks that they are threatening the whole system, by destroying the market.
MS did not get where they are by forcing their products on anyone (well not really). They got there because all those individual persons and companies found MS products to be the best buy.
Unfortunately, if everybody votes for candidate no 1 you can't survive as no 2. It doesn't matter if candidate no 2 is better in some areas.
Microsoft uses this. Of cource, they would be nuts if they did not. They use the system. The fact that they play the game better than the competition does not make them evil. Nor does the fact that I might gain something if they played it worse.
It is just a case of how the sum of many rational individual choices adds up to something irrational (monopoly)
On a web site hosting, for example, deCSS. Put the words "Any similarity between this program and any commercial products is purely coincidental. Reverse enginering of this program, wether by looking at the source or observing the operations of the program, for the sole purpose of finding such similarities is not permitted"
Let the system fight itself!
Don't forget that the feature *you* would kill for is the very thing that someone else will call bloat.
Trying to scratch everybodys itches at the same time will not work...
- It is nice to work for a compay that is doing well.
- There is a reason why MS is no 1 (marketwise)
- You don't make it where MS is today without doing things right. Their goal never was to write the best software for everyone, it is to write software that as many people (and LORG's) as possible consider good enough.
- Microsoft's main customers do not use the same criteria when they choose software as the average
/.'er.
I dont like everything fom MS, but I have to hand it to them:Nobody is better at making selling software. They dont rely on clueless marketers they rely on *damn good* marketers.
Those are not free(beer) though. And the source for the compilers is still closed....
It is much easier to see this if you use light-waves instead. That is how they make light sabres!
Oh and there is also those special laser beams which travel at a detectable speed. Otherwise you would not be able to manouvre away from enemy fire and that would be very unfair (and forbidden in the space-geneva-convention)
PS I did not wear glasses, so I was probably cool.
Would *that* qualify as "free speech"?
Seriously, Voice interfaces probably have a very limited usage. Some disabled would benefit (much). Hands free applications are very useful in cars and such, but typing is generally less tiresome.
Sure many people type faster than they speak (at least if it is to be interpretable by a machine) but the main problem is that speaking for an hour is very tiresome (and irritating for those around), and commands by voice are difficult compared to mouse and keyboard. ("Swap those two words,... three sentences back" as opposed to drag and drop or the arrow key dance.).
Still cool is always cool...
This will probably lead to a bitter fight between the MPAA and the black barket. And who will lose?
Not the MPAA. Their "Products" will still be attractive, wether on celloloid, VHS, DVD or whatever. They have war chests big enough to survive a lost war over a standard.
Not the "pirates". Sure their business will not last, but they are well aware of that. The *real* pirates (not the 1337 dud35) will just collect their spoils and move on to their next scam.
The losers will be the honest types who just want to view a movie. Those who bought an expensive DVD device, that gets obsolete in five years. Those who legally bought a library of DVD's, that they cant back up which are slowly degrading.
Perhaps people will "learn the lesson" and be slower to adapt the next format. Perhaps it will be the same story all over agin. Who knows?
At my last job I worked 37.5 h + paid overtime. Here I work 40 h, without paid overtime.
The big improvement is that here it is not the hours in the office that counts, but the time billed to our clients. plus creative ideas.
So as long as I meet the goal of 80% of those 40h billed, and come up with some useful ideas nobody has anything to say.
At my last job there was a feeling of "Just get this done, you get paid for overtime don't you?" Here there is less pressure to work long hours since there is no personal gain from it. (We have a collective bonus, not a personal).
Those hours not billed, I spend the way I see fit. If I feel that I need to go away (skiing, fishing, walking) to think about a problem than I can do so. Everybody here seems to think that this is good for productivity.
I guess I am lucky. The point again: This works!
Logged in AC's is probably the way to go. Perhaps combined with a "user must wait some time after registration to post"-rule.
Hey how about this:
- AC posts require registration.
- The poster of a AC comment is logged internally
- Moderators (and possibly others) get the option of reporting a poster as a flooder.
- If somebody is reported as a flooder, it is up to the staff to terminate the account.
- After I report someone as a flooder, I don't see posts from that account. Therefore, if I'm moderating, I get the chance to concentrate on other posts.
- If an AC is reported as a flooder, that will not affect non-AC posts by the same person (and vice versa)
This way moderators would have a chance to deal with abuse in bulk. It would (as said) require logged in AC's but that seems like a small cost to keep the discussion going.Comments anyone?
You have a point (sadly). But your solution would not work. When I moderate, I browse at -1 (of course) I don't moderate down if I can help it since I rather spend my points pointing out good posts. I'm particulary happy to give a new post that first bonus that will get a newbie (which I btw still consider myself to be even after many posts and a decent karma) read by those who browse at 2.
How the heck can I find the gems when /. is filled with automated spamming? Why would anybody bother to filter the low point posts when 90% of them are pure trash? Moderation can deal with human trolling, but I (or anyone I guess) cannot keep up with a trollscript!!
The solution is not more human filtering, the solution must be a killfile to stop the autotrolls.
Here (Sweden) it is actually *illegal* to even try to find out who a journalist's source is.
The real problem (as you pointed out) is that you can never prove that you do *not* have encrypted information. Hey, there might be a secret message hidden in this post. Perhaps I made the arrangement that "Start selling those drugs to children the moment I post three messages on the same subject on /."
The obvious conflict (and now my rant alert is flashing) is that the openness of the "net culture" makes it more motivated to encrypt and hide personal data. I might not want the whole world to see my private mail, however innocent.
Perfect crypto vs total freedom of information. It is just like that "Irresistable force vs unmovable object" question.
Why not use something along the lines of those "secure digital music formats"
Perhaps the files cannot be read from any other media than the original hard disk (or whatever). Perhaps that will make CSS illegal? Oh what a sad moment that would be.
One password that will decrypt the real data and one that will decrypt harmless cooking recipies AND destroy the original.
Obviously this would only be intresting for the real criminal, that stand more to lose from his files being decrypted than from losing them altogether.
Yes, I'm sure that the really ugly guys(tm) won't get caught by this law, only innocent geeks refusing to decrypt as a matter of principle and the clueless criminals.
Perhaps starting rumours about how a few MP's have suspicious material on their computers wouldn't be too bad. ;-)
Enter a micropayment system. Who is likely to use it? As you say - professional content creators. The likes of AOL/TW, microsoft, RIAA etc. Companies that will make damn sure that there is no easy way to get the same information for free.
The result would (OK might) be that valuable information is locked up on the protected micropayment servers, while the free web is flooded with marketing material and FUD.
Remember "micropayment" does not stand for cheap payment. It stands for "a little amount per view" So it wont be "$0.05 a week" but "$0.02 a story".
This would be a web that suits companies like a glove. Not a web where I stumble on the occasional pearl browsing through annoying (but free) noise.
I've seen far too many business types drool at the thought of locking up their information (today freely available) in a micropayment system.
Give us micropayments and the web is destroyed.
Now there are free(beer) sites and some services that require a payment. With micropayment we would have to always keep an eye on the meter, no casual surfing around.
Once we get over the first speech/beer issue there still is one unique definition of freedom for each and every one of us.
- Someone wants a ad-free web
- Someone else wants to be free to put their banners on their pages.
- Somebody wants to free the computer world from a monopoly.
- Microsoft wants to be free from government regulation.
- Let us be free from porn and spam
- Don't regulate the net, save our freedom
- Somebody wants to be free to view a DVD in any manner they like
- Somebody wants to be free to use a closed format business model
- Free the prisoners
- Free the streets from criminals
I could go on and on.Point being: Everybody wants freedom. Everybody uses the word "freedom" to describe their vision.
Enormous amounts of bandwidth has been wasted, preaching that "freedom is good".
Is it not time to be precize?
Is it not time to realize that your freedom might be someone elses encumberance?
Nobody wants to give up his own freedom for security. However reducing other peoples freedom for the same goal is suddenly OK.
Most peope on /. claim their freedom to influence politicians and courts in order to get the laws they like. Can you complain when the megacorps do the same?
If so, when do you lose your right to do politics?
May Redhat lobby? May I lobby if I happen to have a small garage business?
You give some, you take some. It is called society. Global scale does not make a difference.
Oh, and feel free to criticize...
In my mind [rigged survey] == [crap]
From a professional point of view that just means that survey institutes gets an even worse name. That means that friends of mine in that business who actually try to do honest surveys, will have a harder time competing with those that are not.
Unfortunately, a right not backed up by local, national and international law tends to be rather weak.
Again, I'd like to be able to claim "ownership" of them. The question is what rights that "ownership" gives me. Do I claim (or grant others) the right to prevent people from access?, No!! What I do want is protection from misquotes, the chance to explain what I meant and so on.
Two times I've been asked permission to use texts I've written (actually, that I and some friends wrote) My answer has been "Yes feel free to use it, *if* you would make any money from it, give us what you consider fair"
I certainly don't consider myself an "enemy of the freedom of information" I just fear the possibilities for abuse. If information is free, how do I keep a secret? Where is the line between a private conversation in confidence and an open discussion? This reply is public (since I prefer an open discussion). The words of my post are definitely free. If I had responded by mail, would my words still be "public"?
Free information is generally much more useful than closed. Therefore let the best system win in each and every case Forcing an "all information is free"-doctrine is (almost;-) as worng as forcing "all information is closed"
OK I'm ranting. Keep screaming, revolutionary. The day everybody agrees either 100% or not att all will be a sad one.
note 2 I'll try to be impartial here (wrt the survey))
Here is the survey:
"Regulation" and "ligitation" will most likely be percieved as bad things just as "Higher prices" It is very likely that the respondant will link the two Government regulation of software design is not exacly what the monopoly case is about is it? I'll just note this for now. Tricky one. But the two are *not* mutually exclusive. I benefit from Windows, even though I might be hurt by MS business practices. This is a valid question. Keep in mind, though that 44% said that they did not follow the case at all Duh! Mesa want chepa missosoft thingyThat question is bogus. Ditto How many slashdotters would want government code in windows? Again, Who wants more bureaucracy? Why did they not mention GM as well?
To summarize: That survey said *nothing*
Also they fail to say wether knowledge of the case had any impact. And just calling registered voters creates a bias too (even if that probably does not matter here).
I actually *tried* not to be partial here, but that was one of the most crappy surveys I'vs seen (and i've seen some)
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
Depending on your views you can read that as:
"We want to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts. Therefore we secure the rights of the Authors and Inventors"
or:
"The rights of the Authors and Inventors shall be secured. (We believe that it promotes the Progress of Science and useful Arts.)"
For obvious reasons, media companies prefer the second interpretation.
If you answered yes, you can say goodbye to Freedom in the information age.
Let me state another question:
Can a person or organisation (or society) ever have the right to with threat of violence expropriate your information?
If you answer yes to *that* question, you no longer have any right to complain about for example doubleclick or echelon-ish schemes.
My thoughs are information. Are they free too? Am I a bad guy when I choose to keep some of them for myself? I might have written something positive about my country. I would very much want the (legal) means to react if I was quoted out of context on a Nazi site.
Hobbex, you have made many good posts, but I think you are going a bit far here. The purpose of copyright *is* to protect the artist or innovator. The artist is in his/her full right to give up their rights, either by GPL-ing (or similar) or by selling out to a distributor. The problem is that there are not enough "good" distributors to tackle the megacorps.
The way to fight (MP|RI)AA and their clueless|evil likes is *not* by forcing them to free information. It is to demonstrate how flawed their business model is. Continuing down the path of the RIAA here will make consumers *and* artists lose and find alternative ways. How long do you think they will survive as middlemen of a vacuum?
Let the artists free their information because they *want* to, not because *you* want them to.
Yeah, so? That has been good advice ever since the client-side scripting stuff started to show up.
Sorry, some scripting is good. See below
Javascript is useful for two purposes (flashiness aside)
1) Validating webforms. Checking some input before the user submits (in both senses) saves a lot of frustration. Sure you can (and must) do a server side check, but waiting for a new page to download, simply to tell me that i forgot a compulsory field is a pain in the behind. Plus it takes some load off my server.
2) User friendliness. Now don't go. Call it "Luser friendliness" if you like to insult your customers, but the fact is that an URL does not mean much to the average Joe. You and I might be able to guess something about a link by looking at that url in the status bar. Joe User *can't*. When designing a good web UI, the main problem is how hard it is to provide instant feedback on a web page. You don't want to reload a page, simply to provide extra information about a link.
Browser makers could have shipping their browsers with all client-side execution "features" disabled by default, all along.
No, they could have made sure that client side scripts were "safe". Not accessing cookies with Javascript or allowing object.create in ActiveX for example. The main trouble here is that "Malicious code" actually can be malicious.
I think it can be summoned up like this:
Never use any unvalidated free text entered by a user!!!
How many of you has tried entering a "%" in a search field? (making a badly designed script do a free text search through the whole database returning *everything*)