avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • Monday February 6, 2023, 8:29 pm
  • Proudly celebrating 15+ years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - rxantos [ switch to compact view ]

Pages: prev1 2 [3] 4 5next
Ok, I will sound as an asshole, but whats up with the victim mentality?

His creative work:
Pose making a funny face, take a picture and then place it on flickr.

Total time: At most. including creative thinking, one day. The work itself, 1 hour.

Total Cost: One picture roll + development of pictures (if he did not use a digital camera). Near to zero if he did use a digital camera.

That means that at most, he got stolen 1 day of work. Which if you count the publicity, and pay work he got because of it, its nothing. As he got more than the day of work worth. Now he gets to play the victim in the video in order to milk more of it.

Or is anyone suggesting that a 1 day of work  is supposed to bring you money for the rest of your life?

As of his work stolen, either he was really really REALLY dumb to put work on flickr and expect that no one will use without telling him. Or he did it on purpose to get publicity for his work. Either way, he does not deserve pity.

As for consequences of sharing the art of the Internet (if you want to get paid). You could just keep it on your portfolio (and loose free publicity of your work), you could just place a low resolution version (difficult to use on printing), or you could add a watermark to it.

If you are doing it for fun or for the art, then why would you have a problem with others using it? Either you care about the money or do not care about the money, do not be a hypocrite. And don't expect to work once and get paid the rest of your life.

Living Room / Re: Should ebook users have any rights?
« on: March 01, 2011, 06:38 AM »
I see a problem here. The rights of the consumers vs the rights of the publishers.

A consumer should be able to keep whatever they own. Including lending and selling it to someone else. Just like a real book.

A publisher should be able to make sure that the book is only read by one person at a time. Just as a real book.

The only way to enforce the publisher/autor rights is by DRM. The only way to enforce the consumer rights is by not having DRM.

At the end. If up to the consumer to decide if they want to do business with someone that threats them as a potential criminal instead of a customer.

A pity we do not have a usable alternative in the case of airports. Keep your beard shave otherwise you have 90% more probability to end up in the "random" special checks. I know, I had to fly 20 times over a year and got a 18/20 average on the random check list :).

My only gripe with the FSF is their use of the phrase "FREE SOFTWARE". They state that is based on freedom but fail to indicate that the freedom of the consumer is at the cost of freedom for the developer. A license is never about freedom. Public domain is about freedom.

Public Domain : Do whatever you want.

BSD : Do whatever you want as long as you do not hold me liable for anything. And, if you distribute the source, you give me credit by keeping this license somewhere in the source.

LGPL: I allow you to use this library as long as you give me credit. Do not hold me liable for anything. And make sure that ANY change you made to it you put it back into LGPL or GPL. And if you distribute a compiled copy you must promise to send a cd of the code to whoever ask for it.

GPL : I allow you to use this code. You cannot hold me liable for anything. You give me credit. You make sure that any changes made are made public under the same license. If you use even one line of this code on your own code, your code must also be put on the same license. And if you distribute a compiled copy you must promise to send a cd of the code to whoever ask for it.

As for linux, it have come a long way since its humble beginnings. Still have its bugs here and there, but overall it competes well with windows, OSX and BSD.

Every windows since Windows 95 have an NSA back-door put in. That is why the only secure way to use windows is on a virtual machine.

Then again 99% of the people in the USA have nothing to worry about the NSA, at least for now.

A comment about this technology and the world we live in.

Since our system is capitalistic, this technology will surely mean the end of a lot of jobs. And more pressure for the people that do have jobs.The same way robots replaced people in manufacturing.

Living Room / Re: Too many facebook friends linked to anxiety
« on: February 17, 2011, 12:41 PM »
I thought that having one life to live at a time was enough. It seem that many want to also have a virtual life.
The hunter that follows 2 preys, catches none.

Anyway, how many of Facebook friends are really friends? How many will take time to visit you or call you if you are sick in the hospital? How many will visit you, if you are in jail? The ones that care about you enough to move their but, those are your friends. All others are just acquaintances.

I'll admit at first blush it does sound cruel and callous, But! If it was used properly (*Snicker*) to replace say the upper-class banking Moguls (that just boned us and the economy) ... Then by golly by gum I say that's right fair pay for the work what was done!
The problem with banks began with Reagan and de-regulation. Want a fairer economy? Bring back bank regulation. Of course it will not happen with congress and president being bought up and paid for.

mmm, Watson reminds me of Alice. I guess is the same principle but optimized for jeopardy and with a ridiculous large database and computing power.

I'm getting discouraged... It seems like everybody expects to get paid for everything...
Except for software...

Well, if someone breaks the law, the police puts them in jail for free. Or at least, instead of charging the lawbreaker, they charge the taxpayer. :)

A lawyer might do a case pro-bono, but is not expected to. A doctor might also fo a pro-bono. But is also not expected to.

Is the purpose of this experiment finding a way to eliminate the journalist from the credits so that it can easily be replaced? Resulting on being able to pay a ridiculously low wage. If the task is paid at 1 cent and takes 1 minute each task, the payment is 60 cents an hour.

Living Room / Re: ARTICLE: How not to change a licensing model
« on: January 25, 2011, 01:43 PM »

How about Apple.

You buy a product from their store, you agree to the license.

Later, if you want an upgrade or re-download, YOU MUST agree with the changes or will not be able to download the software you PAID for. And of course, the only way to back it up is with iTunes.

The terms of service changes at Apples will (which changes frequently),and you have NO SAYING on it. I do not understand how this is legal, but I guess law is in the side of whoever has the deepest pocket.


fSekrit / Re: fSekrit still in development?
« on: January 21, 2011, 02:12 PM »
How about:
1. Leave the free version close sourced
2. Charge for the code for whoever wants to look at it.


Open the source, while retaining all rights. Which means that people can look at it, review it, find flaws, submit patches, etc. But cannot just put it, legally, on another application without your consent.

Of course nothing will stop an unscrupulous person to just ignore your license and use the code anyway.

Living Room / Re: The conflict of interest that is Google
« on: December 02, 2010, 12:37 PM »
Corporations are like drug dealers. They give you something for free in order to hook you up.

BTW: This is interesting. Google is next to useless when you are searching for something like a car.

The Incredible Stupidity Of Investigating Google For Acting Like A Search Engine

Living Room / Re: The conflict of interest that is Google
« on: November 23, 2010, 07:10 PM »
Maybe you can all try BING (Because Is Not Google) :)

Seriously, any business will seek to make a profit (thats the way they pay bills and employees). And the pressure is more on coporations (as they need to show profit to shareholders).  Thus any company will have a conflict of interest, but, as long as there are alternatives,  I do no think there is anything to worry about.

Living Room / Re: The conflict of interest that is Google
« on: November 12, 2010, 12:55 PM »
One thing of monopolies, they are always abused. I guess is just human nature, or more likely corporate nature. A corporation, by nature, is an egoistical being whose only purpose is to devour as much as possible for the longest time possible.

Living Room / Re: Violence in Video Games & the Law
« on: November 09, 2010, 10:36 AM »
A step forward in the direction of the tought police.

If violence is the mater. Then do the same laws for movies and also ban the army and marines comercials. And while you are doing this,also eliminate violent news and freedom of speech.

Is a violent world we live in. Sweet coating it will not help the children. Instead,foment cooperation instead of competition. All games and school are about competition instead of cooperation. Heck the whole system is abut competitiom. And that is what keeps a few controlling a rat race.

Living Room / Re: Why Apple's Distortion Field Works
« on: November 09, 2010, 10:22 AM »
In todays image world. Image is everything.

Apple is proof of this.  For how many years they actually convinced their Zealots that a one button mouse was superior than a two button one? More recently, how many people bought in the idea that OSX is superior to windows? How about the iPad?

You don't need smart to be a consumer. Apple knows this. And thus does the two things that publicity knows best.Show flashy things and lie. And in the process keep the consummers like private cattle on their monopolized stores.

Guess what, it works.

Living Room / Re: Axsotic 3D Spherical "Mouse" Ball
« on: October 30, 2010, 02:57 PM »
Seem interesting. But, Would it really accelerate the workflow compared to a trackball?


I just got a kindle and love it. The e-ink is great for the eyes as it a reflective surface instead of a irradiating surface. I wouldn't recommended for reference material because of the clunky way to navigate, and the small screen, but for reading novels is great.

Another plus is weight and space, specially when you travel.

Add project Gutenberg in the equation and you got a lifetime of legal and free reading material. (as you can download the books on kindle format).

It looks to me that Raymond and Stallman are in favor of corporations. Their message is to make free software for corporations so that they can make more money and hopefully one day give you a job.

Sorry, but corporations are not the ones that innovate. Small companies are the ones. Open source just make easier for corporations to use other guys innovations without paying them (that is how they make more money with open source). Since we live on a capitalistic world, this is unconceivable stupid. The landlord will not waive your rent. The electric company will not give you free electricity. The doctor will not see you for free. A good lawyer will not represent you for free.

Are we to expect changing from a profesional economy to an artist economy?

Let me explain;

Profesional economy: lawyers, doctors, engineers, etc.  You don't work for free, unless you want to. You can work for someone else, or you can put your own business.

Artist economy: You work for free, spending ridiculous amount of time bettering yourself, in hopes that one day someone will notice you and sign you.

I do not want to sound cynic but this is what I think.

If people figure out that 95% of software is made for internal consumption, why they did not figure out that the ones the do most of the internal consumptions are exactly the ones that gave work for programmers? Thus changing programming from a profession (like a lawyer, doctor, accountant, etc.) to a beggar state that artist have known for a time, where a very few make it big and a most have to find alternative sources of income.

I do not like the system we live in. The sole purpose of a corporation is to make money for the shareholders. The fault here is that power holding share holders already have money to begin with. Thus the result of corporations is consolidating the money on a few people. The ones that works most are not the ones getting the most return.

Since corporations, by definition are to make money. It helps considerably to have free open source for internal consumption. AKA, less jobs for programmers. More money for corporations.  More money for corporations means that the small business have less opportunity, not more, to compete with corporations.

To top this, every new generation of programmers are told about the wonders of open source. And instead of learning to make their own stuff, they just fall into the trap, working for corporations for free. While at the same time making the consumers think that software should be free, thus they do not need to pay for something a person worked on. An expected state of slavery.

Nowadays the only way to make money is.

A. being already rich, so that you can create an infrastructure fast.
B. Find a small niche that corporations haver not noticed (aka eat the crumbles that fall out their table). 
C. Use software as a bait for another product.
D. Create a cooperative with others developers. This will allow:
- Paying once for duplicated services. (publicity,  market research, legal stuff, etc.)
- Having a store with enough products, instead of a single product.
- Having enough products to establish a business relation with retail stores.
- Having a quality control system (much like publishers have in the game business.

I being toying with the idea of an international cooperative of developers.

If we think of business as war, a big organized army has a better chance of survival than an equal number of divided fighters (aka a big corporation have a better chance than many individual developers). But if the individual developers join forces and make an army of their own, they have a fighting chance. (aka a cooperative with enough number of developers can compete against corporations).

Why a cooperative? Equal vote. Equal voice. Thus it will not degenerate on a small group controlling a large group.

-- Please delete, made an error while posting.

I don't believe that having a single monopolized store is good for customers. Specially when apple chooses for the customer what he can or not put on the equipment the customer bought with THEIR money.
As for payment, Paypal only charges 3% + 30 cents per transaction. Thats 27% less than apple.

If you got a serious application chances are you already got a web site for it, so storage is a non issue.
As of publicity, if there where more stores you got a bigger chance of your application getting noticed than with a single stores that buries you. Specially if your application is in a niche market, you will get better coverage on a specialized on line store than on a single monopolized one.

Thus Apple does not give enough value for the 30% plus $100/year. The only valid reason for using it, is that their monopoly is allowed by the current law. Just as car manufactures where allowed to void your warranty if you used a product that where not of their brand in your car.

We, the customers and small developers, need a movement so that this BS is stopped.

My phone has replaced my:
- Personal library, as books in death tree format takes space and weight a ton.
- GPS. No need for another one.
- Email client.
- Calculator.
- Personal Information Management.
- Quick web searcher.
- Quick dictionary.
- Personal finance tracking.
- Read the news.
- Landline.

Things that I wish it had:
- An Infrared interface, so I could use it as a universal remote.
- A fingerprint sensor, so that when combined with a password, could be used for banking.

Things that will not replace:
- Anything meant for content creation.
- Games and movies. ( I really like big screens for this).
- Anything meant for visually analyzing huge amounts data.

A simple solution for boredom.
Find something to do that does not involve computers, television or any other way of electronic entertainment. That way you will not get bored.

As for stores:
I really hate todays system in which the ones that work less are the ones that earn most of the profit.

Monopolized stores are the norm on portable devices. Is a high profit, low risk deal for the monopolizer. It will not surprise me if this modality come to desktop  by requiring the signing of applications by a centralized authority.

This started with the car industry, when if you bought any part for the car that where not from the manufacturer (including oil, and wipers blades), your warranty was void.

But then government made laws to end this. It was back in the days when government was government and not just a facade for corporations.

So if a law was made to require allowing competing stores on any device, this nonsense will end.

As for the Internet today.

In the beginning, I could found interesting information using telnet. Now I got go go to 99% garbage in order to find something useful. The problem is that 50% of the garbage seem useful at start.

As of instant communications:
1. We are fomenting a culture of instant gratification. Which is never good.
2. We do feel we have time to think things over before sending a response. Thereof responses tend to be emotional instead of rational.

Pages: prev1 2 [3] 4 5next