Broken Links on Rules Announcement.

The links to the ''Cycle Forum Rules'' and ''Writers' Hangout Rules'' on the ''Rules Revision'' announcement are broken. However on the ''Rules'' page linked to on the menu, they are working.

I just thought I'd point it out.


Thanks.

Thunderdome Suspension policy

I know that it is a general rule that if you post after a thunderdome is over, it is an instant suspension. However it often happens that a declaration is closed while someone is writing a post. I often reread my post three times before posting it (to make sure it isn't a flame). It has happened at least once that I had to hastily delete a post that would have otherwise resulted in me being suspended. I think in the interest of being fair to people that discretion should be administered in handing out these punishments. If we are busy, or have other distractions, we don't notice that a thunderdome is resolved after posting.

I know that there is a problem with members using that loophole of ''honest'' mistake to carry a thunderdome over for several pages - but in my opinion, a suspension is a bit harsh.



What happens to members that have clean, or relatively clean, warn records? Under the instant suspension rule, if you ''spam'' the thunderdome once it is an instant suspension. For a first time offender, wouldn't it seem a little unforgiving to give them one of the most serious punishments for what could very well be an honest mistake? And let us be honest - there is a vast chance that an honest mistake could occur. I know for a fact that I had at least once close shave with this. I'm sure that it has happened to others too. By being zealous like this, you could scare away members who otherwise have been perfectly good contributing members with the impression that the IF staff are rather mean and the forum over-zealously moderated. (Note - this is an impression that they could get, not my personal opinion)

I ask you to please review this policy or at least give some slack to people who do not read the thread warnings and I'm sure you know the good members from the repeat offenders.

I hope that I have not come across as rude or as being a nitpick here. I'm just quite concerned and thought I should mention it.

Moralities of Closed Source software

What happened to the days of the consumer having ''rights'? In the past few decades, it appears that that has gone out the window where software is concerned. Let me give you an example of say, me purchasing a recipe book:

I can use any recipe in the book.
I can jot down a recipe from that book and give it to a friend of mine.
I can modify any recipe in that book (add/remove sugar for example) and use it.
I can give a copy my new recipe to anyone I want.

In a highly simplified way, that is what one can do with so called ''Free Software''.

If I download, oh say, Firefox, I am free to use it as I wish. I am free to make a copy of Firefox and give it to my friend. I am also free to modify Firefox's source code and use the modified version. Lastly I am free to redistribute my new Firefox to anyone I wish.

However in proprietary software, that is not the case. If I buy a copy of Microsoft Office, I cannot use it as I wish. I can only install the Student Edition on three computers, for example. It is illegal for me to copy that same software and give it to a friend of mine. Modifying it is also illegal, as is redistributing a modified version.

What on earth is this? It is a highly common phenomenon. Almost any piece of software you buy refuses you the right to use it, as you would say use a recipe in a book, or even a car. After I buy a car, I am free to meddle with it as I wish: put in new seating, new pane's of glass, new tyres, even a new engine if I want. Software? Psha.

This creates a culture of dependence upon the person/group/company that produces said software. If Microsoft Office, for example, broke on me, even if I had the greatest knowledge in the world of computers, it would be illegal for me to delve into the coding and fix the error. I would have to wait on Microsoft to develop a patch for it.

It seems to me, that when people buy software today, they don't actually own the software. There are also a string of various other forms of software where, even when you buy the software, you only have a three year license to it. After that it ceases to work for you. Again, what is this?

I brought this up in business class a few days ago and I was shot down by remarks such as ''software communist'', ''not appreciating the effort put in by the developers'' and it seems to me that the ''rights'' of the software manufacture is now held in higher regard that the rights of the consumer. Indeed they do have the right to have their works appreciated, and indeed if they are looking to have their works appreciated in a monetary way, than their are other ways for them to get money other than through infringing on consumer rights. Here are a few random ideas that come to mind straight away:

1. A popular brand of software like Microsoft Office is bound to have a high traffic website. Advertisements are sure to make quite a lot of money.
2. Donations. I donate to OpenOffice.org every time I download it. I don't donate much (around 10$), but it is still a good gesture.
3. Fan clothing. Firefox has it's popular t-shirts on sale.
4. I'm not a fan of this one much myself, but giving ''premium'' members access to software betas and priority in support. This may fly in the face of me saying that people should be able to help themselves, but the average computer user does not have enough knowledge of programming to fix software errors on their own.

I could have posted this in the CWD forum, however I would like far more ''discussion'' on the moral aspects of this than on the technical aspects.

Windows 8?

Even though Windows 7 isn't fully released yet, Microsoft already have plans on Windows 8... speculated to be released near the end of 2011. And I have my sources for this in case anyone thinks I'm making this up.

Blog entry at The Register, posted in April 2009
The Windows 8 Center site, with the News section shown, and showing the video of its "Copenhagen User Experience".

So... what are your views on this. The articles for this appear quite old, both from April. I'll dig around the Internet to see if I can find more. If you have any news or opinions, please share

Dear Mr Gates

Dear Mr Gates,

After Windows Vista decided to crash irreparably on me this morning while booting up Firefox (like that is a an extremely difficult process to carry out?), I have decided to take the move to Linux. Today's fiasco has not leant itself entirely to this decision. The insecurities of your operating system has lead to numerous virus intrusions on my computers and even three cases of credit card fraud.

Please rest assured that I will never spend another cent on any of your operating systems. I hope that others shall learn to do the same.

Yours truly,

Fiachra Reilly


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, seriously, Windows Vista crashed on me this morning while turning on FIREFOX. Yes, the Blue Screen of death. And when I tried rebooting it, I got it again. Even on Safe Mode.

My family were defrauded of over thirty thousand Euro due to the insecurities on Windows. I'm never going to buy another Windows OS if I can avoid it. I don't even play computer games, so why do I need it?