Slashdot Mirror

> Are they defending human rights, or simply trying
> to impose their own beliefs on people from other
> cultures?

Both. BTW - to Impose or to Persuade and convince? See Fallacy of Prejudicial Language

> Are they defending human rights, or simply trying
> to impose their own beliefs on people from other
> cultures?

Both. BTW - to Impose or to Persuade and convince? See Fallacy of Prejudicial Language

...Ken Thompson's version of the C compiler went! (-:

That pretty much defines greed

That pretty much defines greed

OH NO! A9 IS GOING TO TRACK OUR SEARCHES AND BROWSING IN ORDER TO SHOW US STUFF WE MAY LIKE! Come on people. It's not like A9 is going to record passwords that we type, and it's not like they're going to print our credit card numbers. It's not like they know us "in person" and are going to come over and kidnap our children. It's not like a "cookie" (refrence: cookie, first shown definition, item #3), aka A PIECE OF TEXT is going to allow someone to bankrupt our banking accounts. "Privacy concerns" are far overrated (on the interenet at least). Geez people, think. These are not exactly Mr. l33t down the corner who wouldn't mind your credit card, these are companies who actually have a sense of business ethic. (Note: addressing websites, not things such as gator/etc.) Any "big privacy debate" is always with a big company of sorts, and it's nearly always over a text file that's stored away on your hard drive, that you put there by your own choice. Google isn't going to go out there and publish your e-mails. A9 isn't going to provide a page with your name, address, e-mail, and a list of everything you looked for for other companies. Privacy concers are largely overrated. If you actually have something on your computer that would do such things, it's only there because you chose to install it. "No I didn't! It just appeared! I swear I did not install that!" The only people with the issues are the ones that don't know how to use a computer. (*sighs*...well I feel better now :P)

I haven't had a cunt all night drinkstable.

For those of you who are not lucky enough to be English it's a spoonerism of "I haven't had a drink all night constable". (Constable is rank in the british police force).

Is anyone reminded of asinine when reading A9? I think that we should officially coin the term and use it until asinine changes their name.

The Greek root of 'technician', i.e. 'techne', means 'applied art'.
Look at this definition for technology.
Guess the Greeks figured this out a while ago, eh?

Perhaps you need to look up the defintion of redundant.

Johnny Pneumonic

What is that, a hacker who stores courier information in the phlegm lining his lungs?

Try again.

OK... try rewiring the cable coming into your house to get HBO/Showtime/Whatever. Don't think "theft of service" is going to apply?

The fact that we call it "theft of service" does not make it the same thing as taking a physical item from someone. As the grandparent comment says, you are not depriving anyone of anything. Your inability to see this difference amazes me, as it does when anyone fails to observe it. As does your (eventually) following statement:

At least be mature enough to admit that what you're doing is no different (legally or morally) from stealing tangible goods.

THEY ARE THE SAME. It denies the victim revenue.

The victim, you say? The only way you become a "victim" (arguably) is that you are "taken advantage of". If you are a musician and you release a song and I download a copy of that song, you can still sell it to other people. The only way you lose money is if I (or someone I, in turn, provide the song to) would have paid for it otherwise. While certainly some of this goes on ("don't buy that, I'll give you a copy") mostly this is not how it works. People buy music now as before on impulse or for a gift. However people were giving away mix tapes for years and guess what? It's arguable whether that's even illegal. You can't actually buy that collection of music, you already own it (or you're making third or later generation copies of it, and the quality will be degrating if it's analog, and we're talking about tapes here) and someone just might go out and buy the album it's on if you give them the one song.

So put simply, it is not really theft. In the case of the cable company, the only way you are really committing theft of a service is if you paid them to install the wire, then cancelled cable, and installed a hacked box, because it actually cost them something to provide you the cable you're not paying for. The wire was connected to your house when you got there. In the case of a musician, the only thing happening if they expect you to buy it, and you copy it instead, is that they were deluded.

The act of copying something is both legally and morally different from stealing tangible goods. It is legally different in that it is covered by different areas of law ("stealing" music is specifically a violation of copyright law) and it is morally different in that you are not necessarily depriving anyone of anything. If you have the money to buy something, and you want it, and you get it without paying for it and spend that money on something else frivolous instead, that is a pretty immoral thing to do. But if you would definitely not pay to see or hear something, and you download it, then I fail to see that anyone is getting hurt.

Furthermore, the record labels do a lot more to screw artists out of money than all the music downloaders ever could. All the money they spend on artists living the high life in lieu of actually giving them cash ends up getting written off of their taxes as business expenses. So it's pretty hard to feel bad about it in any case. But I would feel bad about downloading music if I downloaded anything I'd pay money for. If I want to show my appreciation for a band, I go see them in concert.

GTRacer
- alphabetically sorted for your convenience

GTRacer
- alphabetically sorted for your convenience

I said "those are not your rights" . So far you have not shown how is it that your rights are "restricted" by the GPL.

Of course, if I were arguing that "GPL has no restrictions" or that "copyright has no restrictions" I'd be full of shit. But I have not been arguing this, as I have explicitly stated it. I've been arguing over your use of the term "rights". As in "Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature." Is somebody, for example, "due the ability of legally distributing modified software without source", other than the author and whoever he grants that right to?

I keep arguing, because you still keep saying that the restrictions of the GPL are on your rights. They are not. The rights of yours that you say are "restricted" are, in fact, the author's rights that the author never granted you. The restrictions of the GPL frame and state what you are and aren't allowed to do with the code. How are these restrictions framed? By stating what rights over his property the author grants and does NOT grant you.

As I said, it's not your right. You should have said "Ok, duh", instead of saying that I am some kind of GPL zealot.

I will, however, acknowledge that the "God-given" stuff was overboard. It's plain old rights. Fair enough.

And now, here, look at this:

In the future, don't pick a fight with someone based on things they didn't say. Especially after they point that out.

And then this:

Your reply should have been, "duh, OK" instead of "but copyright restricts your rights more" or "it didn't take something away that you already had."

But I never said that. I said copyright doesn't grant you any rights. So, in your own words:

That's why you're a dumb fuck.

Buh bye. Maybe someday you'll grasp the concept of "rights".

1. I understand Apples motives for using DRM and cannot fault them for it.

2. Apple did good job balancing the demands of the copyright holders with the wants of the people.

3. The heart of the issue. Legally Apple is 100% right here but ethically I believe they are lacking, just because it is law does not make it ethical (Jim Crow laws for example).

4. Dang make me read the article will you . They were "nice" only because they didnt have the legal leverage to do anything else.

5. Hmm, I would define breaking DRM as civil disobedience, by the qualities of being both non-violent and ... well disobedient.

6. DRM is fine with me, it is the copyright holders decision to use such and the users decision on whether to patronize DRM enable products. This again leads to the real issue. Making DRM circumvention illegal. DRM should be a technical inhibition not a legal one. Hiding the fact that Fairplay is breakable does not make the issue go away.

DRM, copyright, fair-use, and circumvention form a system of checks and balances. By making circumvention illegal the balance of power has been shifted too far in the direction of copyright holders. Reference the history of copyright and it's original purpose of encouraging the distribution AND rentry into the public domain of created works while allowing the creator to profit. Existing copyright law already provides a method of going after copyright violations. It is not useful or beneficial to legislate against every possible method by which someone could break the law. If you want to have a free society you have to depend the idea of a social contract.

ok enough blabbering out of me.

Give us the information Johnny! Come on, cough it up!

I think you meant mnemonic.

Give us the information Johnny! Come on, cough it up!

I think you meant mnemonic.

Ok. hands up who had to look up Sisyphean

>Of course not. In Russia, the LANs tax you!

Yes, but at work, you tax^3 the LAN!

It would help if you knew that those words mean.

It's a Latin word meaning poison. I found a site that says the plural form is "viruses" but I don't know whether that is accurate or not.

I bolded the relevant part for you so you don't have to think too hard.

pirate
n.

1. a. One who robs at sea or plunders the land from the sea without commission from a sovereign nation.
b. A ship used for this purpose.
2. One who preys on others; a plunderer.
3. One who makes use of or reproduces the work of another without authorization.
4. One that operates an unlicensed, illegal television or radio station.

Furthermore, going over the speed limit is a crime - sure, victimless (although excessive speed is a likely catalyst for accidents), I'd agree with that, but by definition it breaks the law so it's a crime.

Public object PrivateThing extends Hideable{
}

Challenge not my vocabulary...

So I pronounce it Like This

BUT...

I often hear the last syllable pronounced like REEL of film.

Is this going to be like the LIE-Nuks Lee-nooks, thing?

2. Distinct from all others.See Synonyms at strange.

1. Out of the ordinary; unusual or striking.
2. Differing from the normal.

> They were proceeded in admissions by...
Preceded, dammit.

Well excuse me if I believe the former situation is better for society and the developer Mr. Gosling.

And excuse ME if I don't think your particular brand of communism is any more practical that the more totalitarian political versions. Most people have to put food on the table as their FIRST priority, not after all this "for the good of society" stuff, which is admirable but not very filling.

Damn right it's a peculiar definition of free! How about all those kooks who refer to "free speech"..HAH!!!...what...are they saying that you can talk for no cost...those crazy fools.
free

I don't think James Gosling understands what RMS is talking about...he says that a developer has to get something back, otherwise the whole damn shooting match just can't continue to exist.

Well sorry, but here...have a big "WTF?". With Free Software, the developer:
1. can get paid, but sometimes doesn't.
2. enjoys doing what he does
3. knows he is benefitting society
4. knows that no-one who builds on his work can harm society

On the other hand, the proprietary software developer gets number 1, often times in greater quantities...and sometimes gets that second one.

Well excuse me if I believe the former situation is better for society and the developer Mr. Gosling.

As for the FUD about developers working on VMs conflicting with developers working on apps..what a load of dingo's kidneys! Is this not what a standard is for? VMs and standard libraries implement the standard and programmers program to the standard. If the VM doesn't implement the standard, then there is a problem with the VM.
Someone may choose to use it despite being broken because they believe in free software (gcj,kaffe), but that is their *CHOICE*. If they want to use Sun's non-Free alternative they can.

Kudos on that Java thing though ;o)

Did you know that virii is not correct?

http://tinyurl.com/298pt

http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language/ v/virus.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_of_virus

A carnival performer whose show consists of bizarre acts, such as biting the head off a live chicken.

Our Living Language Our word geek is now chiefly associated with student and computer slang; one probably thinks first of a computer geek. In origin, however, it is one of the words American English borrowed from the vocabulary of the circus, which was a much more significant source of entertainment in the United States in the 19th and early 20th century than it is now. Large numbers of traveling circuses left a cultural legacy in various and sometimes unexpected ways. For example, Superman and other comic book superheroes owe much of their look to circus acrobats, who were similarly costumed in capes and tights. The circus sideshow is the source of the word geek, "a performer who engaged in bizarre acts, such as biting the head off a live chicken."

We also owe the word ballyhoo to the circus; its ultimate origin is unknown, but in the late 1800s it referred to a flamboyant free musical performance conducted outside a circus with the goal of luring customers to buy tickets to the inside shows. Other words and expressions with circus origins include bandwagon (coined by P.T. Barnum in 1855) and Siamese twin.

its 'sheesh' and its 'stupider', Sheesh!

There are two different (valid) definitions of "pop" -- one is the genre of which you speak, the other is the defined best here (normally part of a frameset) as the music of the common people, as opposed to classicial music which is "music conforming to an established form and appealing to critical interest and developed musical taste." As such neither is a genre, though "pop" also refers to a genre within the "popular" category of music. Much the same way, "classical" is the huge category of music, but within it there is also the "classical" period that includes composers such as Mozart. For clarity, this period is usually referred to as the "Viennese classical" period.

Note that "popular music" specifically includes rock, and is implied to include the other genres you mention. (Well, except classical of course.)

Crabapple
Pineapple
Applesauce

Those are all compound words according to reference.com, personally I think "apple sauce" should be two words, but what do I know? :o) For that reason...

What are:
pine white or white pine?
crab white or white crab?
White sauce I can see...but unless you're describing a pine and a crab as being white, they're meaningless, you may as well replace white with any colour. Unless I'm missing something...

Crabapple
Pineapple
Applesauce

Those are all compound words according to reference.com, personally I think "apple sauce" should be two words, but what do I know? :o) For that reason...

What are:
pine white or white pine?
crab white or white crab?
White sauce I can see...but unless you're describing a pine and a crab as being white, they're meaningless, you may as well replace white with any colour. Unless I'm missing something...

Crabapple
Pineapple
Applesauce

Those are all compound words according to reference.com, personally I think "apple sauce" should be two words, but what do I know? :o) For that reason...

What are:
pine white or white pine?
crab white or white crab?
White sauce I can see...but unless you're describing a pine and a crab as being white, they're meaningless, you may as well replace white with any colour. Unless I'm missing something...

Idiot boy:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=whinging

You stupid twat.

From the article:

"As something of an anorak/geek/nerd myself, I must confess to deriving pleasure from our move to the mainstream."

According to this at, an anorak is a hooded jacket. Why would he call himself that? Weird. ;)

1. One who pays undue attention to book learning and formal rules.
   
2. One who exhibits one's learning or scholarship ostentatiously.
   
3. Obsolete. A schoolmaster.

It was fun being your pedant du jour, have a good day. (-:

1. One who pays undue attention to book learning and formal rules.
   
2. One who exhibits one's learning or scholarship ostentatiously.
   
3. Obsolete. A schoolmaster.

It was fun being your pedant du jour, have a good day. (-:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=effect

tr.v. effected, effecting, effects

1. To bring into existence.
2. To produce as a result.
3. To bring about.

A society with laws does not meet the definition of free.

Certainly it does. Even the definition you point to mentions that America is a free nation. (Which is a great achievement, since the last time I checked, it wasn't even a nation either!)

Dictionaries give multiple possible definitions for every single word. To "meet the definition", something must match only one of those definitions, not all of them. For example, look at the background color behind the word "Slashdot" to the upper left. Does it meet the definition of "green"?

Yes it does, even though that color is not a "grassy law or plot".

Claiming that something must meet all definitions of a word to be worthy of the term is a silly game.

A classic logic error, whose name I forget right now.

It's a syllogism.

"Even a free society has some laws."

A society with laws does not meet the definition of free.

Curmudgeon

Yeah, because the world works best when everyone goes around satisfying the noisiest, most ill-tempered and stubborn among us.

I'd suggest you open your mind to the fact that you might be wrong, but that wouldn't really fit your own description of yourself.

Are you in the industry beyond running a fansite? I doubt you know much of what you write.

Surely employees don't have to make calls (especially personal) while at work?

Sure, ~ [blah, blah, blah] ~?

Rather than use my mod points, I thought that I would point out one of the biggest arguments...

What is the plural of virus?

A little quote:
It is not viri, or (worse) virii. True, the word comes directly from Latin, but not all Latin words ending in -us have -i as their plural. Besides, viri is the Latin word for 'men' (plural of vir, "man," the root of English virile). There is in fact no written attestation of a Latin plural of virus.

NeoThermic

Playstation 2 games use a different API, would you call that a standard because it's used a lot?

Yes.

standard

noun
5. Something, such as a practice or a product, that is widely recognized or employed, especially because of its excellence.

adjective
4. Normal, familiar, or usual: the standard excuse.
5. Commonly used or supplied: standard car equipment.