Slashdot Mirror

I don't think that Real is actually leasing their property to Microsoft.

misspelled

Get a dikshunarie.

anxiety disorder
Any of various disorders in which anxiety is either the primary disturbance or is the result of confronting a feared situation or object; they include obsessive-compulsive disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anxiety%2 0disorder

Remember, Apple can do no wrong. If this statement feels odd to you, please report to your local Apple Store for re-indoctrination ASAP!

A man best known for starring in violent movies that mostly appeal to adolescents signs a bill prohibiting the sale of violent video games to adolescents.

Actually it'd serve better as an example of hypocrisy than irony.

I definitely got what you meant but cure and treatment are actually synonyms (at least according to this

Maybe a political metaphor wasn't the most clear, but its not offbase either

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=democrati c
3: representing or appealing to or adapted for the benefit of the people at large

It would not benefit people to force artists to relinquish copyright on their works as your quote seems to imply I was thinking. That would be more of a Marxist political metaphor. Paid downloads where the artist contracts non-exclusively and directly with the service would be one of many choices of alternate distribution channels. Self-publishing and selling CDs at internet or independent stores would be another.

Artists might trust their customers to support them without DRM, believing that removing the evil middle-men would encourage customers to do so. Or possibly a more competitive market would encourage the development of a customer friendly DRM solution that does not impede the fair use doctrine. Right now the RIAA and MPAA is trying to move DRM into a distribution control mechanisim and not a copyright protection scheme. There is a big difference.

There are bunches of other revenue generating channels I could think of if artists were free to pursue them outside of their label's contracts. And I am sure there are an infinite number that other people would think of and develop in an open market free of RIAA/MPAA/mega-label legal, political and financial control. These organizations support the scant minority of artists, not the majority of them.

Mr. Coon, you're not gettin' any from Britney anyway, she's married, you can be honest here. Don't need to syncopate her.

Oops I did it again, I assumed stars were monogomous.

Wait. Based on the summary, I don't understand which way the GroupThink(TM) is supposed to go here. Is it good? Is it bad? Help me! I'm so confused!

Honestly, I think this is the first time I've seen a summary that doesn't try to put a spin on the article one way or another.

He was very serious, but the submitter said the article is funny. That's belittling, and means that he's a funny little man and if you agree, you're funny too. ;-)

Since digital media has no per-unit costs,

First error. Here's how unit cost is calculated: Production cost + (Manufacturing cost * Number of units)/Number of units. People always seem to forget the production cost when saying it costs nothing per unit. Do you even know how much it costs to develop a TV series or a movie or a video game? Millions of dollars. So just because it doesn't cost much to manufacture a copy, it's still really expensive to produce the material, and the production company deserves to be compensated for it. NOT STEAL as stealing is removing ownership of a tangible object from its rightful owner and placing said ownership in my hands

That's completely incorrect. Stealing has nothing to do with tangible objects.

Stealing is inappropriately acquiring someone else's property. Note that the type of property is NOT specified

But don't take my work for it:
Merriam-Webster Online
Dictionary.com
Cambridge Dictionary online
WikiPedia

Could you please provide references to your definition?

do you think it is fair to say the producers of the content I watch are losing money from my viewing?

Of course. Your using their product, but you didn't pay for it, so they're out x$.

I'm not saying it's okay for another party to profit either in case you were wondering.

Like you for instance? Because you are profiting from watching their TV show without paying for it.

Phemur

It's called an analogy
HTH

I cannot think of a more successfully branded company than Google. It's even in the dictionary.

loose
lose

loose
lose

You are just as dumb as the GP. First because you use the same stupid tactic. Second, because if America did take th internet away such that you couldn't access it, what you do you with the WWW?

You are just as dumb as the GP. First because you use the same stupid tactic. Second, because if America did take th internet away such that you couldn't access it, what you do you with the WWW?

You are just as dumb as the GP. First because you use the same stupid tactic. Second, because if America did take th internet away such that you couldn't access it, what you do you with the WWW?

Think harder. Getting into the dictionary does not make you somehow special. Windows is also on dictionary.com. And Xerox, and Kleenex, and any number of other brands that I have no desire to link to. And for those of you who just came in, 'google' was a word long before Google started using it.

Think harder. Getting into the dictionary does not make you somehow special. Windows is also on dictionary.com. And Xerox, and Kleenex, and any number of other brands that I have no desire to link to. And for those of you who just came in, 'google' was a word long before Google started using it.

Think harder. Getting into the dictionary does not make you somehow special. Windows is also on dictionary.com. And Xerox, and Kleenex, and any number of other brands that I have no desire to link to. And for those of you who just came in, 'google' was a word long before Google started using it.

Yes, MS has some strong arming advantages in their tactics to protect themselves from Google, but they've already been limited by the government, people are becoming frustrated with MSFT's stock performance over the past five years, and CNBC has been pointing out threats like Linux and the world is taking it seriously.

So, in addition to software quality, Google's war will be helped greatly by their brand, imo.

1) This arguement does not stand because once the person downloads the song, the copyright holder is deprived of the income the downloader would have paid for the song.

2)Income is a thing. Theft also incompasses services. If you wish to play with strict interpretation: The original poster wished to know when he became a thief. A thief is one who steals (To take (the property of another) without right or permission) and as you said, it is intellectual property.

3) I will not bother to debate this point. It has merrits. But, the original poster asked whence he became a theif. I gave an answer.

4) Not two people. One person , or group of people individually, taking both stated positions, which happens all the time when these two subjects come up. Repeatedly, the same individuals will decry violations of the GPL ( copyright infringement), then decry a group of people enforcing their copyright.

5) I know the language. I also know the arguements used by both sides and have my own opinions. I did not confuse anything.

I find your ad hominem attacks and condescension to be telling of you.

1) This arguement does not stand because once the person downloads the song, the copyright holder is deprived of the income the downloader would have paid for the song.

2)Income is a thing. Theft also incompasses services. If you wish to play with strict interpretation: The original poster wished to know when he became a thief. A thief is one who steals (To take (the property of another) without right or permission) and as you said, it is intellectual property.

3) I will not bother to debate this point. It has merrits. But, the original poster asked whence he became a theif. I gave an answer.

4) Not two people. One person , or group of people individually, taking both stated positions, which happens all the time when these two subjects come up. Repeatedly, the same individuals will decry violations of the GPL ( copyright infringement), then decry a group of people enforcing their copyright.

5) I know the language. I also know the arguements used by both sides and have my own opinions. I did not confuse anything.

I find your ad hominem attacks and condescension to be telling of you.

1) This arguement does not stand because once the person downloads the song, the copyright holder is deprived of the income the downloader would have paid for the song.

2)Income is a thing. Theft also incompasses services. If you wish to play with strict interpretation: The original poster wished to know when he became a thief. A thief is one who steals (To take (the property of another) without right or permission) and as you said, it is intellectual property.

3) I will not bother to debate this point. It has merrits. But, the original poster asked whence he became a theif. I gave an answer.

4) Not two people. One person , or group of people individually, taking both stated positions, which happens all the time when these two subjects come up. Repeatedly, the same individuals will decry violations of the GPL ( copyright infringement), then decry a group of people enforcing their copyright.

5) I know the language. I also know the arguements used by both sides and have my own opinions. I did not confuse anything.

I find your ad hominem attacks and condescension to be telling of you.

When I asked for an explanation of this, it had to do with a corporate silent-treatment of sorts; because Paltel/Jawwal (the Palestinian telco) was suing Cellcom for licensing infringement and illegal operation, the Cellcom network decided to boycott the Palestinian phone carriers. This caused all sorts of problems for Palestinian society, and the effect was that everyone in Palestinian areas were ditching the local telco and getting Israeli Cellcom cell phones. Jawwal was facing dire times, after their offices were raided by Israeli military and tech imports were prevented because of blanket security concerns.

For folks on the ground, this was just one more manifestation of the intifada/occupation, even the corporations were going at it.

More background available here, here and here.

The correct term is viruses. Look it up. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=viruses&d b=*

Maybe this is a new slang meaning people are putting to 'mark'. But for far longer, and in much wider usage, it is a person who is being targetted to be separated from their money by a grifter or hustler etc. See definition 13.

I suspect it was just a really bad misspelling of cancellable - ie. something that can be cancelled.

Sure, he's a tap on the verbose side, but maybe using the occasional reference book isn't such a bad idea.

1. 1. The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively.
   2. A treatise or book discussing this art.
2. Skill in using language effectively and persuasively.
3. 1. A style of speaking or writing, especially the language of a particular subject: fiery political rhetoric.
   2. Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous: His offers of compromise were mere rhetoric.
4. Verbal communication; discourse.

I'm not saying Viri...

For the 10,000th time, the plural of virus is viruses.

lisp

What do I care about DNA, after all? A sentient robot I might build is as much my offspring as a human child I might father.

This sounds good in theory, from the perspective of an objective observer, and for certain definitions of "offspring," i.e. "3. A result; a product." But my DNA makes me care about DNA. All those chemically generated emotions, you know. While it might be interesting to have superintelligent quantum-computing AI offspring, it would be, well, sad.

Well, that's one meaning. There are others.

I don't think you know how it is used in CompSci...

From dictionary.com:
2. (From philosophy) An explicit
formal specification of how to represent the objects, concepts
and other entities that are assumed to exist in some area of
interest and the relationships that hold among them

Feel free to check out citeseer for more ontology information.

The CNet "ontology" is more of a topic graph though.

> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=1+stone+in+po unds&btnG=Google+Search

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

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=smart-ass

> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=1+stone+in+po unds&btnG=Google+Search

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

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=smart-ass

Are you really that stupid?

So much for your efforts at civilized conversation.

If I was to illegally copy a CD and give it to a friend (a violation of copyright law) is it is criminal act?

Let's try the dictionary:

Crime:

1. An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.

So, "criminal" would mean "pertaining to a crime," which means "in violation of a law." You violate copyright law. Therefore, you commit a crime.

You've tried special pleading, you've tried ad hominem attacks on the person pointing out your error - they haven't worked. It boils down to this basic concept:

Breaking the law is a crime.

Pretty it up all you want, justify it as much as you like. If you find it to be unpalatable, I am truly sorry, but there it is.

You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

3. No piracy at all, but you used the word anyway because it sounds more serious that way. Maybe some kind of "grey market" import, or employees secretly flogging defective stock that Sony thought had been dumped in a landfill. Or whatever.

>> He sites examples

> cites. Sites are places. Cites are citations, things that you write or otherwise communicate.

no, you're as wrong as the guy you tried to correct. "cite" isn't a noun at all; it's a verb ("to cite").

Yeah, and...

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=heterogen ous

To 'e' or not to 'e', reference.com at least doesn't give a shite.

heterogeneous (_not_ heterogenous) means "Consisting of dissimilar elements, parts, or ingredients -- opposed to homogeneous." (link)

I'm glad you put hardcore in quotes. I tend to think most of the Sony gamers are really lamers, (Not all, just most), and I've decided that those who buy the XBox are 95% more likely to have done so because gaming is "cool" now, and they want to be "cool." I'm getting tired of hearing people getting "hardcore" and "fanboy" mixed up.

Dictionary.com gives three definitions. First is intensely loyal. I think that is where a hardcore gamer is. Someone who is intensely loyal to games. But not a specific game, that would just make you a hardcore Zelda fan, or hardcore Soul Calibur fan, or a hardcore Dead or Alive fan (which is hardcore in completely other ways). A hardcore gamer is one who thrills in new games while still enjoying the old. Any game they can get a hold of is another opportunity.

Unfortunately, most "hardcore" gamers are more like definition number 2. They don't want things to change. When change occurs, that's when you can tell the diehards from the blowhards. The diehards rejoice in change as yet another opportunity. The blowhards reject change because they're part of the elite and change means that they might not be part of the elite anymore. Diehards don't care if they're in the elite club or not.

A similar thing is true for programming. You have the old school hackers. These are the people who are great. They rejoice with a new language with all the learning and challenges that are inherent in that. Then you have the latest technical school grad who knows ASP.Net and never wants that to change. He may be a "hardcore" ASP.Net programmer, but if the newest fad in web programming comes along, they whine and complain about how it's not "hardcore," or their version thereof.

I say let all the "hardcore" gamers play their shiny PS3's and XBox 360's. The true hardcore probably will, too. They can flame each other about how their console of choice displays more polys, has HDR, and all the other $graphic_of_the_day items. The true hardcore will also be playing with a revolution, enjoying more games for the sake of enjoying more games.

How the heck did this get modded up to 4?

Maybe the post contained some kind of strange social custom that you don't understand.

produce P Pronunciation Key (pr-ds, -dys, pr-)
v. produced, producing, produces
v. tr...
3. To bring forth; exhibit: reached into a pocket and produced a packet of matches; failed to produce an eyewitness to the crime.

Are you new here? Everyone knows that Nintendo sucks, they always whore out their characters, and that all their games are for children.

This post, on the other hand, shows why Sony is so great, how they can artfully use their characters in satisfying sequels, and that they can make games that the whole family can enjoy!

This link may help clarify things.

Only if you find that out in time (before they are killed or die naturally). And incidently, if you find out they are innocent before they are executed, you can reverse a death sentence.

"What is the ethical problem with using said prisoners in medical research when they are going be die anyways? They are otherwise going to be executed anyways.
Amendment VIII "

Ethical. Constitutional. Two different things.

And, since it looks like you missed it, Rhetorical Question.

Only if you find that out in time (before they are killed or die naturally). And incidently, if you find out they are innocent before they are executed, you can reverse a death sentence.

"What is the ethical problem with using said prisoners in medical research when they are going be die anyways? They are otherwise going to be executed anyways.
Amendment VIII "

Ethical. Constitutional. Two different things.

And, since it looks like you missed it, Rhetorical Question.

Only if you find that out in time (before they are killed or die naturally). And incidently, if you find out they are innocent before they are executed, you can reverse a death sentence.

"What is the ethical problem with using said prisoners in medical research when they are going be die anyways? They are otherwise going to be executed anyways.
Amendment VIII "

Ethical. Constitutional. Two different things.

And, since it looks like you missed it, Rhetorical Question.