Well wouldn't the sandstorm that is obscuring the troops' vision also prevent satellites from spotting enemy positions and movement, thus causing the virtual data to be seriously lacking in important information (i.e. the mortar teams about to start pounding you)?
The term AWP was a mistake that stuck. It stood for Arctic Warfare Police. The actual name of the gun is the Arctic Warfare Magnum. Say it either way in-game and people know what you're talking about.
Wallhackers tend to favor the AWM sniper rifle in counterstrike. It can shoot through damn near anything, and never takes more than 2 hits for a kill, even through walls/boxes/doors/etc.
Ok, I've never been to NY, but it sounds pretty much like the furniture stores here in town that have going out of business sales once a year or so. I guess I figured that people catch on to that sort of thing.
Just because the contract says that doesn't mean it's enforceable. If it violates some state or federal law, then the clause would be rendered unenforceable.
I'll give you the Beatles and Monty Python. Tony Blair is most certainly not cool. James Bond depends on who was playing the part. The Clash and Radiohead probably count as cool as well, but there are plenty of bands from other places that are just as good, so I don't see them as elevating Britain in the coolness department in a significant way. Verve and Coldplay? Eh... take em or leave em.
We, the common people do not have a right to demand unlimited access to someone else's creative expression.
Whoa... talk about putting the cart before the horse. We, the common people, don't have to demand anything. We already had the right and ability that nature gave us to copy anything we want to the best of our ability. If someone chooses to sing a song in front of me, there's nothing to stop me from singing that same song (or reciting that same poem, writing that same code, etc.). There's nothing to stop me from making a recording of it if I have that ability. It was the creators making the demands. We, the common people, decided that it was in our best interests to give them a limited monopoly for a limited amount of time on their work so that they could make a living from it and would have an incentive to create more of it. There's absolutely nothing natural about copyright. In fact, it goes quite against nature. The goal is not just to make these works available for some price to the public, it is for them to become public domain so that anyone can build upon them and use them in new and innovative ways. When copyright stops being in the interest of the common people, then it really should be reformed. Unfortunately there's too much money being thrown at our government from people who want to make sure they retain their monopolies forever.
I agree that most of the downloading is of recently created material. What I'm thinking, however, is that if copyright laws were perceived as something fair and right instead of the handouts that they are, then people might have more respect for them. As it stands, not only are copyright holders given an amazing amount of control over their works, they are given this control for a period that is longer than a normal human lifespan, making it effectively unlimited. Since our government gives them this monopoly, people have a right to expect something in return. The fact that there is no benefit to the public is what leads people to believe that copyright law is just some ridiculous thing dreamed up by people with tons of money. So taking a bit back wherever they can doesn't seem like a bad thing to most people.
Maybe if copyright didn't last for an obscenely long period of time, there would be plenty of other things created that people would download instead. As it stands now, nothing has entered the public domain in nearly 30 years. What else do people have to work with?
Depends on the people I guess. Some like something for nothing and don't care that it's against the law. Others like something for nothing and don't know it's against the law. Then there's people like me that believe that copyright law is massively unjust and know that the record companies have been convicted of ripping us off for hundreds of millions of dollars that we'll never be compensated for (yes I do have a good-sized cd collection). We download because it's the only thing resembling justice that we're likely to ever get.
The point is that the library buys 10 copies of a book, and 500 people get to read that book over the course of a year. See the similarity? 500 readers get to read the book for the price of 10 copies?
Bad example. Putting a guard on it would not cripple it in the sense that it would still be completely functional for the purpose for which it is intended. I would compare the guard to error-checking in downloads. Removing the switch and leaving it running are not analogous in any way that I can see to anything we're discussing, so I don't know what you're meaning there.
The unjust part of copyright law is the fact that it is no longer a balancing of the rights of the consumers and the rights of the creators. There is no such thing as a "natural copyright". In fact, given the obvious ease with with ideas spread, it would seem that nature is quite opposed to such a thing. Copyright was created to make sure that creators were compensated for their work, and that the work could be made widely accessible to the people of this country. Ideas that were good and that people liked would end up staying around and being changed and built upon. Now, over the years the scales have tipped WAY in favor of the copyright owners (who are rarely the creators anymore), giving them more and more control over much longer periods of time. What have we gotten in return? Absolutely nothing. That is what I feel is unjust.
yet, it is illegal to download those exact same songs in mp3 format or to post them to the web
Actually, I think downloading them is technically legal, it's the uploading (distributing) that is illegal. But since P2P only really works when people are willing to upload as well, you kind of have to break the law.
nobody, even God if you believe, has the right to terminate another human being's life
Didn't God wipe out pretty much the entire population of the earth at one time, if you believe, that is? You saying that he had no right? Isn't he the one that decides what is right, again, if you believe?
I think of it more like this... Do I have the right to go shoot the guy that runs the local gun store because I'm not well liked in the neighborhood and I think that he might sell a gun to someone that hates me?
Fine, if you like fighters, then buy one of the several hundred gamepads available for the PC. If you like driving games, get a wheel and pedals setup. Flight Sims? There are some fantastically complex flight-yoke setups out there. That's the great thing about the PC. It can do damn near anything that someone wants to make it do. You don't have to beg anyone for permission or licensing or anything. I bet Microsoft HATES that:)
LoL:) I remember playing a MUD on a BBS that a friend of mine an I used to spend a LOT of time on. Eventually the MUD became boring, so we started writing scripts to build up our characters while we were sleeping. Not only did it have to perform well enough to not get lost or killed, it had to look like it was a human playing because the sysop didn't allow scripting. So we ended up writing in all sorts of little things like typos, responses in case someone talked to us (that was the tough part), and the occaisional check of who else was on or account status. It was great fun:)
Of course it doesn't actually mean that you're allowed to do it, but it does mean that you are certainly justified in doing it. It's the difference between legal and right I suppose. How can you make people pay for something they aren't allowed to do and consider yourself to be in the right?
Sure, but Microsoft is a behemoth. They have the resources to fix their security problems. They just haven't. Even when they know about a problem, it often goes unfixed for months, if not longer.
Slashdot Mirror
Well wouldn't the sandstorm that is obscuring the troops' vision also prevent satellites from spotting enemy positions and movement, thus causing the virtual data to be seriously lacking in important information (i.e. the mortar teams about to start pounding you)?
The term AWP was a mistake that stuck. It stood for Arctic Warfare Police. The actual name of the gun is the Arctic Warfare Magnum. Say it either way in-game and people know what you're talking about.
Wallhackers tend to favor the AWM sniper rifle in counterstrike. It can shoot through damn near anything, and never takes more than 2 hits for a kill, even through walls/boxes/doors/etc.
Ok, I've never been to NY, but it sounds pretty much like the furniture stores here in town that have going out of business sales once a year or so. I guess I figured that people catch on to that sort of thing.
How does misleading a customer gain them business? Presumably someone who is mislead would not become a customer.
Just because the contract says that doesn't mean it's enforceable. If it violates some state or federal law, then the clause would be rendered unenforceable.
I'll give you the Beatles and Monty Python. Tony Blair is most certainly not cool. James Bond depends on who was playing the part. The Clash and Radiohead probably count as cool as well, but there are plenty of bands from other places that are just as good, so I don't see them as elevating Britain in the coolness department in a significant way. Verve and Coldplay? Eh... take em or leave em.
Not really. They're usually polite, occaisionally interesting, and rarely cool.
We, the common people do not have a right to demand unlimited access to someone else's creative expression.
Whoa... talk about putting the cart before the horse. We, the common people, don't have to demand anything. We already had the right and ability that nature gave us to copy anything we want to the best of our ability. If someone chooses to sing a song in front of me, there's nothing to stop me from singing that same song (or reciting that same poem, writing that same code, etc.). There's nothing to stop me from making a recording of it if I have that ability. It was the creators making the demands. We, the common people, decided that it was in our best interests to give them a limited monopoly for a limited amount of time on their work so that they could make a living from it and would have an incentive to create more of it. There's absolutely nothing natural about copyright. In fact, it goes quite against nature. The goal is not just to make these works available for some price to the public, it is for them to become public domain so that anyone can build upon them and use them in new and innovative ways. When copyright stops being in the interest of the common people, then it really should be reformed. Unfortunately there's too much money being thrown at our government from people who want to make sure they retain their monopolies forever.
I agree that most of the downloading is of recently created material. What I'm thinking, however, is that if copyright laws were perceived as something fair and right instead of the handouts that they are, then people might have more respect for them. As it stands, not only are copyright holders given an amazing amount of control over their works, they are given this control for a period that is longer than a normal human lifespan, making it effectively unlimited. Since our government gives them this monopoly, people have a right to expect something in return. The fact that there is no benefit to the public is what leads people to believe that copyright law is just some ridiculous thing dreamed up by people with tons of money. So taking a bit back wherever they can doesn't seem like a bad thing to most people.
That's exactly what I was trying to get at, you just said it a lot more succinctly. :)
Maybe if copyright didn't last for an obscenely long period of time, there would be plenty of other things created that people would download instead. As it stands now, nothing has entered the public domain in nearly 30 years. What else do people have to work with?
Depends on the people I guess. Some like something for nothing and don't care that it's against the law. Others like something for nothing and don't know it's against the law. Then there's people like me that believe that copyright law is massively unjust and know that the record companies have been convicted of ripping us off for hundreds of millions of dollars that we'll never be compensated for (yes I do have a good-sized cd collection). We download because it's the only thing resembling justice that we're likely to ever get.
The point is that the library buys 10 copies of a book, and 500 people get to read that book over the course of a year. See the similarity? 500 readers get to read the book for the price of 10 copies?
Bad example. Putting a guard on it would not cripple it in the sense that it would still be completely functional for the purpose for which it is intended. I would compare the guard to error-checking in downloads. Removing the switch and leaving it running are not analogous in any way that I can see to anything we're discussing, so I don't know what you're meaning there.
The unjust part of copyright law is the fact that it is no longer a balancing of the rights of the consumers and the rights of the creators. There is no such thing as a "natural copyright". In fact, given the obvious ease with with ideas spread, it would seem that nature is quite opposed to such a thing. Copyright was created to make sure that creators were compensated for their work, and that the work could be made widely accessible to the people of this country. Ideas that were good and that people liked would end up staying around and being changed and built upon. Now, over the years the scales have tipped WAY in favor of the copyright owners (who are rarely the creators anymore), giving them more and more control over much longer periods of time. What have we gotten in return? Absolutely nothing. That is what I feel is unjust.
yet, it is illegal to download those exact same songs in mp3 format or to post them to the web
Actually, I think downloading them is technically legal, it's the uploading (distributing) that is illegal. But since P2P only really works when people are willing to upload as well, you kind of have to break the law.
nobody, even God if you believe, has the right to terminate another human being's life
Didn't God wipe out pretty much the entire population of the earth at one time, if you believe, that is? You saying that he had no right? Isn't he the one that decides what is right, again, if you believe?
I think of it more like this... Do I have the right to go shoot the guy that runs the local gun store because I'm not well liked in the neighborhood and I think that he might sell a gun to someone that hates me?
Fine, if you like fighters, then buy one of the several hundred gamepads available for the PC. If you like driving games, get a wheel and pedals setup. Flight Sims? There are some fantastically complex flight-yoke setups out there. That's the great thing about the PC. It can do damn near anything that someone wants to make it do. You don't have to beg anyone for permission or licensing or anything. I bet Microsoft HATES that :)
LoL :) I remember playing a MUD on a BBS that a friend of mine an I used to spend a LOT of time on. Eventually the MUD became boring, so we started writing scripts to build up our characters while we were sleeping. Not only did it have to perform well enough to not get lost or killed, it had to look like it was a human playing because the sysop didn't allow scripting. So we ended up writing in all sorts of little things like typos, responses in case someone talked to us (that was the tough part), and the occaisional check of who else was on or account status. It was great fun :)
Of course it doesn't actually mean that you're allowed to do it, but it does mean that you are certainly justified in doing it. It's the difference between legal and right I suppose. How can you make people pay for something they aren't allowed to do and consider yourself to be in the right?
You can find it on Kazaa...
Sure, but Microsoft is a behemoth. They have the resources to fix their security problems. They just haven't. Even when they know about a problem, it often goes unfixed for months, if not longer.
No, he's correct. Nobody but a Stallman fanatic would be crazy enough to try this :)