I don't think he was trying to say that Hatch was soley responsible for these things. Certainly there were others backing the as well. He was just pointing out that Hatch has done a lot that goes counter to what he purports to support now.
Maybe people have finally woke up and realized that there's no point in watching endless hours of coverage of something that has absolutely no meaningful impact on their life...(notice the ratings for football are also down this year as well...)
I think there are 2 things that are causing the low ratings. Another reply to your post hit the first one, which is that people are more pressed for time these days. But that links quite nicely with my other point, which is that people want entertainment, which is something that NBC has simply failed miserably to provide. With less time available to us, we try to get the most bang for our umm.. time. The Olympics just aren't gonna satisfy that need. Especially the way NBC is running things.
You make a case for why the university would have the right to block Napster, but not why the RIAA should be able to force them to do so. Blocking Napster would be punishing those who use it legally. Period. Yes, there may be another method they could use, but it's not the RIAA's place to decide what they can or cannot use to trade files with each other. If the RIAA can point to specific people and prove that they have infringed on their copyrights, then yes, the school or police should take some action. But it's not the school's place to root out infringement.. or at least it shouldn't be. They aren't the copyright holders. They shouldn't be told that they have to ban all users from using Napster because the RIAA says it's being used for piracy. If the RIAA says this, then let them offer up the evidence and point out the guilty parties.
The GPL is also about the copying process to ensure that the owner's wishes are kept intact.
This is true, in a misleading sort of way. The GPL does place restrictions on the use of software that is licensed under it. But the GPL wouldn't be necessary if copyright didn't cover software. If we were all free to copy and disassemble or reverse-engineer any software we got, we wouldn't need the GPL because there wouldn't be any real danger of people hoarding the code and attempting to sell it back to us.
Copyright may be about ensuring that artists' work is protected the way they choose, but the GPL is just a response to the fact that copyright exists and covers software to begin with. I would also argue that over the years copyright has become much more about protecting the revenues of publishers than doing anything to serve the artists.
It simply prevents anybody else from copying somebody elses work, and THEN distributing and/or performing it in public.
Pretty far off. By attempting to copyright and/or patent something, you are attempting to deny others access to it. By copying or performing something publicly, you are not denying others their ability to do the same.
You may not agree with copyright law and find IP law "draconian", but the law is the law... if you want to change it, change it through the proper channels, don't advocate the blatant violation of it.
There is a long tradition, especially in this country, of ignoring and blatantly violating bad and unfair laws. It helps bring the issue to public attention and put a spotlight on those involved. It often helps the public to understand why something is not right. Like when a woman is arrested because she won't sit in the back of the bus. It brings the absurdity out in the open where it can be seen by all. That's how change gets accomplished when you don't have millions of dollars to buy the attention and favor of the government.
It simply prevents anybody else from copying somebody elses work, and THEN distributing and/or performing it in public.
Pretty far off. By attempting to copyright and/or patent something, you are attempting to deny others access to it. By copying or performing something publicly, you are not denying others their ability to do the same.
You may not agree with copyright law and find IP law "draconian", but the law is the law... if you want to change it, change it through the proper channels, don't advocate the blatant violation of it.
There is a long tradition, especially in this country, of ignoring and blatantly violating bad and unfair laws. It helps bring the issue to public attention and put a spotlight on those involved. It often helps the public to understand why something is not right. Like when a woman is arrested because she won't sit in the back of the bus. It brings the absurdity out in the open where it can be seen by all. That's how change gets accomplished when you don't have millions of dollars to buy the attention and favor of the government.
Is that really nougat in a Three Musketeers? I thought nougat was stickier... gooier... and tan. Three Musketeers seems to have kind of a nougat foam in the middle. Weird.
First of all, the original poster was saying that slashdot should stick to things that really matter, implying that his view was the correct one, despite the fact that quite a few people seemed to be interested in the story.
Then, you come along and accuse Slashdot of posting the story simply to get page-views. An accusation based soley on the fact that these stories generate a lot of posts. Yes, these stories get a lot of posts. Perhaps that's because there are a lot of people interested enough in the story to post about it? Often a lot of discussion is generated by these stories. While it may be a rehash for you, for others it may not be. There are a hell of a lot of/. readers now, and quite a few are pretty new.
It was the 150 meg movie that made me start drooling over Halo, not a few screenshots. The movie is incredible. If the game looks or runs half that good, it will still kick the crap out of most other games.
There's a big difference between focusing efforts on platforms that they control, and buying a company in order to prevent that company's product from being released for other platforms, which is what the previous poster was claiming. Now I've seen no evidence to support that claim, and I'm not trying to back it up, I'm just pointing out that you seem to have missed what he was saying.
I hate consoles. The PC keyboard and mouse combo (along with tons of other available peripherals) offer infinitely better control. PC monitors have much better resolution than TVs. Hard drives are fairly cheap and offer tons of storage space. PC game graphics nearly always kick the crap out of console game graphics.
I've tried playing shooters on playstation, N64, and Dreamcast... to put it mildly, they suck. RTS games suck on consoles too. About the only games consoles are good for are platform scroller type games and sports games, but since equivalent controllers are available for the PC, the PC does those games just as well or better anyway. The only real advantages that consoles have are consistant hardware and a low pricetag. But, as they say, you get what you pay for. I think the additional utility, flexibility, and power of the PC warrants the extra cost. But then, I'm a rather hardcore gamer and have been for nearly 20 years. I've seen several console games that have slow-down problems even though they were written specifically for the console's hardware. So even with consistant hardware, games don't always run smoothly, which is a complaint I've heard console gamers make about PC games.
I'd be glad to elaborate on my complaints about consoles, or to hear other people's views on them.
Thank you for purporting to represent the entire Slashdot audience with your personal opinions. Both you and the poster you were replying to are doing a fine job of deciding what all Slashdot readers should see. Perhaps we should just let you guys decide which stories get posted. Hell, if you aren't interested in it, I'm sure nobody else will be either.
Now that I'm through with the sarcasm, I'd just like to say that if the story doesn't interest you, nobody is making you click on the little link to read the article or the posts. Just skip it and move on. That's not too tough for you is it?
I grasped the point just fine. I simply disagree with you over the poster's intent. I don't believe it was intended to invoke emotion or inflame an argument. He was simply using a widely known work, that is lauded by a group known to be quite fanatical and predjudice in their beliefs to illustrate a point. It was effective in getting that point across I think. If some people get sidetracked by the use of a nazi-related word, then they're not really understanding what the poster is saying (at least in this case). That is why I thought it innappropriate to invoke Godwin's Law in that case.
You're correct, of course. I was using the term incorrectly. Of course the poster I responded to was apparently using it incorrectly as well, or at least in the incorrect context (i.e. not in a Usenet thread).
I don't see the problem with the argument here. It's either a valid argument or it's not. The fact that it mentions Nazis doesn't have any bearing on the validity of the argument. Some people may have trouble seeing the validity or lack thereof due to the mention of Nazis, but that's just a reflection of their ability to reason.
Seems to me that Godwin's Law gets used as a form of censorship. Just because Nazis, the Holocaust, etc., generate a lot of emotion in people does not make them invalid examples in a discussion. They can be used to inflame rather than to support an argument, but it is that tactic that invalidates the argument, not the simple use of the words. Godwin's is just arbitrarily condemning any mention of anything relating to Nazis or the Holocaust. Seems like a dream come true for the Holocaust denial crowd. Regardless of whether other or even better examples or analogies can be presented, willfully ignoring a dark chapter of human existance is not a good way to deal with it. The Holocaust happened. It's a real event. Nazis are real people. None of this is hypothetical or arbitrary. Refusing to continue a discussion simply because something that is related to these people and events is mentioned is ignorant. Take it in context. He wasn't trying to stir up emotion. That much seems obvious. Why then should the discussion be ended? The example he offered was a good one. Deal with it.
Ok, you tell me how the earlier post was making a false argument. Just because something related to Nazis is mentioned, doesn't necessarily invalidate the argument as Godwin's Law would claim. Godwin's Law is arbitrary. You should have the intelligence to take it in context and not read anything more into it. If it was an statement meant to inflame and that does not actually support the poster's argument, then point that out as well. Let's not resort to childish games of ignoring people simply because they say certain words. Consider the context and intent.
Ugh. This got modded up? While I can appreciate Godwin's Law in circumstances where it is warranted, some people can't seem to recognize a valid analogy even if it sits on their face and wiggles. When someone makes a comparison to Nazis or Hitler to discredit or silence the opposition, then Godwin's Law should certainly apply. However, when some Nazi-related idea or symbol is used simply to illustrate a point rather than to attack the opposition, why should it be declared invalid?
Personally, I think there should be a similar law invoked when people try to declare that the opposition supports child pornography if they don't agree with censorship. I lost count of how many times people tried to play the child pornography card in the discussion of the Freenet story earlier. It amounts to the same thing as playing the Nazi card really.
You end up getting situations where vocal minorities who really do care about an issue can completely outweigh moderate or even apathetic majorities.
The real problem is that it's those vocal minorities who will go out and vote, while the apathetic majority stays home on the couch. That's why the minority has such power and can get such ludicrous legislation passed. Because nobody else gives a damn enough to make their feelings known to the politicians and to go out and vote to back it up.
Vote-Smart.org lists 157 presidential candidates. Granted, most of them wouldn't get more than a couple votes, but the fact that all options aren't presented kinda screws up any poll, doesn't it? I guess they could throw in an "other" option, but it would still make the poll biased towards those candidates that are actually listed.
I mean, come on, folks, it's not like everything that's now off patent will suddenly become patentable anytime in our lifetimes!
Why not? They've already retroactively extended the lifespan of copyrights. What's to stop them from doing that with patents? What's to stop them from doing that and taking it one step further and reinstating patents and copyrights that have expired? Hell, they got the copyright extensions through with relatively little fuss. I bet the patents wouldn't be too big a problem either.
DMCA and UCITA are crap. Fine. Work to repeal them, or work around them.
Working around them won't work. If we find ways around them, they'll pass new laws. Working to get them repealed is a better idea, but that requires educating the public on the issues and what they really mean. The problem is that the public has already been indoctrinated by the media to believe that copyrighted works are owned by the copyright holder and nobody has any right to do anything with them without permission from the copyright holder. Now that they've gotten the lifespan extended to longer than the average human lifespan, people seem to consider copyrights to be perpetual. Most of us will never see anything created in our lifetime pass into the public domain. Kinda sad. But all of this makes it quite difficult to have a rational debate about the issues. As soon as someone starts putting forward the idea that copyrights need to be rethought and perhaps reimplemented in a different fashion (i.e. for shorter periods, with greater fair-use protection) they are branded with the label of extremist or pirate by the media and big business. They will be demonized for depriving the poor artists of the ability to make a living (despite the fact that most of the media industry is constantly coming up with new ways to screw the creators and increase profits).
If you're a newbie, go to a website for newbies or buy a book. It's still cheaper than support from MS. And you're about as likely to talk to a real human either way.
.or will it just turn into p0rn-net and be overflooded with garbage.
Well, as I understand it, the files that get the most attention (i.e. downloads) will be the most widely distributed. Everything people publish will still be there, it's just that the most popular stuff gets distributed more. That means that there will probably be a lot of pr0n, since it is extremely popular, but everything else should still be accessible.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think he was trying to say that Hatch was soley responsible for these things. Certainly there were others backing the as well. He was just pointing out that Hatch has done a lot that goes counter to what he purports to support now.
Then the question is whether they let you bring in "official" products, but nothing else, or at least not any competitor's products.
Maybe people have finally woke up and realized that there's no point in watching endless hours of coverage of something that has absolutely no meaningful impact on their life...(notice the ratings for football are also down this year as well...)
I think there are 2 things that are causing the low ratings. Another reply to your post hit the first one, which is that people are more pressed for time these days. But that links quite nicely with my other point, which is that people want entertainment, which is something that NBC has simply failed miserably to provide. With less time available to us, we try to get the most bang for our umm.. time. The Olympics just aren't gonna satisfy that need. Especially the way NBC is running things.
Delete proprietary info from mind of an employee when he quits/is fired.
Reminds me of Snow Crash.
You make a case for why the university would have the right to block Napster, but not why the RIAA should be able to force them to do so. Blocking Napster would be punishing those who use it legally. Period. Yes, there may be another method they could use, but it's not the RIAA's place to decide what they can or cannot use to trade files with each other. If the RIAA can point to specific people and prove that they have infringed on their copyrights, then yes, the school or police should take some action. But it's not the school's place to root out infringement.. or at least it shouldn't be. They aren't the copyright holders. They shouldn't be told that they have to ban all users from using Napster because the RIAA says it's being used for piracy. If the RIAA says this, then let them offer up the evidence and point out the guilty parties.
The GPL is also about the copying process to ensure that the owner's wishes are kept intact.
This is true, in a misleading sort of way. The GPL does place restrictions on the use of software that is licensed under it. But the GPL wouldn't be necessary if copyright didn't cover software. If we were all free to copy and disassemble or reverse-engineer any software we got, we wouldn't need the GPL because there wouldn't be any real danger of people hoarding the code and attempting to sell it back to us.
Copyright may be about ensuring that artists' work is protected the way they choose, but the GPL is just a response to the fact that copyright exists and covers software to begin with. I would also argue that over the years copyright has become much more about protecting the revenues of publishers than doing anything to serve the artists.
How is this far off from ...
It simply prevents anybody else from copying somebody elses work, and THEN distributing and/or performing it in public.
Pretty far off. By attempting to copyright and/or patent something, you are attempting to deny others access to it. By copying or performing something publicly, you are not denying others their ability to do the same.
You may not agree with copyright law and find IP law "draconian", but the law is the law ... if you want to change it, change it through the proper channels, don't advocate the blatant violation of it.
There is a long tradition, especially in this country, of ignoring and blatantly violating bad and unfair laws. It helps bring the issue to public attention and put a spotlight on those involved. It often helps the public to understand why something is not right. Like when a woman is arrested because she won't sit in the back of the bus. It brings the absurdity out in the open where it can be seen by all. That's how change gets accomplished when you don't have millions of dollars to buy the attention and favor of the government.
How is this far off from ...
It simply prevents anybody else from copying somebody elses work, and THEN distributing and/or performing it in public.
Pretty far off. By attempting to copyright and/or patent something, you are attempting to deny others access to it. By copying or performing something publicly, you are not denying others their ability to do the same.
You may not agree with copyright law and find IP law "draconian", but the law is the law ... if you want to change it, change it through the proper channels, don't advocate the blatant violation of it.
There is a long tradition, especially in this country, of ignoring and blatantly violating bad and unfair laws. It helps bring the issue to public attention and put a spotlight on those involved. It often helps the public to understand why something is not right. Like when a woman is arrested because she won't sit in the back of the bus. It brings the absurdity out in the open where it can be seen by all. That's how change gets accomplished when you don't have millions of dollars to buy the attention and favor of the government.
Is that really nougat in a Three Musketeers? I thought nougat was stickier... gooier... and tan. Three Musketeers seems to have kind of a nougat foam in the middle. Weird.
First of all, the original poster was saying that slashdot should stick to things that really matter, implying that his view was the correct one, despite the fact that quite a few people seemed to be interested in the story.
Then, you come along and accuse Slashdot of posting the story simply to get page-views. An accusation based soley on the fact that these stories generate a lot of posts. Yes, these stories get a lot of posts. Perhaps that's because there are a lot of people interested enough in the story to post about it? Often a lot of discussion is generated by these stories. While it may be a rehash for you, for others it may not be. There are a hell of a lot of /. readers now, and quite a few are pretty new.
It was the 150 meg movie that made me start drooling over Halo, not a few screenshots. The movie is incredible. If the game looks or runs half that good, it will still kick the crap out of most other games.
There's a big difference between focusing efforts on platforms that they control, and buying a company in order to prevent that company's product from being released for other platforms, which is what the previous poster was claiming. Now I've seen no evidence to support that claim, and I'm not trying to back it up, I'm just pointing out that you seem to have missed what he was saying.
I hate consoles. The PC keyboard and mouse combo (along with tons of other available peripherals) offer infinitely better control. PC monitors have much better resolution than TVs. Hard drives are fairly cheap and offer tons of storage space. PC game graphics nearly always kick the crap out of console game graphics.
I've tried playing shooters on playstation, N64, and Dreamcast... to put it mildly, they suck. RTS games suck on consoles too. About the only games consoles are good for are platform scroller type games and sports games, but since equivalent controllers are available for the PC, the PC does those games just as well or better anyway. The only real advantages that consoles have are consistant hardware and a low pricetag. But, as they say, you get what you pay for. I think the additional utility, flexibility, and power of the PC warrants the extra cost. But then, I'm a rather hardcore gamer and have been for nearly 20 years. I've seen several console games that have slow-down problems even though they were written specifically for the console's hardware. So even with consistant hardware, games don't always run smoothly, which is a complaint I've heard console gamers make about PC games.
I'd be glad to elaborate on my complaints about consoles, or to hear other people's views on them.
Thank you for purporting to represent the entire Slashdot audience with your personal opinions. Both you and the poster you were replying to are doing a fine job of deciding what all Slashdot readers should see. Perhaps we should just let you guys decide which stories get posted. Hell, if you aren't interested in it, I'm sure nobody else will be either.
Now that I'm through with the sarcasm, I'd just like to say that if the story doesn't interest you, nobody is making you click on the little link to read the article or the posts. Just skip it and move on. That's not too tough for you is it?
I grasped the point just fine. I simply disagree with you over the poster's intent. I don't believe it was intended to invoke emotion or inflame an argument. He was simply using a widely known work, that is lauded by a group known to be quite fanatical and predjudice in their beliefs to illustrate a point. It was effective in getting that point across I think. If some people get sidetracked by the use of a nazi-related word, then they're not really understanding what the poster is saying (at least in this case). That is why I thought it innappropriate to invoke Godwin's Law in that case.
You're correct, of course. I was using the term incorrectly. Of course the poster I responded to was apparently using it incorrectly as well, or at least in the incorrect context (i.e. not in a Usenet thread).
I don't see the problem with the argument here. It's either a valid argument or it's not. The fact that it mentions Nazis doesn't have any bearing on the validity of the argument. Some people may have trouble seeing the validity or lack thereof due to the mention of Nazis, but that's just a reflection of their ability to reason.
Seems to me that Godwin's Law gets used as a form of censorship. Just because Nazis, the Holocaust, etc., generate a lot of emotion in people does not make them invalid examples in a discussion. They can be used to inflame rather than to support an argument, but it is that tactic that invalidates the argument, not the simple use of the words. Godwin's is just arbitrarily condemning any mention of anything relating to Nazis or the Holocaust. Seems like a dream come true for the Holocaust denial crowd. Regardless of whether other or even better examples or analogies can be presented, willfully ignoring a dark chapter of human existance is not a good way to deal with it. The Holocaust happened. It's a real event. Nazis are real people. None of this is hypothetical or arbitrary. Refusing to continue a discussion simply because something that is related to these people and events is mentioned is ignorant. Take it in context. He wasn't trying to stir up emotion. That much seems obvious. Why then should the discussion be ended? The example he offered was a good one. Deal with it.
Ok, you tell me how the earlier post was making a false argument. Just because something related to Nazis is mentioned, doesn't necessarily invalidate the argument as Godwin's Law would claim. Godwin's Law is arbitrary. You should have the intelligence to take it in context and not read anything more into it. If it was an statement meant to inflame and that does not actually support the poster's argument, then point that out as well. Let's not resort to childish games of ignoring people simply because they say certain words. Consider the context and intent.
Ugh. This got modded up? While I can appreciate Godwin's Law in circumstances where it is warranted, some people can't seem to recognize a valid analogy even if it sits on their face and wiggles. When someone makes a comparison to Nazis or Hitler to discredit or silence the opposition, then Godwin's Law should certainly apply. However, when some Nazi-related idea or symbol is used simply to illustrate a point rather than to attack the opposition, why should it be declared invalid?
Personally, I think there should be a similar law invoked when people try to declare that the opposition supports child pornography if they don't agree with censorship. I lost count of how many times people tried to play the child pornography card in the discussion of the Freenet story earlier. It amounts to the same thing as playing the Nazi card really.
You end up getting situations where vocal minorities who really do care about an issue can completely outweigh moderate or even apathetic majorities.
The real problem is that it's those vocal minorities who will go out and vote, while the apathetic majority stays home on the couch. That's why the minority has such power and can get such ludicrous legislation passed. Because nobody else gives a damn enough to make their feelings known to the politicians and to go out and vote to back it up.
Vote-Smart.org lists 157 presidential candidates. Granted, most of them wouldn't get more than a couple votes, but the fact that all options aren't presented kinda screws up any poll, doesn't it? I guess they could throw in an "other" option, but it would still make the poll biased towards those candidates that are actually listed.
I mean, come on, folks, it's not like everything that's now off patent will suddenly become patentable anytime in our lifetimes!
Why not? They've already retroactively extended the lifespan of copyrights. What's to stop them from doing that with patents? What's to stop them from doing that and taking it one step further and reinstating patents and copyrights that have expired? Hell, they got the copyright extensions through with relatively little fuss. I bet the patents wouldn't be too big a problem either.
DMCA and UCITA are crap. Fine. Work to repeal them, or work around them.
Working around them won't work. If we find ways around them, they'll pass new laws. Working to get them repealed is a better idea, but that requires educating the public on the issues and what they really mean. The problem is that the public has already been indoctrinated by the media to believe that copyrighted works are owned by the copyright holder and nobody has any right to do anything with them without permission from the copyright holder. Now that they've gotten the lifespan extended to longer than the average human lifespan, people seem to consider copyrights to be perpetual. Most of us will never see anything created in our lifetime pass into the public domain. Kinda sad. But all of this makes it quite difficult to have a rational debate about the issues. As soon as someone starts putting forward the idea that copyrights need to be rethought and perhaps reimplemented in a different fashion (i.e. for shorter periods, with greater fair-use protection) they are branded with the label of extremist or pirate by the media and big business. They will be demonized for depriving the poor artists of the ability to make a living (despite the fact that most of the media industry is constantly coming up with new ways to screw the creators and increase profits).
If you're a newbie, go to a website for newbies or buy a book. It's still cheaper than support from MS. And you're about as likely to talk to a real human either way.
Well, as I understand it, the files that get the most attention (i.e. downloads) will be the most widely distributed. Everything people publish will still be there, it's just that the most popular stuff gets distributed more. That means that there will probably be a lot of pr0n, since it is extremely popular, but everything else should still be accessible.