But the POINT you ignored was that if they had been improving on the already superior BSD instead of trying to bring underdog Linux up to speed, we would have something MUCH better.
IT (in other words, me and my colleagues) wouldn't have believed how stupid NT server's licensing is even if someone had told us
Why should someone have had to tell you when you could just read the licenses for yourselves? I can understand not caring if you were in, say, marketing, but IT staff really should know how to read a license agreement.
That is absolutely ludicrous. The whole point of wanting porn sites to be in the.xxx domain is to make it easy to block them and keep people from accidentally stumbling on them. When the target audience is everyone, it is not in their interest to make themselves scarce.
Would this be artists getting payed whenever someone downloaded their work, or just a way for guys with large MP3 libraries to make some money sharing illegally?
Voting is NOT a simple solution. It might keep Napster alive for a while, but it doesn't address the complex MORAL, ETHICAL, and ECONOMIC questions which Napster and similar music trading/piracy enablers raise.
I don't think it's fair to assume that scientific progress would stop.
Not stop, just slow down. If any pharmaceutical company could legally produce any drug, ignoring current intellectual property, all incentive to create new drugs is gone. Why spend millions developing new drugs when you can just manufacture existing drugs instead? Whoever goes first always loses, because they spend big bucks to get something that everybody else then gets for free. Like you said, a free market effect would kick in, and pretty soon you would have a couple of very big pharmaceutical companies, conspiring and price-fixing to keep a healthy profit margin and not even considering doing any R&D in any field other than marketing.
Martin explains why its not at the end of the chapter that is online
No he doesn't. He mentions that it's a dilemna, then he plugs Freedom Press, but he doesn't provide any explanation. He gives guidelines for determining if copying is undermining Freedom Press, and he reccomends negotiations. He even says that negotiations will be important in a post intellectual property society, completely sidestepping the issue that whereas they are legally necessary as long as he holds a copyright, they would become instantly useless if he made his writing free.
I started looking for a domain name for myself and my family
That's the problem with the domain name system right there: abuse. You don't need a domain name for your family. If you really feel your family absolutely has to have an internet presence, a subdomain or subdirectory (ie. members.aol.com/thejohnsons) should be more than adequate.
GIMP. Photoshop. Which one has scriptable effects? Which one can run a script to *GENERATE* an image? Which one is expandable enough to run over a web browser?
On the other hand, which one is used by virtually all graphics professionals? Which one do people pay hundreds of dollars for? Would anyone still use Gimp if they had to cough up $600 for it?
But if a journal were to surface today in which van Gogh said that one of his paintings were head and shoulders above the others, do you think it would have no affect on how that painting is viewed?
I'm sorry, I don't know much about the Mona Lisa. The little reading I've done indicated that the subject was known to be a lady named Lisa del Giocondo.
When you say that if it suddenly became known that the Mona Lisa were a work which Leonardo were not particularly satisfied with, you assert that "the rest of us" would continue to view it as before. I must disagree. Its value, both fiscally and as viewed by art lovers, would drop. It would still be as aesthetically pleasing and mysterious as it ever had been, but as art it would no longer be nearly so impressive.
A waterfall or a sunset are beautiful things that I never get tired of seeing, but they are by no means art.
What did da Vinci intend when he painted the "Mona Lisa?" I don't know. You don't know. No one knows. How, then, are we to measure its artistic merit?
I really had hoped to confine this discussion to films, specifically Blade Runner, but since you can't seem to stay on the topic I'll digress for a moment. Since we don't know what da Vinci intended when he painted the Mona Lisa, we can't judge its artistic merit. If he intended to communicate that her husband had just died and she was very sad over the loss, he didn't do such a good job. It's generally assumed that the message we get from the Mona Lisa is the one da Vinci intended (it certainly seems clear when looking at it) but if that assumption is incorrect, so is the assumed artistic merit of the painting.
t's possible that the "Mona Lisa" was simply a portrait. da Vinci's only intent would have been to faithfully represent his subject. If true, does that mean that the painting is suddenly no longer a work of art?
That's a tricky question. Some would argue that a snapshot isn't a work of art, others would argue that it is. If da Vinci's intent was only to represent his subject literally then the Mona Lisa is no more art than a snapshot. Interpret that however you see fit.
Bah! Such foolishness refutes itself. It needs no more words from me.
I agree, but I really wish you'd recognized that your foolishness needed no more words before you posted it.
I think I covered this when I said that the measure of an artist's worth is how well he communicates his meaning. If you drew a dog peeing on a bike and claimed it represented whatever, people would say you're nuts, (unless of course you imbued it with explicable symbolism which other people could see) but they would also say that you were a lousy artist. The picture would still represent whatever you intended it to, but that doesn't make it art.
His interpretation should be valued more highly than any other because he directed it! You can't presume to tell an artist what his work means. Of course some people don't like the idea that creative people have control of their own ideas, but those people are fools.
Clearly he didn't fail because enough people guessed it. But even if he had failed, it just would have meant that he did not adequately convey the story, not that Deckard wasn't a replicant.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, so when the Chinese robots come for us, you'll be the first one on the front line getting blood on your hands, right?
Problem is, it'll be your own blood.
But the POINT you ignored was that if they had been improving on the already superior BSD instead of trying to bring underdog Linux up to speed, we would have something MUCH better.
I'm guessing you slept through fourth grade history.
So your solution would be a tax on people?
You have a much easier job than a Camel testicle scraper. He deserves the higher pay.
IT (in other words, me and my colleagues) wouldn't have believed how stupid NT server's licensing is even if someone had told us
Why should someone have had to tell you when you could just read the licenses for yourselves? I can understand not caring if you were in, say, marketing, but IT staff really should know how to read a license agreement.
That is absolutely ludicrous. The whole point of wanting porn sites to be in the .xxx domain is to make it easy to block them and keep people from accidentally stumbling on them. When the target audience is everyone, it is not in their interest to make themselves scarce.
That's right, because if someone you hired doesn't have proper documentation skills, it's all Linux's fault.
There's impartial journalism for you!
Would this be artists getting payed whenever someone downloaded their work, or just a way for guys with large MP3 libraries to make some money sharing illegally?
Voting is NOT a simple solution. It might keep Napster alive for a while, but it doesn't address the complex MORAL, ETHICAL, and ECONOMIC questions which Napster and similar music trading/piracy enablers raise.
The principle behind scientific progress, I should think, is that it doesn't matter who goes first, because the end result is that everybody wins.
Good point and your absolutely right. So as soon as no human being is in any way greedy or self-interested, we can abandon intellectual property.
I don't think it's fair to assume that scientific progress would stop.
Not stop, just slow down. If any pharmaceutical company could legally produce any drug, ignoring current intellectual property, all incentive to create new drugs is gone. Why spend millions developing new drugs when you can just manufacture existing drugs instead? Whoever goes first always loses, because they spend big bucks to get something that everybody else then gets for free. Like you said, a free market effect would kick in, and pretty soon you would have a couple of very big pharmaceutical companies, conspiring and price-fixing to keep a healthy profit margin and not even considering doing any R&D in any field other than marketing.
Martin explains why its not at the end of the chapter that is online
No he doesn't. He mentions that it's a dilemna, then he plugs Freedom Press, but he doesn't provide any explanation. He gives guidelines for determining if copying is undermining Freedom Press, and he reccomends negotiations. He even says that negotiations will be important in a post intellectual property society, completely sidestepping the issue that whereas they are legally necessary as long as he holds a copyright, they would become instantly useless if he made his writing free.
Wouldn't this have been a lot more appropriate for Viagra than Pizza Hut?
The only thing I wonder is whether they while mind drive case manufacturers
I don't know what a "mind drive case" is, but I think I want one!
I started looking for a domain name for myself and my family
That's the problem with the domain name system right there: abuse. You don't need a domain name for your family. If you really feel your family absolutely has to have an internet presence, a subdomain or subdirectory (ie. members.aol.com/thejohnsons) should be more than adequate.
What the hell are you talking about? Not only did that not make any sense, it had less than nothing to do with the post you were replying to!
GIMP. Photoshop. Which one has scriptable effects? Which one can run a script to *GENERATE* an image? Which one is expandable enough to run over a web browser?
On the other hand, which one is used by virtually all graphics professionals? Which one do people pay hundreds of dollars for? Would anyone still use Gimp if they had to cough up $600 for it?
But if a journal were to surface today in which van Gogh said that one of his paintings were head and shoulders above the others, do you think it would have no affect on how that painting is viewed?
I'm sorry, I don't know much about the Mona Lisa. The little reading I've done indicated that the subject was known to be a lady named Lisa del Giocondo.
When you say that if it suddenly became known that the Mona Lisa were a work which Leonardo were not particularly satisfied with, you assert that "the rest of us" would continue to view it as before. I must disagree. Its value, both fiscally and as viewed by art lovers, would drop. It would still be as aesthetically pleasing and mysterious as it ever had been, but as art it would no longer be nearly so impressive.
A waterfall or a sunset are beautiful things that I never get tired of seeing, but they are by no means art.
What did da Vinci intend when he painted the "Mona Lisa?" I don't know. You don't know. No one knows. How, then, are we to measure its artistic merit?
I really had hoped to confine this discussion to films, specifically Blade Runner, but since you can't seem to stay on the topic I'll digress for a moment. Since we don't know what da Vinci intended when he painted the Mona Lisa, we can't judge its artistic merit. If he intended to communicate that her husband had just died and she was very sad over the loss, he didn't do such a good job. It's generally assumed that the message we get from the Mona Lisa is the one da Vinci intended (it certainly seems clear when looking at it) but if that assumption is incorrect, so is the assumed artistic merit of the painting.
t's possible that the "Mona Lisa" was simply a portrait. da Vinci's only intent would have been to faithfully represent his subject. If true, does that mean that the painting is suddenly no longer a work of art?
That's a tricky question. Some would argue that a snapshot isn't a work of art, others would argue that it is. If da Vinci's intent was only to represent his subject literally then the Mona Lisa is no more art than a snapshot. Interpret that however you see fit.
Bah! Such foolishness refutes itself. It needs no more words from me.
I agree, but I really wish you'd recognized that your foolishness needed no more words before you posted it.
I think I covered this when I said that the measure of an artist's worth is how well he communicates his meaning. If you drew a dog peeing on a bike and claimed it represented whatever, people would say you're nuts, (unless of course you imbued it with explicable symbolism which other people could see) but they would also say that you were a lousy artist. The picture would still represent whatever you intended it to, but that doesn't make it art.
That's just one point of view. And like I said before, people who believe that are fools.
Art means no more - and no less - than the artist intends. The measure of an artist's worth is how well he can communicate his intention.
His interpretation should be valued more highly than any other because he directed it! You can't presume to tell an artist what his work means. Of course some people don't like the idea that creative people have control of their own ideas, but those people are fools.
Clearly he didn't fail because enough people guessed it. But even if he had failed, it just would have meant that he did not adequately convey the story, not that Deckard wasn't a replicant.