You can do that in your prefs now, since they "officially announced" (wtf did that even mean, btw? We saw it for months, and then they announed it? I are confuzed.) the idle section. Thank fucking God, too.
Oh, and I also turned off D2 cause of the issues I have with it. High five!
His point is that he, for whatever reason (I'm guessing fanaticism, but it could be anything), felt the need to put in a flamebait jab that religion is an illness.
Suppose I want to report that so-and-so murdered his wife and where the body was buried, but wish to do it anonymously because I fear that if so-and-so knew I'd reported it, he'd have me and/or family members killed as retaliation.
How is the system 'not free' simply because I feel I have a legitimate need for anonymity?
Or will you argue that my need for anonymity doesn't count because I only want anonymity from so-and-so not and don't need anonymity from 'the state'? And if so, that falls apart trivially because so-and-so might have adequate connections within 'the state' to unmask me, or perhaps so-and-so is even the Senator in charge of monitoring communication and recording who said what. Perhaps so-and-so didn't murder his wife, but instead is murdering the people who are critical of his policy.
In this case, though, it isn't the system persecuting you. There may be officials who are in the system doing it, but they aren't representative of the system as a whole, they're acting individually. I think the GP is right in saying that a completely free system doesn't require anonymity... but that said, the need for anonymity may still be present, the impulse just comes from outside the system.
At what point have I twisted your words? The only time I even mentioned your position was when I said you like free art. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but your posts support that claim. I didn't say you're a bastard who wants artists to starve or something, just that you like free art, but it isn't justifiable.
To make laws restricting people's right to share what they have just so certain artists can attempt an unworkable business model is unconscionable.
People who decry intellectual property laws often cite a "right to share", but when did we pick up such a right? Not in the time I've paid attention to history, that's for sure. Analogies between intellectual property and physical property break down very fast, but since that's the best I have: when you share a hammer, you do not have use of the hammer for the time your friend has possession of it. Why, then, should it be different for intellectual property? Many people say "if I could make a copy of the hammer for (essentially) free, then I would, and no one would blame me", but this is missing the mark. The valuable part of the hammer is not the idea and design of the hammer, it's the making of the hammer. By contrast, the valuable part of art isn't the reproduction, it's the idea and design. Making a new hammer to give to your friend is much more analogous to composing a new, similar song for your friend to enjoy. Copying the same song is much more analogous to sneaking into the hammer factory at night, and making a new hammer for your friend.
Let's face it: copyright is simply outdated and unworkable (and, to many extents, quite immoral) in this day and age.
No, sir. Copyright is still very relevant, and workable. We do not have sane copyright laws in the US, but while I wish for more sane copyright laws (indeed, if we had more sane copyright laws, I think the complaints of its unworkability would dissolve), neither do I wish for a lack of copyright. The lack of copyright is what would be immoral.
Moral issues aside, let's examine the pragmatic for a moment. Do you really want to return us to the days of commissioning work from an artist at high prices? Who has the budget to finance a major motion picture, for example, without expectation of profit? Are you prepared to pay musicians a few thousand dollars for an album, rather than $10? Copyright makes art accessible to people at a low cost, I prefer to keep it that way.
Oh, please. If you wish to twist my words that far, I can't help you. I said no such thing. The artist isn't trying to profit from copying their work, that's merely a means to an end. The goal is to try to sell their work to a wider audience, at a smaller price, rather than a smaller audience at a higher price. The artist most certainly has the right to attempt this business model.
...claiming that people have a right to steal from society by preventing others from sharing what they have.
Society doesn't automatically get to do whatever the hell it wants. It has to respect individual rights, too. It would benefit society, for example, if we took our most brilliant scientists and forced them to work for free, but we don't do that, because it would be a violation of their rights.
It works like this: any man is free to work under whatever terms he sets forth. No one, of course, is obligated to accept his terms. That said, what they absolutely are not allowed to do is violate the terms of the worker, while still enjoying the fruits of his labor. You don't hire the mechanic to fix your car, and then decide not to pay him. This is why copyright law is necessary and proper: to protect the artists who choose to attempt to make a living by selling copies of their work for a smaller cost, rather than produce works on commission for huge costs (or touring, in the case of musicians, but they're the only artists who really have that option). If no one wishes to pay the artist their price, fine, but they aren't allowed to go get copies for themselves.
Not having copyright law is completely unconscionable, because that essentially takes away the artist's right to try to sell their work at smaller costs, but larger volumes.
Partially implemented? My ass. The Death Knight is, in no way, partially implemented (unless in the sense of not being firmly balanced yet). A hero class is whatever Blizzard defines it to be, and they say that the Death Knight is a hero class. Thus, hero classes are implemented in WotLK. Should there be more than one? Possibly, but to say it's partially implemented is quite untrue.
Bullshit. A civilized society cannot endure forcing artists to release their work one way or the other--which is why we should have copyright, which allows artists who want to get paid to get paid, and artists who don't want to get paid can release their work into the public domain.
Just because you like the idea of free art, doesn't justify taking the artist's work for free, even if the law backs you up. I like getting my car fixed for free: I should be allowed to use whatever means necessary to make my car mechanic work for me without pay.
What a coincidence, so do I! It's not more fun than playing GH or Rock Band, though. It's equally fun. Some would probably say it's less fun, even (and they're entitled to their opinions).
You, and all the rest of the elitist guitarists out there, need to pull your heads out of your asses. Playing an instrument doesn't make you cool, nor is the fun level of an activity consistent across all people.
I don't see how either mandatory or even voluntary reporting of the music I personally listen to can be considered a 'bast case' scenario.
Extremely easily. "Best case" means nothing about how much you want a given scenario overall. It means that, given a set of assumptions about the situation, this is the best outcome that could occur under those conditions.
This is a matter of taste. "I don't like it" is sufficient reasoning for this arena, like it or not. Furthermore, you have no reasonable basis to say he's saying this "just to get a reaction". He doesn't give what you consider to be good reasons for his opinion, so he's stating his opinion just to get a reaction. Erm, no, it doesn't work that way.
People, not just on slashdot, but on internet forums in general, love to claim that those whose arguments they disagree with must be trolling. It's fucking pathetic, and is just a sign that these people can't handle an opposing point of view with any amount of dignity. Grow up already.
The AC is posting from the future. Braid will be available for the PC sometime this year, according to the web site. That said, the fact that it isn't out yet means it still wouldn't belong on the list in TFA.
Even if it takes a miniscule amount of effort to encrypt my stuff, as long as the benefit to me is 0 (which is in my sole estimation, not yours), the cost:benefit ratio is infinitely big. That isn't worth it.
While I'm a Linux zealot, I am willing to deploy Windows and MAC when I need to and it makes since from a performance/cost perspective.
Then you are not, in fact, a Linux zealot. A zealot wouldn't care about those factors. No, you're a Linux supporter, and have the damn sense to recognize that Linux isn't always the proper choice. This isn't (ok, it is, but it shouldn't be) out of the ordinary.
Ubuntu can run on a spiral ring notebook? It would make more sense to install it on a laptop.
Notebook has been another term for laptops for years now. Deal with it already.
If it is pre-installed, that would mean that it is NOT installed. Pre means before (not 'in advance'). As in... not yet. Pre Civil War means before the Civil War, not Civil War already in progress. Pre- is for events... not verbs.
Yes, it's installed prior to the customer receiving the laptop. Pre-reception installation is a bit unwieldy, so we shorten it to pre-installation. This is another commonly accepted (and rather logical) use of the language.
Marketing and MBA speak is killing the English language faster than a failing education system and buggy spell check programs.
None of this is marketing or MBA speak. This is normal, everyday use of the language. One day, do us all a favor and come down from your ivory tower where you only speak pure English. By the way, I hope you're only using modern English for our convenience, because otherwise you're a giant, flaming hypocrite. After all, Old English is really the pure way to go... none of these newfangled words that everyone's making up!
Slashdot Mirror
You can do that in your prefs now, since they "officially announced" (wtf did that even mean, btw? We saw it for months, and then they announed it? I are confuzed.) the idle section. Thank fucking God, too.
Oh, and I also turned off D2 cause of the issues I have with it. High five!
His point is that he, for whatever reason (I'm guessing fanaticism, but it could be anything), felt the need to put in a flamebait jab that religion is an illness.
Did you read the thread? The AC was answering the query to what "arrest people who make signs with simple blinking LEDs" was about. Apparently people have been living under a rock and didn't hear about the incident where people got arrested for putting some decorative advertising about Boston.
So yeah, this has nothing to do with people pointing lasers at airplanes. Reading comprehension ftw.
Suppose I want to report that so-and-so murdered his wife and where the body was buried, but wish to do it anonymously because I fear that if so-and-so knew I'd reported it, he'd have me and/or family members killed as retaliation.
How is the system 'not free' simply because I feel I have a legitimate need for anonymity?
Or will you argue that my need for anonymity doesn't count because I only want anonymity from so-and-so not and don't need anonymity from 'the state'? And if so, that falls apart trivially because so-and-so might have adequate connections within 'the state' to unmask me, or perhaps so-and-so is even the Senator in charge of monitoring communication and recording who said what. Perhaps so-and-so didn't murder his wife, but instead is murdering the people who are critical of his policy.
In this case, though, it isn't the system persecuting you. There may be officials who are in the system doing it, but they aren't representative of the system as a whole, they're acting individually. I think the GP is right in saying that a completely free system doesn't require anonymity... but that said, the need for anonymity may still be present, the impulse just comes from outside the system.
So you can play that game but I can't? Gotcha.
At what point have I twisted your words? The only time I even mentioned your position was when I said you like free art. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but your posts support that claim. I didn't say you're a bastard who wants artists to starve or something, just that you like free art, but it isn't justifiable.
To make laws restricting people's right to share what they have just so certain artists can attempt an unworkable business model is unconscionable.
People who decry intellectual property laws often cite a "right to share", but when did we pick up such a right? Not in the time I've paid attention to history, that's for sure. Analogies between intellectual property and physical property break down very fast, but since that's the best I have: when you share a hammer, you do not have use of the hammer for the time your friend has possession of it. Why, then, should it be different for intellectual property? Many people say "if I could make a copy of the hammer for (essentially) free, then I would, and no one would blame me", but this is missing the mark. The valuable part of the hammer is not the idea and design of the hammer, it's the making of the hammer. By contrast, the valuable part of art isn't the reproduction, it's the idea and design. Making a new hammer to give to your friend is much more analogous to composing a new, similar song for your friend to enjoy. Copying the same song is much more analogous to sneaking into the hammer factory at night, and making a new hammer for your friend.
Let's face it: copyright is simply outdated and unworkable (and, to many extents, quite immoral) in this day and age.
No, sir. Copyright is still very relevant, and workable. We do not have sane copyright laws in the US, but while I wish for more sane copyright laws (indeed, if we had more sane copyright laws, I think the complaints of its unworkability would dissolve), neither do I wish for a lack of copyright. The lack of copyright is what would be immoral.
Moral issues aside, let's examine the pragmatic for a moment. Do you really want to return us to the days of commissioning work from an artist at high prices? Who has the budget to finance a major motion picture, for example, without expectation of profit? Are you prepared to pay musicians a few thousand dollars for an album, rather than $10? Copyright makes art accessible to people at a low cost, I prefer to keep it that way.
Oh, please. If you wish to twist my words that far, I can't help you. I said no such thing. The artist isn't trying to profit from copying their work, that's merely a means to an end. The goal is to try to sell their work to a wider audience, at a smaller price, rather than a smaller audience at a higher price. The artist most certainly has the right to attempt this business model.
...claiming that people have a right to steal from society by preventing others from sharing what they have.
Society doesn't automatically get to do whatever the hell it wants. It has to respect individual rights, too. It would benefit society, for example, if we took our most brilliant scientists and forced them to work for free, but we don't do that, because it would be a violation of their rights.
It works like this: any man is free to work under whatever terms he sets forth. No one, of course, is obligated to accept his terms. That said, what they absolutely are not allowed to do is violate the terms of the worker, while still enjoying the fruits of his labor. You don't hire the mechanic to fix your car, and then decide not to pay him. This is why copyright law is necessary and proper: to protect the artists who choose to attempt to make a living by selling copies of their work for a smaller cost, rather than produce works on commission for huge costs (or touring, in the case of musicians, but they're the only artists who really have that option). If no one wishes to pay the artist their price, fine, but they aren't allowed to go get copies for themselves.
Not having copyright law is completely unconscionable, because that essentially takes away the artist's right to try to sell their work at smaller costs, but larger volumes.
The fact that there is only one hero class does not mean that the concept of hero classes isn't fully implemented.
I was in open beta for LotrO, and PotBS. I didn't have to pay anything to be in either of those, and both were high-profile games.
Partially implemented? My ass. The Death Knight is, in no way, partially implemented (unless in the sense of not being firmly balanced yet). A hero class is whatever Blizzard defines it to be, and they say that the Death Knight is a hero class. Thus, hero classes are implemented in WotLK. Should there be more than one? Possibly, but to say it's partially implemented is quite untrue.
Bullshit. A civilized society cannot endure forcing artists to release their work one way or the other--which is why we should have copyright, which allows artists who want to get paid to get paid, and artists who don't want to get paid can release their work into the public domain.
Just because you like the idea of free art, doesn't justify taking the artist's work for free, even if the law backs you up. I like getting my car fixed for free: I should be allowed to use whatever means necessary to make my car mechanic work for me without pay.
First of all: no astroturfer has a uid in the 7000 range.
Second: his points aren't unreasonable, your claim of astroturf is completely without merit.
Voluntary (adj): of your own free will or design; done by choice; not forced or compelled. "The proposed blanket music license is voluntary."
What a coincidence, so do I! It's not more fun than playing GH or Rock Band, though. It's equally fun. Some would probably say it's less fun, even (and they're entitled to their opinions).
You, and all the rest of the elitist guitarists out there, need to pull your heads out of your asses. Playing an instrument doesn't make you cool, nor is the fun level of an activity consistent across all people.
I don't see how either mandatory or even voluntary reporting of the music I personally listen to can be considered a 'bast case' scenario.
Extremely easily. "Best case" means nothing about how much you want a given scenario overall. It means that, given a set of assumptions about the situation, this is the best outcome that could occur under those conditions.
Cause anything which isn't GPL isn't open source, amirite?
This is a matter of taste. "I don't like it" is sufficient reasoning for this arena, like it or not. Furthermore, you have no reasonable basis to say he's saying this "just to get a reaction". He doesn't give what you consider to be good reasons for his opinion, so he's stating his opinion just to get a reaction. Erm, no, it doesn't work that way.
People, not just on slashdot, but on internet forums in general, love to claim that those whose arguments they disagree with must be trolling. It's fucking pathetic, and is just a sign that these people can't handle an opposing point of view with any amount of dignity. Grow up already.
The AC is posting from the future. Braid will be available for the PC sometime this year, according to the web site. That said, the fact that it isn't out yet means it still wouldn't belong on the list in TFA.
I am on the first floor of a three-story apartment building and I can't mount any external antennas.
If he owned this apartment building (rather than renting his apartment), he could do whatever he wanted.
Even if it takes a miniscule amount of effort to encrypt my stuff, as long as the benefit to me is 0 (which is in my sole estimation, not yours), the cost:benefit ratio is infinitely big. That isn't worth it.
While I'm a Linux zealot, I am willing to deploy Windows and MAC when I need to and it makes since from a performance/cost perspective.
Then you are not, in fact, a Linux zealot. A zealot wouldn't care about those factors. No, you're a Linux supporter, and have the damn sense to recognize that Linux isn't always the proper choice. This isn't (ok, it is, but it shouldn't be) out of the ordinary.
Ubuntu can run on a spiral ring notebook? It would make more sense to install it on a laptop.
Notebook has been another term for laptops for years now. Deal with it already.
If it is pre-installed, that would mean that it is NOT installed. Pre means before (not 'in advance'). As in... not yet. Pre Civil War means before the Civil War, not Civil War already in progress. Pre- is for events... not verbs.
Yes, it's installed prior to the customer receiving the laptop. Pre-reception installation is a bit unwieldy, so we shorten it to pre-installation. This is another commonly accepted (and rather logical) use of the language.
Marketing and MBA speak is killing the English language faster than a failing education system and buggy spell check programs.
None of this is marketing or MBA speak. This is normal, everyday use of the language. One day, do us all a favor and come down from your ivory tower where you only speak pure English. By the way, I hope you're only using modern English for our convenience, because otherwise you're a giant, flaming hypocrite. After all, Old English is really the pure way to go... none of these newfangled words that everyone's making up!
TFS informs us that the OP is, in fact, renting an apartment.
Here you go.
New DNF trailer!!!!11!
To be fair, that video is fuckin' awesome, if not particularly action-packed.