Very true if they would just make a vi plugin for IE I'd be golden, and I wouldn't erase a long slashdot post by hitting ESC when I'm finished either;)
Amen. I for one am a VI user, love it to death, (vim actually) but I do realize, as do most of us that neither editor is better. Better for me, better for you, better for that guy, yes, but not absolutely better. But that doesn't stop me from ribbing the emacs guys, nor they me.
Why hide? Privacy. Simple answer. Furthermore, chances are good what you are doing others may find un-ethical no that the act itself is unethical and there is a big difference. Even that isn't really true. Do you get dressed on your front lawn? Id your toilet on the sidewalk? I doubt it. There are hundreds of things that I keep to myself. I don't reveal ANYTHING of myself to people I don't car for. When those people are also in a position to attempt to punich me based on THEIR idea of what is moral I'm even more protective. Morality is in no way defined by whether or not an act, or thought is open or private.
I'd be pretty pissed about this. Probably easy to throw out in US courts. The clocks would have to be shown to be calibrated to each other exactly, ect.
In this particular case that's a judgement call. What you call immoral I may not (I do in this case). Or he may not. Don't expect everyone to uphold your ethical standards.
Uh huh, reductio ad absurdum? Nothing is technically free, you have to, at the very lest, expend energy to take advantage of something you don't have to pay for directly. Shakespeare's works are free in the sense that they are in the public domain.
Not necessarily, for example if I had some sort of rpm type installation file, which may or may not have a click through license, I may have an alternative method of installing ALL of them click-through or not because I like it better. It shouldn't matter whether I knew the license was there or not, number one prove that I knew, number two if it's avoidable, it's not an appropriate place for a license.
License arguments will always fall apart because the concept of licenses themselves are ridiculous.
Sure they'll pay, after all it won't hurt them too much, especially when they turn around and charge the ISP's twice as much for carryinf their content. It's not as if it can't be done. The issue here is that the power rests with the portal sites, not with the ISP's, for example:
Indian ISP's decide that Ebay (to use one for the example, it could be any site) has to pay them in order for their customers to reach the site. (We won't even get into the customers calling tech support screaming about how they can't get Ebay anymore). All Ebay has to do is pay the tax and block all Indian ISP's from access with a message like "You're ISP has not paid it's subscription, to get EBAY please contact your ISP and request that they pay the subscription".
Pay sites (which I never use) notwithstanding, the net works because of an understanding about what (for the most part) you can be charged for. Obviously some halfwit in India doesn't quite get it.
Coincidentally enough, I just cancelled all but local channels through Comcast. I'll miss Cartoon Network but hey, I've got piles of books I need to read. Personally I'm tired of wasting my time watching tv when there are more fulfilling things to do;) Tonight will be the first night where my wind down from work is not surfing through the channels, but instead finishing up The Selfish Gene.
Here's a scenario. You bought a rad new PS2 game, you want to make sure that if it gets scratched, eaten, etc. . . you can still play your game, so you burn a copy, and use the mod chip to play the game. You paid for the game once, right? What's wrong with that
Theoretically nothing, morally nothing. However, while businesses cannot take away your rights, they can push through legislation that deny's you the ability to practice them. Yes it's wrong, yes it takes away from the spirit of the Constitution, and sometimes even blatantly disregards it, but that's the way it works right now.
Hmmm, anyone verify that these were "pirated" games? Sounds to me like it may have been an import shop. Big difference between imported games and pirated ones. Though a difference that the media and lawenforcement are likely not to get.
I just hate pretentious lit snobs who insist on telling people they don't understand something the proper way and proceed to lay down some insane trip about safety nets, or analogies to jesus, etc, etc. Make of it what you will, but realize it's just your opinion, especially when the official word contradicts you. Like art snobs who insist on finding freudian analogies in landscapes.
This is exactly what I was saying. There is no right or wrong. When you say "this is" when talking about things like this there is an implicit "to me" tacked onto the end.
Making up some crap about how he represents the reader, etc... That's not only painfully wrong, but it's elitist, egotistical, and above all, against documented fact. Try lecturing about how the ring represents technology, that's another symbolism that Tolkien vehemently denied
Actually telling someone what to take out of a piece of literature is elitist and egotistical. And sorry to burst your bubble, there is no documented fact when it comes to art. The author can say what he meant afterwords, but the meaning of what he said is always determined by the reader. I don't much care for the analysis that Bombadil was a safety net, but if that's what some people get out of it that's for them to decide, not you.
Personally, I liked Bombadil as a mysterious, darker character.
That's almost completely different. To start with, I din't mention the words safe sex at all. However, choosing not to have sex can still be considered safe sex, since it is the choice not to have sex. Which is completely different than saying abstaining is not as safe as condoms because people don't abstain. In the first case it's a judgement call whether or not to include the absence of something part of the set of that something, in the second it's an absolutely meanigless proposition. It has no logical basis.
I don't mean to flame you what with the DM sig and all, but that doesn't make any sense. Sure I get what you're saying but abstinence is ALWAYS more effective than anything else. It's not abstinence if you don't abstain.
Are you denying that such women do not exist? Maybe you would like all writing to be the same. That way we only need one book to read and we're done for life. Different people have different views. If you don't like their views, or fantasies (which IMHO is the current case) then stay away from them. Don't attempt to belittle an author because you don't happen to agree with them, the stories he choses to write are just that, the stories HE choses to write. They are neither wrong or right, and neither is your take on them of course, but the man isn't doing anything wrong by expressing things as he sees them.
I have to disagree. I wouldn't say he went "commercial" but it's like with the Xanth novels, he took the puns and alliteration to ridiculous extremes. As for the sexuality comment above, Anthony wrote *ahem* romance *ahem* novels at one point as far as I recall. Sex is always just below the surface in every book of his I've read, i.e. most of them.
Bullshit. Their control ends when I purchase the product. If they choose to sell it at a loss hoping to make money on licensing that's their problem. THEY don't have an understanding of business. What if I buy the machine and never buy any games, am I in the wrong then. Am I morally obligated to make sure their business model works. No. Do they have any right whatsoever to tell me what to do with something I purchased. Fuck no. It is mine, I will do with it what I choose, when I choose, regardless of whatever freedom sapping law corporations buy through the government.
And you know what else? Fuck them. They chose a poor business model. I don't care if it's standard practice in the console market. If I want to do something with a piece of hardware I purchased then I'll damn well do it. This bullshit has got to stop. I don't owe them a profit, and I'm not going to bottle up my enjoyment of life for the benefit of a corporation.
Especially now, when more and more people need their pc's to pay bill's and whatnot. It was an anti-constitutional draconian measure fifteen years ago and it's no different now.
This is why a person who has been accused of a crime had better be able to provide hard evidence that he didn't do the crime (unless it's murder - which only requires "reasonable doubt").
Ummm, no. You've got it backwards here pal. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense. Innocent until proven guilty is still, ostensibly, the law of the land. And requiring reasonable doubt is not limited to murder trials. It you are indeed telling the truth about having four lawyer friends, they must be pretty bad ones.
Don't you see even the teensiest bit of irony in questioning the impact of computers and talking about a book called "The Trouble with Computers", and providing a link to said book through Amazon. Just a little?;)
Bet me. I allready point with my finger to move files. First I point it at the 'm' key, then the 'v', then the space, ect... Yeah I'm being facetious but the keyboard IS a human centered input device and it is certainly faster than a mouse, and probably faster than pointing your finger to where you want something to move, as you pointed out.
Yes, well put. A country only has jurisdiction over the things that happen in that country, this may be considered an illgegal act of importation or smuggling by the people who accessed the information, but it is not the responsibility of the reporter to ensure that people in other countries follow their own laws.
Playing a game to have fun is *much* more enjoyable than playing to win. That may sound like a "loser's" perspective, but it sure as hell takes the stress out of games
Sounds like the perspective of a person with integrity to me. I sort of meant my statement rhetorically, I know the answer (they want to win) I just can't understand it.;)
Slashdot Mirror
Very true if they would just make a vi plugin for IE I'd be golden, and I wouldn't erase a long slashdot post by hitting ESC when I'm finished either ;)
Amen. I for one am a VI user, love it to death, (vim actually) but I do realize, as do most of us that neither editor is better. Better for me, better for you, better for that guy, yes, but not absolutely better. But that doesn't stop me from ribbing the emacs guys, nor they me.
Why hide? Privacy. Simple answer. Furthermore, chances are good what you are doing others may find un-ethical no that the act itself is unethical and there is a big difference. Even that isn't really true. Do you get dressed on your front lawn? Id your toilet on the sidewalk? I doubt it. There are hundreds of things that I keep to myself. I don't reveal ANYTHING of myself to people I don't car for. When those people are also in a position to attempt to punich me based on THEIR idea of what is moral I'm even more protective. Morality is in no way defined by whether or not an act, or thought is open or private.
I'd be pretty pissed about this. Probably easy to throw out in US courts. The clocks would have to be shown to be calibrated to each other exactly, ect.
In this particular case that's a judgement call. What you call immoral I may not (I do in this case). Or he may not. Don't expect everyone to uphold your ethical standards.
Uh huh, reductio ad absurdum? Nothing is technically free, you have to, at the very lest, expend energy to take advantage of something you don't have to pay for directly. Shakespeare's works are free in the sense that they are in the public domain.
License arguments will always fall apart because the concept of licenses themselves are ridiculous.
Indian ISP's decide that Ebay (to use one for the example, it could be any site) has to pay them in order for their customers to reach the site. (We won't even get into the customers calling tech support screaming about how they can't get Ebay anymore). All Ebay has to do is pay the tax and block all Indian ISP's from access with a message like "You're ISP has not paid it's subscription, to get EBAY please contact your ISP and request that they pay the subscription".
Pay sites (which I never use) notwithstanding, the net works because of an understanding about what (for the most part) you can be charged for. Obviously some halfwit in India doesn't quite get it.
Coincidentally enough, I just cancelled all but local channels through Comcast. I'll miss Cartoon Network but hey, I've got piles of books I need to read. Personally I'm tired of wasting my time watching tv when there are more fulfilling things to do ;) Tonight will be the first night where my wind down from work is not surfing through the channels, but instead finishing up The Selfish Gene.
Here's a scenario. You bought a rad new PS2 game, you want to make sure that if it gets scratched, eaten, etc. . . you can still play your game, so you burn a copy, and use the mod chip to play the game. You paid for the game once, right? What's wrong with that
Theoretically nothing, morally nothing. However, while businesses cannot take away your rights, they can push through legislation that deny's you the ability to practice them. Yes it's wrong, yes it takes away from the spirit of the Constitution, and sometimes even blatantly disregards it, but that's the way it works right now.
Hmmm, anyone verify that these were "pirated" games? Sounds to me like it may have been an import shop. Big difference between imported games and pirated ones. Though a difference that the media and lawenforcement are likely not to get.
I just hate pretentious lit snobs who insist on telling people they don't understand something the proper way and proceed to lay down some insane trip about safety nets, or analogies to jesus, etc, etc. Make of it what you will, but realize it's just your opinion, especially when the official word contradicts you. Like art snobs who insist on finding freudian analogies in landscapes.
This is exactly what I was saying. There is no right or wrong. When you say "this is" when talking about things like this there is an implicit "to me" tacked onto the end.
Making up some crap about how he represents the reader, etc... That's not only painfully wrong, but it's elitist, egotistical, and above all, against documented fact. Try lecturing about how the ring represents technology, that's another symbolism that Tolkien vehemently denied
Actually telling someone what to take out of a piece of literature is elitist and egotistical. And sorry to burst your bubble, there is no documented fact when it comes to art. The author can say what he meant afterwords, but the meaning of what he said is always determined by the reader. I don't much care for the analysis that Bombadil was a safety net, but if that's what some people get out of it that's for them to decide, not you.
Personally, I liked Bombadil as a mysterious, darker character.
That's almost completely different. To start with, I din't mention the words safe sex at all. However, choosing not to have sex can still be considered safe sex, since it is the choice not to have sex. Which is completely different than saying abstaining is not as safe as condoms because people don't abstain. In the first case it's a judgement call whether or not to include the absence of something part of the set of that something, in the second it's an absolutely meanigless proposition. It has no logical basis.
I don't mean to flame you what with the DM sig and all, but that doesn't make any sense. Sure I get what you're saying but abstinence is ALWAYS more effective than anything else. It's not abstinence if you don't abstain.
Are you denying that such women do not exist? Maybe you would like all writing to be the same. That way we only need one book to read and we're done for life. Different people have different views. If you don't like their views, or fantasies (which IMHO is the current case) then stay away from them. Don't attempt to belittle an author because you don't happen to agree with them, the stories he choses to write are just that, the stories HE choses to write. They are neither wrong or right, and neither is your take on them of course, but the man isn't doing anything wrong by expressing things as he sees them.
I have to disagree. I wouldn't say he went "commercial" but it's like with the Xanth novels, he took the puns and alliteration to ridiculous extremes. As for the sexuality comment above, Anthony wrote *ahem* romance *ahem* novels at one point as far as I recall. Sex is always just below the surface in every book of his I've read, i.e. most of them.
Bullshit. Their control ends when I purchase the product. If they choose to sell it at a loss hoping to make money on licensing that's their problem. THEY don't have an understanding of business. What if I buy the machine and never buy any games, am I in the wrong then. Am I morally obligated to make sure their business model works. No. Do they have any right whatsoever to tell me what to do with something I purchased. Fuck no. It is mine, I will do with it what I choose, when I choose, regardless of whatever freedom sapping law corporations buy through the government.
And you know what else? Fuck them. They chose a poor business model. I don't care if it's standard practice in the console market. If I want to do something with a piece of hardware I purchased then I'll damn well do it. This bullshit has got to stop. I don't owe them a profit, and I'm not going to bottle up my enjoyment of life for the benefit of a corporation.
Especially now, when more and more people need their pc's to pay bill's and whatnot. It was an anti-constitutional draconian measure fifteen years ago and it's no different now.
This is why a person who has been accused of a crime had better be able to provide hard evidence that he didn't do the crime (unless it's murder - which only requires "reasonable doubt").
Ummm, no. You've got it backwards here pal. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense. Innocent until proven guilty is still, ostensibly, the law of the land. And requiring reasonable doubt is not limited to murder trials. It you are indeed telling the truth about having four lawyer friends, they must be pretty bad ones.
Don't you see even the teensiest bit of irony in questioning the impact of computers and talking about a book called "The Trouble with Computers", and providing a link to said book through Amazon. Just a little? ;)
Bet me. I allready point with my finger to move files. First I point it at the 'm' key, then the 'v', then the space, ect... Yeah I'm being facetious but the keyboard IS a human centered input device and it is certainly faster than a mouse, and probably faster than pointing your finger to where you want something to move, as you pointed out.
Yes, well put. A country only has jurisdiction over the things that happen in that country, this may be considered an illgegal act of importation or smuggling by the people who accessed the information, but it is not the responsibility of the reporter to ensure that people in other countries follow their own laws.
Playing a game to have fun is *much* more enjoyable than playing to win. That may sound like a "loser's" perspective, but it sure as hell takes the stress out of games
Sounds like the perspective of a person with integrity to me. I sort of meant my statement rhetorically, I know the answer (they want to win) I just can't understand it.