I have very little income, I have very little property. I'm not exactly enlightened, but I've lost so much damn stuff in my life it's just hard to feel like I can ever really lose something again.
Everything I have in my life is on loan from circumstance and as much as I can appreciate the material niceties I don't subject myself to some ridiculous idea that these things are meant to be mine forever.
It's just dust in the wind, take some time to enjoy it while you have it and have hope that whoever your belongings pass to, by choice or by chance, will become a better person through the experience.
You can say all sorts of things when you don't want to have a reputation to uphold, huh?
The thief has made a decision that hurts someone else, and as human as it is to desire to retaliate, it's wasteful and it ultimately doesn't help anyone in the end, it just hurts more people.
90% of the time? And how exactly do you collect these statistics?
Just because that thing gets ripped off and sold to someone else, someone somewhere might make good use of it. It might just be someone's child they wanted to get a decent present for their birthday and for all they knew that the person they bought it from had never stolen it.
It's a waste, trying to catch the thief is one thing, destroying it so it's no good for anyone is just plain selfish and it proves who the real monster is.
Yeah, malice towards the 'thief' really pisses me off. I can understand businesses wanting to protect their private information (which they can accomplish with encryption), but this idea of "If I can't have it then no one can" is just ridiculous.
I've had things stolen from me, nice expensive things, but my reaction was never once anger, never feeling I need to chase down the thief and kick their asses. It was, "Oh well, tough shit, life goes on and I hope they do something meaningful with what they took."
A waste of any resource is a crime against humanity.
Very good analogy but I think the proportions of RIAA vs The People are a little more substantial. I also doubt there would be much investigation into this sort of thing, it's a civil case. When a human death is involved, it's always a government case, and that blood trail will lead to a very real, very physical investigation to find the individual.
The RIAA is pursuing individuals by blanket attacks against households, they'll go after whoever's name is on the bill for the service provider, and if that person says it was their daughter, the RIAA will happily pursue them instead even if they are a minor. If they say it was someone who stole their wireless, they'll still go after them trying to blame them for having an open wireless connection, or a poorly secured one.
Ugh, I only got 69%, there was one set of answers I got wrong because I misread them, but the fact is if I didn't have a definite answer then there's still something wrong.
I don't know how I really compare, though. I'm a high school dropout who missed nearly 2/3rds of her elementary attendance (and they allowed me to because I was in an 'emotionally disabled' class) and I started in a community college a year ago.
Copying music isn't something that really leaves fingerprints and you certainly can't get caught with the blood on the knife.
In many cases an IP can identify a household (assuming they don't have someone exploiting their WiFi), but it can NEVER identify the individual, it's impossible to get proof for that without 'breaking' into someone's computer and finding relevant material, and even that's difficult to prove hasn't been forged because it'll always be the same 1s and 0s.
This is also a civil case, unblemished authorities aren't here to collect blood samples and take pictures of the murder scene, there's no trustworthy neutral party like there normally is (or is expected to be) in a murder/theft/whatever investigation. It's Citizen VS Citizen, and the RIAA has yet to prove that it has any legal right to conduct the investigations it has.
What's worse is they're targeting colleges and dial up users, and even some DSL and cable users' IPs change often. You have to get another entity involved in these situations, so it becomes Citizen VS Innocent Mediator when the RIAA tries to get service providers involved, something that hasn't really happened much historically in anything.
It is absolutely vital people distinguish the RIAA separately from qualified agencies. The RIAA is another you and me, not an organization we voted for or was appointed into existence by those we voted for.
Wow, I hope that's in FLAC! I have 59 gigs in 192kbps vorbises and I don't even like most of the stuff I've picked up. I end up deleting stuff all the time because I'm like, "Why do I have this music I don't like?"
Though I must admit my lack of scruples is not as lacking as some peoples', a large portion of stuff I have is free music I got off MP3.com forever ago, OCRemix collections I torrented, and other places that offered it legally.
Well, okay, I do agree with you. There wouldn't be any merit in free and open source software if it didn't have to fight for the position like most proprietary software hasn't.
And it wouldn't really be necessary to legally restrict device locking, either. If things like Android and OpenMoko can take off, it's realistic to believe more concerted efforts could as well.
Either way, I do have an extremely negative and overwhelming disposition for Microsoft and Apple (even though I love OS X when looking beyond the ever more evil corporation that's produced it) and those cell phone manufacturers. It's just so damned frustrating seeing them harm users the way they do.
Your uncanny ability to read only one sentence out of my comment and reply only to that is marvelous, however I'd like to point out my interest was in the users, the idea of software itself as being an feeling, caring entity was rhetoric.
As a user who supports the user's freedom, I'm willing to find ways to legally intervene in some particular corporations' locking down of customers use of their software. Not just Microsoft or Apple, but TiVo, virtually all cell phone manufacturers, DVD/Bluray/whatever manufacturers... just about anything that runs software. I don't swear my life by free software or anything, I just strongly believe it would be a better world if companies stopped feeling the need to hide the keys from the consumer.
So you don't think that RMS had the end user in mind when preparing the 4 software freedoms? It's protection for the distributor that benefits the user, without the user that developer wouldn't mean a damn thing, and that can either mean working for the consumer's interest or exploiting the user. Proprietary software tends to do the latter.
His zeal is what makes him so iconic, he doesn't change, he doesn't forgive, he's consistent. There's rules (even if they're his own rules) and those rules must be followed. If he broke down over any one thing... you think people think he's insane now? He wouldn't get tagged with suddenoutbreakofcommonsense, he'd get tagged with goodluckwiththat because he'd have clearly broken something in his head to suddenly change after such a long time.
I'm just thrilled to note that, at time of writing, and thanks to Slashdot's fervent disregard for logic, consistency, or relevancy; my brazenly flippant remark has somehow been modded DOWN to informative.
Trust me, if I was karma whoring, I'd be doing it for the lulz in this particular instance. And whilst it's true that the best comedy is fact presented without the veneer of contextualised bullshit, I really hadn't planned that far ahead in this case.
Wow, what you just said is so insightful, informative and funny!
Open Source Logic: Everyone enforces their mindset, and they're right if no one resists. Anyone who uses this mindset should be free to do with it what they want.
Free Software Logic: Everyone has the right to execute, reproduce and share their mindsets, and should be required to share their changes upstream if they derive from another mindset.
I'm sorry, what? Are your implying that licensing under GPL is mandatory or are you implying using someone else's code is mandatory and anyone who doesn't like the license they must comply to can't write their own damn code?
You also gain nothing from their work. The BSD license gives you more freedom to simply hand out your work and not have to worry where it goes to, but the GPL gives you the opportunity to see some benefit out of someone else deriving your software.
Your freedom remains intact when someone derives your code and slaps an EULA on it, but not the user's or the code's (if you believe software has rights of it's own.)
Neither the GPL or the BSD license is there to save your ass, it's to protect the end user.
Slashdot Mirror
I have very little income, I have very little property. I'm not exactly enlightened, but I've lost so much damn stuff in my life it's just hard to feel like I can ever really lose something again.
Everything I have in my life is on loan from circumstance and as much as I can appreciate the material niceties I don't subject myself to some ridiculous idea that these things are meant to be mine forever.
It's just dust in the wind, take some time to enjoy it while you have it and have hope that whoever your belongings pass to, by choice or by chance, will become a better person through the experience.
You can say all sorts of things when you don't want to have a reputation to uphold, huh?
The thief has made a decision that hurts someone else, and as human as it is to desire to retaliate, it's wasteful and it ultimately doesn't help anyone in the end, it just hurts more people.
I suppose the exception would be weapons, though.
90% of the time? And how exactly do you collect these statistics?
Just because that thing gets ripped off and sold to someone else, someone somewhere might make good use of it. It might just be someone's child they wanted to get a decent present for their birthday and for all they knew that the person they bought it from had never stolen it.
It's a waste, trying to catch the thief is one thing, destroying it so it's no good for anyone is just plain selfish and it proves who the real monster is.
Yeah, malice towards the 'thief' really pisses me off. I can understand businesses wanting to protect their private information (which they can accomplish with encryption), but this idea of "If I can't have it then no one can" is just ridiculous.
I've had things stolen from me, nice expensive things, but my reaction was never once anger, never feeling I need to chase down the thief and kick their asses. It was, "Oh well, tough shit, life goes on and I hope they do something meaningful with what they took."
A waste of any resource is a crime against humanity.
Very good analogy but I think the proportions of RIAA vs The People are a little more substantial. I also doubt there would be much investigation into this sort of thing, it's a civil case. When a human death is involved, it's always a government case, and that blood trail will lead to a very real, very physical investigation to find the individual.
The RIAA is pursuing individuals by blanket attacks against households, they'll go after whoever's name is on the bill for the service provider, and if that person says it was their daughter, the RIAA will happily pursue them instead even if they are a minor. If they say it was someone who stole their wireless, they'll still go after them trying to blame them for having an open wireless connection, or a poorly secured one.
Only in capitalism, and socialism, and like, anythingism.
Ugh, I only got 69%, there was one set of answers I got wrong because I misread them, but the fact is if I didn't have a definite answer then there's still something wrong.
I don't know how I really compare, though. I'm a high school dropout who missed nearly 2/3rds of her elementary attendance (and they allowed me to because I was in an 'emotionally disabled' class) and I started in a community college a year ago.
Copying music isn't something that really leaves fingerprints and you certainly can't get caught with the blood on the knife.
In many cases an IP can identify a household (assuming they don't have someone exploiting their WiFi), but it can NEVER identify the individual, it's impossible to get proof for that without 'breaking' into someone's computer and finding relevant material, and even that's difficult to prove hasn't been forged because it'll always be the same 1s and 0s.
This is also a civil case, unblemished authorities aren't here to collect blood samples and take pictures of the murder scene, there's no trustworthy neutral party like there normally is (or is expected to be) in a murder/theft/whatever investigation. It's Citizen VS Citizen, and the RIAA has yet to prove that it has any legal right to conduct the investigations it has.
What's worse is they're targeting colleges and dial up users, and even some DSL and cable users' IPs change often. You have to get another entity involved in these situations, so it becomes Citizen VS Innocent Mediator when the RIAA tries to get service providers involved, something that hasn't really happened much historically in anything.
It is absolutely vital people distinguish the RIAA separately from qualified agencies. The RIAA is another you and me, not an organization we voted for or was appointed into existence by those we voted for.
Wow, I hope that's in FLAC! I have 59 gigs in 192kbps vorbises and I don't even like most of the stuff I've picked up. I end up deleting stuff all the time because I'm like, "Why do I have this music I don't like?"
Though I must admit my lack of scruples is not as lacking as some peoples', a large portion of stuff I have is free music I got off MP3.com forever ago, OCRemix collections I torrented, and other places that offered it legally.
Well, okay, I do agree with you. There wouldn't be any merit in free and open source software if it didn't have to fight for the position like most proprietary software hasn't.
And it wouldn't really be necessary to legally restrict device locking, either. If things like Android and OpenMoko can take off, it's realistic to believe more concerted efforts could as well.
Either way, I do have an extremely negative and overwhelming disposition for Microsoft and Apple (even though I love OS X when looking beyond the ever more evil corporation that's produced it) and those cell phone manufacturers. It's just so damned frustrating seeing them harm users the way they do.
Your uncanny ability to read only one sentence out of my comment and reply only to that is marvelous, however I'd like to point out my interest was in the users, the idea of software itself as being an feeling, caring entity was rhetoric.
As a user who supports the user's freedom, I'm willing to find ways to legally intervene in some particular corporations' locking down of customers use of their software. Not just Microsoft or Apple, but TiVo, virtually all cell phone manufacturers, DVD/Bluray/whatever manufacturers... just about anything that runs software. I don't swear my life by free software or anything, I just strongly believe it would be a better world if companies stopped feeling the need to hide the keys from the consumer.
So you don't think that RMS had the end user in mind when preparing the 4 software freedoms? It's protection for the distributor that benefits the user, without the user that developer wouldn't mean a damn thing, and that can either mean working for the consumer's interest or exploiting the user. Proprietary software tends to do the latter.
Would you allow some people to be made slaves by will at the cost of anyone being able to make another person a slave against their will?
His zeal is what makes him so iconic, he doesn't change, he doesn't forgive, he's consistent. There's rules (even if they're his own rules) and those rules must be followed. If he broke down over any one thing... you think people think he's insane now? He wouldn't get tagged with suddenoutbreakofcommonsense, he'd get tagged with goodluckwiththat because he'd have clearly broken something in his head to suddenly change after such a long time.
An interesting assumption! I, for one, would happily allow him to if one person could single handedly obliterate proprietary software.
Stallman Unsure Whether Firefox Is Truly Free
In related news: I'm Unsure Whether Stallman is Truly Sane.
In related news: Slashdotter Uses Clever Comment That Gets Replied To With A Far Less Witty Comment
I'll eat anything Slashdot feeds me anymore. Besides, RMS talks alot, and I like reading lots of words.
Not when making sandwiches.
The Debian sandwiches take less time to prepare.
apt-get eat sandwich
I'm just thrilled to note that, at time of writing, and thanks to Slashdot's fervent disregard for logic, consistency, or relevancy; my brazenly flippant remark has somehow been modded DOWN to informative.
Trust me, if I was karma whoring, I'd be doing it for the lulz in this particular instance. And whilst it's true that the best comedy is fact presented without the veneer of contextualised bullshit, I really hadn't planned that far ahead in this case.
Wow, what you just said is so insightful, informative and funny!
Open Source Logic: Everyone enforces their mindset, and they're right if no one resists. Anyone who uses this mindset should be free to do with it what they want.
Free Software Logic: Everyone has the right to execute, reproduce and share their mindsets, and should be required to share their changes upstream if they derive from another mindset.
Did you just not read the comment you replied to?
I'm sorry, what? Are your implying that licensing under GPL is mandatory or are you implying using someone else's code is mandatory and anyone who doesn't like the license they must comply to can't write their own damn code?
You also gain nothing from their work. The BSD license gives you more freedom to simply hand out your work and not have to worry where it goes to, but the GPL gives you the opportunity to see some benefit out of someone else deriving your software.
Your freedom remains intact when someone derives your code and slaps an EULA on it, but not the user's or the code's (if you believe software has rights of it's own.)
Neither the GPL or the BSD license is there to save your ass, it's to protect the end user.