Part of growing up is no longer needing to pointlessly attack people. You could have said the exact same thing, but left out "grow up" and your post would not have been flamebait but perfectly reasonable.
> But giving up at the bottom of the curve because it's not the same means you never get a chance to find out if it's better.
If something has fundamental flaws that make it unusable for a particular person, there's no fricking reason to keep "struggling up the curve."
Obviously it is not for him, and your suggestion won't do anything but waste his time. Please accept the fact that not everyone uses a computer the way you do, and what's "intuitive" for one person may not be, for another. It's not that one is inherently better, but that he has an easire time with the structure of Windows, UNIX, whatever.
> A quick "try before you buy" isn't going to tell you anything.
I used only Macintoshes at work for 4 years. I still hate them. I hated them after working on them for a few months. Heck, I had a pretty good idea that I didn't like them right off the bat. So yes, a "try before you buy" WILL, in fact, tell you if the system design is 180 degrees from your idea of a good design.
Please note, this was during System 7.? through System 9, so no OSX. However, unless there has been a 100% redesign of the apple desktop, I'm still going to say I probably still won't like it. I don't like the way it's structured. I'm not wrong for that, calling me an idiot does not make it true, but my opinion has no affect on your ability to use it. Just that you like to use your computer in a different way than I use mine. I wish all those [insert OS] "Zealots" would figure this out and stop wasting our time with pointless, meaningless arguments.
Whereas you are the bastion of sanity? I don't know what you were reading, but it was logical to me. Maybe you just don't know what logic is?
Or just maybe you were trying to put down something that you don't agree with but aren't smart enough to retort or even research a bit?
Before anyone gets the "bright" idea that I'm a troll or something, I live in Ohio, where this bill is. Legislators have already said that the eBay thing was an unintended side-effect and would be fixed before it became law.
NO ONE SEEMS TO GET THAT POINT! IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! The ones that are trying to explain why you will have to pay 50 grand are the ones who didn't want it to pass in the first place. It's like taking a Republican at his word on what a Democrat-sponsored bill would do. IT'S POLITICAL BULLSHIT & DICK-WAVING.
> These are organization,primarily, of artists and by artists.
No, they are made up of noncreative executives who have had the power to say "play be our rules or go home and fade into obscurity." Now that there is something available to challenge that, they buy lawmakers.
> If you charged a person to see your work of art and then that person dutifully copied it to the last stroke of a brush, then we are all harmed in the long-run, because that creative person no longer has control of his work
But it's not his work, it's the work of whoever painted the actual product, regardless what it looks very similar to. If I make a painting of a BMW, does it lower the inherent value of the car? What if the painting is of an advertisement or something? Should BMW now expect to pay less to run the ad because it is available elsewhere? Can they sue me for it? Do I have to get permission to paint everything I see, because the land will likely be in someone's name?
Bubba Monet paints a Buffalo, NY sunset. I know where he stood and the time he did it, so I know how to recreate the image. Does he have exclusive control of the image of a sunset from that point? Can I not stand in the same place with the sun in the same place in the sky and paint the same thing? The result can be exactly as similar as copying a painting. Actually, since it doesn't involve remembering the whole thing, strokes & all, it would be EASIER to stand and repaint it from your own eyes.
No longer has creative control? How do you expect him to exert control? Unless the painting is unfinished, he's not going to modify it. Even so, he has lost nothing. He still has his original that he can sell, or make copies of.
All of this ignores that most people learn to paint by, how? COPYING FAMOUS IMAGES. They would not be able to do this if copyright were extended too far (of course, it wouldn't affect this or the next generation much, due to non-retroactivity of the law).
> For one, copyright owners do not want to have complete control over thoughts
I think you need to rethink that statement, as it is 100% false. If they didn't want complete control, Disney would not be buying the government out from under us every year..
> That's the point of the MPAA. To pool resources. It's not the problem.
AT&T was trying to bring us better service by pooling resources. When used in the way it was (and MPAA is) it is called a monopoly or a cartel.
> It's not theft, but let's be clear. It's not ethical.
That's not clear, that's an opinion. MY opinion is that it is nothing but harmful to prevent society from advancing itself through general innovation. If every software company had access to every other software companies' skills w/r/t security, do you think we'd be complaining about all the Microsoft worms? No, if Windows was still that horrible, there would actually be other companies that could compete! What a frickin' amazing concept that is, competition. And that doesn't mean we have to annhiliate copyright altogether. If software were protected for 5 years, maybe even 10 (I think that's too much), we would be able to do so much more. But instead of helping the "public good" (sound familiar?) they sit on their "secrets" until someone else figures the same thing out. Then what? THEY GET SUED!!! All these patent/copyright lawsuits HARM the public by giving them disincentives to promote the useful art of programming. If they are constantly worried about violating some random patent some fucking ignorant lawyer wrote up 20 years ago, they are less likely to create anything useful.
> People are blantly taking stuff that isn't even done being made yet, and trading copies of it, in an attempt to have something without paying for it.
Paying for it is not always the issue. If it were available for 5$ and not on the Internet, many of them would pay for it. Not all, maybe not a majority. But it's there and people will get it.
Do you feel the same way about a leaked movie script? You must, otherwise you are confusing "ideas" with "products." Also, "taking" is a misleading word, but you already know that nothing was taken. If it was, that is the fault of the person who took the product and stole it, not the o
Redundant? Fucking morons. THE STORY IS REDUNDANT ITSELF. I lose mod points because some idiot doesn't know what was posted three years ago, and it wasn't particularly interesting then either.
I don't understand what is important about this... There have been hundreds of magstripe readers with software out for years, some of which are free (software, obviously, not hardware). And it's not like he had to decrypt the stuff... they're called standards for a reason: it's usually public knowledge how to get the info off of a card.
No univeral translator responses on the first page?!?!?! Come on, geeks! This is the first step to Star Trek. Or at least the translations. It was the first thing I thought of, I can't believe no one else mentioned it. I searched all the comments at at least 0...
> so that you can access more of the game's content earlier.
A reasonable response? What's/. coming to...
It's nice to see a level head on a site that should have had a thousand people shouting that guy down.
Not everyone derives entertainment in the same way. The previous poster seems to assume that everyone should be entertained by the "journey" and if you don't, you need counselling. Don't know how he came to that conclusion...
I've never played a MMORPG, but I've played MUDs for-frickin-ever. I've seen people complain that it's unfair to offer items for sale outside of the games, I've seen sysops make money/pay for the host site by doing exactly that. I was a coder for a MUD that did that (I quit shortly after, but that's another matter).
It's unfair for people to have RL friends in-game who can give you stuff, do THEY need counselling? It's unfair because my friends have jobs and girlfriends/wives, so they aren't online giving me their old EQ. Why should their friends just give them stuff? After all, obtaining that stuff is why everyone plays and it's unfair unless you earned it yourself. Unless you rape puppies, that is... Only puppy rapers don't play WoW the way I want them to.
P.S. I do agree, however that in this case it is "wrong" -- not morally, but legally -- because it's against the TOS. There shouldn't be much argument there, except to question those terms' existence to begin with.
Yeah, I wouldn't shed a tear if Social Security collapsed either... But if that happens, what would our nationally-misused ID number be?
> You know, the people who get screwed.
Gee, whenever I don't want to get screwed, I do!
Re:The Best Laid Plans of Mice and Men ...
on
State of the Union
·
· Score: 1
Duh, get your head out of your ass. The only thing I was implying is that he posited a false dichotomy. THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE OTHER THAN BEING "FORCED" TO CRIME.
> you aren't going to change their minds with that kind of talk.
But with such people there is no chance of changing their minds even if you have a 100% airtight argument. They are simply too stubborn.
Alternately, if you have a 100% airtight reason why "Homos are evil and should be put to death," there will still be people who "stubbornly" refuse to accept it.
Slashdot Mirror
Same root? Heck, it's the same word.
It's like saying "These Macs are really similar to Macintoshes!"
Part of growing up is no longer needing to pointlessly attack people. You could have said the exact same thing, but left out "grow up" and your post would not have been flamebait but perfectly reasonable.
> so was I wrong in helping that Nigerian king transferring his 3 billion dollars to my account?..
Not if you still had $3bil a year later... transferred to another account.
> But giving up at the bottom of the curve because it's not the same means you never get a chance to find out if it's better.
If something has fundamental flaws that make it unusable for a particular person, there's no fricking reason to keep "struggling up the curve."
Obviously it is not for him, and your suggestion won't do anything but waste his time. Please accept the fact that not everyone uses a computer the way you do, and what's "intuitive" for one person may not be, for another. It's not that one is inherently better, but that he has an easire time with the structure of Windows, UNIX, whatever.
> A quick "try before you buy" isn't going to tell you anything.
I used only Macintoshes at work for 4 years. I still hate them. I hated them after working on them for a few months. Heck, I had a pretty good idea that I didn't like them right off the bat. So yes, a "try before you buy" WILL, in fact, tell you if the system design is 180 degrees from your idea of a good design.
Please note, this was during System 7.? through System 9, so no OSX. However, unless there has been a 100% redesign of the apple desktop, I'm still going to say I probably still won't like it. I don't like the way it's structured. I'm not wrong for that, calling me an idiot does not make it true, but my opinion has no affect on your ability to use it. Just that you like to use your computer in a different way than I use mine. I wish all those [insert OS] "Zealots" would figure this out and stop wasting our time with pointless, meaningless arguments.
Whereas you are the bastion of sanity? I don't know what you were reading, but it was logical to me. Maybe you just don't know what logic is?
Or just maybe you were trying to put down something that you don't agree with but aren't smart enough to retort or even research a bit?
Before anyone gets the "bright" idea that I'm a troll or something, I live in Ohio, where this bill is. Legislators have already said that the eBay thing was an unintended side-effect and would be fixed before it became law.
NO ONE SEEMS TO GET THAT POINT! IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! The ones that are trying to explain why you will have to pay 50 grand are the ones who didn't want it to pass in the first place. It's like taking a Republican at his word on what a Democrat-sponsored bill would do. IT'S POLITICAL BULLSHIT & DICK-WAVING.
Really? So I can be fired for any arbitrary bullshit reason and have no recourse? Then the law is not complete.
My employer can say "We fired him because his hair was always a millimeter too brown" and the judge has nothing to say but "case dismissed?"
Does it have to make sense?
> that doesn't mean this poor guy's rights were somehow violated. People get fired from jobs for wrong reasons all the freakin time.
There's a term for that: wrongful dismissal, and yes, it's against the law.
> These are organization ,primarily, of artists and by artists.
No, they are made up of noncreative executives who have had the power to say "play be our rules or go home and fade into obscurity." Now that there is something available to challenge that, they buy lawmakers.
> Therefore, what you are doing is wrong.
Illegal. "Wrong" is subjective. I don't consider it wrong to watch something for free that was available for free directly from the creator...
> If you charged a person to see your work of art and then that person dutifully copied it to the last stroke of a brush, then we are all harmed in the long-run, because that creative person no longer has control of his work
But it's not his work, it's the work of whoever painted the actual product, regardless what it looks very similar to. If I make a painting of a BMW, does it lower the inherent value of the car? What if the painting is of an advertisement or something? Should BMW now expect to pay less to run the ad because it is available elsewhere? Can they sue me for it? Do I have to get permission to paint everything I see, because the land will likely be in someone's name?
Bubba Monet paints a Buffalo, NY sunset. I know where he stood and the time he did it, so I know how to recreate the image. Does he have exclusive control of the image of a sunset from that point? Can I not stand in the same place with the sun in the same place in the sky and paint the same thing? The result can be exactly as similar as copying a painting. Actually, since it doesn't involve remembering the whole thing, strokes & all, it would be EASIER to stand and repaint it from your own eyes.
No longer has creative control? How do you expect him to exert control? Unless the painting is unfinished, he's not going to modify it. Even so, he has lost nothing. He still has his original that he can sell, or make copies of.
All of this ignores that most people learn to paint by, how? COPYING FAMOUS IMAGES. They would not be able to do this if copyright were extended too far (of course, it wouldn't affect this or the next generation much, due to non-retroactivity of the law).
> For one, copyright owners do not want to have complete control over thoughts
I think you need to rethink that statement, as it is 100% false. If they didn't want complete control, Disney would not be buying the government out from under us every year..
> That's the point of the MPAA. To pool resources. It's not the problem.
AT&T was trying to bring us better service by pooling resources. When used in the way it was (and MPAA is) it is called a monopoly or a cartel.
> It's not theft, but let's be clear. It's not ethical.
That's not clear, that's an opinion. MY opinion is that it is nothing but harmful to prevent society from advancing itself through general innovation. If every software company had access to every other software companies' skills w/r/t security, do you think we'd be complaining about all the Microsoft worms? No, if Windows was still that horrible, there would actually be other companies that could compete! What a frickin' amazing concept that is, competition. And that doesn't mean we have to annhiliate copyright altogether. If software were protected for 5 years, maybe even 10 (I think that's too much), we would be able to do so much more. But instead of helping the "public good" (sound familiar?) they sit on their "secrets" until someone else figures the same thing out. Then what? THEY GET SUED!!! All these patent/copyright lawsuits HARM the public by giving them disincentives to promote the useful art of programming. If they are constantly worried about violating some random patent some fucking ignorant lawyer wrote up 20 years ago, they are less likely to create anything useful.
> People are blantly taking stuff that isn't even done being made yet, and trading copies of it, in an attempt to have something without paying for it.
Paying for it is not always the issue. If it were available for 5$ and not on the Internet, many of them would pay for it. Not all, maybe not a majority. But it's there and people will get it.
Do you feel the same way about a leaked movie script? You must, otherwise you are confusing "ideas" with "products." Also, "taking" is a misleading word, but you already know that nothing was taken. If it was, that is the fault of the person who took the product and stole it, not the o
Redundant? Fucking morons. THE STORY IS REDUNDANT ITSELF. I lose mod points because some idiot doesn't know what was posted three years ago, and it wasn't particularly interesting then either.
I don't understand what is important about this... There have been hundreds of magstripe readers with software out for years, some of which are free (software, obviously, not hardware). And it's not like he had to decrypt the stuff... they're called standards for a reason: it's usually public knowledge how to get the info off of a card.
> If you really want to use popups, then design it to work without JavaScript too:
> onclick="window.open(this.href, 'newwindow'); return false;"
That is JavaScript... isn't it?
> with Firefox and alternate browsers gaining popularity, the advertisers will continue to innovate.
Innovate? Like I "innovated" a way to use that crowbar on the window of the house I wanted to get into?
> If it doesn't work, it's probably broken -> neext please.
Ah, I see... because you disabled a key feature in yor browser, his site is broken? Wow, that's a new long-distance logic jump record.
I'd like to meet the dumb motherfucker that modded me troll so I can use my new LART. GET A FUCKING CLUE, IDIOT.
Don't take this the wrong way, but it doesn't sound like you "wrote" a ray tracer at all. You slapped a front end on an existing one, no?
Granted, there may be subtle differences I'm unaware of because I've never used it...
> Uh, how much is 4 times less than $100? $-300? Retard.
$20, you moron. Just like 100 is 4x more than $20. Math not your strong suit?
(P.S. No, I don't mean 25... 4x MORE, that means in addition to the original 20, a total of 5x)
No univeral translator responses on the first page?!?!?! Come on, geeks! This is the first step to Star Trek. Or at least the translations. It was the first thing I thought of, I can't believe no one else mentioned it. I searched all the comments at at least 0...
Someone's been watching "Shorties" :)
> so that you can access more of the game's content earlier.
/. coming to...
A reasonable response? What's
It's nice to see a level head on a site that should have had a thousand people shouting that guy down.
Not everyone derives entertainment in the same way. The previous poster seems to assume that everyone should be entertained by the "journey" and if you don't, you need counselling. Don't know how he came to that conclusion...
I've never played a MMORPG, but I've played MUDs for-frickin-ever. I've seen people complain that it's unfair to offer items for sale outside of the games, I've seen sysops make money/pay for the host site by doing exactly that. I was a coder for a MUD that did that (I quit shortly after, but that's another matter).
It's unfair for people to have RL friends in-game who can give you stuff, do THEY need counselling? It's unfair because my friends have jobs and girlfriends/wives, so they aren't online giving me their old EQ. Why should their friends just give them stuff? After all, obtaining that stuff is why everyone plays and it's unfair unless you earned it yourself. Unless you rape puppies, that is... Only puppy rapers don't play WoW the way I want them to.
P.S. I do agree, however that in this case it is "wrong" -- not morally, but legally -- because it's against the TOS. There shouldn't be much argument there, except to question those terms' existence to begin with.
He should have charges filed for website defacement.
Yeah, I wouldn't shed a tear if Social Security collapsed either... But if that happens, what would our nationally-misused ID number be?
> You know, the people who get screwed.
Gee, whenever I don't want to get screwed, I do!
Duh, get your head out of your ass. The only thing I was implying is that he posited a false dichotomy. THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE OTHER THAN BEING "FORCED" TO CRIME.
> you aren't going to change their minds with that kind of talk.
But with such people there is no chance of changing their minds even if you have a 100% airtight argument. They are simply too stubborn.
Alternately, if you have a 100% airtight reason why "Homos are evil and should be put to death," there will still be people who "stubbornly" refuse to accept it.