A zealot he may be, but the "compromises" we're able to enjoy today are the direct result of his extreme positions. Starting a battle looking to compromise gets you killed. Starting with "all or nothing" gets you compromise.
And we should all thank Richard Stallman for launching the first volley. We wouldn't have gotten to where we are today with "compromise". It was Stallman's "fuck all y'all, I'm making my own damn system" that did it.
I know this is Slashdot, but can we get off the "we nerds - a breed apart" pony, please? IF the guy did it, he is a murderer, period. He is not a pitiable tragic figure driven to madness by a duplicitous spouse and the supposed "nerd traits" some here like to pretend are not only ingrained in all so-called "nerds" or "geeks" (wouldn't want to piss anyone off pretending they are the same damn thing, would we?), but also wear as a badge of honor.
If he did it, he's a murderer. End of story.
How enraged would I be? Plenty. And if my rage ended in murder, I'd be a murderer too.
I'm just going to ignore your first two paragraphs. You troll poorly.
You're going to ignore them, but you'll generously take the time to qualify them as trolling? Bad form, man. "I'm gonna ignore you, except, you know, when I feel like telling you you're mean" isn't much better than trolling.
These mental barriers, as I stated, are mine and mine alone. Copyright restrictions are made up by content producers and enforced by the government. I see a slight difference there. No starving artist may have ever set out to be one, but setting out with greed in your heart and a pencil in your hands is not a fast way to endear yourself to me. An example: J.K.Rowling. Her books are far from brilliant, but I found them entertaining and had no qualms about paying for the hardcovers. Then came the lego sets, and then crappy plastic toys with little "goop" containers, and so on and so forth until every ounce of respect I had was whittled away. Just wave a few bucks in front of her face and you could damn near have your very own Harry Potter licensed porn! Yes I realize that is a hyperbole that's why I wrote it, but it doesn't change the fact. That is the prime example of selling out. Not doing commissions on the side, not working to pay your fucking rent, using something you created to fuel a rampage of greed.
(Bolding mine)
So that's what it comes down to, you object to people making "too much" money, as I guessed earlier. I'm glad you accept it's your own personal bias and nothing more, though.
And the hypothetical celebrity-sellout-street-corner-slut-scumbag could just easily as say that to defend his/her sellout-slutty ass.
Try to see my point: I don't particularly think Bill Hicks was playing to the crowd. But he was an artist who charged money for his art. Preaching about the corruption of art while charging people to hear you kinda takes the edge off it.
Bill Hicks made a living from his writing, and his performances of it. Perhaps commercials were beneath him, but selling show tickets and albums certainly wasn't. Do you trust that his words were not tailored to his audience's expectations?
Hicks was a great performer, and I enjoy a lot of his work, but let's not make him into the fucking messiah, alright? He was a talented guy who died way too young, and the world is poorer for it, but he was not the last word on anything.
Yeah, I think I misinterpreted your original post, it's clearer now. Sorry about that, mate.
I still believe a model could be devised where there are buffer mechanisms between advertisers and WP itself, but yes, I do see the dangers you allude to.
Should we apply your standards for art to other fields of human endeavor? If you're not working your shitty, low-level, $6-an-hour job out of sheer love and passion for customer service / burger flipping / telemarketing, are you also a "street corner slut"? Should the way people put food on the table be subjected to arbitrary "acceptability" judgments, once we're past the boundaries of safety and health regulations?
Or do you just object to people making "too much" money (however much you define "too much" to be)? If a minor comic book artist manages to supplement his income by doing $100 commission pieces, is he a whore? What about someone like Bryan Hitch, who gets $4k and up for his commissioned pieces? Hell, is the idea of illustrating someone else's stories at all selling out, too?
I don't think people who rail against copyright law should be so judgmental about such things. If you're against artificial restrictions on the distribution of creative works, why have these mental barriers regarding the act of artistic creation itself? I'll let you in a little secret: No starving artist ever set out to be one.
Sorry, dude, but all you're offering is unverifiable anecdotal evidence. Which is why I reject it. I could just as easily counter that as an atheist, I know that not to be the case. Which would be more unverifiable anecdotal evidence. As such, I will rely on the textbook definition of atheism: "The absence of belief in a god or gods".
Atheism is the view that since there is no verifiable evidence for the existence of a "higher power", no such power exists. It's not a "belief", merely the acceptance of observable reality. It doesn't rely on faith.
Who the hell wants to spend their life on developing free open source software? That's right, lots of people. Some people actually can and will care more about the human kind than themselves. And some people might even want to find a cure for someone they know.
I can develop FOSS by myself on any old computer. The equipment, space, and manpower required to even begin to research a drug is out of the reach of 99% of the population.
Optimal solution would be that all countries would give money into same pool, where money would then be shared for research projects that would research new medicine and publish everything in public domain. This would mean two things:
- cheaper medicine as anyone could manufacture them
- faster research as all information would be public
- Less money spend on medicine marketing
If we ignore the politics involved, and how government involvement in anything tends to lead to more stagnation than progress, sure, it's a lovely idea.
So in short this would:
- Take money from the super rich (owners of the med companies) to the poor (users of medicine).
- Keep people more healthy (as med research speed would increase)
- Take money from marketing to research (if same amount of money would be used)
Obviously it would not be easy to establish such a contract, especially since a lot of (med company) money would be spend on lobbying people against it. But it is nice to dream.
Interesting how you ranked "taking money from the super rich" higher than "keeping people healthy" in your list.
A non-speaker may be able to recognize a given language based on intonation or certain patterns. French, at least to western ears, is very easy to recognize.
Your analogy is completely incorrect. For starters, Windows is not calling Frys, Best Buy or any of the other sellers. It is calling the maker of the software. It's contacting a third party to make sure I'm "legit" after the transaction was finalized. It doesn't matter who it calls, it is calling.
Secondly, if you bought a Ralph Lauren shirt, and you used it then that would be different. When you buy a Ralph Lauren shirt, and start making copies of shirt and selling them, or even giving them away for free, then Ralph Lauren company would come after you because you are illegally and illegitimately using their name to manufacture something they didn't authorize and they have every right to do so. So, why should Microsoft have any problems with doing this? How else do you expect them to see whether you are legitimate or not. If I paid for the product (whether I bought it boxed or it came bundled with a new machine), then I am a legit user, and should not be hassled by anyone. How MS deals with those who do pirate their products is their problem, not mine. I can tell you, though, that treating everyone as a suspect is not the way.
Like it or not, if you want a branded copy of something, then pay for it and use it legally. If a user pays for the software, he is using it legally. The money has changed hands, the license has been granted. I object to let's-make-sure-you're-REALLY-clean-whenener-we-feel-like-it measures such as WGA for legitimate users
Then you should not have any problems with WGA, or the OS. Is it a crappy OS, that does not do anything and not worth anything? Yes, but that is a different topic. And if I'm not a terrorist I shouldn't care if the government eavesdrops on my emails and phone calls? Sorry, I've never bought into the "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" view. I have nothing to hide, period. And the makers of the products I use should take me at my word unless they have evidence that proves otherwise.
"Being in the minority" has nothing to do with anything. The number of people willing to put up with WGA doesn't remove its fundamental flaws. A glazed dog turd will never be a donut no matter how many people you get to eat it.
Windows 98 was also released 10 years ago, when such piracy was not nearly as big a problem as it is today. Times changes, so must security. WGA is Microsoft securing their product. How do you suggest it figure out who stole it and who didn't without bothering you but still preventing pirates from getting their product for free? I don't care how they do it, as long as they leave me alone. I'm not the thief. I should never be inconvenienced by them.
"Times change" is not an excuse for piss-poor solutions.
Piracy exists, and it's here to stay. You know it's so when a legitimate user of Windows XP has to put up with online activation and WGA, but a pirate can get a cracked copy that will never trouble him with such issues. It will be the same for Vista, no matter how many tweaks each successive SP offers.
Now, the trick is fighting piracy without hassling the people who keep your sorry ass in business. Microsoft is failing at that. How to do it? I don't know. But I do know that "keep your legit users under periodic surveillance" shouldn't be on the list.
Slashdot Mirror
A zealot he may be, but the "compromises" we're able to enjoy today are the direct result of his extreme positions. Starting a battle looking to compromise gets you killed. Starting with "all or nothing" gets you compromise.
And we should all thank Richard Stallman for launching the first volley. We wouldn't have gotten to where we are today with "compromise". It was Stallman's "fuck all y'all, I'm making my own damn system" that did it.
I know this is Slashdot, but can we get off the "we nerds - a breed apart" pony, please? IF the guy did it, he is a murderer, period. He is not a pitiable tragic figure driven to madness by a duplicitous spouse and the supposed "nerd traits" some here like to pretend are not only ingrained in all so-called "nerds" or "geeks" (wouldn't want to piss anyone off pretending they are the same damn thing, would we?), but also wear as a badge of honor.
If he did it, he's a murderer. End of story.
How enraged would I be? Plenty. And if my rage ended in murder, I'd be a murderer too.
So that's what it comes down to, you object to people making "too much" money, as I guessed earlier. I'm glad you accept it's your own personal bias and nothing more, though.
And the hypothetical celebrity-sellout-street-corner-slut-scumbag could just easily as say that to defend his/her sellout-slutty ass.
Try to see my point: I don't particularly think Bill Hicks was playing to the crowd. But he was an artist who charged money for his art. Preaching about the corruption of art while charging people to hear you kinda takes the edge off it.
Bill Hicks made a living from his writing, and his performances of it. Perhaps commercials were beneath him, but selling show tickets and albums certainly wasn't. Do you trust that his words were not tailored to his audience's expectations?
Hicks was a great performer, and I enjoy a lot of his work, but let's not make him into the fucking messiah, alright? He was a talented guy who died way too young, and the world is poorer for it, but he was not the last word on anything.
Yeah, I think I misinterpreted your original post, it's clearer now. Sorry about that, mate.
I still believe a model could be devised where there are buffer mechanisms between advertisers and WP itself, but yes, I do see the dangers you allude to.
Who gets to define what "selling out" is?
Should we apply your standards for art to other fields of human endeavor? If you're not working your shitty, low-level, $6-an-hour job out of sheer love and passion for customer service / burger flipping / telemarketing, are you also a "street corner slut"? Should the way people put food on the table be subjected to arbitrary "acceptability" judgments, once we're past the boundaries of safety and health regulations?
Or do you just object to people making "too much" money (however much you define "too much" to be)? If a minor comic book artist manages to supplement his income by doing $100 commission pieces, is he a whore? What about someone like Bryan Hitch, who gets $4k and up for his commissioned pieces? Hell, is the idea of illustrating someone else's stories at all selling out, too?
I don't think people who rail against copyright law should be so judgmental about such things. If you're against artificial restrictions on the distribution of creative works, why have these mental barriers regarding the act of artistic creation itself? I'll let you in a little secret: No starving artist ever set out to be one.
I don't think you understood me. What I find scary is the mindset that sees only those two extremes.
Actually, "learnt" is one of the two forms the past participle of "learn" can take.
Grammar Nazis suck. Grammar Nazis whose condescending rants are wrong really suck.
Sorry, dude, but all you're offering is unverifiable anecdotal evidence. Which is why I reject it. I could just as easily counter that as an atheist, I know that not to be the case. Which would be more unverifiable anecdotal evidence. As such, I will rely on the textbook definition of atheism: "The absence of belief in a god or gods".
Atheism is the view that since there is no verifiable evidence for the existence of a "higher power", no such power exists. It's not a "belief", merely the acceptance of observable reality. It doesn't rely on faith.
Gene Ray, is that you?
Your ASCII testicles are grossly deformed. Painfully so.
A non-speaker may be able to recognize a given language based on intonation or certain patterns. French, at least to western ears, is very easy to recognize.
Kopete's a perfectly polished chat prog with webcam capabilities.
I'm all for shipping grammar nazis off to the most distant rock available.
;)
By the way, it's "later", not "latter"
Individual schools or libraries could host the material locally (perhaps customized) and let XO-1 users access it via wifi.
I went through about four Atari 2600 joysticks after my dad got me Activision's "Decathlon". Man I miss my Atari.
Secondly, if you bought a Ralph Lauren shirt, and you used it then that would be different. When you buy a Ralph Lauren shirt, and start making copies of shirt and selling them, or even giving them away for free, then Ralph Lauren company would come after you because you are illegally and illegitimately using their name to manufacture something they didn't authorize and they have every right to do so. So, why should Microsoft have any problems with doing this? How else do you expect them to see whether you are legitimate or not. If I paid for the product (whether I bought it boxed or it came bundled with a new machine), then I am a legit user, and should not be hassled by anyone. How MS deals with those who do pirate their products is their problem, not mine. I can tell you, though, that treating everyone as a suspect is not the way.
Like it or not, if you want a branded copy of something, then pay for it and use it legally. If a user pays for the software, he is using it legally. The money has changed hands, the license has been granted. I object to let's-make-sure-you're-REALLY-clean-whenener-we-feel-like-it measures such as WGA for legitimate users
Then you should not have any problems with WGA, or the OS. Is it a crappy OS, that does not do anything and not worth anything? Yes, but that is a different topic. And if I'm not a terrorist I shouldn't care if the government eavesdrops on my emails and phone calls? Sorry, I've never bought into the "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" view. I have nothing to hide, period. And the makers of the products I use should take me at my word unless they have evidence that proves otherwise.
"Being in the minority" has nothing to do with anything. The number of people willing to put up with WGA doesn't remove its fundamental flaws. A glazed dog turd will never be a donut no matter how many people you get to eat it.
"Times change" is not an excuse for piss-poor solutions.
Piracy exists, and it's here to stay. You know it's so when a legitimate user of Windows XP has to put up with online activation and WGA, but a pirate can get a cracked copy that will never trouble him with such issues. It will be the same for Vista, no matter how many tweaks each successive SP offers.
Now, the trick is fighting piracy without hassling the people who keep your sorry ass in business. Microsoft is failing at that. How to do it? I don't know. But I do know that "keep your legit users under periodic surveillance" shouldn't be on the list.