Am I the only one on slashdot who refuses to ever install silverlight?
Yes, I'm an anti MS fanboy, but after the things that happened during the OOXML ISO approval I just cannot support that company anymore. In any way whatsoever.
If you too (speaking to the general audience here) feel this way about MS, I hope that you do not support them by installing silverlight or in any other way really.
How is this modded as insightful? Funny would be far more appropriate. After all, the vi syntax (which actually is PERL syntax IIRC) is somewhat quicker and more compact.
While (probably) technically correct, I think this comparison gives the wrong impression of Israels geographical size. I believe most people think of something rather big when the word US state is used, even if you qualify it with the word small.
Inalienable to me means that it is an absolute that cannot be changed, trivialized, overridden or in any other way affected. Inalienable means that is such a fundamental "thing" that there can be no question, no argument, no reason about it whatsoever.
If the amendments (or the rights granted therein) can be overridden in the fashion you specify, then by (my) definition they are not inalienable.
Apart from that - what good DRM place is there? Steam could easily allow your account to redownload a game without DRM. Yes it would be easy to abuse for piracy but that is not the point, is it?
The DRM itself simply never holds an actualy benefit to the customer. DRM may be the condition under which the media companies will sell content, but DRM is never a benefit to the customer, only a condition. You should not forget that.
Technically, yoy could construe a service that lets you download (and redownload) purchased content from a given account on any computer whatsoever without any limitations as a form of DRM. Under that definition I would agree that DRM can be good. But as soon as any limitation is placed on buying customers, it ceases to be a benefit but becomes a hindrance instead. I will not support it.
With digital goods I would agree - with physical it would be a bit harder without innocent parties (like the bookstore) being affected too. But by the time that steam for some reason or other doesn't work for me anymore, it may be impossible to help myself anymore. I don't like that risk, no matter how unlikely it is. I want to be in control of my own goods, simple as that.
About the two wrongs don't make a right... We could have a long philosphical argument there, but I don't feel up to that right now. Suffice it to say that I don't find the deed and the punishment balanced - do you?
On a final note - imagine that the only way to get books/movies/games is that the media companies set up a closet in your house that is locked. It can only be unlocked by an employee from that company. Whenever you want to watch a movie (or read a book) an employeed would instantaneously unlock the closet, hand you the item, and disappear again. Only there is a certain chance (a very very low chance) that one day the employee gets sick without backup, or the company goes bankrupt, or they think you stole a book or whatever else and you cannot access your stuff anymore.
I know there are a few things wrong with the analogy, but I only want to focus on the parts where it makes sense. Would you accept such a system? If I buy I book I put it in my bookshelf and read it whenever I want. I don't have to ask for permission first - even if it would come instantaneously, the employee would never have to set foot on my doorstep or whatever else. I bought the book - I don't ask permission.
If you think it is ok for the company to make you ask permission everytime you want to read a book - either something is seriously wrong with you or with me (for feeling so strongly about the issue).
I see your point. I'm just a a bit too paranoid to be able to relax with the thought that they can "cancel" all my games at any time whenever they wish. I know they are unlikely to do it - but I still think that they shouldn't even have the power to do so. It bothers me that they think they should and that you would so easily agree. Oh well.
Up until the point where they - either "rightfully" or by accident - deny you accident to any game you bought on steam EVER. Or the company goes bankrupt or whatever else could happen.
Seriously, let's go as far and say you cheated in a multiplayer game once. They can suddenly take all the games you ever bought for good money away from you. It's just gone. Poof.
While it may have been wrong for you to cheat, should they really hold the power to take all the games you ever bought away from you with the flip of a byte?
Allowing you to redownload your games from your account can be done without DRM as well. Yes right now they are only willing to do it with DRM, but it could be done without. DRM is not a benefit, people need to learn this.
And before somebody complains - I buy all the games that I play (unless I quickly decide it's not for me - but then I stop playing). I just want to have control over my own games that I bought with my money. If I can't have that, I won't buy it.
But imagine I ask something of you and you say "only on one condition".
Is that condition a benefit to me? Sure, I would not get anything without that condition - but I doubt you would call it a benefit.
Also, I share your stance on not buying a kindle. I have stopped buying games on steam, and the only DRM encumbered thing I will ever buy again will be the expansion to Mount & Blade, which I will buy solely because it is not too intrusive to me and developed by an indie game studio.
On the other hand I have started buying mobipocket DRM'ed ebooks because they are such a pleasure to read on my N810 AND because I can easily strip the DRM of them. I do not feel good about it, but I have no legal alternative when it comes to ebooks. Maybe I will stop that practice again, I think I should. I just hope that these corporations will someday realize DRM holds benefits to no one (except the creators) and will cease requiring it. Someday. In the future...
Once again I may have posted a bit rashly. I should have written my post a bit more calmly, I was just so shaken that somebody would actually believe that there are positive sides to DRM.
How does DRM solve the backup problem and whatever else for me? The ONLY purpose of DRM is to make sure they can deny access to a) pirates b) me, a paying customer WHENEVER THEY WANT.
There is NO FUCKING BENEFIT to the customer. EVER. Things are not cheaper, they are no easier to access - in fact the opposite is often true.
The fact that steam does allow you to redownload your purchased digital goods is not because of DRM, but it is simply a service they offer. They could just as well offer it without DRM.
I know you will be modded insightful soon, but oh my god what a ignorant stance on DRM to have.
"i'm pretty sure punishing people for killing other innocent people (even to save another) is not considered shoving morals down throats."
Uh yes, it certainly would be. It just so happens that in our society (as in most societies) killing people is frowned upon. But it would certainly be possible to have a form of society where killing people would not be frowned upon, or at least where it would be considdered ethically/morally correct in many more cases than what is currently the case in most western societies.
Just consider the honour killings where family members are being killed because they have in some way brought disgrace over the family. This sort of thing is or at least has been widely accepted in certain places.
You could go further and imagine a society where it would be acceptable to kill criminals/outlaws without punishment. It's even possible to imagine a society where killing is not frowned upon at all (as such) and where the only reason not to kill someone was a cold cost/benefit analysis. It's not likely to happen, but it's possible.
Just because we have evolved to develop certain moral/ethical standards does not mean that these must apply everywhere and to everyone.
who ever said that those are the same people (the ones complaining about MS and applauding apple?). Theres lots of different people on slashdot, and only because certain attitudes get repeated often that doesn't mean that they are ALL come from the SAME people.
And for that matter, where does anyone applaud apple for their attempts at lock-in? I suspect only the most hardcore apple fans would have that attitude. Most pro-apple post highlight the qualities of apple products, not their flaws.
You are a troll/idiot if I ever saw one. He never said anything that is unreasonable. He never claimed that the company behaved ethicall/morally correct, that it was a good idea do outsource this to other countries or anything even remotely like that. What he said was only this:
1) Yes they lied, but: 2) Human brains are the best way to solve the given problem (currently)
Alright... so it's a wiki that is quicker to collaborate on in real time. But if the others are not available for realtime collaboration or collaboration is not required at all - it has no advantage?
And isn't it more complicated to use then sending simple emails?
I'm not trying to be overly critic, but I'm just failing to see the reason for all the hype. I can think of a couple of situations where it seems something like this might have been useful, yes. But it's not exactly revolutionary or anything, is it?
These calculations however apply only to one single photographer during one single night, and assume that there is only one single meteorite during that night.
Since there are usually more than one photographer up on any given night, there have been a lot more than 1 night in the last - say... decade - and that usually there is more than on meteor per night...
Well, suddenly the odds of SOMEBODY catching a meteor at night at SOME point are much higher. Though I wouldn't want to guess exactly what the odds are.
Unless Australia has far less problems with usual crime than other "modern" and "civilized" countries, I would suggest the prevention and investigation of actual crimes to be a far better way to spend taxpayer money.
Unsecured Wireless networks though? Not the general taxpayers problem.
After reading a bit more of the thread... Both sides are wrong. Both sides are overreacting to things that were not really meant to be offensive, but they just don't realize it. It's a bit sad really because I sense that most of the people would prefer to get along.
Theo got it right when he said that you cannot have a cooperation if your first reaction to anything is mistrust. Unfortunately he makes the very same mistake as well. Oh well...
After reading some of the thread it seems to me that while Theo seems to have bit of an over-the-top style to him, I think he is quite correct.
1) He conceded that the whole thing was a problem that needed fixing 2) The GPL people DID repeatedly accuse the developer of theft - not using that exact word but by heavily implying that it was done on purpose (which it may well have been, but that is not the point) 3) Sending this kind of email to a large audience is of course very unnerving for the developer in question. Yes the developer was wrong in committing GPL'ed code, but it certainly COULD have been resolved in a lot more quiet and less messy way. Theo is absolutely right about that.
Slashdot Mirror
Am I the only one on slashdot who refuses to ever install silverlight?
Yes, I'm an anti MS fanboy, but after the things that happened during the OOXML ISO approval I just cannot support that company anymore. In any way whatsoever.
If you too (speaking to the general audience here) feel this way about MS, I hope that you do not support them by installing silverlight or in any other way really.
Except that the pirates actually clean the boxes before handing the out to the people robin hood style...
Yeah, good move publishers, real good move...
How is this modded as insightful? Funny would be far more appropriate. After all, the vi syntax (which actually is PERL syntax IIRC) is somewhat quicker and more compact.
"Israel, a nation the size of a small US state"
While (probably) technically correct, I think this comparison gives the wrong impression of Israels geographical size. I believe most people think of something rather big when the word US state is used, even if you qualify it with the word small.
Inalienable to me means that it is an absolute that cannot be changed, trivialized, overridden or in any other way affected. Inalienable means that is such a fundamental "thing" that there can be no question, no argument, no reason about it whatsoever.
If the amendments (or the rights granted therein) can be overridden in the fashion you specify, then by (my) definition they are not inalienable.
By that logic you could limit storage quotas to 1 kb. After all, people are going to complain anyway, right?
I'm curious - how would you accomplish that?
Yes I was too harsh, I have already admitted it.
Apart from that - what good DRM place is there? Steam could easily allow your account to redownload a game without DRM. Yes it would be easy to abuse for piracy but that is not the point, is it?
The DRM itself simply never holds an actualy benefit to the customer. DRM may be the condition under which the media companies will sell content, but DRM is never a benefit to the customer, only a condition. You should not forget that.
Technically, yoy could construe a service that lets you download (and redownload) purchased content from a given account on any computer whatsoever without any limitations as a form of DRM. Under that definition I would agree that DRM can be good. But as soon as any limitation is placed on buying customers, it ceases to be a benefit but becomes a hindrance instead. I will not support it.
With digital goods I would agree - with physical it would be a bit harder without innocent parties (like the bookstore) being affected too. But by the time that steam for some reason or other doesn't work for me anymore, it may be impossible to help myself anymore. I don't like that risk, no matter how unlikely it is. I want to be in control of my own goods, simple as that.
About the two wrongs don't make a right... We could have a long philosphical argument there, but I don't feel up to that right now. Suffice it to say that I don't find the deed and the punishment balanced - do you?
On a final note - imagine that the only way to get books/movies/games is that the media companies set up a closet in your house that is locked. It can only be unlocked by an employee from that company. Whenever you want to watch a movie (or read a book) an employeed would instantaneously unlock the closet, hand you the item, and disappear again. Only there is a certain chance (a very very low chance) that one day the employee gets sick without backup, or the company goes bankrupt, or they think you stole a book or whatever else and you cannot access your stuff anymore.
I know there are a few things wrong with the analogy, but I only want to focus on the parts where it makes sense. Would you accept such a system? If I buy I book I put it in my bookshelf and read it whenever I want. I don't have to ask for permission first - even if it would come instantaneously, the employee would never have to set foot on my doorstep or whatever else. I bought the book - I don't ask permission.
If you think it is ok for the company to make you ask permission everytime you want to read a book - either something is seriously wrong with you or with me (for feeling so strongly about the issue).
I see your point. I'm just a a bit too paranoid to be able to relax with the thought that they can "cancel" all my games at any time whenever they wish. I know they are unlikely to do it - but I still think that they shouldn't even have the power to do so. It bothers me that they think they should and that you would so easily agree. Oh well.
Up until the point where they - either "rightfully" or by accident - deny you accident to any game you bought on steam EVER. Or the company goes bankrupt or whatever else could happen.
Seriously, let's go as far and say you cheated in a multiplayer game once. They can suddenly take all the games you ever bought for good money away from you. It's just gone. Poof.
While it may have been wrong for you to cheat, should they really hold the power to take all the games you ever bought away from you with the flip of a byte?
Allowing you to redownload your games from your account can be done without DRM as well. Yes right now they are only willing to do it with DRM, but it could be done without. DRM is not a benefit, people need to learn this.
And before somebody complains - I buy all the games that I play (unless I quickly decide it's not for me - but then I stop playing). I just want to have control over my own games that I bought with my money. If I can't have that, I won't buy it.
I see your point.
But imagine I ask something of you and you say "only on one condition".
Is that condition a benefit to me? Sure, I would not get anything without that condition - but I doubt you would call it a benefit.
Also, I share your stance on not buying a kindle. I have stopped buying games on steam, and the only DRM encumbered thing I will ever buy again will be the expansion to Mount & Blade, which I will buy solely because it is not too intrusive to me and developed by an indie game studio.
On the other hand I have started buying mobipocket DRM'ed ebooks because they are such a pleasure to read on my N810 AND because I can easily strip the DRM of them. I do not feel good about it, but I have no legal alternative when it comes to ebooks. Maybe I will stop that practice again, I think I should. I just hope that these corporations will someday realize DRM holds benefits to no one (except the creators) and will cease requiring it. Someday. In the future...
Once again I may have posted a bit rashly. I should have written my post a bit more calmly, I was just so shaken that somebody would actually believe that there are positive sides to DRM.
what the fuck? seriously?
How does DRM solve the backup problem and whatever else for me? The ONLY purpose of DRM is to make sure they can deny access to a) pirates b) me, a paying customer WHENEVER THEY WANT.
There is NO FUCKING BENEFIT to the customer. EVER. Things are not cheaper, they are no easier to access - in fact the opposite is often true.
The fact that steam does allow you to redownload your purchased digital goods is not because of DRM, but it is simply a service they offer. They could just as well offer it without DRM.
I know you will be modded insightful soon, but oh my god what a ignorant stance on DRM to have.
"i'm pretty sure punishing people for killing other innocent people (even to save another) is not considered shoving morals down throats."
Uh yes, it certainly would be. It just so happens that in our society (as in most societies) killing people is frowned upon. But it would certainly be possible to have a form of society where killing people would not be frowned upon, or at least where it would be considdered ethically/morally correct in many more cases than what is currently the case in most western societies.
Just consider the honour killings where family members are being killed because they have in some way brought disgrace over the family. This sort of thing is or at least has been widely accepted in certain places.
You could go further and imagine a society where it would be acceptable to kill criminals/outlaws without punishment. It's even possible to imagine a society where killing is not frowned upon at all (as such) and where the only reason not to kill someone was a cold cost/benefit analysis. It's not likely to happen, but it's possible.
Just because we have evolved to develop certain moral/ethical standards does not mean that these must apply everywhere and to everyone.
who ever said that those are the same people (the ones complaining about MS and applauding apple?). Theres lots of different people on slashdot, and only because certain attitudes get repeated often that doesn't mean that they are ALL come from the SAME people.
And for that matter, where does anyone applaud apple for their attempts at lock-in? I suspect only the most hardcore apple fans would have that attitude. Most pro-apple post highlight the qualities of apple products, not their flaws.
Your sig is quite apt right now... :D
Uhh... Somehow I got confused about who said what - disregard above post or mod it down into obscurity where it belongs...
You are a troll/idiot if I ever saw one. He never said anything that is unreasonable. He never claimed that the company behaved ethicall/morally correct, that it was a good idea do outsource this to other countries or anything even remotely like that. What he said was only this:
1) Yes they lied, but:
2) Human brains are the best way to solve the given problem (currently)
What is so wrong about that?
Alright... so it's a wiki that is quicker to collaborate on in real time. But if the others are not available for realtime collaboration or collaboration is not required at all - it has no advantage?
And isn't it more complicated to use then sending simple emails?
I'm not trying to be overly critic, but I'm just failing to see the reason for all the hype. I can think of a couple of situations where it seems something like this might have been useful, yes. But it's not exactly revolutionary or anything, is it?
Thanks for the review, but I still have absolutely no clue what problem wave is supposed to solve. Would you mind clarifying?
These calculations however apply only to one single photographer during one single night, and assume that there is only one single meteorite during that night.
Since there are usually more than one photographer up on any given night, there have been a lot more than 1 night in the last - say... decade - and that usually there is more than on meteor per night...
Well, suddenly the odds of SOMEBODY catching a meteor at night at SOME point are much higher. Though I wouldn't want to guess exactly what the odds are.
Unless Australia has far less problems with usual crime than other "modern" and "civilized" countries, I would suggest the prevention and investigation of actual crimes to be a far better way to spend taxpayer money.
Unsecured Wireless networks though? Not the general taxpayers problem.
After reading a bit more of the thread... Both sides are wrong. Both sides are overreacting to things that were not really meant to be offensive, but they just don't realize it. It's a bit sad really because I sense that most of the people would prefer to get along.
Theo got it right when he said that you cannot have a cooperation if your first reaction to anything is mistrust. Unfortunately he makes the very same mistake as well. Oh well...
After reading some of the thread it seems to me that while Theo seems to have bit of an over-the-top style to him, I think he is quite correct.
1) He conceded that the whole thing was a problem that needed fixing
2) The GPL people DID repeatedly accuse the developer of theft - not using that exact word but by heavily implying that it was done on purpose (which it may well have been, but that is not the point)
3) Sending this kind of email to a large audience is of course very unnerving for the developer in question. Yes the developer was wrong in committing GPL'ed code, but it certainly COULD have been resolved in a lot more quiet and less messy way. Theo is absolutely right about that.