Any of you two-party twits ought to be modded down. If you haven't figured out that you get royally screwed by both your parties yet you're stupid in my book.
That is simply not true. You have created wealth, and you are trading one representation of wealth (your product) for another representation of wealth (money).
But overall, the world has become richer for your creation.
Oh, so you think that denying the holocaust is ok as well and should in fact be encouraged in order to preserver freedom of speach, and that those offended are hyper-sensitive extremists?
Its still bullshit. The "terrorism manual" might just accidentally have been the only place he could find that would describe what he needed. Or he had the manual from before because he was curious, and later when he wanted to produce the actual substance (just for fun) and he looked it up in the manual, since he had it handy already.
There are so many reasons that he could be in possession of both that do not establish intent at all, it's just pointless.
Heck, this shit could have happened to me. I have downloaded "terrorism manuals" out of curiosity too. So what if I'd actually gone ahead and used some of that info for my own private fun?
If he already is in possession of he obviously needed a manual to create it in the first place. Why is the intent more clearly estables when you find that manual?
Well, if you don't care whether you get what you pay for, I suppose that's sort of your choice. Except that it creates an environment where companies that are hostile to customers thrive (since nobody wants to punish them), which also impacts me.
My wait and see remark was mostly about there being no point to continue this discussion, since we clearly can't convince each other. I'll speak out against DRM whenever I deem it necessary (always), since that is what I think is right.
Having clarified this point I will now withdraw from the discussion, as nothing further can come from it.
Well, I can only hope that your ignorant attitude will bite you in the ass one day so you'll know better. But we'll just have to wait and see how it all plays out I guess.
By your reasoning, lets give the government/police/whatever unlimited powers, because you can't stop them anyway and the world will never be perfect, so it's quite ok to let it go to hell.
hell yeah.
I'll fucking give you a piece of my mind if you do something stupid, and if you just want to enjoy your life pretending it doesn't matter that certain things are wrong in the world, you're part of the problem.
"How is asking permission to play with your legally purchased toys good DRM?
Fuck, I don't even know what this means. Start Steam-->Start Steam game != 'asking permission'."
Sorry, but just because they say yes every time (mostly anyway) you still have to ask permission. The fact that the steam client handles it quite transparently for you does not change that fact. Unless in offline mode, you have to ask permission every fucking single time you want to play.
I paid for my games, I don't fucking have ask for permission to play. Otherwise I see no point in *buying* a game, instead it's renting.
Which perks wouldn't you otherwise have? being able to redownload your games? You certainly dont *need* DRM for that, you could easily create a solution without.
Maybe they won't provide that service without DRM, but that is just extortion (yeah yeah, nobody is forcing you to buy, I get it. That is precisely why I stopped buying on steam).
But I object to the principle of DRM itself. Even knowing that they will never fuck with my account, I know that they can, and they do hold all of my steam games hostage.
Consider a stranger copying the key to your house - he may claim that he'll never abuse it and he may seem a very nice person - but in the end its still a needless and creepy proposition.
Furthermore, by supporting steam you show that you don't object to DRM, and that gives other companies more crazy ideas.
I know I'll never change you instant-gratification people minds, but I sure as hell will protest as loud as I can, because DRM sucks.
I am torn apart - show my support for linux games and make linux game purchases with steam once that is possible, or keep boycotting it because of the evil DRM that it brings...
I just don't know anymore...
(FYI: sadly, I already have plenty of steam games on my account, from a time before I realized the true extent of the DRM danger)
Yeah, but what if I want to share some stuff, but only with my friends?
In theory that is exactly what facebook is about, giving you the option to socialize and share with a select group of people. But lately facebook has decided that that doesn't work out for its own purposes and decided everything should be public to everyone - which defeats the entire purpose of facebook, because now everyone can just put their stuff on their own public website and have (almost) the same thing.
It is true that output devices produce colors differently than how human eyes "read" them. Hence, as you point out, different output devices translate differently from one format to the other and achieve differing results (not sure this is a completely valid metaphor).
It is precisely therefore that it makes no sense to speak in terms of 8 points on a light spectrum. That kind of terminology contains no useful way to translate into how our eyes work and hence how they will perceive something. When talking about producing a specific "seen color" you have to make the way the eye works your reference, not the way your color simulation works.
For example, you are correctly stating that magenta is a color that is currently not very well expressed by typical screens. According to your thinking, you just add an magenta pixel and whoop-de-doo everything is fine. However, since the three kinds of cones respond to overlapping parts of the visible spectrum and there is no specific magenta cone, this may well influence them differently than you wanted, which you have to compensate for with your other three pixels. Therefore your "we just add another kind of pixel" thinking is too simplistic. And therefore it does not make sense to simply think in terms of the colors we observer, but you have to think in terms of how our eyes work.
Wow - it's impressive how little you know about color theory and still make wild claims. And your reading/interpretation skills certainly aren't too good either.
Your signature is very apt I guess, so there is little point in going on.
If you really want to know where you're wrong, our eyes use three distinct "color sensors", each responding to different (but overlapping) parts of the visible spectrum. furthermore, intensity (brightness) is not relevant when talking about the visible spectrum. Your whole point about there being 8 major points in the light spectrum is utter hogwash.
The link in GP is much more relevant to this discussion and you should try reading it.
Very well, maybe my first impression about that post was correct anyway - I do see your point. I also definitely agree that non-smokers should stand up to it and refuse to go to smoker bars.
The problem is, I can refuse this all I want but if 90% of everyone else doesn't I still get only smoker bars. So in spite of doing everything right, I still have to endure the smoke if I go out. Of course you can say "stop frequenting bars altogether then" but that is hardly realistic/fair towards me.
Yes, the smokers would be inconvenienced by this legislation, but less so than the non-smokers are otherwise. Smoking is not essential to survival, while second hand smoke is a health risk. Therefore legislation ought to be more in favor of non-smokers than smokers.
I feel like there is some essential point to the above paragraph which I haven't expressed quite well enough yet, but right now I am unable to express it any better. The idea is somewhere along the lines of smoking being harmful and therefore less worthy of the legislative protection. That still doesn't quite cover what I am trying to express but it's the best I can come up with now.
Since your comment is the only one being civil, I will put my response to everyone here.
1) I never said that I had a god-given right to smoke free bars 2) The "for people like me" part was meant to emphasize that people like me see a need for such legislation in our own interest - Not that this is an absolute right that we have. 3) I do think that in a fair society there would be legislation that would guarantee that there are at least *some* smoke-free public places. This is similar to how we make sure handicapped people can get on busses. In theory you could just say "you are choosing to ride the bus, no one is requiring you to be there". The analogy is not completely fitting, I know, but I think it is fairly close. 4) In general I share the liberalistic view that anyone owning a private establishment can do whatever he wants there. I would like to have anti-smoking legislation for myself, but in theory I agree that it isn't the governments business. I could accept/spport such legislation more than other "meddling" legislation though because it "encourages" more healthy living. 5) When it comes to public places (post office, town hall, whatever) there should be absolutely no smoking allowed. 6) At first I thought it was a stupid analogy, but the reply by Scrameustache further down is rather insightful I think:
"If you don't like it, go somewhere else.
I should be allowed to inject you with anything I wish. If you don't like it, go somewhere else before I'm done preparing the second injection.
What, that doesn't sound ok? How about pouring things in your drink? Rubbing things on your skin? Or adding things to your food? You think it's ok to put things in my lungs, that I can just opt out once someone started to saturate the air with the chemicals of their choice, but you wouldn't let them do the same with other delivery methods? Why is that? It's easier not to drink something than not to breathe."
Yeah, but most non-smokers wouldn't bother switching to another bar, while smokers can easily be brought to switch to a bar allowing smoking. The net result is of course that all bars must allow smoking or live with a severely reduced customer base. This in turn means I have no almost no place to go to where I won't be bothered by second hand smoke - that is hardly ideal.
Legislative intervention is strictly necessary (for people like me).
I can completely follow your reasoning until right up in the end. I think it's only fair that you are not allowed to bother other people with your smoke. If you want to smoke in private or with only other smokers present, by all means. But don't do it anywhere where I have to inhale it.
This is precisely what I have been wanting from my desktop environment for a long time now. I always considered multiple desktops to be a shoddy workaround which does not really solve the actual issue - although in the end you might want a combination of both features.
Slashdot Mirror
Any of you two-party twits ought to be modded down. If you haven't figured out that you get royally screwed by both your parties yet you're stupid in my book.
That is simply not true. You have created wealth, and you are trading one representation of wealth (your product) for another representation of wealth (money).
But overall, the world has become richer for your creation.
Oh, so you think that denying the holocaust is ok as well and should in fact be encouraged in order to preserver freedom of speach, and that those offended are hyper-sensitive extremists?
Its still bullshit. The "terrorism manual" might just accidentally have been the only place he could find that would describe what he needed. Or he had the manual from before because he was curious, and later when he wanted to produce the actual substance (just for fun) and he looked it up in the manual, since he had it handy already.
There are so many reasons that he could be in possession of both that do not establish intent at all, it's just pointless.
Heck, this shit could have happened to me. I have downloaded "terrorism manuals" out of curiosity too. So what if I'd actually gone ahead and used some of that info for my own private fun?
This is seriously messed up.
What? How??
If he already is in possession of he obviously needed a manual to create it in the first place. Why is the intent more clearly estables when you find that manual?
wtf kind of logic is that?
Well, if you don't care whether you get what you pay for, I suppose that's sort of your choice. Except that it creates an environment where companies that are hostile to customers thrive (since nobody wants to punish them), which also impacts me.
My wait and see remark was mostly about there being no point to continue this discussion, since we clearly can't convince each other. I'll speak out against DRM whenever I deem it necessary (always), since that is what I think is right.
Having clarified this point I will now withdraw from the discussion, as nothing further can come from it.
Well, I can only hope that your ignorant attitude will bite you in the ass one day so you'll know better. But we'll just have to wait and see how it all plays out I guess.
So just because it is less important than freedom and survival I should not fight it with tooth and nail if it is wrong?
We do agree that it *is* wrong, don't we? You'd prefer to be in control of your games, wouldn't you?
By your reasoning, lets give the government/police/whatever unlimited powers, because you can't stop them anyway and the world will never be perfect, so it's quite ok to let it go to hell.
hell yeah.
I'll fucking give you a piece of my mind if you do something stupid, and if you just want to enjoy your life pretending it doesn't matter that certain things are wrong in the world, you're part of the problem.
"How is asking permission to play with your legally purchased toys good DRM?
Fuck, I don't even know what this means. Start Steam-->Start Steam game != 'asking permission'."
Sorry, but just because they say yes every time (mostly anyway) you still have to ask permission. The fact that the steam client handles it quite transparently for you does not change that fact. Unless in offline mode, you have to ask permission every fucking single time you want to play.
I paid for my games, I don't fucking have ask for permission to play. Otherwise I see no point in *buying* a game, instead it's renting.
Which perks wouldn't you otherwise have? being able to redownload your games? You certainly dont *need* DRM for that, you could easily create a solution without.
Maybe they won't provide that service without DRM, but that is just extortion (yeah yeah, nobody is forcing you to buy, I get it. That is precisely why I stopped buying on steam).
Yes, steam and valve may be very nice, it's true.
But I object to the principle of DRM itself. Even knowing that they will never fuck with my account, I know that they can, and they do hold all of my steam games hostage.
Consider a stranger copying the key to your house - he may claim that he'll never abuse it and he may seem a very nice person - but in the end its still a needless and creepy proposition.
Furthermore, by supporting steam you show that you don't object to DRM, and that gives other companies more crazy ideas.
I know I'll never change you instant-gratification people minds, but I sure as hell will protest as loud as I can, because DRM sucks.
I am torn apart - show my support for linux games and make linux game purchases with steam once that is possible, or keep boycotting it because of the evil DRM that it brings...
I just don't know anymore...
(FYI: sadly, I already have plenty of steam games on my account, from a time before I realized the true extent of the DRM danger)
Yeah, but what if I want to share some stuff, but only with my friends?
In theory that is exactly what facebook is about, giving you the option to socialize and share with a select group of people. But lately facebook has decided that that doesn't work out for its own purposes and decided everything should be public to everyone - which defeats the entire purpose of facebook, because now everyone can just put their stuff on their own public website and have (almost) the same thing.
It is true that output devices produce colors differently than how human eyes "read" them. Hence, as you point out, different output devices translate differently from one format to the other and achieve differing results (not sure this is a completely valid metaphor).
It is precisely therefore that it makes no sense to speak in terms of 8 points on a light spectrum. That kind of terminology contains no useful way to translate into how our eyes work and hence how they will perceive something. When talking about producing a specific "seen color" you have to make the way the eye works your reference, not the way your color simulation works.
For example, you are correctly stating that magenta is a color that is currently not very well expressed by typical screens. According to your thinking, you just add an magenta pixel and whoop-de-doo everything is fine. However, since the three kinds of cones respond to overlapping parts of the visible spectrum and there is no specific magenta cone, this may well influence them differently than you wanted, which you have to compensate for with your other three pixels. Therefore your "we just add another kind of pixel" thinking is too simplistic. And therefore it does not make sense to simply think in terms of the colors we observer, but you have to think in terms of how our eyes work.
Wow - it's impressive how little you know about color theory and still make wild claims. And your reading/interpretation skills certainly aren't too good either.
Your signature is very apt I guess, so there is little point in going on.
If you really want to know where you're wrong, our eyes use three distinct "color sensors", each responding to different (but overlapping) parts of the visible spectrum. furthermore, intensity (brightness) is not relevant when talking about the visible spectrum. Your whole point about there being 8 major points in the light spectrum is utter hogwash.
The link in GP is much more relevant to this discussion and you should try reading it.
You were very close to getting a downmod from me there, stop predicting how I will moderate or I will damn well make sure that you get to be right.
I felt your post was too valuable to really downmod, but please stop this "I will get modded down for this" whining - take it like a man.
I fucking hope they will, it can't be too soon. I want to beat the crap out of every asshole who thinks he has the right to litter public places.
Very well, maybe my first impression about that post was correct anyway - I do see your point. I also definitely agree that non-smokers should stand up to it and refuse to go to smoker bars.
The problem is, I can refuse this all I want but if 90% of everyone else doesn't I still get only smoker bars. So in spite of doing everything right, I still have to endure the smoke if I go out. Of course you can say "stop frequenting bars altogether then" but that is hardly realistic/fair towards me.
Yes, the smokers would be inconvenienced by this legislation, but less so than the non-smokers are otherwise. Smoking is not essential to survival, while second hand smoke is a health risk. Therefore legislation ought to be more in favor of non-smokers than smokers.
I feel like there is some essential point to the above paragraph which I haven't expressed quite well enough yet, but right now I am unable to express it any better. The idea is somewhere along the lines of smoking being harmful and therefore less worthy of the legislative protection. That still doesn't quite cover what I am trying to express but it's the best I can come up with now.
Since your comment is the only one being civil, I will put my response to everyone here.
1) I never said that I had a god-given right to smoke free bars
2) The "for people like me" part was meant to emphasize that people like me see a need for such legislation in our own interest - Not that this is an absolute right that we have.
3) I do think that in a fair society there would be legislation that would guarantee that there are at least *some* smoke-free public places. This is similar to how we make sure handicapped people can get on busses. In theory you could just say "you are choosing to ride the bus, no one is requiring you to be there". The analogy is not completely fitting, I know, but I think it is fairly close.
4) In general I share the liberalistic view that anyone owning a private establishment can do whatever he wants there. I would like to have anti-smoking legislation for myself, but in theory I agree that it isn't the governments business. I could accept/spport such legislation more than other "meddling" legislation though because it "encourages" more healthy living.
5) When it comes to public places (post office, town hall, whatever) there should be absolutely no smoking allowed.
6) At first I thought it was a stupid analogy, but the reply by Scrameustache further down is rather insightful I think:
"If you don't like it, go somewhere else.
I should be allowed to inject you with anything I wish. If you don't like it, go somewhere else before I'm done preparing the second injection.
What, that doesn't sound ok? How about pouring things in your drink? Rubbing things on your skin? Or adding things to your food? You think it's ok to put things in my lungs, that I can just opt out once someone started to saturate the air with the chemicals of their choice, but you wouldn't let them do the same with other delivery methods? Why is that? It's easier not to drink something than not to breathe."
Yeah, but most non-smokers wouldn't bother switching to another bar, while smokers can easily be brought to switch to a bar allowing smoking. The net result is of course that all bars must allow smoking or live with a severely reduced customer base. This in turn means I have no almost no place to go to where I won't be bothered by second hand smoke - that is hardly ideal.
Legislative intervention is strictly necessary (for people like me).
I can completely follow your reasoning until right up in the end. I think it's only fair that you are not allowed to bother other people with your smoke. If you want to smoke in private or with only other smokers present, by all means. But don't do it anywhere where I have to inhale it.
argh goddamnit, now it happened to me, moderation mis-click. Too bad about all the other positive mods I made in this thread, sorry guys :/
WOW!!!!!
This is precisely what I have been wanting from my desktop environment for a long time now. I always considered multiple desktops to be a shoddy workaround which does not really solve the actual issue - although in the end you might want a combination of both features.
Thank you (and mr mischief) for your very nice explanations. I'd mod you up with my modpoints, but obviously I can't.