Looks like a great release. I really like the philosophy difference between KDE and Gnome, because it's one way that the two can coexist peacefully, each catering to different kinds of users. It also lends real credence to the notion that competition is good - not just for its own sake, but because each option offers real value. Great work, people.
Let's just keep using the same anecdote over and over again to justify the existence of a surveillance state. From what I've read, video footage is far more useless than it is useful, and this just happens to be one of the few where it has (by pure happenstance, I'd argue) yielded something of value. In the mean time, all of this useless video footage has images of people who are being watched (increasinly by the government) without justification.
I'm a big coffee fan - I don't drink tons of it, and what I do drink is usually in the form of a single-shot latte. I don't consider myself a coffee expert, but I do know enough to believe that there's nothing that will parallel the experience of a successful shot of espresso mixed with just the right amount of milk, steamed to just the right temperature and froth. It's something that takes quite a bit of experience to perfect the technique- if these guys think they can replace all that with a chemical, I wish them luck. Maybe it will work for the Starbucks crowd, just like the RIAA works for the average music consumer, but as most of us know, that doesn't mean it's a good thing.
People in general seem to expect to be told everything they need to know, rather than going through any effort to figure it out for themselves.
Assuming someone isn't smoking, drinking, or filling their veins with any form of controlled substance. at what point would they determine that sitting in front of a computer for extended periods will produce blood clots? After they've keeled over from a stroke? People can't act on what they don't know.
I don't think being told is an issue so much as ignoring the information or failing to act on it once you're aware of it. This, I believe, is exactly what happened with McDonald's case. It's also what happens when you tell kids over and over, "don't smoke, it will kill you." Unfortunately, the consequences are so remotely far away, they ignore it until they wake up one day 40 years later with a multitude of smoking-related health issues. By then, of course, it's too late.
When I copy a song, I am not depriving the person that I copied it from of their song. I am, however, depriving its author of payment.
That's exactly what I said.
This process comprises only half of what has been the definition of "theft" for thousands of years.
You're wrong, I'm sorry to say. Legal definitions change (they must) to facilitate changes in culture, technology, etc. The "let me have it all for free" crowd is notorious for applying this lame argument in an attempt to rationalize their behavior, making it seem less problematic than it actually is.
What's the difference between someone who writes and records a song, sells only five copies because 1000 people have illegally acquired it, and someone who makes 1,000 cookies, and has them stolen? Since the end result is nearly the same (you have something you shouldn't, and the owner doesn't have what they should), I'd say there's little, if any difference at at all.
Might I suggest that you spend some time learning about what 'theft' is. Where does this idea that it has to 'deprive' someone of something come from?
Theft deals with the unlawful acquisition of something of value. Whether or not someone is deprived of something physical is completely beside the point. The bottom line is that when you acquire a copyrighted work without paying for it, you are deriving benefit without compensation to its owner. This creates a one-sided transaction where the author is the one getting short end of the stick.
To be fair, 'speeding' is also a matter of safety in many cases. A local state patrol officer stated on a television interview that given the choice of going the speed limit, or speeding in order to maintain the flow of traffic, speeding would be the better option. Copyright shares no such analogy.
On the other hand, I would argue that the copyright issue we currently face in the U.S. is very similar to the rediculous export restrictions that Congress tried to place on encryption software, except that now, the restrictions target imported material. In both cases, it is/was 'free' in one part of the world, but restricted from the others. It was absurd then, and I can't see any reason that it would be any different now.
If anyone truly wants the music industry to eat noise, then stop talking and start DOING. What I mean is STOP SUPPORTING THEM...just don't buy the music. We either stop supporting this greedy, monopolistic regime, or we continue to deal with the increasingly invasive and strong-armed tactics. There is no middle ground. This is one case where people can clearly NOT have their cake and eat it too.
There was a product out on the Mac waaaay back in the 128K/512K days that did the same thing. Since the screen was limited to a 9" viewing area, it made working with a page-sized document (in SuperPaint for example) very tedious. Unfortunately, I've forgotten its name.
That's right, and it's also why this is such an incredibly stupid idea. The biggest reason it's so stupid is that it a) penalizes people that have nothing to do with piracy, and b) creates a revenue stream that is based on nothing but speculation- it completely distorts important issues like market demand. If this is going to be the new game in town, then why don't banks ask for an special tax on cars, since they're often used as a means to escape after a robbery. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Not, I think, what Congress had in mind when enacting the DMCA.
The term in mind and Congress are used in the same sentence. It implies the presence of thought, which in turn, is required to ascertain the consequences of a law like the DMCA. As we can see, this clearly did not happen.
Let them lobby, let the mindless congressional puppets pass any legislation they want. In response, I would love to see consumers chew up the RIAA/MPAA and spit them out like a piece of five-day-old gum. Then no law in the world will do them any good as they try to stave off bankruptcy.
...government expense will ALWAYS expand to cover whatever revenue is available. Remember when everyone was asking, "Gee...the Dow's at 16,000, is there any end in sight?" Some analysts posited that there was no reason that the rise couldn't continue unabated.
The really stupid thing about this mess is that state governments, rather than being cautious, saw this as an opportunity to implement all kinds of new spending liabilities. Should we even be surprised that they're all sitting around scratching their heads trying to figure out why they can't pay the bills? Did they really think that this massive increase in tax revenue would continue? Come on.....
Let's remember that this is the same company that misrepresented itself during the DoJ trial, that is known to engage in blatent FUD, absolutely dishonest marketing tactics, requiring users to 'register' their OSs with it in order to activate their license, etc., etc... Now, would I want anything on any of my linux boxen from a company like this? I'll give you a hint: the answer has only two letters.
AOL is undoubtedly a large company, but one of the more salient criterions used to assess the health and the future prospects of a company is its ability to grow. Last I read, AOL is faltering a bit in this area.
Despite the recession, Hollywood's revenue has increased very substantially over the past year. If copyright infringement is hurting Hollywood in a way that makes DRM necessary, let the MPAA execs explain just how it is that they can both be simultaneously hurting from rampant copying, and have a banner year at the same time.
Atleast it is a good thing that companies are making good money in the process. Your privacy? That was lost long ago.
Oh, the irony.
They call themselves patriotic, and yet they're supplying the very means that are slowly turning the U.S. into a police state. Sorry, but I seriously doubt that this is what the U.S. founders had in mind, and it's certainly not the reason that U.S. war veterans both risked and sacrificed their lives. Patriots aren't sheep that blindly follow the government, they are the ones who fight to maintain the fundamental (constitutional) precepts upon which the United States were built.
I guess I wasn't clear on what I was trying to convey. I'm well aware of practically every product Apple has released since then- it's just that I no longer trip over myself scrambling to be one of the early adopters. Technology notwithstanding, Apple's modus operandi haven't changed all that much. Not only is there no reason to pay the premium that Apple thinks its products command, there's no reason to be any less objective when evaluating Apple products.
While it's true that Apple users will pay more for Apple products because they're generally of higher quality...than what? I have linux, doze, and Mac, and the only one that doesn't crash often in a blaze of glorified bit chaos is the linux box. I stopped falling for the "Apple is better" line a long time ago - I think the aura started fading the year Apple released the rather pricey 840AV in a whirlwind of marketing hype, that, for me, led to a rather disappointing experience. Since then, I've treated Apple as just another option, and often I consider it last because of this persistent attitude that it's better 'just because it's Apple'. Rest assured, this isn't the case.
Slashdot Mirror
Looks like a great release. I really like the philosophy difference between KDE and Gnome, because it's one way that the two can coexist peacefully, each catering to different kinds of users. It also lends real credence to the notion that competition is good - not just for its own sake, but because each option offers real value. Great work, people.
Let's just keep using the same anecdote over and over again to justify the existence of a surveillance state. From what I've read, video footage is far more useless than it is useful, and this just happens to be one of the few where it has (by pure happenstance, I'd argue) yielded something of value. In the mean time, all of this useless video footage has images of people who are being watched (increasinly by the government) without justification.
(Remember the ads about the so-called Microsoft converts?)
I'm a big coffee fan - I don't drink tons of it, and what I do drink is usually in the form of a single-shot latte. I don't consider myself a coffee expert, but I do know enough to believe that there's nothing that will parallel the experience of a successful shot of espresso mixed with just the right amount of milk, steamed to just the right temperature and froth. It's something that takes quite a bit of experience to perfect the technique- if these guys think they can replace all that with a chemical, I wish them luck. Maybe it will work for the Starbucks crowd, just like the RIAA works for the average music consumer, but as most of us know, that doesn't mean it's a good thing.
People in general seem to expect to be told everything they need to know, rather than going through any effort to figure it out for themselves.
Assuming someone isn't smoking, drinking, or filling their veins with any form of controlled substance. at what point would they determine that sitting in front of a computer for extended periods will produce blood clots? After they've keeled over from a stroke? People can't act on what they don't know.
I don't think being told is an issue so much as ignoring the information or failing to act on it once you're aware of it. This, I believe, is exactly what happened with McDonald's case. It's also what happens when you tell kids over and over, "don't smoke, it will kill you." Unfortunately, the consequences are so remotely far away, they ignore it until they wake up one day 40 years later with a multitude of smoking-related health issues. By then, of course, it's too late.
Apparently you've missed something. Do a search on Google for "theft of copyright".
When I copy a song, I am not depriving the person that I copied it from of their song. I am, however, depriving its author of payment.
That's exactly what I said.
This process comprises only half of what has been the definition of "theft" for thousands of years.
You're wrong, I'm sorry to say. Legal definitions change (they must) to facilitate changes in culture, technology, etc. The "let me have it all for free" crowd is notorious for applying this lame argument in an attempt to rationalize their behavior, making it seem less problematic than it actually is.
What's the difference between someone who writes and records a song, sells only five copies because 1000 people have illegally acquired it, and someone who makes 1,000 cookies, and has them stolen? Since the end result is nearly the same (you have something you shouldn't, and the owner doesn't have what they should), I'd say there's little, if any difference at at all.
Might I suggest that you spend some time learning about what 'theft' is. Where does this idea that it has to 'deprive' someone of something come from?
Theft deals with the unlawful acquisition of something of value. Whether or not someone is deprived of something physical is completely beside the point. The bottom line is that when you acquire a copyrighted work without paying for it, you are deriving benefit without compensation to its owner. This creates a one-sided transaction where the author is the one getting short end of the stick.
This is irrelevant. It's still theft.
To be fair, 'speeding' is also a matter of safety in many cases. A local state patrol officer stated on a television interview that given the choice of going the speed limit, or speeding in order to maintain the flow of traffic, speeding would be the better option. Copyright shares no such analogy.
On the other hand, I would argue that the copyright issue we currently face in the U.S. is very similar to the rediculous export restrictions that Congress tried to place on encryption software, except that now, the restrictions target imported material. In both cases, it is/was 'free' in one part of the world, but restricted from the others. It was absurd then, and I can't see any reason that it would be any different now.
If anyone truly wants the music industry to eat noise, then stop talking and start DOING. What I mean is STOP SUPPORTING THEM...just don't buy the music. We either stop supporting this greedy, monopolistic regime, or we continue to deal with the increasingly invasive and strong-armed tactics. There is no middle ground. This is one case where people can clearly NOT have their cake and eat it too.
There was a product out on the Mac waaaay back in the 128K/512K days that did the same thing. Since the screen was limited to a 9" viewing area, it made working with a page-sized document (in SuperPaint for example) very tedious. Unfortunately, I've forgotten its name.
That's about where we're at.
That's right, and it's also why this is such an incredibly stupid idea. The biggest reason it's so stupid is that it a) penalizes people that have nothing to do with piracy, and b) creates a revenue stream that is based on nothing but speculation- it completely distorts important issues like market demand. If this is going to be the new game in town, then why don't banks ask for an special tax on cars, since they're often used as a means to escape after a robbery. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Not, I think, what Congress had in mind when enacting the DMCA.
The term in mind and Congress are used in the same sentence. It implies the presence of thought, which in turn, is required to ascertain the consequences of a law like the DMCA. As we can see, this clearly did not happen.
Having a jamming device like this is going to advertise "I have something to hide" to anybody who looks at the logs.
No, what it's advertising is this: "What I'm hiding is something that's none of your damn business, and that's precisely why it's hidden."
Let them lobby, let the mindless congressional puppets pass any legislation they want. In response, I would love to see consumers chew up the RIAA/MPAA and spit them out like a piece of five-day-old gum. Then no law in the world will do them any good as they try to stave off bankruptcy.
The really stupid thing about this mess is that state governments, rather than being cautious, saw this as an opportunity to implement all kinds of new spending liabilities. Should we even be surprised that they're all sitting around scratching their heads trying to figure out why they can't pay the bills? Did they really think that this massive increase in tax revenue would continue? Come on.....
In other news, my grand mother talked on the phone today... another great win for the inventors and suporters of the telephone
If it was an IP Phone, it's another great win indeed.
Let's remember that this is the same company that misrepresented itself during the DoJ trial, that is known to engage in blatent FUD, absolutely dishonest marketing tactics, requiring users to 'register' their OSs with it in order to activate their license, etc., etc... Now, would I want anything on any of my linux boxen from a company like this? I'll give you a hint: the answer has only two letters.
AOL is undoubtedly a large company, but one of the more salient criterions used to assess the health and the future prospects of a company is its ability to grow. Last I read, AOL is faltering a bit in this area.
Despite the recession, Hollywood's revenue has increased very substantially over the past year. If copyright infringement is hurting Hollywood in a way that makes DRM necessary, let the MPAA execs explain just how it is that they can both be simultaneously hurting from rampant copying, and have a banner year at the same time.
Atleast it is a good thing that companies are making good money in the process. Your privacy? That was lost long ago.
Oh, the irony.
They call themselves patriotic, and yet they're supplying the very means that are slowly turning the U.S. into a police state. Sorry, but I seriously doubt that this is what the U.S. founders had in mind, and it's certainly not the reason that U.S. war veterans both risked and sacrificed their lives. Patriots aren't sheep that blindly follow the government, they are the ones who fight to maintain the fundamental (constitutional) precepts upon which the United States were built.
Yes, I'm talking about the Quadra 840AV.
I guess I wasn't clear on what I was trying to convey. I'm well aware of practically every product Apple has released since then- it's just that I no longer trip over myself scrambling to be one of the early adopters. Technology notwithstanding, Apple's modus operandi haven't changed all that much. Not only is there no reason to pay the premium that Apple thinks its products command, there's no reason to be any less objective when evaluating Apple products.
While it's true that Apple users will pay more for Apple products because they're generally of higher quality ...than what? I have linux, doze, and Mac, and the only one that doesn't crash often in a blaze of glorified bit chaos is the linux box. I stopped falling for the "Apple is better" line a long time ago - I think the aura started fading the year Apple released the rather pricey 840AV in a whirlwind of marketing hype, that, for me, led to a rather disappointing experience. Since then, I've treated Apple as just another option, and often I consider it last because of this persistent attitude that it's better 'just because it's Apple'. Rest assured, this isn't the case.
Without a doubt.