"Whether a site does this on purpose or by accident, it's bad design/sloppy coding."
And it means I can't use my mouse's back button. Yeah, it's a Microsoft product. But it's also the best god damned mouse on the market.. An ergonomic design with addictive back/forward buttons and scroll wheel. Drooool.
As a side note, Microsoft's website did in fact trap me with this tactic; I went to microsoft.com/hardware with Opera and it wanted to shunt me off to a Netscape-compatible page, which linked to pages that didn't like me and sent me back to the Netscape-compatible page. Sigh, at least the mouse is cool.
The division isn't between intelligent children or somesuch, it's between the rich and the poor. You've got the dumb rich kids with an excellent education and the genius poor kids with poor education. Not all the poor kids are geniuses, mind you, not many of them, perhaps, but to deny all of them the possibility without a second thought is unacceptable.
It is an unnatural division and to perpetuate it is selfish, elitest, immoral and boarding on just plain evil.
"I imagine that Bruce is correct: this was likely unintentional. I also imagine that there may be more instances of this withing Be's libs. I mean, iut is a versatile, Posix compliant OS, so there could be a number of other apps being used in the same way."
The funny part is that there are many, many, GPL'd apps included with BeOS. The even funnier part is that most of them come with Be-modified source. I hesitate to say "all of them" simply because I'm not omniscient and maybe there isn't source for one or two somewhere, but it surely isn't intentional. Be has one of the most open software policies known to man, compared to other commercial products of its size. Hell, there's an entire book dedicated to the technical details of the file system.
I don't know how to respond to all of this. I've written three drafts, and I've decided none of them conveyed the ideas that I wished them to.
The driving point behind all of my previous drafts was that private schooling segregates (racial subtext intended) the rich and informed from the poor and uninformed, and perpetuates that division. You can't have equal education under such a system. It's not about self-determination, it's not about capitalism, it's about doing what's right for the people who don't know what's right themselves.
Beyond the morality of it all there is the legality: the Supreme Court's integration decision applies very closely here, all it takes is someone to challenge it and an inventive lawyer to defend it.
"If you want UDI, you're free to write it yourself and maintain your own tree."
That's the whole problem as I see it; the "Linux Community" won't let you write it yourself, not without forking the Linux source and doubling the effort to develop the same OS. They berate the one company actively developing UDI for Linux and openly refuse (before UDI for Linux is even complete) to allow anything resembling UDI to be incorporated into Linux.
The lack of responsibility to users is just plain arrogant, elitest, and mean. Aren't Linux users the ones who target Microsoft for its abuse of users? The message is clear: there's no room in Linux for anyone but those who tow the party line.
"Napster is intrinsically designed to promote priacy. This is a plain and simple fact."
Maybe if you consider the words "fact," "simple" and "plain" to mean something totally different than a "plain and simple fact." The very idea that Napster is so openly debated by honest and intelligent people makes it impossible to say with some degree of integrity what someone else designed Napster for.
It is a fact that Napster is used extensively as a medium of piracy. It is not a fact that piracy is its sole and explicit purpose.
"There are far better methods for artists to distribute their music than napster, including a billion websites."
I've yet to see any website offer a system that allows you to download legal mp3s with the ease that Napster (and similar services) allows.
"So napster's legal uses are already met by a wide variety of other services and its main use is as a tool of priacy. Thus, it should be banned."
Your insane conclusions notwithstanding, the ratio of legal to illegal is central to our society and our morals. This is what creates such controversy in copyright issues: should the tool be banned because people use it illegally? if so, where do we draw the line? The answer, unfortunately for us, is that it can't be drawn, at least not with any accuracy. Someone will always draw it closer than you want, and someone else will always draw it farther than you want.
Please, don't ever say again so calmly that "thus, it should be banned." Nothing is as black and white as it seems.
DISCLAIMER: I don't use Linux to the extent that many of you do, and I don't claim to be an authority of any sort on the matter. I'm usually a BeOS user, which is usually referred to as the not-free-as-in-speech alternative OS. I suppose this issue hits closer to home with me, as driver support for BeOS is worse than for Linux.
And if that change happens to annoy Big Proprietary Hardware Vendor Inc., tough shit.
And if that change happens to annoy Inexperienced End User Who Wants To Give You Market Share But Can't Because Of A Philosophy Decision, is it tough shit too? More users result in more developers. More developers result in more support. More support results in more things that you want for your OS. Are you willing to sacrifice the opportunity of UDI just because it doesn't jive with your notion of how Linux should be? (Note: that's a rhetorical question there buddy. If you're itching to hit the reply button, quote that question, and say "yes," then you've missed my point.)
If hardware manufacturers want to be assholes, release a UDI driver and claim support then let them. They're assholes; it's their fault. If I want to use the driver, I'll knowingly be sacrificing performance in exchange for operability.
You can boycott the hardware that doesn't have a native driver, hack the driver all over again from scratch, and sign mass petitions to get a native driver. In other words, you can continue to do what you already do.
However, the Linux community has come to the conclusion that this would make manufacturers less willing to write drivers, and hedge the bet that Linux users will be satisfied with UDI drivers. To be more precise, the Linux purists are afraid that Linux users will be satisfied with the UDI drivers and won't be as eager to join mass driver movements.
Linux wants to consolidate its power and levy its mass of users by refusing to compromise, by refusing to give its mass of users what they can use right now.
The want of native drivers is understood and respectable. To deny users a choice just because it makes your job harder isn't. If you don't want users to be complacent with UDI drivers, then tell them so. Expose the bugs, the speed, the philosophical impropriety, and whatever else you think will convince them to be pissed about not having a native driver. But don't take away the choice just because you're too lazy to do it. That's insane and just plain mean.
... your site has to be under the "laws of any jurisdiction where the domain name is accessible."...
Hmm, sounds like www.tv violates US trademark law with their crazy pricing schemes for popular (and corporate) domains. Maybe dotTV can't even have their own.tv domain?
Maybe we can pay Togo (or some other small nation that'll bend over backwards for money) to outlaw sites that have a tv extention. That way, under dotTV's policies, every single.tv domain would have to be pulled.;)
Oh yeah, they apparently found out about the pricing.gif (thanks to/. moderators, the above comment is easy to find), and it's gone 404. Can anyone describe what it was?
It's greed that is proliferated by manipulated stupidity. This is the same sort of thing that caused the formation of unions, though perhaps not as severe; workers were happy enough to get a job and didn't bother to think about how little they were really being paid, the lack of benefits, and other things. MTV'ers are happy enough to get the music and don't bother to think about the accumulated greed that drives them.
It is my belief that their compensation is not "proper." They do not agree with me and that's where morality comes in. Your definition of proper is something central to yourself, and I try to convince others to chance their concept of proper to combat the abuse inherent in the system. It is my personal sense of morality that drives my belief that they are unjustified in their application of copyright law. Certain other anti-competitive practices are also counter to my sense of morality.
I think it's obvious by now that you don't agree with my concept of morality. My philosophy in this matter is simple: greed is not ok. Neither is the abuse of misinterpreted laws or the exploitation of ignorance. By patronizing the competitors and supporting them any way I can (indeed, sometimes illegally and perhaps immorally), I am doing what I can to insure that this sort of abuse does not continue.
And in the same way, the market seems to agree that the music industry is not overcharging for their products -- whatever you or I may think.
That's what I hope will change in the not so distant future.
Then I honestly don't think you can call yourself a capitalist at all. This is fundamental to capitalism: the right to private property. If you dispute the legitimacy of copyright, you implicitly dispute the legitimacy of private property.
You are incredibly overstating my position. Perhaps this is because I have not done by best to clarify, so, let's try to correct that: I do not believe that the idea of copyright or intellectual property is immoral, abusive, or whatever else I said. I believe that the recording industry's interpretation and use of it is. I agree that one has the right to have, own, and sell property. However, whenever you interact with people, you have an obligation (perhaps not legally, but morally) to represent yourself in an honorable and respectable fashion if you expect to continue that interaction.
Value (economically speaking) is subjective: the value of a thing is what *I* am willing to give up in order to obtain it. On the other hand, for you the value of that thing is what YOU are willing to give up for it.
That value is artificially inflated for no other purpose than to make money, and is proliferated by the ignorance of the people. I believe this is morally wrong and I do my best to avoid it whenever possible. People who try to expose that ignorance or provide an alternative are shut down and threatened with legal action. That's wrong and I refuse to support it or defend it, despite the legal issues behind it.
Are you making a special case for hatred of music companies? That's rather arbitrary.
Absolutely not. I have a similar disdain for computer retail outlets like Best Buy or CompUSA (and especially Circuit City, but that's another endless debate). It's not particularly arbitrary either; I encounter these things quite frequently and I am exposed to endless examples of corporate abuse in this sector. Yeah, maybe some multinational mop conglomerate is selling mops at a 200% mark-up, but I don't buy many mops.
Furthermore, how is it that you think that you have a right to dictate to anyone the terms under which they will sell what they own? After all, this is the force of what you are saying here when you say you think they ought to have their ownership rights restricted.
I am expressing my opinion, in the hope that some will see it, understand it, and agree with it. Yes, I believe that their ownership rights should be restricted. I hope others agree with me and would change their buying practices to reflect their beliefs. Before you go and jump on that last sentence, I am not advocating that anyone should violate the law, merely that they express their beliefs in the manner which they sit fit, according to their moral values.
They have no power whatsoever to control the distribution of music for which they do not own the distribution rights.
Tell that to their lawyers. If they believe you, I'll be surprised and overjoyed. They are doing their best to prevent the perceived misuse of their copyright by suing the most visible of the competitors, in the hope that these competitors don't become too visible, and, god forbid, begin competing at a fair level.
So your alleged concerns about having "legal access" to MP3.com seem rather empty.
Once again, I am at fault for not clearly identifying my positions. Whether or not someone does access MP3.com for legal purposes, he is given the right to choose whether or not to do so. This is why guns, knives, and other lethal weapons aren't banned; if there is a legal use, there is a reason to protect our right to use them. To remove MP3.com or Napster would mean someone, somewhere, is denied the legal use of their legal services.
The purpose of our government is not to restrict what we might do, but what we will do. If you cannot prove to me within reason that that gun will be used to kill, you have no right to deny it to me. That "within reason" part is where the lawyers come in. And by manipulating the public ignorance, they convince the media and the public that their fair competitors are nothing but criminals because someone, somewhere, might be abusing the service for illegal purposes. By logging on to Napster and by using MP3's software, you are assuming the risk and the obligation to use it legally. It is not MP3.com's fault that some users aren't following directions.
Setting that aside, however, I honestly don't see how you can possibly demonstrate that MP3.com can protect copyright, short of requiring its users to actually send in their own CDs. As it stands, a user can simply claim to own a disc, but there is no way to verify that.
They can and do verify that you have the CD. If you have the CD you can rip the songs without ever using MP3.com's software (can't MP3.com change their name? typing it out is getting on my nerves;) ), yet McCartney's label isn't suing any ripper programs. Instead, they attack the most visible and the most threatening source in order to protect their source of revenue.
Are you a programmer? Tell me, do you apply these same "scruples" (ahem) to your code?
I have released nothing worthy of being used, much less pirated.:) It is my belief that I should be properly compensated for the work I do.
X*(time spent)/(consumers) where X is the [debatable] ratio of money to time. Where I disagree with the recording industry is this rate, which I believe to be immorally inflated.
McCartney or any other owner of copyrighted music is absolutely and completely within his rights to seek to protect what is lawfully his.
Legally, this makes sense. This makes a lot of legal sense. I understand what you mean. But I happen to disagree with it, and I happen to disagree with the laws that protect it. I don't believe that these money grubbing record labels should have the right to add a surcharge on ignorance. I don't believe they should be allowed to deny the rights of others to provide an alternative to their collective monopoly.
If you ignore copyright -- if you make or own pirate copies of copyrighted music -- you are implicitly denying that a private property owner has the right to do what he wishes with what he owns within the bounds of the law.
Yes, yes I am. You have the right to do whatever you wish, as long as what you do does not infringe on others' right to do the same. By shutting down MP3.com, napster, and other such legally-iffy institutions, these people are denying my rights to use them, if in the off chance I wish to use them legally. They don't want to protect their artists from losing money, they want to protect the economic strangehold they have on music and music distrobution.
You are thereby undermining your claim to be a capitalist, and you are similarly undermining your right to be outraged when someone steals something out of your house.
Ok, so I'm not a "pure" capitalist; I don't believe anyone should be able to do whatever they want just because it makes them money. I believe that the people responsible for the production and distrobution should be fairly compensated. I believe that these people are taking advantage of the ignorance of their consumers in order to fill their pockets, and I refuse to willingly support that. In fact, I choose to willfully do my best to fight that. Yes, that includes breaking copyright law.
It's an abusive and immoral institution protected under the law that I am peaceably and nonviolently protesting. Call that illegal, but I call it a moral objection.
Yeah, I want free music. I'll admit it; I'm a capitialist, something for nothing or less is always better. But what I want even more than that is music that isn't insanely overpriced in order to put cash in the pockets of all the wrong people. Here's a hint: they're not the starving artists. Keep your ten track waste of a CD and let me buy track by track with the proceeds going to the people who deserve them.
If and when the recording companies feel the hurt of the "MP3 Revolution" in the pocket, we will see change. As it is now, consumers are largely uninformed about the issues behind that 15 dollar CD and open their wallets without considering. So, the recording companies target the small fries, keep it out of the limelight and isolate their opponents as thieves and criminals. This is not right, this does not protect the rights of anyone, and above all, this should not be allowed to continue.
"In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots."
Translation: in any group where there are enough idiots for me to consider it a group, there are a lot of idiots.
I understand and agree with the quote, but "sufficiently large" opens a real big hole. What? Mensa's member list doesn't have enough idiots? Well then, it must not be sufficiently large enough!;)
Though the review mentioned Barq's root beer, I didn't see it anywhere.. On the other hand, I counted 10 products that were used at least once:
1) Isuzu (concept car in the beginning) 2) Dr. Pepper (kid's play-house, saved the mission) 3) Sunkist (right next to the Dr. Pepper in the kid's play-house, logo partially obscured) 4) Budweiser (at the party) 5) Iomega Clik! disks (in the background of many scenes on the WSS and Mars 2) 6) M&M's (twice as DNA models) 7) SGI (flat panel displays on the WSS and Mars 2) 8) Sony Walkman Earphones (behind Gary Senise during the "this is your life" video) 9) Kawasaki (on the Mars Rover) 10) Pennzoil (on the Mars Rover)
8 is a bit of a stretch as they weren't clearly identified as Sony Walkman Earphones (tm), but if you looked closely they were. I was dragged along a second time this afternoon so I had nothing better to do than spot the product placement.
Did anyone else think that they replaced the actress who played Terri (the wife of the husband and wife team) in the beginning? On earth she had blond/brown hair, but in space all of the sudden she had black hair and seemed younger to me. Maybe they just changed her hair for some weird reason.
"I'm actualy proud to live in Kansas, but we have NOT banned evolution, the state legislature just said that the teachers should chouse if any theory is worth teaching, Creation or Evolution."
This is a common misconception held by too many people on both sides of the so-called "issue."
The simple fact is that the beliefs of the Bible and the theory of evolution are not mutually exclusive.
The true purpose of the Bible is not to serve as a historical document or as a textbook; it exists as a moral and ethical guide, which was meant to be interpreted and discussed. The "Basic" in Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth is important; we have a free will and the intelligence to use it for a reason. If you are to accept the Creationist doctrine word for word as described in the Bible, you are missing the great message of the creation of man. We are from God, we are God's servants, and we are thinking beings with a concious will of our own.
Your interpretation of the Bible and its story of creation are up to you, but it is very, very, important that you do interpret it, and you interpret it for yourself.
A note: even though my pseudo-review may seem negative, I genuinely enjoyed the movie and I think it's interesting and important to see.
Just came back from it about 3 hours ago. I found it to be exceptionally short and anticlimatic. I also saw a Discovery channel show about the production of the movie, and I was surprised to learn the extent NASA's influence. The movie excapes pesky concepts like "physics" and "reality."
I was going to describe in depth the flaws in the movie's logic in referring to human (and Martian) DNA, as long as several errors relating to the physics in question. Realizing it was quite boring and I couldn't fit all the errors, I ditched it. Simply put, the movie creates a tremendous over-simplification of DNA and the human genome, and generally ignores the laws of high school physics. The thing they did the best was to copy 2001: A Space Oddessy and include rotating circular space stations to reduce cheesy zero-g filming. Dizzing camera movement, done by someone obviously vying for a photography nod, sort of kills that though.
One high point: Story Musgrave (a real astronaut) was in the film for a few minutes, albeit without lines. A couple low points: product placement is all over this movie. An Isuzu concept car sits on the screen for the first ten minutes of the film. Some Dr. Pepper saves the space shuttle. M&M's are used twice as to create (over-simplified) DNA models. An SGI display screen is used to relay video transmissions from earth to the space shuttle. Kawasaki and Pennzoil cover the Mars Rover as if it was featured on Nascar.
"Given Apple's emphasis on ergonomics, color and ease of use, which concretize the abstract results of years of experimentation and testing, it seems likely that design patents will play an expanding role in the protection of their designs."
Have you seen those iMac mice? Apple seems to think that innovation means forgoing that fan-dangled second button and ergonomics for an unusable mouse. Apple wrote the book on ergonomics and software design, and now they seem to be ignoring their own advice (see: Aqua). Yeah. My computer really DOES need a handle!
Aside from the trolls, I can tell you that the CD is plain black with the words "TurboLinux" on the front. Not much to write home about, and it doesn't make a very good coaster.
I just recently bought a SMC 10bT ISA NIC. It was NE2000 compatible so it was detected and installed by Windows right off the bat. A non-plug and play motherboard might not like it too much, but if Windows can see it, it can install the card by itself, sans driver disks.
I'm taking a great liking to it. Although I don't really need TurboLinux, it's a nice thing to have. What got me was the included CAT5 cable, something I haven't found included with most of the cheaper cards. With NE2000, you get a tenth of the performance at a cheap price that'll work almost universally--it's a great deal in my mind. For now, I'm recommending the SMC cards to anyone who can get them, even without the driver disks.
Slaves: basic human rights violation CD's: you don't want to pay a corporation who has every right to charge what they see fit.</i>
What are you talking about? Slaves aren't human, so no one's rights are violated! Even those the most opposed to slavery didn't really think of blacks as humans, which isn't all that surprising given the lack of education and the squalor most slaves were forced to lived in. The tone of the abolitionist movement was more like the ASPCA then any human rights movement I've ever heard of.
The relationship has little to do with the actual corruption involved. You've got a corrupt establishment protected under the law and an illegal, but (in your eyes) morally justified method of fighting it. Sure, slavery is a lot worse than being profit-hungry, but a slave cost a lot more than a CD does now.
Would you help free a slave? It would be very much a theft. The slave owner paid for the slave, expected work from the slave, and is now denied the money he invested. To free a slave would be most definately a theft, but it could be morally justified by most people today.
Slashdot Mirror
"Whether a site does this on purpose or by accident, it's bad design/sloppy coding."
And it means I can't use my mouse's back button. Yeah, it's a Microsoft product. But it's also the best god damned mouse on the market.. An ergonomic design with addictive back/forward buttons and scroll wheel. Drooool.
As a side note, Microsoft's website did in fact trap me with this tactic; I went to microsoft.com/hardware with Opera and it wanted to shunt me off to a Netscape-compatible page, which linked to pages that didn't like me and sent me back to the Netscape-compatible page. Sigh, at least the mouse is cool.
The division isn't between intelligent children or somesuch, it's between the rich and the poor. You've got the dumb rich kids with an excellent education and the genius poor kids with poor education. Not all the poor kids are geniuses, mind you, not many of them, perhaps, but to deny all of them the possibility without a second thought is unacceptable.
It is an unnatural division and to perpetuate it is selfish, elitest, immoral and boarding on just plain evil.
"I imagine that Bruce is correct: this was likely unintentional. I also imagine that there may be more instances of this withing Be's libs. I mean, iut is a versatile, Posix compliant OS, so there could be a number of other apps being used in the same way."
The funny part is that there are many, many, GPL'd apps included with BeOS. The even funnier part is that most of them come with Be-modified source. I hesitate to say "all of them" simply because I'm not omniscient and maybe there isn't source for one or two somewhere, but it surely isn't intentional. Be has one of the most open software policies known to man, compared to other commercial products of its size. Hell, there's an entire book dedicated to the technical details of the file system.
"The driving point behind all of my previous drafts was that private schooling..."
By private schooling, I am referring to the abolition of public schools or the subsidization of private schools.
I don't know how to respond to all of this. I've written three drafts, and I've decided none of them conveyed the ideas that I wished them to.
The driving point behind all of my previous drafts was that private schooling segregates (racial subtext intended) the rich and informed from the poor and uninformed, and perpetuates that division. You can't have equal education under such a system. It's not about self-determination, it's not about capitalism, it's about doing what's right for the people who don't know what's right themselves.
Beyond the morality of it all there is the legality: the Supreme Court's integration decision applies very closely here, all it takes is someone to challenge it and an inventive lawyer to defend it.
"If you want UDI, you're free to write it yourself and maintain your own tree."
That's the whole problem as I see it; the "Linux Community" won't let you write it yourself, not without forking the Linux source and doubling the effort to develop the same OS. They berate the one company actively developing UDI for Linux and openly refuse (before UDI for Linux is even complete) to allow anything resembling UDI to be incorporated into Linux.
The lack of responsibility to users is just plain arrogant, elitest, and mean. Aren't Linux users the ones who target Microsoft for its abuse of users? The message is clear: there's no room in Linux for anyone but those who tow the party line.
"Napster is intrinsically designed to promote priacy. This is a plain and simple fact."
Maybe if you consider the words "fact," "simple" and "plain" to mean something totally different than a "plain and simple fact." The very idea that Napster is so openly debated by honest and intelligent people makes it impossible to say with some degree of integrity what someone else designed Napster for.
It is a fact that Napster is used extensively as a medium of piracy. It is not a fact that piracy is its sole and explicit purpose.
"There are far better methods for artists to distribute their music than napster, including a billion websites."
I've yet to see any website offer a system that allows you to download legal mp3s with the ease that Napster (and similar services) allows.
"So napster's legal uses are already met by a wide variety of other services and its main use is as a tool of priacy. Thus, it should be banned."
Your insane conclusions notwithstanding, the ratio of legal to illegal is central to our society and our morals. This is what creates such controversy in copyright issues: should the tool be banned because people use it illegally? if so, where do we draw the line? The answer, unfortunately for us, is that it can't be drawn, at least not with any accuracy. Someone will always draw it closer than you want, and someone else will always draw it farther than you want.
Please, don't ever say again so calmly that "thus, it should be banned." Nothing is as black and white as it seems.
Moderation Totals:Flamebait=2, Insightful=11, Interesting=2, Overrated=2, Total=17. (when I saw it)
Heh, you don't think that counts as "through the roof?" Not to mention the hilarious (Score:5, Flamebait) score.
Although I'm intrested who gave up four of their moderator points to put it beyond a +9.
DISCLAIMER: I don't use Linux to the extent that many of you do, and I don't claim to be an authority of any sort on the matter. I'm usually a BeOS user, which is usually referred to as the not-free-as-in-speech alternative OS. I suppose this issue hits closer to home with me, as driver support for BeOS is worse than for Linux.
And if that change happens to annoy Big Proprietary Hardware Vendor Inc., tough shit.
And if that change happens to annoy Inexperienced End User Who Wants To Give You Market Share But Can't Because Of A Philosophy Decision, is it tough shit too? More users result in more developers. More developers result in more support. More support results in more things that you want for your OS. Are you willing to sacrifice the opportunity of UDI just because it doesn't jive with your notion of how Linux should be? (Note: that's a rhetorical question there buddy. If you're itching to hit the reply button, quote that question, and say "yes," then you've missed my point.)
If hardware manufacturers want to be assholes, release a UDI driver and claim support then let them. They're assholes; it's their fault. If I want to use the driver, I'll knowingly be sacrificing performance in exchange for operability.
You can boycott the hardware that doesn't have a native driver, hack the driver all over again from scratch, and sign mass petitions to get a native driver. In other words, you can continue to do what you already do.
However, the Linux community has come to the conclusion that this would make manufacturers less willing to write drivers, and hedge the bet that Linux users will be satisfied with UDI drivers. To be more precise, the Linux purists are afraid that Linux users will be satisfied with the UDI drivers and won't be as eager to join mass driver movements.
Linux wants to consolidate its power and levy its mass of users by refusing to compromise, by refusing to give its mass of users what they can use right now.
The want of native drivers is understood and respectable. To deny users a choice just because it makes your job harder isn't. If you don't want users to be complacent with UDI drivers, then tell them so. Expose the bugs, the speed, the philosophical impropriety, and whatever else you think will convince them to be pissed about not having a native driver. But don't take away the choice just because you're too lazy to do it. That's insane and just plain mean.
... your site has to be under the "laws of any jurisdiction where the domain name is accessible." ...
.tv domain?
.tv domain would have to be pulled. ;)
/. moderators, the above comment is easy to find), and it's gone 404. Can anyone describe what it was?
Hmm, sounds like www.tv violates US trademark law with their crazy pricing schemes for popular (and corporate) domains. Maybe dotTV can't even have their own
Maybe we can pay Togo (or some other small nation that'll bend over backwards for money) to outlaw sites that have a tv extention. That way, under dotTV's policies, every single
Oh yeah, they apparently found out about the pricing.gif (thanks to
It's greed that is proliferated by manipulated stupidity. This is the same sort of thing that caused the formation of unions, though perhaps not as severe; workers were happy enough to get a job and didn't bother to think about how little they were really being paid, the lack of benefits, and other things. MTV'ers are happy enough to get the music and don't bother to think about the accumulated greed that drives them.
It is my belief that their compensation is not "proper." They do not agree with me and that's where morality comes in. Your definition of proper is something central to yourself, and I try to convince others to chance their concept of proper to combat the abuse inherent in the system. It is my personal sense of morality that drives my belief that they are unjustified in their application of copyright law. Certain other anti-competitive practices are also counter to my sense of morality.
I think it's obvious by now that you don't agree with my concept of morality. My philosophy in this matter is simple: greed is not ok. Neither is the abuse of misinterpreted laws or the exploitation of ignorance. By patronizing the competitors and supporting them any way I can (indeed, sometimes illegally and perhaps immorally), I am doing what I can to insure that this sort of abuse does not continue.
And in the same way, the market seems to agree that the music industry is not overcharging for their products -- whatever you or I may think.
That's what I hope will change in the not so distant future.
Then I honestly don't think you can call yourself a capitalist at all. This is fundamental to capitalism: the right to private property. If you dispute the legitimacy of copyright, you implicitly dispute the legitimacy of private property.
;) ), yet McCartney's label isn't suing any ripper programs. Instead, they attack the most visible and the most threatening source in order to protect their source of revenue.
:)
You are incredibly overstating my position. Perhaps this is because I have not done by best to clarify, so, let's try to correct that: I do not believe that the idea of copyright or intellectual property is immoral, abusive, or whatever else I said. I believe that the recording industry's interpretation and use of it is. I agree that one has the right to have, own, and sell property. However, whenever you interact with people, you have an obligation (perhaps not legally, but morally) to represent yourself in an honorable and respectable fashion if you expect to continue that interaction.
Value (economically speaking) is subjective: the value of a thing is what *I* am willing to give up in order to obtain it. On the other hand, for you the value of that thing is what YOU are willing to give up for it.
That value is artificially inflated for no other purpose than to make money, and is proliferated by the ignorance of the people. I believe this is morally wrong and I do my best to avoid it whenever possible. People who try to expose that ignorance or provide an alternative are shut down and threatened with legal action. That's wrong and I refuse to support it or defend it, despite the legal issues behind it.
Are you making a special case for hatred of music companies? That's rather arbitrary.
Absolutely not. I have a similar disdain for computer retail outlets like Best Buy or CompUSA (and especially Circuit City, but that's another endless debate). It's not particularly arbitrary either; I encounter these things quite frequently and I am exposed to endless examples of corporate abuse in this sector. Yeah, maybe some multinational mop conglomerate is selling mops at a 200% mark-up, but I don't buy many mops.
Furthermore, how is it that you think that you have a right to dictate to anyone the terms under which they will sell what they own? After all, this is the force of what you are saying here when you say you think they ought to have their ownership rights restricted.
I am expressing my opinion, in the hope that some will see it, understand it, and agree with it. Yes, I believe that their ownership rights should be restricted. I hope others agree with me and would change their buying practices to reflect their beliefs. Before you go and jump on that last sentence, I am not advocating that anyone should violate the law, merely that they express their beliefs in the manner which they sit fit, according to their moral values.
They have no power whatsoever to control the distribution of music for which they do not own the distribution rights.
Tell that to their lawyers. If they believe you, I'll be surprised and overjoyed. They are doing their best to prevent the perceived misuse of their copyright by suing the most visible of the competitors, in the hope that these competitors don't become too visible, and, god forbid, begin competing at a fair level.
So your alleged concerns about having "legal access" to MP3.com seem rather empty.
Once again, I am at fault for not clearly identifying my positions. Whether or not someone does access MP3.com for legal purposes, he is given the right to choose whether or not to do so. This is why guns, knives, and other lethal weapons aren't banned; if there is a legal use, there is a reason to protect our right to use them. To remove MP3.com or Napster would mean someone, somewhere, is denied the legal use of their legal services.
The purpose of our government is not to restrict what we might do, but what we will do. If you cannot prove to me within reason that that gun will be used to kill, you have no right to deny it to me. That "within reason" part is where the lawyers come in. And by manipulating the public ignorance, they convince the media and the public that their fair competitors are nothing but criminals because someone, somewhere, might be abusing the service for illegal purposes. By logging on to Napster and by using MP3's software, you are assuming the risk and the obligation to use it legally. It is not MP3.com's fault that some users aren't following directions.
Setting that aside, however, I honestly don't see how you can possibly demonstrate that MP3.com can protect copyright, short of requiring its users to actually send in their own CDs. As it stands, a user can simply claim to own a disc, but there is no way to verify that.
They can and do verify that you have the CD. If you have the CD you can rip the songs without ever using MP3.com's software (can't MP3.com change their name? typing it out is getting on my nerves
Are you a programmer? Tell me, do you apply these same "scruples" (ahem) to your code?
I have released nothing worthy of being used, much less pirated.
It is my belief that I should be properly compensated for the work I do.
X*(time spent)/(consumers)
where X is the [debatable] ratio of money to time.
Where I disagree with the recording industry is this rate, which I believe to be immorally inflated.
McCartney or any other owner of copyrighted music is absolutely and completely within his rights to seek to protect what is lawfully his.
Legally, this makes sense. This makes a lot of legal sense. I understand what you mean. But I happen to disagree with it, and I happen to disagree with the laws that protect it. I don't believe that these money grubbing record labels should have the right to add a surcharge on ignorance. I don't believe they should be allowed to deny the rights of others to provide an alternative to their collective monopoly.
If you ignore copyright -- if you make or own pirate copies of copyrighted music -- you are implicitly denying that a private property owner has the right to do what he wishes with what he owns within the bounds of the law.
Yes, yes I am. You have the right to do whatever you wish, as long as what you do does not infringe on others' right to do the same. By shutting down MP3.com, napster, and other such legally-iffy institutions, these people are denying my rights to use them, if in the off chance I wish to use them legally. They don't want to protect their artists from losing money, they want to protect the economic strangehold they have on music and music distrobution.
You are thereby undermining your claim to be a capitalist, and you are similarly undermining your right to be outraged when someone steals something out of your house.
Ok, so I'm not a "pure" capitalist; I don't believe anyone should be able to do whatever they want just because it makes them money. I believe that the people responsible for the production and distrobution should be fairly compensated. I believe that these people are taking advantage of the ignorance of their consumers in order to fill their pockets, and I refuse to willingly support that. In fact, I choose to willfully do my best to fight that. Yes, that includes breaking copyright law.
It's an abusive and immoral institution protected under the law that I am peaceably and nonviolently protesting. Call that illegal, but I call it a moral objection.
Yeah, I want free music. I'll admit it; I'm a capitialist, something for nothing or less is always better. But what I want even more than that is music that isn't insanely overpriced in order to put cash in the pockets of all the wrong people. Here's a hint: they're not the starving artists. Keep your ten track waste of a CD and let me buy track by track with the proceeds going to the people who deserve them.
If and when the recording companies feel the hurt of the "MP3 Revolution" in the pocket, we will see change. As it is now, consumers are largely uninformed about the issues behind that 15 dollar CD and open their wallets without considering. So, the recording companies target the small fries, keep it out of the limelight and isolate their opponents as thieves and criminals. This is not right, this does not protect the rights of anyone, and above all, this should not be allowed to continue.
"A company wich owns te rigts to much of is music is doing someting to MP3.com"
Even your correction included the so-called 'Devil's Letter.' Of course, we all know that the Devil's Letter is in fact the letter 'E.'
"In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots."
;)
Translation: in any group where there are enough idiots for me to consider it a group, there are a lot of idiots.
I understand and agree with the quote, but "sufficiently large" opens a real big hole. What? Mensa's member list doesn't have enough idiots? Well then, it must not be sufficiently large enough!
Though the review mentioned Barq's root beer, I didn't see it anywhere.. On the other hand, I counted 10 products that were used at least once:
1) Isuzu (concept car in the beginning)
2) Dr. Pepper (kid's play-house, saved the mission)
3) Sunkist (right next to the Dr. Pepper in the kid's play-house, logo partially obscured)
4) Budweiser (at the party)
5) Iomega Clik! disks (in the background of many scenes on the WSS and Mars 2)
6) M&M's (twice as DNA models)
7) SGI (flat panel displays on the WSS and Mars 2)
8) Sony Walkman Earphones (behind Gary Senise during the "this is your life" video)
9) Kawasaki (on the Mars Rover)
10) Pennzoil (on the Mars Rover)
8 is a bit of a stretch as they weren't clearly identified as Sony Walkman Earphones (tm), but if you looked closely they were. I was dragged along a second time this afternoon so I had nothing better to do than spot the product placement.
Did anyone else think that they replaced the actress who played Terri (the wife of the husband and wife team) in the beginning? On earth she had blond/brown hair, but in space all of the sudden she had black hair and seemed younger to me. Maybe they just changed her hair for some weird reason.
"I'm actualy proud to live in Kansas, but we have NOT banned evolution, the state legislature just said that the teachers should chouse if any theory is worth teaching, Creation or Evolution."
This is a common misconception held by too many people on both sides of the so-called "issue."
The simple fact is that the beliefs of the Bible and the theory of evolution are not mutually exclusive.
The true purpose of the Bible is not to serve as a historical document or as a textbook; it exists as a moral and ethical guide, which was meant to be interpreted and discussed. The "Basic" in Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth is important; we have a free will and the intelligence to use it for a reason. If you are to accept the Creationist doctrine word for word as described in the Bible, you are missing the great message of the creation of man. We are from God, we are God's servants, and we are thinking beings with a concious will of our own.
Your interpretation of the Bible and its story of creation are up to you, but it is very, very, important that you do interpret it, and you interpret it for yourself.
A note: even though my pseudo-review may seem negative, I genuinely enjoyed the movie and I think it's interesting and important to see.
Just came back from it about 3 hours ago. I found it to be exceptionally short and anticlimatic. I also saw a Discovery channel show about the production of the movie, and I was surprised to learn the extent NASA's influence. The movie excapes pesky concepts like "physics" and "reality."
I was going to describe in depth the flaws in the movie's logic in referring to human (and Martian) DNA, as long as several errors relating to the physics in question. Realizing it was quite boring and I couldn't fit all the errors, I ditched it. Simply put, the movie creates a tremendous over-simplification of DNA and the human genome, and generally ignores the laws of high school physics. The thing they did the best was to copy 2001: A Space Oddessy and include rotating circular space stations to reduce cheesy zero-g filming. Dizzing camera movement, done by someone obviously vying for a photography nod, sort of kills that though.
One high point: Story Musgrave (a real astronaut) was in the film for a few minutes, albeit without lines. A couple low points: product placement is all over this movie. An Isuzu concept car sits on the screen for the first ten minutes of the film. Some Dr. Pepper saves the space shuttle. M&M's are used twice as to create (over-simplified) DNA models. An SGI display screen is used to relay video transmissions from earth to the space shuttle. Kawasaki and Pennzoil cover the Mars Rover as if it was featured on Nascar.
"Given Apple's emphasis on ergonomics, color and ease of use, which concretize the abstract results of years of experimentation and testing, it seems likely that design patents will play an expanding role in the protection of their designs."
Have you seen those iMac mice? Apple seems to think that innovation means forgoing that fan-dangled second button and ergonomics for an unusable mouse. Apple wrote the book on ergonomics and software design, and now they seem to be ignoring their own advice (see: Aqua). Yeah. My computer really DOES need a handle!
Aside from the trolls, I can tell you that the CD is plain black with the words "TurboLinux" on the front. Not much to write home about, and it doesn't make a very good coaster.
I just recently bought a SMC 10bT ISA NIC. It was NE2000 compatible so it was detected and installed by Windows right off the bat. A non-plug and play motherboard might not like it too much, but if Windows can see it, it can install the card by itself, sans driver disks.
I'm taking a great liking to it. Although I don't really need TurboLinux, it's a nice thing to have. What got me was the included CAT5 cable, something I haven't found included with most of the cheaper cards. With NE2000, you get a tenth of the performance at a cheap price that'll work almost universally--it's a great deal in my mind. For now, I'm recommending the SMC cards to anyone who can get them, even without the driver disks.
Not to mention that we had a series of presidents who decided to Seriously Fuck Things Up (tm) by ignoring the problem.
Keep in mind that the civil war wasn't about slavery but the rights of the states.
Slaves: basic human rights violation
CD's: you don't want to pay a corporation who has every right to charge what they see fit.</i>
What are you talking about? Slaves aren't human, so no one's rights are violated! Even those the most opposed to slavery didn't really think of blacks as humans, which isn't all that surprising given the lack of education and the squalor most slaves were forced to lived in. The tone of the abolitionist movement was more like the ASPCA then any human rights movement I've ever heard of.
The relationship has little to do with the actual corruption involved. You've got a corrupt establishment protected under the law and an illegal, but (in your eyes) morally justified method of fighting it. Sure, slavery is a lot worse than being profit-hungry, but a slave cost a lot more than a CD does now.
Would you help free a slave? It would be very much a theft. The slave owner paid for the slave, expected work from the slave, and is now denied the money he invested. To free a slave would be most definately a theft, but it could be morally justified by most people today.
Maybe the people who take over the source will have the balls to kill WinME and the bastard of a OS that 9x is/was.