Not taking money from someone isn't really equivalent to taking money from someone to give it to someone else. That kind of intellectual dishonesty is why I have no taste for progressives.
I think patents are just fine, in fact beneficial (although admittedly not to those who want everything for free), and while I have no particular love for Microsoft, I never really understood the hatred either. I guess I'll have to wait for the case to be judged.
The leak can't start a war. Violent people in a position of power will start the war. Being caught being a shithead isn't a valid justification for mass murder, despite your attempt to somehow say it is.
The human race at large has no interest in furthering the perpetration of this diplomatic game by the rules set in place by the self-protecting powerful. Only those who style themselves masters of humanity have such an interest. They will be unhappy, and I will call them a wahmbulance. They are getting exactly what they deserve to get.
People who are abusing their powers will suffer. People who do dirty deeds and want clean hands will suffer. People who believe that their position protects them from personal responsibility will suffer.
The didn't block the content. The magazine is free to deliver that content via the web to iDevices. They blocked a specific content delivery mechanism that is designed to support their competition.
The facts aren't hard to get straight, so why is this entire story full of comments that make points with misinformation?
Seeing as how the App Store actually isn't the only way to install third party applications (and it wasn't even the first!) your entire point is predicated on a lie.
You can install whatever you want on your iPhone, but Apple won't support you if you do. It's not exactly nice, but it's pretty reasonable, particularly since you aren't forced to buy Apple products. If the ability to do whatever you want is your #1 requirement, you have choices. You even named them! Where is it the rule that every choice must meet your every criteria?
I've dealt with chaotic companies as the hero, and I've worked for companies with a rock-solid natural process where everything moves smoothly. I noticed that the main difference is that the companies that dedicate themselves to process above all else tend to be the most chaotic, because no one will even consider deviating due to fear of being caught making a decision (by which I mean avoidance of responsibility).
All of this is to say, I don't have any problem with process, but process for the sake of process is like engineering for the sake of engineering. It's evil in its purest form.
It's ridiculous and sycophantic to have an article about how Apple had an amazing year? They did, you know. They basically went from the brink of bankruptcy to one of the strongest companies in the world in a little over a decade, which is nothing short of incredible, and this was the best year of the bunch.
I know realism isn't the strongest attribute in the general Slashdot character, but surely you aren't expecting articles talking about how shitty their very existence is because a small cadre of geeks hate them virulently, are you?
A dedication to process is a substitute for thinking. When the processes become more important than the product, quit. That's the only advice I can give you. I'm aware that's not what you asked, and I'm almost certain you won't listen, but really, that's what I have to say.
You can reduce anything to the point of absurdity. I mean the anti-copyright argument reduces to the same argument my niece gives me when I won't buy her ice cream after every meal - "BUT I WANT IT!!!"
That's a lot less compelling.
I find it particularly useless, this whole go-round, because it distracts from the reality that there needs to be a societal discussion on the role of copyright in the age of such simple publishing. Instead, it's become two camps screaming at each other with positions that can neither be reconciled nor maintained. Genius!
Why does the fact that you remember something give you the right to have it for free? I mean I get that there are problems with copyright, but none of this works out to an entitlement to free entertainment. Call it culture, split hairs about the technical details, argue the semantics until you're blue in the face - it's still about gorging yourself on free entertainment that you've done nothing to deserve. In fact, the sheer amount of unrelated arguing is a pretty sure sign that the practitioners of piracy are aware that they need some sort of justification for their behavior.
It's like when Bill Clinton had all that bullshit about his blowjob. If he just stood up and said "Yes, I fucked her mouth. Leave me alone." things would have been nice and easy and I would have maintained his respect. Instead he went off arguing about the definition of sex, and the definition of the word "is", and firing missiles at people as a distraction. Same basic concept, really. Be proud of what you do, but you don't have to act like you have the high moral ground because you feel like watching a movie you don't want to pay for.
Slashdot Mirror
She doesn't represent anyone. She's a celebrity. Nothing more. Claiming her as representative of anything is disingenuous at best.
To be completely fair, the health care legislation is in no way wealth redistribution. That sort of stupidity is why I have no taste for Republicans.
Not taking money from someone isn't really equivalent to taking money from someone to give it to someone else. That kind of intellectual dishonesty is why I have no taste for progressives.
You're right, it isn't fair. Biden is in a position of power. Palin is just a celebrity.
He's still alive. That's a pretty good sign.
I think patents are just fine, in fact beneficial (although admittedly not to those who want everything for free), and while I have no particular love for Microsoft, I never really understood the hatred either. I guess I'll have to wait for the case to be judged.
The leak can't start a war. Violent people in a position of power will start the war. Being caught being a shithead isn't a valid justification for mass murder, despite your attempt to somehow say it is.
They also said that the PS2 could do Toy Story in real time. Sony lies.
Do you care about that, though? It's not like a button that animates around the screen and rotates has many use cases.
The human race at large has no interest in furthering the perpetration of this diplomatic game by the rules set in place by the self-protecting powerful. Only those who style themselves masters of humanity have such an interest. They will be unhappy, and I will call them a wahmbulance. They are getting exactly what they deserve to get.
People who are abusing their powers will suffer. People who do dirty deeds and want clean hands will suffer. People who believe that their position protects them from personal responsibility will suffer.
The didn't block the content. The magazine is free to deliver that content via the web to iDevices. They blocked a specific content delivery mechanism that is designed to support their competition.
The facts aren't hard to get straight, so why is this entire story full of comments that make points with misinformation?
The only way to load software is through the App Store
Except that's not true... so you've based your entire stance on a lie.
Seeing as how the App Store actually isn't the only way to install third party applications (and it wasn't even the first!) your entire point is predicated on a lie.
You can install whatever you want on your iPhone, but Apple won't support you if you do. It's not exactly nice, but it's pretty reasonable, particularly since you aren't forced to buy Apple products. If the ability to do whatever you want is your #1 requirement, you have choices. You even named them! Where is it the rule that every choice must meet your every criteria?
All I do is hit Command-F. It even animates nicely.
Do you have any such rules and regulations to cite? High-minded principles don't count, you know.
I've dealt with chaotic companies as the hero, and I've worked for companies with a rock-solid natural process where everything moves smoothly. I noticed that the main difference is that the companies that dedicate themselves to process above all else tend to be the most chaotic, because no one will even consider deviating due to fear of being caught making a decision (by which I mean avoidance of responsibility).
All of this is to say, I don't have any problem with process, but process for the sake of process is like engineering for the sake of engineering. It's evil in its purest form.
I guess if you redefine the terminology you can make any point you want, huh?
It's ridiculous and sycophantic to have an article about how Apple had an amazing year? They did, you know. They basically went from the brink of bankruptcy to one of the strongest companies in the world in a little over a decade, which is nothing short of incredible, and this was the best year of the bunch.
I know realism isn't the strongest attribute in the general Slashdot character, but surely you aren't expecting articles talking about how shitty their very existence is because a small cadre of geeks hate them virulently, are you?
Editorial review? Your uid is small enough that you should know better. Maybe you're just super subtle.
A dedication to process is a substitute for thinking. When the processes become more important than the product, quit. That's the only advice I can give you. I'm aware that's not what you asked, and I'm almost certain you won't listen, but really, that's what I have to say.
You can reduce anything to the point of absurdity. I mean the anti-copyright argument reduces to the same argument my niece gives me when I won't buy her ice cream after every meal - "BUT I WANT IT!!!"
That's a lot less compelling.
I find it particularly useless, this whole go-round, because it distracts from the reality that there needs to be a societal discussion on the role of copyright in the age of such simple publishing. Instead, it's become two camps screaming at each other with positions that can neither be reconciled nor maintained. Genius!
Why does the fact that you remember something give you the right to have it for free? I mean I get that there are problems with copyright, but none of this works out to an entitlement to free entertainment. Call it culture, split hairs about the technical details, argue the semantics until you're blue in the face - it's still about gorging yourself on free entertainment that you've done nothing to deserve. In fact, the sheer amount of unrelated arguing is a pretty sure sign that the practitioners of piracy are aware that they need some sort of justification for their behavior.
It's like when Bill Clinton had all that bullshit about his blowjob. If he just stood up and said "Yes, I fucked her mouth. Leave me alone." things would have been nice and easy and I would have maintained his respect. Instead he went off arguing about the definition of sex, and the definition of the word "is", and firing missiles at people as a distraction. Same basic concept, really. Be proud of what you do, but you don't have to act like you have the high moral ground because you feel like watching a movie you don't want to pay for.
Copyright created the market. If that influence is undue, feel free not to partake in copyrighted materials.
Weird how that's never the option, it's always "I want to gorge myself on the work of others at no cost to me."