Web designers did stick to a standard, just not the one you like. Whether you want to admit it or not, IE defined the de facto majority standard of the web. The "real" standard was in competition and didn't gain any traction for quite a few years.
It would be damn near impossible to get me to murder, but I'm not a silly psychopath trying to get my 72 virgins or whatever lie we're telling about Muslims (or they're telling each other) this week.
I also wouldn't try to justify it for someone else, but this is Slashdot, where proprietary software is immoral and killing Americans is peachy fucking keen.
I couldn't speak for the GP, but I'm serious when I say I agree. There is no right to access a particular site on the web, and if a technological method is found to exclude people who leech, I'm all for it.
I don't know that it's all too common to rail on and on about the data collection. I see it all the time on Slashdot, but never anywhere else either on the internet or in my normal life. I suspect it's not as big a problem as you think it is.
Any self-respecting human being does whatever makes the most sense for them. Being proud about running your own email server is kinda like showing off your homemade wing on your Subaru - it doesn't smack of professionalism, it smacks of too much time on your hands.
For a dead business, there sure are a few billion dollars being made doing it. I think maybe you oughta look outside your cubbyhole for a few minutes and realize the world doesn't quite match your perception.
You're banging your head against the wall, attempting to argue down the all-too-common belief of the freeloader that some magical force is out there causing people to create. Certainly that's true in a limited number of cases, but the explosion of cultural products the world has seen with the technological age is a fairly solid argument in favor of incentivizing the creation process.
Of course you'll always have the people who advocate a return to some earlier time they never experienced. They're generally victims of "have your cake and eat it too" mentality, and since by and large they consume without contributing to the process, they are completely divorced from the reality they so vigorously claim to represent.
Here's the start of your answer - there is no way to make a determination of "truly talented," nor do you have the right to determine what incentives make them create. If people are motivated to make money, your judgment that they've somehow sold their souls is no more valid than the pope judging a gay man is going to hell. You aren't qualified to make such a determination, nor is anyone else.
It's not the answer you wanted, I suspect, but it's the right one.
"The corporations" don't want anything. The people who own and run the corporations want something. That's an important distinction to make because while it's easy for you to demonize "the corporations" it just confuses the arguments and helps the intellectually susceptible to see this as class warfare, which it really is not.
The argument is interesting, but misdirected. You're making the all-too-common mistake of believing the property referenced is the content. It is not. The property is the distribution right, which is taken away in the case of sharing. It's much more convenient for the argument you put forward to ignore this fact, of course, so I fully understand why people continue to use it despite the fact that it is intellectually dishonest.
The concept has its merits, but RMS makes a good point here. Using the term "Intellectual Property" distracts from what we're really talking about: Trademarks, Copyrights, and Patents.
I guess his super intellect is incapable of abstracting common features of something so that they can be used more easily in some way.
You, like most posters in this topic, make the mistake of believing the content is the property. It is not. The right to control the distribution of the content is the property. It's even more abstract than you put it.
But bless Slashdot, where being factually incorrect can still be insightful.
If you weren't aware of the divide, you haven't been paying attention. We may all be "in this together" but the production of truly unique creations is not federated throughout the population - there is a relatively tiny percentage of people actually supplying, while everyone is a potential consumer.
In any case, what I find "immoral and indefensible" is the position that you (or anybody else) gets to decide what I need and get to keep.
The law should not give additional supoprt for them, because it wasn't created to protect private interests.
There are many laws designed to protect private interests. Unless you're unfamiliar with the slew of statutes related to breaking into people's houses, taking their stuff, and ending their lives. Amongst many others.
Nor does an opinion gathered informally by a technical support person and expressed pseudo-anonymously on Slashdot speak accurately to the product as perceived by the masses.
Just a factual correction - Double tap the shift key for caps lock.
Re:Technical expertise is insufficient ...
on
The Rise of Geekdom
·
· Score: 1
The problem, of course, is that "better" is entirely subjective. That's what prevents FOSS from taking over the world - it's only better in ways that a limited number of people understand, particularly regarding modification.
I personally go with what seems to be your philosophy - if it's available for me to use, I really don't care who else uses it. I don't need the verification of my decision.
Re:something going mainstream does not become bad
on
The Rise of Geekdom
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Since the world isn't a game, and the rules can't be laid out as simply as pretending to go on adventures controlled by dice with far too many sides, you're basically out of your element.
Also, you really have no basis on which to speak on what "most" people aspire to, whatsoever.
Slashdot Mirror
You're making a very important academic point that falls apart as soon as it touches the real world. There's no value in being a purist.
How is this flamebait? Does someone here really think that users care about the technology implementing the web? Foolish foolish nerds.
Web designers did stick to a standard, just not the one you like. Whether you want to admit it or not, IE defined the de facto majority standard of the web. The "real" standard was in competition and didn't gain any traction for quite a few years.
I imagine none. Go ahead and refute that.
It would be damn near impossible to get me to murder, but I'm not a silly psychopath trying to get my 72 virgins or whatever lie we're telling about Muslims (or they're telling each other) this week.
I also wouldn't try to justify it for someone else, but this is Slashdot, where proprietary software is immoral and killing Americans is peachy fucking keen.
Actually, I laughed. I think only you didn't get it, which according to the general rules of society, makes you wrong. And a dick. Congrats.
You mean to say the submitter didn't consult with you first before making that statement? The nerve of Slashdotters these days...
I couldn't speak for the GP, but I'm serious when I say I agree. There is no right to access a particular site on the web, and if a technological method is found to exclude people who leech, I'm all for it.
I don't know that it's all too common to rail on and on about the data collection. I see it all the time on Slashdot, but never anywhere else either on the internet or in my normal life. I suspect it's not as big a problem as you think it is.
Any self-respecting human being does whatever makes the most sense for them. Being proud about running your own email server is kinda like showing off your homemade wing on your Subaru - it doesn't smack of professionalism, it smacks of too much time on your hands.
For a dead business, there sure are a few billion dollars being made doing it. I think maybe you oughta look outside your cubbyhole for a few minutes and realize the world doesn't quite match your perception.
You're banging your head against the wall, attempting to argue down the all-too-common belief of the freeloader that some magical force is out there causing people to create. Certainly that's true in a limited number of cases, but the explosion of cultural products the world has seen with the technological age is a fairly solid argument in favor of incentivizing the creation process.
Of course you'll always have the people who advocate a return to some earlier time they never experienced. They're generally victims of "have your cake and eat it too" mentality, and since by and large they consume without contributing to the process, they are completely divorced from the reality they so vigorously claim to represent.
Here's the start of your answer - there is no way to make a determination of "truly talented," nor do you have the right to determine what incentives make them create. If people are motivated to make money, your judgment that they've somehow sold their souls is no more valid than the pope judging a gay man is going to hell. You aren't qualified to make such a determination, nor is anyone else.
It's not the answer you wanted, I suspect, but it's the right one.
"The corporations" don't want anything. The people who own and run the corporations want something. That's an important distinction to make because while it's easy for you to demonize "the corporations" it just confuses the arguments and helps the intellectually susceptible to see this as class warfare, which it really is not.
The argument is interesting, but misdirected. You're making the all-too-common mistake of believing the property referenced is the content. It is not. The property is the distribution right, which is taken away in the case of sharing. It's much more convenient for the argument you put forward to ignore this fact, of course, so I fully understand why people continue to use it despite the fact that it is intellectually dishonest.
I guess his super intellect is incapable of abstracting common features of something so that they can be used more easily in some way.
That was a lot of words to say absolutely nothing of import. I'm impressed, you must be college educated.
You, like most posters in this topic, make the mistake of believing the content is the property. It is not. The right to control the distribution of the content is the property. It's even more abstract than you put it.
But bless Slashdot, where being factually incorrect can still be insightful.
If you weren't aware of the divide, you haven't been paying attention. We may all be "in this together" but the production of truly unique creations is not federated throughout the population - there is a relatively tiny percentage of people actually supplying, while everyone is a potential consumer.
In any case, what I find "immoral and indefensible" is the position that you (or anybody else) gets to decide what I need and get to keep.
The law should not give additional supoprt for them, because it wasn't created to protect private interests.
There are many laws designed to protect private interests. Unless you're unfamiliar with the slew of statutes related to breaking into people's houses, taking their stuff, and ending their lives. Amongst many others.
Nor does an opinion gathered informally by a technical support person and expressed pseudo-anonymously on Slashdot speak accurately to the product as perceived by the masses.
Just a factual correction - Double tap the shift key for caps lock.
The problem, of course, is that "better" is entirely subjective. That's what prevents FOSS from taking over the world - it's only better in ways that a limited number of people understand, particularly regarding modification.
I personally go with what seems to be your philosophy - if it's available for me to use, I really don't care who else uses it. I don't need the verification of my decision.
Since the world isn't a game, and the rules can't be laid out as simply as pretending to go on adventures controlled by dice with far too many sides, you're basically out of your element.
Also, you really have no basis on which to speak on what "most" people aspire to, whatsoever.
And if you were trying to be funny, try harder.
Relax there sparky. Your buddy Al can take the joke, so you oughta be able to as well.