I take it people accuse you of this a lot? By marketing detectors just start to go off when I see people who are completely 100% positive about something and have nothing bad to say about them.
Perhaps it's that we're used to the grizzled and cynical attitudes here.
also sopssa- do you work for steam? every one of your posts in this topic seems to boil down to "everything about steam is fantastic in every way and I love that this way I don't don't have to own anything and DRM is the best thing ever" or have I misjudged your attitudes from your posts.
You actually don't own the books you buy physically either. You're getting a license to read them, like with any other information.
But more than that, I don't think that will be such a big issue though. What are the changes that Steam will go away anytime soon? And even if it happens in lets say 20-30 years, that's still many years. Many of the books I bough in 90's are too blotched and water damaged, lost somewhere along the years or the type is too small and are unreadable now. Doesn't bother me too much, theres great new books now.
I think Stallman had a point with his right to read thing. Bearded hippy though he be.
Yes but if you go too far in that direction then you put a kid in for shoplifting and get a psychopath back. Which is likely to cause more crime.
Making it scary sounds good but once you get to the point where you're maiming the minds of the people exposed to it you start to be self defeating.
We could forget rehabilitation and just punish all crimes with severe public torture with whips, flails, acids, electrodes hooks and knives which I'm sure would be very scary but I doubt it would do much to keep people safe.
little side tangent, if you suffer from some mental disorder which makes you dangerous to others is it's societies duty to punish you for being sick or to try to cure you?
I think this comes under socialising and if you don't let people people socialise to a minimum extent it can screw up their minds. In other words if you lock someone up in a room with nothing but a pile of food,books and some weights equipment for a few years they probably come out more than somewhat messed up in the head.
It occurs to me that it's like someone found that making their child go sit in the corner alone for 10 minutes when they were somewhat bad was a decent punishment and then tried to just sort of scale up the time and how far away the corner was for more serious offences and didn't consider that some things don't scale well...
And if you find yourself working for someone like this then it doesn't matter either way since they'd fire you if you tried to make them backup and fire you when they lose their data or when they spill coffee on themselves and want to fire someone.
So the best advice is still CYA. In any decent environment written proof that you did your job and told your boss of the risks is a very good CYA and only in very very few cases is it a bad thing.
I'd be curious. If you were to print the source code for the things they are not allowed to export to countries the US does not like in a book and mailed it to someone living in one of those countries would that be breaking the law or would it be protected by the first amendment?
If you're going to go with that argument then the same can be said of pirated copies. They may pirate this one but if that makes them go out and buy the sequel with real money then we have a net gain.
If I can exchange a sack of monopoly money I no longer need with someone for a pack of gum does that make the monopoly money real? Perhaps they want to use it as toilet paper... that still doesn't make it real money. All it means is that that other person considers it to be something.
Yes, there's a difference between considering ingame money to be "real money" and considering it to be an item or goods which can be sold. Considering monopoly money to be real money would be stupid. However considering the little paper slips that come in the box to be something you actually own and can sell to other people without the permission of the company which makes monopoly box sets is quite different.
Now this does bring up the question of: if I'm running a really big monopoly game why shouldn't I be able to write into the rules whatever I like? That to keep playing everyone has to stand on their head and sing the star spangled banner once every 3 turns to avoid being kicked out of the game or that players can't trade the game pieces between each other for real money.
People have to remember, even if that piece of armour looks shiny and that mount frisky it's still as much a part of the game as that monster printed on the Magic cards and if you're making your own game it's your rules.
How can he know the person hasn't scanned the book? And if he loans it out to 10 people that's still 10 people who are no longer going to buy the book.
/who'ing someone 48 times per day at 30 min intervals, for several days would probably not get you in trouble as long as you also/who'd a few hundred other people at the same time and came up with a decent excuse, perhaps something like collecting statistics on the playing habits of a random sample of players or something.
Oh I agree, lots of things which aren't possible now will almost certainly be possible with advances in technology but the point I was trying to get across is there's always details to be figured out and problems along the way as any engineer will tell you. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it's easy.
People used the same argument about porn. That it would just make men more horney and lead to a massive upswing in rapes etc. In reality we see the opposite when people have access to pornography.
Go read "The Diamond Age" by Neal Stephenson. It deals with a lot of these things and I like his writing because unlike many authors who do the "what is this tech existed" thing he gets into the aspect of "well someone has to figure out the details".
It's all very well saying replicator technology could do X but what about the nitty gritty?
You're going to need a significant source of material in a known form, extremely pure oxygen,nitrogen,carbon, and all the other atoms and common compounds you need to build any particular item and in reality the machinery needed to do that isn't going to be trivial or even small no matter how much nanotech you throw at the problem unless you don't mind it also being very slow. You're going to need a tightly controlled environment in which to construct your duplicates. You're going to have to actually know how to build the item in question since in reality just trying to scan something is unlikely to be a realistic way to do it and such fine grain resolution probably violates some laws like the uncertainty principle so it's much more likely that you're going to need to program in how you want any particular item constructed.
Engineering problems don't disappear. Just look at some of the old Sci Fi predictions of what computers were going to be able to do. We should have true AI and other fun things by now according to old SF but in reality someone has to figure out the how which is hard.
The wonderful thing about photographs is that when you photograph an object the owner of that object still has it. So your "We have seen so many treasure stolen that we are trying to protect what it left." is little more than thinly strained bullshit. they're not taking anything at all.
So if I want to use CD's for storing data I have every right to I have to give money to Brittany spears. To make it fair how about we put a "subsidy tax" on artists who can't make decent work but who are getting subsidised and give it to people who are being hurt by that, ie me and everyone else who has no interest in music.
Slashdot Mirror
nah, people complain all the time and there's generally lots of competitors to choose from.
I take it people accuse you of this a lot?
By marketing detectors just start to go off when I see people who are completely 100% positive about something and have nothing bad to say about them.
Perhaps it's that we're used to the grizzled and cynical attitudes here.
I mean are you negative about anything?
also sopssa- do you work for steam? every one of your posts in this topic seems to boil down to "everything about steam is fantastic in every way and I love that this way I don't don't have to own anything and DRM is the best thing ever" or have I misjudged your attitudes from your posts.
You actually don't own the books you buy physically either. You're getting a license to read them, like with any other information.
But more than that, I don't think that will be such a big issue though. What are the changes that Steam will go away anytime soon? And even if it happens in lets say 20-30 years, that's still many years. Many of the books I bough in 90's are too blotched and water damaged, lost somewhere along the years or the type is too small and are unreadable now. Doesn't bother me too much, theres great new books now.
I think Stallman had a point with his right to read thing.
Bearded hippy though he be.
Yes but if you go too far in that direction then you put a kid in for shoplifting and get a psychopath back.
Which is likely to cause more crime.
Making it scary sounds good but once you get to the point where you're maiming the minds of the people exposed to it you start to be self defeating.
We could forget rehabilitation and just punish all crimes with severe public torture with whips, flails, acids, electrodes hooks and knives which I'm sure would be very scary but I doubt it would do much to keep people safe.
little side tangent, if you suffer from some mental disorder which makes you dangerous to others is it's societies duty to punish you for being sick or to try to cure you?
I think this comes under socialising and if you don't let people people socialise to a minimum extent it can screw up their minds.
In other words if you lock someone up in a room with nothing but a pile of food,books and some weights equipment for a few years they probably come out more than somewhat messed up in the head.
It occurs to me that it's like someone found that making their child go sit in the corner alone for 10 minutes when they were somewhat bad was a decent punishment and then tried to just sort of scale up the time and how far away the corner was for more serious offences and didn't consider that some things don't scale well...
And if you find yourself working for someone like this then it doesn't matter either way since they'd fire you if you tried to make them backup and fire you when they lose their data or when they spill coffee on themselves and want to fire someone.
So the best advice is still CYA.
In any decent environment written proof that you did your job and told your boss of the risks is a very good CYA and only in very very few cases is it a bad thing.
"photographing, videoing, or even witnessing these stupid hunts is actually illegal in Canada"
I'm trying to find a reference for this.
I'd be curious.
If you were to print the source code for the things they are not allowed to export to countries the US does not like in a book and mailed it to someone living in one of those countries would that be breaking the law or would it be protected by the first amendment?
If you're going to go with that argument then the same can be said of pirated copies.
They may pirate this one but if that makes them go out and buy the sequel with real money then we have a net gain.
If I can exchange a sack of monopoly money I no longer need with someone for a pack of gum does that make the monopoly money real?
Perhaps they want to use it as toilet paper... that still doesn't make it real money.
All it means is that that other person considers it to be something.
Yes, there's a difference between considering ingame money to be "real money" and considering it to be an item or goods which can be sold.
Considering monopoly money to be real money would be stupid.
However considering the little paper slips that come in the box to be something you actually own and can sell to other people without the permission of the company which makes monopoly box sets is quite different.
Now this does bring up the question of: if I'm running a really big monopoly game why shouldn't I be able to write into the rules whatever I like? That to keep playing everyone has to stand on their head and sing the star spangled banner once every 3 turns to avoid being kicked out of the game or that players can't trade the game pieces between each other for real money.
People have to remember, even if that piece of armour looks shiny and that mount frisky it's still as much a part of the game as that monster printed on the Magic cards and if you're making your own game it's your rules.
How can he know the person hasn't scanned the book?
And if he loans it out to 10 people that's still 10 people who are no longer going to buy the book.
I'm guessing the guys who sell these cables are just very very smart engineers
http://xkcd.com/670/
Oh I agree, lots of things which aren't possible now will almost certainly be possible with advances in technology but the point I was trying to get across is there's always details to be figured out and problems along the way as any engineer will tell you.
Just because something is possible doesn't mean it's easy.
"well, trust us, THIS is the shit that's got it all figured out. Just listen to this shit and you'll be A OH TAY."
Actually the scientific world-view is "We don't have it all figured out. Don't trust any one source test/check things yourself"
If science did have it all figured out then science could stop.
You assume they genuinely remain celibate and/or don't provide social and material advantages to their close relatives.
People used the same argument about porn. That it would just make men more horney and lead to a massive upswing in rapes etc.
In reality we see the opposite when people have access to pornography.
Go read "The Diamond Age" by Neal Stephenson.
It deals with a lot of these things and I like his writing because unlike many authors who do the "what is this tech existed" thing he gets into the aspect of "well someone has to figure out the details".
It's all very well saying replicator technology could do X but what about the nitty gritty?
You're going to need a significant source of material in a known form, extremely pure oxygen,nitrogen,carbon, and all the other atoms and common compounds you need to build any particular item and in reality the machinery needed to do that isn't going to be trivial or even small no matter how much nanotech you throw at the problem unless you don't mind it also being very slow.
You're going to need a tightly controlled environment in which to construct your duplicates.
You're going to have to actually know how to build the item in question since in reality just trying to scan something is unlikely to be a realistic way to do it and such fine grain resolution probably violates some laws like the uncertainty principle so it's much more likely that you're going to need to program in how you want any particular item constructed.
Engineering problems don't disappear.
Just look at some of the old Sci Fi predictions of what computers were going to be able to do.
We should have true AI and other fun things by now according to old SF but in reality someone has to figure out the how which is hard.
You may have missed this but I strongly suspect that the user you're responding to is not a native English speaker.
Get back to me when they have a robot which can induce the warm happy feeling of cuddling up to my girlfriend in front of the fire.
The wonderful thing about photographs is that when you photograph an object the owner of that object still has it.
So your "We have seen so many treasure stolen that we are trying to protect what it left." is little more than thinly strained bullshit.
they're not taking anything at all.
So if I want to use CD's for storing data I have every right to I have to give money to Brittany spears.
To make it fair how about we put a "subsidy tax" on artists who can't make decent work but who are getting subsidised and give it to people who are being hurt by that, ie me and everyone else who has no interest in music.