Blizzard may be known for eye candy and quality game play, but they are NOT known for quality programming. Their code base is a serious mess. Given that they reused (cut-n-paste, not OOP) a lot of Diablo 1 source they probably couldn't get higher resolutions working properly.
The current legal definition is that you are stealing the exclusivity to the software. The ethical question of whether or not this loss of exclusivity is worse than the social gain of eliminating the concept of software ownership is another issue.
Re:I actually wouldn't mind replaying classics...
on
Leisure Suit Unix
·
· Score: 1
No, a company can charge whatever they want to both cover the cost of the medium and produce a profit for an "official" disk. If you pay for a download, you have paid for the exact bytes as duplicated on their server and sent to your machine. You can take this and back your installation and backup copies are provided in the copyright legislation. If you lose your download you do not have the right to get a copy from someone else that downloaded the product.
That's not quite correct. Hydrogen absolutely had something to do with the Hindenburg disaster. However, it was not the only factor. The Hindenburg was repainted for that flight. The new paint was metal-based. Electrostatic in the air was able to flow as a current on the surface of the airship. The current produced a spark which ignited the hydrogen.
So, yes, the Hindenburg wouldn't have gone down in flames if it weren't for the canvas paint. But it also wouldn't have ignited with a helium-based lift.
What supports your notion of "human nature"? Promotion of self-interest can easily take the form of cooperation. It's the occasional sociopath (which on a planet of 6 billion because unfortunately more common) who has a desire not only to succeed but crush his opponents. Alas, Capitalism fosters this kind of destructive attitude.
Or, even worse, one of those "libertarian" nutcases. I put that term in quotes because the only real libertarians are anarchists, whereas the Libertarian Party promotes corporate hegemony instead of actual liberty.
Of course it's mainly the UNIX and Linux machines that are used in the serious DDoSes. Sure, there's the occasional Outlook worm, but the major damage is caused by the machines running OSes with superior network integration. Now, these machines also are generally running lots of programs from vendors other than the OS author / publisher (like that piece of trash BIND), but MS could also make a similar arguement.
Re:I actually wouldn't mind replaying classics...
on
Leisure Suit Unix
·
· Score: 1
You didn't buy the right to have that information, you specifically bought the medium. Implicit in that purchase was the right to make a copy via installation and the right to make backup copies. You apparently failed to backup the media you purchased. You are not entitled to a copy of someone else's media just because you were irresonsible with your own. The idea that you paid for "the information", not the media, is what gives rise to restrictive and possibly enforcable software licenses and other prohibitions against our rights.
Re:A worrying turn of phrase...
on
Paper Phones
·
· Score: 1
1. Yes. It was obviously nothing but a haven for piracy. Any legal use was negligible.
2. No, AOL is a general service, the majority of which is used for legal purposes. Additionally, allowing a child molester into a chat room is not illegal.
3. No, the phone company offers a general service, the majority of which is used for legal purposes.
4. No, Einstein's work advanced science in a completely ethical way.
This product, however, is a piece of junk designed to fill our planet with litter.
Re:Invention without Ethics
on
Paper Phones
·
· Score: 1
Claims that the majority of the public are stupid is foolish and elitist. Most people simply have been conditioned by society, their parents, and the government to be docile, cowardly, and sheep-like. They are rewarded for conformity and punished for extravagent behavior.
Authoritarianism is ethically wrong. If you wouldn't accept it in the form of government, why subjugate your own children? Authoritatively forbidding something isn't molding your childrens' morals, it's teaching them to be docile and cowardly.
Regardless of how much is spent on ISS, it's still the US government cycling money through its own econony, with only minor leakage to our ISS partners. And the space program has been pretty good at producing research and technology that makes any cost worthwhile.
Slashdot Mirror
F = ma. It's all a matter of acceleration, not top speed.
Blizzard may be known for eye candy and quality game play, but they are NOT known for quality programming. Their code base is a serious mess. Given that they reused (cut-n-paste, not OOP) a lot of Diablo 1 source they probably couldn't get higher resolutions working properly.
Or complain about QuickTime movies because he "can't watch them" without a Linux player.
Linux is a toy operating system, so it isn't expected to be secure. I'm pretty sure that was his point.
The current legal definition is that you are stealing the exclusivity to the software. The ethical question of whether or not this loss of exclusivity is worse than the social gain of eliminating the concept of software ownership is another issue.
Text DFMs were the final step needed to make Delphi the Best...Language...EVER.
If you're still running BIND instead of, say, djbdns, well, what the hell is wrong with you? Death to the Buggy Internet Name Daemon.
Tim Allen?
No, a company can charge whatever they want to both cover the cost of the medium and produce a profit for an "official" disk. If you pay for a download, you have paid for the exact bytes as duplicated on their server and sent to your machine. You can take this and back your installation and backup copies are provided in the copyright legislation. If you lose your download you do not have the right to get a copy from someone else that downloaded the product.
That's not quite correct. Hydrogen absolutely had something to do with the Hindenburg disaster. However, it was not the only factor. The Hindenburg was repainted for that flight. The new paint was metal-based. Electrostatic in the air was able to flow as a current on the surface of the airship. The current produced a spark which ignited the hydrogen.
So, yes, the Hindenburg wouldn't have gone down in flames if it weren't for the canvas paint. But it also wouldn't have ignited with a helium-based lift.
What supports your notion of "human nature"? Promotion of self-interest can easily take the form of cooperation. It's the occasional sociopath (which on a planet of 6 billion because unfortunately more common) who has a desire not only to succeed but crush his opponents. Alas, Capitalism fosters this kind of destructive attitude.
Or, even worse, one of those "libertarian" nutcases. I put that term in quotes because the only real libertarians are anarchists, whereas the Libertarian Party promotes corporate hegemony instead of actual liberty.
What's it like working at NASA?
The lameness filter was put in place to counter crapflooders, not trolls.
That said, what's really so bad about ALL CAPS POSTS or ASCII penis birds or first posters?
Of course it's mainly the UNIX and Linux machines that are used in the serious DDoSes. Sure, there's the occasional Outlook worm, but the major damage is caused by the machines running OSes with superior network integration. Now, these machines also are generally running lots of programs from vendors other than the OS author / publisher (like that piece of trash BIND), but MS could also make a similar arguement.
You didn't buy the right to have that information, you specifically bought the medium. Implicit in that purchase was the right to make a copy via installation and the right to make backup copies. You apparently failed to backup the media you purchased. You are not entitled to a copy of someone else's media just because you were irresonsible with your own. The idea that you paid for "the information", not the media, is what gives rise to restrictive and possibly enforcable software licenses and other prohibitions against our rights.
1. Yes. It was obviously nothing but a haven for piracy. Any legal use was negligible.
2. No, AOL is a general service, the majority of which is used for legal purposes. Additionally, allowing a child molester into a chat room is not illegal.
3. No, the phone company offers a general service, the majority of which is used for legal purposes.
4. No, Einstein's work advanced science in a completely ethical way.
This product, however, is a piece of junk designed to fill our planet with litter.
Claims that the majority of the public are stupid is foolish and elitist. Most people simply have been conditioned by society, their parents, and the government to be docile, cowardly, and sheep-like. They are rewarded for conformity and punished for extravagent behavior.
Pay close attention to the name of the site: Junk science. Here's a hint: it's not what their exposing, it's what their promoting.
1. Many
2. Yes they will.
3. Bats' vision is just fine.
Authoritarianism is ethically wrong. If you wouldn't accept it in the form of government, why subjugate your own children? Authoritatively forbidding something isn't molding your childrens' morals, it's teaching them to be docile and cowardly.
Aparently I did tell SOMEONE something they didn't already know, as they marked a valid post as "Troll".
He said the protesters would also need ground wires. That's not something the aluminum in your microwave has.
Regardless of how much is spent on ISS, it's still the US government cycling money through its own econony, with only minor leakage to our ISS partners. And the space program has been pretty good at producing research and technology that makes any cost worthwhile.
Trolls educate through misinformation. However, this might be a troll.