Not everyone who believes file sharing is a legitimate & socially beneficial activity, is lazy.
bellicose sense of entitlement
Bellicose? Come now, we file sharers don't want to fight -- we want to share. Duh.
appropriate their hard earned property
Oh, I see: you have misunderstood. File sharers don't want to take anything from the movie companies. They will still have their films, unharmed. We just want to make a whole whole lot of copies. Don't worry, we'll provide the disk space and network bandwidth.
Also, you may have been looking for the word 'prerogative', not 'property'. Copyright holders are cheesed off because file sharers are infringing on the former's prerogative to control distribution of certain data. There's no actual property anywhere around here, afaik.
Most of the things in life are not free. If the price for something is higher than you're willing or able to pay for it then you just don't get to have it - unless you get it as a gift or you steal it. That's just the way the world works.
What you say is true, most things in the world are scarce. And scarcity blows oats.
Data, however, is different. The great thing about data is: as much of it as you want, we've got. Got a big hard disk -- hey, this data stuff isn't free -- and want to fill it all the way up with movies? No problem. Just let bittorrent suck bandwidth for a few hours -- another one of those rather small, but pesky, non-free bits -- and voila, you've got movies!
Now maybe what you're really worried about, is that the big Hollywood companies won't survive the obsoletion of their business model; and thus you will no longer be able to buy movies from them. This, however, should worry you only if you believe the big Hollywood movie companies, in their current form, are the only kind of business entity that could possibly make movies you would enjoy. If that's the case, well, sucks to be you. But for most people, there's nothing to fear. Making movies is far too important a cultural activity for mankind to just give up on it. Movies will still be made in an age of free data -- maybe even some movies you like!
You're getting paid content for free; don't argue that point.
If one has gotten it for free, then it cannot fairly be called 'paid content'. Maybe better to say, 'content for whose use the copyright holder hoped to receive payment'.
at the moment, a successful consumer Linux OS doesn't fix all the others that we know and love.
Imho, the first fairly successful consumer Linux was Ubuntu 8.04, released two years ago. At any rate, it was the first Linux distro that my 70y/o, tech-illiterate mother could use (she says it's easier than Windows). But really, the Gnome desktop has been user friendly for several years -- what made Ubuntu 8.04 truly consumer-usable, was that Dell installed it at the factory. No funky driver issues, no editing files under/etc just to make the damn thing work.
So you approve of Apple removing any app, or entire class of apps, that you do not personally use? Why do we want Apple to decide what we do and don't "need"?
Am I the only one who would like to see an app store where the applications are vetted for security -- i.e. will this app install backdoors in my phone, steal my identity, etc -- but otherwise allowed totally open access? I personally don't care if there are dumb, broken, offensive, duplicate, etc apps; because they might be of service to someone, even if not to me.
Living proof that the geek is truly a solitary cellar-dweller.
You spend an awful lot of time badmouthing geeks, for a guy who posts on Slashdot several times a day every day. Maybe you have some self-hatred issues?
Most high traffic are serving content, primarily database reads. Twitter has incoming tweets, on top of outgoing content. Not many sites have as much concurrent read and write activity as Twitter. Amazon & Facebook, sure -- but if they do major infrastructure upgrades, they will also get a front page story.
Can you suggest some other very-high-traffic sites whose infrastructure might be better (or more interesting) than Twitter?
Most people use "expensive software" because that's what came on their computers.
I would assumethe vast majority of Red Hat's paid users are running it on servers, not desktops. Unless you're buying from Sun (and thus getting Solaris), typically servers either come with no OS, or come with the OS the customer specifically requested at order time.
No damages of any amount are appropriate when the "crime" in question is virtuous act of making recorded music available to all, thereby enriching the people as a whole.
One does not need to be any sort of anarchist to question whether or not it is a good thing that we have this particular "justice" system.
A coherent, non-corrupt, and temperate systems of laws and their enforcement is, to my thinking, an obvious public good. Today's American legal system does not meet these basic criteria.
Our laws retain considerable internal coherence; but so many and various legal fictions have a accreted in the system that it has lost touch with external reality. The question of corruption is less clear, tho there is strong evidence that financial interest of the prison-industrial complex fuels the demand for more "crimes" and more "criminals" to fill prisons. Most disturbingly, the US law enforcement system seems to have thrown overboard any vestige of temperance, moderation, or concern for justice.
Thus the social utility of our legal system is rapidly declining. In some areas of the law it may already have reached a negative level of utility. It no longer serves the public interest.
We must beware of misleading questions like "isn't our legal system better than nothing?" The obvious alternative to injustice is not anarchy, but justice. Civil society must use its budgetary control over the law enforcement apparatus to reign in abusive prosecution. The police and prosecutors must be reminded that they are paid by the taxpayers to serve the interest of the community, not the interests of their caste and industry.
Your Mom agrees to this to keep peace in the family, not because it something she wanted or needed.
My Mom, who is certainly no technical expert, finds Ubuntu considerably easier to use than Windows. The key for her was getting it pre-installed by Dell, so there were guaranteed to be no hardware snafus. Imho, inadequate hardware support is the main obstacle to widespread, viral adoption of Linux by ordinary home users. Ubuntu's recent dominance of the Linux market has reduced the confusion caused by the variety of distros.
My workplace contains has signs posted stating: "[Company Name] is a fragrance-free workplace." They include a no-perfume graphic. It's pretty kickass.
The type of person prepared to drive while stoned is pretty much the same as the type that will drive while drunk.
Acutally, no. I know lots of people who have no problem with driving stoned, but who would never even consider driving drunk. The former is mildly risky; while the latter is terrifyingly dangerous. (Personally, I don't drive at all. Doesn't matter how drunk or stoned you are, when you ride the subway or a cab.)
Slashdot Mirror
suing the lazy leeches
Not everyone who believes file sharing is a legitimate & socially beneficial activity, is lazy.
bellicose sense of entitlement
Bellicose? Come now, we file sharers don't want to fight -- we want to share. Duh.
appropriate their hard earned property
Oh, I see: you have misunderstood. File sharers don't want to take anything from the movie companies. They will still have their films, unharmed. We just want to make a whole whole lot of copies. Don't worry, we'll provide the disk space and network bandwidth.
Also, you may have been looking for the word 'prerogative', not 'property'. Copyright holders are cheesed off because file sharers are infringing on the former's prerogative to control distribution of certain data. There's no actual property anywhere around here, afaik.
Most of the things in life are not free. If the price for something is higher than you're willing or able to pay for it then you just don't get to have it - unless you get it as a gift or you steal it. That's just the way the world works.
What you say is true, most things in the world are scarce. And scarcity blows oats.
Data, however, is different. The great thing about data is: as much of it as you want, we've got. Got a big hard disk -- hey, this data stuff isn't free -- and want to fill it all the way up with movies? No problem. Just let bittorrent suck bandwidth for a few hours -- another one of those rather small, but pesky, non-free bits -- and voila, you've got movies!
Now maybe what you're really worried about, is that the big Hollywood companies won't survive the obsoletion of their business model; and thus you will no longer be able to buy movies from them. This, however, should worry you only if you believe the big Hollywood movie companies, in their current form, are the only kind of business entity that could possibly make movies you would enjoy. If that's the case, well, sucks to be you. But for most people, there's nothing to fear. Making movies is far too important a cultural activity for mankind to just give up on it. Movies will still be made in an age of free data -- maybe even some movies you like!
You're getting paid content for free; don't argue that point.
If one has gotten it for free, then it cannot fairly be called 'paid content'. Maybe better to say, 'content for whose use the copyright holder hoped to receive payment'.
Presumably, the prosecution would be electrocuted if they failed to convict said one. It's got to be fair, y'know ;)
That might diminish false prosecutions a bit...
at the moment, a successful consumer Linux OS doesn't fix all the others that we know and love.
Imho, the first fairly successful consumer Linux was Ubuntu 8.04, released two years ago. At any rate, it was the first Linux distro that my 70y/o, tech-illiterate mother could use (she says it's easier than Windows). But really, the Gnome desktop has been user friendly for several years -- what made Ubuntu 8.04 truly consumer-usable, was that Dell installed it at the factory. No funky driver issues, no editing files under /etc just to make the damn thing work.
So you approve of Apple removing any app, or entire class of apps, that you do not personally use? Why do we want Apple to decide what we do and don't "need"?
Am I the only one who would like to see an app store where the applications are vetted for security -- i.e. will this app install backdoors in my phone, steal my identity, etc -- but otherwise allowed totally open access? I personally don't care if there are dumb, broken, offensive, duplicate, etc apps; because they might be of service to someone, even if not to me.
For example?
What about customers that don't like that app, or simply prefer some aspect of another implementation? They are shit out of luck now.
(Note -- I have no personal opinion about Apple's wifi finder -- I use Android.)
We're turning into damn robots, obsessed with laws and regulations that regulate EVERYTHING.
Not robots, but slaves..
Living proof that the geek is truly a solitary cellar-dweller.
You spend an awful lot of time badmouthing geeks, for a guy who posts on Slashdot several times a day every day. Maybe you have some self-hatred issues?
They just need to regenerate the pages once in a few minutes on some large node and then push the static content to their webservers.
Every few minutes is too infrequent. Why not once a minute? Once a second? That will still be a lower load than regenerating on every hit.
Most high traffic are serving content, primarily database reads. Twitter has incoming tweets, on top of outgoing content. Not many sites have as much concurrent read and write activity as Twitter. Amazon & Facebook, sure -- but if they do major infrastructure upgrades, they will also get a front page story.
Can you suggest some other very-high-traffic sites whose infrastructure might be better (or more interesting) than Twitter?
That's a pretty cool hammer. What's its model?
Most people use "expensive software" because that's what came on their computers.
I would assumethe vast majority of Red Hat's paid users are running it on servers, not desktops. Unless you're buying from Sun (and thus getting Solaris), typically servers either come with no OS, or come with the OS the customer specifically requested at order time.
No damages of any amount are appropriate when the "crime" in question is virtuous act of making recorded music available to all, thereby enriching the people as a whole.
What the hell is a "Virtual Weapon"?
And more to the point, why on earth would you try to smuggle it physically into the country?
If this case is going to court, I'm sure that the prosecutor has reason to believe that this is a case of intent, not accident.
Why do begrudge this man a presumption of innocence? Prosecutors are widely known to lodge wild charges on the basis of the flimsiest of evidence.
One does not need to be any sort of anarchist to question whether or not it is a good thing that we have this particular "justice" system.
A coherent, non-corrupt, and temperate systems of laws and their enforcement is, to my thinking, an obvious public good. Today's American legal system does not meet these basic criteria.
Our laws retain considerable internal coherence; but so many and various legal fictions have a accreted in the system that it has lost touch with external reality. The question of corruption is less clear, tho there is strong evidence that financial interest of the prison-industrial complex fuels the demand for more "crimes" and more "criminals" to fill prisons. Most disturbingly, the US law enforcement system seems to have thrown overboard any vestige of temperance, moderation, or concern for justice.
Thus the social utility of our legal system is rapidly declining. In some areas of the law it may already have reached a negative level of utility. It no longer serves the public interest.
We must beware of misleading questions like "isn't our legal system better than nothing?" The obvious alternative to injustice is not anarchy, but justice. Civil society must use its budgetary control over the law enforcement apparatus to reign in abusive prosecution. The police and prosecutors must be reminded that they are paid by the taxpayers to serve the interest of the community, not the interests of their caste and industry.
Your Mom agrees to this to keep peace in the family, not because it something she wanted or needed.
My Mom, who is certainly no technical expert, finds Ubuntu considerably easier to use than Windows. The key for her was getting it pre-installed by Dell, so there were guaranteed to be no hardware snafus. Imho, inadequate hardware support is the main obstacle to widespread, viral adoption of Linux by ordinary home users. Ubuntu's recent dominance of the Linux market has reduced the confusion caused by the variety of distros.
Sometimes the best way to argue with anti-freedom nimrods is to (pretend to) endorse the logical consequences of their philosophy.
My workplace contains has signs posted stating: "[Company Name] is a fragrance-free workplace." They include a no-perfume graphic. It's pretty kickass.
The type of person prepared to drive while stoned is pretty much the same as the type that will drive while drunk.
Acutally, no. I know lots of people who have no problem with driving stoned, but who would never even consider driving drunk. The former is mildly risky; while the latter is terrifyingly dangerous. (Personally, I don't drive at all. Doesn't matter how drunk or stoned you are, when you ride the subway or a cab.)
But of course, in the United States, the process is the punishment.
If only I had some mod points..
If they honestly think they have a claim, then it would be absurd not to go after it. What would you have them do instead?
IHow about jump in front of a bus? Or perhaps, for greater relevance, in front of a Prius...