The government needs to be consistent. Either hold computer manufacturers accountable or else let every other industry use the same "marketing" (i.e. lying) techniques to dupe consumers.
Because computer manufacturers aren't underdelivering. Harddrive and network manufacturers delivers exactly what they promise.
And as for the memory manufacturers. They overdeliver. If I ordered a computer with 4,000,000,000 bytes of RAM, but for some reason I got 4,294,967,296 bytes instead. Why would I complain?
But computer scientists aren't using a Base 2 system. They are using a base 1024 system. A base 2 system, would be based around the following numbers, 2^1, 2^2, 2^4, 2^8, 2^16 and so on. 2^10 is nothing more than a perversion.
Computers have used base 2 since the 40s/50s, therefore base 2 is the standard.
Except for harddrives. Except for network transfer. Except for...basically anything that doesn't have to do with directly addressable memory, or variables stored in that memory.
And 2^10 is wrong anyway. What the fuck is the 10 doing there. If those pseudo computer scientists really where serious it would be 2^8. But of course, that would mean that they couldn't mess up the SI system.
This isn't about math (well maybe a little) as much as it is about wording. Basically, the difference between "as fast/increasing/the speed" and "faster/increase". The first is a multiplicative action, while the second is an additive. So if you say, 100% as fast, you are basically saying a * 100% = a. While if you are saying 100% faster you are saying a + a*100% = 2*a. Now looking at the posts. You started by this assertion.
seeing 570% increase and going
OK. A 570% Increase. That would be a+a*570% = 6.7*a.
570% increase is 5.7X faster.
increase/faster. Good.
GPUs increasing 5.7X
Ouch. Here is the mistake. Using increasing. Suddenly you have downgraded the new anticipated speed from 6.7*a to a*5.7=5.7*a.
Now, in your second post you used the multiplicative action straight through. But that is pretty much the opposite of the first post that used the additive action except for a single time at the end.
Also, as a general advice, use X (times) only to represent a multiplicative action. That is what the general meaning of the word is, so it can be confusing when you here it describing an additive action. Not really wrong, but confusing.
What'll really cook their noodles, later on, is when they begin to suspect that not everyone who owns property wants to charge them for it--in fact, a good many copyright holders want just the opposite.
They don't care. The whole point of copyright nowadays is for big companies to make money by leveraging economy of scale coupled with artifically high margin profits. Thereby indirectly reducing the amount of money that gets distributed to smaller companies and artists that rely less on copyright and more on providing actual services and value adding.
This is what really causes the big companies to be afraid of piracy. A pirate has far more freedom in how he spends his entertainment budget, and is therefore more likely to spend it on actual services. And that is the one thing that the big companies have difficulty providing to a useful degree. The megaartist can only be at one place at a time, just like any other artist. Basically, anything that threatens profit of scale is seen as bad by those at the top, and needs to be exterminated at any cost.
Basically, what you are saying is that programming in inadequate primitive languages requires you to use goto, and unfortunally for embedded programming you are usually forced to use an inadequate and primitive language.
Basically, the whole task becomes one big dirty trick.
It makes you have to execute your clean up code in each exit point you have
Only if you use a language that doesn't support the try-finally concept. And there you pretty much have the biggest reason to use goto. Namely, to emulate very much needed control structure features that doesn't exist in the language you are currently forced to use.
The pirate party is not associated with the pirate bay, except in the loose meaning that they share some similar opinions, and that their names are similar.
So by that logic all "poor" countries should be allowed to pirate? China is the third-largest and the fastest growing economy in the world; if their people are so poor, where is all their money?
Actually. what the logic shows is just how insane and stupid copyright is from beginning to end. Copyright is the perfect example of a capitalistic non free market. It is the worst of all sides. It neither provides free market efficency, nor does it provide any social benefits.It has only one purpose. To allow money to flow into the pockets of those who are able to leverage big margin profits by using big sales (usually via marketing). The ones who are negativly affected are everyone else. From the smaller businesses who will be left sharing a small piece of the cake, to the consumers who have their consumption artifically restricted by higher monopoly prices that pay for inefficent industries.
A chinese worker could easily consume virtual products worth many times his salary (using the not so free market value), and noone even would notice because he isn't actually using up any extra resources or manpower. He is simply copying what already exists. And some people go around calling that theft and immoral activity. I have simply given up hope in such people, as they simple have lost touch with reality.
Promoting science and the useful arts by reducing the spread of the same? Whoever came up with that bright idea, really didn't think things through properly. Of course, everyone is entitled to mistakes, so I don't blame him. I blame those who should have learned better by now, but keep insisting on more of the same. Either through greed (if they belong to one of the big ones) or through ignorance if they don't.
You will always here about/from the major labels. They are by definition those who are the best at marketing, as it is one of the main ways to leverage the high margin profits from copyright and other intellectual property.
Small players simply don't benefit much from copyright and probably lose even more, because they aren't capable to leverage the same economy of scale as the big players. And if you can't leverage economy of scale, then you aren't in the copyright/patent business, because the whole point of being in that business is to scale with monopoly protected margin profits.
At the smaller level you compete by actually producing real value from your services, to get people to pay more. But because of copyright, most of the money has flowed upwards, and there is less left to share amonger the small companies/participants. This is the real reason why the big companies are frightened about piracy. It isn't that piracy reduces consumer spending. It is that the money flows elsewhere, namely to services that produce more of an extra value add.
$300 video card $125 sound card $50 quiet VGA cooler
Basically, what you are saying is that you paid $475 for the gaming PC that heavily outperforms any console on the market.
Because all the rest of the list indicates crap that has nothing to do with gaming or needs to be gotten for the console also. And as your list indicates that you would have had to buy the computer anyway, for what you are really using it for, it represents a sunk cost.
If you had chosen video and sound that actually matched that of a console you would have gotten down under $300. So it is those consoles that are expensive, not the PC.
At that point, you just crack the protection. The DMCA does have a provision for that eventuality,
It may be technically legal to actually crack the game, but since the same DMCA laws makes it is illegal to manufacture or distribute the same crack, it isn't really practically legal.
Well, tell that to the thousand and thousands of people who die yearly in third world countries because of the patent laws championed by US interests. Or all the students who are forced to buy specific copyrighted material. Or all the poor who can only afford very little entertainment because of an artifically created shortage of supply. Or all the people who desperatly try to fit in socially by consuming their group's culture. (and if you tell me people don't need to fit in socially, then you don't understand basic human needs)
Copyright and Patents are a fraud from start to finish. You can't claim to improve science and useful arts by restricting the distribution of the same. And the fraud is simple. Make money move up, by allowing those who are better at exploiting margin profits to do so. (and yes, exploiting margin profits are something the rich excel at)
Copyright (and other IP forms) are functionally equivalent to a form of taxation. It's transfer of money from one sector of the economy to another, and as such it does not affect the strength of the economy outside its comparative efficiency at generating value for the spent resources.
It is actually far worse than taxation and subsidising. The transferring of money from one sector to another is atleast somewhat neutral. Although you are right that it does cause some inefficency.
What really makes copyright and patents nasty are the two other effects. First, you have the flow of money within IP sectors. Basically, it flows up, up and up. Leaving less money to small entepreneurs in favor of the big companies gettings huge profits. The reason this happens is plain and simply because of the artifically high margin profits. You can benefit a lot by being the one who sells more copies, and as it basically is a zero sum game, those who sell less copies lose. And we should all know by now, who will have it more easy to sell lots of copies.
Why do you think the big music companies are so afraid of piracy. It isn't because the music industry is getting smaller. Instead it is a question about where the money is moving. It is moving downwards, into the hands of the smaller players. And god forbid, that ordinary musicians should be able to make any money. That wouldn't be capitalistic.
Secondly you have the plain fact, that copyright (and patents for that matter) reduce the availability of products by artifically raising the price. This is hugely harmful to society. In fact, in the case of patents, we are talking of huge amounts of death in third world countries that only happen because of strong patent laws and heavy handed trade "agreements". Although more and more countries are catching on to the scam, where the top countries benefit the most. (again, IP causes wealth to move up, up and up.
What is the point of having a law aim to creating more IP, when the same law decreases the actual distribution of IP? The answer is actually pretty simple. It is to benefit the rich who can afford the cost increase, and who also own stakes in the big companies that benefit from the same laws.
If anything it is current copyright and patents that are immoral. In the case of patents, they have been used to justify the deaths of huge amounts of people in the name of profit of the few. There is nothing moral in restricting the spread of information that can improve the quality of life for millions upon millions of people.
Current copyright and patents laws are among the most immoral laws on the books. Few other laws can compete with their destructive tendencies. Copyright and patents are about as productive as plan economy. It doesn't help if you encourage invention and creation when what is created is artifically restricted. In the end, end up with a societal negative, and even then, the distribution gets of resources gets skewed towards those that can afford to invest and market larger productions. (oh, and the occasional "lottery" hit production that keeps the creators in the lower classes happy)
I am all for discussing ways to reward people for creating and inventing, but copyright and patents isn't it. Especially the current versions.
There are still good companies out there, worth building a career within the company. They are few and far between, but they are gems and you don't want to miss them because you follow some blanked idea that "All companies are evil, all managers are bad, and the only way to get a raise is to quit."
Of course, those companies will more rarely search for new employees, since they are maintaining the ones they have.
You encounter the same phenomena everywhere in life. Finding a good girlfriend is difficult, because the good ones are taken (and if they become availible, they won't remain on the "market" for long. Same goes for finding employees, or finding employeers, or pretty much anything else.
There are two important lesson to draw from this. First of all, you need to be persistant if you want something good to happen. Secondly, if something good happens, you shouldn't waste it. Good things are worth protecting.
From a programmer's standpoint, any biologist who thinks that was produced randomly or semi-randomly should no longer be allowed to practice science
From a programmer's standpoint, as someone who has actually studied and implemented things like genetic algorithms, it makes total sense. It is fascinating how complex selfmutating code can grow with just a bit of natural selection, which is the process of turning random events into non-random progression.
After biologists, AI programmers are probably the ones who best understand how fucking crazy these fundamentalist religious people are.
A planet in our solar system supports life complex enough
Observational tautology. If the solar system didn't support us, we wouldn't be here to make that observation. Using that as "evidence" is a failure of logic 101.
These systems must be useful, or they would have driven their adherents to extinction many generations ago.
Not true. That reasoning only works if belief in religion was a purely genetic trait. But religion characteristics shows it as behaving far more like a parasite or symbiote. And there is no need for a parasite to be useful to be able to survive. It just has to be able to spread among hosts and not kill of the whole host population.
Well. You pretty much answered the reason why, just by saying "measuring distance". Root Mean Square is the formula for measuring distance in an n-dimensional euclidean space.
But you are right to question if it is the best solution to some real world problems. Why should you represent a person's opions about movies, as a location in an n-dimensional euclidean space?
Their "per unit" pricing is from decades ago, it doesn't come close to anything rational anymore. When it was very expensive to make a copy for sale, sure, it was understandable, but now, today?? Who are they kidding besides themselves?
What do you think current copyright and patent law is about? Sure, you can come with pretty answers about encouraging creativity. But that is just the pretty talk. In the end, it all comes down to one thing. Current copyright exists to drive up prices of copies by giving a monopoly on each piece of information.
It is a stupid idea, because all it leads to is less copies being made (and less items in the case of patents). And what does society get for the less copies/items? Well, the remaining copies/items are supposedly of higher quality. However, there is little to indicate that as actually being true. And even if it is, wouldn't it better to come up with a system that allows for wellspread distribution of higher quality items.
Basically, the difference between the guess and the real answer for each vote is squared giving a value between 0 and 16 (as the biggest error is 4 when you guess 5 on a vote that is 1 or vice versa). This is summed up for each vote in the test and then divided by the number of votes in the test. Finally you take the root of that.
The winner score in the competition is around 0.855. Which is smaller than 0.9514*0.9 score. Where 0.9514 was the result scored by the netflix algorithm.
Yes slashdot is anti-capitalist to some degree. Slashdot users are in general pretty interested in freedom issues. You'll find a pretty big support for the free market, but far less support for some of the capitalistic ideas that aren't based around the free market. Intellectual property being an example of that.
The best argument for copyright and patents is basically that atleast it should ensure that stuff is invented and created, however costly it is to society otherwise. But when you see the current capitalistic exploitations going on, even that argument starts to lose its colors. And you are basically left with the argument that it is capitalistic to assign ownership to everything. An arugment that simply isn't productive nor seen as inherently true by those who use their brains.
I do find slashdotters resistance to specifically software patents somewhat telling though. Software patents aren't really special. They just affect most people here directly. You can't get anything done if you have to watch out for patent mindfields? Well, that is exactly how people feel in other fields also. Reality is colored by your point of view.
Slashdot Mirror
I generally hear about a new game by word-of-mouth advertising
And why do you think the people are talking about that specific game. Simple, it is the marketed game of the month.
The government needs to be consistent. Either hold computer manufacturers accountable or else let every other industry use the same "marketing" (i.e. lying) techniques to dupe consumers.
Because computer manufacturers aren't underdelivering. Harddrive and network manufacturers delivers exactly what they promise.
And as for the memory manufacturers. They overdeliver. If I ordered a computer with 4,000,000,000 bytes of RAM, but for some reason I got 4,294,967,296 bytes instead. Why would I complain?
But computer scientists aren't using a Base 2 system. They are using a base 1024 system. A base 2 system, would be based around the following numbers, 2^1, 2^2, 2^4, 2^8, 2^16 and so on. 2^10 is nothing more than a perversion.
Computers have used base 2 since the 40s/50s, therefore base 2 is the standard.
Except for harddrives. Except for network transfer. Except for...basically anything that doesn't have to do with directly addressable memory, or variables stored in that memory.
And 2^10 is wrong anyway. What the fuck is the 10 doing there. If those pseudo computer scientists really where serious it would be 2^8. But of course, that would mean that they couldn't mess up the SI system.
Where is my math wrong?
This isn't about math (well maybe a little) as much as it is about wording. Basically, the difference between "as fast/increasing/the speed" and "faster/increase". The first is a multiplicative action, while the second is an additive. So if you say, 100% as fast, you are basically saying a * 100% = a. While if you are saying 100% faster you are saying a + a*100% = 2*a. Now looking at the posts. You started by this assertion.
seeing 570% increase and going
OK. A 570% Increase. That would be a+a*570% = 6.7*a.
570% increase is 5.7X faster.
increase/faster. Good.
GPUs increasing 5.7X
Ouch. Here is the mistake. Using increasing. Suddenly you have downgraded the new anticipated speed from 6.7*a to a*5.7=5.7*a.
Now, in your second post you used the multiplicative action straight through. But that is pretty much the opposite of the first post that used the additive action except for a single time at the end.
Also, as a general advice, use X (times) only to represent a multiplicative action. That is what the general meaning of the word is, so it can be confusing when you here it describing an additive action. Not really wrong, but confusing.
What'll really cook their noodles, later on, is when they begin to suspect that not everyone who owns property wants to charge them for it--in fact, a good many copyright holders want just the opposite.
They don't care. The whole point of copyright nowadays is for big companies to make money by leveraging economy of scale coupled with artifically high margin profits. Thereby indirectly reducing the amount of money that gets distributed to smaller companies and artists that rely less on copyright and more on providing actual services and value adding.
This is what really causes the big companies to be afraid of piracy. A pirate has far more freedom in how he spends his entertainment budget, and is therefore more likely to spend it on actual services. And that is the one thing that the big companies have difficulty providing to a useful degree. The megaartist can only be at one place at a time, just like any other artist. Basically, anything that threatens profit of scale is seen as bad by those at the top, and needs to be exterminated at any cost.
Basically, what you are saying is that programming in inadequate primitive languages requires you to use goto, and unfortunally for embedded programming you are usually forced to use an inadequate and primitive language.
Basically, the whole task becomes one big dirty trick.
It makes you have to execute your clean up code in each exit point you have
Only if you use a language that doesn't support the try-finally concept. And there you pretty much have the biggest reason to use goto. Namely, to emulate very much needed control structure features that doesn't exist in the language you are currently forced to use.
The pirate party is not associated with the pirate bay, except in the loose meaning that they share some similar opinions, and that their names are similar.
So by that logic all "poor" countries should be allowed to pirate? China is the third-largest and the fastest growing economy in the world; if their people are so poor, where is all their money?
Actually. what the logic shows is just how insane and stupid copyright is from beginning to end. Copyright is the perfect example of a capitalistic non free market. It is the worst of all sides. It neither provides free market efficency, nor does it provide any social benefits.It has only one purpose. To allow money to flow into the pockets of those who are able to leverage big margin profits by using big sales (usually via marketing). The ones who are negativly affected are everyone else. From the smaller businesses who will be left sharing a small piece of the cake, to the consumers who have their consumption artifically restricted by higher monopoly prices that pay for inefficent industries.
A chinese worker could easily consume virtual products worth many times his salary (using the not so free market value), and noone even would notice because he isn't actually using up any extra resources or manpower. He is simply copying what already exists. And some people go around calling that theft and immoral activity. I have simply given up hope in such people, as they simple have lost touch with reality.
Promoting science and the useful arts by reducing the spread of the same? Whoever came up with that bright idea, really didn't think things through properly. Of course, everyone is entitled to mistakes, so I don't blame him. I blame those who should have learned better by now, but keep insisting on more of the same. Either through greed (if they belong to one of the big ones) or through ignorance if they don't.
You will always here about/from the major labels. They are by definition those who are the best at marketing, as it is one of the main ways to leverage the high margin profits from copyright and other intellectual property.
Small players simply don't benefit much from copyright and probably lose even more, because they aren't capable to leverage the same economy of scale as the big players. And if you can't leverage economy of scale, then you aren't in the copyright/patent business, because the whole point of being in that business is to scale with monopoly protected margin profits.
At the smaller level you compete by actually producing real value from your services, to get people to pay more. But because of copyright, most of the money has flowed upwards, and there is less left to share amonger the small companies/participants. This is the real reason why the big companies are frightened about piracy. It isn't that piracy reduces consumer spending. It is that the money flows elsewhere, namely to services that produce more of an extra value add.
$300 video card
$125 sound card
$50 quiet VGA cooler
Basically, what you are saying is that you paid $475 for the gaming PC that heavily outperforms any console on the market.
Because all the rest of the list indicates crap that has nothing to do with gaming or needs to be gotten for the console also. And as your list indicates that you would have had to buy the computer anyway, for what you are really using it for, it represents a sunk cost.
If you had chosen video and sound that actually matched that of a console you would have gotten down under $300. So it is those consoles that are expensive, not the PC.
At that point, you just crack the protection. The DMCA does have a provision for that eventuality,
It may be technically legal to actually crack the game, but since the same DMCA laws makes it is illegal to manufacture or distribute the same crack, it isn't really practically legal.
Well, tell that to the thousand and thousands of people who die yearly in third world countries because of the patent laws championed by US interests. Or all the students who are forced to buy specific copyrighted material. Or all the poor who can only afford very little entertainment because of an artifically created shortage of supply. Or all the people who desperatly try to fit in socially by consuming their group's culture. (and if you tell me people don't need to fit in socially, then you don't understand basic human needs)
Copyright and Patents are a fraud from start to finish. You can't claim to improve science and useful arts by restricting the distribution of the same. And the fraud is simple. Make money move up, by allowing those who are better at exploiting margin profits to do so. (and yes, exploiting margin profits are something the rich excel at)
Copyright (and other IP forms) are functionally equivalent to a form of taxation. It's transfer of money from one sector of the economy to another, and as such it does not affect the strength of the economy outside its comparative efficiency at generating value for the spent resources.
It is actually far worse than taxation and subsidising. The transferring of money from one sector to another is atleast somewhat neutral. Although you are right that it does cause some inefficency.
What really makes copyright and patents nasty are the two other effects. First, you have the flow of money within IP sectors. Basically, it flows up, up and up. Leaving less money to small entepreneurs in favor of the big companies gettings huge profits. The reason this happens is plain and simply because of the artifically high margin profits. You can benefit a lot by being the one who sells more copies, and as it basically is a zero sum game, those who sell less copies lose. And we should all know by now, who will have it more easy to sell lots of copies.
Why do you think the big music companies are so afraid of piracy. It isn't because the music industry is getting smaller. Instead it is a question about where the money is moving. It is moving downwards, into the hands of the smaller players. And god forbid, that ordinary musicians should be able to make any money. That wouldn't be capitalistic.
Secondly you have the plain fact, that copyright (and patents for that matter) reduce the availability of products by artifically raising the price. This is hugely harmful to society. In fact, in the case of patents, we are talking of huge amounts of death in third world countries that only happen because of strong patent laws and heavy handed trade "agreements". Although more and more countries are catching on to the scam, where the top countries benefit the most. (again, IP causes wealth to move up, up and up.
What is the point of having a law aim to creating more IP, when the same law decreases the actual distribution of IP? The answer is actually pretty simple. It is to benefit the rich who can afford the cost increase, and who also own stakes in the big companies that benefit from the same laws.
The BSD, MIT, WTFPL, etc. people will like it though as they'll get access to some older GPL code.
If anything it is current copyright and patents that are immoral. In the case of patents, they have been used to justify the deaths of huge amounts of people in the name of profit of the few. There is nothing moral in restricting the spread of information that can improve the quality of life for millions upon millions of people.
Current copyright and patents laws are among the most immoral laws on the books. Few other laws can compete with their destructive tendencies. Copyright and patents are about as productive as plan economy. It doesn't help if you encourage invention and creation when what is created is artifically restricted. In the end, end up with a societal negative, and even then, the distribution gets of resources gets skewed towards those that can afford to invest and market larger productions. (oh, and the occasional "lottery" hit production that keeps the creators in the lower classes happy)
I am all for discussing ways to reward people for creating and inventing, but copyright and patents isn't it. Especially the current versions.
Your advice is a little overly-cynical.
There are still good companies out there, worth building a career within the company. They are few and far between, but they are gems and you don't want to miss them because you follow some blanked idea that "All companies are evil, all managers are bad, and the only way to get a raise is to quit."
Of course, those companies will more rarely search for new employees, since they are maintaining the ones they have.
You encounter the same phenomena everywhere in life. Finding a good girlfriend is difficult, because the good ones are taken (and if they become availible, they won't remain on the "market" for long. Same goes for finding employees, or finding employeers, or pretty much anything else.
There are two important lesson to draw from this. First of all, you need to be persistant if you want something good to happen. Secondly, if something good happens, you shouldn't waste it. Good things are worth protecting.
From a programmer's standpoint, any biologist who thinks that was produced randomly or semi-randomly should no longer be allowed to practice science
From a programmer's standpoint, as someone who has actually studied and implemented things like genetic algorithms, it makes total sense. It is fascinating how complex selfmutating code can grow with just a bit of natural selection, which is the process of turning random events into non-random progression.
After biologists, AI programmers are probably the ones who best understand how fucking crazy these fundamentalist religious people are.
A planet in our solar system supports life complex enough
Observational tautology. If the solar system didn't support us, we wouldn't be here to make that observation. Using that as "evidence" is a failure of logic 101.
These systems must be useful, or they would have driven their adherents to extinction many generations ago.
Not true. That reasoning only works if belief in religion was a purely genetic trait. But religion characteristics shows it as behaving far more like a parasite or symbiote. And there is no need for a parasite to be useful to be able to survive. It just has to be able to spread among hosts and not kill of the whole host population.
Well. You pretty much answered the reason why, just by saying "measuring distance". Root Mean Square is the formula for measuring distance in an n-dimensional euclidean space.
But you are right to question if it is the best solution to some real world problems. Why should you represent a person's opions about movies, as a location in an n-dimensional euclidean space?
Their "per unit" pricing is from decades ago, it doesn't come close to anything rational anymore. When it was very expensive to make a copy for sale, sure, it was understandable, but now, today?? Who are they kidding besides themselves?
What do you think current copyright and patent law is about? Sure, you can come with pretty answers about encouraging creativity. But that is just the pretty talk. In the end, it all comes down to one thing. Current copyright exists to drive up prices of copies by giving a monopoly on each piece of information.
It is a stupid idea, because all it leads to is less copies being made (and less items in the case of patents). And what does society get for the less copies/items? Well, the remaining copies/items are supposedly of higher quality. However, there is little to indicate that as actually being true. And even if it is, wouldn't it better to come up with a system that allows for wellspread distribution of higher quality items.
They used root square mean for the competition.
Basically, the difference between the guess and the real answer for each vote is squared giving a value between 0 and 16 (as the biggest error is 4 when you guess 5 on a vote that is 1 or vice versa). This is summed up for each vote in the test and then divided by the number of votes in the test. Finally you take the root of that.
The winner score in the competition is around 0.855. Which is smaller than 0.9514*0.9 score. Where 0.9514 was the result scored by the netflix algorithm.
I hope that explains everything.
Not true. Copyrights material or patented text is not property.
The property is the copyright or the patent covering the above material. It is a very important difference that has huge implications.
Yes slashdot is anti-capitalist to some degree. Slashdot users are in general pretty interested in freedom issues. You'll find a pretty big support for the free market, but far less support for some of the capitalistic ideas that aren't based around the free market. Intellectual property being an example of that.
The best argument for copyright and patents is basically that atleast it should ensure that stuff is invented and created, however costly it is to society otherwise. But when you see the current capitalistic exploitations going on, even that argument starts to lose its colors. And you are basically left with the argument that it is capitalistic to assign ownership to everything. An arugment that simply isn't productive nor seen as inherently true by those who use their brains.
I do find slashdotters resistance to specifically software patents somewhat telling though. Software patents aren't really special. They just affect most people here directly. You can't get anything done if you have to watch out for patent mindfields? Well, that is exactly how people feel in other fields also. Reality is colored by your point of view.