Most services you can pay a fee to get whole-country coverage. Mine works everywhere in the continental US where I can get a signal... Which is most places. I didn't even get a roam signal in the middle of North Dakota, but I pretty much expected that.
Because they are trying to sell a product that you can get for free?
They make their money off support contracts, right? Well, if a business has a knowledgable IT staff, they probably don't rely expensive support contracts...
Imagine in a handful of years if there are a few 10's of thousands of logs out there.
??? There are more than that now. Blogger and Livejournal each have hundreds of thousands of users, if I'm not mistaken... And they are only two of many blog services.
It is important to have to correct words and phrases to describe things, so that people can accurately understand a situation. That's why we have language, after all. Different words mean and imply different things. This has been my point since the beginning of this thread; I'm merely repeating my position.
You can twist words to make them seem to hold up your point of view
What do you think my point of view is?
The only "point of view" I've expressed here is that I think stealing is an inappropriate word to describe things such as copyrighted mp3 trading. "Copyright Infringement" is a better phrase, though I'm sure their are others. Maybe "bootlegging", though that implies that you are selling something illegally.
Also - you were the one who threw out a definition to try and back up your point. I simply pointed out that the definition did not seem to mean what you thought it did.
when it comes down to it, its as simple as
1. Someone owns a copyright. 2. You make use of that copyrighted item outside of fair use. 3. You are stealing.
I disagree. I think the following is more accurate:
1. Someone owns a copyright. 2. You make use of that copyrighted item outside of fair use. 3. You are infringing on copyright.
Please note, I think that copyright infringement is wrong. It is also most definitely illegal. As a creator of copyrighted works, I strongly believe that copyright should be protected, and respected, it's an important part of our system.
Oh, by the way : that last bit makes you a hypocrite. You should live by your convictions. What kind of a person are you if you consciously do something that you feel is morally wrong?
That is such a weak point, you really shouldn't have even included it.. We're not talking about my morality. We're discussing whether or not downloading copyrighted music is stealing.
I didn't mention morality - you did. You _specifically_ mentioned the fact that you improperly use copyrighted material (you didn't, I believe, mention whether it was music or not), thus consciously breaking the law - even though you feel it is wrong. In my book, people who do things that are against their morals are of weak character, or hypocrites (unless it was out of necessity, but I can't think of any reason why someone would _need_ to infringe copyright). If you think something is wrong, DON'T DO IT.
And if you don't want me to address something (such as your morality), don't bring it into the discussion, as you did above.
The dictionary defines 'steal' [dictionary.com] as "To take (the property of another) without right or permission.".
The dictionary defines 'take' as "To get into one's possession by force, skill, or artifice, especially: To capture physically; seize: take an enemy fortress. To seize with authority; confiscate... To assume for oneself: take all the credit... To remove from a place: take the dishes from the sink."
The use of the word 'take' implies you are _taking_ something from someone else. If you copy something, you are NOT taking it. This is why the word 'copy' is different than the word 'take'.
IT IS STEALING. I do it too, but at least I know its wrong, and I'll probably keep doing it until my liberty is threatened with a lawsuit, but all the while I will know its wrong.
If you recall, I specifically said that copyright infringement is illegal. All I said is that 'stealing' is not the appropriate word to use when talking about it. Just because it is called by a different (and vastly more appropriate) name does not mean it is suddenly legal. It simply allows you to discuss the topic with the correct perspective.
Oh, by the way : that last bit makes you a hypocrite. You should live by your convictions. What kind of a person are you if you consciously do something that you feel is morally wrong?
Yes, that's why I included the phrase "with permission". Fair use allows you to copy certain amounts of a copyrighted work, with certain guidelines. This is "permission".
And I would say that the RIAA and MPAA are trying to equate copyright infringement with theft. My comment is trying to point out that copyright infringement is not the same as theft. (They are also at the same time trying to erode fair use, but that's not what I was talking about.)
I've read that Adobe actually doesn't care so much about individual users pirating their software, since very few individuals would ever be able to afford $500 for Photoshop, anyway.
The clincher is that all those high school and college kids then get jobs and they all know photoshop... So what software do they pester their employers to keep up to date? You guessed it.
I know it worked for me. When I was in HS, I most assuredly had a pirated version of Photoshop (2.0?). This led me to convince more than one company I worked for later that Corel Photo-Draw was NOT a professional-quality photo editing program. And now I drop several hundred a year on keeping my Adobe install up to date...
It is _not_ stealing. It is copyright infringement, sure. And illegal, sure. But it's not stealing.
If you photocopy a page out of a book from the library, is that _stealing_? No. But it is copyright infringement (unless you have permission), and copyright infringement is illegal.
I haven't bought a comic in five or six years, but I'm at least semi-familiar with these guys :
Spawn is one of the top 3 selling comics in the world, and has been for years. They also made a summer action movie based on the character several years ago. McFarland was the illustrator of Spiderman a decade or so ago, when the character became really popular again.
Gaiman's work has been featured on slashdot many times (he is a best-selling fantasy novelist as well as a comic writer). He co-wrote a book with Terry Pratchett, Good Omens.
To the first, if its my property, I probably can shoot what I want, especially at night in Texas.
In virtually every city (in the US, at least), it's illegal to discharge a firearm within the city limits, except for purposes of defense. I imagine firing ranges have some sort of special permits to get around this, but I've never asked about the specifics.
Value adds are the features inherant to the system as designed. It just so happens that the xbox is a very "value added" system inherantly.
DVD, 5.1 Dolby Digital, Hard Disk, 4 Controllers, Ethernet, Fast Video, 64 megs of ram, HDTV support and many other XBOX features give it VALUE over other competing products and make it wanted and valued by many.
I'd disagree. I bought the brand of DVD player I own because I knew I could easily modify it to play DVDs from other regions. It wasn't intended, but it definitely added value for me.
it was the "value add" of the modchips and ripped DC games that ended the life of that console.
No. It was years of mismanagement and bad business decisions by Sega that ended the DC. Plus the public perception that it was DOA. (and before you label me some PS2 zealot, let me say I bought my DC on launch day, and I have probably 20-25 games for it, all store-bought. The DC was a great console for it's price and it's day.)
First, how do you _know_ it's frivolous? You've seen all the documents?
I'm not saying that it's not, for sure, but it's possible that L-S used MS' BIOS code or something else proprietary, and that is why this lawsuit seems to be sticking. If that's the case, it was a dumb move on their part.
Regardless of whether or not other companies sell their consoles at a loss, Nintendo has always tried to set a profitable price point for their consoles.
I don't think you can back up an xBox game anyway, at least not on a standard DVD burner. I had read that the discs spun backwards, precisely so that normal DVD burners couldn't copy them. Is this true, or just a rumor? Or is there a simple workaround?
And as other have pointed out, even the nipple is not all that intuitive for many newborns, they need to be coaxed.
Re:Look like windows?-The charmin interface.
on
Red Hat 8.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
I don't think the Mac interface is different from Windows at all. After all, Windows modelled itself after the Mac UI. KDE is not different enough from windows to make a difference.
The definition of intuitive is "Capable of knowing without deduction or reasoning."
For example, you might look at a person and intuitively feel that they are dangerous, without knowing why. The reason is that you are subconsciously picking up on their body language, or other clues.
Windows 95 interface isn't intuitive, it's just been on every pc for 8 years. I was actually confused the first time I sat down at one.
Yep, so if everyone is used to the windows/mac UI, then perhaps it's a good idea to give them something that's at least somewhat similar, that they know how to use?
Intuitive is over rated way to much, how functional something is normally is a direct relation to how "easy to pick up" it is.
Isn't that the same thing? If something is easy to pick up, that sounds intuitive to me...
If YOU don't know how to do them then that doesn't make linux less intuitive or less useful.
I'd argue that, if the average user finds something hard to use, then it is by definition less intuitive than something the find easy to use.
Your attitude is something the Linux community needs to get past if they want to woo the masses. Sure, the tech-savvy folks can do everything they want in Linux, but until an average person can as well, Linux won't be a good choice for the average consumer.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, isn't that the point he's trying to make?
Most services you can pay a fee to get whole-country coverage. Mine works everywhere in the continental US where I can get a signal... Which is most places. I didn't even get a roam signal in the middle of North Dakota, but I pretty much expected that.
Or even better, help them build an infrastructure so they can support themselves.
Because they are trying to sell a product that you can get for free?
They make their money off support contracts, right? Well, if a business has a knowledgable IT staff, they probably don't rely expensive support contracts...
Imagine in a handful of years if there are a few 10's of thousands of logs out there.
??? There are more than that now. Blogger and Livejournal each have hundreds of thousands of users, if I'm not mistaken... And they are only two of many blog services.
Cool. I agree - sometimes you just gotta agree to disagree. :)
Your playing on semantics here.
It is important to have to correct words and phrases to describe things, so that people can accurately understand a situation. That's why we have language, after all. Different words mean and imply different things. This has been my point since the beginning of this thread; I'm merely repeating my position.
You can twist words to make them seem to hold up your point of view
What do you think my point of view is?
The only "point of view" I've expressed here is that I think stealing is an inappropriate word to describe things such as copyrighted mp3 trading. "Copyright Infringement" is a better phrase, though I'm sure their are others. Maybe "bootlegging", though that implies that you are selling something illegally.
Also - you were the one who threw out a definition to try and back up your point. I simply pointed out that the definition did not seem to mean what you thought it did.
when it comes down to it, its as simple as
1. Someone owns a copyright.
2. You make use of that copyrighted item outside of fair use.
3. You are stealing.
I disagree. I think the following is more accurate:
1. Someone owns a copyright.
2. You make use of that copyrighted item outside of fair use.
3. You are infringing on copyright.
Please note, I think that copyright infringement is wrong. It is also most definitely illegal. As a creator of copyrighted works, I strongly believe that copyright should be protected, and respected, it's an important part of our system.
Oh, by the way : that last bit makes you a hypocrite. You should live by your convictions. What kind of a person are you if you consciously do something that you feel is morally wrong?
That is such a weak point, you really shouldn't have even included it.. We're not talking about my morality. We're discussing whether or not downloading copyrighted music is stealing.
I didn't mention morality - you did. You _specifically_ mentioned the fact that you improperly use copyrighted material (you didn't, I believe, mention whether it was music or not), thus consciously breaking the law - even though you feel it is wrong. In my book, people who do things that are against their morals are of weak character, or hypocrites (unless it was out of necessity, but I can't think of any reason why someone would _need_ to infringe copyright). If you think something is wrong, DON'T DO IT.
And if you don't want me to address something (such as your morality), don't bring it into the discussion, as you did above.
You are so wrong!
The dictionary defines 'steal' [dictionary.com] as "To take (the property of another) without right or permission.".
The dictionary defines 'take' as "To get into one's possession by force, skill, or artifice, especially: To capture physically; seize: take an enemy fortress. To seize with authority; confiscate... To assume for oneself: take all the credit... To remove from a place: take the dishes from the sink."
The use of the word 'take' implies you are _taking_ something from someone else. If you copy something, you are NOT taking it. This is why the word 'copy' is different than the word 'take'.
IT IS STEALING. I do it too, but at least I know its wrong, and I'll probably keep doing it until my liberty is threatened with a lawsuit, but all the while I will know its wrong.
If you recall, I specifically said that copyright infringement is illegal. All I said is that 'stealing' is not the appropriate word to use when talking about it. Just because it is called by a different (and vastly more appropriate) name does not mean it is suddenly legal. It simply allows you to discuss the topic with the correct perspective.
Oh, by the way : that last bit makes you a hypocrite. You should live by your convictions. What kind of a person are you if you consciously do something that you feel is morally wrong?
Yes, that's why I included the phrase "with permission". Fair use allows you to copy certain amounts of a copyrighted work, with certain guidelines. This is "permission".
And I would say that the RIAA and MPAA are trying to equate copyright infringement with theft. My comment is trying to point out that copyright infringement is not the same as theft. (They are also at the same time trying to erode fair use, but that's not what I was talking about.)
I've read that Adobe actually doesn't care so much about individual users pirating their software, since very few individuals would ever be able to afford $500 for Photoshop, anyway.
The clincher is that all those high school and college kids then get jobs and they all know photoshop... So what software do they pester their employers to keep up to date? You guessed it.
I know it worked for me. When I was in HS, I most assuredly had a pirated version of Photoshop (2.0?). This led me to convince more than one company I worked for later that Corel Photo-Draw was NOT a professional-quality photo editing program. And now I drop several hundred a year on keeping my Adobe install up to date...
It is _not_ stealing. It is copyright infringement, sure. And illegal, sure. But it's not stealing.
If you photocopy a page out of a book from the library, is that _stealing_? No. But it is copyright infringement (unless you have permission), and copyright infringement is illegal.
I haven't bought a comic in five or six years, but I'm at least semi-familiar with these guys :
Spawn is one of the top 3 selling comics in the world, and has been for years. They also made a summer action movie based on the character several years ago. McFarland was the illustrator of Spiderman a decade or so ago, when the character became really popular again.
Gaiman's work has been featured on slashdot many times (he is a best-selling fantasy novelist as well as a comic writer). He co-wrote a book with Terry Pratchett, Good Omens.
This isn't that obsure.
Ah, thank you for clearing that one up. Seems like overkill, they already use an odd size.
To the first, if its my property, I probably can shoot what I want, especially at night in Texas.
In virtually every city (in the US, at least), it's illegal to discharge a firearm within the city limits, except for purposes of defense. I imagine firing ranges have some sort of special permits to get around this, but I've never asked about the specifics.
Mod chips are not "Value adds".
Value adds are the features inherant to the system as designed. It just so happens that the xbox is a very "value added" system inherantly.
DVD, 5.1 Dolby Digital, Hard Disk, 4 Controllers, Ethernet, Fast Video, 64 megs of ram, HDTV support and many other XBOX features give it VALUE over other competing products and make it wanted and valued by many.
I'd disagree. I bought the brand of DVD player I own because I knew I could easily modify it to play DVDs from other regions. It wasn't intended, but it definitely added value for me.
it was the "value add" of the modchips and ripped DC games that ended the life of that console.
No. It was years of mismanagement and bad business decisions by Sega that ended the DC. Plus the public perception that it was DOA. (and before you label me some PS2 zealot, let me say I bought my DC on launch day, and I have probably 20-25 games for it, all store-bought. The DC was a great console for it's price and it's day.)
First, how do you _know_ it's frivolous? You've seen all the documents?
I'm not saying that it's not, for sure, but it's possible that L-S used MS' BIOS code or something else proprietary, and that is why this lawsuit seems to be sticking. If that's the case, it was a dumb move on their part.
Regardless of whether or not other companies sell their consoles at a loss, Nintendo has always tried to set a profitable price point for their consoles.
Actually, I think they have been pretty aggressive about it as well. There have been stories on here about it.
I don't think you can back up an xBox game anyway, at least not on a standard DVD burner. I had read that the discs spun backwards, precisely so that normal DVD burners couldn't copy them. Is this true, or just a rumor? Or is there a simple workaround?
Who said intuition has to be right all the time?
It's still an example of intuition.
And as other have pointed out, even the nipple is not all that intuitive for many newborns, they need to be coaxed.
I don't think the Mac interface is different from Windows at all. After all, Windows modelled itself after the Mac UI. KDE is not different enough from windows to make a difference.
The definition of intuitive is "Capable of knowing without deduction or reasoning."
For example, you might look at a person and intuitively feel that they are dangerous, without knowing why. The reason is that you are subconsciously picking up on their body language, or other clues.
Windows 95 interface isn't intuitive, it's just been on every pc for 8 years. I was actually confused the first time I sat down at one.
Yep, so if everyone is used to the windows/mac UI, then perhaps it's a good idea to give them something that's at least somewhat similar, that they know how to use?
Intuitive is over rated way to much, how functional something is normally is a direct relation to how "easy to pick up" it is.
Isn't that the same thing? If something is easy to pick up, that sounds intuitive to me...
If YOU don't know how to do them then that doesn't make linux less intuitive or less useful.
I'd argue that, if the average user finds something hard to use, then it is by definition less intuitive than something the find easy to use.
Your attitude is something the Linux community needs to get past if they want to woo the masses. Sure, the tech-savvy folks can do everything they want in Linux, but until an average person can as well, Linux won't be a good choice for the average consumer.
Even if that's true, which I sincerely doubt, "well over half" is not anywhere near "all".