Yes, I know this topic has come up a hundred times before, but why in the name of all that is holy is it that if someone isn't a friggin computer geek that admins at least 5 computers in their own bedroom is dumb?
I think it is highly ignorant that if someone isn't as well versed in what YOU consider the ultimate in intelligence, they are labeled "dumb". Do people in other fields call everyone else ignorant and stupid if they don't devote their lives to that profession?
If there were a slashdot for neurosurgeons, would they say things like "Those dumb, steaming masses who just go to Rite Aid and get aspirin for their headaches instead of cutting their skull open and actually fixing the damn problem...they will always be clueless." If that were the case, I think the universe might just collapse on top of itself due to its own arrogance.
Just a rant, nothing more. Everyone continue saying people who aren't Linux admins must be stupid.
Just think - now AOHell has all the user data Amazon accumulated.
Personally, I have no problem with this, it's not as if they are using your bank account balances, prescriptions, or any other actual sensitive information. Amazon's use of what I buy and shop for really makes their site so much more useful. When I go to the front page, there are actually items there I would like to have.
I just wonder if Amazon actually deleted my information when I cancelled my account with them.
And really, what privacy-trouncing action could they take with your information if they didn't delete it all with your account. So what, so AOL now knows you bought the 2nd Spice Girls CD. Well, I guess I see your point about that one.
I have to agree with you here. Just look at the Gnome System and Settings menus. Why, really, are terminal programs under System, instead of, maybe Applications; Network configuration and the like should probably be under the Settings menu.
Of course this can all be customized, but a new user will find this very cumbersome. About the only menu that is totally correct is the Games menu!
The problem is that there are so many parts to writing a game, that they could never be covered properly in one or two or even three books. Going down the "proper" programming route is the absolute best way to go about these things.
Pick up a book on X Window development, a few OpenGL books, a sound book, and even a few "classic" computer graphics books. Using these "Learn Game Programming in 24 Hours" books will limit what you know and can do, you need to learn how to do a lot of stuff, then use your imagination!
All of his other books made into movies were mediocre at the very best.
Are you excluding his short stories? What about "The Shawshank Redemption" or "The Green Mile"? Wasn't "Misery" by him as well?
Did you ever notice how Napster was in the top 10 web properties list for a *long* time. I have no idea why people were hitting that site so much--I visited it twice, to download the client twice.
Was there some amazingly informational part of that site that we've missed?
Berry's overwhelming need to kiss the record companies collective asses has most definatly killed the company.
Do you honestly think that if he didn't kiss their asses, Napster would be alive and well today? The death of Napster was inevitable from the get-go, anything that he did or didn't do couldn't stop that train wreck of an idea.
IMHO, Pets.com was a great opportunity for consumers--there were so many coupons out on the internet to use, it would be dumb not to shop there. Every time you ordered, they'd send you a $10 off $20 purchase coupon for the next order!
It was so inevitable that Pets.com would die...every time I'd order, I would think to myself, "I will be so sad when this goes out of business next month." Amazing how the people running it never saw it coming.
Actually, if you've ever used the help-search function within the paperclip, it's quite good and extremely useful. Of course, you have to first get past the realization that you are asking a paperclip a question.
I can't beleive someone took the time to write an entire article about a flyer they got from MSFT. This guy takes it too personally, as if he's the *only* person who actually received it. Then he calls the 1-800 line to act like a jackass? I know./ hates MS, but this is just too gay.
So, even though it promotes record sales, it's bad? And what you said next...
... is the exact opposite. Didn't you just say napster promoted record sales?
Okay, so maybe I didn't think that whole comment through, that's why I'm not a laywer:)
In any case, my main point is that the Napster concept is good, but it just breaks about every copyright and intellectual property law there is, and I honestly beleive it was created with that intention. Napster is the way things should be, and probably will be, but it needs to be changed so the people providing its content are actually happy about it (ie. paid).
For example, if I set up a website that was a mirror of CNN.com without the banner ads or the CNN logo, how long do you think it would take before my site was taken down? It's all about the content. And it's not free, and shouldn't be free. If it were, who would do it? Not I. I'd like to take the high road and say that "art" should be free, but it can't be. SHOULD be, but can't.
Not that I mean to beat a dead horse, but The Tobacconist near where I work sells bongs. I'd bet that 99% of people who buy them smoke pot in them, which is illegal. But these "bongs" are 'Tobacco Sampling Devices'. The 1% makes their sale justifiable.
True. And if you can prove that 1% of of the songs on Napster aren't copyrighted, Napster should be legal. What were the numbers from the Metallica lawsuit? Something like over the weekend, they saw 2 million metallica songs up for swapping, and (seriously) like 4 songs from unsigned bands.
Classic sign of somebody who doesn't have a sound argument against the point.
This coming from "Anonymous Coward" and then followed up with no counter argument. Give me an arguement!
I'm waiting.
I would bet that the primary use of filesharing *is* to distribute MP3s and software
But not COPYRIGHTED material. I use filesharing all the time, I can't think of one time we're sharing copyrighted material...we're sharing files we're working on, etc. Filesharing on unix doesn't have a damn thing to do with copyrighted material.
Of course you'd know this if you actually have graduated high school, but...
But as I see it, if we can find one case where someone used Napster soley as a mean for sharing legal music, then that should cast reasonable doubt, right?
This case has nothing to do with reasonable doubt, it's not a murder trial.
You're pretty much right though, Napster's lawyers would have to prove that a fair amount of Napster's users use it to share music legally. My guess is that less than 0.1% of all Napster users actually do so. I think that estimate is generous. To continue your argument, can you imagine if 99.9% of all people who bought Craftsman Chainsaws used them to cut people up? I don't think they'd be around.
What needs to be done is to allow sharing of music that a person owns (the actually technology to acheive this is another issue!). The DMCA prohibits digital copying of music, except on DAT, etc. That is so BS! Digital copying = good, digital pirating = bad.
So, what about people, such as myself who download things like Bach, Mozart, Scott Joplin, Jelly Roll Morton, Billie Holliday, or any other artist who is dead? Isn't most of their work in the public domain anyway?
Of course public domain songs can (and should) be distributed freely. There are no laws against that.
However, just because someone is dead doesn't mean that their music should be distributed freely. What about Nirvana's music? The writer is dead. Not public domain. But that's an entirely different issue from Napster.
Again, the only problem is that Napster facilitates illegal copying. Then again, the DMCA is fucked as it is, so whether that will actually stand up in a court of law (watching DeCSS!) remains to be seen. Unfortunately it IS law right now. Oh well...
If Napster is found to be liable for the content it's users make available on their service, then shouldn't Microsoft be liable for what it's users share using Windows file sharing?
I think the difference is that Windows File sharing is not used mainly to distribute copyrighted material. Napster was created specifically to do that.
Seriously, don't argue the point, it was created to swap copies of songs, not to "promote small artists" or whatever. Do you think when Shawn Fanning wrote the software he thought, "Great! Now my friends and I can exchange all the unsigned bands we listen to!"
I'm not against Napster, really, it's a great idea, I think that, if anything, it actually promotes record sales, and is generally good for the world. But there is something inherently wrong with a program that gives anyone and everyone access to practically any song ever recorded without compensating the artists.
If everyone used Napster, both Fred Durst AND Lars Ulrich would be working at McDonalds, probably together, bitching about how they wish they could make money off of their music, instead of having to distribute it for free.
Don't worry, Napster isn't going to go away, it will come back in a better form for everyone involved.
Slashdot has officially gone to crap with the posting of this article. It is now a haven for crybabies who are complaining that they aren't allowed to do whatever they want--whether it is holding a domain name without paying for it (just think about how ridiculous this is) or copying copyrighted songs without paying for them (again, think about it). Morons.
The fact that software is inherently expensive. Bigger boxes make it harder to shoplift. You can't fit a Office 2000 box under your shirt without being arrested.
CDs on the other hand, aren't QUITE as expensive and are therefore now sold in only their little jewel cases--the tradeoff between shoplifting risk and store real estate comes out on the side of store real estate.
First off, that statement makes no sense, obviously it's not a monopoly if there are a bunch of them.
Second, what is it with the people who are submitting these articles? They are pointing out things that happen on a daily basis and try to get everyone upset because "th man" is keeping us down. Why don't you write the New Jersey state government and complain that they are charging you to use their turnpike? Or perhaps the airlines because it actually costs money to fly on one of their planes?
It seems to me that that is perfectly fine to do. Why would a company build an internet backbone if they aren't going to be able to charge people to use it?
Seriously, it's called a business model. Or do you not pay for your ISP?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I know this topic has come up a hundred times before, but why in the name of all that is holy is it that if someone isn't a friggin computer geek that admins at least 5 computers in their own bedroom is dumb?
I think it is highly ignorant that if someone isn't as well versed in what YOU consider the ultimate in intelligence, they are labeled "dumb". Do people in other fields call everyone else ignorant and stupid if they don't devote their lives to that profession?
If there were a slashdot for neurosurgeons, would they say things like "Those dumb, steaming masses who just go to Rite Aid and get aspirin for their headaches instead of cutting their skull open and actually fixing the damn problem...they will always be clueless." If that were the case, I think the universe might just collapse on top of itself due to its own arrogance.
Just a rant, nothing more. Everyone continue saying people who aren't Linux admins must be stupid.
Personally, I have no problem with this, it's not as if they are using your bank account balances, prescriptions, or any other actual sensitive information. Amazon's use of what I buy and shop for really makes their site so much more useful. When I go to the front page, there are actually items there I would like to have.
I just wonder if Amazon actually deleted my information when I cancelled my account with them.
And really, what privacy-trouncing action could they take with your information if they didn't delete it all with your account. So what, so AOL now knows you bought the 2nd Spice Girls CD. Well, I guess I see your point about that one.
Of course this can all be customized, but a new user will find this very cumbersome. About the only menu that is totally correct is the Games menu!
Even more interesting would be the study performed on Microsoft Bob.
Pick up a book on X Window development, a few OpenGL books, a sound book, and even a few "classic" computer graphics books. Using these "Learn Game Programming in 24 Hours" books will limit what you know and can do, you need to learn how to do a lot of stuff, then use your imagination!
All of his other books made into movies were mediocre at the very best. Are you excluding his short stories? What about "The Shawshank Redemption" or "The Green Mile"? Wasn't "Misery" by him as well?
Was there some amazingly informational part of that site that we've missed?
Do you honestly think that if he didn't kiss their asses, Napster would be alive and well today? The death of Napster was inevitable from the get-go, anything that he did or didn't do couldn't stop that train wreck of an idea.
It was so inevitable that Pets.com would die...every time I'd order, I would think to myself, "I will be so sad when this goes out of business next month." Amazing how the people running it never saw it coming.
I have news for you, buddy. Your 17" monitor became inadequate about a year ago.
Actually, if you've ever used the help-search function within the paperclip, it's quite good and extremely useful. Of course, you have to first get past the realization that you are asking a paperclip a question.
Excuse me, but how in the hell am I supposed to know what the article is about without reading it?
Um, doesn't BSA (who sent out this supposed "bomb") stand for Business Software Alliance? I don't think they're sending this to consumers.
And this is news.
Beleive me, I agree. Don't worry, he will be shoveling fries in a few years.
... is the exact opposite. Didn't you just say napster promoted record sales?
Okay, so maybe I didn't think that whole comment through, that's why I'm not a laywer :)
In any case, my main point is that the Napster concept is good, but it just breaks about every copyright and intellectual property law there is, and I honestly beleive it was created with that intention. Napster is the way things should be, and probably will be, but it needs to be changed so the people providing its content are actually happy about it (ie. paid).
For example, if I set up a website that was a mirror of CNN.com without the banner ads or the CNN logo, how long do you think it would take before my site was taken down? It's all about the content. And it's not free, and shouldn't be free. If it were, who would do it? Not I. I'd like to take the high road and say that "art" should be free, but it can't be. SHOULD be, but can't.
True. And if you can prove that 1% of of the songs on Napster aren't copyrighted, Napster should be legal. What were the numbers from the Metallica lawsuit? Something like over the weekend, they saw 2 million metallica songs up for swapping, and (seriously) like 4 songs from unsigned bands.
This coming from "Anonymous Coward" and then followed up with no counter argument. Give me an arguement!
I'm waiting.
I would bet that the primary use of filesharing *is* to distribute MP3s and software
But not COPYRIGHTED material. I use filesharing all the time, I can't think of one time we're sharing copyrighted material...we're sharing files we're working on, etc. Filesharing on unix doesn't have a damn thing to do with copyrighted material.
Of course you'd know this if you actually have graduated high school, but...
This case has nothing to do with reasonable doubt, it's not a murder trial.
You're pretty much right though, Napster's lawyers would have to prove that a fair amount of Napster's users use it to share music legally. My guess is that less than 0.1% of all Napster users actually do so. I think that estimate is generous. To continue your argument, can you imagine if 99.9% of all people who bought Craftsman Chainsaws used them to cut people up? I don't think they'd be around.
What needs to be done is to allow sharing of music that a person owns (the actually technology to acheive this is another issue!). The DMCA prohibits digital copying of music, except on DAT, etc. That is so BS! Digital copying = good, digital pirating = bad.
Of course public domain songs can (and should) be distributed freely. There are no laws against that.
However, just because someone is dead doesn't mean that their music should be distributed freely. What about Nirvana's music? The writer is dead. Not public domain. But that's an entirely different issue from Napster.
Again, the only problem is that Napster facilitates illegal copying. Then again, the DMCA is fucked as it is, so whether that will actually stand up in a court of law (watching DeCSS!) remains to be seen. Unfortunately it IS law right now. Oh well...
I think the difference is that Windows File sharing is not used mainly to distribute copyrighted material. Napster was created specifically to do that.
Seriously, don't argue the point, it was created to swap copies of songs, not to "promote small artists" or whatever. Do you think when Shawn Fanning wrote the software he thought, "Great! Now my friends and I can exchange all the unsigned bands we listen to!"
I'm not against Napster, really, it's a great idea, I think that, if anything, it actually promotes record sales, and is generally good for the world. But there is something inherently wrong with a program that gives anyone and everyone access to practically any song ever recorded without compensating the artists.
If everyone used Napster, both Fred Durst AND Lars Ulrich would be working at McDonalds, probably together, bitching about how they wish they could make money off of their music, instead of having to distribute it for free.
Don't worry, Napster isn't going to go away, it will come back in a better form for everyone involved.
Slashdot has officially gone to crap with the posting of this article. It is now a haven for crybabies who are complaining that they aren't allowed to do whatever they want--whether it is holding a domain name without paying for it (just think about how ridiculous this is) or copying copyrighted songs without paying for them (again, think about it). Morons.
I submitted this article at about 8am this morning and it got rejected. Way to go guys!
CDs on the other hand, aren't QUITE as expensive and are therefore now sold in only their little jewel cases--the tradeoff between shoplifting risk and store real estate comes out on the side of store real estate.
First off, that statement makes no sense, obviously it's not a monopoly if there are a bunch of them.
Second, what is it with the people who are submitting these articles? They are pointing out things that happen on a daily basis and try to get everyone upset because "th man" is keeping us down. Why don't you write the New Jersey state government and complain that they are charging you to use their turnpike? Or perhaps the airlines because it actually costs money to fly on one of their planes?
It seems to me that that is perfectly fine to do. Why would a company build an internet backbone if they aren't going to be able to charge people to use it?
Seriously, it's called a business model. Or do you not pay for your ISP?