For all the same reasons someone would want a big hard drive (I've got a TB in a mainstream machine that cost me just over $1,000, and I'm sure I'll someday use it up with various media I've purchased, downloaded or recorded off TV). And they might prefer this due to the longer life, better access speed and lack of noisy moving parts.
Traditions die off all the time. Sometimes, there's really a loss; sometimes nostalgia just makes it feel as though there is. But that's life. Society doesn't stand still - it never has, and never will.
People tend to treat culture as if it's some holy system deserving of respect. Culture is a label slapped on the status quo of an arbitrarily defined subset of people at any given point - and is constantly in flux. If your own sense of logic and decency say something's right, then try and convince others - those others are people to, and as such are capable of deciding whether they want to incorporate your ideas into their lives. Don't worry so much about contamination. It's really a non-issue.
That being said, there's nothing wrong with respecting the existence of traditions and subjective preferences - but there's also nothing wrong with introducing your own previously foreign experience into the mix.
Of course, it sounds like you're beginning to come around to that view. Don't be afraid to go all-out with it.
Divx support means the ability to decode those Xvid files (at least in theory). Mpeg-4 Part II, of which both codecs are implementations, is set up so that implementations can vary in their encodes (like, say, two different MP3 encoders would do), decoding should work identically.
What if they did this one differently? What if they really did change the past, in such a way that they couldn't/wouldn't "fix" it? We could have a radically different Trek universe moving forward, with a handful of familiar elements in a wholly new context! It could be awesome!
I've been working in newspapers and related fields for about 10 years. Over the last five, in my personal experience (which may or may not represent anything at all), I've seen a lot more PCs than Macs used for page layout, and I've seen it go about 50/50 on other forms of design. The tools are so similar between platforms that a lot of shops don't seem to really care any longer which types of machines they're using, and the PC commodity hardware is cheaper.
That they can associated numerals with numbers IS to say that they find numerals meaningful. It's to say that they're capable of that level of abstraction, when it comes to numerical values.
I'm not sure what you're getting at in the last line. I recognize that software is a creative product of the same general nature as music, literature and so forth. If any of it deserves IP protection, it all does.
But I question both the need and the underlying justification for IP protection. It's an artificial construct, this protection. Traditional theft is much easier to identify as wrong - what you take from me, I no longer have, and therefore I am harmed, so the taking is wrong unless it's of something freely given. IP doesn't work that way. What you take from me, I still have; all I've lost is some nebulous exclusive domain over it, which may or may not be valuable. If you copy my song, or my software, my original loses no quality. I simply am no longer in a position to stop other people from also having it. I'm not clear why I, even as a creator, should have any right to demand that exclusivity in the first place.
But the constitution provides a justification - for the promotion of the progress useful arts and sciences. As a very hands-off, laissez-faire type, I don't even think that's a very good justification (I don't see it as the government's job to ensure art or science progresses), but there it is. So let's deal with it on those terms. While profit potential is -a- motivator for the promotion of useful arts and sciences, and a very powerful one, open source software, this music phenomenon and several other examples show other powerful motivators exist as well. IP law isn't absolutely necessary to promote arts and sciences, though it can help, and surely often does; in its current form, it arguably often hurts the process.
So the real question is, does the constitution's justification for IP law only apply if it's absolutely necessary to promote arts and sciences, or does it also apply if it's merely helpful. What if it's sometimes helpful, and sometimes harmful, as now is the case? As a proponent of liberty, I can't see either of the latter two as a strong enough rationale; it means restricting expression (of others' ideas, specifically) for possible, but uncertain benefit; I'm not OK with that.
You making money off your software isn't necessary to promote the progress of science and useful arts. Some people make software for money, some people make software for free. Some people make software for free and then try to make money off of related services. The latter two can still happen without any copyright protection.
Do you believe that if copyright was undone tomorrow, people would stop making art and creative works altogether? Many would stop, but everyone?
Well, works hard enough and has the right combination of luck and ability. I'm completely laissez-fare in my views, but let's be honest about what the situation actually is. If you've got powerful friends and family to make the path easier for you, you can do well without a lot of hard work OR ability. And if you're saddled by a difficult family situation, no opportunities for education growing up, or other hardship beyond your control, you've got a much slimmer (but still very real) chance of moving up in the world despite your talents and work ethic.
The SNES Wing Commander was a dumbed-down version of the PC VGA Wing Commander. Let's at least start with the right source material!
God, those were great games. Closest semi-recent experience I've had was Freelancer, in the vein of (and sharing some heritage with) the WC: Privateer games.
To be fair, I think they're getting at the fact that in the Wii version, you're not just taking on the character of the killer (which could be called figuratively giving the player the hands of the killer), but you're literally using your hands to make the killer's motions. It's not exactly an accurate use of the word, but it's closer than most literally/figuratively screw-ups.
Um, no. A libertarian wouldn't suggest that's a realistic option, because they're not morons. But if the conversation moved to discussion over whether government should help out, they're note that no one has an inherent right to decent internet access, and question why government should get involved. They'd probably concede you're shit out of luck, and leave it at that.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm against anyone working after 2 p.m., myself.
For all the same reasons someone would want a big hard drive (I've got a TB in a mainstream machine that cost me just over $1,000, and I'm sure I'll someday use it up with various media I've purchased, downloaded or recorded off TV). And they might prefer this due to the longer life, better access speed and lack of noisy moving parts.
-Lou
Or a slashdot poster.
Traditions die off all the time. Sometimes, there's really a loss; sometimes nostalgia just makes it feel as though there is. But that's life. Society doesn't stand still - it never has, and never will.
People tend to treat culture as if it's some holy system deserving of respect. Culture is a label slapped on the status quo of an arbitrarily defined subset of people at any given point - and is constantly in flux. If your own sense of logic and decency say something's right, then try and convince others - those others are people to, and as such are capable of deciding whether they want to incorporate your ideas into their lives. Don't worry so much about contamination. It's really a non-issue.
That being said, there's nothing wrong with respecting the existence of traditions and subjective preferences - but there's also nothing wrong with introducing your own previously foreign experience into the mix.
Of course, it sounds like you're beginning to come around to that view. Don't be afraid to go all-out with it.
I really have to stop skimming headlines. I swore this said "Anal-probing research goes online."
And therefore you must acquit.
Divx support means the ability to decode those Xvid files (at least in theory). Mpeg-4 Part II, of which both codecs are implementations, is set up so that implementations can vary in their encodes (like, say, two different MP3 encoders would do), decoding should work identically.
What if they did this one differently? What if they really did change the past, in such a way that they couldn't/wouldn't "fix" it? We could have a radically different Trek universe moving forward, with a handful of familiar elements in a wholly new context! It could be awesome!
I've been working in newspapers and related fields for about 10 years. Over the last five, in my personal experience (which may or may not represent anything at all), I've seen a lot more PCs than Macs used for page layout, and I've seen it go about 50/50 on other forms of design. The tools are so similar between platforms that a lot of shops don't seem to really care any longer which types of machines they're using, and the PC commodity hardware is cheaper.
That they can associated numerals with numbers IS to say that they find numerals meaningful. It's to say that they're capable of that level of abstraction, when it comes to numerical values.
I'm not sure what you're getting at in the last line. I recognize that software is a creative product of the same general nature as music, literature and so forth. If any of it deserves IP protection, it all does.
But I question both the need and the underlying justification for IP protection. It's an artificial construct, this protection. Traditional theft is much easier to identify as wrong - what you take from me, I no longer have, and therefore I am harmed, so the taking is wrong unless it's of something freely given. IP doesn't work that way. What you take from me, I still have; all I've lost is some nebulous exclusive domain over it, which may or may not be valuable. If you copy my song, or my software, my original loses no quality. I simply am no longer in a position to stop other people from also having it. I'm not clear why I, even as a creator, should have any right to demand that exclusivity in the first place.
But the constitution provides a justification - for the promotion of the progress useful arts and sciences. As a very hands-off, laissez-faire type, I don't even think that's a very good justification (I don't see it as the government's job to ensure art or science progresses), but there it is. So let's deal with it on those terms. While profit potential is -a- motivator for the promotion of useful arts and sciences, and a very powerful one, open source software, this music phenomenon and several other examples show other powerful motivators exist as well. IP law isn't absolutely necessary to promote arts and sciences, though it can help, and surely often does; in its current form, it arguably often hurts the process.
So the real question is, does the constitution's justification for IP law only apply if it's absolutely necessary to promote arts and sciences, or does it also apply if it's merely helpful. What if it's sometimes helpful, and sometimes harmful, as now is the case? As a proponent of liberty, I can't see either of the latter two as a strong enough rationale; it means restricting expression (of others' ideas, specifically) for possible, but uncertain benefit; I'm not OK with that.
You making money off your software isn't necessary to promote the progress of science and useful arts. Some people make software for money, some people make software for free. Some people make software for free and then try to make money off of related services. The latter two can still happen without any copyright protection.
Do you believe that if copyright was undone tomorrow, people would stop making art and creative works altogether? Many would stop, but everyone?
It doesn't matter that only a few people use the devices for legitimate purposes. What matters is that legitimate purposes exist.
So do two progressions that merge into one
win 3.0/3.1 / nt 3.1 ===== 3
95/98/me / nt 4.0 ===== 4
2000/xp (one product line now) ===== 5
Vista ==== 6
7 ==== 7
Mona smiles FIRST!
Well, works hard enough and has the right combination of luck and ability. I'm completely laissez-fare in my views, but let's be honest about what the situation actually is. If you've got powerful friends and family to make the path easier for you, you can do well without a lot of hard work OR ability. And if you're saddled by a difficult family situation, no opportunities for education growing up, or other hardship beyond your control, you've got a much slimmer (but still very real) chance of moving up in the world despite your talents and work ethic.
To do that, they'd have to read people's e-mail, and in doing so get all sorts of useful ID-stealing info.
The SNES Wing Commander was a dumbed-down version of the PC VGA Wing Commander. Let's at least start with the right source material!
God, those were great games. Closest semi-recent experience I've had was Freelancer, in the vein of (and sharing some heritage with) the WC: Privateer games.
You keep your postulates to yourself, there, buddy.
Why a different one each day? Don't you have a microwave?
To be fair, I think they're getting at the fact that in the Wii version, you're not just taking on the character of the killer (which could be called figuratively giving the player the hands of the killer), but you're literally using your hands to make the killer's motions. It's not exactly an accurate use of the word, but it's closer than most literally/figuratively screw-ups.
So what you're saying is, it's only in America that ours go up to 11?
Let me clarify: Some libertarians are morons. But smart ones wouldn't argue anything like what you're saying they would.
Um, no. A libertarian wouldn't suggest that's a realistic option, because they're not morons. But if the conversation moved to discussion over whether government should help out, they're note that no one has an inherent right to decent internet access, and question why government should get involved. They'd probably concede you're shit out of luck, and leave it at that.