to be a discussion of the future, some of you guys' opinions are mighty short sighted.
The question is, are we going to become the locusts of the universe, gobbling up resources and then moving on? We're doing a good job of that here... as anybody who has taken high school physics knows, matter can be converted to energy and energy to matter. if we dont die off first, our technology will eventually reach the point where we can take the free energy floating around space(and theres plenty of it, radio waves, x rays, light, etc) and convert it into any resources we need. (and imagine the potential energy a black hole has. and black holes arent a resource anybody would be likely to miss if they got "used up" either.) which is all the more reason us humans should spread out in the mean time, so we'll have more chance of surviving until our tech reaches that point.
oh, and just to further clarify. if someone steals a stero, even if they wounld not have bought it, someone is still losing money. the store has one less stero to sell if someone steals one.
"Incorrect. Robin Hood was a thief even though he gave the stolen goods to other people." yes, he was a theif, but the fact that he gave away the goods after he stole them is irrelevent, someone was still gaining something by taking it away from someone else. when someone "steals" mp3s, yes they are gaining something, but if they would have never bought it to begin with, then nobody is actually losing money. I NEVER SAID THAT MAKES IT RIGHT. "In the first place, I didn't even mention Napster" i know you didnt, i never said you did. at the end of my post i say 'im not saying napster is okay or wrong, this is just my 2 cents on the terminology people are using', note the use of the word "people" not "you". and let me say it one last time, i was not trying to justify or condem use of napster, i was just trying to draw lines between the words people were using. some people were refering to it all as being theft, or it all just being sharing, or whatever. i was just saying theres some of each going on with napster- sharing, fair use, theft, and copyright infringement. dont be so defensive =P
"You're on the right track but reach the wrong conclusion. Deliberately destroying the value of something that another person owns is a form of theft. For instance, inflationary monetary policy is stealing: the government makes each of our dollars worth less than what they used to be worth. That is theft: they are taking away the value of our money." no, dilberately destroying the value of something that another person owns is arson/vandilism/defamation(destroying the value of their character). the idea of theft is increasing your assests by decreasing someone else's assests(against their will). and to say using napster is theft is wrong becuase you're being too general. if the person d/ling a mp3 already has the cd then of course its not theft, its fair use. if a person has the cd, makes the mp3s available thru napster soley so others that already own the cd can get the mp3, then thats sharing. if a person d/ls mp3s that they dont have the cd for, and without the availablitly of the mp3 they would have bought the cd, then that IS theft. if the person d/ling the mp3 doesnt have, and never would have bought the cd(because they couldnt afford it, whatever) then that is ONLY copyright infringement, because they arent lessening the copyright holders [potential]assests. fair use and sharing are perfectly okay. theft is morally and legally wrong. copyright infringement is only legally wrong. im not saying napster is okay or wrong, this is just my 2 cents on the terminology people are using.
_Groan_. Okay, look. Linux is a operating system, a bunch of close-to-the-hardware code, kernel and device drivers and stuff, oh my! You can't just "port it alpha or ppc". So, of course, open sourcing it wouldn't help that any. --------- okay, enough of that. and who says linux has to play catch up? one of the major points of open souce is so you dont have to rely on one source for new features, code improvements, etc. if directx were open, linux programmers could well enough add features, fix bugs, optimize texture and sound algorithms and all that stuff on their own. i'd be willing to bet that once the linux directx initially catches up to MS's, it would then eclipse it in features and performance in no time. if its open source, and on other platforms, and popular(it definatly is on windows) then it effectively becomes a standard.
ya know, this presents an interesting solution to the MS trial. open up directx. even if the powers that be dont want to force MS to open up the whole os, they could at least go for directx, microsoft would have nothing to lose from that(it can be argued that they have nothing to lose and everything to gain to from opening the whole os..but thats another debate). then a directx compatable api suite could be written for linux. im sure theres plenty of people that would love to work on a open source multimedia api suite. it would make it easier to port games over, close the performance gap between the two os's, and thus satisfy the government by putting a dent in MS's monopoly by breaking down the last reason people have to stick to windows. kill three birds with one stone, whoop!
Slashdot Mirror
The question is, are we going to become the locusts of the universe, gobbling up resources and then moving on? We're doing a good job of that here... as anybody who has taken high school physics knows, matter can be converted to energy and energy to matter. if we dont die off first, our technology will eventually reach the point where we can take the free energy floating around space(and theres plenty of it, radio waves, x rays, light, etc) and convert it into any resources we need. (and imagine the potential energy a black hole has. and black holes arent a resource anybody would be likely to miss if they got "used up" either.) which is all the more reason us humans should spread out in the mean time, so we'll have more chance of surviving until our tech reaches that point.
oh, and just to further clarify. if someone steals a stero, even if they wounld not have bought it, someone is still losing money. the store has one less stero to sell if someone steals one.
"Incorrect. Robin Hood was a thief even though he gave the stolen goods to other people." yes, he was a theif, but the fact that he gave away the goods after he stole them is irrelevent, someone was still gaining something by taking it away from someone else. when someone "steals" mp3s, yes they are gaining something, but if they would have never bought it to begin with, then nobody is actually losing money. I NEVER SAID THAT MAKES IT RIGHT. "In the first place, I didn't even mention Napster" i know you didnt, i never said you did. at the end of my post i say 'im not saying napster is okay or wrong, this is just my 2 cents on the terminology people are using', note the use of the word "people" not "you". and let me say it one last time, i was not trying to justify or condem use of napster, i was just trying to draw lines between the words people were using. some people were refering to it all as being theft, or it all just being sharing, or whatever. i was just saying theres some of each going on with napster- sharing, fair use, theft, and copyright infringement. dont be so defensive =P
"You're on the right track but reach the wrong conclusion. Deliberately destroying the value of something that another person owns is a form of theft. For instance, inflationary monetary policy is stealing: the government makes each of our dollars worth less than what they used to be worth. That is theft: they are taking away the value of our money." no, dilberately destroying the value of something that another person owns is arson/vandilism/defamation(destroying the value of their character). the idea of theft is increasing your assests by decreasing someone else's assests(against their will). and to say using napster is theft is wrong becuase you're being too general. if the person d/ling a mp3 already has the cd then of course its not theft, its fair use. if a person has the cd, makes the mp3s available thru napster soley so others that already own the cd can get the mp3, then thats sharing. if a person d/ls mp3s that they dont have the cd for, and without the availablitly of the mp3 they would have bought the cd, then that IS theft. if the person d/ling the mp3 doesnt have, and never would have bought the cd(because they couldnt afford it, whatever) then that is ONLY copyright infringement, because they arent lessening the copyright holders [potential]assests. fair use and sharing are perfectly okay. theft is morally and legally wrong. copyright infringement is only legally wrong. im not saying napster is okay or wrong, this is just my 2 cents on the terminology people are using.
_Groan_. Okay, look. Linux is a operating system, a bunch of close-to-the-hardware code, kernel and device drivers and stuff, oh my! You can't just "port it alpha or ppc". So, of course, open sourcing it wouldn't help that any. --------- okay, enough of that. and who says linux has to play catch up? one of the major points of open souce is so you dont have to rely on one source for new features, code improvements, etc. if directx were open, linux programmers could well enough add features, fix bugs, optimize texture and sound algorithms and all that stuff on their own. i'd be willing to bet that once the linux directx initially catches up to MS's, it would then eclipse it in features and performance in no time. if its open source, and on other platforms, and popular(it definatly is on windows) then it effectively becomes a standard.
ya know, this presents an interesting solution to the MS trial. open up directx. even if the powers that be dont want to force MS to open up the whole os, they could at least go for directx, microsoft would have nothing to lose from that(it can be argued that they have nothing to lose and everything to gain to from opening the whole os..but thats another debate). then a directx compatable api suite could be written for linux. im sure theres plenty of people that would love to work on a open source multimedia api suite. it would make it easier to port games over, close the performance gap between the two os's, and thus satisfy the government by putting a dent in MS's monopoly by breaking down the last reason people have to stick to windows. kill three birds with one stone, whoop!