bundling of personalized search into a conventional search engine could be construed as anti-competitive in the personalized search market.
twitter and facebook would probably consider themselves players in the personalized search market, so the assumption is that they may challenge google for monopolizing personal search that users might otherwise currently use twitter and facebook for.
i don't see the point in telling people how many bits of toast i'm making for breakfast on twatter, facecrap is a crock of shit for obvious reasons, and spoogel results are getting less relevant with each passing day. i can only hope they all implode into each other in an epic court battle.
the problem with x86 is it banks all its performance on multi-core, which is pointless and wasteful for most desktop apps. i have an i7 and most of the time 5 of the 7 cores are idling, but the program that is chewing up 100% of one core is slow as shit.
What I have yet to see is Intel *really* ratchet up performance - per core. Having multi-core is only great for apps designed for them, but most programs aren't multi-threaded in any useful way to take advantage of them. what good is performance if its only a benchmark figure? if my computer doesn't boot quicker and/or my programs don't run faster, then as far as the user is concerned there is no increase in performance.
I'm no arm fanboi (i prefer avr or stm), but there is a lot of crap that you need for microprocessors that takes up valuable space on a mainboard, and its not so much the devices themselves but the interconnects between them.
microcontrollers will eventually rule the world over microprocessors not because of performance, but their integration.
eventually you will do much of the stuff you currently do with a pc on your television, and all the stuff in the box (mainboard, etc) will be incorporated into your tv or a/v receiver (they already connect to a lot of things and include things like wifi). intel won't survive this trend if they keep pursuing performance alone (they will be limited to niche high performance markets between supercomputers and microcontrollers).
you don't have to recognize a brand to buy it... most people have no idea what brand microcontroller is driving their tv, set top box or microwave. intel is only a big fish in microprocessors. microcontrollers are gradually becoming as powerful as their microprocessor cousins, and in the microcontroller industry, freescale is pretty hard to top, but i doubt many would have even heard of them (although their parent company, motorola, would no doubt be familiar).
i use windows 7 at work, and to get legacy 16 bit apps to work i had to install the stupid win xp mode vm, and some don't even work with that (esp those with dongles).
the success of win 8 for ARM will depend more on microsofts business tactics than anything to do with demand or practicality.
if there are no reasonable alternative (due to shady oem deals) then windows users will put up with what they're given.
for someone who doesn't care about the os and just wants to do their job, linux is hard to learn (because it isn't windows), but this is of course not the case for someone new to computers starting out on linux.
microsoft will no doubt make some kind of dodgy thunking mechanism, which will be a pain in the ass, but will enable microsoft to claim compatibility
i doubt lockheed martin would be overly concerned about the whole affair. they'll just tack any costs to them onto their quote for their next government contract.
Americans put the right to sue above all except their rather creepy gun fetish "right to bear arms", so while you may be free to say what you want, you could either be sued or shot as a result.
...of doing anything in space, but particularly important for going to mars, is getting to low earth orbit more cheaply, regularly, reliably and safely. without easy access to LEO and more significant orbital infrastructure than a tiny tin can toy space station (yes, the ISS is a useless pos), any trip that is made to mars will be hugely expensive and will never be repeated (vis-a-vis the moon race).
going to mars at the moment is like starting to build a house by picking out curtains
odd irregular results still affect the R value of a curve fit, which helps determine the overall validity of the curve. they should not be ignored, at most they can be omitted from curve fitting if they can be explained
i agree. scientists who ignore outliers are potentially tampering with the outcome of their paper. outliers aren't necessarily correct, but they can help a reader judge the reliability of the method used or the competence of the person performing the method. you don't necessarily draw conclusions from outliers when writing your paper, but ALL results should be included in the report somewhere (often as an appendix), regardless of their validity or contribution to the results reduction and analysis.
There are completely open computers, and there are walled gardens.
There are also pretty little gardens full of computers that have a nice picket fence for those computers to see through.
If you can only see one extreme or the other, you miss out on all the possibilities in between. Regulation doesn't have to be the gestapo looking over your shoulder with a cat o' nine tails.
To use a heavily regulated industry that I have experience in as an example (civil aviation), if you are discovered to have brought a bomb on board a commercial airliner, you will be marched off to a cell in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. However, as a regular airline passenger are you at all concerned about this? Probably not, because I assume you don't make a habbit of bringing bombs on board commercial airliners.
On the same token, if you don't traffic kiddy porn on the Internet, what reason is there to object to regulation of it unless you are guilty of it?
If regulation offers an opportunity to reduce offensive material and malware from computers and the internet, why wouldn't any typical law abiding user support it?
What's wrong with how things are now?
C'mon buddy. You gotta be smarter than that. Phishing, spam, viruses, malware, hacking, cracking, skimming, etc... there's all sorts of threats to any computer connected to the internet. Even protection against hidden adware and enforcement of software quality standards (preventing software companies from using paying customers as beta testers) could be possible.
I don't trust the government to do many things at all.
Its common for citizens of a free country to bitch about their government and take the security and political stability for granted. Most of us don't know how lucky we are. Try living in a country with no stable government, like Somalia. You might come to appreciate your government a little after a month or two in Mogadishu. Government (especially one with democratically elected officials) is really a good thing. The differences between governments and corporations (by no means exhaustive) include responsibility to voters (if you piss off voters in your electorate, you don't get voted in again) and to running the country. Corporations (especially multinational ones) have responsibility to their shareholders, which aren't limited to any one country. For example, many "US" companies are actually registered in Ireland to avoid taxes (even Google), so they are free to operate in the US and elsewhere, but they don't contribute to maintaining the country they operate in.
No system is perfect, and after thinking about the disadvantages to government sanctioned walled garden computing, I can only reject such a notion.
So because its impossible to stop murder and rape, we should disband the police force? Nothing is perfect, but that's no reason for not making a dent in a problem.
I see no pressing need for such draconian regulations.
The Internet has been operating in relative anarchy for 30-odd years, and regulation won't appear overnight, so you can sleep sound tonight.
Just because you don't understand the purpose of regulation doesn't make it pointless or wrong.
Do you really expect me to believe that? How naive do you think I am?
Motive has a way of making someone appear a lot less convincing. a murderer will come up will all sorts of philosophical reasons as to why the death penalty is bad, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter because it is obvious why a murderer wouldn't support the death penalty.
similiarly, its obvious why someone who doesn't care for copyright would oppose regulation intended to prevent copyright violation.
There is no "need" for corporate-imposed DRM. I don't use things that "need" it. If people want such 'protections', I think they should have that choice. I don't want it because it signifies a loss of freedom.
For someone that doesn't care for copyright, the reason for this is now obvious. Should people have the freedom to post kiddy porn on the web too? Your opinion of that would be considered less biased at this point (just don't tell me if you're a peadophile).
Tell me this: how would they implement such a thing?
The rest of the world calls it "censorship" at the moment. I could offer ideas I suppose. Since the web is a hierarchical system it isn't hard to regulate it (even at the ISP level), but regulation of PCs would require additional circuitry integrated into every new CPU, and the requirement of that circuitry to access new software and services. The technological hurdles of regulation aren't actually that difficult. The hard part is concensus about the level of regulation. Lobbyists for both extremes will help determine that. I actually think that this sort of thing will be inevitable.
Not the be all and end all, but China's efforts are already being noticed by the governments of other countries.
without severely raising the bar for entry for developers and tinkerers
You apparently aren't much of a programmer either. There are plenty of websites in China. It is entirely possible to develop software in accordance with regulations. Making something more challenging won't stop people from doing it. If that were the case there would be no aircraft, supermarkets, buildings, etc that have all become gradually more regulated. What do you think "tinkerers" in China can't do that you are free to do at the moment? What exactly are the freedoms that you are afraid of losing? Hosting websites may become more expensive (to ensure compliance), but at most it will prevent all the crap on the internet that I've been talking restricting. What sort of tinkering or development are you specifically talking about that may be hindered (say, using China's model of regulation for example)? Feel free to get as technical as you like.
There is nothing inherently illogical about a murderer opposing the death penalty, and their arguments aren't necessarily wrong
Motive isn't illogical, but it does cloud one's judgement.
You must be defining "reason" as "anything that I personally like."
Isn't it funny how you start making your own assumptions when you actually start to argue something (hence why I don't buy into your "only interested in fact" crap). Reason is more justified if it isn't biased. I have motive for wanting regulation; I have two young children who will someday use computers and the Internet, but I also develop and host websites that may be adversely affected by such regulation so it balances my bias at least a little bit. If you want to convince me of your objectivity, arguments like "I don't want it because it signifies a loss of freedom", after telling me that you "don't care for copyright" kind of indicate pretty blatently that you want the freedom to be able to violate c
Oh wow you are a philosopher aren't you... stuck in a world of "what ifs". I really pity you.
Can you prove that everyone who makes something "respects" copyright?
Umm, gee, let me think... the fact that there are laws to help those people wouldn't by any chance imply that its a reasonably popular notion? No, not everyone, but that would also be obviously impossible to prove. However, there's no reason why I can't claim it in my argument to make it sound more convincing. Argument isn't about what is fact. Its about what is more convincing. You're not real good at this argument thing are you.
I try to refrain from stating my opinions about morality as fact (being that I don't believe in absolute morals and all).
So what are you hoping to achieve from this conversation? Are you trying to convince me that you are relatively moral (whatever that means)? Are you trying to prove that I'm wrong or that you're right?
At least my arguments are clear; I think that regulation of personal computing wouldn't be bad because it would at least attempt to help protect users from questionable stuff (malware, kiddy porn, hacking, phishing, etc) that is difficult to protect against otherwise, and it would reduce the need for corporate-imposed DRM. You disagree with regulation merely because it would hinder you from using your computer to engage in illegal activity, such as copyright violation, but your opinion is based on motive rather than reason (like a murderer opposing the death penalty).
Can you summarise your arguments a little? It might get the conversation back on track (unless this conversation is over).
I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult to find one if you searched around.
Why would I bother going to any trouble to prove your point? The onus is on you if you wish to prove some hypothesis that there are people who create works but don't care about copyright. This is a very basic principle of argument and is why you are getting so boring. I shouldn't have to help you argue your own points just to keep things interesting (there are much more interesting topics I can argue with myself about).
You seem so fixated on the fact that I'm making assumptions, which is rather obvious and doesn't need to be continually pointed out, or justified on my part, that you completely ignore the arguments I make that include assumptions. Everyone makes assumptions when they argue (including yourself, if you were actually arguing).
Do you think I'm trying to somehow have you put away for copyright violation or something?
My original assumption was that you've never produced any copyrightable work (or work that is worthy of copyright) and I stated an argument as to why (because if you had you would have more respect for copyright). You haven't offered any counter argument to this, instead stating the obvious and getting lost in triviality.
I agree that what is legal isn't necessarily right and what is illegal isn't necessarily wrong, but what of it? Are you saying that violating copyright isn't wrong? You haven't really made any point at all (its called fence-sitting). We're simply going back to the notion that just because something isn't probable doesn't make it impossible.
It's possible that you have a clue what you're on about, but it's also possible that you are a complete moron. I'm not assuming either, but now lets somehow turn that into an enriching discussion.
Do you know any artists that oppose copyright? There are a lot of people bitching about it on Slashdot, but I would assume they are in the same boat as you.
It's certainly possible to both make things and be against copyright law.
Possible, but if you have made something worth protecting, it is natural to want to protect it (if for no other reason than to recoup the costs of developing it). It's also possible to be gay and be against gay marriage, own a car but never drive it, have a job but never get paid, etc.
There is nothing subjective about whether something is worthy of copyright protection. It only helps prove that you've never created anything. The artist or copyright holder always decides whether something is worth copyright protection, and they are free to sue for damages as they see fit if you are found to have violated copyright. If you're found guilty, your beliefs or opinion of the worth of the item aren't going to save you. In fact, if you bother to copy something, it obviously has value to you as well, so it can't be worthless.
There are a lot of people releasing work under permissive licenses (such as the GPL), but that doesn't imply opposition to copyright. Indeed, copyleft licenses must be complied with in the same way as copyright. The only difference is the conditions imposed.
This argument is nothing more than, "if you were in situation X, you'd feel differently!" If you were me, you wouldn't care for copyright law. If I were you, I would probably care about copyright law.
True, and everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, but the difference is that actions resulting from your belief are illegal in many countries.
i can be arrogant (welcome to slashdot) and i like to think I’m right, but my argument is more to expand my knowledge by gaining from yours (or others). i like Wikipedia for the same reason. i don't blindly take what i read as fact and like to think outside the square occasionally (have a squiz at some of my other comments).
unfortunately its now hard to believe that you are arguing against copyright for any other reason than because you admit to violating it
i guess if you were caught speeding in your car you wouldn't care much for laws against speeding either
sorry, but i was having more fun when i thought your motives for arguing against regulation were more rational and could lead to a much richer discussion. now your arguments are a bit too predictable to keep me interested.
having said that, i look forward to discussions about other topics.
Slashdot Mirror
bundling of personalized search into a conventional search engine could be construed as anti-competitive in the personalized search market.
twitter and facebook would probably consider themselves players in the personalized search market, so the assumption is that they may challenge google for monopolizing personal search that users might otherwise currently use twitter and facebook for.
i don't see the point in telling people how many bits of toast i'm making for breakfast on twatter, facecrap is a crock of shit for obvious reasons, and spoogel results are getting less relevant with each passing day. i can only hope they all implode into each other in an epic court battle.
the problem with x86 is it banks all its performance on multi-core, which is pointless and wasteful for most desktop apps. i have an i7 and most of the time 5 of the 7 cores are idling, but the program that is chewing up 100% of one core is slow as shit.
What I have yet to see is Intel *really* ratchet up performance - per core. Having multi-core is only great for apps designed for them, but most programs aren't multi-threaded in any useful way to take advantage of them. what good is performance if its only a benchmark figure? if my computer doesn't boot quicker and/or my programs don't run faster, then as far as the user is concerned there is no increase in performance.
I'm no arm fanboi (i prefer avr or stm), but there is a lot of crap that you need for microprocessors that takes up valuable space on a mainboard, and its not so much the devices themselves but the interconnects between them.
microcontrollers will eventually rule the world over microprocessors not because of performance, but their integration.
eventually you will do much of the stuff you currently do with a pc on your television, and all the stuff in the box (mainboard, etc) will be incorporated into your tv or a/v receiver (they already connect to a lot of things and include things like wifi). intel won't survive this trend if they keep pursuing performance alone (they will be limited to niche high performance markets between supercomputers and microcontrollers).
you don't have to recognize a brand to buy it... most people have no idea what brand microcontroller is driving their tv, set top box or microwave. intel is only a big fish in microprocessors. microcontrollers are gradually becoming as powerful as their microprocessor cousins, and in the microcontroller industry, freescale is pretty hard to top, but i doubt many would have even heard of them (although their parent company, motorola, would no doubt be familiar).
old stuff on an x86 platform will continue to work
old stuff non-ARM will not work
Isn't x86 considered "non-ARM"?
Will my old x86 programs work on ARM or will they not?
i use windows 7 at work, and to get legacy 16 bit apps to work i had to install the stupid win xp mode vm, and some don't even work with that (esp those with dongles).
the success of win 8 for ARM will depend more on microsofts business tactics than anything to do with demand or practicality.
if there are no reasonable alternative (due to shady oem deals) then windows users will put up with what they're given.
for someone who doesn't care about the os and just wants to do their job, linux is hard to learn (because it isn't windows), but this is of course not the case for someone new to computers starting out on linux.
microsoft will no doubt make some kind of dodgy thunking mechanism, which will be a pain in the ass, but will enable microsoft to claim compatibility
probably a windows 8 user
val kilmer made being a "space janitor" cool. other than that, mars is already pretty cool by virtue of its distance from the sun.
there is also indemnity insurance.
i doubt lockheed martin would be overly concerned about the whole affair. they'll just tack any costs to them onto their quote for their next government contract.
Americans put the right to sue above all except their rather creepy gun fetish "right to bear arms", so while you may be free to say what you want, you could either be sued or shot as a result.
freedom of speech is a human right
i agree, but...
the problem in "free" countries like america is that some people just don't know when to shut the fuck up
shhh... don't give them more ideas!
i would be less surprised if western companies were copying the chinese
Where did they pick up the extra 400 million people from?
that might be their daily population growth :)
...of doing anything in space, but particularly important for going to mars, is getting to low earth orbit more cheaply, regularly, reliably and safely. without easy access to LEO and more significant orbital infrastructure than a tiny tin can toy space station (yes, the ISS is a useless pos), any trip that is made to mars will be hugely expensive and will never be repeated (vis-a-vis the moon race).
going to mars at the moment is like starting to build a house by picking out curtains
nasa would need more "steely eyed missile men" to make those square chinese pegs fit into round iss holes
odd irregular results still affect the R value of a curve fit, which helps determine the overall validity of the curve. they should not be ignored, at most they can be omitted from curve fitting if they can be explained
i agree. scientists who ignore outliers are potentially tampering with the outcome of their paper. outliers aren't necessarily correct, but they can help a reader judge the reliability of the method used or the competence of the person performing the method. you don't necessarily draw conclusions from outliers when writing your paper, but ALL results should be included in the report somewhere (often as an appendix), regardless of their validity or contribution to the results reduction and analysis.
dude, you truly suck at arguing. unfortunately i just can't be stuffed with this banter any longer. thanks for the ride though.
There are completely open computers, and there are walled gardens.
There are also pretty little gardens full of computers that have a nice picket fence for those computers to see through.
If you can only see one extreme or the other, you miss out on all the possibilities in between. Regulation doesn't have to be the gestapo looking over your shoulder with a cat o' nine tails.
To use a heavily regulated industry that I have experience in as an example (civil aviation), if you are discovered to have brought a bomb on board a commercial airliner, you will be marched off to a cell in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. However, as a regular airline passenger are you at all concerned about this? Probably not, because I assume you don't make a habbit of bringing bombs on board commercial airliners.
On the same token, if you don't traffic kiddy porn on the Internet, what reason is there to object to regulation of it unless you are guilty of it?
If regulation offers an opportunity to reduce offensive material and malware from computers and the internet, why wouldn't any typical law abiding user support it?
What's wrong with how things are now?
C'mon buddy. You gotta be smarter than that. Phishing, spam, viruses, malware, hacking, cracking, skimming, etc... there's all sorts of threats to any computer connected to the internet. Even protection against hidden adware and enforcement of software quality standards (preventing software companies from using paying customers as beta testers) could be possible.
I don't trust the government to do many things at all.
Its common for citizens of a free country to bitch about their government and take the security and political stability for granted. Most of us don't know how lucky we are. Try living in a country with no stable government, like Somalia. You might come to appreciate your government a little after a month or two in Mogadishu. Government (especially one with democratically elected officials) is really a good thing. The differences between governments and corporations (by no means exhaustive) include responsibility to voters (if you piss off voters in your electorate, you don't get voted in again) and to running the country. Corporations (especially multinational ones) have responsibility to their shareholders, which aren't limited to any one country. For example, many "US" companies are actually registered in Ireland to avoid taxes (even Google), so they are free to operate in the US and elsewhere, but they don't contribute to maintaining the country they operate in.
No system is perfect, and after thinking about the disadvantages to government sanctioned walled garden computing, I can only reject such a notion.
So because its impossible to stop murder and rape, we should disband the police force? Nothing is perfect, but that's no reason for not making a dent in a problem.
I see no pressing need for such draconian regulations.
The Internet has been operating in relative anarchy for 30-odd years, and regulation won't appear overnight, so you can sleep sound tonight.
Just because you don't understand the purpose of regulation doesn't make it pointless or wrong.
All I care about is fact.
Do you really expect me to believe that? How naive do you think I am?
Motive has a way of making someone appear a lot less convincing. a murderer will come up will all sorts of philosophical reasons as to why the death penalty is bad, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter because it is obvious why a murderer wouldn't support the death penalty.
similiarly, its obvious why someone who doesn't care for copyright would oppose regulation intended to prevent copyright violation.
There is no "need" for corporate-imposed DRM. I don't use things that "need" it. If people want such 'protections', I think they should have that choice. I don't want it because it signifies a loss of freedom.
For someone that doesn't care for copyright, the reason for this is now obvious. Should people have the freedom to post kiddy porn on the web too? Your opinion of that would be considered less biased at this point (just don't tell me if you're a peadophile).
Tell me this: how would they implement such a thing?
The rest of the world calls it "censorship" at the moment. I could offer ideas I suppose. Since the web is a hierarchical system it isn't hard to regulate it (even at the ISP level), but regulation of PCs would require additional circuitry integrated into every new CPU, and the requirement of that circuitry to access new software and services. The technological hurdles of regulation aren't actually that difficult. The hard part is concensus about the level of regulation. Lobbyists for both extremes will help determine that. I actually think that this sort of thing will be inevitable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China
Not the be all and end all, but China's efforts are already being noticed by the governments of other countries.
without severely raising the bar for entry for developers and tinkerers
You apparently aren't much of a programmer either. There are plenty of websites in China. It is entirely possible to develop software in accordance with regulations. Making something more challenging won't stop people from doing it. If that were the case there would be no aircraft, supermarkets, buildings, etc that have all become gradually more regulated. What do you think "tinkerers" in China can't do that you are free to do at the moment? What exactly are the freedoms that you are afraid of losing? Hosting websites may become more expensive (to ensure compliance), but at most it will prevent all the crap on the internet that I've been talking restricting. What sort of tinkering or development are you specifically talking about that may be hindered (say, using China's model of regulation for example)? Feel free to get as technical as you like.
There is nothing inherently illogical about a murderer opposing the death penalty, and their arguments aren't necessarily wrong
Motive isn't illogical, but it does cloud one's judgement.
You must be defining "reason" as "anything that I personally like."
Isn't it funny how you start making your own assumptions when you actually start to argue something (hence why I don't buy into your "only interested in fact" crap). Reason is more justified if it isn't biased. I have motive for wanting regulation; I have two young children who will someday use computers and the Internet, but I also develop and host websites that may be adversely affected by such regulation so it balances my bias at least a little bit. If you want to convince me of your objectivity, arguments like "I don't want it because it signifies a loss of freedom", after telling me that you "don't care for copyright" kind of indicate pretty blatently that you want the freedom to be able to violate c
Can you prove that everyone who makes something "respects" copyright?
Umm, gee, let me think... the fact that there are laws to help those people wouldn't by any chance imply that its a reasonably popular notion? No, not everyone, but that would also be obviously impossible to prove. However, there's no reason why I can't claim it in my argument to make it sound more convincing. Argument isn't about what is fact. Its about what is more convincing. You're not real good at this argument thing are you.
I try to refrain from stating my opinions about morality as fact (being that I don't believe in absolute morals and all).
So what are you hoping to achieve from this conversation? Are you trying to convince me that you are relatively moral (whatever that means)? Are you trying to prove that I'm wrong or that you're right?
At least my arguments are clear; I think that regulation of personal computing wouldn't be bad because it would at least attempt to help protect users from questionable stuff (malware, kiddy porn, hacking, phishing, etc) that is difficult to protect against otherwise, and it would reduce the need for corporate-imposed DRM. You disagree with regulation merely because it would hinder you from using your computer to engage in illegal activity, such as copyright violation, but your opinion is based on motive rather than reason (like a murderer opposing the death penalty).
Can you summarise your arguments a little? It might get the conversation back on track (unless this conversation is over).
I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult to find one if you searched around.
Why would I bother going to any trouble to prove your point? The onus is on you if you wish to prove some hypothesis that there are people who create works but don't care about copyright. This is a very basic principle of argument and is why you are getting so boring. I shouldn't have to help you argue your own points just to keep things interesting (there are much more interesting topics I can argue with myself about).
You seem so fixated on the fact that I'm making assumptions, which is rather obvious and doesn't need to be continually pointed out, or justified on my part, that you completely ignore the arguments I make that include assumptions. Everyone makes assumptions when they argue (including yourself, if you were actually arguing).
Do you think I'm trying to somehow have you put away for copyright violation or something?
My original assumption was that you've never produced any copyrightable work (or work that is worthy of copyright) and I stated an argument as to why (because if you had you would have more respect for copyright). You haven't offered any counter argument to this, instead stating the obvious and getting lost in triviality.
I agree that what is legal isn't necessarily right and what is illegal isn't necessarily wrong, but what of it? Are you saying that violating copyright isn't wrong? You haven't really made any point at all (its called fence-sitting). We're simply going back to the notion that just because something isn't probable doesn't make it impossible.
It's possible that you have a clue what you're on about, but it's also possible that you are a complete moron. I'm not assuming either, but now lets somehow turn that into an enriching discussion.
It's certainly possible to both make things and be against copyright law.
Possible, but if you have made something worth protecting, it is natural to want to protect it (if for no other reason than to recoup the costs of developing it). It's also possible to be gay and be against gay marriage, own a car but never drive it, have a job but never get paid, etc.
There is nothing subjective about whether something is worthy of copyright protection. It only helps prove that you've never created anything. The artist or copyright holder always decides whether something is worth copyright protection, and they are free to sue for damages as they see fit if you are found to have violated copyright. If you're found guilty, your beliefs or opinion of the worth of the item aren't going to save you. In fact, if you bother to copy something, it obviously has value to you as well, so it can't be worthless.
There are a lot of people releasing work under permissive licenses (such as the GPL), but that doesn't imply opposition to copyright. Indeed, copyleft licenses must be complied with in the same way as copyright. The only difference is the conditions imposed.
This argument is nothing more than, "if you were in situation X, you'd feel differently!" If you were me, you wouldn't care for copyright law. If I were you, I would probably care about copyright law.
True, and everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, but the difference is that actions resulting from your belief are illegal in many countries.
i can be arrogant (welcome to slashdot) and i like to think I’m right, but my argument is more to expand my knowledge by gaining from yours (or others). i like Wikipedia for the same reason. i don't blindly take what i read as fact and like to think outside the square occasionally (have a squiz at some of my other comments).
unfortunately its now hard to believe that you are arguing against copyright for any other reason than because you admit to violating it
i guess if you were caught speeding in your car you wouldn't care much for laws against speeding either
sorry, but i was having more fun when i thought your motives for arguing against regulation were more rational and could lead to a much richer discussion. now your arguments are a bit too predictable to keep me interested.
having said that, i look forward to discussions about other topics.
its also apparent that you've never produced any work that is worthy of copyright protection or you would have a little more respect for it