Windoze suxxors! It and people who use it should not be allowed on the interweb! They should all be using [insert linux distro] Linux! Then, they wouldn't have this problem!
Every time a story like this pops up, the Linux fanboys start spewing about how everyone should use Linux. Well, let me give you a dose of reality.
You say: Everyone should use Linux! Reply: Make it easier for average users to use and they will.
You say: It is easy enough for me to use! Reply: You are not an average user.
You say: They should learn to use it. Reply: Why should they when the probably already know how to use Windows and if they don't, it is very intutive to use?
You say: Linux is better! Reply: Really? Do tell.
You say: Linux comes with all the drivers for the hardware. Reply: As long as one isnâ(TM)t using hardware that isnâ(TM)t support under Linux because it is too new, not popular with driver hackers, etc.
You say: No zombies, no viruses, etc. Reply: It takes less time to buy and install AV software than to learn Linux enough to install, use, and secure it. The cost (opportunity and otherwise) of Linux is greater than that of Windows + AV software.
You say: Linux comes with all kinds of free software and there is a lot more available. Reply: Most of which is any number of the following:
Not relevant to most average users and just take up space on the hard drive
Do not come close to being as good as what is available for Windows
Is available for Windows.
Consists of 10 reinventions of the wheel
Crappy and half-finished
Not what the user needs and what the user needs is not available on Linux
Consume extra resources because it GNOME based running on KDE, or vice versa.
You say: Linux can use WINE to run most Windows application. Reply: But, Windows runs all Windows applications and doesn't need to be installed. Also, it has the advantage of installing and running those apps right out of the box without having to go to the command line and configure anything.
Statement: Most Linux applications suck, have crappy inconsistent interfaces, and are often missing functionality of the Windows applications to which the supposedly compare. You say: But, the users can pay for improvements and to have whatever functionality added! Reply: Or, they can buy what they want outright for less.
Statement: There is better user support for Windows than Linux. You say: There is tons of support. They can go to forums and websites and get free support. Reply: Have you done a search for an answer lately? I see tons of forums posts with simple questions that generally don't get replies. And when they do get a reply, more often than not the reply is either "RTFM!" or someone taunting the "noob". Of course, there are the replies that read âoeGo to the app website and download the latest snapshot. Compile and install it, then go into the config file and set [undocumented option] to [insert undocumented mystery value]â. Or worse, âoeUpdate your kernel to [latest unstable RVL] and use the patch from [hackerâ(TM)s website].â
Pay attention: As long as FLOSS is written by developers for themselves and other geeks, Linux will not gain traction with the average desktop users. What makes Windows and its associated software so popular among the masses is that it is written with the masses in mind and developers are paid to finish it.
This happens every time a story likie this one pops up.
Make Linux and it's associated applications easier for average users to use and they will use. The average computer person does not want to spend time dealing with FLOSS crapware that is not as good as what is available on Windows. They don't want to have to spend hours, days, weeks, or (in some cases) months trying to get something to work that "just works" under Windows. They don't want to have to open a terminal and deal with the command line to do anything. (There is a reason GUIs are so ubiquitous)
Unfortunately, you are not working those extra 400 hours. Instead, you are sleeping later, eating breakfast, and/or stopping by Starbucks or Dunkin'Doughnuts.
speed traps, red-light cameras, and other threats to ticket-free driving
Here is a novel idea to avoid tickets: Don't drive like an asshole! If you don't speed, run red lights, and do other stupid things, you won't get a ticket.
It's amazing the idea of not breaking the law and not being a dick never seems to occur to people.
Trying to change the discussion from what is legal to what is moral? Moral doesn't enter into it. Morals are subjective.
How about we talk about laws and not subjective morals, or is your mind too fucking small to grasp that?
What does preventing me from ripping a DVD to an iPod have to do with "promoting the Progress of Science and useful Arts"?
It allows the producers of a work to benefit and profit from their work. I know you don't think anyone should profit if it will cost you money, but I am betting you don't work for free either.
Please explain to me how you not being able to rip (which comes from the phrase "rip off", meaning to steal) content from a DVD prevents you from creating original content? Answer: It doesn't.
Now, why aren't you railing against the real reason that provision exists, people violating the rights of the copyright holders? Where is the morality in violating the rights of the copyright holders? It used to be that people didn't violate those rights due to technical reasons, and personal honor and responsibility. Now, fuckwads like yourself have no technical hurdles and have no honor or feelings of responsibility. You only have a false sense of entitlement. Well, you are not entitled to shit.
I don't have to read your little OpEd piece, dipshit, because that is the opinion of one stupid person (no doubt why you liked it, yourself being just as stupid). Especially when it is on morality and not legality. Want to make a real argument? Address the legality of copyrights, because what you think is moral does not fucking matter.
Now, you are probably thinking something along the lines of "An immoral law should not be followed."
Well, in that case, we can let the kids who kill Matthew Shepard out of jail because they were following their morals and not the law.
And, we can let the anti-abortion protesters who fire bombed clinics and killed doctors out because they believe that abortion is illegal and laws protecting it should not be followed. This would include Eric Rudolf, the Olympic bomber, as he was just following God's word.
Let's not forget about the man in England who killed his daughter for refusing to go along with an arranged marriage. He should go free because he was upholding his religious and ethnic morals and the law be damned.
While we are at it, we have to let Warren Steed Jeffs go free because he was following the morals of his religion when he forced young teen-aged girls to marry and have sex with older men who already had wives, including close relatives.
If morals trump the law, then the law is meaningless because all someone has to say is "I was doing what I believe is morally correct."
You are too stupid to read. Well, it could be that your reading comprehension is that of a infant. Or, is it that you are trying to change the subject because your position is indefensible?
That comment was about violating copyright, not circumvention of copy protection. Copy protection exists because assholes like you decided to violate the rights of the copyright holders.
Morality does not enter into it. A bunch of shitheads, like yourself, went out and violated the rights of the copyright holders, so laws were passed to criminalize violating those rights.
Something does not have to be immoral to be illegal and something that is legal does not have to be moral.
The reason for that is because what is "moral" is subjective and depends on who one asks. Killing a woman for having pre-martial sex is considered moral in many Muslim states, and it is legal in some of them. Many Americans believe abortion is legal and immoral. Whose morals should apply when the laws are made? Maybe we should use MY morals. You wouldn't like that and would prefer we use whatever you have that passes for morals.
The rights that are spelled on in law, dumbass. I don't give a fuck what an OpEd piece in the NY Times says. I can turn to the Constitution and the U.S. Code, also known as the LAW.
The copyright holder is the victim, therefore it is not a victimless crime.
your right to suckle at the teat of the government-supported monopoly
"Maybe you should try reading the Constitution. Your derogatory tone aside, it is my right to benefit from my work. The law gives me that right. Why do you think you should be able to deprive me of my Constitutional right to benefit from my work?"
"I create things every day in [insert creative industry] and nobody in my industry gets the luxury of creating something once and getting paid a million times for it, so fuck you."
"Fuck you and your industry. If you could do it in your industry, then you would. But, you can't so you don't want me to do it either."
Your entire post is nothing more than a series of self-serving fallacies.
Last I checked, the law says that the copyright holders (which includes the ??AAs) have and exclusive, limited right to control the creation and distribution of copies. You, on the other hand, have a very limited right to make copies and no right to distribute them.
Now, dumbass, tell me what fucking right you have that is being violated?
Would you prefer "Sucker the poor into paying for everything" Democrats? If you don't believe they exist, take a look at the rich and famous Democrat supporters, especially those in the entertainment industry and in politics.
Would you prefer "We shouldn't punish people for being successful" Republicans? That is what the tax laws do when one has to pay at a higher rate if one makes more money.
You are obviously a rabid ultra-left Democrat, just like the submitter.
Stop bitching about it and put the blame where it belongs, on the people violating the rights of the copyright holders. (see, the word "right" is built into the name")
Everyone bitches about DRM and how much they hate it and how it violates their rights when most of those same people are violating the legally granted rights of the copyright holders. I am so fucking tired of hearing it.
Pay close attention people: YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO INDISCRIMINATELY MAKE AND DISTRIBUTE COPIES. THAT RIGHT IS RESERVED, BY LAW, TO THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS. YOU HAVE A VERY LIMITED RIGHT TO MAKE COPIES OF COPYRIGHTED WORKS. IT IS ALL SPELLED OUT IN THE LAW. TRY READING IT SOMETIME.
Now, some dumbshit is going to say "It's not really a right." Well, it is just as much a right as is equal access laws for the disabled and the right to vote of black Americans and women. All of those are rights granted by law.
No, they are totalitarian Leninists. They don't take a paycheck, so they don't feel a need to put straight information. Rather, they prefer to spin information, take statements out of context, and actually lie.
Those bloggers aren't honest, not by a long shot. You have aligned yourself with falsehoods and it shows in your very first sentence.
Why shouldn't they be allowed to do what those that oppose them do? Why shouldn't they be allowed to use the same tactics that the military-haters and anti-war crowd use?
Slashdot Mirror
Every time a story like this pops up, the Linux fanboys start spewing about how everyone should use Linux. Well, let me give you a dose of reality.
You say: Everyone should use Linux!
Reply: Make it easier for average users to use and they will.
You say: It is easy enough for me to use!
Reply: You are not an average user.
You say: They should learn to use it.
Reply: Why should they when the probably already know how to use Windows and if they don't, it is very intutive to use?
You say: Linux is better!
Reply: Really? Do tell.
You say: Linux comes with all the drivers for the hardware.
Reply: As long as one isnâ(TM)t using hardware that isnâ(TM)t support under Linux because it is too new, not popular with driver hackers, etc.
You say: No zombies, no viruses, etc.
Reply: It takes less time to buy and install AV software than to learn Linux enough to install, use, and secure it. The cost (opportunity and otherwise) of Linux is greater than that of Windows + AV software.
You say: Linux comes with all kinds of free software and there is a lot more available.
Reply: Most of which is any number of the following:
You say: Linux can use WINE to run most Windows application.
Reply: But, Windows runs all Windows applications and doesn't need to be installed. Also, it has the advantage of installing and running those apps right out of the box without having to go to the command line and configure anything.
Statement: Most Linux applications suck, have crappy inconsistent interfaces, and are often missing functionality of the Windows applications to which the supposedly compare.
You say: But, the users can pay for improvements and to have whatever functionality added!
Reply: Or, they can buy what they want outright for less.
Statement: There is better user support for Windows than Linux.
You say: There is tons of support. They can go to forums and websites and get free support.
Reply: Have you done a search for an answer lately? I see tons of forums posts with simple questions that generally don't get replies. And when they do get a reply, more often than not the reply is either "RTFM!" or someone taunting the "noob". Of course, there are the replies that read âoeGo to the app website and download the latest snapshot. Compile and install it, then go into the config file and set [undocumented option] to [insert undocumented mystery value]â. Or worse, âoeUpdate your kernel to [latest unstable RVL] and use the patch from [hackerâ(TM)s website].â
Pay attention:
As long as FLOSS is written by developers for themselves and other geeks, Linux will not gain traction with the average desktop users. What makes Windows and its associated software so popular among the masses is that it is written with the masses in mind and developers are paid to finish it.
Now, please, either address these issues or STFU.
This happens every time a story likie this one pops up.
Make Linux and it's associated applications easier for average users to use and they will use. The average computer person does not want to spend time dealing with FLOSS crapware that is not as good as what is available on Windows. They don't want to have to spend hours, days, weeks, or (in some cases) months trying to get something to work that "just works" under Windows. They don't want to have to open a terminal and deal with the command line to do anything. (There is a reason GUIs are so ubiquitous)
Give the users what they want or STFU.
Those speed traps aren't in Tampa. They are way north of Tampa. But, you are right, there were billboards and a big controversy.
FYI, if you are taking going to Tampa from the NE and taking I95 down the coast, you are better off taking I10 to I75 or I4 to I75/275
I live in Tampa.
Please state exactly where this is and where the billboards are so I can go see them.
Oh, another person who thinks reporting crime is the act of a snitch or "rat fink".
People like you are the reason there is so much crime.
Unfortunately, you are not working those extra 400 hours. Instead, you are sleeping later, eating breakfast, and/or stopping by Starbucks or Dunkin'Doughnuts.
I hope someone you love is killed by a speeder running a red light.
Then, you can say how much you love the idea of helping people speed and run red lights.
Here is a novel idea to avoid tickets: Don't drive like an asshole! If you don't speed, run red lights, and do other stupid things, you won't get a ticket.
It's amazing the idea of not breaking the law and not being a dick never seems to occur to people.
How about we talk about laws and not subjective morals, or is your mind too fucking small to grasp that?
It allows the producers of a work to benefit and profit from their work. I know you don't think anyone should profit if it will cost you money, but I am betting you don't work for free either.
Please explain to me how you not being able to rip (which comes from the phrase "rip off", meaning to steal) content from a DVD prevents you from creating original content? Answer: It doesn't.
Now, why aren't you railing against the real reason that provision exists, people violating the rights of the copyright holders? Where is the morality in violating the rights of the copyright holders? It used to be that people didn't violate those rights due to technical reasons, and personal honor and responsibility. Now, fuckwads like yourself have no technical hurdles and have no honor or feelings of responsibility. You only have a false sense of entitlement. Well, you are not entitled to shit.
I don't have to read your little OpEd piece, dipshit, because that is the opinion of one stupid person (no doubt why you liked it, yourself being just as stupid). Especially when it is on morality and not legality. Want to make a real argument? Address the legality of copyrights, because what you think is moral does not fucking matter.
Now, you are probably thinking something along the lines of "An immoral law should not be followed."
Well, in that case, we can let the kids who kill Matthew Shepard out of jail because they were following their morals and not the law.
And, we can let the anti-abortion protesters who fire bombed clinics and killed doctors out because they believe that abortion is illegal and laws protecting it should not be followed. This would include Eric Rudolf, the Olympic bomber, as he was just following God's word.
Let's not forget about the man in England who killed his daughter for refusing to go along with an arranged marriage. He should go free because he was upholding his religious and ethnic morals and the law be damned.
While we are at it, we have to let Warren Steed Jeffs go free because he was following the morals of his religion when he forced young teen-aged girls to marry and have sex with older men who already had wives, including close relatives.
If morals trump the law, then the law is meaningless because all someone has to say is "I was doing what I believe is morally correct."
You are too stupid to read. Well, it could be that your reading comprehension is that of a infant. Or, is it that you are trying to change the subject because your position is indefensible?
That comment was about violating copyright, not circumvention of copy protection. Copy protection
exists because assholes like you decided to violate the rights of the copyright holders.
Morality does not enter into it. A bunch of shitheads, like yourself, went out and violated the rights of the copyright holders, so laws were passed to criminalize violating those rights.
Something does not have to be immoral to be illegal and something that is legal does not have to be moral.
The reason for that is because what is "moral" is subjective and depends on who one asks. Killing a woman for having pre-martial sex is considered moral in many Muslim states, and it is legal in some of them. Many Americans believe abortion is legal and immoral. Whose morals should apply when the laws are made? Maybe we should use MY morals. You wouldn't like that and would prefer we use whatever you have that passes for morals.
Now, do yourself a favor and STFU.
Oooh, a real dipshit. Here, let us take a look at the word itself: copy right. Look right in the term is the word "right".
Now, let us take a look at the law. The law says it is a right.
Now, let us take a look at the Constitution of the United States of America. It says it is a right as well.
Now, show me where it is a privilege or shut the fuck up.
Ok, fuckwit, if the law says it is a right, then it is a right. You seem to be too stupid to understand that.
No, dipshit, my position is that it is morally wrong and illegal. Unlike your position which is "I don't like copy right law so it must be wrong."
What do you think it is when you imply that everyone who does not agree with you, or is not against what is being talked about is a fascist?
You can not support that this has anything to do with fascism. You are, in fact, a lying hypocrite.
The rights that are spelled on in law, dumbass. I don't give a fuck what an OpEd piece in the NY Times says. I can turn to the Constitution and the U.S. Code, also known as the LAW.
Here let me help you:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
That "right". Does that answer your question, dipshit?
Here is some more reading for you:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/
"Maybe you should try reading the Constitution. Your derogatory tone aside, it is my right to benefit from my work. The law gives me that right. Why do you think you should be able to deprive me of my Constitutional right to benefit from my work?"
"Fuck you and your industry. If you could do it in your industry, then you would. But, you can't so you don't want me to do it either."
Your entire post is nothing more than a series of self-serving fallacies.
OK, you dipshit troll, I will feed you.
Last I checked, the law says that the copyright holders (which includes the ??AAs) have and exclusive, limited right to control the creation and distribution of copies. You, on the other hand, have a very limited right to make copies and no right to distribute them.
Now, dumbass, tell me what fucking right you have that is being violated?
See, now you are being a troll.
Would you prefer "Sucker the poor into paying for everything" Democrats? If you don't believe they exist, take a look at the rich and famous Democrat supporters, especially those in the entertainment industry and in politics.
Would you prefer "We shouldn't punish people for being successful" Republicans? That is what the tax laws do when one has to pay at a higher rate if one makes more money.
You are obviously a rabid ultra-left Democrat, just like the submitter.
Stop bitching about it and put the blame where it belongs, on the people violating the rights of the copyright holders. (see, the word "right" is built into the name")
Everyone bitches about DRM and how much they hate it and how it violates their rights when most of those same people are violating the legally granted rights of the copyright holders. I am so fucking tired of hearing it.
Pay close attention people:
YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO INDISCRIMINATELY MAKE AND DISTRIBUTE COPIES. THAT RIGHT IS RESERVED, BY LAW, TO THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS. YOU HAVE A VERY LIMITED RIGHT TO MAKE COPIES OF COPYRIGHTED WORKS. IT IS ALL SPELLED OUT IN THE LAW. TRY READING IT SOMETIME.
Now, some dumbshit is going to say "It's not really a right." Well, it is just as much a right as is equal access laws for the disabled and the right to vote of black Americans and women. All of those are rights granted by law.
Stop violating other people's rights and this won't be a problem.
Apparently, the challenge is in writing a decent summary of the article. Of course, it is possible the submitter didn't even bother to RTFA.
/., right?
Of course, it could be just sensationalism running wild. That could *never* happen on
No, they are totalitarian Leninists. They don't take a paycheck, so they don't feel a need to put straight information. Rather, they prefer to spin information, take statements out of context, and actually lie.
Those bloggers aren't honest, not by a long shot. You have aligned yourself with falsehoods and it shows in your very first sentence.
Apparently, you have forgotten that bandwidth has a limit.
Why shouldn't they be allowed to do what those that oppose them do?
Why shouldn't they be allowed to use the same tactics that the military-haters and anti-war crowd use?
It's a smoldering ruin and not a single post.