Colorizing a black and white movie is adding something that the director did not put there. And generally, he's dead, so you can't consult him about it.
Almost everything else that was free (and legal) on the 'net is gone now.
Um, what? There's an enormous amount of great, free content. More than ever before. The Web has grown at an amazing rate . . . perhaps paid content & garbage has grown at a rate greater than free, good content, but it's all grown.
It's all just a matter of knowing where to look, but thanks primarily to Google, that's gotten better and easier too.
Oh dear . . . I fired that off after reading little more than the first paragraph, which struck me as being similar to "To write the great American novel, you just need paper, lots of time, and the story of the great American novel", or "To make a great painting, you just need canvas, paint, a subject, and devastating talent".
In reality, your article has quite a bit more content than that. My apologies.
there are 12-steppers out there who believe in such a thing as "workaholism". They think it is a bona fide addiction problem. If you like your job too much, that's apparently bad for you. Horrors.. productive, happy people contributing positively to society are.. are.. ENJOYING it!!
Nobody says that. The concept of "workaholism" applies to people who DON'T enjoy their job, DON'T get true fulfillment from it, but DO spend all their time at work to the detriment of their health and family.
Let me know when it is and when there is sufficient general application support that is acceptable for 90%+ of users and I will agree. That will include being able to view web pages that are IE bug dependent, interoperating 100% with other Office users, and being able to play games.
You've essentially just defined an OS as "being ready for the desktop" only when it's a Microsoft Windows OS. FOSS does not need to attempt to recreate Microsoft's bugs to gain market share . . . in fact, it doesn't "need" to gain market share at all (although it is). With the current strategy, it'll gain more slowly, but it'll be better as it does.
Why then shouldn't they go ahead and pursue a patent attack strategy in order to crush what they see as the competition? They are bound only to act within the confines of the law. There is no legal reason why they should play nice.
You're correct. This is exactly why business must be regulated and restricted by the government; corporations by design use law as a surrogate for ethics.
I run everything through jack. In fact, that's the main source of issues I've had with Rosegarden.
So I guess maybe it's:
If you use jack -> MusE
If you don't use jack -> Rosegarden
Re:Ripping off Ayn Rand... sort off
on
Blink, Take 2
·
· Score: 1
We never made an agreement.
And spam is unsolicited. That's very different from a response to people attempting to contact you. It's currently a huge drain on the Internet infrastructure, caused by people freeloading on the shared medium for personal gain. The personal gain involved is demonstrably MUCH less than the toll on society; is this a good thing?
And, again, your advertisement is the exact same thing, just lesser in scope. You cannot defend it, and rather than admit it's just your own selfishness affecting your ability/desire to make ethical decisions, you continue to skirt the issue.
Re:Ripping off Ayn Rand... sort off
on
Blink, Take 2
·
· Score: 1
speaking in a reference in an uncensored forum about *gasp* a job creating initiative involving the Gratis Network, Microsoft, eFax, Blockbuster, etc.
However many words you use to express it, it's still unsolicited commercial advertisement. As in spam. As in abusing a public forum, for personal gain, to the detriment of others. Like all spam. There is no difference between you and any other spammer, besides scope (and perhaps legality).
Wouldn't it just be easier at this point to admit that your act is unethical and you don't care, rather than try to stretch your paper-thin "selfishness = ethics" argument to cover it?
Or are you now arguing that "traditional" email spam is ethical as well?
Re:Ripping off Ayn Rand... sort off
on
Blink, Take 2
·
· Score: 1
So, you are saying, then, that your philosophy supports harming others for personal gain.
Re:Ripping off Ayn Rand... sort off
on
Blink, Take 2
·
· Score: 1
So you oppose doing anything for personal gain?
That would be ridiculous.
Personal gain, obviously in my context, means not in a way that coerces others. Duh. But I guess you consider my reference coercion?
"Coercion" is a very limiting word. How about "your spam infringes on my right to enjoy Slashdot without absorbing commercial garbage spewed out by its readers"?
In other words, it's personal gain AT OTHERS' EXPENSE. Isn't the "at others' expense" part non-Randian, even?
Re:Ripping off Ayn Rand... sort off
on
Blink, Take 2
·
· Score: 1
putting a reference to my ongoing attempt to get free stuff - including a way for others to get $10 from me - in a post
That's one way to put it. "Unsolicited advertisement" is another way. "Spam" is another.
And I never directly compared your spamming to embezzlement . . . what I did was point out that white-collar crime could just as easily pass your "personal gain" ethics test. Do you really believe that acting purely for personal gain is always ethically right? Or only if it's legal? You do realize that law is just a codification of someone's ethics, right?
Re:Ripping off Ayn Rand... sort off
on
Blink, Take 2
·
· Score: 1
So the key, then, is just not thinking about the damage your actions cause to the world. I suppose professional email spammers and white-collar criminals are similarly ethical?
I'm certainly not arguing that objectivity and subjectivity are the same thing. When it comes to the idea of self-help, however, it's all, by the very definition of the word, subjective.
If there can be disagreement as to whether an effect is truly helpful, but the person still believes it is, then it is subjectively helpful. If there can be no dispute over an effect's helpfulness, then it is objectively helpful.
And who is the judge? Probably the most widely accepted self-help program in the world is AA. By your logic, if even one person feels that AA failed them, its helpfulness is disputed, and it is not objectively helpful. I'm saying that the very concept of objectivity doesn't apply, as 100% of the evidence is subjective.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of directors (most notably Hitchcock) continued to work in black & white long after color was available.
Colorizing a black and white movie is adding something that the director did not put there. And generally, he's dead, so you can't consult him about it.
I tried that, but he became entirely too haughty and his sense of humor was too dry for most of my friends.
Um, what? There's an enormous amount of great, free content. More than ever before. The Web has grown at an amazing rate . . . perhaps paid content & garbage has grown at a rate greater than free, good content, but it's all grown.
It's all just a matter of knowing where to look, but thanks primarily to Google, that's gotten better and easier too.
In reality, your article has quite a bit more content than that. My apologies.
That message was a waste of effort, time, network resources, RAM, CPU time, and electricity.
Most. Worthless. Analysis. Ever.
Nobody says that. The concept of "workaholism" applies to people who DON'T enjoy their job, DON'T get true fulfillment from it, but DO spend all their time at work to the detriment of their health and family.
Not to mention the fact that most browsers do support protocols other than HTTP to varying extents.
Free Mac Mini referral (5 Gmail invites per completer)
Some people remain parasites.
What, exactly, makes OSX the "Ferrari engine" in your analogy, other than Apple's excellent marketing department?
Just turn it off and wipe the screen every now and again. If you wear glasses, you probably do almost the same thing all day already.
I use my Zaurus mainly to play The Legend of Zelda on an NES emulator while on the crapper.
You've essentially just defined an OS as "being ready for the desktop" only when it's a Microsoft Windows OS. FOSS does not need to attempt to recreate Microsoft's bugs to gain market share . . . in fact, it doesn't "need" to gain market share at all (although it is). With the current strategy, it'll gain more slowly, but it'll be better as it does.
So what is it in non-marketing terms?
You're correct. This is exactly why business must be regulated and restricted by the government; corporations by design use law as a surrogate for ethics.
So I guess maybe it's:
And spam is unsolicited. That's very different from a response to people attempting to contact you. It's currently a huge drain on the Internet infrastructure, caused by people freeloading on the shared medium for personal gain. The personal gain involved is demonstrably MUCH less than the toll on society; is this a good thing?
And, again, your advertisement is the exact same thing, just lesser in scope. You cannot defend it, and rather than admit it's just your own selfishness affecting your ability/desire to make ethical decisions, you continue to skirt the issue.
However many words you use to express it, it's still unsolicited commercial advertisement. As in spam. As in abusing a public forum, for personal gain, to the detriment of others. Like all spam. There is no difference between you and any other spammer, besides scope (and perhaps legality).
Wouldn't it just be easier at this point to admit that your act is unethical and you don't care, rather than try to stretch your paper-thin "selfishness = ethics" argument to cover it?
Or are you now arguing that "traditional" email spam is ethical as well?
So, you are saying, then, that your philosophy supports harming others for personal gain.
That would be ridiculous.
Personal gain, obviously in my context, means not in a way that coerces others. Duh. But I guess you consider my reference coercion?
"Coercion" is a very limiting word. How about "your spam infringes on my right to enjoy Slashdot without absorbing commercial garbage spewed out by its readers"?
In other words, it's personal gain AT OTHERS' EXPENSE. Isn't the "at others' expense" part non-Randian, even?
That's one way to put it. "Unsolicited advertisement" is another way. "Spam" is another.
And I never directly compared your spamming to embezzlement . . . what I did was point out that white-collar crime could just as easily pass your "personal gain" ethics test. Do you really believe that acting purely for personal gain is always ethically right? Or only if it's legal? You do realize that law is just a codification of someone's ethics, right?
So the key, then, is just not thinking about the damage your actions cause to the world. I suppose professional email spammers and white-collar criminals are similarly ethical?
If there can be disagreement as to whether an effect is truly helpful, but the person still believes it is, then it is subjectively helpful. If there can be no dispute over an effect's helpfulness, then it is objectively helpful.
And who is the judge? Probably the most widely accepted self-help program in the world is AA. By your logic, if even one person feels that AA failed them, its helpfulness is disputed, and it is not objectively helpful. I'm saying that the very concept of objectivity doesn't apply, as 100% of the evidence is subjective.
It's arguable that they're the same thing.