We do have actual players now though, and the argument that these are infringing copyright is a lot harder to make. DeCSS made a copy that could then be converted to a format that a Linux media player might play. Just playing is different.
Honestly, I think the industry has realised the cat is well and truly out of the bag on this one.
It does make the physical security a bit pointless if the code is so insecure. Would probably be better to lock from the inside, and use the tried and tested "knock knock"/"Who's there" approach.
Even if the hackers were going to make the movie worthless, it's a hit Disney could afford to take. And might as well, in order to prevent future extortion attempts.
And piracy will hardly affect it at all. Most people don't want a rough cut of a movie. And an action movie like PotC needs the big screen.
DVD sales are most likely to be affected, and that will be pirated as soon as it's released anyway.
But who cares? Pirates in the media are seen as heroic romantic figures. Jack Sparrow is very much a protagonist. Pirates of Penzance has a band of gentlemanly pirates. Even the villains like Captain Hook are presented as charismatic leaders.
And even if they weren't, nobody associates media pirates with historical pirates. The connection makes a good joke but that's about it.
People buy a computer expecting it to last a few years. We know they're obsolete well within a decade. Nobody buys a PC, seriously expecting to still be using it 10 years from now.
If, after 10 years you *are* still using it, then it's up to you to continue to support it.
And I'll take that as yet another example of your attempts at "persuasive rhetoric" that you've chosen to make
I gave up on that a long time ago.
But since I've repudiated the practice, you utilization of it, only serves to have it fail you in regards to me.
You've repudiated some other prctice that you keep talking about but haven't defined, but insist on calling "persuasive rhetoric". At this point, I don't even think you know what "repudiated" means, or "utilization" for that matter.
Had you wanted to do so, you've could have chosen differently, but obviously, you didn't. At the least, you haven't made a choice not to do it.
What!? This sentence is so convoluted it should be taken out and shot.
I'm finding this all a bit confusing to be honest.
You don't think persuasive rhetoric is beneficial because you're strongly opposed to some completely different thing that you call persuasive rhetoric even though nobody else calls it that.
The apparent contradiction between you clearly not liking the views of people but your desire not to change them is not a contradiction because it isn't anger.
You want to change the political system but the only people you are expressing this to are those who already agree with you.
My opinions are wrong because I didn't waste time expressing to someone who obviously dislikes Trump what the problems are with Donald Trump.
Assumptions are bad because of some platitude, but your assumptions about a group of people who you have made wild assumptions about are perfectly valid.
And all this makes perfect sense because the modern depiction of Santa Clause is different from the various myths that the character is based on.
True. Was really looking at my own usage - taking the title literally. Business usage is different, and even where I am, the UI guys use Macs. I suspect facebook (and maybe Amazon?) are less important to businesses.
I'm talking about persuasive rhetoric, not my ideas. Was that unclear to you?
It was clear. If your ideas are fine, then does it make sense to present them in a positive light? Persuasive rhetoric involves Logos and pathos - presenting your views in a manner that illustrates their logic and emotional importance.
Oh no, anger! What a terrible emotion! Anger is, despite all of the bad reputation it has, not entirely a bad emotion. Too many Jedi dissing it, I guess. Again, this is the sort of thing that is repugnant rhetoric.
It's perfectly reasonable to be angry. I just question how you can be angry and not want to change the mind of those whose views make you angry. It came across as a contradiction.
But you're confusing my rejection of "persuasive rhetoric" with no interest in changing minds. I'm just not interested in using the form you suggested.
Which is interesting. This is an example of ethos - an element of persuasive rhetoric.
You really shouldn't have cut the points I made about electoral reform, that kinda misses an opportunity to speak with me on terms that you might understand better.
What could I have said about this except that I agree. Also it was another example of persuasive rhetoric.
Exactly. What would it have said about you, versus what what you did say, says?
Well...? Repeating a question doesn't answer a question. Granted I realise it's a rhetorical question (hmm... more rhetoric), but those really only work when the other party understands what your point is. WHAT IS YOUR POINT HERE?
He who speaks, as Lincoln allegedly said, has removed all doubt.
Yes. This is a stupid platitude, invented by someone who thought they were smart. Probably because they never asked questions out of fear of appearing stupid. The fact that it's attributed to Lincoln in order to give it a sense of authority is necessary because it isn't much of an aphorism.
A little legwork will do you some good. No need for a proxy, you can just search on the title from the URL.
Yes. But I have no particular interest in doing this legwork. I have no context for this. What is it about? Why should I look at it?
Ah, that's the thing, if only you knew what it meant to me. What might I have heard, that gives that meaning.
If you told me what it meant to me, I might know what it means to you. You haven't, so I don't.
I don't bother with the pretense of respectful terms for those who don't deserve it either (Not that I've used that term you cited, actually, that was coolmoe2. I'm not bound by it.)
I don't see what it matters what they deserve. I'm not suggesting this is a favour to them. I'm suggesting it is in our interest to do so.
Persuasive rhetoric? To the contrary, I repudiate the practice of it. It's a nasty practice.
How so? Are your ideas repulsive? I personally choose ideas I believe are right. I would like to convince other people of these views. I will do better if I try to understand their views. I may even change my mind. I may change their mind.
To me this comes across as more productive than insulting people for disagreeing with me. You have no interest in attempting to change minds, yet you appear to get angry. You wouldn't have preferred it if these people voted for the candidate you preferred?
Nope, it's a blind condemnation on their part. I do nothing to lead to it, they see it, I don't make them.
Why do you think they feel this way about you, but not, for example, their Republican Congressman?
You expect them to change? I don't. I don't even expect you to change. So far you've delivered what I expected, and I would be quite surprised if you defied my expectations.
How would you like me to change? What could I change about myself or my viws that would please you?
Trump was successful because of that shit. Didn't you hear the cheers? The thunderous applause? He even noted it himself. Not that he got a landslide, as he claimed, but that's a different issue. He wasn't quite as able at it as most, as it's not like he originated it, mind you, it's got a long history. Often successful.
They were Trump's core supporters! Of course they cheer. They like him and hate his opponents. But it only attracted a certain type who were predisposed to vote Republican anyway. His vote share was Lower than Mitt Romney's in the previous election.
Ah, that's the point, isn't it? Why would you want that, why would you bother saying it. Why indeed. What would it say about you if you had said it, instead of all of this?
What would it have said? What does it say about me that I didn't? I really don't see what relevance it has to anything.
Ah, but your saying it is about you. He who speaks, as Lincoln allegedly said, has removed all doubt.
It probably wasn't him. Lincoln usually said things that were a little less daft.
Defining needs is required before I can answer that question.
What do I need to do in order to satisfy your demand that I rebuke him? Why is it important to you?
You should make an effort to watch it. Or learn about it, it's the subject of much commentary, so you can ascertain its content sufficiently.
Well, sorting out a proxy is a little too much effort for some video that I have no context for.
PS, Saint Nicholas was a Greek in the city of Myra, on the Southern coast of Modern Turkey. Not like, you know, the Thomas Nast creation. Or maybe you don't. Hard to say. Are you ignorant, or are you ignoring?
Uhm. Yes. So I have heard. Actually I thought the modern Santa Cause was a compound character of various spirits and gods, but I'm not an expert in the mythology or the history here. But I'm not sureof your point. Does it have something to dowith the video that is region locked for me?
I use no Apple products. I'm surprised this is here actually. I assume most people with Android phones and Windows PCs don't. Sure, there are the Apple TV and iPad users but the former are in a competitive market and the latter are becoming more niche-interest as people switch to using their phones.
Google's services are all replacable with other services that will be at least adequate. Amazon is a useful company to buy from but there are other online retailers. Microsoft is a tricky one, but I do only use their major products as a consumer. My work involves developing for Linux based embedded devices, on a Linux machine. I use Windows for gaming and there's some software which is native. I dare say I could switch to Linux and Wine since I'm mainly a retrogamer.
So that leaves facebook. Nothing would give me more pleasure than facebook ceasing to exist. It's crack. I'm there because all my friends are there. Without facebook we'd find another means of communication.
The ideal is to build infrastructure that separates road traffic and pedestrian traffic. At least for the high sped link roads, where this would be most useful.
It should be possible for new builds in modern western nations. A few of the post war "New Towns" in the UK were built with this philosophy.
Also mentions that it was a term used for condoms by 1939. My guess is that the first people to use it didn't really care too much about what it meant, but felt the term that sounded suitably insulting.
Realizing that you're being an a monstrous and wretched being takes tremendous moral strength, it's much easier to go with the rampaging mob.
Ah yes. Of course. Fortunately there's no way you could ever be monstrous and wretched. I'm sure you have the greatest respect for those of a different social class, and that "inbred back woods hillbillies" is a term of great respect.
But while your position clearly is morally superior, is your rhetoric persuasive enough? I mean I assume you do want to persuade these people to change their ways and not vote for right wing idiots. Somehow, I think insulting them and calling them "monstrous and wretched" isn't quite winning over hearts and minds the way you might like.
Is there a way of presenting yourself as something other than an "anti-American hater"? Perhaps if you didn't show hatred towards a group who see themselves as representative of America, they would reconsider their opinions. Or maybe I'm wrong. maybe they're a bunch of irresponsible hicks who should not be allowed the vote because they don't know what's good for them.
Certainly Trump was not hesitant about his own manner of despising people. You know, the ones who he blindly painted as Thugs, the ones who he said were fools for not following him, the ones who he said were dumb enough to keep voting for Democrats. The babykillers! The Crooks! And boy did he shout and rail.
Did those insults make you feel more or less positive towards him? Trump was successful despite this sort of shit. Not because of it. But even so, the people he insulted were the ones who would never vote for him.
Exactly when are you planning on admitting that happened? A word of rebuke? No??
Why would I want to rebuke him? If I did, why would I bother saying anything about him to you? Are you not aware that he's an idiot and a blowhard? Do I need to point out that his "Build a wall" proposal was idiotic and the "make Mexico pay for it" was even more stupid?
Or will we get another?
"Sorry 'Bout that. This video is not available in your location."
If you want to give them money, there's usually someone willing to talk to you.
If you want something from them; like, for example, adequate quality mp3 files, you just need to fill in these 32 forms, get authorisation from 17 different departments, one of which was abolished 5 years ago, and once you manage that, you get a mono WMA file recorded at 8kHz.
Gosh, After all this dehumanising of anyone who disagrees with you, how did they not see your side, and the moral righteousness of your position?
Perhaps if you call them racist a few more times, you might gain their support. Or maybe a few more Hitler comparisons. Maybe shouting at them about how stupid they are might persuade some of them. Worked before, as these tactics carried Hillary to victory!
The poor are already receiving plenty of benefits. This just simplifies things. We can also fund it by taxing middle and low earners, because they have enough to live on; any earnings are surplus to essential requirements.
Who cares! My point is about the GPL. This is a story about Free Software licence violations. The gun analogy was just an analogy. Go to IWantToShootEveryoneYeehaw.com or whatever if you want to talk about this.
Slashdot Mirror
We do have actual players now though, and the argument that these are infringing copyright is a lot harder to make. DeCSS made a copy that could then be converted to a format that a Linux media player might play. Just playing is different.
Honestly, I think the industry has realised the cat is well and truly out of the bag on this one.
Why would you watch it on your laptop? Some people have TVs. They make them with USB slots these days! Sometimes they even work with playlists.
It does make the physical security a bit pointless if the code is so insecure. Would probably be better to lock from the inside, and use the tried and tested "knock knock"/"Who's there" approach.
Even if the hackers were going to make the movie worthless, it's a hit Disney could afford to take. And might as well, in order to prevent future extortion attempts.
And piracy will hardly affect it at all. Most people don't want a rough cut of a movie. And an action movie like PotC needs the big screen. DVD sales are most likely to be affected, and that will be pirated as soon as it's released anyway.
But who cares? Pirates in the media are seen as heroic romantic figures. Jack Sparrow is very much a protagonist. Pirates of Penzance has a band of gentlemanly pirates. Even the villains like Captain Hook are presented as charismatic leaders.
And even if they weren't, nobody associates media pirates with historical pirates. The connection makes a good joke but that's about it.
People buy a computer expecting it to last a few years. We know they're obsolete well within a decade. Nobody buys a PC, seriously expecting to still be using it 10 years from now.
If, after 10 years you *are* still using it, then it's up to you to continue to support it.
I gave up on that a long time ago. But since I've repudiated the practice, you utilization of it, only serves to have it fail you in regards to me.
You've repudiated some other prctice that you keep talking about but haven't defined, but insist on calling "persuasive rhetoric". At this point, I don't even think you know what "repudiated" means, or "utilization" for that matter.
What!? This sentence is so convoluted it should be taken out and shot.
I'll take that as a "no" then. You have failed to master a basic element of human interaction.
Do you even know how conversation works?
So why were you even bothering to respond?
I'm finding this all a bit confusing to be honest.
You don't think persuasive rhetoric is beneficial because you're strongly opposed to some completely different thing that you call persuasive rhetoric even though nobody else calls it that.
The apparent contradiction between you clearly not liking the views of people but your desire not to change them is not a contradiction because it isn't anger.
You want to change the political system but the only people you are expressing this to are those who already agree with you.
My opinions are wrong because I didn't waste time expressing to someone who obviously dislikes Trump what the problems are with Donald Trump.
Assumptions are bad because of some platitude, but your assumptions about a group of people who you have made wild assumptions about are perfectly valid.
And all this makes perfect sense because the modern depiction of Santa Clause is different from the various myths that the character is based on.
Did I get that right?
True. Was really looking at my own usage - taking the title literally. Business usage is different, and even where I am, the UI guys use Macs. I suspect facebook (and maybe Amazon?) are less important to businesses.
It was clear. If your ideas are fine, then does it make sense to present them in a positive light? Persuasive rhetoric involves Logos and pathos - presenting your views in a manner that illustrates their logic and emotional importance.
It's perfectly reasonable to be angry. I just question how you can be angry and not want to change the mind of those whose views make you angry. It came across as a contradiction.
Which is interesting. This is an example of ethos - an element of persuasive rhetoric.
What could I have said about this except that I agree. Also it was another example of persuasive rhetoric.
Well...? Repeating a question doesn't answer a question. Granted I realise it's a rhetorical question (hmm... more rhetoric), but those really only work when the other party understands what your point is. WHAT IS YOUR POINT HERE?
Yes. This is a stupid platitude, invented by someone who thought they were smart. Probably because they never asked questions out of fear of appearing stupid. The fact that it's attributed to Lincoln in order to give it a sense of authority is necessary because it isn't much of an aphorism.
Yes. But I have no particular interest in doing this legwork. I have no context for this. What is it about? Why should I look at it?
If you told me what it meant to me, I might know what it means to you. You haven't, so I don't.
I don't see what it matters what they deserve. I'm not suggesting this is a favour to them. I'm suggesting it is in our interest to do so.
How so? Are your ideas repulsive? I personally choose ideas I believe are right. I would like to convince other people of these views. I will do better if I try to understand their views. I may even change my mind. I may change their mind.
To me this comes across as more productive than insulting people for disagreeing with me. You have no interest in attempting to change minds, yet you appear to get angry. You wouldn't have preferred it if these people voted for the candidate you preferred?
Why do you think they feel this way about you, but not, for example, their Republican Congressman?
How would you like me to change? What could I change about myself or my viws that would please you?
They were Trump's core supporters! Of course they cheer. They like him and hate his opponents. But it only attracted a certain type who were predisposed to vote Republican anyway. His vote share was Lower than Mitt Romney's in the previous election.
What would it have said? What does it say about me that I didn't? I really don't see what relevance it has to anything.
It probably wasn't him. Lincoln usually said things that were a little less daft.
What do I need to do in order to satisfy your demand that I rebuke him? Why is it important to you?
Well, sorting out a proxy is a little too much effort for some video that I have no context for.
Uhm. Yes. So I have heard. Actually I thought the modern Santa Cause was a compound character of various spirits and gods, but I'm not an expert in the mythology or the history here. But I'm not sureof your point. Does it have something to dowith the video that is region locked for me?
I use no Apple products. I'm surprised this is here actually. I assume most people with Android phones and Windows PCs don't. Sure, there are the Apple TV and iPad users but the former are in a competitive market and the latter are becoming more niche-interest as people switch to using their phones.
Google's services are all replacable with other services that will be at least adequate. Amazon is a useful company to buy from but there are other online retailers. Microsoft is a tricky one, but I do only use their major products as a consumer. My work involves developing for Linux based embedded devices, on a Linux machine. I use Windows for gaming and there's some software which is native. I dare say I could switch to Linux and Wine since I'm mainly a retrogamer.
So that leaves facebook. Nothing would give me more pleasure than facebook ceasing to exist. It's crack. I'm there because all my friends are there. Without facebook we'd find another means of communication.
The ideal is to build infrastructure that separates road traffic and pedestrian traffic. At least for the high sped link roads, where this would be most useful.
It should be possible for new builds in modern western nations. A few of the post war "New Towns" in the UK were built with this philosophy.
Great if all traffic is going straight, or turning right, but what about those left turns?
This essentially relies on batching up packets of cars and letting them cross as a group. I wonder how well this works during heavy traffic periods.
The online etymological dictionary is pretty good for this.
"it was used in sugar refining as the name of a frame covered in coarse cloth used in straining."
Also mentions that it was a term used for condoms by 1939. My guess is that the first people to use it didn't really care too much about what it meant, but felt the term that sounded suitably insulting.
Ah yes. Of course. Fortunately there's no way you could ever be monstrous and wretched. I'm sure you have the greatest respect for those of a different social class, and that "inbred back woods hillbillies" is a term of great respect.
But while your position clearly is morally superior, is your rhetoric persuasive enough? I mean I assume you do want to persuade these people to change their ways and not vote for right wing idiots. Somehow, I think insulting them and calling them "monstrous and wretched" isn't quite winning over hearts and minds the way you might like.
Is there a way of presenting yourself as something other than an "anti-American hater"? Perhaps if you didn't show hatred towards a group who see themselves as representative of America, they would reconsider their opinions. Or maybe I'm wrong. maybe they're a bunch of irresponsible hicks who should not be allowed the vote because they don't know what's good for them.
Did those insults make you feel more or less positive towards him? Trump was successful despite this sort of shit. Not because of it. But even so, the people he insulted were the ones who would never vote for him.
Why would I want to rebuke him? If I did, why would I bother saying anything about him to you? Are you not aware that he's an idiot and a blowhard? Do I need to point out that his "Build a wall" proposal was idiotic and the "make Mexico pay for it" was even more stupid?
"Sorry 'Bout that. This video is not available in your location."
If you want to give them money, there's usually someone willing to talk to you.
If you want something from them; like, for example, adequate quality mp3 files, you just need to fill in these 32 forms, get authorisation from 17 different departments, one of which was abolished 5 years ago, and once you manage that, you get a mono WMA file recorded at 8kHz.
Gosh, After all this dehumanising of anyone who disagrees with you, how did they not see your side, and the moral righteousness of your position?
Perhaps if you call them racist a few more times, you might gain their support. Or maybe a few more Hitler comparisons. Maybe shouting at them about how stupid they are might persuade some of them. Worked before, as these tactics carried Hillary to victory!
4chan had no such intent. They did it for the lols. 4chan does everything for the lols. It's the whole point!
The poor are already receiving plenty of benefits. This just simplifies things. We can also fund it by taxing middle and low earners, because they have enough to live on; any earnings are surplus to essential requirements.
Who cares! My point is about the GPL. This is a story about Free Software licence violations. The gun analogy was just an analogy. Go to IWantToShootEveryoneYeehaw.com or whatever if you want to talk about this.
If you use a gun wrongly, people die.
If you use GNU wrongly, people have more difficulty accessing the source code than they might other wise have.
I don't think the tow situations compare.