I have to take issue with your sig ("Vote ANYONE BUT Bush 2004").
Although I agree wholeheartedly that Bush is the devil, and that he needs not to be (re-)elected in 2004, the voting system used in America ensures that the candidate whose voting bloc is least divided wins. If 75% of the people vote for "anyone but Bush," he can still win handily with 25% of the vote (assuming there are at least three other, equally-voted-for candidates). This is of course an exaggerated estimate, made to prove a point, but I hope it explains my logic.
We do not need to vote for "anyone but Bush," we instead need to decide who we want to be President, and work to make that happen. It's not enough to band together against a common enemy unless we have something to take its place.
Sorry for the offtopic rant, but I've been wanting to ramble about this for a while (and it's too late at night for my better judgment to restrain me). No offense is meant to you directly.
I have to put in a good word for the soundtrack for ICO, which is easily the best original game music I've ever heard. It's hard to find in the states, but well worth it in my opinion.
Maybe not the middle bottom, but still pretty cool, if you ask me. Microsoft may suck at a lot of things, but they can usually churn out pretty decent hardware.
By your own admission, Joe's earnings have been diminished by piracy. Are we just tap-dancing around a definition? Whether by burglary, robbery, fraud, or piracy, the fact is that Joe's wallet is thinner. That sounds like theft to me.
The only point I want to debate is that Joe has not lost any money he already possessed. Period, end of story. He has most likely lost some amount of potential future revenues, this I admit, but I refuse to accept a definition of copyright infringement that involves Joe losing something he's never actually possessed (i.e. money in the bank/wallet). Sure, hang the pirates high for infringing his copyrights, but don't pollute the language by arbitrarily extending the definition of "theft."
Also, I apologize for ranting at you in grandparent. I had mistaken you for one of those who equated potential sales with actual damages (e.g. RIAA), and it bugs the hell out of me when people do that. The point I wanted to make could have been made in calmer tones, and for that I am sorry.
No, this is not the case, and especially not by a pedantic definition.
No money has even been stolen from our friend, Joe Programmer. His bank account has not diminshed by one red cent. He also has the original artifacts of his hard work.
What Joe has lost is the opportunity to sell his software to some set of the people who might have purchased it were it not available for free. Just because people use the software at the "reduced price," whatever it may be, does not mean they would have purchased it in the first place.
It is just plain wrong, WRONG, WRONG to automatically associate failure to meet a sales goal with any one factor. There are many things to consider, including the economy, the market for a piece of software, and especially the validity of the expected number of sales, the expected price, and the expected quality of the software.
Correlation does not prove causation, and copying does not equate to theft.
I was 11, and the only game system I had was a NES that I'd purchased with my own money. My parents thought that video games were a waste of time and money, and so everything I had I'd bought myself.
I'd recently discovered this incredible game in the arcades, Street Fighter II, and I fell in love with fighting games. Of course, there were no fighting games for the NES, so I just went to the arcade and burned quarters there.
When I heard that Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Tournament Fighters was going to be released for the NES, I was ecstatic. Since it was due out right around Christmastime, I begged and nagged my parents to buy it for me. On Christmas morning, as I tore through my presents, I came across a suspiciously video-game-shaped one. I opened it up, and found TMNT: TF all right... but for the Genesis.
I was heartbroken. I turned to my folks with what must have been a pitiful look on my face, and told them "Thanks guys, but you guys got the wrong one..." My dad just grinned, and without saying a word reached behind the couch and pulled out a brand new Genesis.
Of course, TMNT:TF wound up being pretty bad, but that was still the greatest gaming Christmas ever. =)
Last year, one of my roommates had a little too much to drink, and asked me to call 911 for him. The paramedics came and checked him out, made sure he wasn't about to die of alcohol poisoning, and then asked me what he'd had to drink. When I told them it was only 5-6 shots of generic hard liquor, I had to talk them out of taking him to the hospital and charging him $800 for the ride, out of spite for him having summoned them and him being "such a pussy." =)
Uncheck the "Display delete confirmation dialog" option in the Recycle Bin properties page.
First thing I do on a new Windows install... followed by deleting all the worthless crap on the FS that Windows thinks I need ("Online Services" and such).
Dells. I can't watch a TV show anymore without somebody flashing a Dell laptop or an Axim. Not that I mind, since I happen to own both of those products already, but it's getting really obvious.
Where in my comment did I say I was going to download the movie? Just curious; it seems like you overreacted just a bit.
As to the actual subject of my post, (opposed to your insensate rant), I think it's a valid question to ask the MPAA. They advertise these movies with the specific purpose of trying to spur desire in the viewing public. In some cases, they succeed. I desire to possess this film. Where do we go from here? They control exclusive access (in theory) to a desired item. Does it surprise them that people are downloading movies? After all, it's their marketing that has incited that desire.
I would like to think that the MPAA would take a step back, analyse this situation, and give people what they've made them want. Unfortunately, it looks like they have instead chosen to stir up demand and then imprison people who try to satisfy it.
Hey, remind me what the definition of entrapment is, again? =P
P.S.- I do intent to purchase the DVD when it is released. To "fucking wait" is already entrenched in my plans for the future. However, that doesn't mean I have to fucking like it, does it? =)
I've been talking up "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" to my girlfriend lately, and it won't be available on DVD until December 16. Of course, it's no longer in any theaters as well.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to take issue with your sig ("Vote ANYONE BUT Bush 2004").
Although I agree wholeheartedly that Bush is the devil, and that he needs not to be (re-)elected in 2004, the voting system used in America ensures that the candidate whose voting bloc is least divided wins. If 75% of the people vote for "anyone but Bush," he can still win handily with 25% of the vote (assuming there are at least three other, equally-voted-for candidates). This is of course an exaggerated estimate, made to prove a point, but I hope it explains my logic.
We do not need to vote for "anyone but Bush," we instead need to decide who we want to be President, and work to make that happen. It's not enough to band together against a common enemy unless we have something to take its place.
Sorry for the offtopic rant, but I've been wanting to ramble about this for a while (and it's too late at night for my better judgment to restrain me). No offense is meant to you directly.
I have to put in a good word for the soundtrack for ICO, which is easily the best original game music I've ever heard. It's hard to find in the states, but well worth it in my opinion.
Nobody cared to look before.
Maybe not the middle bottom, but still pretty cool, if you ask me. Microsoft may suck at a lot of things, but they can usually churn out pretty decent hardware.
I seem to recall this woman, Helen of Troy?
I propose a new definition of programming language: it's not a programming language unless you can write and execute an infinite loop with it.
I think that sounds good, yeah?
Also, I apologize for ranting at you in grandparent. I had mistaken you for one of those who equated potential sales with actual damages (e.g. RIAA), and it bugs the hell out of me when people do that. The point I wanted to make could have been made in calmer tones, and for that I am sorry.
No, this is not the case, and especially not by a pedantic definition.
No money has even been stolen from our friend, Joe Programmer. His bank account has not diminshed by one red cent. He also has the original artifacts of his hard work.
What Joe has lost is the opportunity to sell his software to some set of the people who might have purchased it were it not available for free. Just because people use the software at the "reduced price," whatever it may be, does not mean they would have purchased it in the first place.
It is just plain wrong, WRONG, WRONG to automatically associate failure to meet a sales goal with any one factor. There are many things to consider, including the economy, the market for a piece of software, and especially the validity of the expected number of sales, the expected price, and the expected quality of the software.
Correlation does not prove causation, and copying does not equate to theft.
The 10,766,471 people living in Angola might disagree with you, for starters.
Jackass.
No, it's the Ides of March that kill you.
;-)
I don't speak one bit of Latin, but even I know that one.
I was 11, and the only game system I had was a NES that I'd purchased with my own money. My parents thought that video games were a waste of time and money, and so everything I had I'd bought myself.
I'd recently discovered this incredible game in the arcades, Street Fighter II, and I fell in love with fighting games. Of course, there were no fighting games for the NES, so I just went to the arcade and burned quarters there.
When I heard that Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Tournament Fighters was going to be released for the NES, I was ecstatic. Since it was due out right around Christmastime, I begged and nagged my parents to buy it for me. On Christmas morning, as I tore through my presents, I came across a suspiciously video-game-shaped one. I opened it up, and found TMNT: TF all right... but for the Genesis.
I was heartbroken. I turned to my folks with what must have been a pitiful look on my face, and told them "Thanks guys, but you guys got the wrong one..." My dad just grinned, and without saying a word reached behind the couch and pulled out a brand new Genesis.
Of course, TMNT:TF wound up being pretty bad, but that was still the greatest gaming Christmas ever. =)
Forgive my ignorance. I stand corrected.
I think maybe because the judge will not be happy if they shine him on?
Regardless of their true intentions, SCO has to look like they want to win the lawsuit, as otherwise the stockholders could sue them silly^Hier. =P
How the hell did a picture of a dismembered anime character strapped to a tin roof get modded "Insightful"??
Ick. =(
Heh.
Last year, one of my roommates had a little too much to drink, and asked me to call 911 for him. The paramedics came and checked him out, made sure he wasn't about to die of alcohol poisoning, and then asked me what he'd had to drink. When I told them it was only 5-6 shots of generic hard liquor, I had to talk them out of taking him to the hospital and charging him $800 for the ride, out of spite for him having summoned them and him being "such a pussy." =)
Moral of this story: do not piss off paramedics.
"I resent that! It's 'slander' when it's spoken; in print, it's 'libel.'" - J. Jonah Jameson, "Spider-Man"
No, that assumption is entirely correct.
When you purchase Windows 9X, you get a virus, free.
Such a deal! =)
You know you can turn that off, right?
Uncheck the "Display delete confirmation dialog" option in the Recycle Bin properties page.
First thing I do on a new Windows install... followed by deleting all the worthless crap on the FS that Windows thinks I need ("Online Services" and such).
You know what I do see a lot, though?
Dells. I can't watch a TV show anymore without somebody flashing a Dell laptop or an Axim. Not that I mind, since I happen to own both of those products already, but it's getting really obvious.
For this one, probably not.
For the original, probably so.
/. people should know better than most that you can't retroactively flip a security bit and make past mistakes better...
;-)
Au contraire...
RFC 3514 -- Security Flag in the IPv4 Header
You may not be able to flip a bit, but you can always just detect one.
Where in my comment did I say I was going to download the movie? Just curious; it seems like you overreacted just a bit.
As to the actual subject of my post, (opposed to your insensate rant), I think it's a valid question to ask the MPAA. They advertise these movies with the specific purpose of trying to spur desire in the viewing public. In some cases, they succeed. I desire to possess this film. Where do we go from here? They control exclusive access (in theory) to a desired item. Does it surprise them that people are downloading movies? After all, it's their marketing that has incited that desire.
I would like to think that the MPAA would take a step back, analyse this situation, and give people what they've made them want. Unfortunately, it looks like they have instead chosen to stir up demand and then imprison people who try to satisfy it.
Hey, remind me what the definition of entrapment is, again? =P
P.S.- I do intent to purchase the DVD when it is released. To "fucking wait" is already entrenched in my plans for the future. However, that doesn't mean I have to fucking like it, does it? =)
I also would like an answer to this question.
I've been talking up "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" to my girlfriend lately, and it won't be available on DVD until December 16. Of course, it's no longer in any theaters as well.
So what are we supposed to do, MPAA?