You're saying that stealing from a company is OK if you think it overcharges and treats its suppliers badly?
If I think that a company has a monopoly, and engages in illegal business practices, then yes I think it is perfectly ok to steal from them. That is why I have no problem with people pirating Microsoft products, or (back in the old days) "stealing" free phone calls from Ma Bell, or copying music of the RIAA. I justify this the same way I justify breaking a law I think is unjust.
This article has got to be one of the worst pieces of FUD I've seen in a long time.
Because Apple is using technology licensed without restrictions, rather than under the GPL commonly found in Linux
Hmm, what license is gcc under? The GPL? and what did they do to their Objective C modifications to gcc? Release them?
the company can use Mach code, exploit what the open source community has done, make proprietary
modifications, and give back nothing of substance. And that appears to be exactly what Apple has done.
Sure the CAN do that, but have they? Last time I checked, they were still releasing all the code for Darwin, which is what was based on the Mach/BSD licensed code. What they didn't release was the code to Aqua, which was totally propietary.
Another significant area in which Apple's actions hurt the open source community is in its refusal to offer any open source support
for its QuickTime streaming video format. While some open source players support AVI files, certain vital components, such as the
Sorenson Video Codec that provides QuickTime's data compression, are not supported. Apple has never released a binary player
for Linux or a binary module for the XAnim video and animation player, and it has no stated plans to do so. Moreover, the company
won't allow open source programmers to make their own Sorenson-aware players.
Apple can't release the Sorenson codec because they don't own it. They license it from Sorenson. They have released the specs for the Quicktime format, and there is no need for them to release a player because there are already several out there.
In short, this article was nothing but a collection of factual omissions, misdirections, and outright lies.
A physicist, a biologist, and a mathematician were sitting at a table outside a coffeshop enjoying their afternoon coffee when along came two pedestrians who entered the coffeshop. All three saw this. A few minutes later, three people walked out of the coffeeshop. Again, they all saw it.
The physicist commented, "The original observation must have been faulty."
The biologist commented, "They must have reproduced while inside."
But, the mathematician said, "Now, if exactly one person enters the shop, it will be empty again."
Let's put it this way. I decide I don't want to work a job to get money anymore. I figure, well, why not just print up my own money? I copy the design of the greenback and produce several million dollars of counterfeit money. Have I committed a crime? By your logic, no, since I haven't taken anything away from anyone else and I wasn't going to work to get that money anyway. But as far as the Federal Government is concerned, yeah, there's something slightly wrong with what I'm doing. I suddenly have extra copies of a product that they have clearly set the "licensing terms" for.
Yes, the above analogy is a bit absurd, but that's only because your logic is absurd.
Your logic is faulty, because when you copyright, everyone loses money. How much a dollar is worth is based on how many of them are out in the wild. This is how the government attempts to control the economy. By counterfeiting, you have essentially taken a little money from everyone in the world who has a dollar bill.
Namely they are things like addiction. Not being able to get off the drugs. Psychological/mental depression when you realize you
are hooked like a large fish. The health problems, the brain damage, the loss of your job, the need to buy more that will result in
crime to pay for them because you sold everything of value to pay for more.
You seem to have ignored the point I made in my previoius post that many illegal drugs are not physically addictive, and there are also many that don't cause brain damage. As for the health problems, many of them cause health problems comparable to alcohol use. Tobacco cuases far mor health problems than marijuana, and yet it is legal.
The statistical corrorlary is necessary because there is little that can be proven with a rigorous statistical analysis.
My point was that you don't have to find another country where its population acts sufficently like the American population in order to do studies on how the American population would react to legalization, when you can do studies on the American population itself.
Where are these facts comming from? Having a rap sheet is not something a respectible citizen should value.
These facts are coming from experience with being arrested and friends being arrested, and research into typical and allowable sentences for misdemeanor possesion, and felony sale and trafficking. As for not wanting to have a rap sheet, tell that to Henry David Thorough, or Walt Whitman, or Abbie Hoffman, or any other person who broke a law that they though was unjust.
Well I can think that if you smoke things (like tobacco) you can harm others in the regard that they will unwhittingly be absorbing your chemicals.
It also harms people to have a large percentage of their population indesposed as addicts to something that is not very kind on the person.
There is a reason why smoking cigarettes in certain public places is illegal, what makes you think it would be any different for marijuana? As I have siad many times before, marijuana is not phyiscally addictive, and it is hardly any worse on your body than alcohol.
Little Janey is in 4th grade and decides to get ahold of some pot. She then gets addicted and decides to start smoking it every day. In a while she may decide that because that didn't kill her she may start using cocaine and then to maybe heroin. It's a snowball effect.
For that last time, marijuana is not physically addictive! And the whole bit about it being a "gateway drug" is a lie too. The vast majority of marijuana users do not ever go on to harder drugs.
Successful Lawyer Bob never did drugs in his life but because they were illegal he wouldn't even think twice. But recently his practice has been down a little so he thinks that maybe now that illegal drugs are now legal he can maybe use them to make his life better. A year later he is living on the street talking to garbage cans at 3am.
Replace "illegal drugs" with "beer" and then see how likely it is. Marijuana is about as harmful, and less addicting, than alcohol.
"I honestly believe that the best way to tackle the drug war would be to legalize it.. Put strict taxes on all drugs (except Marijuana) and sell them OTC. "
That's called surrender. You don't win like that. Also the attendant social problems.
It isn't surrender, its realizing your fighting the fight is causing much more damage than not fighting it. And exactly what are these "attendant social problems"? You talk a lot about them, but you never say what they are, and how drug use causes them.
"The fairy tale that if it were legalized everyone would do it is false."
Since we don't have a nice statistical correlate for American behaviour and we don't have a nice contemporary example I can't believe this. I am a serious person after all.
Why require a "nice statistical corrolary" to American behaviour, when you have American behaviour itself. Take the example of alcohol use. It was at one time illegal. Removing prohibition did not significantly increase the consumption of alcohol. This was in part because neither consumption or possession of alcohol were ever in fact illegal, only production and sale. However, this still correlates to contemporary drug use. Most convictions for drug use and possession get a $300-$500 fine and 1-5 days of either jail time or community service (defendants choice). Its only the possession of quantities sufficent for intent to sell that nets you large jail times.
I don't buy the neo-hippism that seems to think that drugs are a "mind expanding" experience. The only thing that drugs do at best is cause a negative feedback loop with endorphins and seritonin causing some nasty dependency issues.
You don't have to buy the "mind exapanding" stuff. I don't either. I do think that certain drugs that I have tried are a rather enjoyable experience. As for dependancy issues, many illegal drugs are not physically addictive, such as marijuana, LSD, or shrooms. And the ones that are addictive, like heroin, or crack, they are about as addictive as nicotine, and that isn't illegal.
Ok let's pose this question. Exactly how does creating something that psychologists call pseudoligica fanastasia really help anyone.
How does drug use (and only drug use, not drug-related violence that is caused by drugs being illegal) harm anyone other than the user?
How about this why don't we start to create an empire of learning where everyone can learn effectively. Oh I forget. Assuming that
everyone has access to easily explained information then the whole tech empire would come crashing down and there would be not
have and have nots right?.
This is a non-sequiter.
Also let me say this. America was not founded on the principle that people could ruin thier lives and then perpetuate this onward.
That's more of a Roman trait and we all know where that got them.
America was based in part on J.S.Mills philosophy of utilitarianism, which states that any activity that is not inherently harmful to the society or to other people should not be restricted.
In summary, you spoke a lot about these "attendant social problems" but never described them, or explained how they come from drug use. You never explained how the use of currently illegal drugs is any worse on society than the use of currently legal drugs. In short, you never gave any reason at all why drugs should be illegal at all.
Concerning power consumption, it is easy to figure out for yourself that this will dramatically lower the required wattage, since the period over which power is needed will dramatically be lower for each switched packet.
This is faulty logic. Just because the time/packet, and therefore the power/packet, goes down doesn't mean that the overall power will go down. The number of packets will rise inversely proportional to the time/packet.
Fuck man, I'd go, except I have class tomorrow, and the nearest protest spot is 5 miles away. Besides, I'm planning some celebration for the holiday tomorrow.
half of the kids are TRYING TO LOOK UP PORN!!! they ask me how to do it because they know i know ways around the blocking
They are probably trying to look up the porn simply because it is blocked. I'm sure that if the school hadn't made such a big deal about filtering internet access in the first place, then you wouldn't have such a problem with people trying to access inappropriate material.
Maybe the only way to counter a bully's physical violence is to wear a suit covered with outward-facing spikes.
Unfortunately, that would be prohibited by the schools dress code.
But seriously, look at that dress code! Is this a private school? Prohibiting "Clothing, including tee shirts, which displays music groups, sex, violence, drugs, tobacco, alcohol, death, gang or hate slogans or pictures"? I can see most of those things, but music groups?! Or prohibiting "Non-natural colored hair (green, blue, purple, orange, cherry-red, etc.)" and "Hairstyles that are disruptive (head and facial)"? There is abosultely no way the first can be considered threatening in any way, and the second should be struck down for vagueness.
In my mind the "MPAA and RIAA should go after the infringers rather than the services" argument has always be an "even if" argument. What I mean is "even if music and movie sharing is illegal (which I dispute), they should still be going after the infringers instead of the services".
Sharing movies is illegal. If someone shares a movie, they aren't going to buy it. That's money lost for the makers. What's wrong with crime prevention.
It's only money lost if the person getting the shared movie would have bought it in the first place. I think you'll find that this is most often not the case.
Besides, just because you spend a lot of time making something does NOT entitle you to money. If that were true, then there would be no risk involved in making a movie. The bottom line is that if companies want to make money, they either need to price movies and CDs below what people consider the value of their download time and hard drive space, or they need to come up with a new business model. Legislating their old business model into effectiveness is NOT an option.
Not necessarily true at all. Number one, if enough people are doing it, it is no longer wrong. Majority rules. Sorry that's the way it works.
I Have major problems with this statement. By this logic, since all the jocks in Columbine High School teased and tortured the Trenchcoat Mafia, it was perfectly acceptable.
I'm not one to go in for the something is naturally right or wrong of absolute ethics either. In order to determine right and wrong, you should look at whether it helps or hurts the society. Anything that doesn't hurt the society should be allowed.
I am under the personal belief that allowing the MPAA and RIAA to continue to control pop art is detrimental to our society. However, I could be wrong.
Someone should start up an "Anonymous Broadband ISP" that will promise to never log any information that could link IPs to names. That way, even if they are required to provide evidence, there will be nothing to provide. The law can't force them to keep logs.
The problem is funny ads do not show any increase in revenue over traditional ads. For example, take the "Got Milk" commericials. I considered them to be some of the funniest commericials I've seen. And no one can argue that they are very widely known. However, they didn't do a damn thing to increase milk consumption. It ended up being a huge waste of taxpayers money (didn't know they were government funded, did you?).
The only reason why this "Stanley Kubrick" film is coming out now is because he completed all the storyboards in the mid-late eighties. However, because of the large CG work required in the film, he decided to wait on actual production until technology was more advanced.
Re:Considering they fscked up Ultimate TV...
on
No X Box for Xmas?
·
· Score: 1
You have tapes of Ren & Stimpy?! Please make copies and send them to me! I'll pay for them.
3) Who has the technology to do this? There are only 2 nations right now who can do anything on this scale: the US and Russia. Of which only one has ever even left earth orbit.
Umm, both the US and Russia have left the earth's orbit. Russia sent several probes to the Moon, Mars, Venus, etc. In fact they beat us to several of those places, although I don't remember which ones. (Did the beat us to the moon, unmanned-wise?)
You may have been saying that Russia has never left Earth's orbit on a manned mission, but then again that really isn't relevant because you wouldn't send a manned mission to move an asteroid.
P.S. To Hemos, don't make the same mistake as the movie Armageddon, asteroids are not the same thing as comets! And, to everyone else who didn't notice this, shame on you!
Teachers are most certainly allowed to photocopy sections of texts for use in their classroom. What they can't do is photocopy the entire textbook that they are going to use as the primary text to teach the course from and hand out a copy to each student. Its analagous to quoting a part of a book in a review. You can do that, but it has to be a reasonable amount.
Readers and worksheet books are a different matter. You have to buy a photocopying license for those because each section of the reader or each worksheet in the book is a separate entity, and so photocopying it would be photocopying the entire work.
Educational use doesn't apply to the students, it applies to the teachers.
However, I am not a lawyer, this is just the most logical explanation I can think of coming from my experience in a family with 3 generations of teachers.
Slashdot Mirror
If I think that a company has a monopoly, and engages in illegal business practices, then yes I think it is perfectly ok to steal from them. That is why I have no problem with people pirating Microsoft products, or (back in the old days) "stealing" free phone calls from Ma Bell, or copying music of the RIAA. I justify this the same way I justify breaking a law I think is unjust.
Step 1: Open your source code under the GPL Step 2: ??? Step 3: Profit
Because Apple is using technology licensed without restrictions, rather than under the GPL commonly found in Linux
Hmm, what license is gcc under? The GPL? and what did they do to their Objective C modifications to gcc? Release them?
the company can use Mach code, exploit what the open source community has done, make proprietary modifications, and give back nothing of substance. And that appears to be exactly what Apple has done.
Sure the CAN do that, but have they? Last time I checked, they were still releasing all the code for Darwin, which is what was based on the Mach/BSD licensed code. What they didn't release was the code to Aqua, which was totally propietary.
Another significant area in which Apple's actions hurt the open source community is in its refusal to offer any open source support for its QuickTime streaming video format. While some open source players support AVI files, certain vital components, such as the Sorenson Video Codec that provides QuickTime's data compression, are not supported. Apple has never released a binary player for Linux or a binary module for the XAnim video and animation player, and it has no stated plans to do so. Moreover, the company won't allow open source programmers to make their own Sorenson-aware players.
Apple can't release the Sorenson codec because they don't own it. They license it from Sorenson. They have released the specs for the Quicktime format, and there is no need for them to release a player because there are already several out there.
In short, this article was nothing but a collection of factual omissions, misdirections, and outright lies.
Thats kind of strange considering that Apple didn't exist in 1976!
The physicist commented, "The original observation must have been faulty."
The biologist commented, "They must have reproduced while inside."
But, the mathematician said, "Now, if exactly one person enters the shop, it will be empty again."
No need to track him down. John Draper (his real name) is currently the CEO of AutoDesk (the makers of AutoCAD).
Yes, the above analogy is a bit absurd, but that's only because your logic is absurd.
Your logic is faulty, because when you copyright, everyone loses money. How much a dollar is worth is based on how many of them are out in the wild. This is how the government attempts to control the economy. By counterfeiting, you have essentially taken a little money from everyone in the world who has a dollar bill.
You seem to have ignored the point I made in my previoius post that many illegal drugs are not physically addictive, and there are also many that don't cause brain damage. As for the health problems, many of them cause health problems comparable to alcohol use. Tobacco cuases far mor health problems than marijuana, and yet it is legal.
The statistical corrorlary is necessary because there is little that can be proven with a rigorous statistical analysis.
My point was that you don't have to find another country where its population acts sufficently like the American population in order to do studies on how the American population would react to legalization, when you can do studies on the American population itself.
Where are these facts comming from? Having a rap sheet is not something a respectible citizen should value.
These facts are coming from experience with being arrested and friends being arrested, and research into typical and allowable sentences for misdemeanor possesion, and felony sale and trafficking. As for not wanting to have a rap sheet, tell that to Henry David Thorough, or Walt Whitman, or Abbie Hoffman, or any other person who broke a law that they though was unjust.
Well I can think that if you smoke things (like tobacco) you can harm others in the regard that they will unwhittingly be absorbing your chemicals.
It also harms people to have a large percentage of their population indesposed as addicts to something that is not very kind on the person.
There is a reason why smoking cigarettes in certain public places is illegal, what makes you think it would be any different for marijuana? As I have siad many times before, marijuana is not phyiscally addictive, and it is hardly any worse on your body than alcohol.
Little Janey is in 4th grade and decides to get ahold of some pot. She then gets addicted and decides to start smoking it every day. In a while she may decide that because that didn't kill her she may start using cocaine and then to maybe heroin. It's a snowball effect.
For that last time, marijuana is not physically addictive! And the whole bit about it being a "gateway drug" is a lie too. The vast majority of marijuana users do not ever go on to harder drugs.
Successful Lawyer Bob never did drugs in his life but because they were illegal he wouldn't even think twice. But recently his practice has been down a little so he thinks that maybe now that illegal drugs are now legal he can maybe use them to make his life better. A year later he is living on the street talking to garbage cans at 3am.
Replace "illegal drugs" with "beer" and then see how likely it is. Marijuana is about as harmful, and less addicting, than alcohol.
That's called surrender. You don't win like that. Also the attendant social problems.
It isn't surrender, its realizing your fighting the fight is causing much more damage than not fighting it. And exactly what are these "attendant social problems"? You talk a lot about them, but you never say what they are, and how drug use causes them.
"The fairy tale that if it were legalized everyone would do it is false."
Since we don't have a nice statistical correlate for American behaviour and we don't have a nice contemporary example I can't believe this. I am a serious person after all.
Why require a "nice statistical corrolary" to American behaviour, when you have American behaviour itself. Take the example of alcohol use. It was at one time illegal. Removing prohibition did not significantly increase the consumption of alcohol. This was in part because neither consumption or possession of alcohol were ever in fact illegal, only production and sale. However, this still correlates to contemporary drug use. Most convictions for drug use and possession get a $300-$500 fine and 1-5 days of either jail time or community service (defendants choice). Its only the possession of quantities sufficent for intent to sell that nets you large jail times.
I don't buy the neo-hippism that seems to think that drugs are a "mind expanding" experience. The only thing that drugs do at best is cause a negative feedback loop with endorphins and seritonin causing some nasty dependency issues.
You don't have to buy the "mind exapanding" stuff. I don't either. I do think that certain drugs that I have tried are a rather enjoyable experience. As for dependancy issues, many illegal drugs are not physically addictive, such as marijuana, LSD, or shrooms. And the ones that are addictive, like heroin, or crack, they are about as addictive as nicotine, and that isn't illegal.
Ok let's pose this question. Exactly how does creating something that psychologists call pseudoligica fanastasia really help anyone.
How does drug use (and only drug use, not drug-related violence that is caused by drugs being illegal) harm anyone other than the user?
How about this why don't we start to create an empire of learning where everyone can learn effectively. Oh I forget. Assuming that everyone has access to easily explained information then the whole tech empire would come crashing down and there would be not have and have nots right?.
This is a non-sequiter.
Also let me say this. America was not founded on the principle that people could ruin thier lives and then perpetuate this onward. That's more of a Roman trait and we all know where that got them.
America was based in part on J.S.Mills philosophy of utilitarianism, which states that any activity that is not inherently harmful to the society or to other people should not be restricted.
In summary, you spoke a lot about these "attendant social problems" but never described them, or explained how they come from drug use. You never explained how the use of currently illegal drugs is any worse on society than the use of currently legal drugs. In short, you never gave any reason at all why drugs should be illegal at all.
This is faulty logic. Just because the time/packet, and therefore the power/packet, goes down doesn't mean that the overall power will go down. The number of packets will rise inversely proportional to the time/packet.
Fuck man, I'd go, except I have class tomorrow, and the nearest protest spot is 5 miles away. Besides, I'm planning some celebration for the holiday tomorrow.
They are probably trying to look up the porn simply because it is blocked. I'm sure that if the school hadn't made such a big deal about filtering internet access in the first place, then you wouldn't have such a problem with people trying to access inappropriate material.
Unfortunately, that would be prohibited by the schools dress code.
But seriously, look at that dress code! Is this a private school? Prohibiting "Clothing, including tee shirts, which displays music groups, sex, violence, drugs, tobacco, alcohol, death, gang or hate slogans or pictures"? I can see most of those things, but music groups?! Or prohibiting "Non-natural colored hair (green, blue, purple, orange, cherry-red, etc.)" and "Hairstyles that are disruptive (head and facial)"? There is abosultely no way the first can be considered threatening in any way, and the second should be struck down for vagueness.
In my mind the "MPAA and RIAA should go after the infringers rather than the services" argument has always be an "even if" argument. What I mean is "even if music and movie sharing is illegal (which I dispute), they should still be going after the infringers instead of the services".
It's only money lost if the person getting the shared movie would have bought it in the first place. I think you'll find that this is most often not the case.
Besides, just because you spend a lot of time making something does NOT entitle you to money. If that were true, then there would be no risk involved in making a movie. The bottom line is that if companies want to make money, they either need to price movies and CDs below what people consider the value of their download time and hard drive space, or they need to come up with a new business model. Legislating their old business model into effectiveness is NOT an option.
I Have major problems with this statement. By this logic, since all the jocks in Columbine High School teased and tortured the Trenchcoat Mafia, it was perfectly acceptable.
I'm not one to go in for the something is naturally right or wrong of absolute ethics either. In order to determine right and wrong, you should look at whether it helps or hurts the society. Anything that doesn't hurt the society should be allowed.
I am under the personal belief that allowing the MPAA and RIAA to continue to control pop art is detrimental to our society. However, I could be wrong.
Someone should start up an "Anonymous Broadband ISP" that will promise to never log any information that could link IPs to names. That way, even if they are required to provide evidence, there will be nothing to provide. The law can't force them to keep logs.
The problem is funny ads do not show any increase in revenue over traditional ads. For example, take the "Got Milk" commericials. I considered them to be some of the funniest commericials I've seen. And no one can argue that they are very widely known. However, they didn't do a damn thing to increase milk consumption. It ended up being a huge waste of taxpayers money (didn't know they were government funded, did you?).
The only reason why this "Stanley Kubrick" film is coming out now is because he completed all the storyboards in the mid-late eighties. However, because of the large CG work required in the film, he decided to wait on actual production until technology was more advanced.
You have tapes of Ren & Stimpy?! Please make copies and send them to me! I'll pay for them.
Umm, both the US and Russia have left the earth's orbit. Russia sent several probes to the Moon, Mars, Venus, etc. In fact they beat us to several of those places, although I don't remember which ones. (Did the beat us to the moon, unmanned-wise?)
You may have been saying that Russia has never left Earth's orbit on a manned mission, but then again that really isn't relevant because you wouldn't send a manned mission to move an asteroid.
P.S. To Hemos, don't make the same mistake as the movie Armageddon, asteroids are not the same thing as comets! And, to everyone else who didn't notice this, shame on you!
You're the one doing that! Stop it!
Hopefully, the cease and decist generating auto search script isn't linked to OCR software good enough to find that.
Readers and worksheet books are a different matter. You have to buy a photocopying license for those because each section of the reader or each worksheet in the book is a separate entity, and so photocopying it would be photocopying the entire work.
Educational use doesn't apply to the students, it applies to the teachers.
However, I am not a lawyer, this is just the most logical explanation I can think of coming from my experience in a family with 3 generations of teachers.
You're right, they give it away free, and they make you pay to not give it away.