No, it's not invalid at all. This is a distro run by core devs who for years not only didn't give two shits about security in any form, but openly lied to their own users about the implications of their own decisions. I'm keenly aware of the current status of Arch with respect to package signing, and it's a classic case of too little, too late. Trust is a funny thing: once you break it, good luck ever getting it back. Have fun with your toy distro.
Feel free to compare the United States to any other nations they express a serious interest in from a military, economic, or overall political standpoint. Try living in both nations for five years apiece. Then report back on your findings, provided you have the spine to actually try this for yourself.
Is that kinda like trusting a distro like Arch to begin with, which has never considered security anything remotely near a high priority? Golly, I sure want to trust a distro that considered ignoring something as insignificant as package signing with my data.
Man, I've heard of some strange fetishes in my time, but savoring the flavor of freshly ironed clothing is a first in my book. Do you prefer light or heavy starch?
I'm no fan of Microsoft, but if ever there was a time for "citation needed" it's now. Please provide references detailing all of Microsoft's acquisitions and their P/L performance over the last 10 years.
In other words, you can't just make assertions like the one you've made without demonstrating why they're true.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Of course waiting in line is taught at a young age, and of course it is a custom present in most civilized societies that I'm aware of. In those societies, violating that does indeed make you an asshole. I'm having trouble understanding why you deny that acting against such rules of society is anything but being an asshole. The very definition of being an asshole is acting in a manner that the most people would find offensive, or most people would determine to be against established rules of society.
Would you argue that someone who commits rape, or fleeces little old ladies out of their retirement through ponzi schemes, etc isn't being an asshole? These are admittedly extreme examples, and we have stronger words than "asshole" to describe people who commit such acts. Nonetheless, the person would still be (at minimum) an asshole.
So once again, what is your point, aside from appearing to argue with yourself?
This really does sound like an excellent idea. It would seem to reduce distribution inefficiencies to near zero, and provide agreeable compensation for the artist. Also, brb I'm off to start an indie band named Arcade Fire, or maybe Revenge of Pacman.
I'm strongly opposed to copyright infringement, and indicated in my original post that I do not agree with Stallman's views. I'm genuinely perplexed by the fact that many people either can't read, or insist on reading into things to draw conclusions about my views that are completely inaccurate. The point of the post was to make sure the term "giving away" was correctly defined in the context of this conversation, and it wasn't an exclusive statement compared with the first sentence of your response. In fact, I agree with you.
No, they are not taking your rights. You might say they are violating your rights, but their actions have no effect upon your legal rights. You retain every right you had before, and you're free to pursue legal action against the person who violated your rights by copying your works without your permission. Again, it is important to accurately represent these things if there is any hope of having a reasonable discussion about them.
Please post all your bank and credit account details here. Make sure you include your home address, social security number (if you're a US resident), telephone numbers, email addresses, the full names of all family members, their bank account information, and a photo of yourself naked.
After all, everything I've listed will just be data posted here, and data is some ephemeral concept that exists outside of space and time, right?
Wow. You managed to miss the part where I said I disagree with Stallman's views. In fact, I am strongly opposed to copright infringement. You may wish to read my other responses in this thread, or you can continue acting like a child yourself. Have a nice day.
As a clarification, I partially agree with you. I apologize for the confusion; I thought I was responding to another post. I disagree with this:
Copyright gives a legal right to control the copying and distribution of said material, If you copy my stuff and give it away, you are taking my legal rights associated with that and giving them away.
When someone distributes unauthorized copies of things you hold copyright to, they are not taking away your legal rights in any sense. The recipient does not gain any rights to distribute such content, either. This is a very important distinction, but I do agree with the first sentence of your statement.
You might be surprised to learn I completely agree with you, and am staunchly opposed to copyright infringement. However, in the context of discussions about the story at hand, it is extremely important to properly define what is actually happening. I strongly oppose the media industry's standard characterization of the act of copyright infringement, and I will continue to do my part to make sure things are defined properly in conversations such as these. That said, again, I am strongly opposed to copyright infringment, and will continue to support people enforcing their own rights to the materials they hold copyright to.
When your point is dependent on your specific, far from universally accepted definitions being exclusively used, you don't actually have a point.
In the context of this story, the term has a very specific, well-accepted meaning.
The term "giving other people's shit away" implies "sharing something that is legally owned by someone else" which is the actual case here, your desire for free entertainment notwithstanding.
I don't have any desire for free entertainment. I'm a staunch opponent of copyright infringement, and noted in my original post that I do not agree with Stallman's positions. But please, go on misconstruing and twisting things people post to suit your own personal need for senseless attacks.
This is about far more than a semantic front. My point here is that matters like these must be defined accurately from the start, or it taints any discourse that follows on the merits of the true underlying positions. For example, the recording and film industries rely heavily on the common usage of the term "give away," as meant to describe deprivation of property without compensation (they like the word "theft" for the same reason). That characterization is a gross misrepresentation of copyright infringement, and thus we must be careful to "call a spade a spade" when it comes up in the context of the story at hand.
Speaking of context, it matters. What's odd here is that I don't disagree with the bulk of what you've said here, and didn't disagree with it in my original post. In fact, my intent was to reinforce the view you've expressed. Thus, you'd do well to take a few few moments to consider what someone has actually written, and the context in which it was written, before replying to him.
Slashdot Mirror
I suspect you aren't aware that "Nazi" is short for National Socialist German Workers' Party.
No, it's not invalid at all. This is a distro run by core devs who for years not only didn't give two shits about security in any form, but openly lied to their own users about the implications of their own decisions. I'm keenly aware of the current status of Arch with respect to package signing, and it's a classic case of too little, too late. Trust is a funny thing: once you break it, good luck ever getting it back. Have fun with your toy distro.
Feel free to compare the United States to any other nations they express a serious interest in from a military, economic, or overall political standpoint. Try living in both nations for five years apiece. Then report back on your findings, provided you have the spine to actually try this for yourself.
Is that kinda like trusting a distro like Arch to begin with, which has never considered security anything remotely near a high priority? Golly, I sure want to trust a distro that considered ignoring something as insignificant as package signing with my data.
Those shoes are 300 fucking dollars.
Let's get 'em.
Mod parent offtopic.
Man, I've heard of some strange fetishes in my time, but savoring the flavor of freshly ironed clothing is a first in my book. Do you prefer light or heavy starch?
mohamed
There, that's in ASCII, and I call it art. Don't judge me, it's art. IT'S ART.
I sure hope your boyfriend doesn't mind it.
I'm no fan of Microsoft, but if ever there was a time for "citation needed" it's now. Please provide references detailing all of Microsoft's acquisitions and their P/L performance over the last 10 years.
In other words, you can't just make assertions like the one you've made without demonstrating why they're true.
I think that needs to be nominated for /. comment of the year.
Ewwwww.
Heck, I thought the most interesting bit would probably have been the photo, but okay.
Agree with parent. I think it was serious.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Of course waiting in line is taught at a young age, and of course it is a custom present in most civilized societies that I'm aware of. In those societies, violating that does indeed make you an asshole. I'm having trouble understanding why you deny that acting against such rules of society is anything but being an asshole. The very definition of being an asshole is acting in a manner that the most people would find offensive, or most people would determine to be against established rules of society.
Would you argue that someone who commits rape, or fleeces little old ladies out of their retirement through ponzi schemes, etc isn't being an asshole? These are admittedly extreme examples, and we have stronger words than "asshole" to describe people who commit such acts. Nonetheless, the person would still be (at minimum) an asshole.
So once again, what is your point, aside from appearing to argue with yourself?
This really does sound like an excellent idea. It would seem to reduce distribution inefficiencies to near zero, and provide agreeable compensation for the artist. Also, brb I'm off to start an indie band named Arcade Fire, or maybe Revenge of Pacman.
I'm strongly opposed to copyright infringement, and indicated in my original post that I do not agree with Stallman's views. I'm genuinely perplexed by the fact that many people either can't read, or insist on reading into things to draw conclusions about my views that are completely inaccurate. The point of the post was to make sure the term "giving away" was correctly defined in the context of this conversation, and it wasn't an exclusive statement compared with the first sentence of your response. In fact, I agree with you.
No, they are not taking your rights. You might say they are violating your rights, but their actions have no effect upon your legal rights. You retain every right you had before, and you're free to pursue legal action against the person who violated your rights by copying your works without your permission. Again, it is important to accurately represent these things if there is any hope of having a reasonable discussion about them.
Please post all your bank and credit account details here. Make sure you include your home address, social security number (if you're a US resident), telephone numbers, email addresses, the full names of all family members, their bank account information, and a photo of yourself naked.
After all, everything I've listed will just be data posted here, and data is some ephemeral concept that exists outside of space and time, right?
Wow. You managed to miss the part where I said I disagree with Stallman's views. In fact, I am strongly opposed to copright infringement. You may wish to read my other responses in this thread, or you can continue acting like a child yourself. Have a nice day.
As a clarification, I partially agree with you. I apologize for the confusion; I thought I was responding to another post. I disagree with this:
Copyright gives a legal right to control the copying and distribution of said material, If you copy my stuff and give it away, you are taking my legal rights associated with that and giving them away.
When someone distributes unauthorized copies of things you hold copyright to, they are not taking away your legal rights in any sense. The recipient does not gain any rights to distribute such content, either. This is a very important distinction, but I do agree with the first sentence of your statement.
You might be surprised to learn I completely agree with you, and am staunchly opposed to copyright infringement. However, in the context of discussions about the story at hand, it is extremely important to properly define what is actually happening. I strongly oppose the media industry's standard characterization of the act of copyright infringement, and I will continue to do my part to make sure things are defined properly in conversations such as these. That said, again, I am strongly opposed to copyright infringment, and will continue to support people enforcing their own rights to the materials they hold copyright to.
When your point is dependent on your specific, far from universally accepted definitions being exclusively used, you don't actually have a point.
In the context of this story, the term has a very specific, well-accepted meaning.
The term "giving other people's shit away" implies "sharing something that is legally owned by someone else" which is the actual case here, your desire for free entertainment notwithstanding.
I don't have any desire for free entertainment. I'm a staunch opponent of copyright infringement, and noted in my original post that I do not agree with Stallman's positions. But please, go on misconstruing and twisting things people post to suit your own personal need for senseless attacks.
This is about far more than a semantic front. My point here is that matters like these must be defined accurately from the start, or it taints any discourse that follows on the merits of the true underlying positions. For example, the recording and film industries rely heavily on the common usage of the term "give away," as meant to describe deprivation of property without compensation (they like the word "theft" for the same reason). That characterization is a gross misrepresentation of copyright infringement, and thus we must be careful to "call a spade a spade" when it comes up in the context of the story at hand.
Speaking of context, it matters. What's odd here is that I don't disagree with the bulk of what you've said here, and didn't disagree with it in my original post. In fact, my intent was to reinforce the view you've expressed. Thus, you'd do well to take a few few moments to consider what someone has actually written, and the context in which it was written, before replying to him.
I think you missed the part where I said "I happen to disagree with him on these points." In other words, I agree with you.