nevitably, the closer a system is to what everybody else is using, the more likely it is that any problems with it will have been seen and solved countless times before.... and the easier it is for an external attacker; he finds the exploit once, and uses it a million times over. As Windows users are continually reminded.
But if they don't see a problem with copying my information, why should I see a problem with copying theirs? Moral and legal issues aside, of course...
(I also subscribe to the beliefs in your last para, but I can see the appeal in reactive copyright abuse if software vendors break the compact first.)
Yeah -- although I'm seeing more explicit than implicit bias these days anyway. People are becoming more polarised in these dangerous times.:(
I just see a lot of people claiming that, for example, American news media is biased to the right or to the left; it all depends where you're standing. Similarly with tech issues. A lot of journalism is based on profit first, ideology second anyway, so they'll be saying what they think people with money want to hear, or at least what will bring in the advertisers (controversy, shock and horror -- "if it bleeds, it leads").
If you can't get your agenda up without killing people, surely it's time to reconsider what you are trying to achieve -- the end cannot justify the means (except to prevent more killing, I guess:/).
one "side" makes a fairly reasonable, if a bit biased, statement and the other side says something totally whacko that sounds like it might be reasonable if the only background in the topic you have is the news coverage itself.
I just wanted to make the point that which side is which (reasonable vs non) is always subjective as well, at least on most major issues... although the point I draw the line at is when either side starts killing people who haven't specifically signed up to be shot at and bombed. Always a big credibility loss for me.
They *expected* the new version of OS to run perfectly on a 5 year old Mac because they were used to that.
Well, there's also the fact that Apple said repeatedly when the first G3-based machines come out that OS X would run, and run well, on these machines when it was finally released.
Life is about reproduction and consumption. When you suggest there are no restraining factors upon such behavior, you are attempting to argue that life as we know it does not apply to humans.
I (and many others) would argue that the human struggle to civilise ourselves is an attempt to make those restraining factors irrelevant, not in order to 'streamline' the race in homage to them. Politically I'm a William Godwin-style anarchist, so I strongly reject any efforts at state-enforced 'improvement'; I believe that any such improvement comes from each individual contribution to the common weal (or it doesn't, and that's the individual's personal choice).
I admire Kubrick as an artist; I see his tales of dehumanisation as a warning of the internal and external strictures that fascist attitudes force us to conform to. (Full Metal Jacket, or the HAL sequence of 2001, for example).
Every political movement fails eventually, usually due to factors not totally under its control -- so to say that egalitarianism has failed merely lowers it to the level of all the other isms.
I'd hate to be living somewhere like Singapore or China, but the unanimity of political opinion in the West these days is getting closer to that every day. Fascism is corporate socialism -- it's the unification of the two forces that have combined to do most of the damage last century. No thanks.
Getting dangerously close to fascism when you assume that your life is more meaningful than theirs, especially when you combine it with talk about "the good old days".
All true, although there is some crossover between electronica (e.g. The Orb) and spaced-out music (e.g. Tangerine Dream), so it does of course depend on the creativity of the people involved, and whatever drugs work best for them.
Dunno how to fix this or if it's possible to fix it.
It's getting possible to do more with less resources, in many fields (entertainment, software, etc.) -- although this means that at the high end it's still impossible to compete with Hollywood, et. al., it still means that the low end gets more and more impressive by the year. I guess democratisation (in the original sense) is all that can save us -- and, as Sturgeon said, 90% of it will always be crap anyway. Just block that part out:)
While the cute girls were happily bobbing their heads to "You spin me round round, baby, round round--like a record, baby..." (retch, retch) some of us knew that it sucked while it sucked, and some of us said so and how and why.
However, the DJs revealed that if you played two or three of these records simultaneously, and messed around with the mixing desks, you could achieve a half-decent sound. So it wasn't all bad.:)
When I stumbled into "...Teen Spirit" while flipping channels on TV, then I realized that not only had punk gotten self-pitiful--it had become immensely profitable.
However, most of the Seattle scene sounded like nothing more than sub-par Led Zeppelin -- and I never really liked that sound anyway.
So what else is, ahem, "new"?
Most innovation in music seems to be drug-related, and we haven't had any good druggie musicians for a while, unfortunately.:/
This is yet another plot by the RIAA to make the end user pay for listening to music. It doesn't work that way with radio.
Actually, *everyone* pays for music on the radio, so it has the same problem as this scheme.
Commercial radio: increased price on the products advertised to fund the advertisers' market growth; higher supermarket bill.
Public radio: mostly tax supported, if there are any that survive purely by subscription or donation then I tip my hat to them... it's not easy to pay for transmitter time like that.
Why shouldn't "end users" pay to listen to music produced by RIAA members? Certainly beats me funding some 12-year-old's Britney Spears addiction through my shopping trolley or tax bill.
I think calling their scripting language JavaScript was the first of Netscape's mistakes in accomodating Sun.
I always thought they were just trying to cash in on all the Java hype, and they called it JavaScript because they started shipping a VM with the browser at the same time. Did Sun get much of a say in this?
Also, why were Sun and Netscape so friendly? Didn't Sun pick up Netscape's web server from AOL during one re-organisation?
Re:So, If I Don't Like It, I Can Steal It?
on
All The Rave
·
· Score: 1
I think that the backlash against IP crime -- like the backlash against terrorism -- is going too far, too hard and too fast. Look at some of the decisions being handed down...
(Re terrorism: the government here in Australia wants laws passed to lock up anyone -- adults or children -- indefinitely, without charge, if they are suspected of possessing information about terrorism or terrorists.) This reminds me of.mp3 being declared an "illegal file format" -- although I need to check if any Congresspeople had drunk enough of the corporate Kool-Aid to be parroting that line.
Sure, the consequences of that are more serious, but in both cases the punishments are out of all proportion to the damage caused by the crime -- given that being "under suspicion" is soon to be considered a criminal act here.
Re:So, If I Don't Like It, I Can Steal It?
on
All The Rave
·
· Score: 1
No no no. Following the original principle, that gives you the right to take highly detailed colour photographs that don't damage the original in any way.
Theft involves taking something the owner no longer has any possession of. Lost IP sales count merely as unrealised potential revenue -- if everyone who copies something would otherwise buy it, the amounts would be the same, but that's rarely the case and it still doesn't count as theft.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending IP infringement -- it's illegal, after all -- and some level of IP protection is a necessary part of our economy. I just think that in most cases it's an ambit claim by the "victims" (*AA, BSA, etc.) who probably write most of it off as a brand-building cost anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
nevitably, the closer a system is to what everybody else is using, the more likely it is that any problems with it will have been seen and solved countless times before. ... and the easier it is for an external attacker; he finds the exploit once, and uses it a million times over. As Windows users are continually reminded.
You didn't see the memo regarding the newly revised ending?
But if they don't see a problem with copying my information, why should I see a problem with copying theirs? Moral and legal issues aside, of course...
(I also subscribe to the beliefs in your last para, but I can see the appeal in reactive copyright abuse if software vendors break the compact first.)
Yeah -- although I'm seeing more explicit than implicit bias these days anyway. People are becoming more polarised in these dangerous times. :(
I just see a lot of people claiming that, for example, American news media is biased to the right or to the left; it all depends where you're standing. Similarly with tech issues. A lot of journalism is based on profit first, ideology second anyway, so they'll be saying what they think people with money want to hear, or at least what will bring in the advertisers (controversy, shock and horror -- "if it bleeds, it leads").
Gandhi wasn't a bad man.
:/).
If you can't get your agenda up without killing people, surely it's time to reconsider what you are trying to achieve -- the end cannot justify the means (except to prevent more killing, I guess
Definitely not. Neither do Israeli bus drivers or Palestinian children, for example.
one "side" makes a fairly reasonable, if a bit biased, statement and the other side says something totally whacko that sounds like it might be reasonable if the only background in the topic you have is the news coverage itself.
I just wanted to make the point that which side is which (reasonable vs non) is always subjective as well, at least on most major issues... although the point I draw the line at is when either side starts killing people who haven't specifically signed up to be shot at and bombed. Always a big credibility loss for me.
They *expected* the new version of OS to run perfectly on a 5 year old Mac because they were used to that.
Well, there's also the fact that Apple said repeatedly when the first G3-based machines come out that OS X would run, and run well, on these machines when it was finally released.
Hmmm... you were in charge of the MS Office XML support, weren't you? :) Even down to the / at the start of the opening <picture> tag...
Power corrupts. Do your best to ensure that no individual has too much.
Also, we're too close at the moment to many of the principles stated above to make me happy... Berlusconi makes a good fascist leader, for example.
Life is about reproduction and consumption. When you suggest there are no restraining factors upon such behavior, you are attempting to argue that life as we know it does not apply to humans.
I (and many others) would argue that the human struggle to civilise ourselves is an attempt to make those restraining factors irrelevant, not in order to 'streamline' the race in homage to them. Politically I'm a William Godwin-style anarchist, so I strongly reject any efforts at state-enforced 'improvement'; I believe that any such improvement comes from each individual contribution to the common weal (or it doesn't, and that's the individual's personal choice).
I admire Kubrick as an artist; I see his tales of dehumanisation as a warning of the internal and external strictures that fascist attitudes force us to conform to. (Full Metal Jacket, or the HAL sequence of 2001, for example).
Every political movement fails eventually, usually due to factors not totally under its control -- so to say that egalitarianism has failed merely lowers it to the level of all the other isms.
I'd hate to be living somewhere like Singapore or China, but the unanimity of political opinion in the West these days is getting closer to that every day. Fascism is corporate socialism -- it's the unification of the two forces that have combined to do most of the damage last century. No thanks.
Getting dangerously close to fascism when you assume that your life is more meaningful than theirs, especially when you combine it with talk about "the good old days".
That'll be one of the fastest OS's on the market easily.
:/
Might not be fast in terms of "time to market", though.
Yeah, don't challenge The Ego... he could have /. tied up in court for *years* over this. :)
The UAE and Saudi Arabia recognized them, but they withdrew that recognition soon after September 11th, 2001. Pretty easy to guess why...
I think you're not being specific enough. [snip]
:)
All true, although there is some crossover between electronica (e.g. The Orb) and spaced-out music (e.g. Tangerine Dream), so it does of course depend on the creativity of the people involved, and whatever drugs work best for them.
Dunno how to fix this or if it's possible to fix it.
It's getting possible to do more with less resources, in many fields (entertainment, software, etc.) -- although this means that at the high end it's still impossible to compete with Hollywood, et. al., it still means that the low end gets more and more impressive by the year. I guess democratisation (in the original sense) is all that can save us -- and, as Sturgeon said, 90% of it will always be crap anyway. Just block that part out
The big advance I'm waiting for is the Martian mission to Earth.
"Where's the kaboom? There was supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom!"
While the cute girls were happily bobbing their heads to "You spin me round round, baby, round round--like a record, baby..." (retch, retch) some of us knew that it sucked while it sucked, and some of us said so and how and why.
:)
:/
However, the DJs revealed that if you played two or three of these records simultaneously, and messed around with the mixing desks, you could achieve a half-decent sound. So it wasn't all bad.
When I stumbled into "...Teen Spirit" while flipping channels on TV, then I realized that not only had punk gotten self-pitiful--it had become immensely profitable.
However, most of the Seattle scene sounded like nothing more than sub-par Led Zeppelin -- and I never really liked that sound anyway.
So what else is, ahem, "new"?
Most innovation in music seems to be drug-related, and we haven't had any good druggie musicians for a while, unfortunately.
Copyright is largely an artificial construct, unlike theft.
*Law* is an artificial construct. Read some Proudhon.
This is yet another plot by the RIAA to make the end user pay for listening to music. It doesn't work that way with radio.
Actually, *everyone* pays for music on the radio, so it has the same problem as this scheme.
Commercial radio: increased price on the products advertised to fund the advertisers' market growth; higher supermarket bill.
Public radio: mostly tax supported, if there are any that survive purely by subscription or donation then I tip my hat to them... it's not easy to pay for transmitter time like that.
Why shouldn't "end users" pay to listen to music produced by RIAA members? Certainly beats me funding some 12-year-old's Britney Spears addiction through my shopping trolley or tax bill.
What about the Church? They've been around for 1800-1900 years, according to the historians...
If, however, I want to include GPLed code in my program, the GPL forces me to release my program under the GPL.
Yeah, and that code had you in a headlock and forced you to type in the linking commands itself, didn't it?
Don't like the license -- don't use the code. Find something else or write your own. It's that simple.
I think calling their scripting language JavaScript was the first of Netscape's mistakes in accomodating Sun.
I always thought they were just trying to cash in on all the Java hype, and they called it JavaScript because they started shipping a VM with the browser at the same time. Did Sun get much of a say in this?
Also, why were Sun and Netscape so friendly? Didn't Sun pick up Netscape's web server from AOL during one re-organisation?
I think that the backlash against IP crime -- like the backlash against terrorism -- is going too far, too hard and too fast. Look at some of the decisions being handed down...
.mp3 being declared an "illegal file format" -- although I need to check if any Congresspeople had drunk enough of the corporate Kool-Aid to be parroting that line.
(Re terrorism: the government here in Australia wants laws passed to lock up anyone -- adults or children -- indefinitely, without charge, if they are suspected of possessing information about terrorism or terrorists.) This reminds me of
Sure, the consequences of that are more serious, but in both cases the punishments are out of all proportion to the damage caused by the crime -- given that being "under suspicion" is soon to be considered a criminal act here.
No no no. Following the original principle, that gives you the right to take highly detailed colour photographs that don't damage the original in any way.
Theft involves taking something the owner no longer has any possession of. Lost IP sales count merely as unrealised potential revenue -- if everyone who copies something would otherwise buy it, the amounts would be the same, but that's rarely the case and it still doesn't count as theft.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending IP infringement -- it's illegal, after all -- and some level of IP protection is a necessary part of our economy. I just think that in most cases it's an ambit claim by the "victims" (*AA, BSA, etc.) who probably write most of it off as a brand-building cost anyway.