Ehehe, I remember SoftPC, a completely software PC emulator that ran on the Mac. When you started your "PC" by double-clicking the icon, it emitted the familiar PC dual floppy drive "graaaaank, groooonk" tinny sheet-metal vibration sounds.
> First of all, a free system is not aimed
> primarily at making binary aplications work, but
> at making free aplications, which comes with
> source, work
Yeah, that's gonna make Windows obsolete for Joe Sixpack really soon. To make any progress, you have to have one simple install icon to double-click.
Ahh, who cares. I switched from Mac to PC three years ago at home because of the games.
Note further that his decision to give it to the "public" sector allowed the "public" sector to "win".
He could have just as easily given it to a corporation. Then, would it be accurate to recognize how a geek individual totally destroyed a bloated, pulic-sector project?
If profiteering drives scientific development, we're all better off for it. Its high cost is a sign of its success, not of some failure.
Well that's completely wrong. The value of info you bring with you as industrial espionage is worth far, far more than your pitiful salary to other large corporations. Just the knowledge of the status of an opponent's project can be worth far more than years of a bloated techie's salary.
What you don't realize in your early 20's is how much experience you *don't* have.
To put this in perspective, imaging doing what you did for the last four years for the next 10. How much better will you be then? Answer: a ton.
I have dozens of hard bugs under my belt, things that take from hours to days to figure out, each one of which I now can see and prevent in the future, or recognize in other's work if I see it. (Once even solved in 10 minutes a bug that another coworker, all of 28 years old, and two Microsoft on-site contracts couldn't solve in a day and a half.)
>> A 10 year copyright (very short) would not affect
>> the huge losses occuring today by people
>> downloading Britney.
>
> What huge losses? The music industry just had a
> record year for profits.
I was, of course, referring to the losses of still further profits, which is their right as producers of said music.
>> But the only "problem" is the "problem" of "I
>> don't wanna pay for it and don't wanna have to
>> wait 75 years for it."
>
> No, the problem is that there's no reason for us
> to grant a copyright to artists and other
> creators or publishers if we aren't going to get
> something out of it as well. The original
> "bargain" was for 14 years.
Ummm, I was unaware a free society was built around you "granting" someone a reprieve from intellectual theft. That you are only going to grant this reprieve from you thefting in so long as you "get something out of it". The purpose of this "bargain" was to ensure the people who worked long and hard on something get an exclusive, coercive monopoly on that thing for a period of time. This has absolutely nothing to do with you, the wannabe leach, "getting something" from it in exchange. What you "get" is the same protection for your stuff as they do for theirs.
> The [Disney Mickey Mouse] term should have
> expired long ago. Trademark law might still
> apply to it in some cases, but other than that,
> the mouse should be fair game.
Why should it have expired? Why should anyone but Disney be able to use it? They built it. They've been cultivating it for decades. Yes, indeed, it is still highly profitable, and that is EXACTLY why it should still be protected. If it were lying in a garbage heap, no one would care to do derivations from it. It's precisely because they've kept it valuable that they should have the law continue to secure them their exclusive rights.
I really don't view downloading a movie to watch on a computer screen to save $8.00 at the theater as all that great a deal. My $8.00 is buying the big screen, not the movie view, as far as I am concerned.
But then I also sit in the fourth row rather unlike the idiot masses who sit so far back they might as well be watching a movie on their computer.
> (Which is why the XFL will not improve. Any
> stand-out player is going to end up signing with
> the Browns, the Chargers, the Seahawks...
Hardly. Who signs where is completely a function of how much they are going to get paid. It's been done before, it was called the AFL, soon to be the AFC of NFL. Will this be another AFL or another USFL?
Re:I expect it will make no difference at all.
on
Quake on IPv6
·
· Score: 1
Actually, it's not that difficult with larger monitors.
More amazing are people who care about the difference between 160fps and 200fps, especially when their monitor only goes to 130fps
> On the other hand, when you hear "X Box", even
> if you've heard something about it, you still
> have a lot of unanswered questions. It's
> mysterious. It's unknown. Imagination fills in
> the gaps..
With Microsoft at the helm, my imagination can fill in quite a few gaps on X-box.
Like it's just a cheap PC with Windows CE and Direct X in it, and a cheap 3D card (TV doesn't require much resolution.)
> You can't really go around sueing everyone that
> appears to be using your work.
Actually, I believe that is EXACTLY what you have to do. If your opponent can prove in court that there were cases you knew about and let slide, even as few as one, then that can be used to crack your trademark or copyright.
That's why properties like Star Trek and Star Wars are so overbearing in their approaches. It isn't "being mean", the common-sense view of what's going on. It's not letting any potential cracks into their valuable intellectual property.
But the only "problem" is the "problem" of "I don't wanna pay for it and don't wanna have to wait 75 years for it."
I don't see that as a problem.
Disney wants to keep it's rights to early Mickey Mouse because they KNOW it's sill a valuable property. This hasn't stopped them from continuing to spit out new movies every other year.
Let's be honest, too. The problem isn't that "artists" aren't producing enough (prompting the bizarre, i.e. government, solution of greatly limited copyright times.) Rather it is the stealing of NEW materials. A 10 year copyright (very short) would not affect the huge losses occuring today by people downloading Britney.
> because building a duplicate of Susie's bike
> doesn't hurt Susie in any way.
Susie Bike Corp. is hurt tremendously. They went through all the trouble to design and build the bike, spending tens of millions of dollars. Now you just go down to the store and slap a BikeDuplicator into your drive bay and steal a copy, then start spreading the design all over the place, hand out further copies from your drive bay, and so on.
Yes, it does hurt them. The design is not yours. It is wrong to steal that which is not yours. That you may even feel your actions benefit Susie Bike Corp. (or even if your actions DO benefit them more than Susie Bike Corp.'s own actions would) is irrelevant. It is not yours and you do not steal.
Slashdot Mirror
Ehehe, I remember SoftPC, a completely software PC emulator that ran on the Mac. When you started your "PC" by double-clicking the icon, it emitted the familiar PC dual floppy drive "graaaaank, groooonk" tinny sheet-metal vibration sounds.
> First of all, a free system is not aimed
> primarily at making binary aplications work, but
> at making free aplications, which comes with
> source, work
Yeah, that's gonna make Windows obsolete for Joe Sixpack really soon. To make any progress, you have to have one simple install icon to double-click.
Ahh, who cares. I switched from Mac to PC three years ago at home because of the games.
You'd need everyone to install on their client the "tripping over dirty clothes" mod, first.
> How many people would really need 10.8 terabytes of storage?
I'm sure Windows 2004, with a full install of Office Suite 2003 could rise to the occasion.
You've obviously never seen my wallet. That would only increase its width by about 15%.
Note further that his decision to give it to the "public" sector allowed the "public" sector to "win".
He could have just as easily given it to a corporation. Then, would it be accurate to recognize how a geek individual totally destroyed a bloated, pulic-sector project?
If profiteering drives scientific development, we're all better off for it. Its high cost is a sign of its success, not of some failure.
Ferenghi Rule of Acquisition #37: Once you have their money, never give it back.
Well that's completely wrong. The value of info you bring with you as industrial espionage is worth far, far more than your pitiful salary to other large corporations. Just the knowledge of the status of an opponent's project can be worth far more than years of a bloated techie's salary.
What you don't realize in your early 20's is how much experience you *don't* have.
To put this in perspective, imaging doing what you did for the last four years for the next 10. How much better will you be then? Answer: a ton.
I have dozens of hard bugs under my belt, things that take from hours to days to figure out, each one of which I now can see and prevent in the future, or recognize in other's work if I see it. (Once even solved in 10 minutes a bug that another coworker, all of 28 years old, and two Microsoft on-site contracts couldn't solve in a day and a half.)
> only about 1/8th of your population is real -
> the rest is bots running.
Quite an improvement over reality, actually.
...thus almost completely stagnating further development. Good job and well done.
>> A 10 year copyright (very short) would not affect
>> the huge losses occuring today by people
>> downloading Britney.
>
> What huge losses? The music industry just had a
> record year for profits.
I was, of course, referring to the losses of still further profits, which is their right as producers of said music.
>> But the only "problem" is the "problem" of "I
>> don't wanna pay for it and don't wanna have to
>> wait 75 years for it."
>
> No, the problem is that there's no reason for us
> to grant a copyright to artists and other
> creators or publishers if we aren't going to get
> something out of it as well. The original
> "bargain" was for 14 years.
Ummm, I was unaware a free society was built around you "granting" someone a reprieve from intellectual theft. That you are only going to grant this reprieve from you thefting in so long as you "get something out of it". The purpose of this "bargain" was to ensure the people who worked long and hard on something get an exclusive, coercive monopoly on that thing for a period of time. This has absolutely nothing to do with you, the wannabe leach, "getting something" from it in exchange. What you "get" is the same protection for your stuff as they do for theirs.
> The [Disney Mickey Mouse] term should have
> expired long ago. Trademark law might still
> apply to it in some cases, but other than that,
> the mouse should be fair game.
Why should it have expired? Why should anyone but Disney be able to use it? They built it. They've been cultivating it for decades. Yes, indeed, it is still highly profitable, and that is EXACTLY why it should still be protected. If it were lying in a garbage heap, no one would care to do derivations from it. It's precisely because they've kept it valuable that they should have the law continue to secure them their exclusive rights.
I really don't view downloading a movie to watch on a computer screen to save $8.00 at the theater as all that great a deal. My $8.00 is buying the big screen, not the movie view, as far as I am concerned.
But then I also sit in the fourth row rather unlike the idiot masses who sit so far back they might as well be watching a movie on their computer.
No, he said he didn't want you to MAIL him, not E-MAIL him.
> (Which is why the XFL will not improve. Any
> stand-out player is going to end up signing with
> the Browns, the Chargers, the Seahawks...
Hardly. Who signs where is completely a function of how much they are going to get paid. It's been done before, it was called the AFL, soon to be the AFC of NFL. Will this be another AFL or another USFL?
Actually, it's not that difficult with larger monitors.
More amazing are people who care about the difference between 160fps and 200fps, especially when their monitor only goes to 130fps
> comfortable aircraft-type seating
Hehe, and how would 3 days of sitting work out, blood-clots-in-your-ass-wise?
> That's a ridiculous suggestion!
No, that's just a hard suggestion. Since it is hard to do, you feel justified in telling them what they can and cannot charge, under threat of jail?
Oooookay.....
> On the other hand, when you hear "X Box", even
> if you've heard something about it, you still
> have a lot of unanswered questions. It's
> mysterious. It's unknown. Imagination fills in
> the gaps..
With Microsoft at the helm, my imagination can fill in quite a few gaps on X-box.
Like it's just a cheap PC with Windows CE and Direct X in it, and a cheap 3D card (TV doesn't require much resolution.)
Of course, the real fun will be when people crack it and set the speed limit, not at 200, but rather at 3 mph.
> You can't really go around sueing everyone that
> appears to be using your work.
Actually, I believe that is EXACTLY what you have to do. If your opponent can prove in court that there were cases you knew about and let slide, even as few as one, then that can be used to crack your trademark or copyright.
That's why properties like Star Trek and Star Wars are so overbearing in their approaches. It isn't "being mean", the common-sense view of what's going on. It's not letting any potential cracks into their valuable intellectual property.
There are plenty of games where there is no zero sum involved. You are free to generate as much "cash" (points) as your abilities can achieve.
In football, your scoring only indirectly (by using up time) prevents your opponent from scoring.
In baseball, even that doesn't apply.
But the only "problem" is the "problem" of "I don't wanna pay for it and don't wanna have to wait 75 years for it."
I don't see that as a problem.
Disney wants to keep it's rights to early Mickey Mouse because they KNOW it's sill a valuable property. This hasn't stopped them from continuing to spit out new movies every other year.
Let's be honest, too. The problem isn't that "artists" aren't producing enough (prompting the bizarre, i.e. government, solution of greatly limited copyright times.) Rather it is the stealing of NEW materials. A 10 year copyright (very short) would not affect the huge losses occuring today by people downloading Britney.
Nobody ever has any problems when it comes to copying books. Why do they suddenly see it as OK to copy CD's?
> because building a duplicate of Susie's bike
> doesn't hurt Susie in any way.
Susie Bike Corp. is hurt tremendously. They went through all the trouble to design and build the bike, spending tens of millions of dollars. Now you just go down to the store and slap a BikeDuplicator into your drive bay and steal a copy, then start spreading the design all over the place, hand out further copies from your drive bay, and so on.
Yes, it does hurt them. The design is not yours. It is wrong to steal that which is not yours. That you may even feel your actions benefit Susie Bike Corp. (or even if your actions DO benefit them more than Susie Bike Corp.'s own actions would) is irrelevant. It is not yours and you do not steal.