Retail discs don't fit in a netbook, and even if you do manage to copy the installer over the network using another PC's optical drive, the copy deterrence methods in most retail games requires a battery-sucking internal optical drive on the machine that runs the game, or at least a battery-sucking USB optical drive. So if you want to use your netbook to play commercial games, you need Steam.
Or a cd-rom emulator such as daemon tools, which will also minimize load times and rid one of the hassle of carrying and swapping multiple cd's/dvd's.
Progress is being made towards just such a scenario; however, due to the computational expense, the only such definition (so far, to my knowledge) is a tobacco mosaic virus in a drop of water.
This was simulated on the atomic level, and according to the article ~50 million atoms were virtualized. Again due to computational expense, the emulation ran for only 50 nanoseconds.
It raises the old conundrum of how accurate a model can be before it ceases to be useful or becomes a copy.
The current dire state of the economy is forcing them to show their true nature to an unusual extent- for example, they've recently added a chase rarity to their flagship product, Magic: The Gathering, as well as releasing semi-monthly "collector's edition" products for same.
Violence is unnecessary in the "human condition" to the extent that individual freedom is unnecessary.
While I'm a fan of using nonviolent resistance where it is applicable, I don't see how such tactics can be used in a society where the oppressors control the media.
For example, the famous self-sacrifice of the Vietnamese monk who set himself on fire would have been for nothing without the subsequent worldwide spread of the photograph of same. I suspect that if the South Vietnamese could have suppressed the information, they would have.
Also (and at the risk of invoking Godwin), when asked what the Jews could have done to prevent the Holocaust, Gandhi suggested that they should have committed mass suicide. That is the logical conclusion of uncompromising nonviolence.
The moral is, unthinking nonviolence can be just as bad as unthinking violence. So, think!
No, it's not. The reason for copyright's existence is to encourage creators to share their ideas. The means it uses to reach this end is a monopoly on those ideas. This is why I suggested that you failed to understand the purpose of copyright.
If the reason for copyright were protection, then it would have no need to expire, since that would only lessen the protection it provides. Since it does expire (continuous extensions notwithstanding), it stands to reason that its intended purpose is to promote the sharing of ideas. That copyright's intended purpose has been thwarted by corporate lobbyists is the reason I originally posted.
Why don't you just say that Disney has "stolen" from you?
Because Disney is not the only company that lines its pockets by parasitizing from the public domain, it's just the worst offender. I anticipated your question, and answered it in my original post.
I find it funny that you are complaining that you can't get free access to something that wasn't yours in the first place.
If no one was allowed free access to anything they didn't create, Disney would have been unable to create most of its works in the first place.
It's not like someone is going to randomly create Mickey Mouse.
How is it that every version of Windows is "the fastest Windows ever", yet each version boasts higher minimum system requirements, suggesting that each version runs (if it runs at all), more slowly on the same hardware?
They (being corporations) stole the public domain.
The prime example is disney. Here's what happens...
1. Disney pilfers the public domain to create a "new work", for example, Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, or Aladdin. 2. Disney changes just enough to allow the work to be copyrighted. 3. Disney enjoys the privileges of copyright until they would expire, then purchases a renewal by way of lobbyists and campaign contributions.
To summarize, media cartels are parasites that steal from the public domain (or "myth pool" for the advanced readers out there) while contributing as little as possible. I hope this answers your question of how "they" have stolen from us.
compared to other spendings like those on social programs, it's really peanuts
I wouldn't say peanuts; 21% of U.S. federal spending is a significant portion, and is more than 8 times what the owner of the next-largest military, China, spends. Before you begin to say that we can't trust China's reported military budget, I would point out that the U.S's reported military budget is also suspect.
before we talk about removing our only defense from our enemies, we should talk about letting each person take responsibility for his action and not burdening the society for his (or his father's) laziness.
of course you mean the responsibility of maintaining a basic standard of living, a much less suitable responsibility for a government than the responsibility of defending against bogeymen.
What I'm saying is that... continuing their bloodline... is the only real reason for existence.
I knew exactly what you were saying in your original post, and was informing you that you that I have higher priorities than simply perpetuating my existence.
"he thought the bible too important to ignore, which would indicate a very non-secular mind."
Burning the bible would also indicate that he thought it too important to ignore. Since in each case Jefferson is removing a portion of the bible, I fail to see how editing it implies secularity or lack thereof.
The more relevant history rewrite is the idea that "this country was founded on Christian values*". In fact, the opposite is true: The founders were quite specific about keeping all religion (though I doubt they were thinking of Hinduism) out of this country's government.
Only later were the words "In God We Trust" and "one nation under God" snuck into the U.S.A's currency and pledge, respectively.
Further, it is an oversimplification to speak of "the religion of the founding fathers" as though they were a small, homogeneous group of people, rather than a diverse lot of 50+ individuals.
"Separate from religion" is the definition of secularity. Regardless of the founder's personal beliefs, they signed for a secular government.
*Those of this mindset always exclude the Christian values of praying exclusively in one's closet and not making a spectacle of one's faith, of course.
"You'd be really pissed off if no laws were enforced, someone decided they wanted your computer and either beat the living shit out of you or shot you in the process of relieving you of its ownership."
Who is this "someone" that seems to be held back from killing and looting only by the continued integrity of our legal system?*
If murder and theft were suddenly decriminalized, my desire to commit them would remain unchanged. I suspect the great majority of people feel the same way.
Perhaps laws against murder and theft exist not to prevent people from killing and stealing, but to punish those who do?
If that's the case, the people might be able to do away with their legislative body without becoming murderous, avaricious berserkers.
(Aside to moderators: I know this discussion is off-topic, but he started it.)
*Sounds like a pirate, ironically. Arr! (Cue 57 responses debating the definition of irony. Tinny and Bronzy, now we only need 56.)
You haven't been very specific yourself, mind you... thus, how can I be in reply?
Well, since the most-commonly mentioned extension seems to be Adblock Plus, how about a link to an Opera widget that replicates Adblock Plus's functionality? The ad-blocking feature included in Opera does not count, since, as has been mentioned many times already, it is inferior to Adblock Plus.
Or, if the afore-mentioned widget doesn't exist, you could just post an apology and an admission that I'm right. Either way is fine.;)
Slashdot Mirror
Reminds me of my overweight friend who used to play Track & Field for the NES by laying on the floor and slapping at the Powerpad.
...cost-conscious Apple fans...
That's quite the niche market.
Retail discs don't fit in a netbook, and even if you do manage to copy the installer over the network using another PC's optical drive, the copy deterrence methods in most retail games requires a battery-sucking internal optical drive on the machine that runs the game, or at least a battery-sucking USB optical drive. So if you want to use your netbook to play commercial games, you need Steam.
Or a cd-rom emulator such as daemon tools, which will also minimize load times and rid one of the hassle of carrying and swapping multiple cd's/dvd's.
P.S. I dislike steam and copy-protection. :)
Progress is being made towards just such a scenario; however, due to the computational expense, the only such definition (so far, to my knowledge) is a tobacco mosaic virus in a drop of water.
This was simulated on the atomic level, and according to the article ~50 million atoms were virtualized. Again due to computational expense, the emulation ran for only 50 nanoseconds.
It raises the old conundrum of how accurate a model can be before it ceases to be useful or becomes a copy.
Wizards of the Coast was bought out by Hasbro a while back and underwent a transformation from geek utopia to corporate cash machine.
The current dire state of the economy is forcing them to show their true nature to an unusual extent- for example, they've recently added a chase rarity to their flagship product, Magic: The Gathering, as well as releasing semi-monthly "collector's edition" products for same.
Violence is unnecessary in the "human condition" to the extent that individual freedom is unnecessary.
While I'm a fan of using nonviolent resistance where it is applicable, I don't see how such tactics can be used in a society where the oppressors control the media.
For example, the famous self-sacrifice of the Vietnamese monk who set himself on fire would have been for nothing without the subsequent worldwide spread of the photograph of same. I suspect that if the South Vietnamese could have suppressed the information, they would have.
Also (and at the risk of invoking Godwin), when asked what the Jews could have done to prevent the Holocaust, Gandhi suggested that they should have committed mass suicide. That is the logical conclusion of uncompromising nonviolence.
The moral is, unthinking nonviolence can be just as bad as unthinking violence. So, think!
Copyright is there to protect.
No, it's not. The reason for copyright's existence is to encourage creators to share their ideas. The means it uses to reach this end is a monopoly on those ideas. This is why I suggested that you failed to understand the purpose of copyright.
If the reason for copyright were protection, then it would have no need to expire, since that would only lessen the protection it provides. Since it does expire (continuous extensions notwithstanding), it stands to reason that its intended purpose is to promote the sharing of ideas. That copyright's intended purpose has been thwarted by corporate lobbyists is the reason I originally posted.
Why don't you just say that Disney has "stolen" from you?
Because Disney is not the only company that lines its pockets by parasitizing from the public domain, it's just the worst offender. I anticipated your question, and answered it in my original post.
I find it funny that you are complaining that you can't get free access to something that wasn't yours in the first place.
If no one was allowed free access to anything they didn't create, Disney would have been unable to create most of its works in the first place.
It's not like someone is going to randomly create Mickey Mouse.
This comment displays a lack of understanding of copyright's reason for existence. Copyright exists to encourage creators to share their ideas by giving them a limited monopoly on those ideas. To extend copyright's duration indefinitely defeats the purpose of having copyrights at all.
Indeed, this may explain the rationale of those who choose to ignore the existence of copyright law.
How is it that every version of Windows is "the fastest Windows ever", yet each version boasts higher minimum system requirements, suggesting that each version runs (if it runs at all), more slowly on the same hardware?
*adjusts monocle.
How exactly did "they" "steal" from you?
They (being corporations) stole the public domain.
The prime example is disney. Here's what happens...
1. Disney pilfers the public domain to create a "new work", for example, Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, or Aladdin.
2. Disney changes just enough to allow the work to be copyrighted.
3. Disney enjoys the privileges of copyright until they would expire, then purchases a renewal by way of lobbyists and campaign contributions.
Note that copyright is extended every time Steamboat Willy would pass into the public domain. Note also that many of Disney's works derive their value from previously existing public domain works. Other media corps are no different than Disney, it is just that Disney is the most blatant example.
To summarize, media cartels are parasites that steal from the public domain (or "myth pool" for the advanced readers out there) while contributing as little as possible. I hope this answers your question of how "they" have stolen from us.
Enlightenment is a mere click away...
unless you're a troll, in which case, bon appetit.
I simply refuse to believe that.
compared to other spendings like those on social programs, it's really peanuts
I wouldn't say peanuts; 21% of U.S. federal spending is a significant portion, and is more than 8 times what the owner of the next-largest military, China, spends. Before you begin to say that we can't trust China's reported military budget, I would point out that the U.S's reported military budget is also suspect.
before we talk about removing our only defense from our enemies, we should talk about letting each person take responsibility for his action and not burdening the society for his (or his father's) laziness.
of course you mean the responsibility of maintaining a basic standard of living, a much less suitable responsibility for a government than the responsibility of defending against bogeymen.
Also, I was pointing out that perpetuating your bloodline is not the closest thing to immortality there is.
Newton is much more present in our world than any of his contemporaries who published nothing in favor of procreation.
Vampires excepted, of course.
What I'm saying is that... continuing their bloodline... is the only real reason for existence.
I knew exactly what you were saying in your original post, and was informing you that you that I have higher priorities than simply perpetuating my existence.
Step up your game, homie.
"he thought the bible too important to ignore, which would indicate a very non-secular mind."
Burning the bible would also indicate that he thought it too important to ignore. Since in each case Jefferson is removing a portion of the bible, I fail to see how editing it implies secularity or lack thereof.
The more relevant history rewrite is the idea that "this country was founded on Christian values*". In fact, the opposite is true: The founders were quite specific about keeping all religion (though I doubt they were thinking of Hinduism) out of this country's government.
Only later were the words "In God We Trust" and "one nation under God" snuck into the U.S.A's currency and pledge, respectively.
Further, it is an oversimplification to speak of "the religion of the founding fathers" as though they were a small, homogeneous group of people, rather than a diverse lot of 50+ individuals.
"Separate from religion" is the definition of secularity. Regardless of the founder's personal beliefs, they signed for a secular government.
*Those of this mindset always exclude the Christian values of praying exclusively in one's closet and not making a spectacle of one's faith, of course.
If you plan to have children, you should be concerned, as your line is the closest thing to immortality there is.
Which is why Isaac Newton's name is lost to obscurity, while the relentlessly-reproducing masses remain unforgotten. Oh wait, reverse that.
Without copyright law, there is no need to enforce the GPL, because everyone has the rights it grants to the end user.
obama is a secret communist muslim!
What a relief; i thought he was an overt fundamentalist christian.
"You'd be really pissed off if no laws were enforced, someone decided they wanted your computer and either beat the living shit out of you or shot you in the process of relieving you of its ownership."
Who is this "someone" that seems to be held back from killing and looting only by the continued integrity of our legal system?*
If murder and theft were suddenly decriminalized, my desire to commit them would remain unchanged. I suspect the great majority of people feel the same way.
Perhaps laws against murder and theft exist not to prevent people from killing and stealing, but to punish those who do?
If that's the case, the people might be able to do away with their legislative body without becoming murderous, avaricious berserkers.
(Aside to moderators: I know this discussion is off-topic, but he started it.)
*Sounds like a pirate, ironically. Arr! (Cue 57 responses debating the definition of irony. Tinny and Bronzy, now we only need 56.)
Well, since the most-commonly mentioned extension seems to be Adblock Plus, how about a link to an Opera widget that replicates Adblock Plus's functionality? The ad-blocking feature included in Opera does not count, since, as has been mentioned many times already, it is inferior to Adblock Plus.
Or, if the afore-mentioned widget doesn't exist, you could just post an apology and an admission that I'm right. Either way is fine. ;)
Opera features that Firefox lacks can be added via extensions.
Firefox features that Opera lacks can be pined for wistfully.
Wikipedia says their motto is:
Servare Vitas - "To Save Lives"
I like yours better, though.
It is comical to me that in the past decade, I've seen the headlines purchased by oil company spin doctors go from:
Global Warming: Fact or Fiction?
to
Global Warming: Are We Causing It?
to
Global Warming: What Can We Do About It?
to
Antarctica: The New Hawaii
Or, since the Neocons are bound to oppose this anyway (due to its scientific nature), ADAM and STEVE.