Shhesh... what is so confusing or obscure about this issue? Is it really so difficult to understand? Here, please allow me to restate it based upon what I've read.
Linus has repeated stated that to him, it's not at all about philosophies but rather, practicalities. Linus uses what Linus finds practical, himself. He does not expect others to use tools, or licences, simply because he finds them practical but rather he'd prefer everyone use the tools they find the most personally practically, simply in order to produce the maximal amount of the highest quality code possible. Period.
Is this clear enough yet? No? Then do yourself a favour and just give it up. It isn't worth the time trying to understand since it doesn't really matter anyways coppertop.;~)
Well, since you seem to be offended, it seems as if my attempt at communication was completely successful. Perhaps if you can't deal with the issues, your position is not as well thought out or as defensible as you've made it out to be.
Again the question I have, and the issue I've been discussing is, are current IP laws worthy of respect and observance? I, and many other credible people do not believe they are. As such, we feel it is our duty to take a stand against them. I'm curious, which part of this don't you understand or are unable to agree with? Well, or are you to proud to discuss this with us lower class idiots? Eh?
OMG. dood, are you for real? If anyone sucks, well... Actually, the real and only reason for hacking DRM, and the one you are ignoring, is to counter the power that these corrupt corporations have given themselves contrary to the common good. Go ahead, justify greed all you want, however, all it looks like to me, and others, is a closed mind standing by unquestioned assumptions and self serving beliefs.
First off, just because it's the "law" doesn't ensure that it's the right or "ethical" thing to do. For instance, somehow I feel that you are less ethical than the person you're attacking. In the second regard, you can go on and on all you want about copyright infringement being illegal but the fact of the matter is that in many parts of the world it is not nor was it ever intended to be this draconian by those who first proposed it, in this and other first world countries. Third, and the real issue, is the DRM schemes and IP laws are immoral and should be resisted by all those who support an individual's intrinsic and inalienable rights.
Personally, I'm just getting so tired of here the same old bs marketing lies, over and over and....
From what I can see, advertising revenues pale in comparison to the potential profits of a well run and efficient digital distribution system.
By charging very small prices, i.e.. ISP billed micro-credits, they, the content distributors, could enjoy the same advantage as manufacturing currently does. That is to say, the economics of scale.
If prices were very low, i.e.. actual physical cost of a digital file from a P2P type file system, the number of potential customers would then be in the billions, instead off merely some few million.
That's right, sell books, movies, music and television for less than pennies per view. The potential revenue stream dwarfs anything a few advertisers could provide. However, advertising, of course, is still an value added option if done discreetly.
Now, I'm a nobody, and I can see this. Why do we pay these suits so much again?
I was speaking in generalities, you dumbass! By the way, aren't you the brave one. Not only are you a coward and stupid, but I see you're rude as well. From this I can only surmise that your a conservative republican, no? Most dumbasses are, I've noticed. I'll bet you're too cowardly to reply with your real id, or do you even have one? Well anyways, l8r loser...
Am I happy that it crashed, and that I don't know the cause? Nosir. But I've had many a Windows PC stop booting for no reason, and never ever witnessed one fix itself after a few reboots.
huh...
the first thing I have always done is to make the user reboot and rerun just to see if a problem wasn't even one
As for myself, I am much happier living here then any where else in the world. Is it my idea of paradise? No. Do I think my version of paradise is possible with N billion people on the planet? No.
I'd also like to address this point.
In truth, this planet could easily be a better place to live for more people if we devoted more resources to the issue or problem of human poverty.
My position is that the main reason the rich are not happy is their unethical treatment of all others; the end result of which is poverty.
To become truly happy, our leaders, the rich, must use their power responsibly. If this was done, they would vastly improve not only the lives of others, but also their own.
You know, we hear all this talk about how great capitalism is. So why don't we simply provide fair and equitable capital to more people?
While it is perfectly true that happiness is an individual's experience, personally, I believe true happiness must be earned through personal development. Since most, if not nearly all, rich people never really need to struggle, they rarely, if ever, actually aquire a higher state of personal maturity and therefore are incapable of feeling true happiness.
If the rich and powerful aren't incompetent, why isn't this place paradise?
Look, we have the resources and we have the technology. What we lack is the leadership. IMHO, our leaders have simply elected to serve themselves instead of leading. Go ahead, just try to tell me we aren't intelligent enough that we couldn't be living in a better world if we set that as our goal!
Personally, I'm amazed at just how easily and cheaply we allowed ourselves all to be so totally sold out.
In all honesty, can you tell me that the founding fathers would be proud of the practices of corporate America?
first off, just consider that this new "Genuine Advantage" program is so poorly designed that it will obviously inconvenience people and so it must and will be modified
secondly, why MS doesn't already have a three tiered update server setup is just so totally beyond me
Tier One. Paid. Premium service via accounts. Tier Two. Free. Verified via windows key / registration. Tier Three. Free. Non verified. Low performance and only security patches.
I'm so sorry, but I find I can't agree with your statement that a mechanical system is "capable of detecting when its processor is overheating". A system is not "aware" in the sense of being "conscious" since obviously machines are not capable, at this point, of being conscious. Indeed, you seem to be making exactly the mistake I was attempting to describe. That is, you've mistaken the intelligence of the created with the intelligence of the creator. The programmer was aware that at a certain temperature level, damage can occur. His awareness of this is what leads to a particular design, but at no time is the design itself "aware". Is this clear?
As for the definition of "self-awareness", I think I'll stick to the stick to the conventional meaning as it is normally defined.
The noun "self-awareness" has 1 sense in WordNet.
1. self-awareness -- (awareness of your own individuality)
1. awareness, consciousness, cognizance, cognisance, knowingness -- (having knowledge of; "he had no awareness of his mistakes"; "his sudden consciousness of the problem he faced"; "their intelligence and general knowingness was impressive")
2. awareness, sentience -- (state of elementary or undifferentiated consciousness; "the crash intruded on his awareness")
That is "woefully inadequate to describe why millions of people steal," said Mr. Garland of Big Champagne, the online media measurement company.
Copyright infringement is not theft, but we see the industry repeat this lie repeatedly. Why, oh why, do people fall for this crap?
As well, please keep in mind that originally, copyright protected only the author and only for a limited time. In fact, most of the so called "copyrighted" material no longer even belongs to the original creator. Indeed, most of copyrighted material would now be in the public domain.
Jeez people, face facts, the overly affluent have corrupted the law and are using it to exploit you.
It simply amazes me just how many Americans love to talk about freedom and responsibility but then are silent in the obvious presence of tyranny and exploitation.
Slashdot Mirror
Shhesh ... what is so confusing or obscure about this issue? Is it really so difficult to understand? Here, please allow me to restate it based upon what I've read.
;~)
...
Linus has repeated stated that to him, it's not at all about philosophies but rather, practicalities. Linus uses what Linus finds practical, himself. He does not expect others to use tools, or licences, simply because he finds them practical but rather he'd prefer everyone use the tools they find the most personally practically, simply in order to produce the maximal amount of the highest quality code possible. Period.
Is this clear enough yet? No? Then do yourself a favour and just give it up. It isn't worth the time trying to understand since it doesn't really matter anyways coppertop.
or at least that's what I seem to be receiving
dood ... alt.seduction.fast
(shesh, u gnu geeks duno sqat du ya)
Well, since you seem to be offended, it seems as if my attempt at communication was completely successful. Perhaps if you can't deal with the issues, your position is not as well thought out or as defensible as you've made it out to be.
Again the question I have, and the issue I've been discussing is, are current IP laws worthy of respect and observance? I, and many other credible people do not believe they are. As such, we feel it is our duty to take a stand against them. I'm curious, which part of this don't you understand or are unable to agree with? Well, or are you to proud to discuss this with us lower class idiots? Eh?
So sorry, but it should have read, Personally, I'm just getting so tired of hearing the same old bs marketing lies, over and over and ....
;~)
(^*%$ spellchequer
OMG. dood, are you for real? If anyone sucks, well... Actually, the real and only reason for hacking DRM, and the one you are ignoring, is to counter the power that these corrupt corporations have given themselves contrary to the common good. Go ahead, justify greed all you want, however, all it looks like to me, and others, is a closed mind standing by unquestioned assumptions and self serving beliefs.
....
First off, just because it's the "law" doesn't ensure that it's the right or "ethical" thing to do. For instance, somehow I feel that you are less ethical than the person you're attacking. In the second regard, you can go on and on all you want about copyright infringement being illegal but the fact of the matter is that in many parts of the world it is not nor was it ever intended to be this draconian by those who first proposed it, in this and other first world countries. Third, and the real issue, is the DRM schemes and IP laws are immoral and should be resisted by all those who support an individual's intrinsic and inalienable rights.
Personally, I'm just getting so tired of here the same old bs marketing lies, over and over and
... the less they're worth.
From what I can see, advertising revenues pale in comparison to the potential profits of a well run and efficient digital distribution system.
By charging very small prices, i.e.. ISP billed micro-credits, they, the content distributors, could enjoy the same advantage as manufacturing currently does. That is to say, the economics of scale.
If prices were very low, i.e.. actual physical cost of a digital file from a P2P type file system, the number of potential customers would then be in the billions, instead off merely some few million.
That's right, sell books, movies, music and television for less than pennies per view. The potential revenue stream dwarfs anything a few advertisers could provide. However, advertising, of course, is still an value added option if done discreetly.
Now, I'm a nobody, and I can see this. Why do we pay these suits so much again?
I was speaking in generalities, you dumbass! By the way, aren't you the brave one. Not only are you a coward and stupid, but I see you're rude as well. From this I can only surmise that your a conservative republican, no? Most dumbasses are, I've noticed. I'll bet you're too cowardly to reply with your real id, or do you even have one? Well anyways, l8r loser ...
Let them try, in the end, any such effort to cripple the net will only end in failure. My big question is why do we elect such dumbasses?
Am I happy that it crashed, and that I don't know the cause? Nosir. But I've had many a Windows PC stop booting for no reason, and never ever witnessed one fix itself after a few reboots.
...
huh
the first thing I have always done
is to make the user reboot and rerun
just to see if a problem wasn't even one
help desk 101
As for myself, I am much happier living here then any where else in the world. Is it my idea of paradise? No. Do I think my version of paradise is possible with N billion people on the planet? No.
I'd also like to address this point.
In truth, this planet could easily be a better place to live for more people if we devoted more resources to the issue or problem of human poverty.
My position is that the main reason the rich are not happy is their unethical treatment of all others; the end result of which is poverty.
To become truly happy, our leaders, the rich, must use their power responsibly. If this was done, they would vastly improve not only the lives of others, but also their own.
You know, we hear all this talk about how great capitalism is. So why don't we simply provide fair and equitable capital to more people?
While it is perfectly true that happiness is an individual's experience, personally, I believe true happiness must be earned through personal development. Since most, if not nearly all, rich people never really need to struggle, they rarely, if ever, actually aquire a higher state of personal maturity and therefore are incapable of feeling true happiness.
See?
However, my point was that they, the rich, are not actually truly happy.
From what I can see, they, the rich, just move from one shallow pleasure to the next in an insatiable quest for more.
Does this really sound like happiness to you?
I suspect the rich do consider it pretty close to paradise. They have set themselves up pretty well, which would indicate a fair amount of competence.
...
Sure they think they're happy, but since I believe true happiness comes from inner self development, I suspect they are not as happy as they let on.
Personally, how anyone can be happy while they exploit others is beyond me
from all of us who are now rotflofao ty
... and of course you offer no factual proof that a better life for more people simply isn't possible, eh?
Any chance you might be being a little closed minded here?
If the rich and powerful aren't incompetent, why isn't this place paradise?
Look, we have the resources and we have the technology. What we lack is the leadership. IMHO, our leaders have simply elected to serve themselves instead of leading. Go ahead, just try to tell me we aren't intelligent enough that we couldn't be living in a better world if we set that as our goal!
Personally, I'm amazed at just how easily and cheaply we allowed ourselves all to be so totally sold out.
In all honesty, can you tell me that the founding fathers would be proud of the practices of corporate America?
sigh ... sure give breaks to rich corporations who already get a free ride
here's an idea, why not just tax CO2 emissions
won't that solve global warming and pay off the debt?
of course, imho, we'll never see it as the rich are far too incompetent and irresponsible
somedays I really wonder
first off, just consider that this new "Genuine Advantage" program is so poorly designed that it will obviously inconvenience people and so it must and will be modified
secondly, why MS doesn't already have a three tiered update server setup is just so totally beyond me
Tier One. Paid. Premium service via accounts.
Tier Two. Free. Verified via windows key / registration.
Tier Three. Free. Non verified. Low performance and only security patches.
Want to bet this is what we eventually see?
If science wasn't exploring the currently inexplicable, how would scientists ever discover any "new" phenomena, eh?
imhe, scepticism is a sure sign of a closing mind
sortofa macro "assembler"
wouldn't it be interesting to see someone print their simcity in real 3D
personally, we're all just so damn glad to see our thoughts finally being modernized ... we were getting quite tired of losing our trains
anything less or more is simply inequitable.
My advice, get back to basics, barter your time and skills.
Do you remember when wages were worth something?
I'm so sorry, but I find I can't agree with your statement that a mechanical system is "capable of detecting when its processor is overheating". A system is not "aware" in the sense of being "conscious" since obviously machines are not capable, at this point, of being conscious. Indeed, you seem to be making exactly the mistake I was attempting to describe. That is, you've mistaken the intelligence of the created with the intelligence of the creator. The programmer was aware that at a certain temperature level, damage can occur. His awareness of this is what leads to a particular design, but at no time is the design itself "aware". Is this clear?
g e=1&word=self-awareness
g e=1&word=awareness
As for the definition of "self-awareness", I think I'll stick to the stick to the conventional meaning as it is normally defined.
The noun "self-awareness" has 1 sense in WordNet.
1. self-awareness -- (awareness of your own individuality)
http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn?sta
The noun "awareness" has 2 senses in WordNet.
1. awareness, consciousness, cognizance, cognisance, knowingness -- (having knowledge of; "he had no awareness of his mistakes"; "his sudden consciousness of the problem he faced"; "their intelligence and general knowingness was impressive")
2. awareness, sentience -- (state of elementary or undifferentiated consciousness; "the crash intruded on his awareness")
http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn?sta
Please note that awareness is dependant upon:
a) "consciousness"
b) "sentience"
These are clearly two qualities that cannot, at this time, be mechanically produced.
That is "woefully inadequate to describe why millions of people steal," said Mr. Garland of Big Champagne, the online media measurement company.
Copyright infringement is not theft, but we see the industry repeat this lie repeatedly. Why, oh why, do people fall for this crap?
As well, please keep in mind that originally, copyright protected only the author and only for a limited time. In fact, most of the so called "copyrighted" material no longer even belongs to the original creator. Indeed, most of copyrighted material would now be in the public domain.
Jeez people, face facts, the overly affluent have corrupted the law and are using it to exploit you.
It simply amazes me just how many Americans love to talk about freedom and responsibility but then are silent in the obvious presence of tyranny and exploitation.