Putting something on your computer so that anybody can access it when they have a link to it and then publicly posting that link for anybody to find sort of forgoes any notion that might have otherwise existed that the copy was just for private use, don't you think?
You are conflating "making available" with "copying".
If I copy something for my own use, I need somewhere to put it. If that "somewhere" happens to be a shared drive, that's a separate legal question.
If my intent was to copy it to share it out, that's no longer private copying, but if my intent was to make it available so that I can access it regardless of where I am when I travel, then putting it in a shared location is perfectly reasonable.
If I were to allow everyone in my city (or province, or the entire counrty) to come into my house, and copy my CDs using my computer, that would be perfectly legal (as long as they're copying it for your own personal use.) What's the difference if those CDs are available on the internet or not?
That's not the issue. The issue is whether there is any legal P2P traffic. geekboy642 proved there was, and you didn't offer anything to refute it, so I guess that you agree with him.
Since you agree that there *is* legal P2P traffic, the argument that "it's illegal so there is no problem throttling it" is a non-sequitur.
He wants to work on compilers and kernels because he spent a lot of time and money being taught to work on compilers and kernels in college
You make it sound like he was forced at gunpoint to study compilers and kernels. Last time I checked, the program you took was completely up to you.
So the question remains - why on earth would he have done that if he didn't have an interest? And if he does have an interest in it, why would it be a "chore"?
Any failing business could raise profits by hiking prices.
Umm... WHAT?!?!?
No. A failing business which is charging the optimum prices for their products, and who raised their prices would find that they're *lowering* profits, not raising them, because their profits are already as high as they can get (by definition.)
It occurs to me that the "digital mixing" argument is similar to the one thrown about in the early 1980s, when CGI was in it's infancy. Movies like "Tron", for example, were denied award nominations because "the computer did it for them" - the people who had no experience assumed that because a computer was involved, that it somehow required less skill from the artists.
re: your sig. I'd add you, but I'm at the limit right now:) but continue making great comments like that one, and I'll have to bump someone off to add you as a friend.:)
Re:The original content has to come from somewhere
on
So Amazing, So Illegal
·
· Score: 1
These mashups don't appear in a vacuum. They have to get their source content from somewhere.
*ANY* art doesn't appear in a vacuum. Musicians and artists have to get their inspiration and source from somewhere.
There will always be a market for original work, if only to feed the mashup machine.
Anyone who writes music, or a novel, who paints, or takes photographs or makes movies, and believes that they are completely "original" is clueless. *EVERY ARTIST* is influenced by other art.
Mashups are just a digital extension of this principle.
If it's in their best interest, then why are they suing innocent people, and why when shown that their victims couldn't possibly be the ones they're after do they drag the suits out?
It's in the RIAA's best interest to provide accurate time stamps because they gain nothing by having the wrong people's connection cut. If the real offender is still uploading then the RIAA has just wasted time and money and achieved nothing.
Wrong. Utterly and completely wrong.
In the mind of the RIAA, EVERYBODY is guilty of "stealing" their product. Even if they didn't "catch" you downloading something, you're guilty of downloading something, even if it's not theirs. And if it's not theirs, it's even better, because it spreads fear that downloading *anything* will get you sued.
Make no mistake - the RIAA's litigation campaign isn't actually designed to catch people who are copying their music, it's designed to scare everybody into going back to buying overpriced shiny discs.
And Microsoft create NT, made it compatible with their older Win32 applications
Which is why it's still (at it's core) a single-user OS. It was supposed to be multi-user, but they threw all that away to achieve compatablity with win32.
Different solution to the same problem.
Umm, no. If you throw everything away, it's not a solution. NT is still (at it's core) a single-user OS. Regardless of the multi-user features they've tried to tack on, the security model is single-user. So it's not a solution.
That's plain wrong. You know nothing about Windows.
Wow, your astonishing logic has convinced me!
Windows is single-user. It was designed as a single-user OS. It's security model is single-user. It's file-locking is single-user. It is a single-user OS. As I said (and you didn't deny) security must be designed into a system. You cannot bolt it on after the fact. Security is a requirement for a multi-user system, NT didn't have it (due to integrated support for win32), therefore NT is single-user.
They *did* start over from scratch, that's what NT is.
No. It's what NT was supposed to be. However, they threw that away when they integrated Win32 compatability. The proof of this is as follows:
The problem is that their developers are still writing software for Windows 98
If they had *really* started over from scratch, then this wouldn't matter.
UAC is just telling people about the bugs in their existing software, nothing more.
This is absolutely laughable. Win98 compatabilty is supported by Vista, so therefore the bug is in Vista itself.
If you are talking about the sales of illegal copies of CD's, then this is likely to be a source of income for organised crime.
Perhaps, but they didn't say "a source of income", they said "funding their activities" - as in "subsidizing our extortion and illegal drug operations" by selling bootleg copies of Gigli.
I tell you, it's a sad, sad day when the Mafia can't make ends meet with cocaine and heroin, and instead has to resort to movie piracy!
"they should write a new OS from scratch and run NT in a VM." Neither of those is a realistic option.
Why not? Apple did it, and people adjusted pretty well.
Apple realized what MS didn't - that they had a single-user OS, and it was flat-out impossible to turn it into a true multi-user OS without changing everything about it, so they started over from scratch (well, with the help of Darwin) and ran legacy apps in a VM. It worked very well.
Security is a necessary feature of any multi-user OS, and security isn't something that can be bolted onto something after the fact - you have to design software with security in mind. Windows (however much it tries to be multi-user) is still at it's core, a single-user OS. No amount of add-ons will change that. If they want security, they need to start over from scratch.
It sounds like what you're saying is that UAC is only useful for people who know what they're doing. You are savvy enough to recognize when it's protecting you from mistakes, but the average user won't.
UAC is only useful 1 time in 20, but I thank my lucky stars that 1 time.
My first car was made by Isuzu. Like many (all?) imports, in order to lock the door from the outside of the car, you had to hold the handle up as you closed the door. I asked why this was, and was told that it was a mechanism to prevent you from locking your keys in the car. You couldn't just carelessly close the door, you had to actively hold the handle up.
One hot summer day, I got out of the car, took off my coat, and put it inside. Out of habit (because I needed to do it every time) held the handle up as I closed the door. A few minutes later I realized that the keys were in my coat pocket. And the door was locked.
The designers of this car though they were making it harder to lock your keys in the car, but in reality they were simply training people to hold the handle up when they closed the door.
UAC reminds me of the exact same thinking. It doesn't really prevent you from making mistakes, it just conditions you to click "OK".
I'm begining to think that RIAA labels are releasing fewer and fewer albums because they've realized they can make more money with less effort through their litigation strategy.
DRM (we called it "copy-protection" when I was a lad)
No, you didn't. You called *COPY PROTECTION* "copy-protection". You didn't call DRM anything because DRM didn't exist.
I think authors should have a right to protect their labor from theft.
And this is why you fail - DRM is not about "theft", it's about control.
As in "I made something, so I get to control what you do with it after I sell it to you, even if the law *EXPLICTLY* grants you the right to do something, I want to stop you from doing that."
Re:Want a job? Get on LinkedIn
on
Linked In Or Out?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
LinkedIn shows to potential employers the professionals you know, which is valuable information to them.
Why? What specifically is valuable about people who know me? How does who I know affect how well I can do my job?
They can choose you above someone else because of the people you know, and will be incorporated in the company's network by hiring you.
Again, how exactly does who I know affect how competent I am at my job?
And if the answer is "it doesn't, but they might want to know anyway" - why isn't it possible that they might decide *not* to hire me, based on the people I know?
Slashdot Mirror
By that definition, evolution is not science either. It has never predicted anything and never will.
So tell me, does it hurt to be that stupid?
Putting something on your computer so that anybody can access it when they have a link to it and then publicly posting that link for anybody to find sort of forgoes any notion that might have otherwise existed that the copy was just for private use, don't you think?
You are conflating "making available" with "copying".
If I copy something for my own use, I need somewhere to put it. If that "somewhere" happens to be a shared drive, that's a separate legal question.
If my intent was to copy it to share it out, that's no longer private copying, but if my intent was to make it available so that I can access it regardless of where I am when I travel, then putting it in a shared location is perfectly reasonable.
If I were to allow everyone in my city (or province, or the entire counrty) to come into my house, and copy my CDs using my computer, that would be perfectly legal (as long as they're copying it for your own personal use.) What's the difference if those CDs are available on the internet or not?
It's just funny cat pictures
Well, it's understandable why they blocked it - it's kitty porn. /me ducks.
That's not the issue. The issue is whether there is any legal P2P traffic. geekboy642 proved there was, and you didn't offer anything to refute it, so I guess that you agree with him.
Since you agree that there *is* legal P2P traffic, the argument that "it's illegal so there is no problem throttling it" is a non-sequitur.
He wants to work on compilers and kernels because he spent a lot of time and money being taught to work on compilers and kernels in college
You make it sound like he was forced at gunpoint to study compilers and kernels. Last time I checked, the program you took was completely up to you.
So the question remains - why on earth would he have done that if he didn't have an interest? And if he does have an interest in it, why would it be a "chore"?
Any failing business could raise profits by hiking prices.
Umm... WHAT?!?!?
No. A failing business which is charging the optimum prices for their products, and who raised their prices would find that they're *lowering* profits, not raising them, because their profits are already as high as they can get (by definition.)
Thank you.
It occurs to me that the "digital mixing" argument is similar to the one thrown about in the early 1980s, when CGI was in it's infancy. Movies like "Tron", for example, were denied award nominations because "the computer did it for them" - the people who had no experience assumed that because a computer was involved, that it somehow required less skill from the artists.
re: your sig. I'd add you, but I'm at the limit right now :) but continue making great comments like that one, and I'll have to bump someone off to add you as a friend. :)
These mashups don't appear in a vacuum. They have to get their source content from somewhere.
*ANY* art doesn't appear in a vacuum. Musicians and artists have to get their inspiration and source from somewhere.
There will always be a market for original work, if only to feed the mashup machine.
Anyone who writes music, or a novel, who paints, or takes photographs or makes movies, and believes that they are completely "original" is clueless. *EVERY ARTIST* is influenced by other art.
Mashups are just a digital extension of this principle.
I dunno, and if it's written anything like IIS, I don't want to!
I almost wish you were right so the RIAA could start cutting idiots like you off of the internet.
Your logic is astounding. You wish I was right because then I wouldn't be right?
The only idiot here is you.
Seriously, do you have even the tiniest shred of evidence supporting your claim?
You mean like this or this?
If it's in their best interest, then why are they suing innocent people, and why when shown that their victims couldn't possibly be the ones they're after do they drag the suits out?
Exactly. Basing anything on the lifespan of the creator is unfair.
Why is the work of someone who dies at age 20 worth less than that of someone who lives to age 100?
Why should an 18 year old receive more protection than a 50 year old?
Why are terminal cancer sufferers less worthy of protection than those in good health?
It's in the RIAA's best interest to provide accurate time stamps because they gain nothing by having the wrong people's connection cut. If the real offender is still uploading then the RIAA has just wasted time and money and achieved nothing.
Wrong. Utterly and completely wrong.
In the mind of the RIAA, EVERYBODY is guilty of "stealing" their product. Even if they didn't "catch" you downloading something, you're guilty of downloading something, even if it's not theirs. And if it's not theirs, it's even better, because it spreads fear that downloading *anything* will get you sued.
Make no mistake - the RIAA's litigation campaign isn't actually designed to catch people who are copying their music, it's designed to scare everybody into going back to buying overpriced shiny discs.
And Microsoft create NT, made it compatible with their older Win32 applications
Which is why it's still (at it's core) a single-user OS. It was supposed to be multi-user, but they threw all that away to achieve compatablity with win32.
Different solution to the same problem.
Umm, no. If you throw everything away, it's not a solution. NT is still (at it's core) a single-user OS. Regardless of the multi-user features they've tried to tack on, the security model is single-user. So it's not a solution.
That's plain wrong. You know nothing about Windows.
Wow, your astonishing logic has convinced me!
Windows is single-user. It was designed as a single-user OS. It's security model is single-user. It's file-locking is single-user. It is a single-user OS. As I said (and you didn't deny) security must be designed into a system. You cannot bolt it on after the fact. Security is a requirement for a multi-user system, NT didn't have it (due to integrated support for win32), therefore NT is single-user.
They *did* start over from scratch, that's what NT is.
No. It's what NT was supposed to be. However, they threw that away when they integrated Win32 compatability. The proof of this is as follows:
The problem is that their developers are still writing software for Windows 98
If they had *really* started over from scratch, then this wouldn't matter.
UAC is just telling people about the bugs in their existing software, nothing more.
This is absolutely laughable. Win98 compatabilty is supported by Vista, so therefore the bug is in Vista itself.
I'm not aware of any software ever doing us harm.
Clearly you've never used Wind..
You know what? I just can't do it. That set-up was just too easy. :)
Interesting.
===> Why can a fish not ride a bicycle?
I don't know why a fish can not ride a bicycle.
If you are talking about the sales of illegal copies of CD's, then this is likely to be a source of income for organised crime.
Perhaps, but they didn't say "a source of income", they said "funding their activities" - as in "subsidizing our extortion and illegal drug operations" by selling bootleg copies of Gigli.
I tell you, it's a sad, sad day when the Mafia can't make ends meet with cocaine and heroin, and instead has to resort to movie piracy!
"they should write a new OS from scratch and run NT in a VM." Neither of those is a realistic option.
Why not? Apple did it, and people adjusted pretty well.
Apple realized what MS didn't - that they had a single-user OS, and it was flat-out impossible to turn it into a true multi-user OS without changing everything about it, so they started over from scratch (well, with the help of Darwin) and ran legacy apps in a VM. It worked very well.
Security is a necessary feature of any multi-user OS, and security isn't something that can be bolted onto something after the fact - you have to design software with security in mind. Windows (however much it tries to be multi-user) is still at it's core, a single-user OS. No amount of add-ons will change that. If they want security, they need to start over from scratch.
Just like Apple did.
No car company can really stop people from locking their keys in their cars without fancy solutions like RFID fingers or Bluetooth or some-such.
<sarcasm>
Yes, that's right. That's why the deadbolt on my house don't work without fancy electronics!
</sarcasm>
The solution is simple: use the key to lock the door.
It sounds like what you're saying is that UAC is only useful for people who know what they're doing. You are savvy enough to recognize when it's protecting you from mistakes, but the average user won't.
UAC is only useful 1 time in 20, but I thank my lucky stars that 1 time.
My first car was made by Isuzu. Like many (all?) imports, in order to lock the door from the outside of the car, you had to hold the handle up as you closed the door. I asked why this was, and was told that it was a mechanism to prevent you from locking your keys in the car. You couldn't just carelessly close the door, you had to actively hold the handle up.
One hot summer day, I got out of the car, took off my coat, and put it inside. Out of habit (because I needed to do it every time) held the handle up as I closed the door. A few minutes later I realized that the keys were in my coat pocket. And the door was locked.
The designers of this car though they were making it harder to lock your keys in the car, but in reality they were simply training people to hold the handle up when they closed the door.
UAC reminds me of the exact same thinking. It doesn't really prevent you from making mistakes, it just conditions you to click "OK".
"people don't want CDs anymore, that's why the sales are declining"
This is incorrect.
It's actually "we release less new music, which is why sales are declining"
I'm begining to think that RIAA labels are releasing fewer and fewer albums because they've realized they can make more money with less effort through their litigation strategy.
What's really too bad is that it wasn't marketed by Commodore.
There, fixed that for you. :)
Remember e.g. that the USSR stood for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Also remember that Congo is the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Cuba is the Democratic Republic of Cuba.
Just because (or perhaps especially because) a government says it's something, doesn't mean that it is.
Oh, and you might be interested to to know that Seven of the top 10 countries with the highest standard of living are socialist.
DRM (we called it "copy-protection" when I was a lad)
No, you didn't. You called *COPY PROTECTION* "copy-protection". You didn't call DRM anything because DRM didn't exist.
I think authors should have a right to protect their labor from theft.
And this is why you fail - DRM is not about "theft", it's about control.
As in "I made something, so I get to control what you do with it after I sell it to you, even if the law *EXPLICTLY* grants you the right to do something, I want to stop you from doing that."
Take your straw man somewhere else.
Only if he wears goggles and a red cape.
LinkedIn shows to potential employers the professionals you know, which is valuable information to them.
Why? What specifically is valuable about people who know me? How does who I know affect how well I can do my job?
They can choose you above someone else because of the people you know, and will be incorporated in the company's network by hiring you.
Again, how exactly does who I know affect how competent I am at my job?
And if the answer is "it doesn't, but they might want to know anyway" - why isn't it possible that they might decide *not* to hire me, based on the people I know?