The story is a little bit light on the details and does not say whether or not the guy signed NDA's and other legalese. My guess is that he probably did have to sign a document preventing him from doing the exact thing he is attempting to do, in which case, he should have known better =). Yeah, it sucks that he can't go work there, but if he signed legal documents preventing him from doing so, there really is nobody to blame but himself. If he didn't sign anything, then yes, Seagate sucks and is among the ranks of *insert other big, evil, IP-sucking corporations here*
but their filesystem on campus is pretty esoteric (and a pain to navigate) if you want to transfer files back and forth
Are you serious? Have you ever used AFS on campus? There is absolutely no need whatsoever to use a floppy/zip disk. If you don't have your own computer, every single Mac/Windows computer on campus has a shortcut on the desktop to your AFS home directory and if you login from a Unix box, your home directory _is_ your AFS directory.
As for CVS being broken, again, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
If that doesn't suit your needs, you can always setup an account on sourceforge.cs.duke.edu. All of this information was almost certainly provided to you in whatever class you took, by the way.
Also, considering that Gates and his wife have donated $55 million to Duke since 1998, I wonder how/if this will affect the university's relationship with Microsoft.
IIRC, it was the episode when he goes to Kinko's and tries to print stuff out. He brings in a disk and they ask him what OS it is formmated for. I think?
Yeah, Microsoft doesn't write any of their code. They bought this imaginary company and rebranded the "Doors" OS as this new-fangled thing called "Windows." Oh yeah, they also steal a lot of their shit. All of the Linux conspiracy theorist have just been quiet, waiting for the right time to highlight all of the NSA backdoors and stolen GPL code that appeared in the leak of the Windows source code. Same deal across the board... Microsoft hijacked OpenOffice and poured all of those features into Office. Outlook? That has Ximian Evolution written all over it. I mean, those thousands of coders that Microsoft employs.. you don't think they actually _code_ do you!? Hell no, they get paid more than any OSS coder to just jerk off all day long and scour the net for GPL code to steal. That's it.. or at least that idea makes me really warm and fuzzy inside.
Or, maybe, just maybe, *gasp* some people who work at MS actually might _use_ linux!! It's like you think that the people who work at Microsoft are mindless zombies who know nothing else of the world around them. Do you really seriously think that people at Microsoft who are aware of Linux heard of it through their _families_?!? These people work in the industry, and as much as you'd like to believe otherwise, are also some really smart people. As odd as it might seem to someone on slashdot, it is indeed possible to use linux without being a flaming zealot who thinks that proprietary software is the work of satan himself. Linux has its place, just as Microsoft does. Many of the crowd here are too stuck to the belief that the two are wholly mutually exclusive. Take Miguel de Icaza, for example. As much as he us a huge proponent of Linux and OSS in general, he is able to give credit where credit is due and recognize some successes coming from Redmond. I'm fairly positive that there are people working there that are of the same mindset - although they aren't in the Linux camp, they respect it, perhaps to the point of even using it from time to time. The world isn't as black and white as Slashdot would have you believe...
I agree that taking a DVD, transcoding it to divx and posting it on the web should be illegal, but the illegal part shouldn't be decryption of the data but the actual copying and posting on the web..... Why doesn't the MPAA want this?
I believe that the *AA's continual lawsuits and pursuit of those who illegally trade massive quantities of copyrighted material on P2P networks is ample evidence that they _do_ indeed want this. On the flip side, the common theme of conversations here on Slashdot is also ample evidence that a large number of the people here _do not_ want this. Being that they are also adamantly opposed to the illegality of the act of decryption (an argument which you, much like myself, support) one is left to wonder what exactly they expect to be done? Should all content just be free? I'd like to think that this ridiculous viewpoint is not what most people here support, but the fact remains that the blatant disregard for the law, and the continual avowals here that it is A-OK to trade copyrighted materials online, forces the *AA to pursue other means, especially in light of the fact, that as many slashdotters point out, 1,000 of lawsuits is a drop in the bucket compared to the hundreds of millions of files that are traded illegally everyday. Thus, they must continue to resort to the prosecution of the "decryption of data," not only the "actualy copying and posting to the web." I firmly believe that the *AA will not stop claiming that it is wrong to decrypt the data until people similarly acknowledge that it _is_ wrong to engage in the widespread sharing of copyrighted works, to which you own no distribution rights, on the Internet. It will be a cold day in hell...
But the fact is, they can't actually target the real criminals, so instead, they go after law abiding individuals in an attempt to take the tools away from the criminals.
The real criminals, oh like say the ones that they are actively bringing to court over their usage of P2P networks to trade illicit MP3's? But guess what, when they do this, the collective Slashdot community gets up in arms and the story somehow makes it to the "Your Rights Online" (laugh) section. So which is it? Do you want them to go after the tools (which they did in the past.. remember Napster?) even though you've consistently bitched about that? Or, do you want them to go after the law breakers (which they are doing now) even though you still bitch about this?
I'm interested in what you propose and although I'm no economist, here's a few thoughts about the various methods you mention:
Variations on the Street Performer Protocol: If you personally are under no obligation to pay for the use of a given product, then how will the free-rider problem be overcome? For software, I see this as being less of an issue, since often times certain software programs are more "necessary" than music/writing/other creative works and so someone will probably end up paying. But for things other than software, I could foresee free-riding being a large problem. Next, what happens if I'm not satisifed with end product? If I am unsatisfieid with a book/CD/software/etc, I can return it to the store and be reimbursed for my purchase. However, under the SPP system, once the final sale has been made, the cat is out of the bag and into the public domain. This situation is a no-win for both parties involved: there isn't really anyway to reimburse the consumer, unless of course the producer takes the hit, in which case everyone could just claim "dissatisfaction," deprive the producer of all profits and still enjoy the usage of a product that is now and evermore in the public domain. I'm aware that the system relies on the reputation of the artist, but so too does our current system. Myself, I'm fairly confident in the reputation of John Grisham as an author. However, if for some reason he fails to live up to this reputation with a sub-par book, I still have recourse in a refund. The SPP doesn't seem to allow for this. Moreover, the ability to receive refunds allows a consumer to give an artist another chance after a "mistake" has been made. Although his/her last work may have sucked, I still might buy the next, because even if it also sucks, I can get my money back. Under the SPP, a single mistake can mean life/death for an artist. This in turn has another consequence: it will be infinitely harder for new artists to break into the market than under our current system. Stemming from this is the fact that under the SPP model there is never a guarantee of sale from the consumer side. As a consumer now, if I pay money for a product, I'm going to get that product. However, under SPP, unless enough people believe in the reputation of the artist, there is no guarantee that I'll actually receive a product after I pay for it. Also, what happens in the case? Does the escrow live in perpertuity until the reserve price is met? Can the seller "cancel" the product at any given time. As a consumer can I "cancel" my purchase? Also, at least for software, how do upgrades/patches, especially of a severe/critical nature work? Under our current system, producers receive money for a product proprotional to its *continued* demand, until of course the copyright on the work expires. It would seem that these continued additional funds help to offset some of the costs producers must bear in writing patches/upgrades for software. Under SPP, however, there is no compensation for continued demand, only *initial* demand. Where do producers get the funds to pay for this additional work under the SPP system? It appears that consumers will lose out because they will have to pay a second time for critical updates, unless of course a benevolent open source community develops around every product in the market. Also, the SPP's usage of the "public domain" seems to presupposed that we still retain some intellectual property concepts. Is this true, or is everything by default the "public domain." If not, (and we still retain copyright, etc), then what incentive do producers have to switch to the SPP system - it seems that this system is more beneficial to consumers and less to producers than the status quo. I'm sure there's more discussion to be had here, but thats what I immediately thought of...
Through gov't taxes & grants: I don't know if this is very viable. I know that as a tax-payer I don't want to have to subsidize every creative work that is made, a zil
did you just blow a line of yay? slow down, buddy.
These companies have no interest in making software affordable.
Gee, ya think? They're a for-profit company, not a charity, so they'll charge whatever the market will bear. If this happens to be "afforable" for you, then so be it. If not, tought shit, get a better job.
Make Photoshop $39.99 and see who still pirates it.
First of all, if you really need the power of Photoshop, then you sure as hell can afford it. And, you can probably even write the purchase off as a business expense to boot! If this doesn't apply to you, then there is little reason for you to be using Photoshop in the first place. Next, an inexpensive version of Photoshop already exists called Photoshop Elements. And guess what? People _still_ pirate it. Why? Because people like getting shit for free. Look at MP3's.. you can buy a legitimate song online for the change in your couch, but somehow magically mp3 piracy is rampant. Ask yourself, is this because $0.99 a song is somehow "overpriced" or is it because people who have no moral qualms with copyright infringement will always choose free over non-free (as in beer).
Their sales numbers would inrease so much... but they are so greedy and continue their high priced software.
OK. Let's say I sell product X for $1000, and at that price I'm only able to sell 1 unit. I've made a cool thousand bucks. Now, let's say that I sell product X for $1 and at this price level, I'm able to sell 1000 units. Guess what? I've made out the same as before. What do I do if I want to make my "sales numbers increase so much?" Well, obviously the answer can't simply be to drop prices as we've just seen. Instead, I need to find the price point that maximizes profit. Lowering the price may or may not be effective in accomplishing this. Next, they are so greedy? OK, maybe they are. Maybe the CEO's make money totally out of proportion to the amount of work they do. However, at least they did _some_ work! Have the people pirating material done _any_? No, they've done nothing to deserve the material they've just pirated. Who's greedier now?
The problem is not the pirates... they're finding ways to use apps they cant afford.
Laugh. They can't afford them? Then they have absolutely no right to use them! You have no God-given right to use any product that you so please. The only thing that grants you this right, is the cash to buy said product. Hell, I drive a 1997 VW with 145,000 miles. I'm kind of sick of it and would _really_ love a shiny new BMW, but I can't afford it. Do I somehow deserve this BMW even though it is "overpriced" and I can't afford it?
MS is the worlds richest software company and has perhaps the most pirated OS ever. HOW DOES THAT WORK OUT?!
That works out because Microsoft also controls the overwhelming majority of the OS market. Since they control such a large portion of this huge market, Microsoft is going to make enough money to be "the world's largest software company" while simultanesouly producing the "most pirated OS ever." Even if 99% of OS X installations were pirated and only 1% of Windows were, it's obvious that Microsoft would make more money, and I'd be willing to bet that the actual numbers would make Windows piracy more widespread than OS X as well.
they found that the same stores that sold their $300 XP pro, also sold $5 pirated versions of XP pro on cd. In the VERY SAME STORE!
I'm not even sure what you're trying to prove here? If the store is going to sell pirated versions of XP (which they will take a 100% cut out of), then why the hell would they even be selling the legitimate version (which they will get a very small cut of) _at all_?? Moreover, I'm not sure of the numbers, but I'd put mon
I do think that you have a point about the ridiculous length of copyright's term. However, these arguments are totally inconsequential to the topic at hand. Regardless of the length of copyright, be it 190 years or 15 years, people simply aren't pirating material this old. What is that term that the warez people use again? Damn I can't think of it. Oh yeah, it's "0-day." The entire "prestige" of groups in the warez scene is based upon their ability to be the first group to release something. A shorter term of copyright would do nothing to change these people's status as pirates.
Repeat after me: Copyright infringement is a civil offense, not a criminal one.
With a catchy subject line like "For the zillionth time" I should hope that you know what you're talking about. You obviously don't though - go read up on the "No Electronic Theft Act" passed wayyyyy back in 1997.
where are all of these ppc's you speak of? also, a potential reason that duke is not on the list is that our campus is over 8500 acres. although main west/east are covered, i doubt the duke forest is =)
If I had been installing FC1 I would already have basically everything I get with Windows PLUS OpenOffice, Gimp, a bunch of games, cd burning software, a firewall, and no need for a virus scanner.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong. But, I believe that a bunch of people, including a few courts and the minions of Slashdot, have been up in arms about Microsoft bundling things like Internet Explorer and Media Player with the OS. Something about leveraging monopoly power or something?
How do you think these people would feel about Windows being bundlied with Microsoft Office, Microsoft Photoshop, Microsoft Quake, Microsoft NERO, Microsoft ZoneAlarm, and Microsoft AntiVirus?
Please don't use the same word to refer to robbery and murder on the high seas, and copyright violation. It's not just inaccurate, it's stupid.
Everytime I hear that argument I fucking cringe. You idiots wield this stupid line with such a smug arrogance that it almost makes me sick. Do you people realize how ridiculous you sound? I mean really, is that your only argument? Is it really OK to pirate games and software because of an "inaccuracy" in the name for the offensive?! Newsflash: hiding behind a semantic argument of language does not make the act any less wrong. Make up a word for it. Call it "asdfasdfasdf." It's still fucking _stealing_ you ass clown.
This aside, why don't you go pick up the Oxford English Dictionary, you smug asshole? "It's not just inaccurate, it's stupid?" Oh yeah? Go read. If all else fails, shut the fuck up and go join rms in his quest to eradicate the world of the word "Linux."
Most of the people I know consider P2P a form of nonviolent protest.
Bzzzt. Wrong. This is exactly the kind of thinking that is only going to make the situation worse. Now, before you all write me off, please stop for just one second and allow yourselves to listen to me objectively....
P2P is not the solution; it is the problem. How the hell do you think we got to where we are now? Did the recording industry or the US Congress give two shits when people were trading pirated movies/music/software via IRC? Via FTP? Sure, sites got shut down and a few people were arrested, but was it anywhere near the level that we are now at? Nope. We didn't get to where we are now until Napster and the wave of P2P sharing began. Now, I know a common defense of P2P is that it does indeed have legitimate uses. I would never attempt to argue against this point, and I actually happen to agree with it. However, it would be outlandish to attempt to deny the fact that the overwhelming majority of content traded via P2P networks is pirated material. Would the industry/Congress/etc have even paid the least bit of attention to P2P if this was _not_ the case? Nope. With every single pirated file that was downloaded off of P2P networks the powers that be were pushed closer and closer to the point at which they simply had to do something. With IRC/FTP and the situation a few years ago, they could simply ignore the problem because the volume of traffic was so low as to be a non-issue. However, once Joe American and his friends were pirating massive quantites of content online they couldn't just ignore the issue any longer. P2P _forced_ them to act. And I can assure you that it this wasn't because of Mandrake ISOs being distributed through BitTorrent; it was due to the other 99.9% of P2P usage.
Sure, the penalites being imposed don't fit the crime. I'll give you that. Sure, the extensions to copyright and other intellectual property restrictions are overbearing. I'll agree with that as well. You want to stop being treated like criminals? Well then stop acting like them. With each act of your "non violent protest" you only prove that the threat of these penalities is a non-factor in people's decisions to pirate content online. As a result, we only get stiffer penalties and more draconian laws in an effort by the industry to add a larger sum to the left hand column of the subconscious cost/benefit analysis that occurs within the average person's mind before bootlegging content online. That is indeed the logic behind these laws; the stricter they get, the more likely it will be that people think twice before downloading pirated content.
You shouldn't be congratulating and encouraging people to pirate content via P2P networks as if it were some sort of moral imperative with equal gravity to most situations that truly deserve non violent protest. In doing so, you only make the problem worse and bring us closer and closer to the reality of Palladium and Trustworthy Computing. How's this for non violent protest: Don't buy their products. On second thought, you already meet that requirement... so how about you just don't download their content without paying for it. Instead, condemn and castigate those that do. By downloading their content, even if you haven't paid for it, you only prove to these companies that there is indeed a demand and a market for their products, in turn, legitimizing them as business entities.
If you haven't taken in what I've said, then I'll attempt to make it more clear through a final analogy. In the United States, people have the right to buy/own/and use lockpicks. However, despite this apparent right, we still have statutory restrictions on the sale/usage/distribution/etc of these items. This is because although lockpicks have legitimate uses, they can also be used illicitly to break the law. However, you don't see the restrictions on these items continually increasing and becoming more severe. This woul
I could not agree with you more. It was simply amazing to me that when I went to college people were _surprised_ that I was actually from *gasp* NEW JERSEY! Everyone just looooves to make fun of us dirty Jersey residents. People just come to expect that all people from The Garden State sound like they're trashy, uneducated mob thugs. However, as you rightly point out, there is a significant part of the state that has no discernable accent whatsoever. I happen to be from one of those regions, and I can't even begin to tell you how many people don't believe that I'm from New Jersey.
What with all of the talk about the wonders of Open Source, you would think that some of the people here would actually _read_ all of this open code from time to time, no? Of all things, you would think that people would have at least given a _cursory_ glance to the kernel! Apparently not. Why don't you go do yourself a favor and look at the source to Linux 2.6.0:
user@telos:~# grep -ir "goto " * | wc -l
25038
Wow. Over 25 thousand instances of goto. Now, why could this be? Is Linux a fucking peice of shit written by idiots who didn't pay attention when they were teaching you about gotos in school? Nope. Maybe, it is just that you are a moron and there are instances in which use of a goto is warranted, and much cleaner than intentionally avoiding them.
Slashdot would be such a better place if it just avoided Microsoft stories. The idiot "M$ suxx00rs" crowd who have huge fucking chips on their shoulders and something to prove would finally just leave. Then, there would actually be meaning, constructive discussion about issues directly pertinent to the open source commmunity, standing in stark contrast to the status quo of "M$ SUX0RS! THEY ARE EVIL" which gets responded to with "LINUX IS GAY! PENGUINS BLOW COCK!" ad infinitum.
Slashdot Mirror
The story is a little bit light on the details and does not say whether or not the guy signed NDA's and other legalese. My guess is that he probably did have to sign a document preventing him from doing the exact thing he is attempting to do, in which case, he should have known better =). Yeah, it sucks that he can't go work there, but if he signed legal documents preventing him from doing so, there really is nobody to blame but himself. If he didn't sign anything, then yes, Seagate sucks and is among the ranks of *insert other big, evil, IP-sucking corporations here*
Are you serious? Have you ever used AFS on campus? There is absolutely no need whatsoever to use a floppy/zip disk. If you don't have your own computer, every single Mac/Windows computer on campus has a shortcut on the desktop to your AFS home directory and if you login from a Unix box, your home directory _is_ your AFS directory.
As for CVS being broken, again, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
If that doesn't suit your needs, you can always setup an account on sourceforge.cs.duke.edu. All of this information was almost certainly provided to you in whatever class you took, by the way.
long live the benches!
Guess it's time to reapply as a freshman?
Also, considering that Gates and his wife have donated $55 million to Duke since 1998, I wonder how/if this will affect the university's relationship with Microsoft.
Are you still at Duke? In Sept. I'll be a senior in the CS dept. Nice to see another Durhamite =)
im sorry.. i posted this earlier, but i just couldn't resist posting it again in response to your nonsense:
--($:/usr/src/linux-2.6.0)-- find . |xargs grep goto | wc -l
25108
--($:/usr/src/linux-2.6.0)-- find . | xargs grep goto | wc -l
25108
IIRC, it was the episode when he goes to Kinko's and tries to print stuff out. He brings in a disk and they ask him what OS it is formmated for. I think?
Yeah, Microsoft doesn't write any of their code. They bought this imaginary company and rebranded the "Doors" OS as this new-fangled thing called "Windows." Oh yeah, they also steal a lot of their shit. All of the Linux conspiracy theorist have just been quiet, waiting for the right time to highlight all of the NSA backdoors and stolen GPL code that appeared in the leak of the Windows source code. Same deal across the board... Microsoft hijacked OpenOffice and poured all of those features into Office. Outlook? That has Ximian Evolution written all over it. I mean, those thousands of coders that Microsoft employs.. you don't think they actually _code_ do you!? Hell no, they get paid more than any OSS coder to just jerk off all day long and scour the net for GPL code to steal. That's it.. or at least that idea makes me really warm and fuzzy inside.
Or, maybe, just maybe, *gasp* some people who work at MS actually might _use_ linux!! It's like you think that the people who work at Microsoft are mindless zombies who know nothing else of the world around them. Do you really seriously think that people at Microsoft who are aware of Linux heard of it through their _families_?!? These people work in the industry, and as much as you'd like to believe otherwise, are also some really smart people. As odd as it might seem to someone on slashdot, it is indeed possible to use linux without being a flaming zealot who thinks that proprietary software is the work of satan himself. Linux has its place, just as Microsoft does. Many of the crowd here are too stuck to the belief that the two are wholly mutually exclusive. Take Miguel de Icaza, for example. As much as he us a huge proponent of Linux and OSS in general, he is able to give credit where credit is due and recognize some successes coming from Redmond. I'm fairly positive that there are people working there that are of the same mindset - although they aren't in the Linux camp, they respect it, perhaps to the point of even using it from time to time. The world isn't as black and white as Slashdot would have you believe...
I believe that the *AA's continual lawsuits and pursuit of those who illegally trade massive quantities of copyrighted material on P2P networks is ample evidence that they _do_ indeed want this. On the flip side, the common theme of conversations here on Slashdot is also ample evidence that a large number of the people here _do not_ want this. Being that they are also adamantly opposed to the illegality of the act of decryption (an argument which you, much like myself, support) one is left to wonder what exactly they expect to be done? Should all content just be free? I'd like to think that this ridiculous viewpoint is not what most people here support, but the fact remains that the blatant disregard for the law, and the continual avowals here that it is A-OK to trade copyrighted materials online, forces the *AA to pursue other means, especially in light of the fact, that as many slashdotters point out, 1,000 of lawsuits is a drop in the bucket compared to the hundreds of millions of files that are traded illegally everyday. Thus, they must continue to resort to the prosecution of the "decryption of data," not only the "actualy copying and posting to the web." I firmly believe that the *AA will not stop claiming that it is wrong to decrypt the data until people similarly acknowledge that it _is_ wrong to engage in the widespread sharing of copyrighted works, to which you own no distribution rights, on the Internet. It will be a cold day in hell...
The real criminals, oh like say the ones that they are actively bringing to court over their usage of P2P networks to trade illicit MP3's? But guess what, when they do this, the collective Slashdot community gets up in arms and the story somehow makes it to the "Your Rights Online" (laugh) section. So which is it? Do you want them to go after the tools (which they did in the past.. remember Napster?) even though you've consistently bitched about that? Or, do you want them to go after the law breakers (which they are doing now) even though you still bitch about this?
Gee, ya think? They're a for-profit company, not a charity, so they'll charge whatever the market will bear. If this happens to be "afforable" for you, then so be it. If not, tought shit, get a better job.
First of all, if you really need the power of Photoshop, then you sure as hell can afford it. And, you can probably even write the purchase off as a business expense to boot! If this doesn't apply to you, then there is little reason for you to be using Photoshop in the first place. Next, an inexpensive version of Photoshop already exists called Photoshop Elements. And guess what? People _still_ pirate it. Why? Because people like getting shit for free. Look at MP3's.. you can buy a legitimate song online for the change in your couch, but somehow magically mp3 piracy is rampant. Ask yourself, is this because $0.99 a song is somehow "overpriced" or is it because people who have no moral qualms with copyright infringement will always choose free over non-free (as in beer).
OK. Let's say I sell product X for $1000, and at that price I'm only able to sell 1 unit. I've made a cool thousand bucks. Now, let's say that I sell product X for $1 and at this price level, I'm able to sell 1000 units. Guess what? I've made out the same as before. What do I do if I want to make my "sales numbers increase so much?" Well, obviously the answer can't simply be to drop prices as we've just seen. Instead, I need to find the price point that maximizes profit. Lowering the price may or may not be effective in accomplishing this. Next, they are so greedy? OK, maybe they are. Maybe the CEO's make money totally out of proportion to the amount of work they do. However, at least they did _some_ work! Have the people pirating material done _any_? No, they've done nothing to deserve the material they've just pirated. Who's greedier now?
Laugh. They can't afford them? Then they have absolutely no right to use them! You have no God-given right to use any product that you so please. The only thing that grants you this right, is the cash to buy said product. Hell, I drive a 1997 VW with 145,000 miles. I'm kind of sick of it and would _really_ love a shiny new BMW, but I can't afford it. Do I somehow deserve this BMW even though it is "overpriced" and I can't afford it?
That works out because Microsoft also controls the overwhelming majority of the OS market. Since they control such a large portion of this huge market, Microsoft is going to make enough money to be "the world's largest software company" while simultanesouly producing the "most pirated OS ever." Even if 99% of OS X installations were pirated and only 1% of Windows were, it's obvious that Microsoft would make more money, and I'd be willing to bet that the actual numbers would make Windows piracy more widespread than OS X as well.
I'm not even sure what you're trying to prove here? If the store is going to sell pirated versions of XP (which they will take a 100% cut out of), then why the hell would they even be selling the legitimate version (which they will get a very small cut of) _at all_?? Moreover, I'm not sure of the numbers, but I'd put mon
I do think that you have a point about the ridiculous length of copyright's term. However, these arguments are totally inconsequential to the topic at hand. Regardless of the length of copyright, be it 190 years or 15 years, people simply aren't pirating material this old. What is that term that the warez people use again? Damn I can't think of it. Oh yeah, it's "0-day." The entire "prestige" of groups in the warez scene is based upon their ability to be the first group to release something. A shorter term of copyright would do nothing to change these people's status as pirates.
With a catchy subject line like "For the zillionth time" I should hope that you know what you're talking about. You obviously don't though - go read up on the "No Electronic Theft Act" passed wayyyyy back in 1997.
where are all of these ppc's you speak of? also, a potential reason that duke is not on the list is that our campus is over 8500 acres. although main west/east are covered, i doubt the duke forest is =)
If only you could say the same about your basketball team =)
go to hell carolina, go to hell =)
Now, correct me if I'm wrong. But, I believe that a bunch of people, including a few courts and the minions of Slashdot, have been up in arms about Microsoft bundling things like Internet Explorer and Media Player with the OS. Something about leveraging monopoly power or something?
How do you think these people would feel about Windows being bundlied with Microsoft Office, Microsoft Photoshop, Microsoft Quake, Microsoft NERO, Microsoft ZoneAlarm, and Microsoft AntiVirus?
Everytime I hear that argument I fucking cringe. You idiots wield this stupid line with such a smug arrogance that it almost makes me sick. Do you people realize how ridiculous you sound? I mean really, is that your only argument? Is it really OK to pirate games and software because of an "inaccuracy" in the name for the offensive?! Newsflash: hiding behind a semantic argument of language does not make the act any less wrong. Make up a word for it. Call it "asdfasdfasdf." It's still fucking _stealing_ you ass clown.
This aside, why don't you go pick up the Oxford English Dictionary, you smug asshole? "It's not just inaccurate, it's stupid?" Oh yeah? Go read. If all else fails, shut the fuck up and go join rms in his quest to eradicate the world of the word "Linux."
Bzzzt. Wrong. This is exactly the kind of thinking that is only going to make the situation worse. Now, before you all write me off, please stop for just one second and allow yourselves to listen to me objectively....
P2P is not the solution; it is the problem. How the hell do you think we got to where we are now? Did the recording industry or the US Congress give two shits when people were trading pirated movies/music/software via IRC? Via FTP? Sure, sites got shut down and a few people were arrested, but was it anywhere near the level that we are now at? Nope. We didn't get to where we are now until Napster and the wave of P2P sharing began. Now, I know a common defense of P2P is that it does indeed have legitimate uses. I would never attempt to argue against this point, and I actually happen to agree with it. However, it would be outlandish to attempt to deny the fact that the overwhelming majority of content traded via P2P networks is pirated material. Would the industry/Congress/etc have even paid the least bit of attention to P2P if this was _not_ the case? Nope. With every single pirated file that was downloaded off of P2P networks the powers that be were pushed closer and closer to the point at which they simply had to do something. With IRC/FTP and the situation a few years ago, they could simply ignore the problem because the volume of traffic was so low as to be a non-issue. However, once Joe American and his friends were pirating massive quantites of content online they couldn't just ignore the issue any longer. P2P _forced_ them to act. And I can assure you that it this wasn't because of Mandrake ISOs being distributed through BitTorrent; it was due to the other 99.9% of P2P usage.
Sure, the penalites being imposed don't fit the crime. I'll give you that. Sure, the extensions to copyright and other intellectual property restrictions are overbearing. I'll agree with that as well. You want to stop being treated like criminals? Well then stop acting like them. With each act of your "non violent protest" you only prove that the threat of these penalities is a non-factor in people's decisions to pirate content online. As a result, we only get stiffer penalties and more draconian laws in an effort by the industry to add a larger sum to the left hand column of the subconscious cost/benefit analysis that occurs within the average person's mind before bootlegging content online. That is indeed the logic behind these laws; the stricter they get, the more likely it will be that people think twice before downloading pirated content.
You shouldn't be congratulating and encouraging people to pirate content via P2P networks as if it were some sort of moral imperative with equal gravity to most situations that truly deserve non violent protest. In doing so, you only make the problem worse and bring us closer and closer to the reality of Palladium and Trustworthy Computing. How's this for non violent protest: Don't buy their products. On second thought, you already meet that requirement... so how about you just don't download their content without paying for it. Instead, condemn and castigate those that do. By downloading their content, even if you haven't paid for it, you only prove to these companies that there is indeed a demand and a market for their products, in turn, legitimizing them as business entities.
If you haven't taken in what I've said, then I'll attempt to make it more clear through a final analogy. In the United States, people have the right to buy/own/and use lockpicks. However, despite this apparent right, we still have statutory restrictions on the sale/usage/distribution/etc of these items. This is because although lockpicks have legitimate uses, they can also be used illicitly to break the law. However, you don't see the restrictions on these items continually increasing and becoming more severe. This woul
I could not agree with you more. It was simply amazing to me that when I went to college people were _surprised_ that I was actually from *gasp* NEW JERSEY! Everyone just looooves to make fun of us dirty Jersey residents. People just come to expect that all people from The Garden State sound like they're trashy, uneducated mob thugs. However, as you rightly point out, there is a significant part of the state that has no discernable accent whatsoever. I happen to be from one of those regions, and I can't even begin to tell you how many people don't believe that I'm from New Jersey.
Sure... I'll bite.
What with all of the talk about the wonders of Open Source, you would think that some of the people here would actually _read_ all of this open code from time to time, no? Of all things, you would think that people would have at least given a _cursory_ glance to the kernel! Apparently not. Why don't you go do yourself a favor and look at the source to Linux 2.6.0:
user@telos:~# grep -ir "goto " * | wc -l
25038
Wow. Over 25 thousand instances of goto. Now, why could this be? Is Linux a fucking peice of shit written by idiots who didn't pay attention when they were teaching you about gotos in school? Nope. Maybe, it is just that you are a moron and there are instances in which use of a goto is warranted, and much cleaner than intentionally avoiding them.
Slashdot would be such a better place if it just avoided Microsoft stories. The idiot "M$ suxx00rs" crowd who have huge fucking chips on their shoulders and something to prove would finally just leave. Then, there would actually be meaning, constructive discussion about issues directly pertinent to the open source commmunity, standing in stark contrast to the status quo of "M$ SUX0RS! THEY ARE EVIL" which gets responded to with "LINUX IS GAY! PENGUINS BLOW COCK!" ad infinitum.
it is a great day in the world when i see "the 10 crack commandments" quoted on slashdot. thank you dear sir for brightening my day.