First publishers did and do cry against libraries. Second most people in the 18th century couldn't read. So it's highly unlikely that books were at all an entertainment medium like movies are today. Maybe like live theatre but not movies.
Unlike you I can't sing as well as the next guy. Nor do I want to hear the next guy sing. I want to hear Andrea Bocelli sing. Sounds like a good reason to get music from somewhere else.
As much as streetlawyer is a historically a fruitcake (as in his posting history) I think his point is more valid than yours. For every Mozart who fritters his paltry allowance away, there were hundreds of Ernests, Henris, and Jacobs, who shovelled shit because they couldn't get a patron.
But the large congolmerates have a stake in the production of music. So instead of picking one particular musician they bring in a variety of musicians and provide for a wider range of musical diversity. Which is a good thing. How many pre-industrial revolution bands/musicians/composers do you know? How many do you know now?
(Of course it's a different world with easier distribution of music, but the point of diversity still is illustrated.)
It doesn't matter what kind of semantic games you want to play. The fact is that "intellectual property" is defined in all developed nations and in most developing nations. Who cares if you want to quibble. The issue isn't can you make an argument that a non-lawyer couldn't refute. It's about whether people should be able to set the price on the result of their labor. Why should I have to pay McDonalds for a big mac? It's not like they created the cow. Or the grain that that cow ate. Or the wheat the went into the bun. Or the water that carried nutrients to the lettuce. The fact is that every thing man has ever created is merely a transformation of something that is already there. The only thing that distinguishes a piece of roadkill from a hamburger is the work that went into it.
That's bullshit. Indians definitely did have concepts of ownership on land, property, animals, people, etc. You need to update your history to a less homoginized version. Many of the traits we attribute to indians are fictions created after the europeans arrived and started kicking butt.
No that was The Fountainhead. Atlas Shrugged is a much better book. Ayn Rand worked on the same effective story in several books and finally peaked at AS.
But the quote in the story has nothing to do with the topic of the story. It's saying that the power, influence and whatnot that used to be embodied in the nobility and royal classes is to be seen now in the businesses and the people who run them. But I guess it sounds like an intellectual comment, so of course it's going to make it into a/. story.
It's not the severity of this particular problem that is an issue. It's how it makes those people who always tell us "Linux can't have a virus problem, because you can only infect your own files. Blah blah blah." Look if there is a standard problem in all kernels from 2.1.15 down then a Linux virus would be trivial and fully successful. Almost too bad that nobody exploited this problem before (that we know of anyway.) I hate it when partially informed people rant on about how this and that can't happen or how this and that are secure. Right.
No you provide an example where people are able to use Unix/X. Which is not the same as being comparable in the sense of having a similar set of features and an equally developed work enviroment. Windows is much superior to even CDE. It's just that CDE is better than your typical WM trash.
Sure. And Solaris/CDE is motif with a different window manager. Which was my point about the motif release being a good thing. Maybe we'll get some patch kits that will improve mwm to work more like the shell in windows. It's already pretty good, better by far than anything else available for Unix. Yes it's a bit ugly, but the visual appearances are not so important as behaviors re. the user.
Err, sorry but no Unix is comparable to Windows in terms of usability. And I'm not talking about your average user (even though Windows is supreme there too) I'm talking power user. User's who want to get work done without excessive amounts of wasted effort and motion. Software that automatically and cleanly handles integration with 3rd party packages.
The Open Motif release is the best thing to happen to Unix in a long time. Because nobody else has pulled their head out far enough to see the big picture of how a window manager and apps should relate in a working enviroment. Sure E is pretty, but it's not that functional.
Systems are way of working not computer systems. Systems research in the sense Pike is talking about is how we get work done. Is anybody coming up with a better way to do the same tasks we've done before? More efficient?
The difference is that when someone says networked file system, Unix peeps think NFS. MS thinks of a completely new way to work. When someone says web server, Unix thinks Apache, external scripting. MS thinks IIS with integrated scripting. Do Unices have that stuff now? Yes they do. Did MS create it? Yes they did.
MS does do research into ways of working. They try out new concepts to see if it's possible that the completely functional ways we use now are not the best way to do something. Sometimes they fail, sometimes they get it right. Any Unix user who argues that any unix has a better operating enviroment than Win* is intentionally not seeing the forest for the trees.
Yes MS software has problems. But so does all free software. The difference is that MS's software is typically better to use.
He is right. A minimum standard of living is more important than some nebulous idea called "information." You sound like you would rather send internet connectivity to africa rather than food, water and medical supplies.
But the question isn't have their products been pirated (of course they have) but was that a factor in their closure. No. Would it be nice if every company would actually get the money that piracy deprives them of? Yes. But piracy is one of the prices of doing business in software. Beyond deciding what measures to take to prevent piracy they don't take any actions based upon the fact of piracy.
Stallman doesn't like "piracy" because it has a lot of negative connotations. He likes "sharing" because it has positive connotations. But if he wanted to be accurate he'd say either "copyright violation" (which he won't say because violation is another of those words with negative connotations) or "illegal duplication" (which again he doesn't want to say because of that word illegal.)
The man should face it, he's more into propaganda than the people he is arguing against. Besides "software piracy" has been used in the context he is arguing against longer than "free software" has been used in the context he prefers.
Err, so what information do you have that their products were pirated extensively? They didn't mention that in their press release. Or do you just see this as a soapbox for you to spout your message as the self proclaimed anti-software piracy prophet?
No, I don't have any pirated software, but your post is off topic and unsupported as a reason why LGS shutdown.
OK now that you've got your +2 insightful going, maybe you need to realize that LGS also was a publisher. For example they didn't develop SS2, they published it. They also had a deal for an unnamed title lined up and then the developers backed out which ended up cascading into losing another distributer/co-publisher. It's not just about Eidos dumping money into Ionstorm. LGS had some bad business management.
The problem isn't with the security council. The security council does a relatively decent job within their scope of action.
The problem is with the General Assembly. If they didn't regularily come up with really screwed up policy they would get more cooperation from the nations that actually would do something about their resolutions. But when 4 out of 5 votes are completely screwy, it's hard to be taken seriously.
Aside: It's funny how racism only runs rampant in the one country that considers 'racial hatred' to be a protected, inalienable civil right.
Ignoring the fact that racism "runs rampant" in all countries, let's ask the question: how is that funny? It would seem to follow directly that a country that protects free speech will also have speech that people deem offensive.
The thing you don't realize is that the next step is to close the borders. Yes the Internet may be international, but it still is primarily dominated, both by presence and technologies, by the wealthiest countries in the world. No matter how much people dislike the US, the fact does remain that it is the wealthiest country on the planet.
And hate speech or nudity probably isn't the goal of arranging a cross border policy for stopping Internet crimes. Think breakins. Think denial of service. Think IP piracy.
If various countries can't get together on stopping, pursueing, prosecuting, etc. crimes on the Internet (especially things like DoS, break-ins, and such) then we will end up with a system where each country is firewalled off from the others and all traffic will flow through specific routers. When an attack happens the source country will be completely blocked. Which will result in more damage occuring to the entire country where the attack originated than it will to the victim of the attack. Do we want the entire net to be regulated to hell and back? Or would we prefer a more open network? If there is no recourse for a victim in on nation to stop/punish/whatever an attacker in another nation the second will be impossible.
Slashdot Mirror
Andrea Bocelli is an opera singer from South America (IIRC.) Very talented individual, in the same class as Pavarotti, et. al.
First publishers did and do cry against libraries. Second most people in the 18th century couldn't read. So it's highly unlikely that books were at all an entertainment medium like movies are today. Maybe like live theatre but not movies.
Unlike you I can't sing as well as the next guy. Nor do I want to hear the next guy sing. I want to hear Andrea Bocelli sing. Sounds like a good reason to get music from somewhere else.
As much as streetlawyer is a historically a fruitcake (as in his posting history) I think his point is more valid than yours. For every Mozart who fritters his paltry allowance away, there were hundreds of Ernests, Henris, and Jacobs, who shovelled shit because they couldn't get a patron.
But the large congolmerates have a stake in the production of music. So instead of picking one particular musician they bring in a variety of musicians and provide for a wider range of musical diversity. Which is a good thing. How many pre-industrial revolution bands/musicians/composers do you know? How many do you know now?
(Of course it's a different world with easier distribution of music, but the point of diversity still is illustrated.)
It doesn't matter what kind of semantic games you want to play. The fact is that "intellectual property" is defined in all developed nations and in most developing nations. Who cares if you want to quibble. The issue isn't can you make an argument that a non-lawyer couldn't refute. It's about whether people should be able to set the price on the result of their labor. Why should I have to pay McDonalds for a big mac? It's not like they created the cow. Or the grain that that cow ate. Or the wheat the went into the bun. Or the water that carried nutrients to the lettuce. The fact is that every thing man has ever created is merely a transformation of something that is already there. The only thing that distinguishes a piece of roadkill from a hamburger is the work that went into it.
No. Running with scissors is evolution in action.
That's bullshit. Indians definitely did have concepts of ownership on land, property, animals, people, etc. You need to update your history to a less homoginized version. Many of the traits we attribute to indians are fictions created after the europeans arrived and started kicking butt.
Go to more trade shows. You get lot's of branded clothing there for free.
No that was The Fountainhead. Atlas Shrugged is a much better book. Ayn Rand worked on the same effective story in several books and finally peaked at AS.
/. story.
But the quote in the story has nothing to do with the topic of the story. It's saying that the power, influence and whatnot that used to be embodied in the nobility and royal classes is to be seen now in the businesses and the people who run them. But I guess it sounds like an intellectual comment, so of course it's going to make it into a
It's not the severity of this particular problem that is an issue. It's how it makes those people who always tell us "Linux can't have a virus problem, because you can only infect your own files. Blah blah blah." Look if there is a standard problem in all kernels from 2.1.15 down then a Linux virus would be trivial and fully successful. Almost too bad that nobody exploited this problem before (that we know of anyway.) I hate it when partially informed people rant on about how this and that can't happen or how this and that are secure. Right.
No you provide an example where people are able to use Unix/X. Which is not the same as being comparable in the sense of having a similar set of features and an equally developed work enviroment. Windows is much superior to even CDE. It's just that CDE is better than your typical WM trash.
Sure. And Solaris/CDE is motif with a different window manager. Which was my point about the motif release being a good thing. Maybe we'll get some patch kits that will improve mwm to work more like the shell in windows. It's already pretty good, better by far than anything else available for Unix. Yes it's a bit ugly, but the visual appearances are not so important as behaviors re. the user.
Err, sorry but no Unix is comparable to Windows in terms of usability. And I'm not talking about your average user (even though Windows is supreme there too) I'm talking power user. User's who want to get work done without excessive amounts of wasted effort and motion. Software that automatically and cleanly handles integration with 3rd party packages.
The Open Motif release is the best thing to happen to Unix in a long time. Because nobody else has pulled their head out far enough to see the big picture of how a window manager and apps should relate in a working enviroment. Sure E is pretty, but it's not that functional.
Systems are way of working not computer systems. Systems research in the sense Pike is talking about is how we get work done. Is anybody coming up with a better way to do the same tasks we've done before? More efficient?
The difference is that when someone says networked file system, Unix peeps think NFS. MS thinks of a completely new way to work. When someone says web server, Unix thinks Apache, external scripting. MS thinks IIS with integrated scripting. Do Unices have that stuff now? Yes they do. Did MS create it? Yes they did.
MS does do research into ways of working. They try out new concepts to see if it's possible that the completely functional ways we use now are not the best way to do something. Sometimes they fail, sometimes they get it right. Any Unix user who argues that any unix has a better operating enviroment than Win* is intentionally not seeing the forest for the trees.
Yes MS software has problems. But so does all free software. The difference is that MS's software is typically better to use.
He is right. A minimum standard of living is more important than some nebulous idea called "information." You sound like you would rather send internet connectivity to africa rather than food, water and medical supplies.
But the question isn't have their products been pirated (of course they have) but was that a factor in their closure. No. Would it be nice if every company would actually get the money that piracy deprives them of? Yes. But piracy is one of the prices of doing business in software. Beyond deciding what measures to take to prevent piracy they don't take any actions based upon the fact of piracy.
Stallman doesn't like "piracy" because it has a lot of negative connotations. He likes "sharing" because it has positive connotations. But if he wanted to be accurate he'd say either "copyright violation" (which he won't say because violation is another of those words with negative connotations) or "illegal duplication" (which again he doesn't want to say because of that word illegal.)
The man should face it, he's more into propaganda than the people he is arguing against. Besides "software piracy" has been used in the context he is arguing against longer than "free software" has been used in the context he prefers.
Err, so what information do you have that their products were pirated extensively? They didn't mention that in their press release. Or do you just see this as a soapbox for you to spout your message as the self proclaimed anti-software piracy prophet?
No, I don't have any pirated software, but your post is off topic and unsupported as a reason why LGS shutdown.
OK now that you've got your +2 insightful going, maybe you need to realize that LGS also was a publisher. For example they didn't develop SS2, they published it. They also had a deal for an unnamed title lined up and then the developers backed out which ended up cascading into losing another distributer/co-publisher. It's not just about Eidos dumping money into Ionstorm. LGS had some bad business management.
The problem isn't with the security council. The security council does a relatively decent job within their scope of action.
The problem is with the General Assembly. If they didn't regularily come up with really screwed up policy they would get more cooperation from the nations that actually would do something about their resolutions. But when 4 out of 5 votes are completely screwy, it's hard to be taken seriously.
Aside: It's funny how racism only runs rampant in the one country that considers 'racial hatred' to be a protected, inalienable civil right.
Ignoring the fact that racism "runs rampant" in all countries, let's ask the question: how is that funny? It would seem to follow directly that a country that protects free speech will also have speech that people deem offensive.
The thing you don't realize is that the next step is to close the borders. Yes the Internet may be international, but it still is primarily dominated, both by presence and technologies, by the wealthiest countries in the world. No matter how much people dislike the US, the fact does remain that it is the wealthiest country on the planet.
And hate speech or nudity probably isn't the goal of arranging a cross border policy for stopping Internet crimes. Think breakins. Think denial of service. Think IP piracy.
If various countries can't get together on stopping, pursueing, prosecuting, etc. crimes on the Internet (especially things like DoS, break-ins, and such) then we will end up with a system where each country is firewalled off from the others and all traffic will flow through specific routers. When an attack happens the source country will be completely blocked. Which will result in more damage occuring to the entire country where the attack originated than it will to the victim of the attack. Do we want the entire net to be regulated to hell and back? Or would we prefer a more open network? If there is no recourse for a victim in on nation to stop/punish/whatever an attacker in another nation the second will be impossible.