Good evening. I'm here because I just meta-modded the "flamebait" moderation to your post as "fair". I noticed that you claimed that your post was not flamebait, but your honest opinion. In light of that, I felt you deserved to know why I agree with the moderator here. The reason is simple: your tone is inflammatory, and you use words that, intentionally or not, annoy other people instead of expressing your views. "So what" is an attack, "toys" is an attack, and the doubly-inclusive construct (other computers "better" AND "cheaper"; a fallacy because for any GIVEN computer, there exists an Apple machine that is EITHER better OR cheaper, and that is also true of any machine) is an attack. Have a nice day.
Your argument is interesting but it isn't valid economics. "Value" has basis in scarcity. For example, you could not pay me $20,000 to stop breathing, but if you passed a law requiring me to pay you $20,000 to breathe, that would be ripping me off (assuming air is not scarce). Food is another example. It is scarce, and you couldn't pay me $1M to stop eating. But that doesn't mean that the food that I will eat for the rest of my life is "worth" $1M. The copyright system is a device designed to impose artificial scarcity on a given item with the intention of increasing its economic value. In theory, the Government decides that it would be a Good Thing(tm) if given works had some sort of intrinsic artificial value. Digital content is interesting, however, and different from other forms of content, because reproductive ability (and therefore, lack of scarcity) is inherent in each copy of the content. So to enforce this artificial scarcity, it is necessary to bring that law, and that system, into each and every copy. For example, I never needed any restrictions on what I could do with a book; only what I could do with a *press* was restricted. But to protect digital data, the system has to come included with each copy. There are some of us who believe that is stepping over the limits of where government should be allowed to have power, and is an unfair imposition on personal liberty. There are others who are content to point out that such an endeavor is logistically impossible. That's what this is all about.
As for attacking the author, what's interesting in this case is that in the article under discussion (er, the one/. linked), Mr. Meyer makes most of his points about free software by attacking RMS and ESR. Not very convincing...
I'm having trouble understanding this. I know that the open source community has, in the past, _begged_ and _pleaded_ for old, uninteresting software to be released to us. And now that it's actually starting to happen, it's just a PR stunt? That's the friggin' point! We've finally managed to give them enough of a good reason to actually do it. YAY.
Has Sun made a foray into open source? Last I knew they were still using the SCSL which isn't "open source" unless you mean "you can see the source code". Sun's always been a tad Microsofty for my taste... anybody ever read/bin/false on a Solaris machine?
Well, the *idea* itself would fit "in the margin" as you say. Of course, it's worth pointing out that it's almost universally believed that Fermat did *not* actually have a correct proof for his famous Last Theorem. This is because there are many proofs of Fermat's Last that are simple, brilliant, and wrong. But anyway, the idea has been thought of before, and it has a lot of its own problems and generally wouldn't work. Unless... and that's the big part, the "unless", and whether that "unless" can be solved. I think it can. That clear it all up?
Oddly, when I was in school (US) there was a "friendly little isotope" who just talked about how dangerous he was. It was basically coal-plant propaganda.
Actually, I've discovered a real, rational, and feasible solution to virtually all the world's major problems. And it doesn't involve killing anybody. It's actually rather brilliant. Just thought you'd like to know.
Wow, with a fire hitting a place with PLUTONIUM, I'm afraid that I'll get killed by some RADIATION! How will I know?!? Oh wait... I'll get out my own GEIGER COUNTER! It clicked! AAAH! RADIATION! I'M GONNA DIE!!! Seriously people, let's try to avoid the "it's radioactive and it's so bad" FUD today.
Interestingly enough this particular post is not a troll, it is not flamebait, and it is clearly not offtopic. So moderating it down would be an abuse of moderator priveliges, right?
Yes, but my note was expressing a difficulty with the "phantom trademark" argument, and the "common part of the english language" argument is something I won't bother to get into.
Notice with those "phantom trademarks" the wildcard portion was in the _middle_ of the trademark. What IDG has trademarked is "FOR DUMMIES". Consider if I tried to sell a drink called "Coca-Cola Original". That would be a rather clear infringement.
That is of course a configurable option./etc/sysconfig/init , change BOOTUP value to "verbose". Of course, in Slackware, if I wanted to change that, I'd have to rewrite all the boot scripts. No thanks...
Evening. I have a technical problem with "neither HAM nor CB reach the majority of radio listeners". It is quite possible for anyone to get a receiver for either of those bands. The fact that most people have neither is an example of conscious choice, not government intervention. Thank you.
On the subject of "you are an idiot": Some people like to play games. Ever played a computer game? Chances are a bot would do better. Ever played a skill-based (not chance based) paper or board game? Was it Go? No? Then a computer could play it better. Efficiently? Cheaply? What the heck are we talking about here?
Slashdot Mirror
Good evening. I'm here because I just meta-modded the "flamebait" moderation to your post as "fair". I noticed that you claimed that your post was not flamebait, but your honest opinion. In light of that, I felt you deserved to know why I agree with the moderator here.
The reason is simple: your tone is inflammatory, and you use words that, intentionally or not, annoy other people instead of expressing your views. "So what" is an attack, "toys" is an attack, and the doubly-inclusive construct (other computers "better" AND "cheaper"; a fallacy because for any GIVEN computer, there exists an Apple machine that is EITHER better OR cheaper, and that is also true of any machine) is an attack.
Have a nice day.
Your argument is interesting but it isn't valid economics. "Value" has basis in scarcity. For example, you could not pay me $20,000 to stop breathing, but if you passed a law requiring me to pay you $20,000 to breathe, that would be ripping me off (assuming air is not scarce).
Food is another example. It is scarce, and you couldn't pay me $1M to stop eating. But that doesn't mean that the food that I will eat for the rest of my life is "worth" $1M.
The copyright system is a device designed to impose artificial scarcity on a given item with the intention of increasing its economic value. In theory, the Government decides that it would be a Good Thing(tm) if given works had some sort of intrinsic artificial value.
Digital content is interesting, however, and different from other forms of content, because reproductive ability (and therefore, lack of scarcity) is inherent in each copy of the content. So to enforce this artificial scarcity, it is necessary to bring that law, and that system, into each and every copy. For example, I never needed any restrictions on what I could do with a book; only what I could do with a *press* was restricted. But to protect digital data, the system has to come included with each copy. There are some of us who believe that is stepping over the limits of where government should be allowed to have power, and is an unfair imposition on personal liberty. There are others who are content to point out that such an endeavor is logistically impossible.
That's what this is all about.
Yawn. I must've woken up in 1998 again. Back to sleep...
I'm beginning to suspect that this is some kind of weird steganography...
As for attacking the author, what's interesting in this case is that in the article under discussion (er, the one /. linked), Mr. Meyer makes most of his points about free software by attacking RMS and ESR. Not very convincing...
Then he started using words like "obvious" and "hideous" and I realized that it was just more propaganda. Score -1, Troll.
Not only that, but it's "Insightful"
aargh
I'm having trouble understanding this. I know that the open source community has, in the past, _begged_ and _pleaded_ for old, uninteresting software to be released to us. And now that it's actually starting to happen, it's just a PR stunt? That's the friggin' point! We've finally managed to give them enough of a good reason to actually do it. YAY.
Has Sun made a foray into open source? Last I knew they were still using the SCSL which isn't "open source" unless you mean "you can see the source code". /bin/false on a Solaris machine?
Sun's always been a tad Microsofty for my taste... anybody ever read
Well, the *idea* itself would fit "in the margin" as you say. Of course, it's worth pointing out that it's almost universally believed that Fermat did *not* actually have a correct proof for his famous Last Theorem. This is because there are many proofs of Fermat's Last that are simple, brilliant, and wrong.
But anyway, the idea has been thought of before, and it has a lot of its own problems and generally wouldn't work. Unless... and that's the big part, the "unless", and whether that "unless" can be solved. I think it can.
That clear it all up?
Oddly, when I was in school (US) there was a "friendly little isotope" who just talked about how dangerous he was. It was basically coal-plant propaganda.
Hey! I've patented that technique!
Actually, I've discovered a real, rational, and feasible solution to virtually all the world's major problems. And it doesn't involve killing anybody. It's actually rather brilliant.
Just thought you'd like to know.
uh, I don't think you read my post...
Wow, with a fire hitting a place with PLUTONIUM, I'm afraid that I'll get killed by some RADIATION! How will I know?!? Oh wait... I'll get out my own GEIGER COUNTER! It clicked! AAAH! RADIATION! I'M GONNA DIE!!!
Seriously people, let's try to avoid the "it's radioactive and it's so bad" FUD today.
here
Silly, the entire point of this discussion is that copyright does NOT override free speech.
I'm afraid I don't see your point. Criticism is not the only type of speech that's protected under the First Amendment...
Interestingly enough this particular post is not a troll, it is not flamebait, and it is clearly not offtopic. So moderating it down would be an abuse of moderator priveliges, right?
Yes, but my note was expressing a difficulty with the "phantom trademark" argument, and the "common part of the english language" argument is something I won't bother to get into.
Notice with those "phantom trademarks" the wildcard portion was in the _middle_ of the trademark. What IDG has trademarked is "FOR DUMMIES". Consider if I tried to sell a drink called "Coca-Cola Original". That would be a rather clear infringement.
Read his post again.
That is of course a configurable option. /etc/sysconfig/init , change BOOTUP value to "verbose". Of course, in Slackware, if I wanted to change that, I'd have to rewrite all the boot scripts. No thanks...
Evening. I have a technical problem with "neither HAM nor CB reach the majority of radio listeners". It is quite possible for anyone to get a receiver for either of those bands. The fact that most people have neither is an example of conscious choice, not government intervention. Thank you.
On the subject of "you are an idiot":
Some people like to play games. Ever played a computer game? Chances are a bot would do better. Ever played a skill-based (not chance based) paper or board game? Was it Go? No? Then a computer could play it better.
Efficiently? Cheaply? What the heck are we talking about here?