You all will complain about this, but you'll still buy Starcraft 2. You'll check your morals at the door. Blizzard gets away with these things because you keep paying them to do it.
The article summary talks about a one-sided approach to copyright and claims things are being "stolen." But as we've learned from Slashdot's pro-piracy articles, piracy isn't theft, remember? Talk about one-sided.
I will never understand Slashdot's position as a whole. Constant pro-piracy, anti-copyright articles are posted to pat everyone on the back and reassure them that their piracy isn't immoral--it's the big media companies who are immoral. Fine. Then a GPL violation article comes along, and suddenly content owner rights matter, and going after infringers is okay again.
The GPL is a copyright license complete with usage restrictions under threat of law for copyright infringement. It's even stated on the FSF website that the GPL assures copyright over a piece of software so that it isn't freely usable by anyone as public domain code. Why is Slashdot always against content owners' rights and copyright law in a PirateBay article, a position which benefits you by getting you free stuff through Bittorrent, while being in favor of content owners' rights and copyright law in a GPL article, a position which benefits you by getting you free software? Clearly, whichever position is most self-serving is the one that's adopted at the time.
If we're suddenly in support of the public domain today and against copyrighting of non-copyrighted works, why can't I use GPL code any way I want? The viral nature of the GPL adds usage restrictions and asserts copyright over plugins, themes, extensions, derivative works, and more.
We need to pick a position on copyright law and stick with it. If we're against copyrights, then we're also against the GPL and its viral applicability. However, if we're in favor of the GPL, then we must also be in favor of the copyrights governing all the things pirated on P2P networks. You can't pick and choose which situations you want to be a public defender, because that makes you a hypocrite, holding contradictory positions because they all benefit you by getting you free stuff, be it GPL code or DVD rips you didn't pay for.
The FSF page specifically says that the GPL assures the copyright of software and protects the rights of the content creator. So why are Slashdotters constantly opposed to copyright and in favor of piracy except in GPL violation articles? Does your opposition to copyright mean I can take your GPL code and sell it as a closed-source program?
Your post isn't worth reading after this statement. We're talking about a video codec, and you actually believe bandwidth is irrelevant, even though bandwidth is one of the most important factors in determining video quality in an encoded video. Incredible.
Windows are stored as 3D textures on the video card and composited using hardware acceleration. "Vector graphics" denotes a specific kind of drawing that is not being used for the effects you describe.
I'm confused. I thought copyright was evil and should be abolished, so why should we care if he copied anything? Slashdot posts daily pro-piracy, anti-copyright articles, so forgive me if I'm a little perplexed by the double standards around here when it comes to which situations where you suddenly want copyrights enforced.
What abuses in the U.S.? Suing people who are violating your rights isn't abuse. Slashdot and its readers all said that content owners should go after individual infringers back in 2000 when Napster was getting sued. What's changed? Or did you just say that back then thinking they wouldn't actually be able to go after infringers?
it's now become safer than ever to be a file-sharer in Norway
You mean pirate. Why do we pretend that there's all this legitimate file-sharing going on? It's so silly and facetious.
Having that in mind, let's not forget that bandwidth is getting ridiculously cheaper and we are getting incredibly fast connections by the month.
If this was some commercial offering from Microsoft, you would be criticizing it for using more bandwidth. Because it's an open source thing, you're justifying it by saying, "Eh, bandwidth is getting cheaper."
Moreover, knowing that the bandwidth aspect of the thing is irrelevant then...
And then you suddenly assume that the bandwidth argument doesn't exist.
So, to put it short, Theora may demand more bandwidth but that is absolutely irrelevant.
This is a video codec. Of course the bandwidth is relevant. It determines the quality of the video. If you're a video hosting service, you're going to want the codec that delivers the highest quality using the lowest bandwidth. How could you possibly describe it as "absolutely irrelevant" when it's one of the most important things in determining video codec quality?
If you think the license is the most important thing, your perspective is skewed from too much time spent on Slashdot. MP3 is as "encumbered" as anything else, yet it's ubiquitous. The same will be true of H.264.
You don't "know this." As a pirate, you simply assume it because it makes you feel less guilty about ripping artists off. If Slashdotters actually believe that they're entitled to rip people off because they believe someone else will pay for concert tickets or t-shirts or whatever, they're far more selfish and dumb than they realize.
Seriously, your entire belief system is based on a theoretical if situation which guesses that willingness to pay for other things "may" increase. This study is definitely pointless, but for different reasons than you state.
What "concert tickets" or "speaking tours" are John Carmack going to sell if you pirate his game? Is that seriously the Slashdot pro-piracy justification now? Concerts and speaking tours? Why should anybody be forced to sell those if they just want to create music or software or whatever?
Idiots. Yes, I'm aware this will get me modbombed...any anti-piracy article on Slashdot gets mindlessly modded down.
Why does somebody ask this in every browser article? From Wikipedia:
"Acid3 is a test page from the Web Standards Project that checks how well a web browser follows certain web standards, especially relating to the Document Object Model and JavaScript."
It's handy to know how compliant a browser's JavaScript implementation is. Nobody is "focusing on the negatives" by pointing out Firefox's score. I get the impression you just don't like to see any perceived criticism of Firefox.
When they talk about embedding video, they're referring to Flash-based video sites like YouTube. Think a little.
HTML5 will press forward with or without Microsoft. YouTube already has an HTML5 demo, and as a site owned by Google, they will embrace the new technology. In the meantime, Firefox continues to gain in the market, and Apple has a little thing called the iPhone that has a "real" browser.
I agree that demand for greater hardware has plateaued, but I think you have a skewed memory if you believe the 16-bit consoles were miles ahead of the 8-bit machines. The 16-bit games were a lot like 8-bit games but with more colors and sample-based sound. You also completely neglect to mention the big jump to 3D that was made in the mid-90s, led by Super Mario 64, Tomb Raider, Final Fantasy VII, and so on.
You don't understand, this is the enlightened Obama era where microblogging to the cloud on our green netbooks while coding AJAX mashups and buying carbon credits is the future, maaaan.
1.) Slashdotters only rant against copyright because they're pro-piracy and don't want to lose the free ride. The hypocrisy is ridiculous, especially because Slashdot itself has sued other websites over copyright infringement.
2.) Copyright protects content creators so that they get paid for their work. Slashdotters don't want people to be paid for their work, because they want to pirate it. All your motives are self-serving, and it's so obvious.
3.) The GPL is a copyright license. If you disagree with copyright law, then I'm free to do whatever I want with your GPL code.
I know I'll get modded down for voicing this opinion, because I've posted anti-piracy, pro-copyright opinions in the past and gotten trashed by roving gangs of moderators. Ah, well.
Digital rights? So that means they're going to protect the rights of content creators by being proactive against piracy? Or is this the Slashdot definition of "digital rights" which, for some reason, only includes people getting sued by the RIAA when they get caught pirating music? Just curious whether Slashdotters are going to be as self-serving as usual when it comes to talk about rights.
Fully expecting to get modded down for taking an anti-piracy position on Slashdot (the horror!). I'm used to it.
Slashdot Mirror
You all will complain about this, but you'll still buy Starcraft 2. You'll check your morals at the door. Blizzard gets away with these things because you keep paying them to do it.
On a Mac, the PDF will open in Preview and will use the native Quartz system, requiring no such tweaking.
On the Mac, Firefox still puts its tab close boxes on the right side instead of the left. Why has this not been addressed after all these years?
Uh, why is it better?
"Personal reasons" = he's a kook.
The article summary talks about a one-sided approach to copyright and claims things are being "stolen." But as we've learned from Slashdot's pro-piracy articles, piracy isn't theft, remember? Talk about one-sided.
I will never understand Slashdot's position as a whole. Constant pro-piracy, anti-copyright articles are posted to pat everyone on the back and reassure them that their piracy isn't immoral--it's the big media companies who are immoral. Fine. Then a GPL violation article comes along, and suddenly content owner rights matter, and going after infringers is okay again.
The GPL is a copyright license complete with usage restrictions under threat of law for copyright infringement. It's even stated on the FSF website that the GPL assures copyright over a piece of software so that it isn't freely usable by anyone as public domain code. Why is Slashdot always against content owners' rights and copyright law in a PirateBay article, a position which benefits you by getting you free stuff through Bittorrent, while being in favor of content owners' rights and copyright law in a GPL article, a position which benefits you by getting you free software? Clearly, whichever position is most self-serving is the one that's adopted at the time.
If we're suddenly in support of the public domain today and against copyrighting of non-copyrighted works, why can't I use GPL code any way I want? The viral nature of the GPL adds usage restrictions and asserts copyright over plugins, themes, extensions, derivative works, and more.
We need to pick a position on copyright law and stick with it. If we're against copyrights, then we're also against the GPL and its viral applicability. However, if we're in favor of the GPL, then we must also be in favor of the copyrights governing all the things pirated on P2P networks. You can't pick and choose which situations you want to be a public defender, because that makes you a hypocrite, holding contradictory positions because they all benefit you by getting you free stuff, be it GPL code or DVD rips you didn't pay for.
The FSF page specifically says that the GPL assures the copyright of software and protects the rights of the content creator. So why are Slashdotters constantly opposed to copyright and in favor of piracy except in GPL violation articles? Does your opposition to copyright mean I can take your GPL code and sell it as a closed-source program?
Your post isn't worth reading after this statement. We're talking about a video codec, and you actually believe bandwidth is irrelevant, even though bandwidth is one of the most important factors in determining video quality in an encoded video. Incredible.
Windows are stored as 3D textures on the video card and composited using hardware acceleration. "Vector graphics" denotes a specific kind of drawing that is not being used for the effects you describe.
I'm confused. I thought copyright was evil and should be abolished, so why should we care if he copied anything? Slashdot posts daily pro-piracy, anti-copyright articles, so forgive me if I'm a little perplexed by the double standards around here when it comes to which situations where you suddenly want copyrights enforced.
What abuses in the U.S.? Suing people who are violating your rights isn't abuse. Slashdot and its readers all said that content owners should go after individual infringers back in 2000 when Napster was getting sued. What's changed? Or did you just say that back then thinking they wouldn't actually be able to go after infringers?
You mean pirate. Why do we pretend that there's all this legitimate file-sharing going on? It's so silly and facetious.
If this was some commercial offering from Microsoft, you would be criticizing it for using more bandwidth. Because it's an open source thing, you're justifying it by saying, "Eh, bandwidth is getting cheaper."
And then you suddenly assume that the bandwidth argument doesn't exist.
This is a video codec. Of course the bandwidth is relevant. It determines the quality of the video. If you're a video hosting service, you're going to want the codec that delivers the highest quality using the lowest bandwidth. How could you possibly describe it as "absolutely irrelevant" when it's one of the most important things in determining video codec quality?
If you think the license is the most important thing, your perspective is skewed from too much time spent on Slashdot. MP3 is as "encumbered" as anything else, yet it's ubiquitous. The same will be true of H.264.
So?
I'm serious. Can someone explain why this matters?
Well, maybe that will change as HTML5 browser support grows.
A knee-jerk response on Slashdot in an attempt to get an easy +5? I'm shocked.
It's not a "beta test." The updates are real updates. They're merely controlling the rate of distribution in case an issue comes up.
You don't "know this." As a pirate, you simply assume it because it makes you feel less guilty about ripping artists off. If Slashdotters actually believe that they're entitled to rip people off because they believe someone else will pay for concert tickets or t-shirts or whatever, they're far more selfish and dumb than they realize.
Seriously, your entire belief system is based on a theoretical if situation which guesses that willingness to pay for other things "may" increase. This study is definitely pointless, but for different reasons than you state.
What "concert tickets" or "speaking tours" are John Carmack going to sell if you pirate his game? Is that seriously the Slashdot pro-piracy justification now? Concerts and speaking tours? Why should anybody be forced to sell those if they just want to create music or software or whatever?
Idiots. Yes, I'm aware this will get me modbombed...any anti-piracy article on Slashdot gets mindlessly modded down.
Why does somebody ask this in every browser article? From Wikipedia:
"Acid3 is a test page from the Web Standards Project that checks how well a web browser follows certain web standards, especially relating to the Document Object Model and JavaScript."
It's handy to know how compliant a browser's JavaScript implementation is. Nobody is "focusing on the negatives" by pointing out Firefox's score. I get the impression you just don't like to see any perceived criticism of Firefox.
When they talk about embedding video, they're referring to Flash-based video sites like YouTube. Think a little.
HTML5 will press forward with or without Microsoft. YouTube already has an HTML5 demo, and as a site owned by Google, they will embrace the new technology. In the meantime, Firefox continues to gain in the market, and Apple has a little thing called the iPhone that has a "real" browser.
I agree that demand for greater hardware has plateaued, but I think you have a skewed memory if you believe the 16-bit consoles were miles ahead of the 8-bit machines. The 16-bit games were a lot like 8-bit games but with more colors and sample-based sound. You also completely neglect to mention the big jump to 3D that was made in the mid-90s, led by Super Mario 64, Tomb Raider, Final Fantasy VII, and so on.
Holy crap. Lighten up already.
You don't understand, this is the enlightened Obama era where microblogging to the cloud on our green netbooks while coding AJAX mashups and buying carbon credits is the future, maaaan.
1.) Slashdotters only rant against copyright because they're pro-piracy and don't want to lose the free ride. The hypocrisy is ridiculous, especially because Slashdot itself has sued other websites over copyright infringement.
2.) Copyright protects content creators so that they get paid for their work. Slashdotters don't want people to be paid for their work, because they want to pirate it. All your motives are self-serving, and it's so obvious.
3.) The GPL is a copyright license. If you disagree with copyright law, then I'm free to do whatever I want with your GPL code.
I know I'll get modded down for voicing this opinion, because I've posted anti-piracy, pro-copyright opinions in the past and gotten trashed by roving gangs of moderators. Ah, well.
Digital rights? So that means they're going to protect the rights of content creators by being proactive against piracy? Or is this the Slashdot definition of "digital rights" which, for some reason, only includes people getting sued by the RIAA when they get caught pirating music? Just curious whether Slashdotters are going to be as self-serving as usual when it comes to talk about rights.
Fully expecting to get modded down for taking an anti-piracy position on Slashdot (the horror!). I'm used to it.
OEMs are the ones who said there was no consumer demand. Anything else, anonymous?