I'm not a "troll." That term is thrown around way to much toward people around here.
P2P copyright infringement is a violation of intellectual property. GPL violation is a violation of intellectual property.
I've seen plenty of replies to my posts, but never a satisfactory explanation of the double-standard. If P2P copyright infringement is okay for most of you guys, then why should I follow a plain-text GPL file telling me what to do? Let's break the law together.
It's hypocrisy to not only get pissed over GPL copyright violaters, but then try to sue them. It's hypocrisy because P2P copyright violation is shrugged off, and suing individual downloaders (which is the very thing Slashdot was calling for in 2000 during the Napster lawsuit--I love that people have forgotten this...all those +5 comments that are now meaningless, I guess) is somehow really bad and evil.
People have painted the RIAA as "evil" for so long that they just regurgitate it over and over without even having any specific accusations to level against them. Artists willingly sign their contracts. There isn't some evil corporate world you're fighting against when you pirate music. You're just taking stuff so you don't have to pay for it. It's basic human nature.
So, why should I follow the GPL? What legal basis does it have? I'll tell you. Intellectual property and copyright law.
You can't respect intellectual property in one instance and not in another. That makes you a hypocrite.
Sue individual GPL infringers. Yay! Sue individual P2P downloaders. Boo!
Note: If you don't fall into those majority mindsets, then this doesn't apply to you. But based on editorial positions and the upmodding of discussion articles, Slashdotters appear to be just fine with infringing copyrights on P2P networks but get pissed when people infringe copyrights of GPL projects.
Yes, you've already changed your orginal argument that said nothing about "main living areas".
No, I have not. By "home-friendly," it's a given I'm referring to the main areas of your house. Not utility areas such as your kitchen and laundry room. Are you going to start describing the "ugly" look of your bathroom shower and toilet to me now? Do we include every room of the entire house just so your crumbling position squeezes out one last gasp?
So, you don't see any logical inconsistency between stating that "Everyone acknowledges" that the Mac is easier and the quote above?
I acknowledge your lack of counterargument and how you are forced to resort to pointless semantics. "You said everyone! I'm going to take it literally because I have nothing else to offer!
If everyone acknowledges something then nobody can have the opposite opinion. I don't believe you're stupid, so I'll conclude that you are just sloppy in making arguments.
Unable to actually argue the topic at hand (the home-friendly presentation of the iMac), you are now attempting to divert the argument into one of semantics. Really, it's okay to admit you were wrong.
Wrong about what? I've stated that my appliances are ugly boxes, that you've provided no evidence that Macs are better than PC's and that you've altered your argument after I found a flaw in the original. All true.
Congratulations, your fridge is ugly, which didn't disprove anything, and it's commonly accepted knowledge that Macs are easier to use than Windows as proven by usability studies (read up on the reason the Mac menu resides at the start of the screen sometime and how Windows attached menu placement slows user mouse movement) and consumer feedback. And now, lacking anything to counter with, you've convinced yourself that you've somehow altered my argument because of the use of the word "everyone" which you've decided to take literally to mean every single human being on the face of the Earth!
It's like you enjoy digging your own hole. I'm really going to enjoy reading your reply to this. Hilarious!
Re:First line of the article
on
Inside the PSP
·
· Score: 1
I see. Anyone who disagrees that the PSP isn't "redefining handheld gaming" is merely "posting asinine knee-jerk comments." Are you a Sony fanboy or something? I didn't say it wasn't a technically nice system. If gamers loved it so much, sales wouldn't be lukewarm. Just because it's technically nice doesn't mean everyone is going to spend $250 to make it a success. And it doesn't mean it's redefined anything in gaming.
There's a big graveyard of technically superior handhelds with pretty graphics and extra abilities that have come and gone during the Gameboy's lifetime. What makes this one so redefining?
Re:First line of the article
on
Inside the PSP
·
· Score: 1
That might be a valid point with regards to the iPod comparison if the PSP was selling extremely well. However, as Slashdot's article last weekend showed, sales are "lukewarm."
The iPod hit a sweet spot in simplicity and design coupled with an online music store that people actually liked. The high quality 3D gaming of the PSP is really PS1 games many people already own, on a system priced at $250. I can buy a new Playstation 2 for less than that. Sony won't be hitting a market beyond kids, because most of the older gamers grew up with Nintendo and appreciate the traditional 2D gaming of the Gameboy Advance, not to mention the Gameboy Advance SP is smaller and easier to take on quick trips.
It won't be cutting into the handheld DVD market because it doesn't play DVDs; it plays a proprietary format that will require you to rebuy your movie collection or spend the time burning it all yourself.
I just don't see this thing taking off. Even the weird Nintendo DS sold 1.4 million last year. If the PSP had been designed to take the actual discs of the Playstation 1, this thing would have been a mega-hit.
First line of the article
on
Inside the PSP
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The PSP has redefined handheld gaming.
Uh...it has? Because it plays movies/music and browses pictures?
What aspect of handheld gaming has been "redefined" because of this?
Not only have these things been done before, but the PSP hasn't redefined anything other than the idea of selling PS1 games I already own. I'm sure it's a nice system. But it's not redefining handheld gaming, other than redefining the phrase "customer service" (Sony says you're shit out of luck over dead pixels, unlike Nintendo who will happily fix your unit).
I heard these same overhyped comments about the DS, which actually does do some pretty cool things (which also had been done before).
After I presented counter-examples you've restricted the discussion to the living room.
You presented examples of appliances that don't exist in the main living areas of the home. I've already covered this.
Come on. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. I don't acknowledge that the Mac is easier. What part of "everyone" don't you understand?
What part don't you understand? Of course you don't consider Macs easier. It would invalidate your own position, which I've handily torn apart in at least three posts now. You want to go on, or admit you were wrong?
Let's see. I have a refrigerator that is a big, ugly, white box.
Yes, in your kitchen. And today's fridges aren't ugly, either.
I have a washer and dryer that are big, ugly, white boxes.
Yes, in your laundry room.
I have a dishwasher that is a big ugly, white box.
Yes, in your kitchen beneath the counter.
What was your point again about home appliances?
That iMac G5s take very little space and sit well in a living room of furniture and appliances. Not a kitchen or laundry room--the only counter examples you can offer. The iMac was designed to look like a home living room appliance and not stick out like a sore thumb the way a big, ugly biege tower does. The iMac G4 even looks like a lamp stand.
People like you are so used to PCs not being home-friendly that you just won't let go of the idea of a computer that doesn't look like a big gray box.
I don't see how the experience of less than 5% of computers users translates into "conventional wisdom".
That's because you're purposely ignoring it. It doesn't matter what the install base is. Macs are still easier. Everyone acknowledges this.
Most people think computers are supposed to be difficult and that viruses are a normal part of the process. You and I know this is not true. It's just a matter of informing people beyond what the Wintel monopoly has them believe.
Computers can not only be objects that look like they belong in a home, but they can be easy to use as well. Right now, computing is a frustrating experience for a lot of people. Needless to say, the vast majority of those people are using Windows on Intel-based computers.
So, does your Dell come with iLife?
on
Return of the Mac
·
· Score: 1
So, does your Dell or eMachine come with:
* iMovie * iDVD * iTunes * Garageband (equivalent software on Windows might be Cakewalk Home Studio, which sells for about a hundred) A webserver, PHP interpreter, Perl interpreter, and any other UNIX software you can think of * An e-mail app that doesn't suck? * A secure browser? * And much more?
It's pretty nice in my party. We aren't beholden to anybody, and we only follow what we believe.
It's called being an Independent.:)
I learned long ago that political parties are nothing more than organized religions. They're only right some of the time, and they all tell the truth, but only their agreeable versions of it.
Lean Democrat, if that so suits you. But do it because it's what you believe, not what the party believes. Clearly, you are already disillusioned with the Democrats. So don't be one, and wait along for someone to come along you agree with and vote for them based on the issues, not affiliation.
You'd be amazed how difficult this concept is for so many people. "Which party are you?" "None." *blank stare*
Perhaps, Senator Clinton, this is what comes of trying to get the "village" to raise a child.
Everyone should just ignore her. This is Hillary Clinton just trying to appear centrist in order to set herself up for a 2008 Presidential run. She's been saying a lot of things lately about "faith" and "morals" due to the "moral values" issue of the last election.
I don't even care if you're Democrat. Just pointing out what is obviously going on, and why she's suddenly speaking out on this. Decide what you want (personally, I'm not sure she'll ever successfully shake her image as an ultra-liberal from upper New York).
Most PC users don't care about style, they care about price/performance.
Most users don't know any better. They've been raised by Wintel to believe that all computers are big, beige towers that are hard to use. They've been told they need 2ghz and a GB of RAM just to check their e-mail and send pictures.
Actually, I think part of the problem all those years was that nobody knew what they wanted. OS X was a start-from-scratch project brought on by the incoming Steve Jobs along with his NextStep tech. Up until then, Apple didn't seem to have a clue what it wanted to do. Imagine a computer company in this day and age promising a new operating system for a decade and never delivering.
The anti-Apple trolls are out in full force in this article, and getting modded up for it.
It's trickle-down effect. If the top industry players are using them, universities are using them (remember how most people used UNIX in college and so tried out Linux as a result?), and the media industry is using them, then chances are that everyone else will take a look to see what the fuss is about.
Better translation: "I saw top industry people using Powerbooks. Since these are knowledgable people, I checked one out to see what the fuss was about, liked it, and got one."
You do realize that probably the majority of Slashdot readers here who use Linux also first tried it because other, much cooler people were raving about it? I first tried Red Hat 5 because I was told about this cool operating system that never crashed and was the "latest thing."
* Well-built computers with a stable UNIX operating system, a great GUI, a large number of mainstream apps, and the great Cocoa development system?
Macs can't just be that good that there has to be some sort of "real" reason behind/. liking them?:) They're just good computers with a good OS. Much better than Microsoft's at the moment.
Slashdot Mirror
So, basically, the less money you have, the less the law applies to you?
I'm not a "troll." That term is thrown around way to much toward people around here.
P2P copyright infringement is a violation of intellectual property. GPL violation is a violation of intellectual property.
I've seen plenty of replies to my posts, but never a satisfactory explanation of the double-standard. If P2P copyright infringement is okay for most of you guys, then why should I follow a plain-text GPL file telling me what to do? Let's break the law together.
It's hypocrisy to not only get pissed over GPL copyright violaters, but then try to sue them. It's hypocrisy because P2P copyright violation is shrugged off, and suing individual downloaders (which is the very thing Slashdot was calling for in 2000 during the Napster lawsuit--I love that people have forgotten this...all those +5 comments that are now meaningless, I guess) is somehow really bad and evil.
People have painted the RIAA as "evil" for so long that they just regurgitate it over and over without even having any specific accusations to level against them. Artists willingly sign their contracts. There isn't some evil corporate world you're fighting against when you pirate music. You're just taking stuff so you don't have to pay for it. It's basic human nature.
So, why should I follow the GPL? What legal basis does it have? I'll tell you. Intellectual property and copyright law.
You can't respect intellectual property in one instance and not in another. That makes you a hypocrite.
I acknowledge your defeat.
Sue individual GPL infringers. Yay! Sue individual P2P downloaders. Boo!
Note: If you don't fall into those majority mindsets, then this doesn't apply to you. But based on editorial positions and the upmodding of discussion articles, Slashdotters appear to be just fine with infringing copyrights on P2P networks but get pissed when people infringe copyrights of GPL projects.
Yes, you've already changed your orginal argument that said nothing about "main living areas".
No, I have not. By "home-friendly," it's a given I'm referring to the main areas of your house. Not utility areas such as your kitchen and laundry room. Are you going to start describing the "ugly" look of your bathroom shower and toilet to me now? Do we include every room of the entire house just so your crumbling position squeezes out one last gasp?
So, you don't see any logical inconsistency between stating that "Everyone acknowledges" that the Mac is easier and the quote above?
I acknowledge your lack of counterargument and how you are forced to resort to pointless semantics. "You said everyone! I'm going to take it literally because I have nothing else to offer!
If everyone acknowledges something then nobody can have the opposite opinion. I don't believe you're stupid, so I'll conclude that you are just sloppy in making arguments.
Unable to actually argue the topic at hand (the home-friendly presentation of the iMac), you are now attempting to divert the argument into one of semantics. Really, it's okay to admit you were wrong.
Wrong about what? I've stated that my appliances are ugly boxes, that you've provided no evidence that Macs are better than PC's and that you've altered your argument after I found a flaw in the original. All true.
Congratulations, your fridge is ugly, which didn't disprove anything, and it's commonly accepted knowledge that Macs are easier to use than Windows as proven by usability studies (read up on the reason the Mac menu resides at the start of the screen sometime and how Windows attached menu placement slows user mouse movement) and consumer feedback. And now, lacking anything to counter with, you've convinced yourself that you've somehow altered my argument because of the use of the word "everyone" which you've decided to take literally to mean every single human being on the face of the Earth!
It's like you enjoy digging your own hole. I'm really going to enjoy reading your reply to this. Hilarious!
I see. Anyone who disagrees that the PSP isn't "redefining handheld gaming" is merely "posting asinine knee-jerk comments." Are you a Sony fanboy or something? I didn't say it wasn't a technically nice system. If gamers loved it so much, sales wouldn't be lukewarm. Just because it's technically nice doesn't mean everyone is going to spend $250 to make it a success. And it doesn't mean it's redefined anything in gaming.
There's a big graveyard of technically superior handhelds with pretty graphics and extra abilities that have come and gone during the Gameboy's lifetime. What makes this one so redefining?
That might be a valid point with regards to the iPod comparison if the PSP was selling extremely well. However, as Slashdot's article last weekend showed, sales are "lukewarm."
The iPod hit a sweet spot in simplicity and design coupled with an online music store that people actually liked. The high quality 3D gaming of the PSP is really PS1 games many people already own, on a system priced at $250. I can buy a new Playstation 2 for less than that. Sony won't be hitting a market beyond kids, because most of the older gamers grew up with Nintendo and appreciate the traditional 2D gaming of the Gameboy Advance, not to mention the Gameboy Advance SP is smaller and easier to take on quick trips.
It won't be cutting into the handheld DVD market because it doesn't play DVDs; it plays a proprietary format that will require you to rebuy your movie collection or spend the time burning it all yourself.
I just don't see this thing taking off. Even the weird Nintendo DS sold 1.4 million last year. If the PSP had been designed to take the actual discs of the Playstation 1, this thing would have been a mega-hit.
The PSP has redefined handheld gaming.
Uh...it has? Because it plays movies/music and browses pictures?
What aspect of handheld gaming has been "redefined" because of this?
Not only have these things been done before, but the PSP hasn't redefined anything other than the idea of selling PS1 games I already own. I'm sure it's a nice system. But it's not redefining handheld gaming, other than redefining the phrase "customer service" (Sony says you're shit out of luck over dead pixels, unlike Nintendo who will happily fix your unit).
I heard these same overhyped comments about the DS, which actually does do some pretty cool things (which also had been done before).
First you said appliances in the home.
Yes, that's correct. Home-friendly appliances.
After I presented counter-examples you've restricted the discussion to the living room.
You presented examples of appliances that don't exist in the main living areas of the home. I've already covered this.
Come on. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. I don't acknowledge that the Mac is easier. What part of "everyone" don't you understand?
What part don't you understand? Of course you don't consider Macs easier. It would invalidate your own position, which I've handily torn apart in at least three posts now. You want to go on, or admit you were wrong?
Let's see. I have a refrigerator that is a big, ugly, white box.
Yes, in your kitchen. And today's fridges aren't ugly, either.
I have a washer and dryer that are big, ugly, white boxes.
Yes, in your laundry room.
I have a dishwasher that is a big ugly, white box.
Yes, in your kitchen beneath the counter.
What was your point again about home appliances?
That iMac G5s take very little space and sit well in a living room of furniture and appliances. Not a kitchen or laundry room--the only counter examples you can offer. The iMac was designed to look like a home living room appliance and not stick out like a sore thumb the way a big, ugly biege tower does. The iMac G4 even looks like a lamp stand.
People like you are so used to PCs not being home-friendly that you just won't let go of the idea of a computer that doesn't look like a big gray box.
I don't see how the experience of less than 5% of computers users translates into "conventional wisdom".
That's because you're purposely ignoring it. It doesn't matter what the install base is. Macs are still easier. Everyone acknowledges this.
I don't understand what you mean by "objects that look they belong in a home"?
As in, something that isn't a big, ugly, biege box. An iMac G5 looks like a true home appliance that fits in with your home.
Needless to say, the above quote doesn't prove that these people will be any less frustrated using a Mac.
I think it's pretty much conventional wisdom that Macs are much less frustrating than Windows.
To vote to give George W. Bush the authority to go to war and pretend there was a possibility he wouldn't use that authority is a cop-out.
It was a vote for war. Everyone knew it.
Amusingly, Morgan Stanley has already predicted that Apple share will rise to 5% of the market this year. It was even posted on Slashdot.
So, how's that foot taste?
No, I don't believe so.
Most people think computers are supposed to be difficult and that viruses are a normal part of the process. You and I know this is not true. It's just a matter of informing people beyond what the Wintel monopoly has them believe.
Computers can not only be objects that look like they belong in a home, but they can be easy to use as well. Right now, computing is a frustrating experience for a lot of people. Needless to say, the vast majority of those people are using Windows on Intel-based computers.
So, does your Dell or eMachine come with:
:)
* iMovie
* iDVD
* iTunes
* Garageband (equivalent software on Windows might be Cakewalk Home Studio, which sells for about a hundred)
A webserver, PHP interpreter, Perl interpreter, and any other UNIX software you can think of
* An e-mail app that doesn't suck?
* A secure browser?
* And much more?
Oh, okay. Cya.
It's pretty nice in my party. We aren't beholden to anybody, and we only follow what we believe.
:)
It's called being an Independent.
I learned long ago that political parties are nothing more than organized religions. They're only right some of the time, and they all tell the truth, but only their agreeable versions of it.
Lean Democrat, if that so suits you. But do it because it's what you believe, not what the party believes. Clearly, you are already disillusioned with the Democrats. So don't be one, and wait along for someone to come along you agree with and vote for them based on the issues, not affiliation.
You'd be amazed how difficult this concept is for so many people. "Which party are you?" "None." *blank stare*
Just so people are informed, she did vote to go to war.
This is just her attempt to win some red state votes in time for '08. Safely disregard.
Perhaps, Senator Clinton, this is what comes of trying to get the "village" to raise a child.
Everyone should just ignore her. This is Hillary Clinton just trying to appear centrist in order to set herself up for a 2008 Presidential run. She's been saying a lot of things lately about "faith" and "morals" due to the "moral values" issue of the last election.
I don't even care if you're Democrat. Just pointing out what is obviously going on, and why she's suddenly speaking out on this. Decide what you want (personally, I'm not sure she'll ever successfully shake her image as an ultra-liberal from upper New York).
Most PC users don't care about style, they care about price/performance.
Most users don't know any better. They've been raised by Wintel to believe that all computers are big, beige towers that are hard to use. They've been told they need 2ghz and a GB of RAM just to check their e-mail and send pictures.
Actually, I think part of the problem all those years was that nobody knew what they wanted. OS X was a start-from-scratch project brought on by the incoming Steve Jobs along with his NextStep tech. Up until then, Apple didn't seem to have a clue what it wanted to do. Imagine a computer company in this day and age promising a new operating system for a decade and never delivering.
The great grandparent post already mentioned Linux. My cross-eyed reading style missed it in the shuffle.
Knock my ass down to Redundant Town.
Linux - Student at University of Helsinki
Not to mention that most people latched onto Linux because they had used UNIX in college and liked it.
The anti-Apple trolls are out in full force in this article, and getting modded up for it.
It's trickle-down effect. If the top industry players are using them, universities are using them (remember how most people used UNIX in college and so tried out Linux as a result?), and the media industry is using them, then chances are that everyone else will take a look to see what the fuss is about.
Better translation: "I saw top industry people using Powerbooks. Since these are knowledgable people, I checked one out to see what the fuss was about, liked it, and got one."
You do realize that probably the majority of Slashdot readers here who use Linux also first tried it because other, much cooler people were raving about it? I first tried Red Hat 5 because I was told about this cool operating system that never crashed and was the "latest thing."
I think you missed one.
/. liking them? :) They're just good computers with a good OS. Much better than Microsoft's at the moment.
* Well-built computers with a stable UNIX operating system, a great GUI, a large number of mainstream apps, and the great Cocoa development system?
Macs can't just be that good that there has to be some sort of "real" reason behind