Why don't you stick to one line of argument before scrambling to the next in a desperate bid to keep the last word? I spent over $100 on his books before tapping out of following a story he ultimately failed to tell. It's a legitimate criticism.
Problem here is that I do know both the heart *and* mind of one of Jordan's (former) readers. And the phrase "widely understood to be true" is basically not subject to debate; the *number* of people who think the books are crap can be discussed, and the degree to which they are perceived by these people to be crap is open to interpretation, but they exist and there's a friggin' lot of them, which is probably why the man has become synonymous with -- why am I explaining? You know the faults better than I do, I'm sure.
Anyways. All the three-dollar words in the world aren't going to change the basic fact that there's a lot of people who (a) didn't like him, (b) cheerfully insult his most notable published work, (c) want their money back, (d) post here, and (e) do not appear to be afraid of your censure. Deal.
You make it so that your ad gets by NoScript -- *not* AdBlock, just NoScript -- and you can show me your crummy little ad.
Java? Shockwave? Flash? JavaScript? Pop-ups? Pop-unders? Interstitals? Animation? Tough noogies. You don't ever get to do that on my computer. But you put a text ad or a little picture of something somewhere, and I'm not going to kill myself rushing to block it.
Whoops, sorry, "steal" is *of course* not the right word. I believe you're actually talking about "copyright infringement". Stealing is an act that applies solely to physical objects, and the universal disapproval of this act has been one of the core tenets of human morality for thousands of years. The notion that *certain digital representations of an idea* should enjoy the same protections given to physical objects is a much newer concept, and is by no means universally accepted.
Nope. I can. Because I'd rather see copyright destroyed -- tomorrow -- but if I can't have that? I guess I can wring some use of the stinking filth we call "intellectual property" legislation. Just 'cause I support the latter doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer the former.
I mean... that's pretty cool. He didn't hire PIs to stalk his foes, "pretext" their private records, bribe our elected leaders, or even bully his interns into doing it and cutting them and their "independent actions" loose when the investigation came. No. That man sat himself down, got on the internet, and told some lies.
Hands-on kind of approach. I like it. I don't think even the SEC can really complain about people believing anonymous internet posts.
(I also propose Slashdot rename "Anonymous Coward" to "John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods Market, Inc." for the week, but that's because I don't believe in letting him off scot-free either.)
Err. So what you're telling me is that there's a political position I can take that would make you less likely to post videos of your cat flushing the toilet to YouTube.
Sure I can -- having it both ways isn't inconsistent at all.
Copyright is intrinsically devoid of worth -- it should be abolished. Terminated. Rendered utterly void.
What? I can't have that? Fine, I guess I can salvage something from the current system. But I don't like it, and I'm still going to try to undercut the whole scam tomorrow, even if I can realize some minor benefit from it today.
Please. Lawyers aren't magic beings with a sacred trust. All they do is interface their company to the state machine we like to call the "legal system". Except unlike us, they get bonus points when they force it into an undefined state.
They don't have some "duty" to be a "servant" -- either they refuse to do stupid crap, or they don't. Just like *I* can refuse to write a spambot or throw customer credit card data on an insecure server or -- well, not refuse to do these things.
'Sall it is. There's a lot written about how important lawyers are, and lots of laws talking about the burningly vital obligations lawyers have, but it wasn't programmers or hot dog vendors who wrote those laws, if you know what I mean.
He's actively conspired to hold back the intellectual progress of all mankind -- and I'm quite serious here. No, nobody's failing to invent a cure for cancer because of/Starsky and Hutch/, but he helped a lot of people make a fucking lot of money on this "I can own ideas" trash, and that IP crap is LIKE cancer -- don't believe me? Graph wordcount on IP legislation as a function of time.
As for the "all mankind" charge -- what America thinks, everybody else has to live with.
Err. Having read your serious reply to my worthless suggestion, I see that Slashdot helpfully deleted the (non-conforming) markup I used to indicate what was a joke and what wasn't. Phooey. Shoulda caught that in preview, I suppose...
Video drivers. I've seen it before -- switch to an ATI card and you'll be fine.
Those nSomnia cards cause nothing but grief.
I'd seriously consider blaming the mouse. Try unplugging it before sending the computer into standby, and see what happens. Micromovements are always what cause/my/ machines to somnanbulate.
I try to take a half-way position with NoScript but/not/ AdBlock -- after having turned off JavaScript, Flash, and graphic animation, if you've got a *well-behaved* ad you'd like to display, I suppose I'm not opposed to it. I'm not promising it'll actually be cognitively processed, but who knows.
You're trying to justify your argument by implicitly equating the market value of processed tobacco with processed cocaine. That's completely not happening. The tobacco industry makes money on/volume/. The cartels can't manage anything near that level of efficency; they live or die based on street value.
And do you have any proof for your claim that legalization would increase demand? Do you know anybody --/anybody/ -- who gets up in the morning and says, "You know what would go great with this meal? Crack. Too bad it's illegal!" Hardly.
I am sick and I am tired and I have had it with the laws of my nation provoking such utter contempt. This is a stupid law, and even children can tell that it's a stupid law, and one bad law inevitably poisons any respect citizens have for the rest. My nation has enemies who seek it harm, and these enemies are directly empowered by my own tax dollars, and this getting old.
I'll tell you why legalizing drugs will aid our society. And it doesn't have a goddamn thing to do with the people who take drugs -- which, I'll note, already do so in violation of the law.
It'll help because it will mean criminals no longer make money. What'd Prohibition give us? The Mafia. What'd the War on Drugs give us? The South American cartels. What gave the Triads the financial backing they needed to engage in protection rackets and slavery? Funds from opium sales.
You remember hearing about that town in Mexico that can't keep a sheriff because the cartels murder anyone elected? Why are they doing that? 'Cause they like money, that's why. Who's giving them money? Why, that would be us. Why are they getting money? 'Cause they sell drugs. Drugs are made of fucking plants, why are they so expensive?
Artificially suppressed supply.
People using drugs is a problem, and one we need to deal with. AFTER we deal with the people with the fiscal incentive to give people drugs -- I think they're called "pushers". Why do you suppose that is?
Maybe not, but I have a hard time imagining that NASA would've cashed the check without enquantifying something first. Be pretty embarassing if they had to give the money/back/.
Because setting off miniature broad-spectrum emp blasts inside your body it a GOOD thing.
Yeah, having to reboot all your nanobots is so much worse than dying of cancer. The terrible spectre of EMP is a little less scary when you're already gonna die.
While I'm on the subject, though, cut them some slack. They're using antimatter. Antimatter! As medicine. Antimatter as medicine! This is the most awesome thing I've read this year. I thought nitroglycerin was cool, but this -- what's next? Using Great Old Ones to soothe colicky babies?
It seems to me (and I know I'll get flamed for this) that the US is only trying to protect its exports. This is not an example of bullying or trying to run the whole world.
Sure, it's trying to protect it's exports -- the only problem is that the exports? They're pretend.
"See this picture of a mouse? Yeah, you need to pay some guys in the US if you want to display it. And not just for today, or next week, or seventy years after the death of the artist. No, the citizens you represent are gonna need to pay some guys in the US for it -- forever." No, the law doesn't say that, just like it didn't say that all the other times it got amended and extended. For limited times, people, it's not rocket science!
US copyright laws are a contemptible fraud. No sane nation would have anything to do with them given a choice. The US may levy enough pressure to remove that choice. Let's hope they fail.
Slashdot Mirror
Why don't you stick to one line of argument before scrambling to the next in a desperate bid to keep the last word? I spent over $100 on his books before tapping out of following a story he ultimately failed to tell. It's a legitimate criticism.
Problem here is that I do know both the heart *and* mind of one of Jordan's (former) readers. And the phrase "widely understood to be true" is basically not subject to debate; the *number* of people who think the books are crap can be discussed, and the degree to which they are perceived by these people to be crap is open to interpretation, but they exist and there's a friggin' lot of them, which is probably why the man has become synonymous with -- why am I explaining? You know the faults better than I do, I'm sure.
Anyways. All the three-dollar words in the world aren't going to change the basic fact that there's a lot of people who (a) didn't like him, (b) cheerfully insult his most notable published work, (c) want their money back, (d) post here, and (e) do not appear to be afraid of your censure. Deal.
Neither OJ Simpson or either of the brothers Hussein. You falsely equate name recognition with success or worth. You, too, may deal.
He didn't succeed, he merely made money. Considering he's an author, not even a lot of money. The books were crap, this was widely understood. Deal.
And here I thought there wasn't anything they could put in those cartridges more expensive than printer ink.
You make it so that your ad gets by NoScript -- *not* AdBlock, just NoScript -- and you can show me your crummy little ad.
Java? Shockwave? Flash? JavaScript? Pop-ups? Pop-unders? Interstitals? Animation? Tough noogies. You don't ever get to do that on my computer. But you put a text ad or a little picture of something somewhere, and I'm not going to kill myself rushing to block it.
Whoops, sorry, "steal" is *of course* not the right word. I believe you're actually talking about "copyright infringement". Stealing is an act that applies solely to physical objects, and the universal disapproval of this act has been one of the core tenets of human morality for thousands of years. The notion that *certain digital representations of an idea* should enjoy the same protections given to physical objects is a much newer concept, and is by no means universally accepted.
Nope. I can. Because I'd rather see copyright destroyed -- tomorrow -- but if I can't have that? I guess I can wring some use of the stinking filth we call "intellectual property" legislation. Just 'cause I support the latter doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer the former.
I mean... that's pretty cool. He didn't hire PIs to stalk his foes, "pretext" their private records, bribe our elected leaders, or even bully his interns into doing it and cutting them and their "independent actions" loose when the investigation came. No. That man sat himself down, got on the internet, and told some lies.
Hands-on kind of approach. I like it. I don't think even the SEC can really complain about people believing anonymous internet posts.
(I also propose Slashdot rename "Anonymous Coward" to "John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods Market, Inc." for the week, but that's because I don't believe in letting him off scot-free either.)
Err. So what you're telling me is that there's a political position I can take that would make you less likely to post videos of your cat flushing the toilet to YouTube.
Wow. Gosh. Is it Christmas already?
Submitted without comment...
They're going with SOE? Oh, man. Hope that call made somebody some money. It won't be making mine.
Sure I can -- having it both ways isn't inconsistent at all.
Copyright is intrinsically devoid of worth -- it should be abolished. Terminated. Rendered utterly void.
What? I can't have that? Fine, I guess I can salvage something from the current system. But I don't like it, and I'm still going to try to undercut the whole scam tomorrow, even if I can realize some minor benefit from it today.
Please. Lawyers aren't magic beings with a sacred trust. All they do is interface their company to the state machine we like to call the "legal system". Except unlike us, they get bonus points when they force it into an undefined state.
They don't have some "duty" to be a "servant" -- either they refuse to do stupid crap, or they don't. Just like *I* can refuse to write a spambot or throw customer credit card data on an insecure server or -- well, not refuse to do these things.
'Sall it is. There's a lot written about how important lawyers are, and lots of laws talking about the burningly vital obligations lawyers have, but it wasn't programmers or hot dog vendors who wrote those laws, if you know what I mean.
He's actively conspired to hold back the intellectual progress of all mankind -- and I'm quite serious here. No, nobody's failing to invent a cure for cancer because of /Starsky and Hutch/, but he helped a lot of people make a fucking lot of money on this "I can own ideas" trash, and that IP crap is LIKE cancer -- don't believe me? Graph wordcount on IP legislation as a function of time.
As for the "all mankind" charge -- what America thinks, everybody else has to live with.
If there's a Hell, he's surely there.
Err. Having read your serious reply to my worthless suggestion, I see that Slashdot helpfully deleted the (non-conforming) markup I used to indicate what was a joke and what wasn't. Phooey. Shoulda caught that in preview, I suppose...
Video drivers. I've seen it before -- switch to an ATI card and you'll be fine.
/my/ machines to somnanbulate.
Those nSomnia cards cause nothing but grief.
I'd seriously consider blaming the mouse. Try unplugging it before sending the computer into standby, and see what happens. Micromovements are always what cause
Oh, is that what that is? I just thought you were putting some Vienna sausages in the refrigerator.
I try to take a half-way position with NoScript but /not/ AdBlock -- after having turned off JavaScript, Flash, and graphic animation, if you've got a *well-behaved* ad you'd like to display, I suppose I'm not opposed to it. I'm not promising it'll actually be cognitively processed, but who knows.
You're trying to justify your argument by implicitly equating the market value of processed tobacco with processed cocaine. That's completely not happening. The tobacco industry makes money on /volume/. The cartels can't manage anything near that level of efficency; they live or die based on street value.
And do you have any proof for your claim that legalization would increase demand? Do you know anybody -- /anybody/ -- who gets up in the morning and says, "You know what would go great with this meal? Crack. Too bad it's illegal!" Hardly.
I am sick and I am tired and I have had it with the laws of my nation provoking such utter contempt. This is a stupid law, and even children can tell that it's a stupid law, and one bad law inevitably poisons any respect citizens have for the rest. My nation has enemies who seek it harm, and these enemies are directly empowered by my own tax dollars, and this getting old.
I'll tell you why legalizing drugs will aid our society. And it doesn't have a goddamn thing to do with the people who take drugs -- which, I'll note, already do so in violation of the law.
It'll help because it will mean criminals no longer make money. What'd Prohibition give us? The Mafia. What'd the War on Drugs give us? The South American cartels. What gave the Triads the financial backing they needed to engage in protection rackets and slavery? Funds from opium sales.
You remember hearing about that town in Mexico that can't keep a sheriff because the cartels murder anyone elected? Why are they doing that? 'Cause they like money, that's why. Who's giving them money? Why, that would be us. Why are they getting money? 'Cause they sell drugs. Drugs are made of fucking plants, why are they so expensive?
Artificially suppressed supply.
People using drugs is a problem, and one we need to deal with. AFTER we deal with the people with the fiscal incentive to give people drugs -- I think they're called "pushers". Why do you suppose that is?
Maybe not, but I have a hard time imagining that NASA would've cashed the check without enquantifying something first. Be pretty embarassing if they had to give the money /back/.
Yeah, having to reboot all your nanobots is so much worse than dying of cancer. The terrible spectre of EMP is a little less scary when you're already gonna die.
While I'm on the subject, though, cut them some slack. They're using antimatter. Antimatter! As medicine. Antimatter as medicine! This is the most awesome thing I've read this year. I thought nitroglycerin was cool, but this -- what's next? Using Great Old Ones to soothe colicky babies?
Sure, it's trying to protect it's exports -- the only problem is that the exports? They're pretend.
"See this picture of a mouse? Yeah, you need to pay some guys in the US if you want to display it. And not just for today, or next week, or seventy years after the death of the artist. No, the citizens you represent are gonna need to pay some guys in the US for it -- forever." No, the law doesn't say that, just like it didn't say that all the other times it got amended and extended. For limited times, people, it's not rocket science!
US copyright laws are a contemptible fraud. No sane nation would have anything to do with them given a choice. The US may levy enough pressure to remove that choice. Let's hope they fail.