i had no idea human beings were chemical processes
(rolls eyes)
there is a difference between the chemical processes that genetics and training gave you and the one you injected this morning. this difference is real, and valid, and is the pivot across which investing yourself emotionally in the athlete takes place
"If it's not against the rules it's not cheating. Make drugs legal and they're no longer a cheat."
absolutely, that's a perfectly valid legal point
and i am not making a legal point. i am making a point about interest, emotional investment, empathizing with the player. that which drives interest in sports
i am saying drugs will kill that. i am making a totally different point than you are rebutting
that taking methamphetamine and drinking clean water are comparable?
you really think that's a valid argument?
actually, i'll grant you something: there ARE grey areas. something that could be considered as a sort of enhancement/ an also be a sort of just food and nutrition
ok, but simply because it is difficult to find the spot to the draw the line coherently, does that mean that we don't draw a line at all?
this is actually a common moral quandry, how to deal with drawing a line in grey areas. and your approach is wrong. i'll disprove it in allegory...
example: should speeding be outlawed? we'll assume for the sake of argument that you believe speeding should be outlawed, that it is dangerous for other drivers
ok, now where do you draw the line? 70mph? 75mph? 80mph? 85mph? 90mph?
for each driver, each road condition, etc., you could make a case for a wide range of numbers. but you have to pick A number, and stick with it, perhaps modifying it later
but according to your philosophy, simply because picking the right number is hard, that because a grey area exists, we can't arrest the guy going 130mph
bullshit. there is a grey area. but there is also way over the line. the existence of the grey area does not allow you to excuse the guy way over the line
1. if you honestly believe that's all sports comes down to, your ignorance of which you speak of is so severe you require no rebuttal
2. now, for the sake of argument, let's say you are right: sports is just genetics and chance. ok, so making it just about genetics, chance, and drugs is supposed to what, make more noble and attractive to the viewer?
because now it is not a display of human mastery, now it is a display of biochemical mastery
this is not some subtle philosophical point, because the followup point is that the emotional connection with the competitors is what drives audience attention, and that emotional connection is lost as people will tune out when they think it is the drug performing, rather than the athlete
any sport that openly accept drug enhancement is a sport that will see its ratings drop.
of course there will always be cheating, of course this means we must wage constant war, constant arms race, forever, on drugs in sports. this is simply the price you pay to retain interest in the sport
look east, west, or south, and in the northern hemisphere, one or both eyes are being blinded by the sun
look north, and the sun illuminates your vista from above your backside
so looking north, driven by nothing more than the sun's transit, is very useful for an animal that is hunted and eaten
to casually acquire maximum visual acuity by simply orienting north seems to be a simple herbivore survival tactic, driven by nothing more than the sun's transit
eugenicists and racists, for whatever reason, are fixated on the idea of superior intelligence and physical fitness, and that evolution has stalled for (pick whatever political reason here)
it has always been my contention that a group of highly coordinated subintelligent physically handicapped people can outcompete a lone supergenius with superhuman physical gifts
that, contrary to popular belief, communication skills is what makes homo sapiens superior, not intelligence, not any physical gift
that, in the end, racism and eugenics and social darwinism have flawed starting assumptions about what being superior really means: its superior communication skills that matter, nothing else, not intelligence, not any physical attribute
and, since most champions of social darwinism/ eugenics/ racism are lone crackpots with subpar communication skills, it kind of makes sense on a number of levels why and how these people are fizated to doomed, flawed models
barely made a blip on the horizon when it was released, yet now, many years later, i keep encountering people who refer to it. i myself think about it now and then and think "what exactly made me think of that game right now, i haven't played it in years"
because, exactly as you said, that was one hell of a gorgeous, unique, creatively engrossing game. nothing like it's story arc or it's character. it makes an impression
like rocky horror picture show, you will hear more and more of Planescape: Torment over time. i think this game will actually grow in popularity in coming years
were the artist/ designer not purposely picking something designed to bait the troglodyte you are talking about
in other words, troglodytes attacking something of their own initiative (which happens all the time, which should be condemned), is one thing
but publicity seekers purposely designing "art" or videogames that are designed to piss off troglodytes is another thing entirely
notice i'm not realy attacking the publicity seekers. i'm simply completely unimpressed with them. i'm simply saying they get what they deserve, because what they get is what they were seeking in the first place
i mean a lot of what is called "art" like this is such vapid shallow purposely political bullshit nowadays
i mean this guy said he didn't want controversy for controversy's sake
oh really?
space invaders with the world trade centers tower? really? it's as if someone asked you to design something controversial, this is what you would come up with. and the guy is shocked its controversial. RIIIGHT
i, as you, despise the troglodytes. but i'm not very impressed with "artists" who exist it seems to do little more than bait the troglodytes
i know such "artists", as many do, by a more descriptive moniker: attention whores. it's all about me, me, me. the spotlight must tweak my ego, by any means possible. and the means they come up with, to seek attention, is often this purposefully politically charged nonsense. it serves no real artist function. the only function it serves is to attract the negative attention of troglodytes. they are the pheklps
so the attention whores and the troglodytes deserve each other as far as i am concerned
both are drama queens, inflating each other's pathetic need for drama and attention
to hell with the troglodytes and the attention whore "artists"
its like the article on slashdot awhile back comparing high speed in the far east to the usa: pointless
what you are really comparing is population densities
notice something interesting about the states listed? they are all small, compact, and densely populated
new york state, for example, is sparsely populated, mostly, but i'll bet you speeds in the city and on long island are as high as anywhere else
so new york state isn't listed, or california, but that doesn't mean a damn thing, because all you are doing is taking note that these states have large areas that are low in population density, and therefore broadband penetration
but if you are employing someone to heighten your fun, all you are really doing is distancing yourself from the true pleasure of the game. you are talking about people who do not know how to enjoy the gaming experience
why do people cheat in any game? its the triumph of ego over id. its people mistaking the pursuit of pleasure with the pursuit of heightening your self-regard. when you conflate the two, you actually destroy your own happiness (though you don't realize this) because you are no longer solely concerned with pleasure, but winning. of course winning is pleasurable, but winning at all costs deadens pleasure, it doesn't heighten it. this is especially true of your actions and their effects on the happiness of others, by warping how the game experience exists for them
gold farming indicates a philosophical and psychological disconnect between the point of something like WoW and what people actually do with it. they turn fun, into work
that's just wrong in some extremely fundamental way, and shows you why true happiness is so fleeting in this world: we destroy our own happiness by actively placing the pursuit of happiness secondary to the pursuit of some other, lesser goal, out of your own blindness and forgetting what is important, especially in the context of something like WoW
i'm not saying trying to use the game in ways not as originally intended is wrong no matter what. you can use WoW to do lots of interesting things that isn't what the game was intended for. what i am saying is that this particular unintended game experience, gold farming, is odious and toxic to the expeirence of everyone, including those employing the gold farmers, they just don't know it, as they are blind to their own philosophical and psycholigcal failures that lead them away from the pursuit of happiness and instead towards the pursuit of ego tweaking
please, please, anyone who supports filesharing rights, do not stop the spread of this propaganda, it is guaranteed to backfire
your average college student can spot a bully and a bully's rationale. if this is their argument: do what we want or we'll hurt you, your average college kid can see the obvious moral bankruptcy in that, they will see right through this, and even better than that, if this is the best argument the RIAA's puppet organization can make, everyone can see the RIAA has no more argument at all
please folks, let them proclaim the hollowness and pointlessness of their dead end effort with this propaganda. college kids are receptive, they are listening, and they can smell bullshit. so this propaganda is GOOD for filesharing rights as it is a guaranteed backfire
Reefer Madness (aka Tell Your Children) is a 1936 exploitation film revolving around the tragic events that ensue when high school students are lured by pushers to try "marihuana": a hit and run accident, manslaughter, suicide, rape, and descent into madness all ensue. The film was directed by Louis Gasnier and starred a cast composed of mostly unknown bit actors. It was originally financed by a church group and made under the title Tell Your Children.[1][2]
The film was intended to be shown to parents as a morality tale attempting to teach them about the dangers of cannabis use.[1] However, soon after the film was shot, it was purchased by producer Dwain Esper, who re-cut the film for distribution on the exploitation film circuit.[1] The film never gained an audience until it was rediscovered in the 1970s and gained new life as a piece of unintentional comedy among cannabis smokers.[1][3] Today, it is in the public domain in the United States and is considered a cult film.[3] It inspired a musical satire, which premiered off-Broadway in 2001, and a Showtime film, Reefer Madness, based on the musical.
i hope buyers realize that all they are doing is changing kidnapping standard operating procedure
kidnappers will now locate the chip probably with nothing more than a $20 standard wall stud finder, then reach into the victim's skin with sharp nosed dirty pliers and toss the chip on the street. then probably send the victim's family a picture of the gaping wound for proof of untraceability and bonus horror factor
if you believe that which oppresses is insurmountable, then you are merely paving the way for internalizing your own enslavement
i meanwhile believe that which oppresses can be beaten. and i'm glad you bought up the oppression of the natural world. antibiotics, agriculture, landing on the moon: all the spirit of humanity yearning to be free of oppression
then you become incoherent, as you speak of me being an oppressor and me destroying hope, when i speak from a posiiton of being hopeful
all i know is, you think like a slave, and i think like a free man
yes, copyright is unenforceable on the internet. do you agree or disagree?
if you disagree, you are in denial, if you agree, forget everything i said, throw it all out. consider me a loathesome poisonous crackpot. i don' care. i'm merely describing reality, a world without copyright. which, obviously, is what the internet is turning it into. see? do you adapt to that? or die off in denial?
and you've kind of revealed your sluggishness of mind on that subject already:
"Hollywood wouldn't make money off of DVDs because most stores would instead sell pirated DVDs, BMG wouldn't make money from CDs because most CDs would be pirated"
my good friend, the subject matter at hand are people are copying and distributing media on the internet. do you understand that? this pirating of dvds and cds is a red herring, a kind ancient 20 year old concern. please update your understanding of the world before us
i think that you are simply in denial. you describe panic and anarchy. really? hollywood doesn't do great business in theatres? there ar eno touring musicians? bertelsmann and dreamworks aren't going to die, they'll just see an aspect of their business atrophy while other aspects takeoff. the artists menwhile, who are mostly ripped off by the distributors will continue to create. copyright as you understand it is in the ideal sense it never existed in. thanks for bringing up jefferson. i think jefferson's keen mind would perceive that copyright is being abused to protect the distributor, not the artist. meanwhile, ever hear of shakespeare? beethoven? i think jefferson would perceive that copyright has been abused, and abolish it. your belief in copyright is mythology. the real world implementation of copyright is as a bullyclub for distributors. artists sign away their rights, and get pennies. stop believing the hype
when you are revolted by me, you aren't disagreeing with me, you are shooting the messenger, you are disagreeing with reality, which i am merely describing
go ahead and hate me, i'm just a random asshole on the internet
reality on the other hand, i suggest you come to grips with
if you believe the netcan only be used to opppress, why are you wasting your time with me? go, get a backhoe, start cutting the fiber before its to late
just leave me alone from your delusions. because you are simply wrong on what you believe
technology is neutral. it can be used to oppress just as much as it can be used to free. any technological advance that can be used to spy can also be used to obfuscate. its an arms race, and its equal opportunity access on all sides. creativity is not the monopoly of the state. anything prison walls that can be built by a man is also prison walls that can taken down by a man
and besides, our rulers are not alien pod people bent on enslaving mankind. i'm sorry if this interferes with your personal mythology, but please keep the stink of that away from me, its noxious and speaks of personal flaws in regard to your ability to resist and remain free. by assuming the insurmountability of the oppressor, you are paving the way for your acceptance of him. i do not believe he is insurmountable, therefore, i retain the spirit of the free, while your attitude merely paves the way for you to help in your own enslavement
but you use assumptions originating from the status quo in your rationale. your delusion is self-supporting
you argue form the point of view of an unstoppable force in control. if the force is unstoppable, then why are you complaining? merely accept it and be quiet
if on the other hand you believe the status quo can be changed, speak with that interest in mind. of course it is hard and difficult, but your hopelessness and helplessness in your thinking merely makes it more difficult
you are part of the problem: you believe this status quo cannot be changed. i believe it can be. in your words, the words of the defeated and hopeless, i find that you are simply another part of the enemy
"But the vested interests that keep it in place for their very survival are most stronger than those ideals."
for saying those words, this makes you a bigger part of the problem than the drivel you speak of. you've internalized the status quo. YOU are the drivel that must be overcome and defeated. those who have met the enemy, and accepted them
fuck you and your weak will and helpelessness. you are not me, and oyu have nothing to do with me
speak hopefully or shut up. to whine about the status quo as being stronger than higher ideals makes you a complete loser
for the patronizing and condescending discussion on copyright and copyleft
for the sake of an abbreviated discussion on slashdot, you could have safely assumed that my shorthand terms indicated i was talking about the substantive differences between copyleft and traditional unmodified copyright. and that would have sufficed to be adequately useful for you to make your points or lack thereof, but no. therefore, a lack of points on your part must be assumed
"'copyleft says you can distribute anyway you want, but you should properly attribute. this is still enforceable'
This statement is not only merely conclusory, it is wrong. Some licenses say that, but they are not considered "copyleft" by the FSF. Copyleft licenses require that derivative works be perpetually re-licensed under the original free software license. blah blah blah..."
Copyleft may also be characterized as a copyright licensing scheme in which an author surrenders some but not all rights under copyright law. Instead of allowing a work to fall completely into the public domain (where no copyright restrictions are imposed), copyleft allows an author to impose some but not all copyright restrictions on those who want to engage in activities that would otherwise be considered copyright infringement. Under copyleft, copyright infringement may be avoided if the would-be infringer perpetuates the same copyleft scheme. For this reason copyleft licenses are also known as reciprocal licenses.
While copyright protects the rights of the creator by providing control of distribution and modification, the idea of copyleft is to grant Gratis freedom to all others. In this way, seemingly using copyrighted works as if there were no copyright law on them, with one exception: copyleft also grants the open access to information useful in supporting modification (e.g. source code) by enforcing its publication, and allows the original author to be acknowledged.
ok, now it is my turn to be patronizing and condescending. darling: if you copyleft your work, you are placing your work under a commonly understood scheme where you are surrendering the traditional rights to modification and distribution under copyright, without surrendering other rights. this is the substance of my remarks, and it remains true and unchallenged by everything you wrote above
you apparently have a strong need to lecture other people about facts and figures. i have no problem with this personal need of yours, but please next time make your lecture about something that disproves what i am saying, otherwise you are merely engaging in a long winded discussion of orthogonally related issues that do not disprove what i said and is a waste of time
they can, and will, continue to be gatekeepers to the likes of britney spears' popularity. they can pay to get exposure, and continue to exist in this way, profiting from acne cream commercials and teeny bopper concerts in stadiums. they are not my enemy, they have every right to continue doing this
what they CAN'T do is sue me because i downloaded a britney spears mp3 for free. they have no moral rationale to do this. in this narrow regard on this small topic, yes, they are my enemy. but they are not my enemy just out of spite or some broader ideological bullshit i am not trying to promote
corporations are a valid and useful part of society in spite of the deluded thinking a weird few. i am not one of those. i value corporations as constructive entities. i am not opposing corporations. i am simply opposing the abuse of power by corporations in this narrow way, on this specific topic, of copyright of media consumed electronically being essentially unforceable in today's world
copyright for 10 years. copyright for 200 years. copyright for 20 years or 7 years after death of author unless in a leap year following a tsunami blah blah blah... whatever
who fucking cares
because, for anything distributed and consumed on the internet, copyright is 0 years, 0 days, 0 minutes
of course you won't find that in the lawbooks, but thats the reality of the situation. copyright, for anything consumed electronically, is dead. its simply unenforceable
go ahead, tell me what SHOULD be. who cares. i'm telling you about what IS
every artist EVERY SINGLE ONE works from a starting point of poverty
because no one starts out as an artist as someone who is well-known adn well-funded. the money comes AFTER the work is made, not before, and NO ONE makes a work of art with the certainty you are getting paid, because no one knows who you are or what you are doing is of any worth
therefore, if copyright dies utterly (which it won't) people will still make books, films, music, because what motivates all artists in the beginning is love of music
even the rapster gangster who said he raps just for money is just fronting. if he were solely interested in cash he would just sling hash on the corner. he likes the sound of his voice, he does it for chicks and ego
and even if, in some absurd universe where no one ever made a single penny ever again from a piece of art, art would be made in as much volume as it is today with batshait insane copyright, as it is. because EVERY SINGLE ARTIST WHO EVER EXISTED works for the sake of loving the art, or its intangible benefits (fame and ego, women eager to give you blowjobs, immortality, etc.). but even then, if coypright doesn't exist, such artists would still be immensely rich, from all of the ancillary businesses a famous artist enjoys (advertising, live venues, commissioned works, harry potter plush dolls, etc.)
furthermore, this observation of still making $ in a world without copyright can be extrapolated to any other media, even book writers. jk rowling would still be very rich in a world without copyright because she would sell all sorts of ancillary products and sell her script to hollywood. how can you sell a script in a world without copyright? my observation on copyright being dead only applies to media that is consumed electronically, because the internet represents zero distribution costs and infinite reach. anything in the realworld, such as a hollywood production, represents a choke point that doesn't exist on the internet. since cost is involved, control can be exerted. another studio can be sued for making a harry potter movie without the studio who owns the rights' permission. you simply can't do that on the internet. you can do that in the real world, and you will always be able to do that. so notice the qualitification: the copyright is dead in regard to anything that can consumed on the internet, and only in that regard
if you are talking about the internet, where trading files is anonymous, free, and infinite in reach, there is no place for copyright, because it is unenforceable
in any other venue: the real world, or even in small controlled virtual settings with a few players, copyright is still valid, because it is still enforceable
the situation you describe above involves a small set of players playing with something that costs a lot of money. this gives them the incentive, and the means, to control who does what with what media content
so yes, in your scenario, copyright sitll aplies, an always will still apply
but copyright in regard to anything that can distributed AND consumed on the internet is as dead as michael jackson's day care business
an agreement between studios is NOT something distributed and consumed on the internet
its a real world meatspace issue involving a lot of expense by a few slow moving players
lets assume the government is copying and storing every packet ever sent (on wireless p2p too?!)
encryption: they have hooks into every method? ok, they don't but they can hack it... ok, they have enough supercomputer time to analyze all of that?!
sheer volume for analysis: ok this is going to be categorized by who? and micromanaged by who exactly? at what cost and for what perceived benefit by even the most megalomaniacal anal retentive authoritarian?
do a cost analysis. and you find out that your "raid every basement, read every enveloped" analogy for why complete surveillance in the real world is impossible ALSO APPLIES TO THE INTERNET
they don't have enough soldiers to kick in every door. you got that. good
now guess what: they don't have enough analysts to read every packet
and NO, this cannot be automated, simple methods of obfuscation can get around known attempts at automation of packet sniffing
even if every street corner had a camera on it, they need someone going through the millions of camera feeds to look at them to interpret them. you'd need 10 times more people than exist in your population to do that, even with automation techniques (that people would find methods to usurp)
the 1984 fantasy is a total joke. its a nice fable that orwell wrote up, but too many people have latched onto it as a valid model of society, present or future
no, orwell's 1984 will never come to pass, and is not happening now, or anywhere else, or ever will. some people are just a little too paranoid for their own good
Slashdot Mirror
i had no idea human beings were chemical processes
(rolls eyes)
there is a difference between the chemical processes that genetics and training gave you and the one you injected this morning. this difference is real, and valid, and is the pivot across which investing yourself emotionally in the athlete takes place
"If it's not against the rules it's not cheating. Make drugs legal and they're no longer a cheat."
absolutely, that's a perfectly valid legal point
and i am not making a legal point. i am making a point about interest, emotional investment, empathizing with the player. that which drives interest in sports
i am saying drugs will kill that. i am making a totally different point than you are rebutting
that taking methamphetamine and drinking clean water are comparable?
you really think that's a valid argument?
actually, i'll grant you something: there ARE grey areas. something that could be considered as a sort of enhancement/ an also be a sort of just food and nutrition
ok, but simply because it is difficult to find the spot to the draw the line coherently, does that mean that we don't draw a line at all?
this is actually a common moral quandry, how to deal with drawing a line in grey areas. and your approach is wrong. i'll disprove it in allegory...
example: should speeding be outlawed? we'll assume for the sake of argument that you believe speeding should be outlawed, that it is dangerous for other drivers
ok, now where do you draw the line? 70mph? 75mph? 80mph? 85mph? 90mph?
for each driver, each road condition, etc., you could make a case for a wide range of numbers. but you have to pick A number, and stick with it, perhaps modifying it later
but according to your philosophy, simply because picking the right number is hard, that because a grey area exists, we can't arrest the guy going 130mph
bullshit. there is a grey area. but there is also way over the line. the existence of the grey area does not allow you to excuse the guy way over the line
get it?
1. if you honestly believe that's all sports comes down to, your ignorance of which you speak of is so severe you require no rebuttal
2. now, for the sake of argument, let's say you are right: sports is just genetics and chance. ok, so making it just about genetics, chance, and drugs is supposed to what, make more noble and attractive to the viewer?
because now it is not a display of human mastery, now it is a display of biochemical mastery
this is not some subtle philosophical point, because the followup point is that the emotional connection with the competitors is what drives audience attention, and that emotional connection is lost as people will tune out when they think it is the drug performing, rather than the athlete
any sport that openly accept drug enhancement is a sport that will see its ratings drop.
of course there will always be cheating, of course this means we must wage constant war, constant arms race, forever, on drugs in sports. this is simply the price you pay to retain interest in the sport
that requires one teensy weensy detail to work (in other words, one huge wonking detail)
here, it is to be a bgp level peer
kind of like i can empty a bank of all of its money
all i need is the key to the safe
yeah, minor detail
so do i panic now?
look east, west, or south, and in the northern hemisphere, one or both eyes are being blinded by the sun
look north, and the sun illuminates your vista from above your backside
so looking north, driven by nothing more than the sun's transit, is very useful for an animal that is hunted and eaten
to casually acquire maximum visual acuity by simply orienting north seems to be a simple herbivore survival tactic, driven by nothing more than the sun's transit
and eugenics and social darwinism
eugenicists and racists, for whatever reason, are fixated on the idea of superior intelligence and physical fitness, and that evolution has stalled for (pick whatever political reason here)
it has always been my contention that a group of highly coordinated subintelligent physically handicapped people can outcompete a lone supergenius with superhuman physical gifts
that, contrary to popular belief, communication skills is what makes homo sapiens superior, not intelligence, not any physical gift
that, in the end, racism and eugenics and social darwinism have flawed starting assumptions about what being superior really means: its superior communication skills that matter, nothing else, not intelligence, not any physical attribute
and, since most champions of social darwinism/ eugenics/ racism are lone crackpots with subpar communication skills, it kind of makes sense on a number of levels why and how these people are fizated to doomed, flawed models
are our childrens stupider to neanderthals?
undiscovered genius
barely made a blip on the horizon when it was released, yet now, many years later, i keep encountering people who refer to it. i myself think about it now and then and think "what exactly made me think of that game right now, i haven't played it in years"
because, exactly as you said, that was one hell of a gorgeous, unique, creatively engrossing game. nothing like it's story arc or it's character. it makes an impression
like rocky horror picture show, you will hear more and more of Planescape: Torment over time. i think this game will actually grow in popularity in coming years
the definition of a cult classic videogame
were the artist/ designer not purposely picking something designed to bait the troglodyte you are talking about
in other words, troglodytes attacking something of their own initiative (which happens all the time, which should be condemned), is one thing
but publicity seekers purposely designing "art" or videogames that are designed to piss off troglodytes is another thing entirely
notice i'm not realy attacking the publicity seekers. i'm simply completely unimpressed with them. i'm simply saying they get what they deserve, because what they get is what they were seeking in the first place
i mean a lot of what is called "art" like this is such vapid shallow purposely political bullshit nowadays
i mean this guy said he didn't want controversy for controversy's sake
oh really?
space invaders with the world trade centers tower? really? it's as if someone asked you to design something controversial, this is what you would come up with. and the guy is shocked its controversial. RIIIGHT
i, as you, despise the troglodytes. but i'm not very impressed with "artists" who exist it seems to do little more than bait the troglodytes
i know such "artists", as many do, by a more descriptive moniker: attention whores. it's all about me, me, me. the spotlight must tweak my ego, by any means possible. and the means they come up with, to seek attention, is often this purposefully politically charged nonsense. it serves no real artist function. the only function it serves is to attract the negative attention of troglodytes. they are the pheklps
so the attention whores and the troglodytes deserve each other as far as i am concerned
both are drama queens, inflating each other's pathetic need for drama and attention
to hell with the troglodytes and the attention whore "artists"
its like the article on slashdot awhile back comparing high speed in the far east to the usa: pointless
what you are really comparing is population densities
notice something interesting about the states listed? they are all small, compact, and densely populated
new york state, for example, is sparsely populated, mostly, but i'll bet you speeds in the city and on long island are as high as anywhere else
so new york state isn't listed, or california, but that doesn't mean a damn thing, because all you are doing is taking note that these states have large areas that are low in population density, and therefore broadband penetration
the existence of WoW is, overtly, to have fun
but if you are employing someone to heighten your fun, all you are really doing is distancing yourself from the true pleasure of the game. you are talking about people who do not know how to enjoy the gaming experience
why do people cheat in any game? its the triumph of ego over id. its people mistaking the pursuit of pleasure with the pursuit of heightening your self-regard. when you conflate the two, you actually destroy your own happiness (though you don't realize this) because you are no longer solely concerned with pleasure, but winning. of course winning is pleasurable, but winning at all costs deadens pleasure, it doesn't heighten it. this is especially true of your actions and their effects on the happiness of others, by warping how the game experience exists for them
gold farming indicates a philosophical and psychological disconnect between the point of something like WoW and what people actually do with it. they turn fun, into work
that's just wrong in some extremely fundamental way, and shows you why true happiness is so fleeting in this world: we destroy our own happiness by actively placing the pursuit of happiness secondary to the pursuit of some other, lesser goal, out of your own blindness and forgetting what is important, especially in the context of something like WoW
i'm not saying trying to use the game in ways not as originally intended is wrong no matter what. you can use WoW to do lots of interesting things that isn't what the game was intended for. what i am saying is that this particular unintended game experience, gold farming, is odious and toxic to the expeirence of everyone, including those employing the gold farmers, they just don't know it, as they are blind to their own philosophical and psycholigcal failures that lead them away from the pursuit of happiness and instead towards the pursuit of ego tweaking
this propaganda is wonderful!
please, please, anyone who supports filesharing rights, do not stop the spread of this propaganda, it is guaranteed to backfire
your average college student can spot a bully and a bully's rationale. if this is their argument: do what we want or we'll hurt you, your average college kid can see the obvious moral bankruptcy in that, they will see right through this, and even better than that, if this is the best argument the RIAA's puppet organization can make, everyone can see the RIAA has no more argument at all
please folks, let them proclaim the hollowness and pointlessness of their dead end effort with this propaganda. college kids are receptive, they are listening, and they can smell bullshit. so this propaganda is GOOD for filesharing rights as it is a guaranteed backfire
i swear, it's reefer madness for file sharing
i hope buyers realize that all they are doing is changing kidnapping standard operating procedure
kidnappers will now locate the chip probably with nothing more than a $20 standard wall stud finder, then reach into the victim's skin with sharp nosed dirty pliers and toss the chip on the street. then probably send the victim's family a picture of the gaping wound for proof of untraceability and bonus horror factor
ewwww
if you believe that which oppresses is insurmountable, then you are merely paving the way for internalizing your own enslavement
i meanwhile believe that which oppresses can be beaten. and i'm glad you bought up the oppression of the natural world. antibiotics, agriculture, landing on the moon: all the spirit of humanity yearning to be free of oppression
then you become incoherent, as you speak of me being an oppressor and me destroying hope, when i speak from a posiiton of being hopeful
all i know is, you think like a slave, and i think like a free man
yes, copyright is unenforceable on the internet. do you agree or disagree?
if you disagree, you are in denial, if you agree, forget everything i said, throw it all out. consider me a loathesome poisonous crackpot. i don' care. i'm merely describing reality, a world without copyright. which, obviously, is what the internet is turning it into. see? do you adapt to that? or die off in denial?
and you've kind of revealed your sluggishness of mind on that subject already:
"Hollywood wouldn't make money off of DVDs because most stores would instead sell pirated DVDs, BMG wouldn't make money from CDs because most CDs would be pirated"
my good friend, the subject matter at hand are people are copying and distributing media on the internet. do you understand that? this pirating of dvds and cds is a red herring, a kind ancient 20 year old concern. please update your understanding of the world before us
i think that you are simply in denial. you describe panic and anarchy. really? hollywood doesn't do great business in theatres? there ar eno touring musicians? bertelsmann and dreamworks aren't going to die, they'll just see an aspect of their business atrophy while other aspects takeoff. the artists menwhile, who are mostly ripped off by the distributors will continue to create. copyright as you understand it is in the ideal sense it never existed in. thanks for bringing up jefferson. i think jefferson's keen mind would perceive that copyright is being abused to protect the distributor, not the artist. meanwhile, ever hear of shakespeare? beethoven? i think jefferson would perceive that copyright has been abused, and abolish it. your belief in copyright is mythology. the real world implementation of copyright is as a bullyclub for distributors. artists sign away their rights, and get pennies. stop believing the hype
when you are revolted by me, you aren't disagreeing with me, you are shooting the messenger, you are disagreeing with reality, which i am merely describing
go ahead and hate me, i'm just a random asshole on the internet
reality on the other hand, i suggest you come to grips with
if you believe the netcan only be used to opppress, why are you wasting your time with me? go, get a backhoe, start cutting the fiber before its to late
just leave me alone from your delusions. because you are simply wrong on what you believe
technology is neutral. it can be used to oppress just as much as it can be used to free. any technological advance that can be used to spy can also be used to obfuscate. its an arms race, and its equal opportunity access on all sides. creativity is not the monopoly of the state. anything prison walls that can be built by a man is also prison walls that can taken down by a man
and besides, our rulers are not alien pod people bent on enslaving mankind. i'm sorry if this interferes with your personal mythology, but please keep the stink of that away from me, its noxious and speaks of personal flaws in regard to your ability to resist and remain free. by assuming the insurmountability of the oppressor, you are paving the way for your acceptance of him. i do not believe he is insurmountable, therefore, i retain the spirit of the free, while your attitude merely paves the way for you to help in your own enslavement
your cognition is repulsive
but you use assumptions originating from the status quo in your rationale. your delusion is self-supporting
you argue form the point of view of an unstoppable force in control. if the force is unstoppable, then why are you complaining? merely accept it and be quiet
if on the other hand you believe the status quo can be changed, speak with that interest in mind. of course it is hard and difficult, but your hopelessness and helplessness in your thinking merely makes it more difficult
you are part of the problem: you believe this status quo cannot be changed. i believe it can be. in your words, the words of the defeated and hopeless, i find that you are simply another part of the enemy
"But the vested interests that keep it in place for their very survival are most stronger than those ideals."
for saying those words, this makes you a bigger part of the problem than the drivel you speak of. you've internalized the status quo. YOU are the drivel that must be overcome and defeated. those who have met the enemy, and accepted them
fuck you and your weak will and helpelessness. you are not me, and oyu have nothing to do with me
speak hopefully or shut up. to whine about the status quo as being stronger than higher ideals makes you a complete loser
for the patronizing and condescending discussion on copyright and copyleft
for the sake of an abbreviated discussion on slashdot, you could have safely assumed that my shorthand terms indicated i was talking about the substantive differences between copyleft and traditional unmodified copyright. and that would have sufficed to be adequately useful for you to make your points or lack thereof, but no. therefore, a lack of points on your part must be assumed
"'copyleft says you can distribute anyway you want, but you should properly attribute. this is still enforceable'
This statement is not only merely conclusory, it is wrong. Some licenses say that, but they are not considered "copyleft" by the FSF. Copyleft licenses require that derivative works be perpetually re-licensed under the original free software license. blah blah blah..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft
ok, now it is my turn to be patronizing and condescending. darling: if you copyleft your work, you are placing your work under a commonly understood scheme where you are surrendering the traditional rights to modification and distribution under copyright, without surrendering other rights. this is the substance of my remarks, and it remains true and unchallenged by everything you wrote above
you apparently have a strong need to lecture other people about facts and figures. i have no problem with this personal need of yours, but please next time make your lecture about something that disproves what i am saying, otherwise you are merely engaging in a long winded discussion of orthogonally related issues that do not disprove what i said and is a waste of time
copyleft is not copyright. copyleft says you can distribute anyway you want, but you should properly attribute. this is still enforceable
in other words, a copyright for electronic media is dead not because i say so, but simply because i am making the observation that it is unenforceable
copyleft, meanwhile, is still enforceable
thus, copyleft is still valid
not because i say so, but because of what is ENFORCEABLE and what is not. get it?
you can go sue microsoft under the terms of the gpl. you can't sue everyone sharing music on the internet. get it now?
i'm not trying to defeat media companies
they can, and will, continue to be gatekeepers to the likes of britney spears' popularity. they can pay to get exposure, and continue to exist in this way, profiting from acne cream commercials and teeny bopper concerts in stadiums. they are not my enemy, they have every right to continue doing this
what they CAN'T do is sue me because i downloaded a britney spears mp3 for free. they have no moral rationale to do this. in this narrow regard on this small topic, yes, they are my enemy. but they are not my enemy just out of spite or some broader ideological bullshit i am not trying to promote
corporations are a valid and useful part of society in spite of the deluded thinking a weird few. i am not one of those. i value corporations as constructive entities. i am not opposing corporations. i am simply opposing the abuse of power by corporations in this narrow way, on this specific topic, of copyright of media consumed electronically being essentially unforceable in today's world
copyright for 10 years. copyright for 200 years. copyright for 20 years or 7 years after death of author unless in a leap year following a tsunami blah blah blah... whatever
who fucking cares
because, for anything distributed and consumed on the internet, copyright is 0 years, 0 days, 0 minutes
of course you won't find that in the lawbooks, but thats the reality of the situation. copyright, for anything consumed electronically, is dead. its simply unenforceable
go ahead, tell me what SHOULD be. who cares. i'm telling you about what IS
every artist EVERY SINGLE ONE works from a starting point of poverty
because no one starts out as an artist as someone who is well-known adn well-funded. the money comes AFTER the work is made, not before, and NO ONE makes a work of art with the certainty you are getting paid, because no one knows who you are or what you are doing is of any worth
therefore, if copyright dies utterly (which it won't) people will still make books, films, music, because what motivates all artists in the beginning is love of music
even the rapster gangster who said he raps just for money is just fronting. if he were solely interested in cash he would just sling hash on the corner. he likes the sound of his voice, he does it for chicks and ego
and even if, in some absurd universe where no one ever made a single penny ever again from a piece of art, art would be made in as much volume as it is today with batshait insane copyright, as it is. because EVERY SINGLE ARTIST WHO EVER EXISTED works for the sake of loving the art, or its intangible benefits (fame and ego, women eager to give you blowjobs, immortality, etc.). but even then, if coypright doesn't exist, such artists would still be immensely rich, from all of the ancillary businesses a famous artist enjoys (advertising, live venues, commissioned works, harry potter plush dolls, etc.)
from my othwer comment:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=653201&cid=24693271
if you are talking about the internet, where trading files is anonymous, free, and infinite in reach, there is no place for copyright, because it is unenforceable
in any other venue: the real world, or even in small controlled virtual settings with a few players, copyright is still valid, because it is still enforceable
the situation you describe above involves a small set of players playing with something that costs a lot of money. this gives them the incentive, and the means, to control who does what with what media content
so yes, in your scenario, copyright sitll aplies, an always will still apply
but copyright in regard to anything that can distributed AND consumed on the internet is as dead as michael jackson's day care business
an agreement between studios is NOT something distributed and consumed on the internet
its a real world meatspace issue involving a lot of expense by a few slow moving players
copyright is untouchable in this scenario
lets assume the government is copying and storing every packet ever sent (on wireless p2p too?!)
encryption: they have hooks into every method? ok, they don't but they can hack it... ok, they have enough supercomputer time to analyze all of that?!
sheer volume for analysis: ok this is going to be categorized by who? and micromanaged by who exactly? at what cost and for what perceived benefit by even the most megalomaniacal anal retentive authoritarian?
do a cost analysis. and you find out that your "raid every basement, read every enveloped" analogy for why complete surveillance in the real world is impossible ALSO APPLIES TO THE INTERNET
they don't have enough soldiers to kick in every door. you got that. good
now guess what: they don't have enough analysts to read every packet
and NO, this cannot be automated, simple methods of obfuscation can get around known attempts at automation of packet sniffing
even if every street corner had a camera on it, they need someone going through the millions of camera feeds to look at them to interpret them. you'd need 10 times more people than exist in your population to do that, even with automation techniques (that people would find methods to usurp)
the 1984 fantasy is a total joke. its a nice fable that orwell wrote up, but too many people have latched onto it as a valid model of society, present or future
no, orwell's 1984 will never come to pass, and is not happening now, or anywhere else, or ever will. some people are just a little too paranoid for their own good