The grandparent's post had nothing to do with airing grievances in public. It was selfishly violating companies' terms of usage. Doing so doesn't tell companies that their business practices are unacceptable. It simply tells them that they need to enforce their IP more strictly.
If you don't like a company's business philosophy, you send a much more pointed to them by simply NOT BUYING THEIR PRODUCT. You aren't shackled to them if you don't do business with them in the first place!
"Perhaps Microsoft and DRM Gods believe the majority of 'hackers' that break their encryption are on custom machines and this is a quick method to lock some of them out."
But in this case, history is being written by both victors and vanquished. As it turns out, both sides are just as likely to portray each other in a negative, less than truthful light.
I've heard conflicting accounts of where the bottleneck really is, at least for EQ2 anyway.
I also have a GF6600, with an Athlon 64 3200 (2.0ghz) CPU. I've heard that the major bottleneck for EQ2 is the somewhat low VRAM on the card (128MB), but also notice that the CPU is running at full capacity as well.
Any ideas? Upgrading either would cost roughly the same, and I want to make sure I pick the right one:) Thanks!
The Zeldman book is hardly "standards for standards' sake" zealotry. In fact there are many work-arounds in the book that compromise strict adherence to standards for the sake of borwser compatability.
If there were, I doubt the public would hear much about it. That's the whole problem here: no public disclosure, all for the sake of maintaining national security.
And it may very well not be taking place, I'll concede that. But the administrations record on what they're willing to do for the sake of "fighting terrorism" leaves me little doubt that they would.
I imagine your attitude would change significantly if you were hauled off to guantanamo as an "enemy combatant" for unwittingly having the wrong middle-eastern friend.
That's fine; I hope you stand by those principles by not downloading or listening to anything that's RIAA-owned. I suspect, however, that you don't.
It's easy to make excuses for not standing by one's principles when hidden by relative anonymity. I can't imagine you'd make such a brazen statement here if your real name and addressed accompanied your post.
"No you wouldn't. Retailers who work like this would lose authors."
Without copyright laws, why would retailers need any kind of business relationships with authors to begin with? If The author distributes his/her works freely, as you suggested they should ("Books can be freely copied"), what would stop the retailers (or anybody for that matter) from simply downloading, printing, and selling it from their stores?
If you are going to advocate anarchocapitalism, you'd better be willing to accept that freeloaders have a lot to gain from such an unregulated system.
"I've used Linux since about 1995, and I still can't stand all the -bullshit- that's necessary to get hardware working
That's because you're an astroturfer"
Thanks for making the GP poster's point for him. He raises some very valid issues based on his experiences, and your only response is to dismiss him as a troll, shill, astroturfer, moron, etc.
Is it any wonder why OSS leaves a bad taste in a lot of peoples' mouths? Perhaps if people like you put as much effort into helping people as you do disparaging them, perhaps some of the technical issues can be addressed instead of trivialized.
Slashdot Mirror
I think Adobe overprices their software too. That belief alone doesn't entitle me to a copy of said software. There are many who disagree.
The grandparent's post had nothing to do with airing grievances in public. It was selfishly violating companies' terms of usage. Doing so doesn't tell companies that their business practices are unacceptable. It simply tells them that they need to enforce their IP more strictly.
If you don't like a company's business philosophy, you send a much more pointed to them by simply NOT BUYING THEIR PRODUCT. You aren't shackled to them if you don't do business with them in the first place!
Because some people want to impose their own standard of what makes a "good" vs. "EVIL" business, and punish those who disagree.
"Perhaps Microsoft and DRM Gods believe the majority of 'hackers' that break their encryption are on custom machines and this is a quick method to lock some of them out."
Or perhaps your information is wrong.
But in this case, history is being written by both victors and vanquished. As it turns out, both sides are just as likely to portray each other in a negative, less than truthful light.
That's the whole point; cops wouldn't have to continue a dangerous chase once the suspect's car is tagged.
I've heard conflicting accounts of where the bottleneck really is, at least for EQ2 anyway.
:) Thanks!
I also have a GF6600, with an Athlon 64 3200 (2.0ghz) CPU. I've heard that the major bottleneck for EQ2 is the somewhat low VRAM on the card (128MB), but also notice that the CPU is running at full capacity as well.
Any ideas? Upgrading either would cost roughly the same, and I want to make sure I pick the right one
"intolerance will not be tolerated"
Am I the only one who appreciates the irony of that statement?
If the tolerance crowd is going to be truly tolerant, they must tolerate the intolerant.
Now I'll quietly go have myself an anuerism!
The Zeldman book is hardly "standards for standards' sake" zealotry. In fact there are many work-arounds in the book that compromise strict adherence to standards for the sake of borwser compatability.
Those workarounds are meant for situations when you must compromise strict compliance for the sake of wider browser compatibility.
Designing With Web Standards by Jeffrey Zeldman.
And it's cheaper .
"Getting and then losing Google could be a catalyst for change over there..."
You do realize we're talking about a single search engine company, right?
"Chinese people will get to see all the articles on democracy and many other things that will educate the citizens."
No they won't. That's the problem.
...is one that forsakes wealth in favor of principle.
But then, unconditional Google apologists aren't exactly a rare breed.
Apparently there was enough evidence to convict these two idiots.
Ya know, there's an easy way to avoid this kind of thing...
STOP SHARING COPYRIGHTED WORKS YOU DON'T OWN
If there were, I doubt the public would hear much about it. That's the whole problem here: no public disclosure, all for the sake of maintaining national security.
And it may very well not be taking place, I'll concede that. But the administrations record on what they're willing to do for the sake of "fighting terrorism" leaves me little doubt that they would.
I imagine your attitude would change significantly if you were hauled off to guantanamo as an "enemy combatant" for unwittingly having the wrong middle-eastern friend.
That's fine; I hope you stand by those principles by not downloading or listening to anything that's RIAA-owned. I suspect, however, that you don't.
It's easy to make excuses for not standing by one's principles when hidden by relative anonymity. I can't imagine you'd make such a brazen statement here if your real name and addressed accompanied your post.
I knew it was snake oil without wasting time on TFA, and here's how I knew:
"MagCap is looking to boost the current power from just under 2 volts to a more useful 12 volts with investor funding."
Apparently any technological breakthrough, no matter how fantastic, unfeasable, or absurd, can be achieved with enough funding.
Dollars to donuts these asshats are just trying to fleece some hippies with more money than brains.
"No you wouldn't. Retailers who work like this would lose authors."
Without copyright laws, why would retailers need any kind of business relationships with authors to begin with? If The author distributes his/her works freely, as you suggested they should ("Books can be freely copied"), what would stop the retailers (or anybody for that matter) from simply downloading, printing, and selling it from their stores?
If you are going to advocate anarchocapitalism, you'd better be willing to accept that freeloaders have a lot to gain from such an unregulated system.
"It's not the music with the Grateful Dead..."
It was mostly the music, mostly.
I'm used to reading self-contradicting posts on Slashdot, but you sir must be posting live from Dead concert!
"First, authors can co-op to go to book sellers and agree to not provide their stores if the book sellers sell third party copies of the books."
And as a book retailer, I would...
1. Tell the author to go pound sand.
2. Produce and sell exact duplicates of the author's "official" book.
3. PROFIT!!
Without copyright laws, what would stop a book seller from doing that? How exactly does the author benefit from having no legal protection whatsoever?
I think your idealism clouds your logic.
"How do I, as an author, make money? Public speaking engagements. Consulting."
If the majority of your income comes from consulting and speaking engagements, you are not an author by trade.
You forget. "News" likes this is more like a cue for the Slashbot revisionist historians to claim another innovation for Google and/or OSS.
In three months, we will read about how Google created virus protection for web-based e-mail.
"I've used Linux since about 1995, and I still can't stand all the -bullshit- that's necessary to get hardware working
That's because you're an astroturfer"
Thanks for making the GP poster's point for him. He raises some very valid issues based on his experiences, and your only response is to dismiss him as a troll, shill, astroturfer, moron, etc.
Is it any wonder why OSS leaves a bad taste in a lot of peoples' mouths? Perhaps if people like you put as much effort into helping people as you do disparaging them, perhaps some of the technical issues can be addressed instead of trivialized.