There might be some middle ground if there was a technical way to preserve fair use rights while preventing "piracy" (I don't like the word either, but you know what I mean).
"You know how many times I've had to edit a configuration file on Linux? I just did it 12 times yesterday alone for two different programs. Will editing a.conf file on Linux crash your system? Maybe, maybe not, depends on what you're doing. But the likelihood that someone would have to do that editing is higher on Linux."
Thank you! Thank you!! THANK YOU!! You and I don't always agree, but you're right on the money this time!
This is the ONLY reason why I haven't pursued a switch to Linux (dabbling with Ubuntu a little...) with more enthusiasm. I spent 3 hours modifying.conf files trying to get a USB sound card working, with no success. You know what it took to get it working in Windows? I plugged it in.
Somehow, Windows knows to use the USB sound card when I have it plugged in, and the on-board sound when it's not. Trying several suggested solutions from various Linux forums produced nothing.
Until Linux comes up with some form of Plug-n-Play, the average user is going to stay away. People don't want to risk hosing their systems screwing around with.conf files. Take it from me; I'm one of them.
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
Nothing there about a "perfect" duplication. Ripping a DVD would (by my definition, anyway) constitute a reproduction.
Aside from that, my point isn't to debate the merits of the Blockbuster/MPAA/RIAA business models. It's that actions like what you described give them ammunition to create laws that further restrict all of our rights.
"Flawed logic, perhaps, but a nifty bit of justification I'd say."
Thanks for giving the RIAA/MPAA justification. Take notice, Slashbots. The parent post is a perfect example of why media industries regard their "customers" with such distrust.
I couldn't decide if that movie was more "fiction" or "propaganda". Both terms apply pretty accurately to that steaming pile of holier-than-thou Hollywood elitist trash.
"What you fail to understand is that government action is the only way to deal effectively with global warming right now. Kyoto may be weak and ineffective - but voluntary do-gooderism is doubly so. Prove me wrong - you can't!"
I'm sure the GP would be more than happy to explain his idea, if you would be so kind as to prove how government action is the only way to deal effectively with global warming.
You can't just throw out an unproven theory, and then assert your correctness until someone else can prove/disprove it for you. I suspect that's why he didn't respond to your challenge:)
"Insofar as our government rules with the consent of the governed, it takes only those monies which you give."
An ideal that has long since gone the way of the dodo. Our state legislature here is a perfect example. This debacle might get a few of them booted next year, but that's not going to put the money back into our wallets.
We do not give taxes to the government, it takes them from us.
"Individual right to privacy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion,are all, I think, fundamental to the nature and law of our society."...what about property?
"But of course, Govt is itself comprised of individuals who are themselves self-interested. and so the paradox cointinues."
Which is every reason why government should be entrusted with as little money as possible for it to carry out its minimum essential functions.
Let's face it, people are not going to suddenly stop thinking of themselves (or their families) first in favor of the collective good. It's human nature. It's why every attempt to incorporate Marxism into a form of government has failed miserably.
While capitalism isn't perfect either, it works WITH people's tendencies to think of themselves first, not against it. With few exceptions, the system we have allows people to succeed as much as they are willing to work. It's unfortunate that we're increasingly turning into a welfare (both individual and corporate) state that places a disproportionate labor and tax burden upon the working class.
There is a inverse relationship between the growth of government and the shrinking of the middle class. That alone should tell us we're going in the wrong direction.
"I'm concerned that public funds being used to support schools that will punish children for not sharing a religious belief, or will not admit them if they are not of a certain ethnic group."
That sounds to me like a good argument in favor of a 100% private school system. Parents can choose what ideology their children are educated within, and no public money is spent on furthering or excluding any particular ideology.
"People seem hell bent on considering it "my" money instead of "our" money."
That's because individuals earn that money, and government takes it. It's not unreasonable for people to get angry over how that money is spent, especially when they feel they could put that money to better use themselves.
Case in point: my state legislators recently voted themselves pay raises ranging from 16 to 34 percent. That, combined with a ridiculous COLA index and lavish benefits, makes Pennsylvania's state legislature the most expensive in the nation. This bill was passed at 2:00 AM with absolutely zero public discussion. Do I (and THOUSANDS around Harrisbug) not have just cause to be angry?
"It is asserting from the get-go that it is "my" money, and that the only opinion that matters is "mine." It is necessarily selfish and divisive."
So here we inevitably get to the heart of the matter: you believe people who want fewer taxes are simply greedy. You seem to subscribe to the notion that the will of the collective should supercede the needs of the individual. Under such a system, the individual has no power, and hence, no liberty. He is always at the mercy of the collective.
I don't know about you, but to me that conflicts with the fundamentals of personal liberty this country was founded upon. At risk of sounding cliched and petty, you genuinely sound like a communist. I don't mean that as an insult, just the impression I'm getting.
"Raise taxes. Gap! yes! raise *YOUR* taxes so that *YOUR* children may go to school and have a chance at a good education and a good future, a concept America as a whole has completely forgotten for some reason."
School taxes have been rising steadily for decades, and what do we have to show for it?
"Well, actually its not really your money anymore. Its ours, and I get a say in how it gets spent too. Thats what happens when people come together to pursue higher goals. the individual becomes a little blurred. but go ahead, there's nothing less selfish than ensuring that whats yours is yours"
I read the entire discussion in this thread, and while it took you long enough, here you finally get to your real beef.
You claim that you don't want public funds to support ideologies with which someone might disagree, but the very nature of public education does exactly that!
Rather, you seem to object more to letting people spend their money how they please. Is your real goal to get your hands on as much of other people's money as you can, and to hell with their objections over how it's spent?
I don't think TV content producers care how their programs are distributed. They care about whether or not people are watching the advertisements.
Let's face it; when it comes to any media outlet's business model, WE'RE the product being sold. Advertisers/sponsors pay very good money to media outlets to spread ads to as many people as possible.
It's natural that advertisers, and in turn broadcasters, are concerned by any technology that prevents the ad from getting to the consumer: hence Ted Turner's comments about channel-flippers being "thieves".
I'd be willing to bed that for-profit broadcasters would embrace any technology that gives their programs (and more importantly, ADS) wider distribution. Things like Tivo and P2P distribution of ad-stripped programs is a direct threat to their business.
I did read your posts, and I still wonder why you believe that stigma is unfair. Since you don't doubt the numbers, I can only assume (and correct me if I'm wrong) that you believe that the majority of media traffic is legitimate.
And if you don't think the stigma is unfair, what is the problem here?
If all (or even most) of P2P traffic is legit, then why do you have any problem whatsoever with how the file breakdown is characterized? Who cares how many media files are shared/downloaded if it's all legit?
Perhaps because she's not pushing an agenda that relies on concealing the obvious fact that the majority of "large" files being transfered via P2P are media files.
If the vast majority of P2P traffic is, as your ilk claim, legitimate, why try so hard to shift the emphasis away from media files?
Truly colonization is a worthy goal. Our desecration of the Earth will necessitate seeking resources elsewhere in our solar system! Of course, burning fossil fuels to send vehicles into space is counterproductive, so insted I propose a space elevator constructed entirely of carbon nanotubes!
However, that sort of thing costs money, and we have people starving in our own streets! We need to take care of our imediate needs first.
And yes, it's true that we have things like microwave ovens, teflon, and the 4-day work week today because of the tireless efforts of NASA......but ultimately the triumph of the human siprit will, as always, provide us with our every need, fending off the previously-believed impending doom of our culture, and eventually allow us to explore and conquer the vast reaches of space!
That's not accurate. I have a Google account (but not Gmail) and wasn't able to use my Google login to create a Gmail account....unless I'm just doing something wrong.
"Changing search engine providers is as simple as replacing a bookmark, changing operating systems requires some serious expeditures, especially at the enterprise level."
Always with the tired old roads argument. The reasonable functions of government hardly justifies all of the waste.
For a change, how about trying to rationalize our taxation levels with something more fun, like, say, corporate subsidies, or foreign aid to oppressive dictatorships? Or how about the social programs that benefit millions of illegal immigrants?
Yes, there ARE some valid functions of government such as infrastructure and national defense that necessitate taxation. But then I'm not advocating zero taxes.
What I resent is our government acting as a charity vehicle on my behalf, without my consent.
It's disturbing that you want anyone -silenced- for any reason. If his infraction was so egregious, people would simply stop listening to him.
We don't need people like you to decide for us what or who is worth listening to. It's just as bad as conservative groups who want to 'sanitize' television.
Slashdot Mirror
Linux recognizes the USB sound card (SB Audigy NX), I just don't know how to get Linux to use that sound card instead of the POS AC97.
If you have any suggestions, I'm listening.
I already paid for these games. I shouldn't have to BUY SOMETHING ELSE just to get them working on Linux.
Get back to me when the same level of compatibility is in the free WINE.
PS: Just looked on that listing for Guild Wars, and I don't call a 3/5 playability rating worthy of their "officially supported" label.
There might be some middle ground if there was a technical way to preserve fair use rights while preventing "piracy" (I don't like the word either, but you know what I mean).
However, AFAIK no such technical solution exists.
A Windows PCs is perfectly capable of running just fine without having to "tweak" the registry.
That's, um, sorta why it's called a "tweak", 'cause it's not necessary.
"You know how many times I've had to edit a configuration file on Linux? I just did it 12 times yesterday alone for two different programs. Will editing a .conf file on Linux crash your system? Maybe, maybe not, depends on what you're doing. But the likelihood that someone would have to do that editing is higher on Linux."
.conf files trying to get a USB sound card working, with no success. You know what it took to get it working in Windows? I plugged it in.
.conf files. Take it from me; I'm one of them.
Thank you! Thank you!! THANK YOU!! You and I don't always agree, but you're right on the money this time!
This is the ONLY reason why I haven't pursued a switch to Linux (dabbling with Ubuntu a little...) with more enthusiasm. I spent 3 hours modifying
Somehow, Windows knows to use the USB sound card when I have it plugged in, and the on-board sound when it's not. Trying several suggested solutions from various Linux forums produced nothing.
Until Linux comes up with some form of Plug-n-Play, the average user is going to stay away. People don't want to risk hosing their systems screwing around with
I usually don't rent them a first time. But if I do, I don't feel entitled to making a copy of it.
If I want to watch a movie whenever I want, I'll buy it.
Nothing there about a "perfect" duplication. Ripping a DVD would (by my definition, anyway) constitute a reproduction.
Aside from that, my point isn't to debate the merits of the Blockbuster/MPAA/RIAA business models. It's that actions like what you described give them ammunition to create laws that further restrict all of our rights.
"Flawed logic, perhaps, but a nifty bit of justification I'd say."
Thanks for giving the RIAA/MPAA justification. Take notice, Slashbots. The parent post is a perfect example of why media industries regard their "customers" with such distrust.
I couldn't decide if that movie was more "fiction" or "propaganda". Both terms apply pretty accurately to that steaming pile of holier-than-thou Hollywood elitist trash.
"What you fail to understand is that government action is the only way to deal effectively with global warming right now. Kyoto may be weak and ineffective - but voluntary do-gooderism is doubly so. Prove me wrong - you can't!"
:)
I'm sure the GP would be more than happy to explain his idea, if you would be so kind as to prove how government action is the only way to deal effectively with global warming.
You can't just throw out an unproven theory, and then assert your correctness until someone else can prove/disprove it for you. I suspect that's why he didn't respond to your challenge
"Insofar as our government rules with the consent of the governed, it takes only those monies which you give."
...what about property?
An ideal that has long since gone the way of the dodo. Our state legislature here is a perfect example. This debacle might get a few of them booted next year, but that's not going to put the money back into our wallets.
We do not give taxes to the government, it takes them from us.
"Individual right to privacy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion,are all, I think, fundamental to the nature and law of our society."
"But of course, Govt is itself comprised of individuals who are themselves self-interested. and so the paradox cointinues."
Which is every reason why government should be entrusted with as little money as possible for it to carry out its minimum essential functions.
Let's face it, people are not going to suddenly stop thinking of themselves (or their families) first in favor of the collective good. It's human nature. It's why every attempt to incorporate Marxism into a form of government has failed miserably.
While capitalism isn't perfect either, it works WITH people's tendencies to think of themselves first, not against it. With few exceptions, the system we have allows people to succeed as much as they are willing to work. It's unfortunate that we're increasingly turning into a welfare (both individual and corporate) state that places a disproportionate labor and tax burden upon the working class.
There is a inverse relationship between the growth of government and the shrinking of the middle class. That alone should tell us we're going in the wrong direction.
"I'm concerned that public funds being used to support schools that will punish children for not sharing a religious belief, or will not admit them if they are not of a certain ethnic group."
That sounds to me like a good argument in favor of a 100% private school system. Parents can choose what ideology their children are educated within, and no public money is spent on furthering or excluding any particular ideology.
"People seem hell bent on considering it "my" money instead of "our" money."
That's because individuals earn that money, and government takes it. It's not unreasonable for people to get angry over how that money is spent, especially when they feel they could put that money to better use themselves.
Case in point: my state legislators recently voted themselves pay raises ranging from 16 to 34 percent. That, combined with a ridiculous COLA index and lavish benefits, makes Pennsylvania's state legislature the most expensive in the nation. This bill was passed at 2:00 AM with absolutely zero public discussion. Do I (and THOUSANDS around Harrisbug) not have just cause to be angry?
"It is asserting from the get-go that it is "my" money, and that the only opinion that matters is "mine." It is necessarily selfish and divisive."
So here we inevitably get to the heart of the matter: you believe people who want fewer taxes are simply greedy. You seem to subscribe to the notion that the will of the collective should supercede the needs of the individual. Under such a system, the individual has no power, and hence, no liberty. He is always at the mercy of the collective.
I don't know about you, but to me that conflicts with the fundamentals of personal liberty this country was founded upon. At risk of sounding cliched and petty, you genuinely sound like a communist. I don't mean that as an insult, just the impression I'm getting.
That's it, force schools to replace their entire fleet of busses. That aughtta save them some money! Way to use that noggin of yours!
"Raise taxes. Gap! yes! raise *YOUR* taxes so that *YOUR* children may go to school and have a chance at a good education and a good future, a concept America as a whole has completely forgotten for some reason."
School taxes have been rising steadily for decades, and what do we have to show for it?
"Well, actually its not really your money anymore. Its ours, and I get a say in how it gets spent too. Thats what happens when people come together to pursue higher goals. the individual becomes a little blurred. but go ahead, there's nothing less selfish than ensuring that whats yours is yours"
I read the entire discussion in this thread, and while it took you long enough, here you finally get to your real beef.
You claim that you don't want public funds to support ideologies with which someone might disagree, but the very nature of public education does exactly that!
Rather, you seem to object more to letting people spend their money how they please. Is your real goal to get your hands on as much of other people's money as you can, and to hell with their objections over how it's spent?
I think you hit on a very important point.
I don't think TV content producers care how their programs are distributed. They care about whether or not people are watching the advertisements.
Let's face it; when it comes to any media outlet's business model, WE'RE the product being sold. Advertisers/sponsors pay very good money to media outlets to spread ads to as many people as possible.
It's natural that advertisers, and in turn broadcasters, are concerned by any technology that prevents the ad from getting to the consumer: hence Ted Turner's comments about channel-flippers being "thieves".
I'd be willing to bed that for-profit broadcasters would embrace any technology that gives their programs (and more importantly, ADS) wider distribution. Things like Tivo and P2P distribution of ad-stripped programs is a direct threat to their business.
I did read your posts, and I still wonder why you believe that stigma is unfair. Since you don't doubt the numbers, I can only assume (and correct me if I'm wrong) that you believe that the majority of media traffic is legitimate.
And if you don't think the stigma is unfair, what is the problem here?
If all (or even most) of P2P traffic is legit, then why do you have any problem whatsoever with how the file breakdown is characterized? Who cares how many media files are shared/downloaded if it's all legit?
Perhaps because she's not pushing an agenda that relies on concealing the obvious fact that the majority of "large" files being transfered via P2P are media files.
If the vast majority of P2P traffic is, as your ilk claim, legitimate, why try so hard to shift the emphasis away from media files?
Truly colonization is a worthy goal. Our desecration of the Earth will necessitate seeking resources elsewhere in our solar system! Of course, burning fossil fuels to send vehicles into space is counterproductive, so insted I propose a space elevator constructed entirely of carbon nanotubes!
...but ultimately the triumph of the human siprit will, as always, provide us with our every need, fending off the previously-believed impending doom of our culture, and eventually allow us to explore and conquer the vast reaches of space!
However, that sort of thing costs money, and we have people starving in our own streets! We need to take care of our imediate needs first.
And yes, it's true that we have things like microwave ovens, teflon, and the 4-day work week today because of the tireless efforts of NASA...
What was the article about again?
That's not accurate. I have a Google account (but not Gmail) and wasn't able to use my Google login to create a Gmail account. ...unless I'm just doing something wrong.
I thought Linux was free.
Always with the tired old roads argument. The reasonable functions of government hardly justifies all of the waste.
For a change, how about trying to rationalize our taxation levels with something more fun, like, say, corporate subsidies, or foreign aid to oppressive dictatorships? Or how about the social programs that benefit millions of illegal immigrants?
Yes, there ARE some valid functions of government such as infrastructure and national defense that necessitate taxation. But then I'm not advocating zero taxes.
What I resent is our government acting as a charity vehicle on my behalf, without my consent.
If you equate Charity with Socialism, then I can understand how you are confused. Perhaps explaining the difference will clear things up for you.
Charity - voluntary giving
Socialism - compelled confiscation
It's disturbing that you want anyone -silenced- for any reason. If his infraction was so egregious, people would simply stop listening to him.
We don't need people like you to decide for us what or who is worth listening to. It's just as bad as conservative groups who want to 'sanitize' television.