"The goal of record companies is, sadly, to make money."
That first statement certainly framed your perspective very well. I suspect that your employer's goals are similar, and that you were hired to help your employer achieve that goal.
So the way I see it, that puts you in an interesting situation. If you believe that musicians aren't entitled to be compensated for their work, then why should you expect to be paid for yours?
We'll be on the phone, both watching the same football game, and from his point of view, I can predict every play call and every score. It's incredible! I exclaim "TOUCHDOWN EAGLES!" a full seven seconds before it even happens!
I think I'm going to start charging money for these predictions. All thanks to my cell phone!
OK, so the game now has an "adults only" rating. What's the big deal? Do you really want kids playing this game?
Yes, it's silly that we have this nutjob morality police getting in everyone's business. But I find it hard to disagree with them on this one. Parents should be aware of the game's (here's a hint) adult themes that, IMHO, go well beyond a "mature" label.
If there's any game that deserves an "adults only" rating, it's GTA.
In many ways, I agree with you. But this is all stuff that has already been said time and time again, and none of it has changed the past.
OK fine, the war was a bad idea. I'll give you that. That doesn't change the fact that there is a very real danger from angry, violent mobs.
So setting aside why they may be there (that's irrelevant to dealing with immediate situations), how do you think we should deal with riots? Calm reasoning? Perhaps a few indescriminate volleys from a Humvee-mounted.50 cal?
Obviously you have to deal with rioters rather firmly, but deadly force isn't usually necessary. Isn't an effective, non-lethal option a Good Thing (tm)? Granted, it's not perfect, but if we demanded perfection we'd still be living in caves wearing bearskins.
Around these parts, Microsoft (rightfully) doesn't get a free pass for ANY security vulnerability, regardless of whether or not there are actual exploits "in the wild". Shouldn't we hold Firefox to the same standard?
"...but maybe someone should create a copy project and get the source out of his hands."
Nothing says "principles" like infringing for personal revenge.
A mature community takes criticism in stride, makes corrections where possible, and strives to turn that criticism into a better product. Starting petty personal feuds reflects poorly upon the people working to promote OSS.
Well that's all well and good, but that's the Slashbot take on this issue. I'm sorry but I don't take the groupthink around here at face value. Perhaps you (and Slashdot) are right, but I resent articles like this that tell me what I should think.
Take it from Slashdot, THESE THINGS ARE BAD!!! Don't educate yourselves! Don't waste your time finding out as much as you can about it! Don't even think about it! Just protest it, because Slashdot told you to, and SLASHDOT IS ALWAYS RIGHT!!!
OK, in all seriousness, I don't really care about the "broadcast flag". It won't affect me one iota. What irritates me about this (and many issues "discussed" here) is the mind-numbing groupthink that grips people here when sufficiently whipped-up by calls to arms like this.
Don't write your congresscritters because A FUCKING WEBSITE told you to! Educate yourselves and make your own freaking decisions!!
Then by that logic, we should simply set a take-home income ceiling and tax the rest. That would shift the tax burden to those who can best afford it.
For shits and giggles, let's set that ceiling to a very generous $200k. And let's pretend, for the sake of this example, that you earn $2 million per year. Out of fairness to those less fortunate, you would only get to keep $200k, and the remaining $1.8 million goes to the government to re-distribute (via "public services") among those who need that money more than you.
Why shouldn't you be forced to pay so much? You can afford it, right?
That might sound "trollish" to you, but it's taking your "they should pay more because they can afford it" argument to its logical conclusion.
"However, it is only fair that they should be required to pay a higher percentage of their income than the middle and lower class."
Why?
"It DISCOURAGES SAVING, because the longer you save your money, the more significant the taxes will be on it."
You're missing the point completely. If you don't spend that money, it's not taxed at all.
You sound like one of those people who, for whatever reason, resent successful people, and are one of many people in this country who believes that it is the government's job to punish the "rich" for their success and separate them from as much money as possible.
If people like you put as much effort into CREATING YOUR OWN WEALTH, as you do trying to take it from others, there would be no need for your petter class warfare.
There's a BIG difference between downloading Oracle software THAT THEY'RE OFFERING FROM THEIR WEBSITE, and downloading a torrent of the latest Photoshop.
It's easy to be tempted to tinker with your research if there's a risk that the results might be considered unacceptable to certain vocal segments of the population.
Just look at what happened to the president of Harvard when he dared suggest that men might be better at math and science than women. The people who screamed the loudest didn't even get far enough to even consider that it might be possible. It was simply an unacceptable result.
Slashdot Mirror
That first statement certainly framed your perspective very well. I suspect that your employer's goals are similar, and that you were hired to help your employer achieve that goal.
So the way I see it, that puts you in an interesting situation. If you believe that musicians aren't entitled to be compensated for their work, then why should you expect to be paid for yours?
I have cable. My friend has satellite.
We'll be on the phone, both watching the same football game, and from his point of view, I can predict every play call and every score. It's incredible! I exclaim "TOUCHDOWN EAGLES!" a full seven seconds before it even happens!
I think I'm going to start charging money for these predictions. All thanks to my cell phone!
If I find your post sufficiently objectionable, should I be permitted to kill you too?
Seriously, I expected to see a bit more tempered response from a reasonably sensible user community.
I'm guessing you don't create commercial software for a living.
OK, so the game now has an "adults only" rating. What's the big deal? Do you really want kids playing this game?
Yes, it's silly that we have this nutjob morality police getting in everyone's business. But I find it hard to disagree with them on this one. Parents should be aware of the game's (here's a hint) adult themes that, IMHO, go well beyond a "mature" label.
If there's any game that deserves an "adults only" rating, it's GTA.
Along this theme, let's start a Slashdot Top 10, featuring the best (and worst) overused Slashdot cliches.
Let's get this started:
Hot grits
In Soviet Russia...
Goatse.cx
Stephen King, DEAD at 42
The Moon: A Ridiculous Liberal Myth
Maybe I don't get it (as I'm not a marketeer) but I'd say that associating tracking cookies with privacy invasion is quite appropriate.
In many ways, I agree with you. But this is all stuff that has already been said time and time again, and none of it has changed the past.
.50 cal?
OK fine, the war was a bad idea. I'll give you that. That doesn't change the fact that there is a very real danger from angry, violent mobs.
So setting aside why they may be there (that's irrelevant to dealing with immediate situations), how do you think we should deal with riots? Calm reasoning? Perhaps a few indescriminate volleys from a Humvee-mounted
Obviously you have to deal with rioters rather firmly, but deadly force isn't usually necessary. Isn't an effective, non-lethal option a Good Thing (tm)? Granted, it's not perfect, but if we demanded perfection we'd still be living in caves wearing bearskins.
Thank you for so thoroughly defining "Monday Morning Quarterbacking".
You know, you can defend your position without being a flippant, condescending ass.
Around these parts, Microsoft (rightfully) doesn't get a free pass for ANY security vulnerability, regardless of whether or not there are actual exploits "in the wild". Shouldn't we hold Firefox to the same standard?
JBOSS is lisenced under the GPL, is it not? Taking that code, open or not, and releasing it someone else's work is copyright infringement.
Nothing says "principles" like infringing for personal revenge.
A mature community takes criticism in stride, makes corrections where possible, and strives to turn that criticism into a better product. Starting petty personal feuds reflects poorly upon the people working to promote OSS.
You might be in the ballpark if said car had a DVD player and came with 30 or 40 pirated DVDs.
Well that's all well and good, but that's the Slashbot take on this issue. I'm sorry but I don't take the groupthink around here at face value. Perhaps you (and Slashdot) are right, but I resent articles like this that tell me what I should think.
Take it from Slashdot, THESE THINGS ARE BAD!!! Don't educate yourselves! Don't waste your time finding out as much as you can about it! Don't even think about it! Just protest it, because Slashdot told you to, and SLASHDOT IS ALWAYS RIGHT!!!
OK, in all seriousness, I don't really care about the "broadcast flag". It won't affect me one iota. What irritates me about this (and many issues "discussed" here) is the mind-numbing groupthink that grips people here when sufficiently whipped-up by calls to arms like this.
Don't write your congresscritters because A FUCKING WEBSITE told you to! Educate yourselves and make your own freaking decisions!!
Then by that logic, we should simply set a take-home income ceiling and tax the rest. That would shift the tax burden to those who can best afford it.
For shits and giggles, let's set that ceiling to a very generous $200k. And let's pretend, for the sake of this example, that you earn $2 million per year. Out of fairness to those less fortunate, you would only get to keep $200k, and the remaining $1.8 million goes to the government to re-distribute (via "public services") among those who need that money more than you.
Why shouldn't you be forced to pay so much? You can afford it, right?
That might sound "trollish" to you, but it's taking your "they should pay more because they can afford it" argument to its logical conclusion.
Why?
"It DISCOURAGES SAVING, because the longer you save your money, the more significant the taxes will be on it."
You're missing the point completely. If you don't spend that money, it's not taxed at all.
You sound like one of those people who, for whatever reason, resent successful people, and are one of many people in this country who believes that it is the government's job to punish the "rich" for their success and separate them from as much money as possible.
If people like you put as much effort into CREATING YOUR OWN WEALTH, as you do trying to take it from others, there would be no need for your petter class warfare.
The UN's current strategy of waiting and hoping the region will stabilize itself sure has been a roaring success, no?
You sure took AI's "gulag" assertion and ran with it, didn't you? Besides the fact that Gitmo and Soviet gulags have NOTHING in common....
Actually I agree with most of your post, but it just pisses me off when sheeple mindlessly repeat catchy, inflammatory talking points.
There's a BIG difference between downloading Oracle software THAT THEY'RE OFFERING FROM THEIR WEBSITE, and downloading a torrent of the latest Photoshop.
So basically you can justify copying ANY piece of software by simply stating that you wouldn't have paid for it anyway??
If everybody thought the way you do, there wouldn't be a software industry.
It's easy to be tempted to tinker with your research if there's a risk that the results might be considered unacceptable to certain vocal segments of the population.
Just look at what happened to the president of Harvard when he dared suggest that men might be better at math and science than women. The people who screamed the loudest didn't even get far enough to even consider that it might be possible. It was simply an unacceptable result.
I'm dubious toward any study that predicts DIRE CONSEQUENCES unless immediate action is taken.
After all, why would anyone grant you additional funding if all you have to say is that everything is A-OK?
Allow me to be more direct, and I hope your answer will be just as direct.
Let's say you and your co-worker get paid to dig ditches. You do all the work, while your co-worker stands around holding up a shovel.
Pay day comes, and your co-worker tells the boss that he did all the work. He gets paid, and you don't.
How is that any different from somebody taking credit for code that YOU wrote? Should you not be protected, by law, from that sort of nonsense?