goldspider (445116) goldspider goldspiderATcomcastDOTnet
(email not shown publicly) Karma: Excellent AOL IM: GoldSpider (Add Buddy, Send Message) ICQ UIN: 383186 (Add User, Send Message) Ladies and gentlmen of the jury, I'm just a caveman. I fell on some ice and later got thawed out by some of your scientists. Your world frightens and confuses me! Sometimes the honking horns of your traffic makes me want to get out of my BMW and run off to the hills or whatever. Sometimes when I get a message on my fax machine I wonder, Did little demons get inside and type it? I don't know! My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts. But there is one thing I do know. When a man like my client slips and falls on a sidewalk in front of a public library, then he is entitled to no less than two million in compensatory damages and two million in punitive damages.
Python and Perl... Tuesday October 14, @11:11AM [ Edit | Delete | Enable Comments | #49045 ]...are for rank ameteurs, and there's no two ways about it! They are unelegant and clumsy languages that are only used by unsophisticated, lazy, self-titled "developers" who don't understand Unix as well as they would have us or their employers believe.
There is nothing, and i do mean NOTHING that a real Unix professional can do with Python or Perl that he or she can't do with awk, sed, and grep.
Any argument to the contrary would not only expose your own inadequacies as a Unix programmer, but would also perpetuate the myth that (as Microsoft also argues) bloated, "feature-rich" languages are appropriate for use in business applications. I submit that such an argument would be itself an attack on the very concept of open source software.
"All evidence points to Bush giving Saudis special treatment at a time when they should have received no such treatment."
Except that it was Richard Clark who authorized the flight. Clark himself said the decision never got higher up in the chain of command than him. But Moore presented the story as if Bush had hustled the Saudis out of the country himself.
You should really get your information from more credible sources than an irate liberal conspiracy-theory rag whose articles are nothing more than speculation published as fact.
If I were you, I wouldn't hold out for much objectivity or unbiased analysis from a group that still believes the 2000 election was 'stolen'.
The only difference is that in a government monopoly, you MUST pay for it regardless of whether or not you actually use the service. But then that's always been the fundamental difference between freedom and socialism.
I hate to inform you, but it's not just "right-wing nutjobs" who are dissatisfied with government inefficiency/incompetance. And when a government extinguishing a private industry and foists its own bloated and ineffective program upon taxpayers, what else besides Communism are we supposed to call it? If it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck... well you know how that goes.
Why let private companies compete with one another to provide an affordable, quality service when you can just let Big Government hijack the industry and replace it with their own inefficient and inadequate service that everyone is compelled to pay for even if they don't want to use it?
Does it get any better than this? Where do I sign up?
Oh wait, I'm a taxpayer, I'm automatically signed u p. Lucky me.
"...you really need to get a lot of talented artists, modelers and the like Then you need to get a good designer, and a musician or two, mappers, writers etc etc."
And in most cases, all of the above cost lots of $$$. Without the money, the best you can hope for is a sound concept.
"Try carrying an anti-Bush sign outside of an "approved free-speech zone" during the Republican National Convention and see how long it takes you to get arrested."
Because Democrats would NEVER do such a thing at their convention to stifle free speech!!
Fair enough! To the point of downloading a copy of a song you already own, as well as burning a copy of a CD you own, I have yet to hear of a case of the RIAA going after people for that sort of thing. In fact I recall a Slashdot interview with an RIAA rep who said that that sort of thing was in fact covered under fair use. I think that's one of several "evils" of the RIAA that was entirely made up by tinfoil-hat-wearing Slashdotters.
"I decided to not purchase an album BECAUSE I CAN'T AFFORD IT."
And if that was all people were doing, that's fine. If they can't pay for an album, they don't buy it! But they don't stop there; they go and download it (maybe you do the same, but I won't assume that).
How is that any less wrong than someone walking into a music store, walking out with a CD in their hand, and explaining to the cashier that they're not going to pay for it because they can't afford it?
Aside from the $.02 CD and paper album cover, there is NO difference between downloading an album and stuffing one in your pocket at the music store.
No need to be insulting, just explain to me how downloading an album you can't afford is justified.
"I never said they wouldn't be hurt by EVERYONE refusing to buy their music."
Oh I see, they're just not hurt when YOU don't buy it. What if everyone thought that way?
"I choose to spend that money on whatever widgets that I determine are most important to me and my family."
That's right, it's called 'budgeting'. However excluding something from a budget does not entitle you to it. That has been your argument thus far, and it's called a double standard. If your personal situation somehow excuses you from paying for music, who then SHUOLD be forced to pay?
"Also, you are assuming that I have an internet connection and a computer at home and am not using one at work..."
Interesting, I always thought that one should be doing work while at work, not playing on Slashdot. I suppose that paycheck is an entitlement too.
"...the record company has not lost anything by me downloading it..."
So then there wouldn't be any financial hardship inflicted upon the music industry if EVERYONE downloaded music from P2P instead of buy it, right? They're not losing anything physically, so therefore there is no negative effect. Am I properly following the Slashbot logic?
Or are you saying that the RIAA is hurt only when people who CAN afford an album download? And let me get this straight: you can afford a computer and an internet connection, but not a $15.00 CD?
Oh wait, you have another excuse! You're downloading to PROTEST the high prices of CD's! I got it!
I'm not going to say that the RIAA's business model is good or their prices fair. But that doesn't change the fact that everything you have argued still points back to the basic idea that, for whatever reason, you feel entitled to Shit For Free (tm). Is it that hard to be honest with yourself?
Maybe if someone was using their broadband connection exclusively for downloading music, ya might be on the mark. Of course there's things like games, email, Slashdot, and all sorts of other things that you can do with a broadband connection. P2P downloads is just one of many things people do with their broadband connections.
I haven't tried to download an entire album (I like many on/. believe most of it is crap), but I'm sure there are people who do. What else could account for the GIGABYTES of music people have accumulated? As a direct result of the convenience of P2P, people are amassing huge collections of music that simply was not feasable in the cassette-tape era.
"If someone hadn't illegally shared that with me, the studio would have sold one less copy."
For the sake of consistency, lets substitute movie with CD, since this is the RIAA we're talking about here.
That said, I'm pretty sure the music industry would trade a few hundred potential album sales gained from P2P for the THOUSANDS lost to it. And as copyright holders, that's their decision to make.
Nope, it's more along the lines of "It's good enough to listen to, but not good enough to pay for."
In other words, music downloaders want to have their cake and eat it too.
Your home-taping = downloading argument is the bullshit, for several reasons. Home-taping as a means to acquire music cost both time (to duplicate the tape) and money (cost of a blank tape). For most people, the investment wasn't worth it.
Then P2P came along and eliminated both the time and money cost.
Apparently there's a lot of people who like listening to crappy music, or maybe a lot of people don't think the music is crappy (I do). That doesn't change the fact that they aren't paying for it. I don't think you're making a point here.
"I will buy music over the Internet when someone offers the following:"
Fine, but while you're waiting for a distribution system, copyright laws, etc. that you deem acceptable, you aren't entitled to simply ignore the lisence under which that music is distributed.
SCO doesn't respect copyright laws either, but you don't see them getting a free pass around here.
Socialism (basically what your argument comes down to) is inevitably unsuccessful when you introduce it to the flaws of humanity, and thus, is contrary to the principles of freedom this country was founded upon.
It is a given that some people work harder than others. Redistribution of wealth, the fundamental tenet of socialism, is inherantly unjust when those who produce goods and services are forced, through taxation, to subsidize those who will not.
Now I'm not going to say that Capitalism is flawless; we all know there are a lot of greedy people who lie and cheat their way into wealth. But the fact that some people have more wealth than others is not in itself proof of injustice.
In fact, the right of people to make a living however they choose to (as long as it doesn't violate someone else's rights) is another pillar of this country's founding. Now I'm not saying that people are entitled to profit or success, don't misunderstand.
However in this case, musicians and software programmers are providing products that people want, and our economic system is designed to allow them to charge money for that product. Who are you or I to tell them how they should go about that?
"Why can't artists be sponsored freely by their fans and admirers? Do a concert if you're a musician. Sell your original artwork if you are a painter."
People can do all those things, and some do! But unless you are the musician, or the programmer (or whatever), that is not your choice to make. You do not decide how others should be allowed to sell/distribute their work. Your choice is whether or not to buy their product for what they are asking, end of story.
Linux is released under the terms and conditions outlined in the GPL. Other software is released under other lisences and conditions. Who are you to pick and choose which legal contracts to respect?
This isn't about what you feel you are entitled to. This is about respecting the wishes and rights of people who produced the things you enjoy.
Was someone holding a gun to your head, threatening to blow you away if you didn't click OK?
Sorry pal, that doesn't pass the bullshit test. If you don't understand what you may or may not be agreeing to by clicking OK and using the software, perhaps you shouldn't do it.
Slashdot Mirror
Logout Preferences Subscription ~goldspider (445116)
Journal of goldspider (445116)
Info Journal Messages Friends Fans Foes Freaks
[ goldspider's Journal | Write in Journal | Delete/Edit Entries | Edit Preferences | Friend's Journals ]
goldspider (445116)
goldspider
goldspiderATcomcastDOTnet
(email not shown publicly)
Karma: Excellent
AOL IM: GoldSpider (Add Buddy, Send Message)
ICQ UIN: 383186 (Add User, Send Message)
Ladies and gentlmen of the jury, I'm just a caveman. I fell on some ice and later got thawed out by some of your scientists. Your world frightens and confuses me! Sometimes the honking horns of your traffic makes me want to get out of my BMW and run off to the hills or whatever. Sometimes when I get a message on my fax machine I wonder, Did little demons get inside and type it? I don't know! My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts. But there is one thing I do know. When a man like my client slips and falls on a sidewalk in front of a public library, then he is entitled to no less than two million in compensatory damages and two million in punitive damages.
Python and Perl...
Tuesday October 14, @11:11AM [ Edit | Delete | Enable Comments | #49045 ]
There is nothing, and i do mean NOTHING that a real Unix professional can do with Python or Perl that he or she can't do with awk, sed, and grep.
Any argument to the contrary would not only expose your own inadequacies as a Unix programmer, but would also perpetuate the myth that (as Microsoft also argues) bloated, "feature-rich" languages are appropriate for use in business applications. I submit that such an argument would be itself an attack on the very concept of open source software.
Except that it was Richard Clark who authorized the flight. Clark himself said the decision never got higher up in the chain of command than him. But Moore presented the story as if Bush had hustled the Saudis out of the country himself.
You should really get your information from more credible sources than an irate liberal conspiracy-theory rag whose articles are nothing more than speculation published as fact.
If I were you, I wouldn't hold out for much objectivity or unbiased analysis from a group that still believes the 2000 election was 'stolen'.
The only difference is that in a government monopoly, you MUST pay for it regardless of whether or not you actually use the service. But then that's always been the fundamental difference between freedom and socialism.
I hate to inform you, but it's not just "right-wing nutjobs" who are dissatisfied with government inefficiency/incompetance. And when a government extinguishing a private industry and foists its own bloated and ineffective program upon taxpayers, what else besides Communism are we supposed to call it? If it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck... well you know how that goes.
Why let private companies compete with one another to provide an affordable, quality service when you can just let Big Government hijack the industry and replace it with their own inefficient and inadequate service that everyone is compelled to pay for even if they don't want to use it?
Does it get any better than this? Where do I sign up?
Oh wait, I'm a taxpayer, I'm automatically signed u p. Lucky me.
And in most cases, all of the above cost lots of $$$. Without the money, the best you can hope for is a sound concept.
Because Democrats would NEVER do such a thing at their convention to stifle free speech!!
Oh wait, they did! Nevermind!
Fair enough! To the point of downloading a copy of a song you already own, as well as burning a copy of a CD you own, I have yet to hear of a case of the RIAA going after people for that sort of thing. In fact I recall a Slashdot interview with an RIAA rep who said that that sort of thing was in fact covered under fair use. I think that's one of several "evils" of the RIAA that was entirely made up by tinfoil-hat-wearing Slashdotters.
I agree. Perhaps they should instead consider buying a camera.
And if that was all people were doing, that's fine. If they can't pay for an album, they don't buy it! But they don't stop there; they go and download it (maybe you do the same, but I won't assume that).
How is that any less wrong than someone walking into a music store, walking out with a CD in their hand, and explaining to the cashier that they're not going to pay for it because they can't afford it?
Aside from the $.02 CD and paper album cover, there is NO difference between downloading an album and stuffing one in your pocket at the music store.
No need to be insulting, just explain to me how downloading an album you can't afford is justified.
Oh I see, they're just not hurt when YOU don't buy it. What if everyone thought that way?
"I choose to spend that money on whatever widgets that I determine are most important to me and my family."
That's right, it's called 'budgeting'. However excluding something from a budget does not entitle you to it. That has been your argument thus far, and it's called a double standard. If your personal situation somehow excuses you from paying for music, who then SHUOLD be forced to pay?
"Also, you are assuming that I have an internet connection and a computer at home and am not using one at work..."
Interesting, I always thought that one should be doing work while at work, not playing on Slashdot. I suppose that paycheck is an entitlement too.
Outside? You mean like where the Daystar lurks??
So then there wouldn't be any financial hardship inflicted upon the music industry if EVERYONE downloaded music from P2P instead of buy it, right? They're not losing anything physically, so therefore there is no negative effect. Am I properly following the Slashbot logic?
Or are you saying that the RIAA is hurt only when people who CAN afford an album download? And let me get this straight: you can afford a computer and an internet connection, but not a $15.00 CD?
Oh wait, you have another excuse! You're downloading to PROTEST the high prices of CD's! I got it!
I'm not going to say that the RIAA's business model is good or their prices fair. But that doesn't change the fact that everything you have argued still points back to the basic idea that, for whatever reason, you feel entitled to Shit For Free (tm). Is it that hard to be honest with yourself?
Maybe if someone was using their broadband connection exclusively for downloading music, ya might be on the mark. Of course there's things like games, email, Slashdot, and all sorts of other things that you can do with a broadband connection. P2P downloads is just one of many things people do with their broadband connections.
/. believe most of it is crap), but I'm sure there are people who do. What else could account for the GIGABYTES of music people have accumulated? As a direct result of the convenience of P2P, people are amassing huge collections of music that simply was not feasable in the cassette-tape era.
I haven't tried to download an entire album (I like many on
For the sake of consistency, lets substitute movie with CD, since this is the RIAA we're talking about here.
That said, I'm pretty sure the music industry would trade a few hundred potential album sales gained from P2P for the THOUSANDS lost to it. And as copyright holders, that's their decision to make.
Nope, it's more along the lines of "It's good enough to listen to, but not good enough to pay for."
In other words, music downloaders want to have their cake and eat it too.
Your home-taping = downloading argument is the bullshit, for several reasons. Home-taping as a means to acquire music cost both time (to duplicate the tape) and money (cost of a blank tape). For most people, the investment wasn't worth it.
Then P2P came along and eliminated both the time and money cost.
Apparently there's a lot of people who like listening to crappy music, or maybe a lot of people don't think the music is crappy (I do). That doesn't change the fact that they aren't paying for it. I don't think you're making a point here.
customer
n : someone who pays for goods or services
Someone who has stopped paying for music, in favor of downloading it from P2P, is no longer the RIAA's customer.
I would go so far to suggest that most down/freeloaders have little intention of paying for music while they can still get it for free.
But then people who are dowloading music instead of buying it aren't the RIAA's customers. The RIAA isn't suing the people who pay for their product.
I wish people around here would learn what a customer is.
Fine, but while you're waiting for a distribution system, copyright laws, etc. that you deem acceptable, you aren't entitled to simply ignore the lisence under which that music is distributed.
SCO doesn't respect copyright laws either, but you don't see them getting a free pass around here.
Socialism (basically what your argument comes down to) is inevitably unsuccessful when you introduce it to the flaws of humanity, and thus, is contrary to the principles of freedom this country was founded upon.
It is a given that some people work harder than others. Redistribution of wealth, the fundamental tenet of socialism, is inherantly unjust when those who produce goods and services are forced, through taxation, to subsidize those who will not.
Now I'm not going to say that Capitalism is flawless; we all know there are a lot of greedy people who lie and cheat their way into wealth. But the fact that some people have more wealth than others is not in itself proof of injustice.
In fact, the right of people to make a living however they choose to (as long as it doesn't violate someone else's rights) is another pillar of this country's founding. Now I'm not saying that people are entitled to profit or success, don't misunderstand.
However in this case, musicians and software programmers are providing products that people want, and our economic system is designed to allow them to charge money for that product. Who are you or I to tell them how they should go about that?
"Why can't artists be sponsored freely by their fans and admirers? Do a concert if you're a musician. Sell your original artwork if you are a painter."
People can do all those things, and some do! But unless you are the musician, or the programmer (or whatever), that is not your choice to make. You do not decide how others should be allowed to sell/distribute their work. Your choice is whether or not to buy their product for what they are asking, end of story.
This isn't about what you feel you are entitled to. This is about respecting the wishes and rights of people who produced the things you enjoy.
Was someone holding a gun to your head, threatening to blow you away if you didn't click OK?
Sorry pal, that doesn't pass the bullshit test. If you don't understand what you may or may not be agreeing to by clicking OK and using the software, perhaps you shouldn't do it.
Make no mistake; the arguments around here defending copyright infringement have nothing to do with principles, freedom, or any of such noble crusade.
Plain and simple, it's about getting free shit, and people will claim anything to justify why they think music, software, etc. is an entitlement.