If Lara Croft is your role model, then we live in a sad world indeed.
If that's your definition of a 'sad world', I pity you. A strong female role model is a role model, regardless of whether it's an actual person or a creative fantasy. People who read fiction often admire, and even identify with, certain characters in the books, even though they know for a fact that these characters do not actually exist - and no one sees the harm in that. It's the exact same thing as what you're talking about here; and before you say it, books get no 'special exemption' simply because they are books.
In any event, people do not identify with actors - they identify with the characters those actors portray. The actors themselves are often just as pedestrian and boring as any regular human being, except when they provide gossip by getting themselves into trouble. Problem is, most fans have difficulty separating the actor from the character - but then that's why they're called 'fans' (i.e., fanatics). Or what they're actually 'identifying' with is the fame and fortune those actors represent, which still isn't the actor him or herself.
Look at how many people look up to Bill Gates. The man isn't any more redeeming than any other Joe or Jane on the street, but he is *rich rich rich*! Do you think they actually want to be like Bill Gates, or as *rich* as Bill Gates? If the former (geek with little in the way of social skills, no observable ethics) then many slashdotters are already there.
Even thought the CGI is pretty obvious in most cases, the alternative tends to be even worse. Although there are times when the CGI is pretty darned good: Stargate SG-1, for instance, despite the low budget, manages to do an incredible job with special effects, so much so that it really does look like enemy fighters are flying overhead, etc.
And this doesn't take into account entirely computer-animated movies, which I happen to like. An example being Final Fantasy, where the animation was never *supposed* to be photorealistic (although, predictably, people complained that it wasn't).
Are you freakin' serious? The primary goal in any violent situation is to avoid confrontation; but if you can't avoid confrontation then the second goal is to use *whatever means are necessary* to preserve your own life. If that means killing the other guy, then so be it. If the asshole wanted to live, he should've left you alone to begin with.
This 'nonviolent' crap is a fast and easy way to get yourself killed by someone who doesn't give a damn whether you live or die, or who might even kill you just for the amusement factor, or because they felt like it. Only fools take chances of this nature, fools who're bucking for a Darwin award.
Trying growing up in a poor neighborhood with lots of crime. Your view of self-defense will be radically different than some naive college boy from Suburbia, USA, whose only violent encounters consist of getting his ass kicked by the local bully.
Promoting someone who has no talent but just a body that would appeal to most customers in the target group (according to research) to perform songs that have neither innovative music nor significant lyrics but would appeal to most customers in the target group (according to research) is the way it should work?? Maybe these so-called artists are promoted too much with too much money?
Sure, that's the way it should work. If that's what the customer wants then that is surely what should be provided.
What's really annoying is that if Slashdot dweeb A doesn't like a certain type of music, said Slashdot dweeb tends to go on and on about the 'lack of talent' that the performers of that type of music are certain to have. That is, if it weren't for the Evil Corporations(TM) then those performers would never 'make it' in the music scene, while some rat-ass indie band would be raking in the dough.
There's a reason folks like Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, and Avril Lavigne are popular, and that reason isn't solely based upon promotion by nefarious RIAA members. It's because large chunks of the listening audience actually *like* the music in question; whether or not you're a part of that audience is entirely irrelevant, either to their popularity or in determining whether or not they have talent.
Maybe I'm crazy but that's one of the few things I like about windows: walk up to every windows machine and know exactly where to go to get what...
And this is exactly why you shouldn't be using Linux. Although my sentiment is undoubtedly contrary to the fanatic linux geek party line, I'm of the opinion that if you don't like Linux or aren't comfortable with it, *you shouldn't use it*.
Linux is about choice. Lots and lots of choice. One of those choices is to chuck it and go for something much less complex - like Windows.
The sad thing is that a lot of what passes for modern 'philosophy' is the same drivel being spouted by this guy, only 'cleaned up' in a tautological fashion so that said drivel is impossible to disprove. Also impossible to prove in any meaningful sense, but modern philosophy doesn't recognize empiricism as a valid approach (and in fact tries to deny it by placing much of its supposition in the fantasy realm of the 'metaphysical').
What I find interesting is that people actually get *paid* to indulge in this masturbatory nonsense. Talk about an amazing con....
Max
Re:what did she have to say besides looking good?
on
Aimee Deep Interview
·
· Score: 1
but who on Slashdot could possibly care what an 18 year old poster girl has to say about the legal issues of IP?
She doesn't sound any less coherent than the average Slashdot poster, who often speak on issues by pulling unsupported opinions directly out of their asses, without ever offering any supporting evidence other than something moronically anecdotal.
She may be something of an airhead, from the interview, but so are most of the folks here. At least she isn't an asshole to boot - and that puts her one-up right from the get-go.
Linux girl? You mean the anorexic crack-whore your link leads to? Ye gods man, the only thing I want to do with that woman is feed her, then check her into rehab....
use their body and fliting to get ahead, don't they ever want to be judged by their mind and merrits?
Actually, this just proves that she's savvy and cunning. Knowing that her readers are, for the most part, socially inept mysogynistic pseudo-geek losers, she panders directly to the one body part she *knows* isn't getting any action, while at the same time taking pains not to appear too intelligent - and thus threatening - to the woman-hating/fearing readership.
About the only men she's going to insult with these tactics are the gay ones, who're just jealous that they don't, and never will, look as good as Ms. Deep.
Patenting existing genes is unconstitutional in any event. As is clearly stated, both patents and copyrights exist to allow *inventors* and *artists* to profit from their work for a brief period of time, before that work must be released into the public domain.
Discovered natural events, like genes, are not 'invented'. There is no constitutional basis for issuing a patent for a discovery of this nature. You could patent the *invention* used to isolate and manipulate the gene, but patenting the gene itself is bogus, a ridiculous extension of the process that goes well beyond constitutional protections.
Unless, of course, the people involved in trying to patent the gene suffer from the delusion that they are god.
The difference is very real, and quite fundamental: using your own logic, the only 'laws' that can apply to the virtual world are those instituted by the owners. And these laws, by their very nature, have no influence on the real world.
I have no objection to MMORPG players instituting virtual governments, virtual money, virtual whatever - I don't care. I will, however, fight tooth and nail to make sure that real-world laws don't apply to virtual property, or virtual crime. To enact laws over what amounts to nothing more than a thought crime is a perversion of justice, by any measure.
So your character 'steals' the imaginary Sword of +8 Kick-Ass from someone else - so what? If the owner of the system decides to do something about it, then that's his choice; if not, that is also his choice. The owner makes the rules; the owner is God. But under no circumstances should the player who suffered this virtual 'theft' be allowed to use real-world laws to punish the trangressions of the imaginary character controlled by a real world player.
This should be obvious to anyone with even a minimal grip on reality. Using real-world legislation to control imaginary worlds with imaginary characters who might commit imaginary 'crimes' is just - plain - idiotic. The very idea is, I think, indicative of a mental sickness, the inability to recognize the difference between fantasy and reality.
...laws to pretty imaginary property and imaginary people. Just what we need
Unless some kind of actual, recognizable harm is done in the real world the law shouldn't be involved at all. Anything else is the purview of the person who runs the server and the game. That is, if they say virtual theft in their world is okay, then either you deal with this fact or you move on to some other game and some other world. That is the sole extent of your choices and anything claim to further 'rights' is nothing more than childish whining.
By definition a virtual world isn't real. Therefore real-world laws have no place in *any* virtual world. And the only rights you have in such a world are those afforded to you be the creators/owners - nothing more.
I can imagine the howls of protest coming down the line by the typical Evercrack addict and his MMORPG brethren. Confusing the virtual and the real seems to be inherent for many of these folks. But if you think you need legal protections for your virtual activities, all this really says is that you're in desperate need of extensive, ongoing therapy - or a life.
Except you don't have that right, and thats the way the law is written.
This argument has nothing to do with rights and everything to do with what's legal. 'Rights' are defined by the Constitution, not by corporations; laws are defined by the will of the people, enacted through their representatives.
I rather doubt that anyone of sound mind will claim that all the laws passed by Congress during the last ten years are truly indicative of the will of the people. Seems to me the evidence is pretty clear that at least a few of those laws were passed to appease corporate interests, in contravention to the will of the people.
As for your claims concerning contract law, I for one never signed any such agreement. And in any event, contracts can incorporate idiotic terms and later be ignored (e.g., "you will give me your first-born daughter"). Any contract which tells me that I can't use the product I purchased in its intended fashion (to watch a movie) unless I do so in one very particular way (through a MPAA-approved device) is a pretty fair definition of 'idiotic', as well as a violation of reasonable expectations and fair use.
Not to mention smelling very much like a price-fixing monopoly.
The United Nations is a failed, disgraced, and corrupt organization.
As is my own U.S. government. Unfortunately, many of my fellow citizens seem willing to ignore the massive corruption (e.g., Iraqi 'rebuilding' contracts and oil distribution) so long as they perceive their nation as 'kicking ass'. Doesn't seem to matter whose ass is kicked, or what the reason is, just so long as *someone* gets the American boot in their hole.
It's like living in one huge frat house. I keep expecting our deserter, crack-addict President to start using the word 'dude' during nationally televised pep rallies.
I agree that opening MS code would be a mistake for the company. Exposing spaghetti code, bad programming practices, bloat, and legacy chunks included because no one left at the company has a clue what they do (other than break things if they're removed) would bring ridicule down on MS that makes the typical Slashdot flurry look kind by comparison. It would, in fact, simply prove that the code is badly hacked and virtually incapable of being properly secured.
Opening the source would be an incredibly bad business move, especially given the growing suspicion and distrust of MS products. It's certainly something you wouldn't want to do when Linux is making slow, sure inroads in areas you want to dominate - and the Linux code is already 100% open for anyone to review. If you know your own code looks like hell in comparison to the Linux kernel, you'd have to be a complete idiot to invite that comparison on a world-wide level by opening your code to inspection.
In any event, there's little need for every app to be open source. The OS, sure; I can't imagine trusting a black box OS to run my computer, never knowing what's *really* going on behind the curtain. Even if I myself only review a small fraction of the code (and this is a true statement, in my case) I'm secure in the knowledge that I can review it any time I want, and that others have done so for the areas that I haven't gone over, others that I trust.
But as for apps...I use Opera as my browser. I have no access to the code. I do not care about access to the code. Opera does one thing - gives me web access - and I don't see this as a terribly critical activity. I have no reason to suspect the folks at Opera of including anything malicious or inanely stupid in their black box; and if I did, I can always fire up an OSS alternative like konqueror or mozilla. So there isn't any need whatsoever for something like Opera to be open source; Opera seems trustworthy (no lawsuits, much less convictions) and should it ever become a question I can use a different browser that is OSS at any time.
Open source is certainly not required for every product, or even most products. Like I said, I wouldn't dream of trusting a non-open OS, but I can, have, and will trust proprietary software for certain activities. Especially those I consider to be relatively unimportant - like web browsing - or that are meant purely for entertainment purposes (e.g., any computer game). Insisting that *everything* be open source is rather ridiculous - there isn't a need for such a sweeping demand, *especially if there are open source alternatives to proprietary products*. If there are, then you can satisfy everyone, including me (i.e., using Opera because it's the best browser out there, even if it isn't open).
else any form of media becomes intrinsically worthless
The only worth any product has is the worth that's assigned to it by the consumer. The provider doesn't have a say in this equation, at least not in a rational free market system.
Apparently many consumers think that movies, and especially music, are vastly overpriced. If the price is artificially inflated (i.e., price-fixing occurs) and legislatively protected, the consumer will turn to illegal means to obtain the product. This is the logical outcome of any attempt to fuck with the market in order to sustain a failing business model, while providing the consumer with little or no legal alternative. The situation is made even worse when the laws, which should reflect the will of the general population, instead reflect the will of a small minority; this is how entire swathes of law-abiding citizens are turned into criminals overnight.
(Some loud-mouthed idiots seem to think there personal views on the matter stem from an absolute, universal set of laws that must be imposed by force on an immoral, corrupt human race. These sorts are the 21st century version of the Spanish Inquisition, and should be avoided by all sane people. Or shot. Take your pick.)
The RIAA isn't acting to protect the interests of musicians; that should be painfully obvious to pretty much everyone by now. Their actions, intended to preserve their monopoly power and dying business model, instead actually hurt the artists by encouraging people to use alternative, illegal sources of distribution. Get enough people to thumb their nose at the law and turn to these sources (ignoring the possible penalties) and trying to fix the system through reasonable, free-market responses (e.g., lowering artificially high prices) will become harder in the long run. The resentment of the general populace towards the RIAA, and everyone perceived as being allied to the RIAA will increase over time and as more and more average Joes and Janes turn to 'crime' as a semi-silent protest to what they think of as being screwed.
The RIAA is dying; you can't kill progress without also killing the society invested in that progress. So they will go down, in flames, sooner or later; question is, will the dislike and distaste that a growing number of consumers feel for the RIAA translate into a similar dislike and distaste for 'those fucking greedy musicians'? If so, they'll manage to do quite a bit of damage on the way out, the legacy of which will be with us in terms of backlash for some time to come.
And along those same lines ("it's all about who you know") you can befriend a warez kiddie in 15 minutes on IRC and get *free* access to any piece of Windows software your heart could possibly desire! Yes, I said *free*!
I refuse to turn this into a debate about capitalism and its alternatives (are you truly suggesting we would all be better off were we all socialists?)
This statement might've had some merit if we actually lived in a capitalism, but we don't. America is currently far more socialist than anyone would like to admit, and our weak brand of 'capitalism' has more to do with corporate oligarchy than the free market.
I don't see how the current American economic model is any better than the models used by Canada, Germany, or, for that matter, Sweden. I might be more inclined to be rah-rah for my country if it was actually invested in a real free market, but right now that seems to be more rhetoric and illusion than reality.
Why should they? If the U.S. won't give up its nukes, then why should the Indians? Why should *anyone* give up *any* weapon of mass destruction so long as the U.S. refuses to do so?
Slashdot Mirror
If Lara Croft is your role model, then we live in a sad world indeed.
If that's your definition of a 'sad world', I pity you. A strong female role model is a role model, regardless of whether it's an actual person or a creative fantasy. People who read fiction often admire, and even identify with, certain characters in the books, even though they know for a fact that these characters do not actually exist - and no one sees the harm in that. It's the exact same thing as what you're talking about here; and before you say it, books get no 'special exemption' simply because they are books.
In any event, people do not identify with actors - they identify with the characters those actors portray. The actors themselves are often just as pedestrian and boring as any regular human being, except when they provide gossip by getting themselves into trouble. Problem is, most fans have difficulty separating the actor from the character - but then that's why they're called 'fans' (i.e., fanatics). Or what they're actually 'identifying' with is the fame and fortune those actors represent, which still isn't the actor him or herself.
Look at how many people look up to Bill Gates. The man isn't any more redeeming than any other Joe or Jane on the street, but he is *rich rich rich*! Do you think they actually want to be like Bill Gates, or as *rich* as Bill Gates? If the former (geek with little in the way of social skills, no observable ethics) then many slashdotters are already there.
Max
would be wrong if it were human.
There's no reason why this wouldn't be attainable in the next ten years, and if so, I find no reason to think such an achievement would be 'wrong'.
Max
Even thought the CGI is pretty obvious in most cases, the alternative tends to be even worse. Although there are times when the CGI is pretty darned good: Stargate SG-1, for instance, despite the low budget, manages to do an incredible job with special effects, so much so that it really does look like enemy fighters are flying overhead, etc.
And this doesn't take into account entirely computer-animated movies, which I happen to like. An example being Final Fantasy, where the animation was never *supposed* to be photorealistic (although, predictably, people complained that it wasn't).
Max
With acting you have to let yourself go. I think actors still hold something back though and aren't 100% of what they could be.
This would explain Natalie Portman's nosedive in acting ability in both Star Wars films. Not that it matters much, she's still a hot babe....
Max
Are you freakin' serious? The primary goal in any violent situation is to avoid confrontation; but if you can't avoid confrontation then the second goal is to use *whatever means are necessary* to preserve your own life. If that means killing the other guy, then so be it. If the asshole wanted to live, he should've left you alone to begin with.
This 'nonviolent' crap is a fast and easy way to get yourself killed by someone who doesn't give a damn whether you live or die, or who might even kill you just for the amusement factor, or because they felt like it. Only fools take chances of this nature, fools who're bucking for a Darwin award.
Trying growing up in a poor neighborhood with lots of crime. Your view of self-defense will be radically different than some naive college boy from Suburbia, USA, whose only violent encounters consist of getting his ass kicked by the local bully.
Max
Promoting someone who has no talent but just a body that would appeal to most customers in the target group (according to research) to perform songs that have neither innovative music nor significant lyrics but would appeal to most customers in the target group (according to research) is the way it should work?? Maybe these so-called artists are promoted too much with too much money?
Sure, that's the way it should work. If that's what the customer wants then that is surely what should be provided.
What's really annoying is that if Slashdot dweeb A doesn't like a certain type of music, said Slashdot dweeb tends to go on and on about the 'lack of talent' that the performers of that type of music are certain to have. That is, if it weren't for the Evil Corporations(TM) then those performers would never 'make it' in the music scene, while some rat-ass indie band would be raking in the dough.
There's a reason folks like Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, and Avril Lavigne are popular, and that reason isn't solely based upon promotion by nefarious RIAA members. It's because large chunks of the listening audience actually *like* the music in question; whether or not you're a part of that audience is entirely irrelevant, either to their popularity or in determining whether or not they have talent.
Max
Hey! You're forgetting Microsoft Bob!
Max
Maybe I'm crazy but that's one of the few things I like about windows: walk up to every windows machine and know exactly where to go to get what...
And this is exactly why you shouldn't be using Linux. Although my sentiment is undoubtedly contrary to the fanatic linux geek party line, I'm of the opinion that if you don't like Linux or aren't comfortable with it, *you shouldn't use it*.
Linux is about choice. Lots and lots of choice. One of those choices is to chuck it and go for something much less complex - like Windows.
Max
The sad thing is that a lot of what passes for modern 'philosophy' is the same drivel being spouted by this guy, only 'cleaned up' in a tautological fashion so that said drivel is impossible to disprove. Also impossible to prove in any meaningful sense, but modern philosophy doesn't recognize empiricism as a valid approach (and in fact tries to deny it by placing much of its supposition in the fantasy realm of the 'metaphysical').
What I find interesting is that people actually get *paid* to indulge in this masturbatory nonsense. Talk about an amazing con....
Max
but who on Slashdot could possibly care what an 18 year old poster girl has to say about the legal issues of IP?
She doesn't sound any less coherent than the average Slashdot poster, who often speak on issues by pulling unsupported opinions directly out of their asses, without ever offering any supporting evidence other than something moronically anecdotal.
She may be something of an airhead, from the interview, but so are most of the folks here. At least she isn't an asshole to boot - and that puts her one-up right from the get-go.
Max
Some freakin' computer pro, if you can't properly hide and lock out your porn collection...don't quit your dayjob....
Max
Linux girl? You mean the anorexic crack-whore your link leads to? Ye gods man, the only thing I want to do with that woman is feed her, then check her into rehab....
Max
use their body and fliting to get ahead, don't they ever want to be judged by their mind and merrits?
Actually, this just proves that she's savvy and cunning. Knowing that her readers are, for the most part, socially inept mysogynistic pseudo-geek losers, she panders directly to the one body part she *knows* isn't getting any action, while at the same time taking pains not to appear too intelligent - and thus threatening - to the woman-hating/fearing readership.
About the only men she's going to insult with these tactics are the gay ones, who're just jealous that they don't, and never will, look as good as Ms. Deep.
Max
That should've been:
"artificial intelligence, embryos, the retarded, the catatonic, the average slashdot poster..."
Oh wait - you were trying to avoid redundancy. My bad.
Max
Patenting existing genes is unconstitutional in any event. As is clearly stated, both patents and copyrights exist to allow *inventors* and *artists* to profit from their work for a brief period of time, before that work must be released into the public domain.
Discovered natural events, like genes, are not 'invented'. There is no constitutional basis for issuing a patent for a discovery of this nature. You could patent the *invention* used to isolate and manipulate the gene, but patenting the gene itself is bogus, a ridiculous extension of the process that goes well beyond constitutional protections.
Unless, of course, the people involved in trying to patent the gene suffer from the delusion that they are god.
Max
The difference is very real, and quite fundamental: using your own logic, the only 'laws' that can apply to the virtual world are those instituted by the owners. And these laws, by their very nature, have no influence on the real world.
I have no objection to MMORPG players instituting virtual governments, virtual money, virtual whatever - I don't care. I will, however, fight tooth and nail to make sure that real-world laws don't apply to virtual property, or virtual crime. To enact laws over what amounts to nothing more than a thought crime is a perversion of justice, by any measure.
So your character 'steals' the imaginary Sword of +8 Kick-Ass from someone else - so what? If the owner of the system decides to do something about it, then that's his choice; if not, that is also his choice. The owner makes the rules; the owner is God. But under no circumstances should the player who suffered this virtual 'theft' be allowed to use real-world laws to punish the trangressions of the imaginary character controlled by a real world player.
This should be obvious to anyone with even a minimal grip on reality. Using real-world legislation to control imaginary worlds with imaginary characters who might commit imaginary 'crimes' is just - plain - idiotic. The very idea is, I think, indicative of a mental sickness, the inability to recognize the difference between fantasy and reality.
Max
...laws to pretty imaginary property and imaginary people. Just what we need
Unless some kind of actual, recognizable harm is done in the real world the law shouldn't be involved at all. Anything else is the purview of the person who runs the server and the game. That is, if they say virtual theft in their world is okay, then either you deal with this fact or you move on to some other game and some other world. That is the sole extent of your choices and anything claim to further 'rights' is nothing more than childish whining.
By definition a virtual world isn't real. Therefore real-world laws have no place in *any* virtual world. And the only rights you have in such a world are those afforded to you be the creators/owners - nothing more.
I can imagine the howls of protest coming down the line by the typical Evercrack addict and his MMORPG brethren. Confusing the virtual and the real seems to be inherent for many of these folks. But if you think you need legal protections for your virtual activities, all this really says is that you're in desperate need of extensive, ongoing therapy - or a life.
Max
Except you don't have that right, and thats the way the law is written.
This argument has nothing to do with rights and everything to do with what's legal. 'Rights' are defined by the Constitution, not by corporations; laws are defined by the will of the people, enacted through their representatives.
I rather doubt that anyone of sound mind will claim that all the laws passed by Congress during the last ten years are truly indicative of the will of the people. Seems to me the evidence is pretty clear that at least a few of those laws were passed to appease corporate interests, in contravention to the will of the people.
As for your claims concerning contract law, I for one never signed any such agreement. And in any event, contracts can incorporate idiotic terms and later be ignored (e.g., "you will give me your first-born daughter"). Any contract which tells me that I can't use the product I purchased in its intended fashion (to watch a movie) unless I do so in one very particular way (through a MPAA-approved device) is a pretty fair definition of 'idiotic', as well as a violation of reasonable expectations and fair use.
Not to mention smelling very much like a price-fixing monopoly.
Max
The United Nations is a failed, disgraced, and corrupt organization.
As is my own U.S. government. Unfortunately, many of my fellow citizens seem willing to ignore the massive corruption (e.g., Iraqi 'rebuilding' contracts and oil distribution) so long as they perceive their nation as 'kicking ass'. Doesn't seem to matter whose ass is kicked, or what the reason is, just so long as *someone* gets the American boot in their hole.
It's like living in one huge frat house. I keep expecting our deserter, crack-addict President to start using the word 'dude' during nationally televised pep rallies.
Max
I agree that opening MS code would be a mistake for the company. Exposing spaghetti code, bad programming practices, bloat, and legacy chunks included because no one left at the company has a clue what they do (other than break things if they're removed) would bring ridicule down on MS that makes the typical Slashdot flurry look kind by comparison. It would, in fact, simply prove that the code is badly hacked and virtually incapable of being properly secured.
Opening the source would be an incredibly bad business move, especially given the growing suspicion and distrust of MS products. It's certainly something you wouldn't want to do when Linux is making slow, sure inroads in areas you want to dominate - and the Linux code is already 100% open for anyone to review. If you know your own code looks like hell in comparison to the Linux kernel, you'd have to be a complete idiot to invite that comparison on a world-wide level by opening your code to inspection.
In any event, there's little need for every app to be open source. The OS, sure; I can't imagine trusting a black box OS to run my computer, never knowing what's *really* going on behind the curtain. Even if I myself only review a small fraction of the code (and this is a true statement, in my case) I'm secure in the knowledge that I can review it any time I want, and that others have done so for the areas that I haven't gone over, others that I trust.
But as for apps...I use Opera as my browser. I have no access to the code. I do not care about access to the code. Opera does one thing - gives me web access - and I don't see this as a terribly critical activity. I have no reason to suspect the folks at Opera of including anything malicious or inanely stupid in their black box; and if I did, I can always fire up an OSS alternative like konqueror or mozilla. So there isn't any need whatsoever for something like Opera to be open source; Opera seems trustworthy (no lawsuits, much less convictions) and should it ever become a question I can use a different browser that is OSS at any time.
Open source is certainly not required for every product, or even most products. Like I said, I wouldn't dream of trusting a non-open OS, but I can, have, and will trust proprietary software for certain activities. Especially those I consider to be relatively unimportant - like web browsing - or that are meant purely for entertainment purposes (e.g., any computer game). Insisting that *everything* be open source is rather ridiculous - there isn't a need for such a sweeping demand, *especially if there are open source alternatives to proprietary products*. If there are, then you can satisfy everyone, including me (i.e., using Opera because it's the best browser out there, even if it isn't open).
Max
And yet linux is still far more secure than Windows. Go figure.
Max
else any form of media becomes intrinsically worthless
The only worth any product has is the worth that's assigned to it by the consumer. The provider doesn't have a say in this equation, at least not in a rational free market system.
Apparently many consumers think that movies, and especially music, are vastly overpriced. If the price is artificially inflated (i.e., price-fixing occurs) and legislatively protected, the consumer will turn to illegal means to obtain the product. This is the logical outcome of any attempt to fuck with the market in order to sustain a failing business model, while providing the consumer with little or no legal alternative. The situation is made even worse when the laws, which should reflect the will of the general population, instead reflect the will of a small minority; this is how entire swathes of law-abiding citizens are turned into criminals overnight.
(Some loud-mouthed idiots seem to think there personal views on the matter stem from an absolute, universal set of laws that must be imposed by force on an immoral, corrupt human race. These sorts are the 21st century version of the Spanish Inquisition, and should be avoided by all sane people. Or shot. Take your pick.)
The RIAA isn't acting to protect the interests of musicians; that should be painfully obvious to pretty much everyone by now. Their actions, intended to preserve their monopoly power and dying business model, instead actually hurt the artists by encouraging people to use alternative, illegal sources of distribution. Get enough people to thumb their nose at the law and turn to these sources (ignoring the possible penalties) and trying to fix the system through reasonable, free-market responses (e.g., lowering artificially high prices) will become harder in the long run. The resentment of the general populace towards the RIAA, and everyone perceived as being allied to the RIAA will increase over time and as more and more average Joes and Janes turn to 'crime' as a semi-silent protest to what they think of as being screwed.
The RIAA is dying; you can't kill progress without also killing the society invested in that progress. So they will go down, in flames, sooner or later; question is, will the dislike and distaste that a growing number of consumers feel for the RIAA translate into a similar dislike and distaste for 'those fucking greedy musicians'? If so, they'll manage to do quite a bit of damage on the way out, the legacy of which will be with us in terms of backlash for some time to come.
Max
And along those same lines ("it's all about who you know") you can befriend a warez kiddie in 15 minutes on IRC and get *free* access to any piece of Windows software your heart could possibly desire! Yes, I said *free*!
Who needs open source when you can rob MS blind?
Max
I refuse to turn this into a debate about capitalism and its alternatives (are you truly suggesting we would all be better off were we all socialists?)
This statement might've had some merit if we actually lived in a capitalism, but we don't. America is currently far more socialist than anyone would like to admit, and our weak brand of 'capitalism' has more to do with corporate oligarchy than the free market.
I don't see how the current American economic model is any better than the models used by Canada, Germany, or, for that matter, Sweden. I might be more inclined to be rah-rah for my country if it was actually invested in a real free market, but right now that seems to be more rhetoric and illusion than reality.
Max
India should abandon nuclear weapons and ICBMs.
Why should they? If the U.S. won't give up its nukes, then why should the Indians? Why should *anyone* give up *any* weapon of mass destruction so long as the U.S. refuses to do so?
Hey, what's good for the goose....
Max