So what should we do? Embrace stagnation? With arguments like that Ford would've been shut down right from the get-go and buggy whip manufacturers would be making a killing even today.
No, I'm in the "well over 30" camp. What riles me is that so many of my "peers", if you can call them that, have done an about-face with regard to technological development. Primarily because they 'got theirs' and don't want an up-and-coming generation to threaten their position on the ladder with new technologies that they themselves don't want to take the time to master or adapt to.
Same ol' same ol'. And I stand by what I said: if you're too stupid or too lazy to get with the times, then get the fuck out of the way. Trying to freeze the world at some particular point just because you happen to like it that way makes you an egotistical shit of the worst sort.
The p2p "problem" has never been about the money to the RIAA; they're well aware that if anything p2p is a great way to further promotions at no additional cost. It has been, and always will be, about *control*. The RIAA has had nearly complete control over the music industry for decades and absolutely refuses to acknowledge the fact that adaption to new technologies requires a loss of control over production and distribution. They could easily adapt to changing conditions but to do so they have to give up their current authoritarian position.
You might find it perplexing that a supposedly capitalist organization primarily motivated by the acquisition of money would take this tack. Perplexing, that is, until you realize that the RIAA left behind capitalist motives for its business practices a long, long time ago. The folks in charge are far more enamored of power than profit and will do anything - anything at all - to retain that power, even at the expense of profit. They'd rather have both, of course, but given the choice power will always win the day. The very idea that an musician or band might be able to make it big without their assistance and approval is blasphemy of the worst sort to the execs in the industry. It cannot be tolerated. It must be stopped.
This isn't exactly a revelation, especially to those who've had the misfortune to work with, or in, the music industry. And the disease itself is common to any business or conglomerate that reaches monopoly/oligopoly status. Once a typical egomanianical executive gets a taste of that kind of power they'll do whatever they can to keep the crack coming, even if it hurts their organization financially. Hollywood is an even better example of this kind of thinking, although as yet the MPAA - stuck in its old-world rut - seems to have trouble grasping just how real the threat is.
The RIAA execs are crack-whores for power. Like any other addict they'll do whatever it takes to get their fix, regardless of who it hurts - including themselves. You can't ascribe rational motives, especially rational economic motives, to folks whose overwhelming motivation is the acquisition and retention of power. They continue on their course no matter how destructive, or self-destructive, they become.
Isn't it just plain obvious that, even *if* p2p doesn't affect sales now, that eventually it will?
So what? The only alternative solution is to freeze technology in its tracks. Although this seems to be perfectly acceptable to a large number of folks over 30, who favor an eternal status quo with the exception of those (minor) changes that they themselves personally approve. That is, the changes that don't muck with their particular view on "How The World Should Be(TM)".
Time to grow up and realize that the world will change regardless of what you want. You can adapt, or you can be left behind. I don't give a shit which choice you make *so long as you get out of the way*.
I'm far more worried about some group of politicians in Washington getting the bright idea that they could smuggle in a nuke and set it off, then blame the terrorists for the attack. What better excuse for imposing martial law across the country and stripping the populace of the few freedoms they still have? How many Americans would refuse to even consider the possibility that members of their own government were responsible for the attack, and would blindly support the "New Order" no matter what sort of heinous activity it engaged in?
If a nuke goes off I'm much more likely to believe that the culprits are Americans sitting in Washington dreaming of dictatorship than a bunch of unwashed religious fanatics from the Middle East.
But pissing and ranting about how he destroyed his own legacy is just ridiculous.
Except that he actually did destroy his own legacy. He went from genius to pathetic farce between the two trilogies - in less than 10 parsecs, wouldn't you know!
In the end it comes down to what do I dislike more, a cashier less than completely aware of all United States currency denominations or individuals such as yourself that inconvenience yourself and the bank you inconvenience just so perfect strangers can have one of your lucky special elite $2 bills.
In the end it doesn't matter for shit what you like or dislike since $2 bills are legal tender. But you'd have to get past your own sense of self-importance to see that.
Nice argument, but the fact that you used the word "closure" means you deserve a good whipping right here and now. I'd say ten lashes would do the trick.
That's a bullshit argument. You can't "damage society", only individuals or property. 'Society' is that nebulous work of fiction people refer to when they want to justify some lame-ass opinion or action without having to explain themselves and provide some fact-based rationale for their views.
For the lefties it's "the good of society" and for the righties it's "for the children". Both are horseshit, by any reasonable measure.
There's a reason Heinlein's work is referred to as "juvenile fiction". This is a prime example of why that's so. One has only to look at history to see that beating the living daylights out of your kids made them no less likely to go out and commit violent crimes when they got old enough to do so.
Unless, of course, you think there's some mythical golden age we should all return to, whose basis lies in corporal punishment. Go ahead, enlighten me: when was this golden age, exactly?
Modded flamebait by a bunch of losers who hate the Constitution. Fortunately for me, my karma's maxed so I can do this:
"It isn't a democracy, and for good reason. It's a republic and that means that the 'will of the people' do not, and can never, trump the Constitution. The moment the 'people' start acting in a dictatorial manner to everyone who doesn't agree with them, excusing their behavior with arguments along the lines of "that's how democracy works", then you know the entire system has been compromised.
Democracies are just as totalitarian as any dictatorship. Having the numbers on your side doesn't make it any more moral than your garden-variety fascism.
The government is only a structure to implement the common will of the people.
No, the government's first and foremost duty is to uphold the Constitution *regardless of the will of any group arrogant enough to call themselves 'the people'.* If 'the people' don't like that little fact, too fucking bad for them."
And a hearty "piss off" to the anti-Constitution asswipes who modded the original down to 0.
Please someone tell me that they cant do this retroactively, that its impossible under the current GPLv2 terms.
You can't, at least in the U.S. If you specify certain terms of copyright you have no right in the future to restrict those terms further - period. You can impose stricter copyright terms on new products, or new versions of products, but not on the products released under the older copyright.
Once a copyright is specified, you can only loosen the restrictions, not tighten them. Unless, of course, you have a clause allowing just that in the older copyright (which the GPL does not).
Yeah, just what I want: a game where I have to ask *permission* from the developers to play it despite the fact that I've already bought and installed the damned thing on MY computer. Fanboys seem to think this is the greatest thing since sliced bread, the utter inability to decide for yourself what happens on your computer simply because the fucks at Valve laid it out as holy scripture.
Downloadable HL2? Sure, no problem. Steam as an absolute requirement for downloadable HL2? You can eat shit on that one. Steam and an internet connection as an absolute requirement to play a game you've already bought and paid for? Not only can you eat shit, but please - just die already.
Get a clue and stop wrapping your lips around Valve cock while pretending to everyone around you it tastes as sweet as chocolate. Next up you'll be lobbying for "The Church of Valve", you idiots.
It isn't a democracy, and for good reason. It's a republic and that means that the 'will of the people' do not, and can never, trump the Constitution. The moment the 'people' start acting in a dictatorial manner to everyone who doesn't agree with them, excusing their behavior with arguments along the lines of "that's how democracy works", then you know the entire system has been compromised.
Democracies are just as totalitarian as any dictatorship. Having the numbers on your side doesn't make it any more moral than your garden-variety fascism.
The government is only a structure to implement the common will of the people.
No, the government's first and foremost duty is to uphold the Constitution *regardless of the will of any group arrogant enough to call themselves 'the people'.* If 'the people' don't like that little fact, too fucking bad for them.
Hey, you can't fault them for trying to spin the issue
Sure I can. Just as I can fault any lying sack of shit trying to fuck with my life by messing with the legal system. They *are* liars and they *are* at fault, and no amount of 'spin' will ever change those facts.
I wonder what they're going to do when virtual child porn becomes indistinguishable from real child porn? Arrest people for thought-crimes? Lord knows this software isn't going to help them distinguish between the two.
Look at all the people complaining about anonymous posters and bloggers. Ya gotta ask yourself why these holier-than-thou types get their panties into such a wad over comments made by people they'll never be able to track down and beat to death with a baseball bat.
Or not.
Don't like the idea of someone making fun of your tiny penis behind the shield of anonymity? Then move to a country which doesn't believe in free speech, and don't let the door hit your ass on th way out. Fuckwits.
The treaties of Earth governments are irrelevent. Earth governments rule Earth; they don't have any business imposing their rule on colonies off-Earth.
I agree, if you're talking about tax dollars. Manned space flight is the purview of private industry, not of a government agency. I don't have any problem whatsoever sending probes to comets, planets, jovian moons, the sun, etc. for purely scientific purposes (what private industry won't do, which is why you support such programs with your taxes), but manned space flight? Right now there's nothing a man in space can do that a robot or probe cannot, except measure dick-size against all the nations that can't themselves put a man into space. A complete fucking boondoggle from start to finish.
Another reason I oppose government programs for manned space flight is that it might give the governments on Earth the idea that they can impose their laws and rules on future off-Earth colonies. If a private consortium were to build a lunar base for mining purposes (a la the old O'Neill plan) asswipes in, say, the U.S. government might come to the conclusion that they rule the moon as well as the United States. Governments on Earth have no business trying to extend their domain off-Earth. The last goddamn thing I want to see is some nation or group of nations on Earth trying to impose their rule across the entire solar system.
Slashdot Mirror
So what should we do? Embrace stagnation? With arguments like that Ford would've been shut down right from the get-go and buggy whip manufacturers would be making a killing even today.
Max
No, I'm in the "well over 30" camp. What riles me is that so many of my "peers", if you can call them that, have done an about-face with regard to technological development. Primarily because they 'got theirs' and don't want an up-and-coming generation to threaten their position on the ladder with new technologies that they themselves don't want to take the time to master or adapt to.
Same ol' same ol'. And I stand by what I said: if you're too stupid or too lazy to get with the times, then get the fuck out of the way. Trying to freeze the world at some particular point just because you happen to like it that way makes you an egotistical shit of the worst sort.
Max
The p2p "problem" has never been about the money to the RIAA; they're well aware that if anything p2p is a great way to further promotions at no additional cost. It has been, and always will be, about *control*. The RIAA has had nearly complete control over the music industry for decades and absolutely refuses to acknowledge the fact that adaption to new technologies requires a loss of control over production and distribution. They could easily adapt to changing conditions but to do so they have to give up their current authoritarian position.
You might find it perplexing that a supposedly capitalist organization primarily motivated by the acquisition of money would take this tack. Perplexing, that is, until you realize that the RIAA left behind capitalist motives for its business practices a long, long time ago. The folks in charge are far more enamored of power than profit and will do anything - anything at all - to retain that power, even at the expense of profit. They'd rather have both, of course, but given the choice power will always win the day. The very idea that an musician or band might be able to make it big without their assistance and approval is blasphemy of the worst sort to the execs in the industry. It cannot be tolerated. It must be stopped.
This isn't exactly a revelation, especially to those who've had the misfortune to work with, or in, the music industry. And the disease itself is common to any business or conglomerate that reaches monopoly/oligopoly status. Once a typical egomanianical executive gets a taste of that kind of power they'll do whatever they can to keep the crack coming, even if it hurts their organization financially. Hollywood is an even better example of this kind of thinking, although as yet the MPAA - stuck in its old-world rut - seems to have trouble grasping just how real the threat is.
The RIAA execs are crack-whores for power. Like any other addict they'll do whatever it takes to get their fix, regardless of who it hurts - including themselves. You can't ascribe rational motives, especially rational economic motives, to folks whose overwhelming motivation is the acquisition and retention of power. They continue on their course no matter how destructive, or self-destructive, they become.
Max
Isn't it just plain obvious that, even *if* p2p doesn't affect sales now, that eventually it will?
So what? The only alternative solution is to freeze technology in its tracks. Although this seems to be perfectly acceptable to a large number of folks over 30, who favor an eternal status quo with the exception of those (minor) changes that they themselves personally approve. That is, the changes that don't muck with their particular view on "How The World Should Be(TM)".
Time to grow up and realize that the world will change regardless of what you want. You can adapt, or you can be left behind. I don't give a shit which choice you make *so long as you get out of the way*.
Max
I'm far more worried about some group of politicians in Washington getting the bright idea that they could smuggle in a nuke and set it off, then blame the terrorists for the attack. What better excuse for imposing martial law across the country and stripping the populace of the few freedoms they still have? How many Americans would refuse to even consider the possibility that members of their own government were responsible for the attack, and would blindly support the "New Order" no matter what sort of heinous activity it engaged in?
If a nuke goes off I'm much more likely to believe that the culprits are Americans sitting in Washington dreaming of dictatorship than a bunch of unwashed religious fanatics from the Middle East.
Max
But pissing and ranting about how he destroyed his own legacy is just ridiculous.
Except that he actually did destroy his own legacy. He went from genius to pathetic farce between the two trilogies - in less than 10 parsecs, wouldn't you know!
Max
Everyone I know who actually cares enough one way or the other to bitch about the movies has seen both multiple times.
Then I'd guess that everyone you know is a bloody loser, given the evidence at hand.
Max
And would account for the fact that you're too dickless to post as anything other than an anonymous coward...coward.
Max
In the end it comes down to what do I dislike more, a cashier less than completely aware of all United States currency denominations or individuals such as yourself that inconvenience yourself and the bank you inconvenience just so perfect strangers can have one of your lucky special elite $2 bills.
In the end it doesn't matter for shit what you like or dislike since $2 bills are legal tender. But you'd have to get past your own sense of self-importance to see that.
Max
Nice argument, but the fact that you used the word "closure" means you deserve a good whipping right here and now. I'd say ten lashes would do the trick.
Max
He's damages society
That's a bullshit argument. You can't "damage society", only individuals or property. 'Society' is that nebulous work of fiction people refer to when they want to justify some lame-ass opinion or action without having to explain themselves and provide some fact-based rationale for their views.
For the lefties it's "the good of society" and for the righties it's "for the children". Both are horseshit, by any reasonable measure.
Max
There's a reason Heinlein's work is referred to as "juvenile fiction". This is a prime example of why that's so. One has only to look at history to see that beating the living daylights out of your kids made them no less likely to go out and commit violent crimes when they got old enough to do so.
Unless, of course, you think there's some mythical golden age we should all return to, whose basis lies in corporal punishment. Go ahead, enlighten me: when was this golden age, exactly?
Max
The harm is greater when you affect more people, not less.
Only a total asshat would equate spamming to murder. No matter how much spam this guy sends out, it will never be equivalent to ending a human life.
If you think otherwise you're in serious need of therapy.
Max
Modded flamebait by a bunch of losers who hate the Constitution. Fortunately for me, my karma's maxed so I can do this:
"It isn't a democracy, and for good reason. It's a republic and that means that the 'will of the people' do not, and can never, trump the Constitution. The moment the 'people' start acting in a dictatorial manner to everyone who doesn't agree with them, excusing their behavior with arguments along the lines of "that's how democracy works", then you know the entire system has been compromised.
Democracies are just as totalitarian as any dictatorship. Having the numbers on your side doesn't make it any more moral than your garden-variety fascism.
The government is only a structure to implement the common will of the people.
No, the government's first and foremost duty is to uphold the Constitution *regardless of the will of any group arrogant enough to call themselves 'the people'.* If 'the people' don't like that little fact, too fucking bad for them."
And a hearty "piss off" to the anti-Constitution asswipes who modded the original down to 0.
Max
Please someone tell me that they cant do this retroactively, that its impossible under the current GPLv2 terms.
You can't, at least in the U.S. If you specify certain terms of copyright you have no right in the future to restrict those terms further - period. You can impose stricter copyright terms on new products, or new versions of products, but not on the products released under the older copyright.
Once a copyright is specified, you can only loosen the restrictions, not tighten them. Unless, of course, you have a clause allowing just that in the older copyright (which the GPL does not).
Max
Yeah, just what I want: a game where I have to ask *permission* from the developers to play it despite the fact that I've already bought and installed the damned thing on MY computer. Fanboys seem to think this is the greatest thing since sliced bread, the utter inability to decide for yourself what happens on your computer simply because the fucks at Valve laid it out as holy scripture.
Downloadable HL2? Sure, no problem. Steam as an absolute requirement for downloadable HL2? You can eat shit on that one. Steam and an internet connection as an absolute requirement to play a game you've already bought and paid for? Not only can you eat shit, but please - just die already.
Get a clue and stop wrapping your lips around Valve cock while pretending to everyone around you it tastes as sweet as chocolate. Next up you'll be lobbying for "The Church of Valve", you idiots.
Max
You have THAT much respect for Bob Vila? Wow!
You dare to disrespect the Great Bob? Let's see *you* build an entire house in 24 hours, bub!
Max
Ah well, at least the Canadians aren't burning down the white house anymore..
And this is a good thing???
Max
technically legal to steal the music up there
It isn't stealing in Canada, by definition. Your opinion does not make law.
Max
It isn't a democracy, and for good reason. It's a republic and that means that the 'will of the people' do not, and can never, trump the Constitution. The moment the 'people' start acting in a dictatorial manner to everyone who doesn't agree with them, excusing their behavior with arguments along the lines of "that's how democracy works", then you know the entire system has been compromised.
Democracies are just as totalitarian as any dictatorship. Having the numbers on your side doesn't make it any more moral than your garden-variety fascism.
The government is only a structure to implement the common will of the people.
No, the government's first and foremost duty is to uphold the Constitution *regardless of the will of any group arrogant enough to call themselves 'the people'.* If 'the people' don't like that little fact, too fucking bad for them.
Max
Hey, you can't fault them for trying to spin the issue
Sure I can. Just as I can fault any lying sack of shit trying to fuck with my life by messing with the legal system. They *are* liars and they *are* at fault, and no amount of 'spin' will ever change those facts.
Max
I wonder what they're going to do when virtual child porn becomes indistinguishable from real child porn? Arrest people for thought-crimes? Lord knows this software isn't going to help them distinguish between the two.
Max
Look at all the people complaining about anonymous posters and bloggers. Ya gotta ask yourself why these holier-than-thou types get their panties into such a wad over comments made by people they'll never be able to track down and beat to death with a baseball bat.
Or not.
Don't like the idea of someone making fun of your tiny penis behind the shield of anonymity? Then move to a country which doesn't believe in free speech, and don't let the door hit your ass on th way out. Fuckwits.
Max
The treaties of Earth governments are irrelevent. Earth governments rule Earth; they don't have any business imposing their rule on colonies off-Earth.
Max
We should obviously give up on space then
I agree, if you're talking about tax dollars. Manned space flight is the purview of private industry, not of a government agency. I don't have any problem whatsoever sending probes to comets, planets, jovian moons, the sun, etc. for purely scientific purposes (what private industry won't do, which is why you support such programs with your taxes), but manned space flight? Right now there's nothing a man in space can do that a robot or probe cannot, except measure dick-size against all the nations that can't themselves put a man into space. A complete fucking boondoggle from start to finish.
Another reason I oppose government programs for manned space flight is that it might give the governments on Earth the idea that they can impose their laws and rules on future off-Earth colonies. If a private consortium were to build a lunar base for mining purposes (a la the old O'Neill plan) asswipes in, say, the U.S. government might come to the conclusion that they rule the moon as well as the United States. Governments on Earth have no business trying to extend their domain off-Earth. The last goddamn thing I want to see is some nation or group of nations on Earth trying to impose their rule across the entire solar system.
Max