Re:Cut and dried Copyright violation
on
Abusing the GPL?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
If you take some code and switch out all the variable names and change the spacing around, it's still the same code.
Afraid not - the GPL gives you the right to change the code as long as you release the changes; the fact that it's changed to code that won't make any sense without a truckload of aspirin and coffee doesn't matter. It's not very sporting of them to do this, but I have a feeling it'll even out in the end - they'll lose the comprehesible copy of this, they'll want to come out with a new version and be faced with the awful task of trying to remember what the hell they did.
Or maybe the public has just long ago grown up and dropped their silly idealism.
Silly idealism? What's silly idealism - to say that nuclear weapons should be eliminated, or to say that one's national interest or ideology is so important that one is justified in endangering the future of the human race to "defend it"? The Communists and the Capitalists thought that if the other side's ideals won, then it all would be over - as if there's any record of any empire that's lasted for more than a few hundred years. But in order to save the world from the spectre of the other side winning for a few hundred years, they were willing to eliminate humanity. Now that's silly idealism.
No country have nucelar weapons? What do you expect every nation that currently has them to just get rid of them?
Yes. Most of the world's countries don't have them. What would happen if they decided to impose sanctions on those that do? True, the countries that have them would probably break the sanctions by force, but that would show the tyranny of the situation for all to see.
The fact that you could even ponder such a thing makes one question your mental facilities.
The fact that the leaders of the world refuse to ponder such a thing makes me question their sanity.
Its like saying all guns should disapear or something.
Guns would be a lot harder to eliminate than nuclear weapons. The manufacturing process is nowhere as complex and better concealed, and the end product is a lot more numerous and hidable.
If the world survives the next few hundred years, and we get off the planet, historians will regard the existence of nuclear weapons as proof of our barbarity and stupidity.
If India and Pakistan should go to war and it turns nuclear, you'll see a growth in silly idealism that will make the anti-war protests of the 60's and the anti-nuke protests of the 80's look small. All it will take is a few network broadcasts of the results. Once the horror and shock wear off, people will start insisting that their governments eliminate these weapons - which are, after all, the ultimate weapons of terror.
War on terrorism? Why don't we start with ourselves?
Only one - just one poster on this story bothered to bring up the obvious subject of how much it cost for someone to put their own network on a satellite and what kind of equipment was necessary.
There's other questions that could be asked too. Can satellites be hacked? Would it cost 90K a month if someone was to launch their own bargain basement type satellite? How many satellite stations are possible on one satellite? What's the potential for signal hacking, culture jamming and counter propaganda?
I've realized that American propaganda is the best in the world. This is because it not only succeeds in displacing or marginalizing all serious dissent, but it manages to convince its consumers that it's hiding nothing.
And it manages to convince its consumers they're not watching propaganda at all. The US media are good at this...
Nobody in the US press could ever even float the following idea: "Maybe Iran has a right to defend its people with modern weapons, just like we do."
As someone who's actually asked why we have the right to nuclear weapons when Iraq doesn't, I can tell you that the (limited) reaction I've got is "What? You can't let those madmen have nukes."
It never occurs to them that what I'm really saying is that if one country shouldn't have them, maybe no country should. It's too radical an idea. American TV, with its perpetual binary presentation of issues, (right/left, hawk/dove, pro-life/pro-choice, etc. etc.) has trained the American people not to be able to think outside of the box. On the few occaisions I actually watch TV, the shallowness and obvious propaganda on TV news never ceases to amaze me.
The American TV audience is like a frog who started in cold water and is now starting to boil. They don't even realize they're being cooked.
You don't have to drive up a steep hill every day like I did to get home.
I live in Michigan, and yes, I used to. In the sticks. And working night shift, it wasn't plowed by the time I got home. And I was driving a 4 cyl Ford Mustang with no 4 wheel drive, no anti-lock brakes, no snow tires, no manual transmission and little power. I could handle it up to 10 or 11 inches; then I was screwed.
Now I live on flat land and drive a 1991 Mercury Grand Marquis, a big beast with anti-lock brakes, but no other helpful goodies. Our last big snow storm left 15 inches on the road. I got to work fairly easily once I got going. (No pushing - just rocking.)
It's not so much what car you drive and what it's got, but how you handle it. Snow driving's an art.
I can't be certain, as I don't remember the particular cartoon, but "Powerhouse" by Raymond Scott was often used in similar scenes in WB cartoons. His version was done by a small 6 or 7 piece ensemble, Carl Stalling would score it for a bigger orchestra. A lot of Raymond Scott's music is in Looney Tunes...
Oh, and if anyone argues that this somehow 'disenfranchises' the poor,
It wouldn't disenfranchise them - it would simply force them to make their own "entertainment", possibly out on the streets. They would no longer be docile and preoccupied. They might even starting thinking for themselves.
There was a reason the Romans gave away bread and circuses...
1. They don't know fertilizer from potting soil.
2. They can't tell wires, a gas can and duct tape from implements of mass destruction.
3. They can't transport a suspect across the country in less than six weeks - not only could he beat that with a car, he could beat it with a bicycle for Pete's sake.
4. They can't arrange a change of clothes or a shower for a prisoner in four days.
5. They can't tell a snotty mouthy kid from a terrorist.
But don't worry - we're safe because these people are protecting us. Hah. And don't worry about them violating your civil liberties - these clowns couldn't organize a drunken party in a beer factory.
Silverware does not rust - it tarnishes. And stainless steel "silverware" is technically flatware. And no, it's not polite to play Asteroids on your Palm Pilot during dinner. Sit up straight and remember that it's rude to comment on the condition of your host's table service and for Pete's sake don't use your cell phone's vibrate function to shake the martinis. Kids these days - no manners.
The division between lending and copying is pretty clear. If I lend something, then I don't have it any more.
But - when you lend a book, are you just lending a physical object or are you allowing a friend to copy the information it has with his brain? If it's a Stephen King book doesn't he experience the same experience of a story as you? If it's a book that explains how to fix a sink, does he automatically lose that knowledge when he returns the book to you? Is it stealing if he continues to fix sinks without the book?
I'm clear that when I copy music, I am doing something that is both legally and _morally_ wrong.
I have the ability to reproduce music in my mind's ear perfectly if I concentrate enough. Is that stealing? If I play my guitar along with the CD, is that stealing? Or if I turn the CD off and continue to play and sing the song myself, am I a thief?
Brains copy. They do not make perfect copies, but neither do radios or MP3 rippers. If fact, any perception a brain has of any object or sound is only an approximation, dependent on attention paid and ability to percieve. In short, copying is unavoidable, and no copy made of something can be percieved as a perfect copy by any human.
So - which copies are permissable and which are thieving and how do you possibly tell the difference? It's legal for me to record a song off the radio and turn it into an MP3 - but it's illegal for me to download the same song from the net. Never mind that you won't be able to tell one from the other.
So - I have an MP3 of "Already Gone" by the Eagles on my hard drive. Is it legal? Is it moral? Why that depends on if I recorded it off my tape, off the radio, or copied it off the net - but how will anyone tell? And if no one can tell the difference, why does it make a difference? The anti-copying philosophy will eventually result in a situation where people cannot prove if what they have is legal or not, unless they save the reciepts - and even that's in question if you have a good enough printer.
The end result of all this will be a absurd state where just about anyone can be "guilty" of copyright violation.
... I can only listen to the music as a 128 bps MP3. Why should I pay 12-13 bucks to do that when I can download 128 bps MP3s for nothing? (And yes, a person who knows how to record from one audio source to a computer can make an MP3 that's indistinguishable from one ripped from a CD.)
This is a shameless rip-off of the consumer. It's fraudulent, in fact. When I buy a CD, I expect CD quality music, not MP3s. They should have to put a sticker on the case explaining that computer users get MP3 only quality.
And yes, my only CD player IS a CD-ROM. I won't buy one of these "CDs" ever.
There is a screen of a gun. Press your mouse to play and pull the trigger. If the chamber has no bullet in it you will hear a click and boot into Linux. If it has a bullet in it, the gun will go off and you will boot into Windows. Do you want to play? (Y/N)
My requirements for something like this
on
Lindows Reviewed
·
· Score: 2
1. Runs windows apps and games as well as Windows
2. Is stabler than Windows
3. Doesn't require Windows
4. Doesn't do away with the things that make Linux a good OS
Someone please explain to me how Lindows even comes close to this. I have Windows. If I'm going to use something else to run Windows programs, it has to work better than Windows. Period. Even by the most optimistic things I've read about this, it doesn't look as if it's going to.
And what was that in the article about it booting in Windows, or dual-booting with Windows, but not dual-booting with Linux? They're kidding, right?
Oh dear. I never claimed any of these made the world better, just different, OK? But I will say that yes, it does matter what happens to everyone else even if you're dead, and no, I don't think living in a virtual world is a good idea, although if everyone else doesn't matter when you're dead, why should they matter when you're merely withdrawn?
Slashdot Mirror
If you take some code and switch out all the variable names and change the spacing around, it's still the same code.
Afraid not - the GPL gives you the right to change the code as long as you release the changes; the fact that it's changed to code that won't make any sense without a truckload of aspirin and coffee doesn't matter. It's not very sporting of them to do this, but I have a feeling it'll even out in the end - they'll lose the comprehesible copy of this, they'll want to come out with a new version and be faced with the awful task of trying to remember what the hell they did.
The RIAA screams every time their revenue drops that piracy is to blame. HOWEVER, note that the Grammy ratings were the lowest in 7 years.
"People must be pirating our TV shows!!!"
Or maybe the public has just long ago grown up and dropped their silly idealism.
Silly idealism? What's silly idealism - to say that nuclear weapons should be eliminated, or to say that one's national interest or ideology is so important that one is justified in endangering the future of the human race to "defend it"? The Communists and the Capitalists thought that if the other side's ideals won, then it all would be over - as if there's any record of any empire that's lasted for more than a few hundred years. But in order to save the world from the spectre of the other side winning for a few hundred years, they were willing to eliminate humanity. Now that's silly idealism.
No country have nucelar weapons? What do you expect every nation that currently has them to just get rid of them?
Yes. Most of the world's countries don't have them. What would happen if they decided to impose sanctions on those that do? True, the countries that have them would probably break the sanctions by force, but that would show the tyranny of the situation for all to see.
The fact that you could even ponder such a thing makes one question your mental facilities.
The fact that the leaders of the world refuse to ponder such a thing makes me question their sanity.
Its like saying all guns should disapear or something.
Guns would be a lot harder to eliminate than nuclear weapons. The manufacturing process is nowhere as complex and better concealed, and the end product is a lot more numerous and hidable.
If the world survives the next few hundred years, and we get off the planet, historians will regard the existence of nuclear weapons as proof of our barbarity and stupidity.
If India and Pakistan should go to war and it turns nuclear, you'll see a growth in silly idealism that will make the anti-war protests of the 60's and the anti-nuke protests of the 80's look small. All it will take is a few network broadcasts of the results. Once the horror and shock wear off, people will start insisting that their governments eliminate these weapons - which are, after all, the ultimate weapons of terror.
War on terrorism? Why don't we start with ourselves?
Only one - just one poster on this story bothered to bring up the obvious subject of how much it cost for someone to put their own network on a satellite and what kind of equipment was necessary.
There's other questions that could be asked too. Can satellites be hacked? Would it cost 90K a month if someone was to launch their own bargain basement type satellite? How many satellite stations are possible on one satellite? What's the potential for signal hacking, culture jamming and counter propaganda?
Is anyone awake out there?
I've realized that American propaganda is the best in the world. This is because it not only succeeds in displacing or marginalizing all serious dissent, but it manages to convince its consumers that it's hiding nothing.
...
And it manages to convince its consumers they're not watching propaganda at all. The US media are good at this
Nobody in the US press could ever even float the following idea: "Maybe Iran has a right to defend its people with modern weapons, just like we do."
As someone who's actually asked why we have the right to nuclear weapons when Iraq doesn't, I can tell you that the (limited) reaction I've got is "What? You can't let those madmen have nukes."
It never occurs to them that what I'm really saying is that if one country shouldn't have them, maybe no country should. It's too radical an idea. American TV, with its perpetual binary presentation of issues, (right/left, hawk/dove, pro-life/pro-choice, etc. etc.) has trained the American people not to be able to think outside of the box. On the few occaisions I actually watch TV, the shallowness and obvious propaganda on TV news never ceases to amaze me.
The American TV audience is like a frog who started in cold water and is now starting to boil. They don't even realize they're being cooked.
You don't have to drive up a steep hill every day like I did to get home.
...
I live in Michigan, and yes, I used to. In the sticks. And working night shift, it wasn't plowed by the time I got home. And I was driving a 4 cyl Ford Mustang with no 4 wheel drive, no anti-lock brakes, no snow tires, no manual transmission and little power. I could handle it up to 10 or 11 inches; then I was screwed.
Now I live on flat land and drive a 1991 Mercury Grand Marquis, a big beast with anti-lock brakes, but no other helpful goodies. Our last big snow storm left 15 inches on the road. I got to work fairly easily once I got going. (No pushing - just rocking.)
It's not so much what car you drive and what it's got, but how you handle it. Snow driving's an art.
It's ice that's the real bear
You don't need a 4 wheel drive urban tank to get to point B from point A in a city.
Unless, of course, you live in the midwest during the wintertime.
Gee, I've driven in the midwest for 29 years without a 4 wheel drive urban tank, and I've yet to slide off the road. I wonder how I managed.
That's just silly. You don't see "Though Shalt Not Kill" engraved on each hand gun; do you?
Hmm. If they can put on cans of insecticide and air freshener, "Do not point at people", why don't they put it on handguns?
I can't be certain, as I don't remember the particular cartoon, but "Powerhouse" by Raymond Scott was often used in similar scenes in WB cartoons. His version was done by a small 6 or 7 piece ensemble, Carl Stalling would score it for a bigger orchestra. A lot of Raymond Scott's music is in Looney Tunes ...
... He did quite a few of those cartoons, too. My kid likes them.
Oh, and if anyone argues that this somehow 'disenfranchises' the poor,
...
It wouldn't disenfranchise them - it would simply force them to make their own "entertainment", possibly out on the streets. They would no longer be docile and preoccupied. They might even starting thinking for themselves.
There was a reason the Romans gave away bread and circuses
We are all just amino acids, broiling away in some primordial soup while our products and companies evolve.
That, sir, was utterly brilliant. Pity it's gotten buried.
1. They don't know fertilizer from potting soil.
2. They can't tell wires, a gas can and duct tape from implements of mass destruction.
3. They can't transport a suspect across the country in less than six weeks - not only could he beat that with a car, he could beat it with a bicycle for Pete's sake.
4. They can't arrange a change of clothes or a shower for a prisoner in four days.
5. They can't tell a snotty mouthy kid from a terrorist.
But don't worry - we're safe because these people are protecting us. Hah. And don't worry about them violating your civil liberties - these clowns couldn't organize a drunken party in a beer factory.
Your tax dollars at work. Sheeesh.
Silverware does not rust - it tarnishes. And stainless steel "silverware" is technically flatware. And no, it's not polite to play Asteroids on your Palm Pilot during dinner. Sit up straight and remember that it's rude to comment on the condition of your host's table service and for Pete's sake don't use your cell phone's vibrate function to shake the martinis. Kids these days - no manners.
Well, I guess that part of my argument sucked ... Why'd I pick them? I don't really have that MP3. But I've already got some Aphex Twin, thanks.
The division between lending and copying is pretty clear. If I lend something, then I don't have it any more.
But - when you lend a book, are you just lending a physical object or are you allowing a friend to copy the information it has with his brain? If it's a Stephen King book doesn't he experience the same experience of a story as you? If it's a book that explains how to fix a sink, does he automatically lose that knowledge when he returns the book to you? Is it stealing if he continues to fix sinks without the book?
I'm clear that when I copy music, I am doing something that is both legally and _morally_ wrong.
I have the ability to reproduce music in my mind's ear perfectly if I concentrate enough. Is that stealing? If I play my guitar along with the CD, is that stealing? Or if I turn the CD off and continue to play and sing the song myself, am I a thief?
Brains copy. They do not make perfect copies, but neither do radios or MP3 rippers. If fact, any perception a brain has of any object or sound is only an approximation, dependent on attention paid and ability to percieve. In short, copying is unavoidable, and no copy made of something can be percieved as a perfect copy by any human.
So - which copies are permissable and which are thieving and how do you possibly tell the difference? It's legal for me to record a song off the radio and turn it into an MP3 - but it's illegal for me to download the same song from the net. Never mind that you won't be able to tell one from the other.
So - I have an MP3 of "Already Gone" by the Eagles on my hard drive. Is it legal? Is it moral? Why that depends on if I recorded it off my tape, off the radio, or copied it off the net - but how will anyone tell? And if no one can tell the difference, why does it make a difference? The anti-copying philosophy will eventually result in a situation where people cannot prove if what they have is legal or not, unless they save the reciepts - and even that's in question if you have a good enough printer.
The end result of all this will be a absurd state where just about anyone can be "guilty" of copyright violation.
... what's it doing on my hard drive?
... Hank the Angry Drunken Dwarf is elected President.
... are the people who hold the patent going to pay me royalties? Probably not.
I am releasing my DNA under the GPL license.
My wife's patented mine with a marriage license.
... and I'm not sure what that bit about the Illodium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator was all about. That voice sounds familiar though ...
... I can only listen to the music as a 128 bps MP3. Why should I pay 12-13 bucks to do that when I can download 128 bps MP3s for nothing? (And yes, a person who knows how to record from one audio source to a computer can make an MP3 that's indistinguishable from one ripped from a CD.)
This is a shameless rip-off of the consumer. It's fraudulent, in fact. When I buy a CD, I expect CD quality music, not MP3s. They should have to put a sticker on the case explaining that computer users get MP3 only quality.
And yes, my only CD player IS a CD-ROM. I won't buy one of these "CDs" ever.
There is a screen of a gun. Press your mouse to play and pull the trigger. If the chamber has no bullet in it you will hear a click and boot into Linux. If it has a bullet in it, the gun will go off and you will boot into Windows. Do you want to play? (Y/N)
1. Runs windows apps and games as well as Windows
2. Is stabler than Windows
3. Doesn't require Windows
4. Doesn't do away with the things that make Linux a good OS
Someone please explain to me how Lindows even comes close to this. I have Windows. If I'm going to use something else to run Windows programs, it has to work better than Windows. Period. Even by the most optimistic things I've read about this, it doesn't look as if it's going to.
And what was that in the article about it booting in Windows, or dual-booting with Windows, but not dual-booting with Linux? They're kidding, right?
Oh dear. I never claimed any of these made the world better, just different, OK? But I will say that yes, it does matter what happens to everyone else even if you're dead, and no, I don't think living in a virtual world is a good idea, although if everyone else doesn't matter when you're dead, why should they matter when you're merely withdrawn?