Definitely an interesting idea - it sounds like it is based on the German tradition of lawyers independently following up on copyright and trademark violations.
Perhaps send a threatening letter, then give the respondent 60 days to justify why they are not infringing, then publish their names as suspected copyright infringers.
No, but I hear there is a whole world of free software out there that's going to replace the commercial vendors any day now.
Heh./snark
No, it wouldn't be that simple. On the other hand, nothing that Apple does happens in a vacuum, and so a lot of the same software that is currently available for the PPC-Mac would be rapidly available for the x86-Mac because I cannot imagine that Apple would just say "surprise!"
If it ever happened. Which it won't.
There is a suprising amount of discussion of something that will happen only when Hell truly freezes over.
There would be NO APPLICATIONS. Mac programs are compiled for the powerpc architecture, so the binaries wouldn't work.
Great googaly-moogaly! What a jam! What a fix! What a... the compiler is readily available? Oh, well, then recompile that sucker!
Yeah, it's that simple. If you port the OS, you have to port the libraries because of the way the OS works, so obviously, you have to use a X86-based Objective C compiler, which it turns out is GCC.
You left out the bit where Katherine Harris was the co-chair of the Florida Bush campaign. While it might not be possible to have someone neutral fill the position, it sure as hell smells funny.
Use a real email address at your domain. Since you control it - set it to filter keep only mail from GoDaddy and your hosting company, since your email from those companies will be coming from known sources.
Use a second account as your personal email, but don't publish that address and make it something slightly off-kilter so spammers have a harder time guessing it.
And if it doesn't solve the problem, the people who complain have no one to blame but themselves.
Do you really, in your heart of hearts, believe that will stop them from complaining? Some of them, perhaps, but most of them just want to return to some happy, fuzzy place that never existed.
Only where the politics have had an effect on technology (Your Rights Online, etc.), but now it's actually denigrating into the same stuff that can be found elsewhere.
Actually, what really bothers me is the inability for/. to filter it out back down to what it was.
In general, I think the politics idea should have been nixed from the start. While some of it is unavoidable, we are already polarized here from our various choices in tech, and adding politics to the mix will drive a further wedge between the various factions here.
Furthermore - it is impossible to filter it out. Either the filters don't work or the stories are miscategorized. I really wish the editors would re-think the idea to include political discussion on this forum. There are enough sources out there to fill several lifetimes worth of reading - I would have preferred this one to remain focused more tightly on technology.
You write that as if it is a desirable thing. I realize that it is unavoidable these days, but really, internet immortality is a two-edged sword. Personally, I choose the negative view - if I put up information, correct or incorrect, and wish to remove said information, I would rather it be gone for good and not hanging around in a cache somewhere.
Actually, pirate suffers from the same problem as the word hacker - originally, it was a term referring to anyone who copied software illegally, whether for profit or not. Aside from that, you're welcome to come up with another term that is as succinct and useful.
What's funnier is that I'm not really worried about software piracy, per se. What bugs me is when people try to justify it by saying
"Oh, well, they have enough money"
"Oh, they did it to us, we'll do it to them"
"The laws aren't fair or just, so I'm going to break them"
The first is the whine of the petulant teenager, who's not willing to do a little work to get ahead.
The second is the cry of the vigilante. They did it to you, so you do it to them, but then they get to do it to you again and harder, so where does it end?
The third one is the problematic excuse, because it can be justified in certain instances. However, no one needs software to survive, no one has an inalienable right to software, so I think that excuse is better saved for those instances where someone is being damaged by oppression. Overuse and misapplication of the excuse makes it ineffective.
I'm not going to pretend that I'm totally on the side of the angels here. But at least I don't try to justify my actions with lame excuses.
Oh, hell no. Are you so stupid that you really even have to ask?
How about, "I would never buy it". Is that not a justification?
Not a very good one. It means you haven't done your research to find alternatives, or learned to create your own alternative version.
Admit that you're just too lazy or uncreative to write your own software and get on with it. Works for me.
I'll admit it - I've obtained a "liberated" copy or two of software. But I did it because I was curious, because I got a thrill out of it, because I didn't feel like paying, or because I couldn't pay. I never once offered up "because it's screwing Microsoft" as a reason, because it's a stupid reason since Microsoft won't notice it unless you tell them.
So at what point do we say there is a difference between a decent profit and out-and-out rape of the consumer?
We don't unless you want to go down the road that destroys incentive to succeed. The only companies that are limited in profits are those that either can't succeed, won't try, or those that have given up certain rights for protection (utilities, etc.)
I am 37 years old and make triple digits (seriously)
Who's the dork? I'm making more than $999 a year (or at least know the meaning of triple, quadruple, etc.). If you're really only making triple digits, you need to find a new industry or learn that "six figures" is a lot more impressive.
Its not about "the rich" as you put it. Its about "standing up against what you know is wrong",
Actually, according to the post I was responding to, it is about the rich. Using someone else's wealth as a justification for screwing them points up a serious problem with ethics.
Moreover, it's a piss-poor protest method since it doesn't make a sound.
You'd be a hell of a lot more effective if you announced to the world what you're doing and exactly why you're doing it, and convinced people to go along. Good luck.
which as you get older becomes more important.
Sorry, I save my ire for the bits of the world where people are killing and dying for some very poor reasons indeed. Software pirates who try to justify screwing the rich just make the bogometer redline.
you wouldn't understand.
Maybe if you'd learn to explain it better instead of firing off a half-assed dismissal, I would.
I stand by my argument that it is truly lame excusing yourself from moral responsibility simply because the person or company you're robbing is rich. I would say the same to a rich person who steals from the poor.
So, stealing from the rich is justified? Oh, wait, it's not theft, it's copyright infringement.
50BILLION in the bank proves it.
50 Billion in the bank proves nothing beyond that they have a ton of money.
Look, if you pirate software, you're breaking the law, plain and simple. Stop trying to justify it - that's cheap and stupid because there is no justification for breaking that particular set of laws. Software is not a right and you do not have to be a pirate to make a living.
Pirate because you want to do it, pirate because someone made you do it, hell, pirate because it gives you a woody. But quit whining about how you're being screwed by the rich.
That's the excuse of the oppressed and I seriously doubt you're being oppressed by anyone except your parents.
it's small wonder nobody investigates price fixing of that commodity
Really? Look who's sitting in our current administration - two former oilmen who consulted those selfsame oil companies when creating their "energy policy'.
Hmmm. I may have to rethink my mild opposition to guns in light of the amount of information out there teaching some waste of DNA to pick my household locks.
If everyone paid less taxes, everyone would have more money
And prices would go up to match the disposable income levels, ie., inflation. The actual gains by the ordinary taxpayer would be considerably less than you realize.
Charity is more a condition of attitude than a condition of wealth. If you are raised to be altruistic, then you will be more likely to donate to charity, along with a host of other relatively good social type things.
At least the "copy tax" is more sane than tacking on law after law because it short circuits the whole legal process and says "you pay for it - it's legal". No, I don't agree it's the best way to handle it, but I haven't got a brilliant idea waiting in backup, either. A lot of my taxes go to things I don't support (religiously funded private schools, weapons programs, propping up eventual terrorists under the guise of freedom fighters, etc.), but the "copy tax" would be a better use than some of the others.
This is about George Lucas's vision of the film and him laying out a huge wad of cash to get the film closer to what he originally wanted. Sure - it's one of the classic films from our childhood, but at least he's the one making the changes, not some Turnerized producer who just wants to colorize Casablanca.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not peeing on anything until they release the PC version.
Sometime next year.
Definitely an interesting idea - it sounds like it is based on the German tradition of lawyers independently following up on copyright and trademark violations.
Perhaps send a threatening letter, then give the respondent 60 days to justify why they are not infringing, then publish their names as suspected copyright infringers.
they'd never consider adopting a map-based system
Not that it would matter if they endorsed such a system, since the Republicans are firmly in control here. It's more than just a little bit worrisome.
"We're going to keep on building the party [the Texas GOP] until we're hunting Democrats with dogs." -- attributed to Phil Gramm.
No, but I hear there is a whole world of free software out there that's going to replace the commercial vendors any day now.
/snark
Heh.
No, it wouldn't be that simple. On the other hand, nothing that Apple does happens in a vacuum, and so a lot of the same software that is currently available for the PPC-Mac would be rapidly available for the x86-Mac because I cannot imagine that Apple would just say "surprise!"
If it ever happened. Which it won't.
There is a suprising amount of discussion of something that will happen only when Hell truly freezes over.
There would be NO APPLICATIONS. Mac programs are compiled for the powerpc architecture, so the binaries wouldn't work.
... the compiler is readily available? Oh, well, then recompile that sucker!
Great googaly-moogaly! What a jam! What a fix! What a
Yeah, it's that simple. If you port the OS, you have to port the libraries because of the way the OS works, so obviously, you have to use a X86-based Objective C compiler, which it turns out is GCC.
Does that answer your question?
Did "Jeff" pay to have the article placed or what? The lede on /. seems like astroturfing, rather than a genuine discover by "Michael".
My question is: Is this software as good as the ever-extensible Kwiki implementation?
/assholiness
How about you do some research and tell us what your decision was instead of asking us to do your work for you?
You left out the bit where Katherine Harris was the co-chair of the Florida Bush campaign. While it might not be possible to have someone neutral fill the position, it sure as hell smells funny.
Use a real email address at your domain. Since you control it - set it to filter keep only mail from GoDaddy and your hosting company, since your email from those companies will be coming from known sources.
Use a second account as your personal email, but don't publish that address and make it something slightly off-kilter so spammers have a harder time guessing it.
And if it doesn't solve the problem, the people who complain have no one to blame but themselves.
Do you really, in your heart of hearts, believe that will stop them from complaining? Some of them, perhaps, but most of them just want to return to some happy, fuzzy place that never existed.
Only where the politics have had an effect on technology (Your Rights Online, etc.), but now it's actually denigrating into the same stuff that can be found elsewhere.
/. to filter it out back down to what it was.
Actually, what really bothers me is the inability for
In general, I think the politics idea should have been nixed from the start. While some of it is unavoidable, we are already polarized here from our various choices in tech, and adding politics to the mix will drive a further wedge between the various factions here.
Furthermore - it is impossible to filter it out. Either the filters don't work or the stories are miscategorized. I really wish the editors would re-think the idea to include political discussion on this forum. There are enough sources out there to fill several lifetimes worth of reading - I would have preferred this one to remain focused more tightly on technology.
along with some measure of internet immortality
You write that as if it is a desirable thing. I realize that it is unavoidable these days, but really, internet immortality is a two-edged sword. Personally, I choose the negative view - if I put up information, correct or incorrect, and wish to remove said information, I would rather it be gone for good and not hanging around in a cache somewhere.
Actually, pirate suffers from the same problem as the word hacker - originally, it was a term referring to anyone who copied software illegally, whether for profit or not. Aside from that, you're welcome to come up with another term that is as succinct and useful.
The first is the whine of the petulant teenager, who's not willing to do a little work to get ahead.
The second is the cry of the vigilante. They did it to you, so you do it to them, but then they get to do it to you again and harder, so where does it end?
The third one is the problematic excuse, because it can be justified in certain instances. However, no one needs software to survive, no one has an inalienable right to software, so I think that excuse is better saved for those instances where someone is being damaged by oppression. Overuse and misapplication of the excuse makes it ineffective.
I'm not going to pretend that I'm totally on the side of the angels here. But at least I don't try to justify my actions with lame excuses.
All laws are just?
Oh, hell no. Are you so stupid that you really even have to ask?
How about, "I would never buy it". Is that not a justification?
Not a very good one. It means you haven't done your research to find alternatives, or learned to create your own alternative version.
Admit that you're just too lazy or uncreative to write your own software and get on with it. Works for me.
I'll admit it - I've obtained a "liberated" copy or two of software. But I did it because I was curious, because I got a thrill out of it, because I didn't feel like paying, or because I couldn't pay. I never once offered up "because it's screwing Microsoft" as a reason, because it's a stupid reason since Microsoft won't notice it unless you tell them.
So at what point do we say there is a difference between a decent profit and out-and-out rape of the consumer?
We don't unless you want to go down the road that destroys incentive to succeed. The only companies that are limited in profits are those that either can't succeed, won't try, or those that have given up certain rights for protection (utilities, etc.)
I am 37 years old and make triple digits (seriously)
Who's the dork? I'm making more than $999 a year (or at least know the meaning of triple, quadruple, etc.). If you're really only making triple digits, you need to find a new industry or learn that "six figures" is a lot more impressive.
Its not about "the rich" as you put it. Its about "standing up against what you know is wrong",
Actually, according to the post I was responding to, it is about the rich. Using someone else's wealth as a justification for screwing them points up a serious problem with ethics.
Moreover, it's a piss-poor protest method since it doesn't make a sound.
You'd be a hell of a lot more effective if you announced to the world what you're doing and exactly why you're doing it, and convinced people to go along. Good luck.
which as you get older becomes more important.
Sorry, I save my ire for the bits of the world where people are killing and dying for some very poor reasons indeed. Software pirates who try to justify screwing the rich just make the bogometer redline.
you wouldn't understand.
Maybe if you'd learn to explain it better instead of firing off a half-assed dismissal, I would.
I stand by my argument that it is truly lame excusing yourself from moral responsibility simply because the person or company you're robbing is rich. I would say the same to a rich person who steals from the poor.
but I am not made of money, and Microsoft IS
So, stealing from the rich is justified? Oh, wait, it's not theft, it's copyright infringement.
50BILLION in the bank proves it.
50 Billion in the bank proves nothing beyond that they have a ton of money.
Look, if you pirate software, you're breaking the law, plain and simple. Stop trying to justify it - that's cheap and stupid because there is no justification for breaking that particular set of laws. Software is not a right and you do not have to be a pirate to make a living.
Pirate because you want to do it, pirate because someone made you do it, hell, pirate because it gives you a woody. But quit whining about how you're being screwed by the rich.
That's the excuse of the oppressed and I seriously doubt you're being oppressed by anyone except your parents.
it's small wonder nobody investigates price fixing of that commodity
Really? Look who's sitting in our current administration - two former oilmen who consulted those selfsame oil companies when creating their "energy policy'.
Nothing stops some little miscreant from breaking into your house like a shotgun blast upside the head.
Hmmm. I may have to rethink my mild opposition to guns in light of the amount of information out there teaching some waste of DNA to pick my household locks.
I might have to take a second look at Real
It's still crap. His answers were well thought-out and to the point, but despite all that - RealPlayer is still crap.
If everyone paid less taxes, everyone would have more money
And prices would go up to match the disposable income levels, ie., inflation. The actual gains by the ordinary taxpayer would be considerably less than you realize.
Charity is more a condition of attitude than a condition of wealth. If you are raised to be altruistic, then you will be more likely to donate to charity, along with a host of other relatively good social type things.
At least the "copy tax" is more sane than tacking on law after law because it short circuits the whole legal process and says "you pay for it - it's legal". No, I don't agree it's the best way to handle it, but I haven't got a brilliant idea waiting in backup, either. A lot of my taxes go to things I don't support (religiously funded private schools, weapons programs, propping up eventual terrorists under the guise of freedom fighters, etc.), but the "copy tax" would be a better use than some of the others.
This is about George Lucas's vision of the film and him laying out a huge wad of cash to get the film closer to what he originally wanted. Sure - it's one of the classic films from our childhood, but at least he's the one making the changes, not some Turnerized producer who just wants to colorize Casablanca.