You are essentially arguing that we should be stifling innovation, just more slowly. That is nonsense and doesn't fly.
No, he clearly argues that a shorter copyright is better than both what we have now and nothing at all. You misstated his argument.
That is EXACTLY what I said. I asserted that Copyright as it currently exists stifles innovation. Therefore it follows that reducing copyright length is in fact stifling innovation just a little less. I did not misstate his argument at all.
Rolling eyes is literally impossible. As for the unfounded, sorry, but that's the facts.
You've been watching too many anti-piracy trailers and wouldn't know a fact if it bit you hard on the rear.
Its the pro-pirates who want to displace the current economic status quo.
The current status quo is drivel. Idiot "artists" overpaid for mediocre fast food junk books, songs and movies.
Accordingly, its completely on your shoulders to prove conventional wisdom and hundreds of years of economic theory is completely wrong.
Easy: Britney Spears.
So glad to know you consider the world economy to be "voodoo." That really showed me. Ouch.
Ugh...and the stupidity of the China comment - they've literally grown (by graft and theft) on the shoulders of everyone who does have a copyright system.
I wonder how much "Made in China" stuff you're using to broadcast that stupid disrespectful comment.
Any other stupidity to offer.
Seriously, its so annoying to have such completely stupid and factually wrong arguments offered up as the pro-pirate debate.
You're the one who brought up the pro-pirate debate. Your favourite word seems to be stupid. Stupid is as stupid does.
Honestly I've grown bored refuting your gibberish so I've trimmed the comment. Grow up, and learn to argue without being an abusive, obnoxious waste of words, or go back to the kiddy table.
Morons on slashdot constantly make that assertion but never actually say why or how things would work without it.
I see you've read how to make friend and influence people. If you bothered to both READ and COMPREHEND what i had said without throwing around childish abuse, you might have actually come across my assertion that compensating the artist should not be tied to allowing them to control the work. I suggested that the creator should be allowed to sue (or perhaps claim would be a better word) if someone uses their work.
And even worse, the stupidity of such statements completely destroys massive segments of the world economy and brings a halt to innovation in the technology communities.
So please, explain in detail how destroying the world economy and creating massive unemployment is an excellent idea.
That is called a straw man, since I did not assert that we should destroy the economy or any other such drivel.
The problem is, far too many stupid people say stuff but never stop to actually think what it really means. In this case, beyond meaning you're really stupid, you massive damage the world economy and instantly increase the unemployment, destroying some of the most critical to the economy (small and medium sized businesses).
You are simply repeating yourself in arguments, insults and strawmen. Saying it twice instead of once doesn't make it any truer.
Even worse, all too often, the people who make you assertion, are so stupid they don't even realize they are arguing the world should move to socialism.
Well in amongst the insults here is a brand new straw man. I do not support socialism, at least not in the sense that you use the word. I believe that if people aren't compensated there will be less work done and less things created. I also believe that people SHOULD get something extra for their efforts and creations. I disagree that a centuries old system that relied on the right to make copies is the way to do it. Are you done refuting arguments that were never made, or shall we continue?
After all, you're arguing everyone should work for free. Either that, or you're first in line to pay $1000.00 to see your next movie. Oh, that's right, you won't want to pay anyone for their work - we should all live in socialist communes.
Your comprehension skills are very poor. I at no stage said that anyone should work for free or live in a commune. It is you who fails to see that any other system might work and insists that I hold values that I do not and want outcomes that I do not. You should be very careful asserting that others are stupid, as you're not coming across as much of a bright spark: Just an abusive unimaginative troll who needs some classes in comprehension anger management.
tl;dr: Next time get a clue, stop abusing your opponent and actually argue against your opponent instead of pulling silly straw men out of the air and attacking them.
The problem is that copyright should be 14 years with the option to extend for another 14. After you've created something, you should be able to make money on it for a limited period of time, and then it should go into the public domain while people still care about it enough to preserve it. And patent duration should depend on the field. For slow-moving fields, it might be twenty years. For high-tech fields, it should be more like three. And for individual inventors working independently, the duration should be longer than for patents-for-hire.
You are essentially arguing that we should be stifling innovation, just more slowly. That is nonsense and doesn't fly. Copyright is an outdated mechanism. A new one is needed that compensates the creator without allowing the creator control or limitation. In the simplest instance you should be able to "sue for your cut". Even that has it's problems but it's a better compromise than limiting usage of a creation.
I really dont like the "average lifespan" measurements. They're nonsense! Most sudden deaths happen in infants, infalting the number massively. Moreso if you count miscarraiges. Really, if you make it past those first few hell years, you will probably have quite some time left, barring extreme violence, major disease or overwhelming senescence.
All of that is reflected. Your life expectancy as calculated in life tables actually increases if you make it through childhood. Where you live has a lot more to do with life expectancy though. In some places it's still not 50 years of age.
Seriously, just think of the potential hacking uses of a pencil sized high powered laser! Cutting and drilling through hardened steel. Remote ignition of fires or detonation of explosives. Actual blinding weapons in a flashlight case.
I'm afraid they'll be too cool to be let out in public.
Yeah because spark plugs can't be hacked to shock people. And cars can't be used to kill and maime as it is.
The size of these lasers is only an issue if they're built as small and portable as spark plugs. It would be just as easy to build them right into the engine given they shouldn't need to be replaced like a spark plug.
The Brigadier, died in February. The Celestial Toymaker, died in March. Sarah Jane Smith, died in April. I hope it ends here.
Sadly I think not even if this cluster ends. Most of the actors were between 20 and 40 at the time of the original Dr Who's (and some where older) between 1960 and the mid 1980s. They aren't going to live forever. Men and women in their 80s and 90s will die. The actors of the original Dr Who series are aging and dying. That's just the way life works. It's even less nice when a lady in her 60s dies, but that too happens. Life expectency in the UK is just short of 80.
I am aware that Facebook has HTTPS login available. I simply meant they need a very visible reminder that you can use HTTPS for improved security on their HTTP login page.
Instead of telling another business what to do, and jumping on the ever popular Facebook bashing bandwagon, how about you fix your anti-virus software so it doesn't freeze, crash, block access to portable drives silently while it scans them, and leak memory like a sieve. While your at it no anti-virus is perfect so clean up your heuristics. This is nothing more than a shoddy publicity stunt.
I agree with 2 out of 3 of the points though. I think they could make a dog's breakfast out of forcing HTTPS use and block out too many users. Of course if they did it right with a clearly visible link to the HTTPS address it would work (though take a huge toll on their servers). But the other 2 Facebook likely won't do because it would cost them money and increase their responsibility - probably not the best of reasons to ignore security. Vetting app developers costs money and if something gets through probably increases their legal exposure. Making everything private by default decreases Facebook's value which is all about what information is shared. If you don't want something on Facebook, forget privacy options, just don't put it there in the first place. They'd sell your grandmother if they had the right motiviation.
If you think competitive behavior is not required in a society (I'd say the other stuff you listed isn't), you'll be in for a shock:) Competition is what made your ancestors survive to bear enough offspring.
Yeah, cooperation has nothing to do with it. It's only the strongest, smartest, wisest uberchampion that survives. That's why there are only 100 people on the planet instead of 7 billion and none of them have any health issues or genetic defects.
CO-OPERATION is why we survive and thrive. Plenty of other animals are better at many other things. We're the best at visualising abstract things and making and using tools but even that requires cooperation. (Try throwing your typical college professor, scientist or engineer in a survival situation and see how far he gets on his own. I promise you he won't be building space vehicles).
His argument was that if you compete to be good at academia, then there are more potential jobs to take advantage of the skills you gain from competition, than there are jobs where we need people who are extremely good at athletics. There's no paradox or contradiction, and you're misusing the word irony.
The whole point of competition is that there is a winner, and that only winners get the rewards. It ignores a whole realm of cooperative endevour that has allowed humanity to succeed as a group. I am not misusing the word irony at all. There is most certainly irony in complaining about competition while suggesting it is the solution in the same breath. If you can't see that it's not me that needs lessons in what irony means.
Competition is an integral part of (not only) human behavior, you can't discuss that away. The question is just, on what should the children focus on competing?
Horse shit. Murder, incest and poo slinging are also equally part of (not only) humban behaviour you can't discuss away. That does not make them desirable in civilised society.
Do you realise the irony in complaining that schools aren't competitive enough, while simultaneously complaining that people are competing to be that 1 in a billion athelete?
We don't need competition. Competition tells you if you're not the best, you're a worthless loser. We don't need a hundred confident competitive giants and a million suicidal losers. What you need is to make the learning itself worthwhile.
I studied 2 years of chess in Armenia, beginning from grade 4 in a 10 year secondary system. Of course, this was during Soviet times and you were allowed to choose from a range of subjects. It wasn't compulsory. My grades in other subjects improved dramatically as a result.
...and I'm sure as hell not going to read the article. I regret slashdot has become the trashiest of trashy geek news sites. I can almost feel the regret coursing through my veins as I hit preview and submit.
Yes he is for real. If we're going to make wild intolerant statements though, I'd rather blame his father and God. I mean if not for the Sabbath day, we'd have a whole lot more productivity, competition and spending, and hence more jobs. Perhaps we should also blame literacy. If it weren't for damned literacy no one would use the Internet. Maybe his dad had it wrong all along and instead of educating African Americans we should be denying everyone education.
Typical slashdot bullshit. You don't agree with what he said so he should be tagged a troll. You wouldn't know a healthy argument if it bit you on the arse
A troll is someone who's only purpose is not to provide legitimate discussion but rather just to stir and upset people for their own amusement. Tagging people as troll because you don't agree with what you say is childish, destructive, and makes you the fucking troll.
Everyone I know who has started using the GIMP had a chuckle about the name, then really forgot about the name and got on with editing photos.
Good for you. Now get some friends that aren't nerds, and we can talk again.
Basically, noone cares anymore.
Wrong.
And also, language changes. Google "gimp". You have to get to the bottom of the second page before you reach an "urban dictionary" definition of the old meaning. The first two whole pages are about image manipulation.
It doesn't matter what Google's first. If you ask the average guy/girl on the street do they know what "GIMP" means, I bet they don't start telling you about image editing. Get a clue.
would you really lose so much integrity -- to slap this thing with a flashier moniker than "G.I.M.P."?
There are two steps to doing this. First make the application's name configurable at compile time, much like Firefox does. Second and possibly more expensive is to come up with a recognizable name that isn't already else someone else's trademark, plug it into the application, and promote it.
GNU-IMP. Close enough to the old to be recognizable and remain true to the original. Far enough that it's not embarrassing to ask your IT department to allow it to be installed, or bring up with the boss.
I saw the site for a second... and boom... server goes down.
Tis' better to have looked and lost than to have never looked before.
Well it's much cheaper getting your camera into near space than buying enough bandwidth and processing power to prevent being slashdotted. Some things you can't do on a budget.
Slashdot Mirror
You are essentially arguing that we should be stifling innovation, just more slowly. That is nonsense and doesn't fly.
No, he clearly argues that a shorter copyright is better than both what we have now and nothing at all. You misstated his argument.
That is EXACTLY what I said. I asserted that Copyright as it currently exists stifles innovation. Therefore it follows that reducing copyright length is in fact stifling innovation just a little less. I did not misstate his argument at all.
Rolling eyes is literally impossible. As for the unfounded, sorry, but that's the facts.
You've been watching too many anti-piracy trailers and wouldn't know a fact if it bit you hard on the rear.
Its the pro-pirates who want to displace the current economic status quo.
The current status quo is drivel. Idiot "artists" overpaid for mediocre fast food junk books, songs and movies.
Accordingly, its completely on your shoulders to prove conventional wisdom and hundreds of years of economic theory is completely wrong.
Easy: Britney Spears.
So glad to know you consider the world economy to be "voodoo." That really showed me. Ouch.
Ugh...and the stupidity of the China comment - they've literally grown (by graft and theft) on the shoulders of everyone who does have a copyright system.
I wonder how much "Made in China" stuff you're using to broadcast that stupid disrespectful comment.
Any other stupidity to offer.
Seriously, its so annoying to have such completely stupid and factually wrong arguments offered up as the pro-pirate debate.
You're the one who brought up the pro-pirate debate. Your favourite word seems to be stupid. Stupid is as stupid does.
Honestly I've grown bored refuting your gibberish so I've trimmed the comment. Grow up, and learn to argue without being an abusive, obnoxious waste of words, or go back to the kiddy table.
Copyright is an outdated mechanism.
Morons on slashdot constantly make that assertion but never actually say why or how things would work without it.
I see you've read how to make friend and influence people. If you bothered to both READ and COMPREHEND what i had said without throwing around childish abuse, you might have actually come across my assertion that compensating the artist should not be tied to allowing them to control the work. I suggested that the creator should be allowed to sue (or perhaps claim would be a better word) if someone uses their work.
And even worse, the stupidity of such statements completely destroys massive segments of the world economy and brings a halt to innovation in the technology communities.
So please, explain in detail how destroying the world economy and creating massive unemployment is an excellent idea.
That is called a straw man, since I did not assert that we should destroy the economy or any other such drivel.
The problem is, far too many stupid people say stuff but never stop to actually think what it really means. In this case, beyond meaning you're really stupid, you massive damage the world economy and instantly increase the unemployment, destroying some of the most critical to the economy (small and medium sized businesses).
You are simply repeating yourself in arguments, insults and strawmen. Saying it twice instead of once doesn't make it any truer.
Even worse, all too often, the people who make you assertion, are so stupid they don't even realize they are arguing the world should move to socialism.
Well in amongst the insults here is a brand new straw man. I do not support socialism, at least not in the sense that you use the word. I believe that if people aren't compensated there will be less work done and less things created. I also believe that people SHOULD get something extra for their efforts and creations. I disagree that a centuries old system that relied on the right to make copies is the way to do it. Are you done refuting arguments that were never made, or shall we continue?
After all, you're arguing everyone should work for free. Either that, or you're first in line to pay $1000.00 to see your next movie. Oh, that's right, you won't want to pay anyone for their work - we should all live in socialist communes.
Your comprehension skills are very poor. I at no stage said that anyone should work for free or live in a commune. It is you who fails to see that any other system might work and insists that I hold values that I do not and want outcomes that I do not. You should be very careful asserting that others are stupid, as you're not coming across as much of a bright spark: Just an abusive unimaginative troll who needs some classes in comprehension anger management.
tl;dr: Next time get a clue, stop abusing your opponent and actually argue against your opponent instead of pulling silly straw men out of the air and attacking them.
The problem is that copyright should be 14 years with the option to extend for another 14. After you've created something, you should be able to make money on it for a limited period of time, and then it should go into the public domain while people still care about it enough to preserve it. And patent duration should depend on the field. For slow-moving fields, it might be twenty years. For high-tech fields, it should be more like three. And for individual inventors working independently, the duration should be longer than for patents-for-hire.
You are essentially arguing that we should be stifling innovation, just more slowly. That is nonsense and doesn't fly. Copyright is an outdated mechanism. A new one is needed that compensates the creator without allowing the creator control or limitation. In the simplest instance you should be able to "sue for your cut". Even that has it's problems but it's a better compromise than limiting usage of a creation.
I really dont like the "average lifespan" measurements. They're nonsense! Most sudden deaths happen in infants, infalting the number massively. Moreso if you count miscarraiges. Really, if you make it past those first few hell years, you will probably have quite some time left, barring extreme violence, major disease or overwhelming senescence.
All of that is reflected. Your life expectancy as calculated in life tables actually increases if you make it through childhood. Where you live has a lot more to do with life expectancy though. In some places it's still not 50 years of age.
Seriously, just think of the potential hacking uses of a pencil sized high powered laser! Cutting and drilling through hardened steel. Remote ignition of fires or detonation of explosives. Actual blinding weapons in a flashlight case.
I'm afraid they'll be too cool to be let out in public.
Yeah because spark plugs can't be hacked to shock people. And cars can't be used to kill and maime as it is.
The size of these lasers is only an issue if they're built as small and portable as spark plugs. It would be just as easy to build them right into the engine given they shouldn't need to be replaced like a spark plug.
The Brigadier, died in February.
The Celestial Toymaker, died in March.
Sarah Jane Smith, died in April.
I hope it ends here.
Sadly I think not even if this cluster ends. Most of the actors were between 20 and 40 at the time of the original Dr Who's (and some where older) between 1960 and the mid 1980s. They aren't going to live forever. Men and women in their 80s and 90s will die. The actors of the original Dr Who series are aging and dying. That's just the way life works. It's even less nice when a lady in her 60s dies, but that too happens. Life expectency in the UK is just short of 80.
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_dyn_le00_in&idim=country:GBR&dl=en&hl=en&q=life+expectancy+united+kingdom
It starts off with a teaspoon of sugar in your coffee...
Before long, you're eating tons of it, snorting it, injecting it into the blood.
Then you need harder stuff...
That's not how they got me. I was promised that spoon full of sugar would help the medicine go down. Damn you Mary Poppins! Damn you to hell!
I am aware that Facebook has HTTPS login available. I simply meant they need a very visible reminder that you can use HTTPS for improved security on their HTTP login page.
Instead of telling another business what to do, and jumping on the ever popular Facebook bashing bandwagon, how about you fix your anti-virus software so it doesn't freeze, crash, block access to portable drives silently while it scans them, and leak memory like a sieve. While your at it no anti-virus is perfect so clean up your heuristics. This is nothing more than a shoddy publicity stunt.
I agree with 2 out of 3 of the points though. I think they could make a dog's breakfast out of forcing HTTPS use and block out too many users. Of course if they did it right with a clearly visible link to the HTTPS address it would work (though take a huge toll on their servers). But the other 2 Facebook likely won't do because it would cost them money and increase their responsibility - probably not the best of reasons to ignore security. Vetting app developers costs money and if something gets through probably increases their legal exposure. Making everything private by default decreases Facebook's value which is all about what information is shared. If you don't want something on Facebook, forget privacy options, just don't put it there in the first place. They'd sell your grandmother if they had the right motiviation.
If you think competitive behavior is not required in a society (I'd say the other stuff you listed isn't), you'll be in for a shock :) Competition is what made your ancestors survive to bear enough offspring.
Yeah, cooperation has nothing to do with it. It's only the strongest, smartest, wisest uberchampion that survives. That's why there are only 100 people on the planet instead of 7 billion and none of them have any health issues or genetic defects.
CO-OPERATION is why we survive and thrive. Plenty of other animals are better at many other things. We're the best at visualising abstract things and making and using tools but even that requires cooperation. (Try throwing your typical college professor, scientist or engineer in a survival situation and see how far he gets on his own. I promise you he won't be building space vehicles).
His argument was that if you compete to be good at academia, then there are more potential jobs to take advantage of the skills you gain from competition, than there are jobs where we need people who are extremely good at athletics. There's no paradox or contradiction, and you're misusing the word irony.
The whole point of competition is that there is a winner, and that only winners get the rewards. It ignores a whole realm of cooperative endevour that has allowed humanity to succeed as a group. I am not misusing the word irony at all. There is most certainly irony in complaining about competition while suggesting it is the solution in the same breath. If you can't see that it's not me that needs lessons in what irony means.
Competition is an integral part of (not only) human behavior, you can't discuss that away. The question is just, on what should the children focus on competing?
Horse shit. Murder, incest and poo slinging are also equally part of (not only) humban behaviour you can't discuss away. That does not make them desirable in civilised society.
Do you realise the irony in complaining that schools aren't competitive enough, while simultaneously complaining that people are competing to be that 1 in a billion athelete?
We don't need competition. Competition tells you if you're not the best, you're a worthless loser. We don't need a hundred confident competitive giants and a million suicidal losers. What you need is to make the learning itself worthwhile.
I studied 2 years of chess in Armenia, beginning from grade 4 in a 10 year secondary system. Of course, this was during Soviet times and you were allowed to choose from a range of subjects. It wasn't compulsory. My grades in other subjects improved dramatically as a result.
Really glad this is happening.
In Soviet Armenia Chess Move You
...and I'm sure as hell not going to read the article. I regret slashdot has become the trashiest of trashy geek news sites. I can almost feel the regret coursing through my veins as I hit preview and submit.
But are you for real?
Yes he is for real. If we're going to make wild intolerant statements though, I'd rather blame his father and God. I mean if not for the Sabbath day, we'd have a whole lot more productivity, competition and spending, and hence more jobs. Perhaps we should also blame literacy. If it weren't for damned literacy no one would use the Internet. Maybe his dad had it wrong all along and instead of educating African Americans we should be denying everyone education.
This guy is a complete traitor.
They could really use some help.
I think it's finally time for me to step up to the plate and help out on a FOSS project. Your post helped me realize it's finally time.
I'll start working immediately on the ball-gag module.
Excellent. Anything to keep you away from spending time on becoming a comedian;-)
Lets just drop the 'G' and call it 'Imp' from now on...
Or call it GNU-IMP. More recognizable and true to the original.
You might be interested in this:
http://wiki.gimp.org/index.php/Roadmap
parent would be more appropriately tagged Troll
Typical slashdot bullshit. You don't agree with what he said so he should be tagged a troll. You wouldn't know a healthy argument if it bit you on the arse
A troll is someone who's only purpose is not to provide legitimate discussion but rather just to stir and upset people for their own amusement. Tagging people as troll because you don't agree with what you say is childish, destructive, and makes you the fucking troll.
blah blah blah GIMP sounds funny blah blah blah
Does anyone really care about this anymore?
Yes.
Everyone I know who has started using the GIMP had a chuckle about the name, then really forgot about the name and got on with editing photos.
Good for you. Now get some friends that aren't nerds, and we can talk again.
Basically, noone cares anymore.
Wrong.
And also, language changes. Google "gimp". You have to get to the bottom of the second page before you reach an "urban dictionary" definition of the old meaning. The first two whole pages are about image manipulation.
It doesn't matter what Google's first. If you ask the average guy/girl on the street do they know what "GIMP" means, I bet they don't start telling you about image editing. Get a clue.
would you really lose so much integrity -- to slap this thing with a flashier moniker than "G.I.M.P."?
There are two steps to doing this. First make the application's name configurable at compile time, much like Firefox does. Second and possibly more expensive is to come up with a recognizable name that isn't already else someone else's trademark, plug it into the application, and promote it.
GNU-IMP. Close enough to the old to be recognizable and remain true to the original. Far enough that it's not embarrassing to ask your IT department to allow it to be installed, or bring up with the boss.
This issue does not require genius to resolve.
Or, alternatively, start referring to it as "Graphics-IMP", "Graph-IMP", or something like that.
What's wrong with GNU-IMP? It doesn't change anything but the stupid name itself.
I saw the site for a second... and boom... server goes down.
Tis' better to have looked and lost than to have never looked before.
Well it's much cheaper getting your camera into near space than buying enough bandwidth and processing power to prevent being slashdotted. Some things you can't do on a budget.