The parent says that what FatWallet does hurts businesses...and you extrapolate that by his argument, the government exists to protect business interests.
I'm sorry, but you really jumped the gun there. He didn't say that using the DMCA in such a fashion was right (in fact, quite the opposite). He just said that businesses do have a legitimate concern in this case.
Most corporations really aren't evil. The government does protect them (read: not the primary purpose), but that's because most businesses do a huge public service. The rest of us work for those businesses. Who else would we work for?
Yes, but an anti-anti-anti spam technique is really an anti spam technique when you look at it from a broader picture. Just like an anti-anti spam technique is really an (albeit good) spam technique.
Dude, no offense, but go look up compiler optimizations. Overoptimization leads to cut downs in performance.
For most applications, -Os will result in the best performance, as the decrease in binary size will create a smaller memory footprint. Most of those "hacks" of yours actually make the resulting binary larger, and the loss in performance due to the increased binary size is far greater than the actual "optimizations" you get.
Trust me on this one...ask a Gentoo developer. They're smart people. A good CFLAGS is "-march= -Os -fomit-frame-pointer" The frame pointers actually add binary size in a useless way, so omitting them acutally helps.
Really, 'l33t' massive CFLAGS don't do much in terms of performance. Try it out yourself. Compile mozilla with the CFLAGS of the article, run it with time, and then build it again with your CFLAGS. I and most of the more knowledgeable (not to sound arrogant) Gentoo users would be shocked if your CFLAGS didn't turn out to hurt performance. Furthermore, the biggest test will be between -O3 and -Os. I am 100% convinced that -Os will give you much better results.
And, of course, as a Gentoo, if you find better compiler options, you'll want to rebuild your system, woncha?
Note that I do not consider your post to be offtopic (but I do consider it factually incorrect).
I actually had an interesting discussion on similar lines with a friend of mine today. He also brought up Socrates oddly enough. Basically, I was wrong is saying that the purpose of art is to express something. Expression needn't be the motivation for the artist.
However, art and law and medicine are different beasts entirely. Law exists in theory to create order. Law makers often create law to suit themselves. Medicine exists to cure the sick. Medicine often exists to benefit those who make it (pills to cure symptoms versus alternate methodologies that cure the problem itself).
Art is just different. In theory, art exists because the artist chose to create it. However, it doesn't follow that quality is entirely subjective, either. My feelings are that the quality of art itself is directly proportional to the skill required to create it. However, there is another aspect to consider; the performance. There are a lot of good songs out there with really simple music, but delivered brilliantly.
The quality of the music itself can be assessed, but it can not be taken as the entirety of the work as a whole. The delivery of the song can also be assessed. There is no unit of measurement, but when your song requires you to wear a silly and revealing outfit, and a 4x4 grid of accompanying dancers in syncopation, chances are I'd say that's covering up the fact that the performance itself ain't too good either.
See what I'm saying? I'm not saying it's entirely objective (it's not), but it's not entirely subjective either. The best I can really do is say that if people demanded more quality from thier music, Britney Spears would definately not be popular, and being popular certainly doesn't make her "talented," not does it make her music "good" because it is pleasing to the ears of the fans.
I could really try and flesh out a full argument here, but I just want to get my point across (it has changed somewhat). Basically, there's two factors in determining the song's "qualtity" -- the quality of the music, and the quality of the performance. Quality itself isn't entirely subjective, but people's opinions do play an important role. There is a lot of music out there that I don't particularly like, that I respect.
The last I heard the native population of Iraq like the american occupation and the current state of chaos less than the saddam government.
True, but they are still under martial law. If the intent of the US government is to give them democracy, then let's compare how they feel about democracy after they actually have it to how they felt about Mr Hussein (why are we on a first name basis anyways?).
Thanks for the insightful link. I've been forced to reconsider my position.
Check this link out I just found here. Read the section about the guy selling t-shirts that made a profit of 1,200 and lost 20,000.
In the case of t-shirts, however, copyright infringement is not so clear. Chord progressions can be identical and no copyright infringement may be found. It's all up to the courts, I suppose.
If someone chooses to spend more money money buying Britney Spears music than Beethoven's, that means they value her music above that of Beethoven's.
That fact is not in dispute.
Nothing you can say changes that, including various explanations of why Beethoven's music is "better" than that of Britney Spears, because all it amounts to is your subjective opinion that it is "better".
You're defining quality as the subjective assessment of the listener. I'm defining quality as the capacity for artistic expression. With trite lyrics and done-to-death chord progressions, there is only so much one can express.
If the goal of art is to express, then you'll have to do some fancy footwork to convice me that Britney is expressing more than Ludwig. Many of her songs that she writes are summed up in a few short words (for example, "masturbation is okay.")
Your argument is based on a false premise: that art exists to please the viewer.
That's not sad at all. Competition would be a good thing, if people had good taste. I do not think Britney Spears is as good as Beethoven. Neither should you or anyone else.
Let everyone have a place to put their creative works isn't enough. We the audience need to demand more.
Slashdot Mirror
You may get mom and pop selling you computers, but they won't be building the circuitry.
I'm sorry, but you really jumped the gun there. He didn't say that using the DMCA in such a fashion was right (in fact, quite the opposite). He just said that businesses do have a legitimate concern in this case.
Most corporations really aren't evil. The government does protect them (read: not the primary purpose), but that's because most businesses do a huge public service. The rest of us work for those businesses. Who else would we work for?
Linux hurts a lot of businesses.
But you're obviously a left-wing cook, so who cares what you think? Seriously...you partisans have it all wrong.
Apache and Windows are different. There are Apache Indians, knives, helicopters, etc. There are window sills, frames, opportunity, etc.
Yes, but an anti-anti-anti spam technique is really an anti spam technique when you look at it from a broader picture. Just like an anti-anti spam technique is really an (albeit good) spam technique.
Hold your applause until they demonstrate that their intention is good.
For most applications, -Os will result in the best performance, as the decrease in binary size will create a smaller memory footprint. Most of those "hacks" of yours actually make the resulting binary larger, and the loss in performance due to the increased binary size is far greater than the actual "optimizations" you get.
Trust me on this one...ask a Gentoo developer. They're smart people. A good CFLAGS is "-march= -Os -fomit-frame-pointer" The frame pointers actually add binary size in a useless way, so omitting them acutally helps.
Really, 'l33t' massive CFLAGS don't do much in terms of performance. Try it out yourself. Compile mozilla with the CFLAGS of the article, run it with time, and then build it again with your CFLAGS. I and most of the more knowledgeable (not to sound arrogant) Gentoo users would be shocked if your CFLAGS didn't turn out to hurt performance. Furthermore, the biggest test will be between -O3 and -Os. I am 100% convinced that -Os will give you much better results.
And, of course, as a Gentoo, if you find better compiler options, you'll want to rebuild your system, woncha?
Note that I do not consider your post to be offtopic (but I do consider it factually incorrect).
However, art and law and medicine are different beasts entirely. Law exists in theory to create order. Law makers often create law to suit themselves. Medicine exists to cure the sick. Medicine often exists to benefit those who make it (pills to cure symptoms versus alternate methodologies that cure the problem itself).
Art is just different. In theory, art exists because the artist chose to create it. However, it doesn't follow that quality is entirely subjective, either. My feelings are that the quality of art itself is directly proportional to the skill required to create it. However, there is another aspect to consider; the performance. There are a lot of good songs out there with really simple music, but delivered brilliantly.
The quality of the music itself can be assessed, but it can not be taken as the entirety of the work as a whole. The delivery of the song can also be assessed. There is no unit of measurement, but when your song requires you to wear a silly and revealing outfit, and a 4x4 grid of accompanying dancers in syncopation, chances are I'd say that's covering up the fact that the performance itself ain't too good either.
See what I'm saying? I'm not saying it's entirely objective (it's not), but it's not entirely subjective either. The best I can really do is say that if people demanded more quality from thier music, Britney Spears would definately not be popular, and being popular certainly doesn't make her "talented," not does it make her music "good" because it is pleasing to the ears of the fans.
I could really try and flesh out a full argument here, but I just want to get my point across (it has changed somewhat). Basically, there's two factors in determining the song's "qualtity" -- the quality of the music, and the quality of the performance. Quality itself isn't entirely subjective, but people's opinions do play an important role. There is a lot of music out there that I don't particularly like, that I respect.
The fact that you need to spend 50$ to play any non-XBox games online kind of ruins the "coolness" of the built in network adapter. At least for me.
Of course, on /. it's far more important to "win" "arguments" than to actually discuss anything. Arrogant prick.
True, but they are still under martial law. If the intent of the US government is to give them democracy, then let's compare how they feel about democracy after they actually have it to how they felt about Mr Hussein (why are we on a first name basis anyways?).
Neither is Linux.
Exactly. Innovation should result from perturbation, not masturbation.
Saying it is un-American to be critical of the American government is un-American. To ask others to be critical as well is really, really un-American.
Then you move to New Zealand.
Check this link out I just found here. Read the section about the guy selling t-shirts that made a profit of 1,200 and lost 20,000.
In the case of t-shirts, however, copyright infringement is not so clear. Chord progressions can be identical and no copyright infringement may be found. It's all up to the courts, I suppose.
That fact is not in dispute.
Nothing you can say changes that, including various explanations of why Beethoven's music is "better" than that of Britney Spears, because all it amounts to is your subjective opinion that it is "better".
You're defining quality as the subjective assessment of the listener. I'm defining quality as the capacity for artistic expression. With trite lyrics and done-to-death chord progressions, there is only so much one can express.
If the goal of art is to express, then you'll have to do some fancy footwork to convice me that Britney is expressing more than Ludwig. Many of her songs that she writes are summed up in a few short words (for example, "masturbation is okay.")
Your argument is based on a false premise: that art exists to please the viewer.
I still maintain that Britney Spears is not as good as Shakespeare. Buying her albums doesn't change that fact.
Seems like if that were the point, there would be the suggestion to buy the box copy.
Fedora counts, but not Gentoo or Debian. Of course, the word in question is "few," not "only."
In this case, the price tag would be relevant, IMHO.
My point is that we have the consumer to blame, not the record companies.
Let everyone have a place to put their creative works isn't enough. We the audience need to demand more.
Is that a real issue? Are there such cases in existence?
Perhaps a p2p network designed for artists who want their music to be downloaded freely but can't afford the bandwidth would work even better.