warez it like every other home user who doesn't get it preinstalled with their next PC purchase. If home users actually had to pay for a tenth of the software they use, they'd all be using Linux or some other free software distribution.
No, what I was saying is that he is right, dogmatic beleif in anything can be compared to religion, but you can't claim something is religion unless it has a spiritual aspect as that is what religion is defined as being.
nah, it's that they are undisciplined and lazy.. you said it yourself, they see the office environment as supporting people to concentrate on work, but you and I both know that you can goof off just as well in the office as you can at home (more so if you're the kind of person who has friends at work).
They goof off all day. That said, some managers can't do basic time management of their employees. Consider, when was the last time your manager asked you "so, what are you working on at the moment?" If it's been a long time (or it has never happened), and you've actually been doing work lately then chances are you've got a good manager. The rest of us hear this often. I have friends who get asked to provide a weekly report on what they are working on. When they submit a report that says "didn't do much this week" their manager gets mad at them, "what havn't you been doing anything?" they ask. Unfortunately, many of my friends do not reply with "because you havn't assigned me any work bozo." and instead take it as a warning that they better make themselves look busy.
Well, yes, it does appear to lack some weighting for the party (you get to supply weighting for your answers though) so that could result in some skewed results.
At the end you can click on the name of the party and it will show you everything that you and the party agree on and everything you don't agree on. Maybe you just don't know yourself or your understanding of these parties is limited?
99% of patents are small innovations. This is considered a strength of the patent system, not a weakness. Just because you're biased to "big bang" innovation, doesn't mean the rest of the world is.
Obviousness is only one possible criteria for patent acceptance. If your invention is significantly novel then its obviousness can be ignored. Amazon's one-click patent is a perfect example. Literally overnight a practice that was considered crazy became acceptable.. it was the skill of their implementation that made that possible. The method, "one click", was so novel you had to look past the obviousness of the implementation.
I break that law all the time myself. Reform? Sure. But as for abolishing it completely? Not on your life.You were still talking about child rape right?
You do know that commercial software can be F/OS software right? Few wonder why people use commercial software, the benefits are obvious. Some wonder why people use proprietary software, when commercial F/OS software is available. If you buy a copy of Redhat and you have problems with it, the right person to go complain to is Redhat. Typically by ringing their technical support line and giving them an earful. If they give you any excuses, demand your money back.
and? You don't really have a right to complain to those companies either unless you, ya know, paid for the product. I just don't understand this whole sense of entitlement people have towards developers. Pay me and I'll care. That's what paying someone is all about.
I thought Shuttleworth did a great job because he pays people money so he can tell them to do what he wants. Ya know, rather than just whining to people that they should have the same interests as you, he put his money where his mouth is.
Man, people who say "if you complain constructively, that's ok" piss me off no end. If you are giving constructive criticism you are not complaining. This is complaining:
"My printer doesn't work, you guys havn't fixed this in 2 years! Fix it!!"
this is constructive criticism:
"I found the interface where you enter your printer configuration too confusing and I couldn't get my printer to work, I'd recommend improving that if you want people to be able to easily install printers."
Meh, tolerance is grand, until people start thinking the behaviour we are tolerating is the behaviour we want. A certain amount of "just fuck off and die" is appropriate to keep these people away.
Oh, and in regards to "we".. I'm a part of this community, I never implied you were, if you're not, your loss.
It's pretty clear that most people don't want copyright, simply look around at how much respect copyright law is given. Shit, even granny is breaking copyright these days.
There's nothing immoral about making people pay for the fruits of someone else's labor.
Cool, so me and my mate are going to head down to the mall now. He's going to play the guitar, I'm going to hold people up at knife point and force them to pay for listening. That whole having an agreement before you enforce it thing, blah, libertarian circle jerk fantasy, pay up moochers!
You can not argue the morality of copyright by appealing to the current situation. You can't argue whether or not something is right or wrong from the behaviour of people living under that system. Why is this so hard to understand?
Imagine we're in the USSR. I'm trying to tell you why the armed guard next to the fax machine is so important. I tell you a story about how just last week someone tried to smuggle secret documents to the americans by memorizing them and radioing what he could remember when he got home. "Imagine how much damage he could do to the motherland if we let him use the fax machine" I say. Does this tell us anything about freedom? Does it tell us anything about living in an opressive regime? No, of course it doesn't.
Get your head out of your current culture and think.
Government enforcement of contracts are morally enforcable because they are entered into willingly. The government could easily be replaced with an enforcer named Bob who we both agree to pay a sum to ensure that each of us meet with the contract. That word again for ya: willingly. Copyright is nothing such. Copyright is nothing more than paying Bob to go kick the shit out of anyone who does something we don't like. The people Bob is kicking the shit out of did not willing enter into an agreement to have the shit kicked out of them if they failed to uphold the contract. They are innocents. If you care to argue with me, argue this argument.. do not go wondering off into a story about how our current society would be worse off if we didn't have copyright. It tells us nothing.
Ironically, contracts can do things copyright never can: make people responsible for their own actions. If I make a contract with you where I offer you access to my material for a fee provided that you agree not to copy my material and you agree to be held responsible for any losses I incurr should you fail to uphold this agreement, then I end up with something like copyright. If you sign our contract and then go give your friend a copy of my work then I can claim that your friend is getting a free ride, work out a value that I believe I could have charged your friend and get that amount out of you. If your friend goes and makes another copy, I can claim that's still your fault and get more money out of you. The problem is, you only have so much money and copying can go on forever, so if I insist on this quest of charging for copies, I'm soon going to find there aint enough people with enough money to seed a market from. What can I do? Well, I can take the immoral route: I can go find a really big enforcer (say, the government) and get them to go around and break everyone's fingers until they stop copying my work.. or I can suck it up and stop trying to sell copies.
Maybe you should quote the sentence before that one as well: The Congress shall have power... They don't have to exercise that power. I mean, listed in the same section is: To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; According to your logic the congress would have to use the militia to execute the laws of the union.
and yet no-one did. Why? Because the practice at the time was to never store credit card information. This solution was only "obvious" to people who had no concept of basic security precautions. As such, the rules were somewhat relaxed for this patent as a tribute to Amazon actually having the balls to advertise to the world that they were not following best practices.
I'm glad you brought up contracts. Copyright goes beyond contracts by holding third parties to the terms of agreements made between others. For example, if I were to make a contract with you where you promise not to copy my work in exchange for access to that work (and, of course, you pay me some money too) and you were then to break that agreement and give a copy of my work to a third party, I could sue you for breach of contract. If that third party, however, was then to make a copy of my work for another third party, without copyright, I would have no ability to sue him. It is my claim that this is as it should be. The agreement was between me and you, not the third party. I should not be able to hold this third party to our agreement because I did not make an agreement with this third party! Copyright changes that and I believe this is injust.
Most every patent that is reported on slashdot or in other media as being a patent of some idea is a result of the person making the report not knowing how to read a patent application. In the rare occurance that such a patent is granted, it is never enforced because the lawyers who are called upon to enforce such patents know they won't be able to.
Excuse me, but I was simply making the point that you left the will of the society that has to pay for these things out of your bullshit blanket statement about what rights people should have to "protect" their work. You, like many people, fail to phrase your arguments as anything more than commentary on our current society. Many things in our society are immortal and evil, to appeal to the current state of law is to do nothing more than beg the question. Fundamentally, I see the issue of copyright as one of the class of remote interference. Should someone, who is not present, be able to restrict my actions for their own personal gain? Should I allow myself to be restricted by someone who is not present for their own personal gain? These are the kinds of questions that are worth answering. The answers are matters of wisdom that are eternal not temporal. I apologize if this is not the kind of conversation you had in mind when you replied to me, but it is the kind of conversation I wish to have. If you do not wish to participate then I bid you good day.
WTF. Seriously dude. "If someone wants their work protected they should have that right." Huh? How can you make such a blanket statement? Just so we're both sure as to what you're saying here, when you say "protected" you mean "protected by the government" right? You don't mean they should actually have pay for it to be protected do you? So what you're saying is that if someone wants everyone in society to pay for a police force to stop people from doing what they want to do with the work then they should have that right? What if, ya know, society doesn't want to pay for a police force to stop people from doing what they want to do with the work? Does that matter? Do you even think about this stuff or when you say "protect" do you just envision some kind of magic elf that runs around and does this?
Slashdot Mirror
warez it like every other home user who doesn't get it preinstalled with their next PC purchase. If home users actually had to pay for a tenth of the software they use, they'd all be using Linux or some other free software distribution.
Nah, netcraft confirms it, Slashdot has jumped the shark.
No, what I was saying is that he is right, dogmatic beleif in anything can be compared to religion, but you can't claim something is religion unless it has a spiritual aspect as that is what religion is defined as being.
nah, it's that they are undisciplined and lazy.. you said it yourself, they see the office environment as supporting people to concentrate on work, but you and I both know that you can goof off just as well in the office as you can at home (more so if you're the kind of person who has friends at work).
They goof off all day. That said, some managers can't do basic time management of their employees. Consider, when was the last time your manager asked you "so, what are you working on at the moment?" If it's been a long time (or it has never happened), and you've actually been doing work lately then chances are you've got a good manager. The rest of us hear this often. I have friends who get asked to provide a weekly report on what they are working on. When they submit a report that says "didn't do much this week" their manager gets mad at them, "what havn't you been doing anything?" they ask. Unfortunately, many of my friends do not reply with "because you havn't assigned me any work bozo." and instead take it as a warning that they better make themselves look busy.
Well, yes, it does appear to lack some weighting for the party (you get to supply weighting for your answers though) so that could result in some skewed results.
At the end you can click on the name of the party and it will show you everything that you and the party agree on and everything you don't agree on. Maybe you just don't know yourself or your understanding of these parties is limited?
99% of patents are small innovations. This is considered a strength of the patent system, not a weakness. Just because you're biased to "big bang" innovation, doesn't mean the rest of the world is.
and I can reverse engineer those binaries if they are remotely important.
Obviousness is only one possible criteria for patent acceptance. If your invention is significantly novel then its obviousness can be ignored. Amazon's one-click patent is a perfect example. Literally overnight a practice that was considered crazy became acceptable.. it was the skill of their implementation that made that possible. The method, "one click", was so novel you had to look past the obviousness of the implementation.
I break that law all the time myself. Reform? Sure. But as for abolishing it completely? Not on your life.You were still talking about child rape right?
Asshole.
Except, ya know, for the whole "for personal gain" thing. But thank you very much for the strawman, it was lovely.
You do know that commercial software can be F/OS software right? Few wonder why people use commercial software, the benefits are obvious. Some wonder why people use proprietary software, when commercial F/OS software is available. If you buy a copy of Redhat and you have problems with it, the right person to go complain to is Redhat. Typically by ringing their technical support line and giving them an earful. If they give you any excuses, demand your money back.
BTW - thank you for your post.
and? You don't really have a right to complain to those companies either unless you, ya know, paid for the product. I just don't understand this whole sense of entitlement people have towards developers. Pay me and I'll care. That's what paying someone is all about.
I thought Shuttleworth did a great job because he pays people money so he can tell them to do what he wants. Ya know, rather than just whining to people that they should have the same interests as you, he put his money where his mouth is.
Man, people who say "if you complain constructively, that's ok" piss me off no end. If you are giving constructive criticism you are not complaining. This is complaining:
"My printer doesn't work, you guys havn't fixed this in 2 years! Fix it!!"
this is constructive criticism:
"I found the interface where you enter your printer configuration too confusing and I couldn't get my printer to work, I'd recommend improving that if you want people to be able to easily install printers."
Meh, tolerance is grand, until people start thinking the behaviour we are tolerating is the behaviour we want. A certain amount of "just fuck off and die" is appropriate to keep these people away.
Oh, and in regards to "we".. I'm a part of this community, I never implied you were, if you're not, your loss.
It's pretty clear that most people don't want copyright, simply look around at how much respect copyright law is given. Shit, even granny is breaking copyright these days.
There's nothing immoral about making people pay for the fruits of someone else's labor.
Cool, so me and my mate are going to head down to the mall now. He's going to play the guitar, I'm going to hold people up at knife point and force them to pay for listening. That whole having an agreement before you enforce it thing, blah, libertarian circle jerk fantasy, pay up moochers!
So, fucking, what.
You can not argue the morality of copyright by appealing to the current situation. You can't argue whether or not something is right or wrong from the behaviour of people living under that system. Why is this so hard to understand?
Imagine we're in the USSR. I'm trying to tell you why the armed guard next to the fax machine is so important. I tell you a story about how just last week someone tried to smuggle secret documents to the americans by memorizing them and radioing what he could remember when he got home. "Imagine how much damage he could do to the motherland if we let him use the fax machine" I say. Does this tell us anything about freedom? Does it tell us anything about living in an opressive regime? No, of course it doesn't.
Get your head out of your current culture and think.
Government enforcement of contracts are morally enforcable because they are entered into willingly. The government could easily be replaced with an enforcer named Bob who we both agree to pay a sum to ensure that each of us meet with the contract. That word again for ya: willingly. Copyright is nothing such. Copyright is nothing more than paying Bob to go kick the shit out of anyone who does something we don't like. The people Bob is kicking the shit out of did not willing enter into an agreement to have the shit kicked out of them if they failed to uphold the contract. They are innocents. If you care to argue with me, argue this argument.. do not go wondering off into a story about how our current society would be worse off if we didn't have copyright. It tells us nothing.
Ironically, contracts can do things copyright never can: make people responsible for their own actions. If I make a contract with you where I offer you access to my material for a fee provided that you agree not to copy my material and you agree to be held responsible for any losses I incurr should you fail to uphold this agreement, then I end up with something like copyright. If you sign our contract and then go give your friend a copy of my work then I can claim that your friend is getting a free ride, work out a value that I believe I could have charged your friend and get that amount out of you. If your friend goes and makes another copy, I can claim that's still your fault and get more money out of you. The problem is, you only have so much money and copying can go on forever, so if I insist on this quest of charging for copies, I'm soon going to find there aint enough people with enough money to seed a market from. What can I do? Well, I can take the immoral route: I can go find a really big enforcer (say, the government) and get them to go around and break everyone's fingers until they stop copying my work.. or I can suck it up and stop trying to sell copies.
Maybe you should quote the sentence before that one as well: The Congress shall have power... They don't have to exercise that power. I mean, listed in the same section is: To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; According to your logic the congress would have to use the militia to execute the laws of the union.
and yet no-one did. Why? Because the practice at the time was to never store credit card information. This solution was only "obvious" to people who had no concept of basic security precautions. As such, the rules were somewhat relaxed for this patent as a tribute to Amazon actually having the balls to advertise to the world that they were not following best practices.
Blah, they don't call it an End User License Agreement for nothing. This shit would never fly if we didn't have copyright.
I'm glad you brought up contracts. Copyright goes beyond contracts by holding third parties to the terms of agreements made between others. For example, if I were to make a contract with you where you promise not to copy my work in exchange for access to that work (and, of course, you pay me some money too) and you were then to break that agreement and give a copy of my work to a third party, I could sue you for breach of contract. If that third party, however, was then to make a copy of my work for another third party, without copyright, I would have no ability to sue him. It is my claim that this is as it should be. The agreement was between me and you, not the third party. I should not be able to hold this third party to our agreement because I did not make an agreement with this third party! Copyright changes that and I believe this is injust.
Most every patent that is reported on slashdot or in other media as being a patent of some idea is a result of the person making the report not knowing how to read a patent application. In the rare occurance that such a patent is granted, it is never enforced because the lawyers who are called upon to enforce such patents know they won't be able to.
Excuse me, but I was simply making the point that you left the will of the society that has to pay for these things out of your bullshit blanket statement about what rights people should have to "protect" their work. You, like many people, fail to phrase your arguments as anything more than commentary on our current society. Many things in our society are immortal and evil, to appeal to the current state of law is to do nothing more than beg the question. Fundamentally, I see the issue of copyright as one of the class of remote interference. Should someone, who is not present, be able to restrict my actions for their own personal gain? Should I allow myself to be restricted by someone who is not present for their own personal gain? These are the kinds of questions that are worth answering. The answers are matters of wisdom that are eternal not temporal. I apologize if this is not the kind of conversation you had in mind when you replied to me, but it is the kind of conversation I wish to have. If you do not wish to participate then I bid you good day.
WTF. Seriously dude. "If someone wants their work protected they should have that right." Huh? How can you make such a blanket statement? Just so we're both sure as to what you're saying here, when you say "protected" you mean "protected by the government" right? You don't mean they should actually have pay for it to be protected do you? So what you're saying is that if someone wants everyone in society to pay for a police force to stop people from doing what they want to do with the work then they should have that right? What if, ya know, society doesn't want to pay for a police force to stop people from doing what they want to do with the work? Does that matter? Do you even think about this stuff or when you say "protect" do you just envision some kind of magic elf that runs around and does this?