Which is what the guy said. What you enjoys is working on software with a deadline. Some of the most enjoyable working experiences I've ever had was working at a startup and literally living in the office. Dear god why? Because the company in question was smart enough to keep the management away from the engineers and let the engineers form their own society.
Rentacoder is full of people trying to get cheap work done with a poor idea what they want and no intention to pay at all if they can get away with it. No-one needs Rentacoder to find a programmer. Instead, there should be a site called Rent-a-networker. No, not the kind of networking that involves cables and routers, the kind of networking that involves going to conferences and smoozing. There should be a site where programmers can go, enter their skills and availability and some business guy goes out and finds real customers who need those services. The business guy gets a cut of whatever you make, so he will be trying to find clients that really need your services and are willing to pay top dollar for them.
The social pressure to hate your job is strong enough without you badgering the guy. When are people going to learn that programmers are not labourers. We like to program. Most of the time when you ask a programmer why he hates his job he will tell that a woeful tale about poor management and almost always include the complaint "there's no time to do any actual programming!"
There's absolutely nothing prohibiting you from adding clauses to the copyright notice because the copyright notice does not say you can't. It's that simple.
About the same number of people who don't understand that a free market is impossible when the government hands out monopolies.. which is what copyright is, a monopoly enforced by the government. So how can you *possibly* say that CDs are not overpriced.. it's a natural result of a lack of competition.
WTF? I fail to understand how 'pass into the public domain' came to mean 'have no barriers to copying'. If the only copy you have of a work that is in the public domain is burdened by DRM, break the damn DRM. It's not like it's going to be hard to break it 70 years after it was invented. Jesus.
What a load of shit. If people don't like the price they can go without. That's your system is it? How about competition? If the record companies were required to license their songs to multiple manufacturers and you had a choice between which of them you bought the CD from you don't think the prices would be lower?
You almost made an argument there. I could almost feel it. What are you trying to say? That DRM should be banned because it prevents works now under copyright from entering the public domain? That's a pretty silly argument isn't it? I mean, why not just pass a law that states that copyright holders must release their work from DRM when the copyright expires. Even better, why not require that copyright holders register a non-DRM copy of ttheir work with a library now.
Of course they'll be worse off. They won't have access to the content that is only available on DRM enabled devices. That's why they're willing to buy these devices in the first place.
I think most of us applaud you for going out and trying to inform people that DRM exists and is not the only way, but I gotta ask, if I'm willing to give up my fair use rights and buy a DRM enabled device, what concern is it to you? The stated goal of Defective By Design is the abolition of DRM as a social practice. Why? If the content owners are only willing to distribute their works on devices that are DRM enabled then why shouldn't I be free to decide if I want to support them in doing so by buying a DRM enabled device. For many people the choice is between having no content available from these owners or to have it only available on DRM enabled devices. Some of us choose not to buy these devices because we value our fair use rights, others choose to buy these devices because they do not. You, as someone who chooses not to buy these devices, seem to care how many of each there are. Perhaps you think that the content owners will come around to your way of thinking and not require the devices they distribute their works on to be DRM enabled, and they will do so only if significantly more people refuse to buy DRM enabled devices. As such, you're asking people to care about their fair use rights for the sole reason that it will benefit you. I don't understand why they should.
There's documented and there's documented. Both LSL and Javascript have about the same level of documentation. As for dynamically typed, Javascript *is* and that's what I was talking about when I mentioned it.
Sorry, but trying to write a game above the level of tetris in SL is more pain than writing AJAX. I'm told that both the client and the servers are migrating towards open source, so maybe one day we'll have the freedom to mod the client and programmers will work on it instead of writing Yet Another Graphics Engine.
You sure are. You're not allowed to remove their copyright or their list of conditions, but there's nothing in the license that says you can't add more, even ones that negate theirs.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
* Neither the name of the nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
* And you have to give me $400,000 per copy and say "Linux rules" 100 times.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't say the m word.
Which is what the guy said. What you enjoys is working on software with a deadline. Some of the most enjoyable working experiences I've ever had was working at a startup and literally living in the office. Dear god why? Because the company in question was smart enough to keep the management away from the engineers and let the engineers form their own society.
Rentacoder is full of people trying to get cheap work done with a poor idea what they want and no intention to pay at all if they can get away with it. No-one needs Rentacoder to find a programmer. Instead, there should be a site called Rent-a-networker. No, not the kind of networking that involves cables and routers, the kind of networking that involves going to conferences and smoozing. There should be a site where programmers can go, enter their skills and availability and some business guy goes out and finds real customers who need those services. The business guy gets a cut of whatever you make, so he will be trying to find clients that really need your services and are willing to pay top dollar for them.
The social pressure to hate your job is strong enough without you badgering the guy. When are people going to learn that programmers are not labourers. We like to program. Most of the time when you ask a programmer why he hates his job he will tell that a woeful tale about poor management and almost always include the complaint "there's no time to do any actual programming!"
Due to some of the evil provisions in the DMCA, breaking DRM protection is against the law, even if the material has expired from its copyright.
That's outright false. Thanks for playing.
There's absolutely nothing prohibiting you from adding clauses to the copyright notice because the copyright notice does not say you can't. It's that simple.
What do you think drives most musicians to "make it big", the love of music?
It still amazes me that you have to dumb things down that much before people get it.
Libraries already have the right to media shift works to maintain their integrity.
About the same number of people who don't understand that a free market is impossible when the government hands out monopolies.. which is what copyright is, a monopoly enforced by the government. So how can you *possibly* say that CDs are not overpriced.. it's a natural result of a lack of competition.
WTF? I fail to understand how 'pass into the public domain' came to mean 'have no barriers to copying'. If the only copy you have of a work that is in the public domain is burdened by DRM, break the damn DRM. It's not like it's going to be hard to break it 70 years after it was invented. Jesus.
What a load of shit. If people don't like the price they can go without. That's your system is it? How about competition? If the record companies were required to license their songs to multiple manufacturers and you had a choice between which of them you bought the CD from you don't think the prices would be lower?
They're both vastly overpriced. If there was actually any competition you'd see prices much lower.
And yet people are not protesting for their rights, they're protesting against DRM.
You almost made an argument there. I could almost feel it. What are you trying to say? That DRM should be banned because it prevents works now under copyright from entering the public domain? That's a pretty silly argument isn't it? I mean, why not just pass a law that states that copyright holders must release their work from DRM when the copyright expires. Even better, why not require that copyright holders register a non-DRM copy of ttheir work with a library now.
CDs are vastly overpriced.
Of course they'll be worse off. They won't have access to the content that is only available on DRM enabled devices. That's why they're willing to buy these devices in the first place.
I think most of us applaud you for going out and trying to inform people that DRM exists and is not the only way, but I gotta ask, if I'm willing to give up my fair use rights and buy a DRM enabled device, what concern is it to you? The stated goal of Defective By Design is the abolition of DRM as a social practice. Why? If the content owners are only willing to distribute their works on devices that are DRM enabled then why shouldn't I be free to decide if I want to support them in doing so by buying a DRM enabled device. For many people the choice is between having no content available from these owners or to have it only available on DRM enabled devices. Some of us choose not to buy these devices because we value our fair use rights, others choose to buy these devices because they do not. You, as someone who chooses not to buy these devices, seem to care how many of each there are. Perhaps you think that the content owners will come around to your way of thinking and not require the devices they distribute their works on to be DRM enabled, and they will do so only if significantly more people refuse to buy DRM enabled devices. As such, you're asking people to care about their fair use rights for the sole reason that it will benefit you. I don't understand why they should.
There's documented and there's documented. Both LSL and Javascript have about the same level of documentation. As for dynamically typed, Javascript *is* and that's what I was talking about when I mentioned it.
My cat's breath smells like cat food.
Writing a game is hard enough without having to use an undocumented dynamically typed scripting language.
No, it's because Second Life is even more consumerist than The Sims.
Sorry, but trying to write a game above the level of tetris in SL is more pain than writing AJAX. I'm told that both the client and the servers are migrating towards open source, so maybe one day we'll have the freedom to mod the client and programmers will work on it instead of writing Yet Another Graphics Engine.
You sure are. You're not allowed to remove their copyright or their list of conditions, but there's nothing in the license that says you can't add more, even ones that negate theirs.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
* Neither the name of the nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
* And you have to give me $400,000 per copy and say "Linux rules" 100 times.
Perfectly legal.
I aint gunna hate on you for being fatalistic, but if you never vote for a third party candidate or run yourself you'll never change anything.