Ya, you hit the nail on the head. It seems everyone who wants to "help" a friend who isn't acting "normal" has a misguided sense of knowledge about the meaning of life. Just this morning I was thinking about instant vs delayed gratification. Clearly, both can be taken to extremes that are unhealthy.
Ya.. you're missing the point. He's saying that Walmart will publish and distribute only works that they can get for free.. and that without copyright that means all works.
Of course, this is easily shown to be wrong. Firstly, they can't get new works for free, because authors will not release their new works without a fee. (That's the point you made). But, more importantly, Walmart won't waste their time selling works that anyone can publish.. because competition will drive the price of the work below an acceptable profit margin. So it's pretty obvious that without copyright Walmart would only sell works for which they were the first publisher.
File-sharing of copyrighted materials is not fair use.
Fair use is a doctrine of copyright law that defines a small set of activities that are regulated but permitted. So yeah, what you said was true, but clearly irrelevant to the discussion. Well done.
Why do you think big names like John Carmack no longer post on Slashdot?
Heh, John doesn't post on Slashdot because there's no point. See, there was a time when posting on Slashdot was considered a productive activity (shocking I know), now it is simply "fun" or, less generously, procrastination. Some people embrace procrastination, some people feel shameful from it, some people actively fight against it. John has a lot of interests that take up his time, and posting on Slashdot just isn't one of them. I'm on some rocket mailing lists and he posts to them, often daily.
This website has adopted a position that he doesn't deserve to be paid for his work simply because the RIAA and MPAA exist. It's ridiculous and juvenile.
Ya know, it's an open submission process.. if you want to hunt down articles which are pro-copyright and post them, you can make this site what *you* want it to be. My position is that copyright is amoral and ineffective. I don't believe authors have a natural right to control their work.. any more than chainsaw makers have a natural right to control how their chainsaws are used.. that is, any more than the right to decide who they sell to. As for deserving to be paid for their work, what kind of communist are you? To get paid for work you have to find someone who is willing to pay. If I dig holes all day, do I deserve to be paid? I've put my sweat and back-breaking labor into making those holes. People clearly enjoy them, otherwise why would they come watch me dig them (sure, they call me crazy, but all great artists are called crazy in their lifetime). Does it make sense for me to demand payment? Or did I get it backwards and should have found a buyer for my holes, first, and got them to pay in advance or sign some legal contract that they would pay later? After I've sold them the holes can I say what they can do with them? Or does that, too, defeat the point of a buy-and-sell property system?
Pirates are just human leeches who don't want to lose the free ride, so they try to make somebody else look like the bad guys to absolve themselves of guilty feelings. Human nature is a selfish thing, and the denial around here is constant.
Look, there's literally thousands of MMOs now. 100% of them suck.. 1% of them suck less than the others.
Most all of them start with the "let's be different" mindset.. they quickly discover that there's a *reason* why things are the way they are.. much of that is technical, some of it is psychological (read: addictive) and the remainder is simply "what people are used to" and woe be to the man who tries to sell a product that people don't understand.
1. There are terrorists, but they either feel they have made their point and achieved their goal of causing terror and its associated overreactions or they are incapable of mounting a significant overseas attack, or unwilling to mount one that would not cause similar damage to 9/11.
That's what I'm saying yes.. there's no terrorists in the US causing mayhem. Obviously there are terrorists in the Gaza strip.. I just don't know how that's relevant to the US.
revealing some "obvious" conspiracy theory. [..] The government is not outright lying about the terrorist threats, but is doing what it does best: protect itself.
Umm.. all I'm saying is that the TSA is making false claims to maintain their funding. We're to believe that there's boogeymen in the airport trying to kill us and that's why we need all these guards and scanning equipment so they can see you naked, etc.
This is how the game works. Big, fat, bloated, wasteful, and expensive defensive strategies that allow lawmakers to hide behind the guise of being over-cautious will always win over strategies that involve personal risk through bold, decisive action that will likely be criticized by someone, somewhere.
Yup, that's exactly what I'm saying. They're lying about the threat to justify the expenditure. Lots of people are lying the same way.. is that a conspiracy? Or is that just shared delusion?
1. The government claims the airport security is to stop terrorists. 2. The terrorists could easily attack other, easier, targets. 3. And, yet, there are no such attacks.
We can safely conclude:
4. There are no terrorists. 5. The government is lying.
Why do they need to review it? Can't they enforce a safe subset and give the user graded security options.. I kinda remember that being the point of the Java sandbox.
Apps that are only allowed to read/write to restricted local storage and can only access files that the user specifically selected with an Open/Save File Dialog sounds plenty secure to me. Some similar restrictions for socket access.
The deepest part of the ocean is about 9.7 km, has pressure of about 110-mega-pascals, and a temperature of about 2 degrees Celsius. So you're off by about 3 orders of magnitude in every measurement:)
Yeah, there's earlier precedent that "copying into RAM" isn't making a copy for copyright purposes.. the DMCA even tries to make it explicit by saying that copies made in the normal running of a program are not copying for copyright purposes.. but this doesn't stop every fucking lawyer from trying to pull this shit every time they want to stop people from running programs in ways their client doesn't like. The recent abomination of Blizzard vs Glider is a prime example. The amble precedent and the explicit codification in law of "intermediate copies" being innocuous didn't stop the judge in that case ruling in favor of Blizzard. Watching copyright court cases and watching Texas Hold'em Poker is a similar experience, both a boring as hell until the end and all the commentators are no better than random guessers..
Ya.. except that these are civil cases and so there is no court appointed lawyers.. As for judges telling you that you've got shit representation, that would require some kind of objective measure of copyright lawyer quality and seeing as no-one understands copyright law, not even the judges, that aint gunna happen.
Presumably because the village is full of militants who have been bombing your oil pipeline. As for why the USA can't share the wealth with foreign nations and come up with some peaceful solutions to its problems.... blah, institutionalized violence.. it's human.
Autonomous killbots are the long dreamed for weapon that can kill all the occupants of a city without destroying the city. Hell, if you program it right then it won't even kill their pets!
Presumably when I start threatening national security.. or at least when your president can convince the least intelligent members of your society that I have.
The problem is that the software doesn't think it's an audio CD. It can see that there is a CD in the drive.. it just doesn't see that it's red book. It's not a "problem that doesn't exist".. it's a problem that every Mac user (except you it seems) has experienced. The retards at Apple just thought it was pointless to present an "Import CD" button when no CD was detected.. I'm trying to tell you why it is not pointless. But you're incapable of following a simple argument.
It's not hard. Read the disc. Really, red book isn't hard. If the CD works in a CD player, it should work in iTunes. The fact that it doesn't indicates that iTunes is broken. The fact that iTunes stubbornly pretends like there's nothing wrong is just arrogance.. much like what I'm getting from you.
The "Import CD" button is only there if it has detect that you put an audio CD in and it is selected on the left panel. So saying "click on Import CD" is pretty fucking worthless advice if the button isn't there. However, if the button was there and someone was to click on it, that would be an appropriate time to present an error message which indicated that iTunes did not believe there was an audio CD in the drive. It could also mention at that time what it did think was in the drive.. like say, that it thought there was a data CD in the drive.. or that it thought there was no CD in the drive.
As for gracenote (or whatever) failing.. sheesh man, how mainstream is your music collection?
Slashdot Mirror
Ya, you hit the nail on the head. It seems everyone who wants to "help" a friend who isn't acting "normal" has a misguided sense of knowledge about the meaning of life. Just this morning I was thinking about instant vs delayed gratification. Clearly, both can be taken to extremes that are unhealthy.
The profit margin on Moby Dick is as close to zero as you can get.
The book industry is continuous boom and bust, with titles lasting no more than 6 months before disappearing into obscurity.
Ya.. you're missing the point. He's saying that Walmart will publish and distribute only works that they can get for free.. and that without copyright that means all works.
Of course, this is easily shown to be wrong. Firstly, they can't get new works for free, because authors will not release their new works without a fee. (That's the point you made). But, more importantly, Walmart won't waste their time selling works that anyone can publish.. because competition will drive the price of the work below an acceptable profit margin. So it's pretty obvious that without copyright Walmart would only sell works for which they were the first publisher.
Nice. Good to see someone else pointing out that "deserving compensation" is an absurd concept.
Hey wait.. that explains George W. Bush's entire presidency!
"Corporation: An ingenious device for obtaining personal profit without individual responsibility."
- Ambrose Bierce
File-sharing of copyrighted materials is not fair use.
Fair use is a doctrine of copyright law that defines a small set of activities that are regulated but permitted. So yeah, what you said was true, but clearly irrelevant to the discussion. Well done.
Why do you think big names like John Carmack no longer post on Slashdot?
Heh, John doesn't post on Slashdot because there's no point. See, there was a time when posting on Slashdot was considered a productive activity (shocking I know), now it is simply "fun" or, less generously, procrastination. Some people embrace procrastination, some people feel shameful from it, some people actively fight against it. John has a lot of interests that take up his time, and posting on Slashdot just isn't one of them. I'm on some rocket mailing lists and he posts to them, often daily.
This website has adopted a position that he doesn't deserve to be paid for his work simply because the RIAA and MPAA exist. It's ridiculous and juvenile.
Ya know, it's an open submission process.. if you want to hunt down articles which are pro-copyright and post them, you can make this site what *you* want it to be. My position is that copyright is amoral and ineffective. I don't believe authors have a natural right to control their work.. any more than chainsaw makers have a natural right to control how their chainsaws are used.. that is, any more than the right to decide who they sell to. As for deserving to be paid for their work, what kind of communist are you? To get paid for work you have to find someone who is willing to pay. If I dig holes all day, do I deserve to be paid? I've put my sweat and back-breaking labor into making those holes. People clearly enjoy them, otherwise why would they come watch me dig them (sure, they call me crazy, but all great artists are called crazy in their lifetime). Does it make sense for me to demand payment? Or did I get it backwards and should have found a buyer for my holes, first, and got them to pay in advance or sign some legal contract that they would pay later? After I've sold them the holes can I say what they can do with them? Or does that, too, defeat the point of a buy-and-sell property system?
Pirates are just human leeches who don't want to lose the free ride, so they try to make somebody else look like the bad guys to absolve themselves of guilty feelings. Human nature is a selfish thing, and the denial around here is constant.
Well, there's certainly an element of that.
Oh dear god, kindly fuck off.
Copyright is an amoral law that concentrates power over culture into the hands of profiteering publishers.
Nah.. us anti-copyright types have always been in the minority. People calling for the removal of amoral laws typically are.
Look, there's literally thousands of MMOs now. 100% of them suck.. 1% of them suck less than the others.
Most all of them start with the "let's be different" mindset.. they quickly discover that there's a *reason* why things are the way they are.. much of that is technical, some of it is psychological (read: addictive) and the remainder is simply "what people are used to" and woe be to the man who tries to sell a product that people don't understand.
1. There are terrorists, but they either feel they have made their point and achieved their goal of causing terror and its associated overreactions or they are incapable of mounting a significant overseas attack, or unwilling to mount one that would not cause similar damage to 9/11.
That's what I'm saying yes.. there's no terrorists in the US causing mayhem. Obviously there are terrorists in the Gaza strip.. I just don't know how that's relevant to the US.
revealing some "obvious" conspiracy theory. [..] The government is not outright lying about the terrorist threats, but is doing what it does best: protect itself.
Umm.. all I'm saying is that the TSA is making false claims to maintain their funding. We're to believe that there's boogeymen in the airport trying to kill us and that's why we need all these guards and scanning equipment so they can see you naked, etc.
This is how the game works. Big, fat, bloated, wasteful, and expensive defensive strategies that allow lawmakers to hide behind the guise of being over-cautious will always win over strategies that involve personal risk through bold, decisive action that will likely be criticized by someone, somewhere.
Yup, that's exactly what I'm saying. They're lying about the threat to justify the expenditure. Lots of people are lying the same way.. is that a conspiracy? Or is that just shared delusion?
and yet you don't make the connection.
1. The government claims the airport security is to stop terrorists.
2. The terrorists could easily attack other, easier, targets.
3. And, yet, there are no such attacks.
We can safely conclude:
4. There are no terrorists.
5. The government is lying.
It's not the Fermi Paradox here.
I hope its as good as Blues Brothers 2000.
Why do they need to review it? Can't they enforce a safe subset and give the user graded security options.. I kinda remember that being the point of the Java sandbox.
Apps that are only allowed to read/write to restricted local storage and can only access files that the user specifically selected with an Open/Save File Dialog sounds plenty secure to me. Some similar restrictions for socket access.
The deepest part of the ocean is about 9.7 km, has pressure of about 110-mega-pascals, and a temperature of about 2 degrees Celsius. So you're off by about 3 orders of magnitude in every measurement :)
In fiction it is, yes. In reality it's just an ugly radiation bomb.. it'd cause significant damage to structures.. not to mention pets.
Yeah, there's earlier precedent that "copying into RAM" isn't making a copy for copyright purposes.. the DMCA even tries to make it explicit by saying that copies made in the normal running of a program are not copying for copyright purposes.. but this doesn't stop every fucking lawyer from trying to pull this shit every time they want to stop people from running programs in ways their client doesn't like. The recent abomination of Blizzard vs Glider is a prime example. The amble precedent and the explicit codification in law of "intermediate copies" being innocuous didn't stop the judge in that case ruling in favor of Blizzard. Watching copyright court cases and watching Texas Hold'em Poker is a similar experience, both a boring as hell until the end and all the commentators are no better than random guessers..
Ya.. except that these are civil cases and so there is no court appointed lawyers.. As for judges telling you that you've got shit representation, that would require some kind of objective measure of copyright lawyer quality and seeing as no-one understands copyright law, not even the judges, that aint gunna happen.
Presumably because the village is full of militants who have been bombing your oil pipeline. As for why the USA can't share the wealth with foreign nations and come up with some peaceful solutions to its problems.... blah, institutionalized violence.. it's human.
Autonomous killbots are the long dreamed for weapon that can kill all the occupants of a city without destroying the city. Hell, if you program it right then it won't even kill their pets!
Presumably when I start threatening national security.. or at least when your president can convince the least intelligent members of your society that I have.
Meh.. If the alternative is to bomb the village, a robot that shoots only those that shoot at it sounds like a great idea.
God, are you really this stupid?
The problem is that the software doesn't think it's an audio CD. It can see that there is a CD in the drive.. it just doesn't see that it's red book. It's not a "problem that doesn't exist".. it's a problem that every Mac user (except you it seems) has experienced. The retards at Apple just thought it was pointless to present an "Import CD" button when no CD was detected.. I'm trying to tell you why it is not pointless. But you're incapable of following a simple argument.
Now, please, fuck off.
It's not hard. Read the disc. Really, red book isn't hard. If the CD works in a CD player, it should work in iTunes. The fact that it doesn't indicates that iTunes is broken. The fact that iTunes stubbornly pretends like there's nothing wrong is just arrogance.. much like what I'm getting from you.
Now fuck off fanboi.
The "Import CD" button is only there if it has detect that you put an audio CD in and it is selected on the left panel. So saying "click on Import CD" is pretty fucking worthless advice if the button isn't there. However, if the button was there and someone was to click on it, that would be an appropriate time to present an error message which indicated that iTunes did not believe there was an audio CD in the drive. It could also mention at that time what it did think was in the drive.. like say, that it thought there was a data CD in the drive.. or that it thought there was no CD in the drive.
As for gracenote (or whatever) failing.. sheesh man, how mainstream is your music collection?