I think you completely fail to see the point, which is not that they're stopping me from pirating music - sell a decent product for a decennt price (I have no problem buying CDs directly from artists, for example), but that they want to not only over-charge me for a product, which "they" (the cartel of RIAA members) have a monopoly control over, but that they then want me to pay for it for each and every way I want to use it. Essentially, the RIAA view of copyright is fundamentally different from mine.
Note that this is not an attempt to justify music pirating as some sort of political statement. That's moronic. However, it is an attempt to explain why my distaste and dislike of the RIAA goes far beyond "They want me to actually pay for stuff, wah wah wah". It's not about me getting free stuff. It's about my distaste for an entrenched organization that manipulates markets and people in an attempt to sell a product for inflated prices, and ruthlessly attempts to squash and technology that could threaten that stranglehold. The music industry likes to justify costs and it's fear of the internet by talking about how much it costs to promote a new artist, and how many fail to return that money, and on and on... completely aside from the fact that it's the ARTIST that pays for that, not the label (who only fronts the money), the internet is a perfect medium for eliminating alot of those costs. But they'd have to actually respond to consumers, and give them what they want. And that's something that sticks in the RIAAs collective craw to no end. They're used too and really enjoy being the arbiters of popular entertainment, and the thought of losing that control scares them shitless.
Interestingly, it also doesn't rely on any windows update functionality - when they changed the applet a while back, I refused to upgrade by the auto-updating continued to work just fine.
Of course, there's also those of us who work in the public sector and take pride in doing real work, and do our cutting edge hobby work during our 6 weeks of paid vacation;) I like my job. I'd make more money in the private sector, but my benefits (especially the retirement ones) outweigh the lack of cash. I do good work. It's (generally) low stress. Job security is great, and it's not just because it's so hard to fire government workers - it's about having a stable environment, where my job isn't going to go away because some CEO needs to bump the stock price another couple cents to make his bonus. It's true that you can run into alot of lowest common denominator people, but you can also get that anywhere, and there's nothing that says I can't leave whenever I feel like it. I'm not sure what sort of motivation and ambition I need to quit a stable, well paying job with good benefits, but maybe you have some other criteria.
Ah, but your forgot the most important part - The patent also covers the use of a payment-processing service to allow purchasers to pay for the goods -
with a computer.
Well, I'm a professional web designer and I can't stand Dreamweaver. CF Studio, on the other hand, is an excellent tool (for flat HTML as well as more CF coding), and if I need a wysiwyg editor for some reason I use HoTMetaL.
It's in muscle memory for me now, which is something of a problem when I'm on different machines, as I have a tendency to to lock myself out or (on win98 or dos machines) reboot the computer every time I stand up.
Re:Photos of M$ booth...
on
LWCE Wrapup
·
· Score: 2
The context of the post certainly implies that it was a few linux geeks intentionally mocking the MS boothers, with the implication that they were asking obscure (or, equally likely, nonsensical) questions, and then taking pride in not getting the answer they wanted.
Interesting point, since you don't get a trial by jury in US military court....
I don't really see how there's any room for argument here. We want an international court, but we want to be totally immune to any laws it may have. No matter what, that's hypocritical. Either we are in favor of national sovereignity, and don't support ANY national court, or we have to allow ourselves to be subject to it. It's blatanty clear to anyone who thinks about it for even half a second what's going on here.
It's gone both ways, generally whatever direction is politically expedient (although not always). I tend to go with the idea that it applies to everyone, as the ideals of the Consitution are exactly that - ideals, and something we should uphold and believe in in general, not something we should apply only to privledged people. If we are going to honestly say that we believe in the principles of freedom expoused in the Consititution, we have to limit ourselves ALWAYS, not just at home. Otherwise we're nothing more than hypocrites.
In terms of actual law, I know that there's been at least a few cases where illegal immigrants (non-citizens) were found to be protected, but, as in this case, there are also cases where it's not considered to apply overseas.
I'm not sure about the copyright thing. I work for a government agency and we claim copyright on certain things. I'm also not in legal and have no idea whether or not it's boilerplate someone stuck on without thinking about it.
I don't block banner adds. I don't mind them, and I understand that it helps pay for sites I visit and enjoy. I DO block popups, and I won't go to salon.com anymore, because of annoying full page flash stuff and "interval" adds or whatever they're called. I'm willing to be eyeballs in exchange for content, but I'm there for the CONTENT - don't push me too far. And if, like Salon, you're hoping to annoy me into getting a subscription - sorry. I'll donate to/"subscribe" to your website if there's real added value, I won't pay it as blackmail so you won't bother me anymore.
Even worse than that - most of the time, the actual decoding is done in firmware by the scanner itself, so they had to have really cheap scanners, decode the raw data in software, and then have really cheap crappy software, all along the line, to cause a crash like that.
Anarchy Online has a free evaluation as well, I believe 30 days, along with a free download of the client. If you want to keep playing, I _think_ you have to pay them the 10 bucks they would have gotten if you'd bought the box.
Well, in fairness, when I reinstall redhat (actually switched to debian now, which is way cooler, but lack of pretty pictures in installer make it bit less user-compatable), since I'm using an old set of CDs, up2date -u has to download well over 200 megs of updates(!).
*bzzt* Speeding laws are a highway tax. They remain because they provide income for police departments;).
In any case, you're taking the unfortunate view that "somebody" out there knows what society needs to flow smoothly, and that your (and my) input is not only unneccsary, it's unwelcome, and may, in fact, be detrimental. This is unfortunate, because this is how democracy's transform into... well, almost anything else. People willing give away thier free thought, speech, and ideas to a nameless, formless "authority", who they assume knows what's best for them. It's a very dangerous viewpoint.
It's the fiduciary responsibility to directors to protect the money of the investors they represent, and sometimes, this means taking it out of a bad investment, and putting it some place else.
Umm... like their own bank accounts? All else aside, a forgiven loan is essentially a handout. So the board voted themselves handouts. Now, even if they're VC people who put money into it, it's still sleazy, because they're ripping off all the OTHER investors as well. Just because it's money "propping up a failed buisness model" doesn't make it okay - there's a process for companies that fail. In theory, ALL the investors share in the shafting then. In this case, it's people setting themselves up with golden parachutes, which are unethical and scummy under ANY circumstances.
Well, I suppose this just points out how people have differeing ethical standards. For example, i don't think that skipping commercials is unethical at all, while, on the other hand, I think that knowingly failing to meet your legal responsibilites and draining your company of funds is.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the even harder part is the delivery.
yeah, because "Adventure" was the high point of "storytelling and character development"?
Note that this is not an attempt to justify music pirating as some sort of political statement. That's moronic. However, it is an attempt to explain why my distaste and dislike of the RIAA goes far beyond "They want me to actually pay for stuff, wah wah wah". It's not about me getting free stuff. It's about my distaste for an entrenched organization that manipulates markets and people in an attempt to sell a product for inflated prices, and ruthlessly attempts to squash and technology that could threaten that stranglehold. The music industry likes to justify costs and it's fear of the internet by talking about how much it costs to promote a new artist, and how many fail to return that money, and on and on... completely aside from the fact that it's the ARTIST that pays for that, not the label (who only fronts the money), the internet is a perfect medium for eliminating alot of those costs. But they'd have to actually respond to consumers, and give them what they want. And that's something that sticks in the RIAAs collective craw to no end. They're used too and really enjoy being the arbiters of popular entertainment, and the thought of losing that control scares them shitless.
Interestingly, it also doesn't rely on any windows update functionality - when they changed the applet a while back, I refused to upgrade by the auto-updating continued to work just fine.
Of course, there's also those of us who work in the public sector and take pride in doing real work, and do our cutting edge hobby work during our 6 weeks of paid vacation ;) I like my job. I'd make more money in the private sector, but my benefits (especially the retirement ones) outweigh the lack of cash. I do good work. It's (generally) low stress. Job security is great, and it's not just because it's so hard to fire government workers - it's about having a stable environment, where my job isn't going to go away because some CEO needs to bump the stock price another couple cents to make his bonus. It's true that you can run into alot of lowest common denominator people, but you can also get that anywhere, and there's nothing that says I can't leave whenever I feel like it. I'm not sure what sort of motivation and ambition I need to quit a stable, well paying job with good benefits, but maybe you have some other criteria.
Ah, but your forgot the most important part - The patent also covers the use of a payment-processing service to allow purchasers to pay for the goods - with a computer.
Well, I'm a professional web designer and I can't stand Dreamweaver. CF Studio, on the other hand, is an excellent tool (for flat HTML as well as more CF coding), and if I need a wysiwyg editor for some reason I use HoTMetaL.
It's in muscle memory for me now, which is something of a problem when I'm on different machines, as I have a tendency to to lock myself out or (on win98 or dos machines) reboot the computer every time I stand up.
The context of the post certainly implies that it was a few linux geeks intentionally mocking the MS boothers, with the implication that they were asking obscure (or, equally likely, nonsensical) questions, and then taking pride in not getting the answer they wanted.
I don't really see how there's any room for argument here. We want an international court, but we want to be totally immune to any laws it may have. No matter what, that's hypocritical. Either we are in favor of national sovereignity, and don't support ANY national court, or we have to allow ourselves to be subject to it. It's blatanty clear to anyone who thinks about it for even half a second what's going on here.
In terms of actual law, I know that there's been at least a few cases where illegal immigrants (non-citizens) were found to be protected, but, as in this case, there are also cases where it's not considered to apply overseas.
I'm not sure about the copyright thing. I work for a government agency and we claim copyright on certain things. I'm also not in legal and have no idea whether or not it's boilerplate someone stuck on without thinking about it.
I don't block banner adds. I don't mind them, and I understand that it helps pay for sites I visit and enjoy. I DO block popups, and I won't go to salon.com anymore, because of annoying full page flash stuff and "interval" adds or whatever they're called. I'm willing to be eyeballs in exchange for content, but I'm there for the CONTENT - don't push me too far. And if, like Salon, you're hoping to annoy me into getting a subscription - sorry. I'll donate to/"subscribe" to your website if there's real added value, I won't pay it as blackmail so you won't bother me anymore.
As I recall, the window has to be opened with X milliseconds of you clicking the link, in order to avoid delayed popunders.
Which is to say, not bound at all (in the case of a book).
the dungeons in Ultima 4 had a first person pseudo-3d perspective, too. Pretty sure that was before Wolfenstein.
I feel your pain. I myself feel this strange twinge in my chest every time I see the Sierra logo.
Even worse than that - most of the time, the actual decoding is done in firmware by the scanner itself, so they had to have really cheap scanners, decode the raw data in software, and then have really cheap crappy software, all along the line, to cause a crash like that.
Anarchy Online has a free evaluation as well, I believe 30 days, along with a free download of the client. If you want to keep playing, I _think_ you have to pay them the 10 bucks they would have gotten if you'd bought the box.
Well, in fairness, when I reinstall redhat (actually switched to debian now, which is way cooler, but lack of pretty pictures in installer make it bit less user-compatable), since I'm using an old set of CDs, up2date -u has to download well over 200 megs of updates(!).
I see nothing wrong with that theory. It is, in fact, correct, that one of the main weaknesses of computer systems today is poor passwords.
In any case, you're taking the unfortunate view that "somebody" out there knows what society needs to flow smoothly, and that your (and my) input is not only unneccsary, it's unwelcome, and may, in fact, be detrimental. This is unfortunate, because this is how democracy's transform into... well, almost anything else. People willing give away thier free thought, speech, and ideas to a nameless, formless "authority", who they assume knows what's best for them. It's a very dangerous viewpoint.
Umm... like their own bank accounts? All else aside, a forgiven loan is essentially a handout. So the board voted themselves handouts. Now, even if they're VC people who put money into it, it's still sleazy, because they're ripping off all the OTHER investors as well. Just because it's money "propping up a failed buisness model" doesn't make it okay - there's a process for companies that fail. In theory, ALL the investors share in the shafting then. In this case, it's people setting themselves up with golden parachutes, which are unethical and scummy under ANY circumstances.
Well, I suppose this just points out how people have differeing ethical standards. For example, i don't think that skipping commercials is unethical at all, while, on the other hand, I think that knowingly failing to meet your legal responsibilites and draining your company of funds is.
Seriously, it's not the're gonna give up the waiver, but you can certainly get guarantees and such. Also, consider insurance.