There are fantastic free operating systems out there, and fantastic free browsers. I never said otherwise.
So then by your logic isn't it just as ludicrous to pay for an operating system when there are fantastic free operating systems out there as it is to pay for a browser? Or might you admit that one could justify paying for a browser as well as paying for an operating system?
You are making way too many assumptions. I code to W3C standards, and validate my pages. It's not really an issue if NS4 doesn't support the latest standards, the older standards still work.
Ah, but you didn't say that - you said you coded for MSIE, Mozilla/Phoenix, and NS 4. And MS at least is well known for promoting their own non-compliant extensions to standards.
I was saying that I will code to standards, if it works on Opera - good, if it doesn't, I'm not going to alter my standards compliant code for a browser that can't interpret the standards completely. This is not a crime.
Fair enough, if you adhere to that same rule where MSIE and Mozilla/Phoenix are concerned. Opera's stated mission is to correctly render pages which are fully W3C compliant. If it doesn't, then shame on Opera. But if Opera fulfills its mission, it's unfair to blame it rather than the web developer for failing to render pages that deviate from compliance.
"As a web developer, I will never develop pages for Opera. Just MSIE, Mozilla/Phoenix and Netscape 4.x."
You of course disclose this up front to your potential clients, don't you? My company won't hire slugs like you, who insist on using non-compliant code and thus alienating any number of potential customers. A class of customers by the way who aren't adverse to spending money for a good product.
"The idea of paying for a web browser seems ludicrous to me, especially when there are fantastic free browsers out there."
Substitute "operating system" for "web browser" in your statement and perhaps I'll agree with you.
"I know why it is only a 3.2 MB download, portions of the code are missing!"
There's not that much demand for flavored soda in this house, but we go through a lot of plain seltzer. I'm hoping to find a through-the-countertop chilled seltzer dispenser similar to the hot water dispensers, with the "works" under the sink counter. The CO2 tank could go outside.
A perhaps more interesting question than the morality of killing a sentient robot is the opposite: If we were to create a race of truly sentient robots to serve us, would they be justified in killing us as inefficient parasites on their society.
With the money of the US entertainment industry plus their toadies in the US Government pressing the issue, I doubt Johansen will have much of a chance the second time around. Watch for the following progression in the way in which he's described: Hacker -> Evil Hacker -> Thief -> Pirate -> Terrorist.
Operatic tearjerker, sung in French with subtitles. Vintage mid-1960s. I doubt any of the/. readership ever even heard of it, although the theme music ("I will wait for you") is heard from time to time to this day.
to the PIRACY (tm) problem insofar as the media producers are concerned is as follows:
Take the total profits of the media producers for the year prior to Napster being available. Any decrease in profits in subsequent years is obviously due solely to PIRACY (tm).
Each year, the difference between the pre-Napster year profits and the profits this year is to be fully recovered by a tax on all PC (i.e., Piracy Conspiracy) equipment sold, such tax proceeds to be distributed pro-rata to the media producers (even if they produce nothing at all in the year).
I wonder what DRM restrictions (other than those commonly found in PC peripherals) might be included in the Sony hardware, given that Sony is also in the music publishing business. They've apparently done this before.
You can express your personal legal opinions all day, but the legality or illegality of the "automatic censor" (as you put it) is the issue under litigation and will be decided by the court. (Or be left undecided, should the defendant cave in and give up when confronted by the plaintiff's financial and legal resources.)
Similarly, the issue of the validity of software license provisions which aren't disclosed and agreed to prior to the sale has never been definitively decided by courts.
You apparently don't understand the difference between censorship by some official authority which is done without my consent, and pre-screening which is done under my direction and with my consent for my own personal use.
I alone am the judge of the type of content I choose to view/hear, whether it be all, none, or part of that which is offered.
You can moralize all you want, but I am the one who decides what type of material I want to view - not you, and not the content producer. And if I decide to hire a 3rd-party pre-screener whose judgement in these matters aligns with mine, it's nobody's business but my own.
I agree there is no right to distribute copies of copyrighted content without the consent of the producer - regardless of whether censored or in original form.
You are apparently claiming however that I do not have the right to view censored content without the consent of the producer of that content, if the censoring is performed by third-party filtering (with MY consent) of original content that I've licensed.
In short, I reject that claim.
Regarding advertising on DVDs, I fully expect to see this in the future, just as there is now advertising on rented VHS tapes.
I need no agreement of any author to close my eyes or cover my ears to avoid content I find offensive. And whether I do this myself or pay some service to do it for me by providing filters for original DVDs I've purchased is none of the author's business.
It's unfortunate that the producers of otherwise fine material often feel it necessary to pander to the crowd by including snippets of gratuitous violence or salacious titilation which add nothing to, and in fact often detract from, the story line.
But if you think this commotion is about artistic integrity you are sadly mistaken. Filters which can skip offensive content can also skip advertising, which is the real worry. The claim has already been made (by Jack Valenti as I recall) that skipping past commercials is tantamount to theft and Hollywood intends to press that claim by one subterfuge or another if need be.
Hmmm... What you're saying implies that if I'm watching a movie in a theatre, I don't have the right to close my eyes or cover my ears for parts of the film I find objectionable. Or if I'm reading a book to my children I don't have the right to rephrase vulgar language, descriptive violence, or other offensive material I happen to encounter.
Sorry my friend - IP rights don't extend so far as to force me to accept crap as a condition of getting the jewels.
it looks to me like the plaintiff provides a secure lock for the door but leaves a key under the doormat - then compounds the stupidity by posting a sign telling passers-by about it.
What's not realized by most people is that not only will works end up remaining under copyright for a very long time (perhaps forever), but that many newer works will end up being LOST forever - published only on DRM protected media, not reprinted as popularity wains, and unreadable as the technology becomes obsolete.
I view any attempt to legally enforce a policy forbidding me to deep-link into a publicly accessable website as an infringement of my constitutional rights of free speech. and free press. Would there be any question about this if I were to address an audience and verbally (or by handout) give them the deep URL?
I'd be more than a little nervous flying in a plane if I knew the pilot was being paid minimum wage or some low multiplier of minimum wage. Any jerk can probably learn to fly a big plane tolerably well _most_ of the time.
I'd be interested in knowing what you think would be a reasonable annual compensation for the pilots of _your_ next flights.
(And no - I have no connection, personal, family or otherwise, with the airline or travel industry except as a passenger.)
Check out this page:
http://www.ncfelonymurder.org/janet.html to see how one stupid prank gone awry earned a young woman life imprisonment without possibility of parole.
If there are intelligent extraterrestrials...
on
Starcraft
·
· Score: 1
we'd better hope they never make physical contact with us, and they'd better hope we never make physical contact with them. The historical record shows that contact between different human cultures has generally resulted in a disaster for one or the other. Is there any reason to believe the situation would be any different between humans and aliens?
It's amazing to me how these guys manage to keep their rooms so organized and uncluttered compared to mine. Perhaps it's the German penchant for neatness.
Slashdot Mirror
There are fantastic free operating systems out there, and fantastic free browsers. I never said otherwise.
So then by your logic isn't it just as ludicrous to pay for an operating system when there are fantastic free operating systems out there as it is to pay for a browser? Or might you admit that one could justify paying for a browser as well as paying for an operating system?
You are making way too many assumptions. I code to W3C standards, and validate my pages. It's not really an issue if NS4 doesn't support the latest standards, the older standards still work.
Ah, but you didn't say that - you said you coded for MSIE, Mozilla/Phoenix, and NS 4. And MS at least is well known for promoting their own non-compliant extensions to standards.
I was saying that I will code to standards, if it works on Opera - good, if it doesn't, I'm not going to alter my standards compliant code for a browser that can't interpret the standards completely. This is not a crime.
Fair enough, if you adhere to that same rule where MSIE and Mozilla/Phoenix are concerned. Opera's stated mission is to correctly render pages which are fully W3C compliant. If it doesn't, then shame on Opera. But if Opera fulfills its mission, it's unfair to blame it rather than the web developer for failing to render pages that deviate from compliance.
"As a web developer, I will never develop pages for Opera. Just MSIE, Mozilla/Phoenix and Netscape 4.x."
... or are you?
You of course disclose this up front to your potential clients, don't you? My company won't hire slugs like you, who insist on using non-compliant code and thus alienating any number of potential customers. A class of customers by the way who aren't adverse to spending money for a good product.
"The idea of paying for a web browser seems ludicrous to me, especially when there are fantastic free browsers out there."
Substitute "operating system" for "web browser" in your statement and perhaps I'll agree with you.
"I know why it is only a 3.2 MB download, portions of the code are missing!"
Surely you're not that clueless
There's not that much demand for flavored soda in this house, but we go through a lot of plain seltzer. I'm hoping to find a through-the-countertop chilled seltzer dispenser similar to the hot water dispensers, with the "works" under the sink counter. The CO2 tank could go outside.
A perhaps more interesting question than the morality of killing a sentient robot is the opposite: If we were to create a race of truly sentient robots to serve us, would they be justified in killing us as inefficient parasites on their society.
With the money of the US entertainment industry plus their toadies in the US Government pressing the issue, I doubt Johansen will have much of a chance the second time around. Watch for the following progression in the way in which he's described: Hacker -> Evil Hacker -> Thief -> Pirate -> Terrorist.
"You would be wrong. Les Parapluies de Cherbourg was the third film I bought on DVD..."
I'm glad to be wrong in this case. I was unaware the film had been released on DVD until you mentioned it. Thanks.
Operatic tearjerker, sung in French with subtitles. Vintage mid-1960s. I doubt any of the /. readership ever even heard of it, although the theme music ("I will wait for you") is heard from time to time to this day.
to the PIRACY (tm) problem insofar as the media producers are concerned is as follows:
Take the total profits of the media producers for the year prior to Napster being available. Any decrease in profits in subsequent years is obviously due solely to PIRACY (tm).
Each year, the difference between the pre-Napster year profits and the profits this year is to be fully recovered by a tax on all PC (i.e., Piracy Conspiracy) equipment sold, such tax proceeds to be distributed pro-rata to the media producers (even if they produce nothing at all in the year).
Bwahahahaha!!!
I wonder what DRM restrictions (other than those commonly found in PC peripherals) might be included in the Sony hardware, given that Sony is also in the music publishing business. They've apparently done this before.
to see what use is made of these "opt-out" lists by foreign spammers.
I've been making Slashdot ad-free too -- I subscribed!
In short:
You claim that I have to take all or nothing. I claim to be the sole judge of what I'll accept, whether it's all, nothing, or part.
The discussion has been interesting, but we're at loggerheads and will just have to agree to disagree.
You can express your personal legal opinions all day, but the legality or illegality of the "automatic censor" (as you put it) is the issue under litigation and will be decided by the court. (Or be left undecided, should the defendant cave in and give up when confronted by the plaintiff's financial and legal resources.)
Similarly, the issue of the validity of software license provisions which aren't disclosed and agreed to prior to the sale has never been definitively decided by courts.
You apparently don't understand the difference between censorship by some official authority which is done without my consent, and pre-screening which is done under my direction and with my consent for my own personal use.
I alone am the judge of the type of content I choose to view/hear, whether it be all, none, or part of that which is offered.
You can moralize all you want, but I am the one who decides what type of material I want to view - not you, and not the content producer. And if I decide to hire a 3rd-party pre-screener whose judgement in these matters aligns with mine, it's nobody's business but my own.
OK, let's try it again.
I agree there is no right to distribute copies of copyrighted content without the consent of the producer - regardless of whether censored or in original form.
You are apparently claiming however that I do not have the right to view censored content without the consent of the producer of that content, if the censoring is performed by third-party filtering (with MY consent) of original content that I've licensed.
In short, I reject that claim.
Regarding advertising on DVDs, I fully expect to see this in the future, just as there is now advertising on rented VHS tapes.
I need no agreement of any author to close my eyes or cover my ears to avoid content I find offensive. And whether I do this myself or pay some service to do it for me by providing filters for original DVDs I've purchased is none of the author's business.
It's unfortunate that the producers of otherwise fine material often feel it necessary to pander to the crowd by including snippets of gratuitous violence or salacious titilation which add nothing to, and in fact often detract from, the story line.
But if you think this commotion is about artistic integrity you are sadly mistaken. Filters which can skip offensive content can also skip advertising, which is the real worry. The claim has already been made (by Jack Valenti as I recall) that skipping past commercials is tantamount to theft and Hollywood intends to press that claim by one subterfuge or another if need be.
Hmmm... What you're saying implies that if I'm watching a movie in a theatre, I don't have the right to close my eyes or cover my ears for parts of the film I find objectionable. Or if I'm reading a book to my children I don't have the right to rephrase vulgar language, descriptive violence, or other offensive material I happen to encounter.
Sorry my friend - IP rights don't extend so far as to force me to accept crap as a condition of getting the jewels.
Too late it seems.
it looks to me like the plaintiff provides a secure lock for the door but leaves a key under the doormat - then compounds the stupidity by posting a sign telling passers-by about it.
What's not realized by most people is that not only will works end up remaining under copyright for a very long time (perhaps forever), but that many newer works will end up being LOST forever - published only on DRM protected media, not reprinted as popularity wains, and unreadable as the technology becomes obsolete.
I view any attempt to legally enforce a policy forbidding me to deep-link into a publicly accessable website as an infringement of my constitutional rights of free speech. and free press. Would there be any question about this if I were to address an audience and verbally (or by handout) give them the deep URL?
I'd be more than a little nervous flying in a plane if I knew the pilot was being paid minimum wage or some low multiplier of minimum wage. Any jerk can probably learn to fly a big plane tolerably well _most_ of the time.
I'd be interested in knowing what you think would be a reasonable annual compensation for the pilots of _your_ next flights.
(And no - I have no connection, personal, family or otherwise, with the airline or travel industry except as a passenger.)
Check out this page:
http://www.ncfelonymurder.org/janet.html
to see how one stupid prank gone awry earned a young woman life imprisonment without possibility of parole.
we'd better hope they never make physical contact with us, and they'd better hope we never make physical contact with them. The historical record shows that contact between different human cultures has generally resulted in a disaster for one or the other. Is there any reason to believe the situation would be any different between humans and aliens?
It's amazing to me how these guys manage to keep their rooms so organized and uncluttered compared to mine. Perhaps it's the German penchant for neatness.