What the hell does that have to do with being able to download it? By that logic, you can take anything, as property is an artificial monopoly.
Every law is artificial, and your Constitution is superceded by the Berne convention.
As for the other poster: How can a person know if a file is copyrighted and doesn't have a license that allows free distribution until after that file is downloaded?
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Do you think these pirates are downloading mysteryfile.mpeg, only to find (to their horror) it's copyrighted, whereby they delete it immediately? Come on, Slashbots will use any stupid reasoning to try to justify piracy, just grow up.
Face the facts: copyright law isn't going anywhere. Piracy is illegal, always will be illegal. Crying everytime someone gets sued for breaking the law doesn't make piracy any less unethical.
You think people have a moral right to download copyrighted material? You think that making downloading films illegal isn't justified? What world do you live in?
The sense of entitlement on this site is astonishing. Now apparently it's immoral to have copyrights. The film industry should just let everyone into the cinemas for free because people have the moral right to take things for free rather than paying.
Jesus the shit that gets modded up on here... Was Slashdot always this bad? When did the freeloading teenagers take over?
I'm getting into this spamming game. Seriously, how do you go about spamming? I probably won't get caught as I live in a corrupt country. Seems like easy money, just set the computer to send spams, and rake in the cash. Has to be better than a day job!
So a few people have e-mails they don't want, there's nothing wrong with that. I get all sorts I don't want, like adverts on TV, but TV advertisers don't go to jail.
That doesn't stop me from enjoying the crap out of Star Wars and Lord of The Rings even though I'll be the first one to say that these movies are utterly just really really really bad.
What? How can a film be bad if you enjoy it? What exactly makes a film 'good' other than how enjoyable it is? You sound like one of those pretentious 'film buffs' who rate films based on how unpopular they are. If a lot of people like it, it's mainstream crap. If only three people saw it, it's an underrated masterpiece.
It seems to be fashionable to pretend to like films that are obscure and foreign, regardless of quality. I for one think the Seven Samurai is pants.
No doubt if Deuce Bigalo was called 'Bong Chang: Chinese Gigalo' and was written by an obscure Hong Kong director and cost 50 yen to produce, you'd be hailing it a masterpiece, and if Seven Samurai was made by Hollywood you'd hate it.
I for one don't like seeing Charlie Chaplin acting like an idiot in front of a camera. It's neither funny nor clever.
I don't understand the complains about prices of food/drink. I think if you can't go without eating or drinking for two hours you're probably too fat to fit in a cinema anyway.
People need to stop associating eating with entertainment, they just stuff themselves all day and night, burgers at the computer, pizza in front of the TV, popcorn at the cinema, all washed down with 500-calorie fizzy drinks no doubt. No wonder everyone's fat these days. People should eat at proper mealtimes, at a dinner table. Any snacks should be small portions of fruit or something, not chocolate bars and pot noodles.
To get back on topic, the reasons I don't go to the cinema are numerous:
1. The cinema is in the middle of nowhere. I don't know what genius decided that people would rather travel miles and miles to a retail park off a motorway junction, always next to a supermarket or bowling alley, rather than just going into a town centre. Seriously, it's an excursion getting to one these days.
2. It's too expensive. Most films are rubbish, worth maybe a pound at most. You don't even know if they're crap before you've paid the money, as reviewers and critics are ALL useless.
3. Full of idiots. Mobile phones, talking, all that crap. They should be shot. And they shouldn't sell popcorn or coke, it makes everything sticky.
4. Films are crap. I don't think there's been a good film released for years. What did we get this summer? Bore of the Worlds. Standard formula: bland big-name director who's out of ideas, bland big-name photogenic 'actor' who can't act but will get the women in, screaming kid, special effects, crap script, crap ending. Spielburg should retire, where are the good directors?
The rest are generally shitty 'comedies' full of fart jokes. This year it's a film where the funniest joke (the best jokes are ALWAYS in the advert) is a man having his chest hair waxed. Excuse me if I'm not rolling in the aisles.
There might be some good films out there, but going to the cinema is too much of a hassle to make it worthwhile. I usually wait 'till they're on DVD or on TV.
I should have known that posting against Google would get me modded down on this site, even when I'm posting facts, whilst the posts disagreeing with me are modded up to +4/5, even when they're wrong. I don't want to get banned from posting again for going against the hivemind, perhaps Slashdot should set up a Room 101 for reducation? Then you wouldn't even need a moderation system as everyone would be following the party line.
I need some more karma so I'll post this:
Google is great! Forget everything I said! Making you beg for invites or give away your phone number is much better than just signing up normally! Google is great! They invented webmail and search engines! All hail Google! I love Google! I hate Microsoft and Yahoo because they compete with Google! Google is not evil, everyone else is evil! I wish I could sleep with the Google founders! Or marry them! Google! Google! Google! Google! Google! Google! Google! Google! Google! Google! Google! Google! Google! Google! Google!!!!!!!!
I don't know how Paul Allen is, but in regard to the orbital flights, I don't know if there's much revenue to be had there. There are only so many millionaires, and once they've all been to space, what then? The novelty of space will wear off VERY quickly. It's not like there's anything you can do there, no nice weather, no beaches, no skiing, no or anything else rich people like to do on holiday.
Have you ever thought that some people don't know anything about putting together DVD recorders or computers?
And THREE HOURS assembly? For a technical person who really knows what they're doing? If it takes you that long, how long would it take for someone who's never put anything like that together before? And would it work?
The interface is unobstrusive, I'll give you that. But the rest of the reasons aren't that great.
It's very slow. Opening it up takes ages. It just says 'loading' in the top of the screen. If you're in another tab, the gmail tab doesn't have the swirling thing to show it's loading, so you don't know whether it's actually loaded or not.
When it actually loads (after around 10-20 seconds), the interface isn't reliable. Sometimes when you click on an email the whole thing just freezes. When you click on a link in an e-mail, TWO tabs come up, one with the link, one back to your inbox. And the focussed tab is your inbox, not the link.
The size isn't much use. Other providers have similar size. Can't say I've ever filled it past 500kB so I couldn't care less about that.
I don't use search features, I store e-mails in relevant folders. Gmail doesn't even have folders, just 'labels', which means they're not neatly stored. It also doesn't tell you how many e-mails you've got in each 'label'. For instance if you put messages from person 'x' into label 'y', It just says 'y' at the side of the screen, it doesn't actually tell you how many are in there. It only shows unread mails. I thought people raved about Google's interfaces? They're worse than others.
As far as I'm aware there's no custom filters you can put on incoming mail like you could do with a proper e-mail client.
I'm afraid the conclusion is that gmail is an average webmail service with excellent marketing.
That's ridiculous. How does stopping people getting an account prevent spam? Unless gmail only allows mail from other people, spammers are probably capable of sending mail from other mail services.
And allowing sign-up by mobile? I'm unimpressed, even other e-mail services without Google's billions have managed the simple functionality of ALLOWING SIGN UP ON THE WEBSITE. Maybe after a crack team of PHDs work on the problem for a few years Google might have that as well. Just like the first basic web mail services had decades ago.
I don't see how Google has so many fanboys whilst they contiuously take the piss out of the users. Making them jump through a hundred times more hoops than anywhere else, for a service which isn't really much better.
If Sun can make a profit on $1, then it obviously costs them less than $1, in which case you can do it for less than $1, and so there's no point in using Sun's service. The 'hire' wouldn't be needed all year, as the cluster would often be sitting dormant.
if the terrorists are killing innocent civillians and the police are killing innocent civillians, what's the difference between the two?
The fact that terrorists deliberately kill civilians whilst the police are interested in stopping terrorists. If you actually think that the police WANT to kill innocent people, then you might as well find another country to live in.
When you're making billions upon billions with relatively few employees, you can afford to give them benefits.
When you're struggling to make a profit, it's a lot harder to justify free food, free private health care, free dentist, Friday's off, luxurious offices and all that. Programmers are expensive enough, imagine letting them have 20% of the time to themselves, it's effectively putting their wage up 25%. Pretty easy when you can invent shares to make another $4 billion. And how expensive is land in the valley?
Google can afford to do that, but for anyone else it would be a repeat of the overspending of the dot-com days, most companies would go bust.
On the other hand it means other companies can't compete. How many potentially innovative companies can't get off the ground becaues they can't afford programmers? Instead they're all at Google writing derivative webapps and generating hype.
Call me a troll, but I don't think that Google's programmes are all that innovative, their output is unimpressive considering all those legions of programmers and PHDs. A map thing and webmail would be the least I'd expect. With all that talent and all those resources we should have sentinent computers by now... An exagerration but the point still stands.
Because he could have been you. Because someone was murdered.
It could have been me in on the London tubes, it wouldn't have been any more or less tragic. A day after a series of failed bomb attacks, of course the police are going to take the cautious approach.
I'd rather they take that stance and have a few innocents be killed, than them take a more cautious approach and have dozens of innocents killed. Yes it's bad when the police kill innocent people, but shit happens, we don't like in a perfect world.
He could have very well been an "anglosaxen" or one of "you people".
What difference would that make? By 'us people' do you mean people here legally, rather than the illegal immigrant Brazilian?
Yeah you can use trillian but you still need to create an account on every single one. This google messenger will mean YET ANOTHER place to create an account if you want to be able to talk to everyone.
The world needs LESS messaging systems, not more. Google is doing the wrong thing here.
It's not reliable enough yet. Often when you click on a mail in the inbox it just freezes up. And it takes ages to load. You don't get the spinning thing on the tab in Firefox like a normal site, it just says 'loading' on the top of the page. Sometimes it just stays like that.
Also it's not very configurable. Sometimes it opens up two tabs when you click on a link, for no particular reason.
They really need to iron out the creases. But then it's only been out a few years, and they only have a few hundred PHDs to work on it, and webmail is a monumental task that definitely couldn't be put together in a weekend by a single amateur.
Why do people get so worked up about that Brazilian? Dozens of people were killed a couple of weeks before, why don't each of them get the same attention? When terrorists are trying to blow people up, innocent people are going to die. It's a war, it's no more tragic if he's killed by the police or whether he's killed by a bomb.
Do you want police to take a soft approach to terrorism? The same people criticising now would be the same people criticising if he'd blown himself up on the train.
I'd question: 1. What was he doing in that house. 2. Why was he here illegally?
Perhaps the ones who blew up and tried to blow up the London Underground? Or Madrid? You're pretending that suicide bombers getting on public transport isn't a danger. That's ridiculous. New York is a big target. Blowing up a New York subway would be a massive coup for terrorists.
How would you "find and capture" them?
I'm no genius, but I suspect that if they're caught on camera it might be a lot easier to track them down. In fact CCTV in London caught the suicide bombers there.
Don't invade their countries, don't steal their money, don't torture their people, and pay attention to what your president has done.
Tell that to the Iraqis. They invaded Kuwait for no particular reason, stole who knows what, tortured and killed god-knows how many people, and the Iraqi people didn't even hint at revolt.
And what do you mean THEIR countries? The London bombers were born in Britain, Britain didn't invade itself. You think they were Iraqis out to avenge the invasion? In that case they should have attacked Parliament or some other legitimate political or military target. But no, they've just been listening to hate preachers in the local mosque. They hate Britain and its people but they want to live here. THEY'RE the hypocrites.
Just stop killing innocent people! Apologize for the invasion of Iraq! Let the people in prison go. It's freaking simple!
An odd thing to say, as the WTC was attacked before the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. I think your problem is you're assuming that terrorists have legitimate grievances and reasons for their actions, rather than just using things like Iraq as vague excuses to kill people and be a hero to all the other terrorists. Bear in mind they DELIBERATELY TARGET CIVILIANS.
Another problem is that when you decide policy based on what the terrorists want, is that you make terrorism a legitimate way to force policy. If the American government pulled out of Iraq because of terrorism, then anyone in the world who wanted to force you to do something could get their way just by strapping bombs to themselves and getting onto a train.
Call me a traditionalist, but countries should be run by elected governments, not suicide bombers.
Slashdot Mirror
What the hell does that have to do with being able to download it? By that logic, you can take anything, as property is an artificial monopoly.
Every law is artificial, and your Constitution is superceded by the Berne convention.
As for the other poster:
How can a person know if a file is copyrighted and doesn't have a license that allows free distribution until after that file is downloaded?
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Do you think these pirates are downloading mysteryfile.mpeg, only to find (to their horror) it's copyrighted, whereby they delete it immediately? Come on, Slashbots will use any stupid reasoning to try to justify piracy, just grow up.
Face the facts: copyright law isn't going anywhere. Piracy is illegal, always will be illegal. Crying everytime someone gets sued for breaking the law doesn't make piracy any less unethical.
You think people have a moral right to download copyrighted material? You think that making downloading films illegal isn't justified? What world do you live in?
The sense of entitlement on this site is astonishing. Now apparently it's immoral to have copyrights. The film industry should just let everyone into the cinemas for free because people have the moral right to take things for free rather than paying.
Jesus the shit that gets modded up on here... Was Slashdot always this bad? When did the freeloading teenagers take over?
What fight? And what counts as 'us'? I've never heard of him.
Why do these people "need" leadership? Will they fail at their tasks without it?
Without leadership, who gives them the tasks?
Without leadership, who makes sure they actually do the tasks rather than sitting whining on Slashdot all day?
How is he esteemed?
I don't know about that, but I think the Bubba would be RMS.
Why, what've they done wrong? Someone advertised something to them, they bought it. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
I hate radio adverts. Does this mean I should go round and smack anyone who buys something advertised on the radio?
Some people might LIKE adverts in their e-mail, who are you to tell them they're wrong?
Millions in cash?
Luxury cars?
Houses?
I'm getting into this spamming game. Seriously, how do you go about spamming? I probably won't get caught as I live in a corrupt country. Seems like easy money, just set the computer to send spams, and rake in the cash. Has to be better than a day job!
So a few people have e-mails they don't want, there's nothing wrong with that. I get all sorts I don't want, like adverts on TV, but TV advertisers don't go to jail.
The theaters are nearly the size of my living room anyways. Why pay money to sit in someone else's living room?
Christ, where the hell do you live? Buckingham Palace?
That doesn't stop me from enjoying the crap out of Star Wars and Lord of The Rings even though I'll be the first one to say that these movies are utterly just really really really bad.
What? How can a film be bad if you enjoy it? What exactly makes a film 'good' other than how enjoyable it is? You sound like one of those pretentious 'film buffs' who rate films based on how unpopular they are. If a lot of people like it, it's mainstream crap. If only three people saw it, it's an underrated masterpiece.
It seems to be fashionable to pretend to like films that are obscure and foreign, regardless of quality. I for one think the Seven Samurai is pants.
No doubt if Deuce Bigalo was called 'Bong Chang: Chinese Gigalo' and was written by an obscure Hong Kong director and cost 50 yen to produce, you'd be hailing it a masterpiece, and if Seven Samurai was made by Hollywood you'd hate it.
I for one don't like seeing Charlie Chaplin acting like an idiot in front of a camera. It's neither funny nor clever.
I don't understand the complains about prices of food/drink. I think if you can't go without eating or drinking for two hours you're probably too fat to fit in a cinema anyway.
People need to stop associating eating with entertainment, they just stuff themselves all day and night, burgers at the computer, pizza in front of the TV, popcorn at the cinema, all washed down with 500-calorie fizzy drinks no doubt. No wonder everyone's fat these days. People should eat at proper mealtimes, at a dinner table. Any snacks should be small portions of fruit or something, not chocolate bars and pot noodles.
To get back on topic, the reasons I don't go to the cinema are numerous:
1. The cinema is in the middle of nowhere. I don't know what genius decided that people would rather travel miles and miles to a retail park off a motorway junction, always next to a supermarket or bowling alley, rather than just going into a town centre. Seriously, it's an excursion getting to one these days.
2. It's too expensive. Most films are rubbish, worth maybe a pound at most. You don't even know if they're crap before you've paid the money, as reviewers and critics are ALL useless.
3. Full of idiots. Mobile phones, talking, all that crap. They should be shot. And they shouldn't sell popcorn or coke, it makes everything sticky.
4. Films are crap. I don't think there's been a good film released for years. What did we get this summer? Bore of the Worlds. Standard formula: bland big-name director who's out of ideas, bland big-name photogenic 'actor' who can't act but will get the women in, screaming kid, special effects, crap script, crap ending. Spielburg should retire, where are the good directors?
The rest are generally shitty 'comedies' full of fart jokes. This year it's a film where the funniest joke (the best jokes are ALWAYS in the advert) is a man having his chest hair waxed. Excuse me if I'm not rolling in the aisles.
There might be some good films out there, but going to the cinema is too much of a hassle to make it worthwhile. I usually wait 'till they're on DVD or on TV.
I should have known that posting against Google would get me modded down on this site, even when I'm posting facts, whilst the posts disagreeing with me are modded up to +4/5, even when they're wrong. I don't want to get banned from posting again for going against the hivemind, perhaps Slashdot should set up a Room 101 for reducation? Then you wouldn't even need a moderation system as everyone would be following the party line.
I need some more karma so I'll post this:
Google is great! Forget everything I said! Making you beg for invites or give away your phone number is much better than just signing up normally! Google is great! They invented webmail and search engines! All hail Google! I love Google! I hate Microsoft and Yahoo because they compete with Google! Google is not evil, everyone else is evil! I wish I could sleep with the Google founders! Or marry them! Google! Google! Google! Google! Google! Google! Google! Google! Google! Google! Google! Google! Google! Google! Google!!!!!!!!
I don't know how Paul Allen is, but in regard to the orbital flights, I don't know if there's much revenue to be had there. There are only so many millionaires, and once they've all been to space, what then? The novelty of space will wear off VERY quickly. It's not like there's anything you can do there, no nice weather, no beaches, no skiing, no or anything else rich people like to do on holiday.
Have you ever thought that some people don't know anything about putting together DVD recorders or computers?
And THREE HOURS assembly? For a technical person who really knows what they're doing? If it takes you that long, how long would it take for someone who's never put anything like that together before?
And would it work?
You haven't thought this through at all.
The interface is unobstrusive, I'll give you that. But the rest of the reasons aren't that great.
It's very slow. Opening it up takes ages. It just says 'loading' in the top of the screen. If you're in another tab, the gmail tab doesn't have the swirling thing to show it's loading, so you don't know whether it's actually loaded or not.
When it actually loads (after around 10-20 seconds), the interface isn't reliable. Sometimes when you click on an email the whole thing just freezes. When you click on a link in an e-mail, TWO tabs come up, one with the link, one back to your inbox. And the focussed tab is your inbox, not the link.
The size isn't much use. Other providers have similar size. Can't say I've ever filled it past 500kB so I couldn't care less about that.
I don't use search features, I store e-mails in relevant folders. Gmail doesn't even have folders, just 'labels', which means they're not neatly stored. It also doesn't tell you how many e-mails you've got in each 'label'. For instance if you put messages from person 'x' into label 'y', It just says 'y' at the side of the screen, it doesn't actually tell you how many are in there. It only shows unread mails. I thought people raved about Google's interfaces? They're worse than others.
As far as I'm aware there's no custom filters you can put on incoming mail like you could do with a proper e-mail client.
I'm afraid the conclusion is that gmail is an average webmail service with excellent marketing.
That's ridiculous. How does stopping people getting an account prevent spam? Unless gmail only allows mail from other people, spammers are probably capable of sending mail from other mail services.
And allowing sign-up by mobile? I'm unimpressed, even other e-mail services without Google's billions have managed the simple functionality of ALLOWING SIGN UP ON THE WEBSITE. Maybe after a crack team of PHDs work on the problem for a few years Google might have that as well. Just like the first basic web mail services had decades ago.
I don't see how Google has so many fanboys whilst they contiuously take the piss out of the users. Making them jump through a hundred times more hoops than anywhere else, for a service which isn't really much better.
If Sun can make a profit on $1, then it obviously costs them less than $1, in which case you can do it for less than $1, and so there's no point in using Sun's service. The 'hire' wouldn't be needed all year, as the cluster would often be sitting dormant.
if the terrorists are killing innocent civillians and the police are killing innocent civillians, what's the difference between the two?
The fact that terrorists deliberately kill civilians whilst the police are interested in stopping terrorists. If you actually think that the police WANT to kill innocent people, then you might as well find another country to live in.
When you're making billions upon billions with relatively few employees, you can afford to give them benefits.
When you're struggling to make a profit, it's a lot harder to justify free food, free private health care, free dentist, Friday's off, luxurious offices and all that. Programmers are expensive enough, imagine letting them have 20% of the time to themselves, it's effectively putting their wage up 25%. Pretty easy when you can invent shares to make another $4 billion. And how expensive is land in the valley?
Google can afford to do that, but for anyone else it would be a repeat of the overspending of the dot-com days, most companies would go bust.
On the other hand it means other companies can't compete. How many potentially innovative companies can't get off the ground becaues they can't afford programmers? Instead they're all at Google writing derivative webapps and generating hype.
Call me a troll, but I don't think that Google's programmes are all that innovative, their output is unimpressive considering all those legions of programmers and PHDs. A map thing and webmail would be the least I'd expect. With all that talent and all those resources we should have sentinent computers by now... An exagerration but the point still stands.
Because he could have been you.
Because someone was murdered.
It could have been me in on the London tubes, it wouldn't have been any more or less tragic. A day after a series of failed bomb attacks, of course the police are going to take the cautious approach.
I'd rather they take that stance and have a few innocents be killed, than them take a more cautious approach and have dozens of innocents killed. Yes it's bad when the police kill innocent people, but shit happens, we don't like in a perfect world.
He could have very well been an "anglosaxen" or one of "you people".
What difference would that make? By 'us people' do you mean people here legally, rather than the illegal immigrant Brazilian?
Yeah you can use trillian but you still need to create an account on every single one. This google messenger will mean YET ANOTHER place to create an account if you want to be able to talk to everyone.
The world needs LESS messaging systems, not more. Google is doing the wrong thing here.
It's not reliable enough yet. Often when you click on a mail in the inbox it just freezes up. And it takes ages to load. You don't get the spinning thing on the tab in Firefox like a normal site, it just says 'loading' on the top of the page. Sometimes it just stays like that.
Also it's not very configurable. Sometimes it opens up two tabs when you click on a link, for no particular reason.
They really need to iron out the creases. But then it's only been out a few years, and they only have a few hundred PHDs to work on it, and webmail is a monumental task that definitely couldn't be put together in a weekend by a single amateur.
Why do people get so worked up about that Brazilian? Dozens of people were killed a couple of weeks before, why don't each of them get the same attention? When terrorists are trying to blow people up, innocent people are going to die. It's a war, it's no more tragic if he's killed by the police or whether he's killed by a bomb.
Do you want police to take a soft approach to terrorism? The same people criticising now would be the same people criticising if he'd blown himself up on the train.
I'd question:
1. What was he doing in that house.
2. Why was he here illegally?
What terrorists?
Perhaps the ones who blew up and tried to blow up the London Underground? Or Madrid? You're pretending that suicide bombers getting on public transport isn't a danger. That's ridiculous. New York is a big target. Blowing up a New York subway would be a massive coup for terrorists.
How would you "find and capture" them?
I'm no genius, but I suspect that if they're caught on camera it might be a lot easier to track them down. In fact CCTV in London caught the suicide bombers there.
Don't invade their countries, don't steal their money, don't torture their people, and pay attention to what your president has done.
Tell that to the Iraqis. They invaded Kuwait for no particular reason, stole who knows what, tortured and killed god-knows how many people, and the Iraqi people didn't even hint at revolt.
And what do you mean THEIR countries? The London bombers were born in Britain, Britain didn't invade itself. You think they were Iraqis out to avenge the invasion? In that case they should have attacked Parliament or some other legitimate political or military target. But no, they've just been listening to hate preachers in the local mosque. They hate Britain and its people but they want to live here. THEY'RE the hypocrites.
Just stop killing innocent people! Apologize for the invasion of Iraq! Let the people in prison go. It's freaking simple!
An odd thing to say, as the WTC was attacked before the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. I think your problem is you're assuming that terrorists have legitimate grievances and reasons for their actions, rather than just using things like Iraq as vague excuses to kill people and be a hero to all the other terrorists. Bear in mind they DELIBERATELY TARGET CIVILIANS.
Another problem is that when you decide policy based on what the terrorists want, is that you make terrorism a legitimate way to force policy. If the American government pulled out of Iraq because of terrorism, then anyone in the world who wanted to force you to do something could get their way just by strapping bombs to themselves and getting onto a train.
Call me a traditionalist, but countries should be run by elected governments, not suicide bombers.