Instead of people creating art like it was a commodity worth trading, people would create art for the sheer joy of it.
Yes! People would make TV programmes and films for free. Those actors would spend months/years filming without being paid, and their bills/mortgage/food would be paid for with magic beans. Also they'd get all the equipment out of thin air, and the room to film would be given to them by generous landowners.
Copyright's up to, what, life of the author + 70 years? How's the public good served by that?
Copyright law isn't there to serve the public good, it's there to protect the copyright owner from the 'public', the public being people who would steal their intellectual property. The law is to protect everyone, not just the mysterious 'public'. Are you saying that people with copyrighted works aren't part of the public?
To play devil's advocate, why should copyright law only last 70 years after death? Why not forever? Why should there be a time when the floodgates are unleashed and people can start ripping off people's works for free?
you're being told you can't do something with your own bandwidth and computer that you paid for.
Yes, you're being told that using a computer doesn't make the law disappear. Do you think that you can break the law if you're in your own home using your own bandwidth? You have not justified this position.
You're taking ideas, thoughts, art and moving it about in a digital fashion. Why should that be illegal?
Simple: because it breaks copyright law. The law doesn't disappear because you don't like it and it means you have to pay for things.
Yeah, they should take parts from various foreign films:
- First 10 minutes some pretentious shit in black and white. - Two hours of badly-acted crap with an unoriginal plot, interspersed with irrelevent singing and dancing. - An ending that makes no sense whatsover.
Seriously though, most films don't follow the above formula. Yes the odd action film does, but most of Hollywood has a lot of variety, there are all sorts of genres. Of course the shit rises to the top, but that's what sells. It could be a lot worse, just look at Bollywood. Every single song is a shitty musical with the same identical songs which have NOTHING to do with the plot, which is usually exactly the same in every film with exactly the same characters and actors.
On another note, does anyone know how to actually get flash to work on Firefox on Linux? Everytime I click on some link to install it, I usually end up going round in circles and never finding anywhere to actually install it.
Yeah, but then again TV advertising can be pretty ineffective, especially when it's attention-grabbing. The more obnoxious it is, the more you tune out to it when it's on. And I'm sure that most people can't remember which exact brand is being advertised, they just tune out. For instance most car adverts are exactly the same, and most shaving adverts, and supermarket adverts. That new car advert is particularly irritating. I can't remember exactly what car it's for, but they're on this football pitch with some horrible music on and I always change the channel when it comes on. Great tactic there advertising people, piss people off so they don't watch your advert.
The worst ones are the 'sub-adverts', the one's they have between the programme and the actual normal adverts, like some sort of sponsor. In the UK on Sky One they used to show the Simpsons, and they'd have this irritating pizza advert before and after every advert break. Now it's on Channel 4 and they still have the same damn pizza adverts. They must think people who watch the Simpsons are all fat bastards who eat nothing but junk food. Even worse the adverts are even more annoying then before, and they have this really ugly girl in that always depresses me. They apparently haven't realised that people like adverts with attractive people in, they create a positive happy feeling for the product.
Text ads might be fine for massive sites like Google which gets enough hits to make money from text ads, but for smaller sites, you need to get a higher click/hit ratio, which you get via image ads, rather than obscure text ads. Also a smaller site would need the money from image ads, rather than the smaller amount you'd pay for a text ad.
As for countermeasures, well people have always wanted to avoid adverts. On recorded TV programmes, people have always fast-forwarded through the adverts, yet TV adverts are still considered very effective. There'll always be obstrusive flashy adverts on websites as long as morons keep clicking on them.
Also I wonder whether people don't mind Google's adverts so much because they're tricked into thinking they're part of the search results. I'm not sure either of the effectiveness of these text adverts, whether the money/hit ratio is any good, or whether people just buy google adverts because they think millions of people will see them.
Why try to adapt? Changing your corporate ways is always a risk, it's much better when you can scare everyone into submission with absolutely insane punishment to give example.
Adapt? You can already download legal songs off the Internet, what are you talking about? Anyway it's not your place to force a company to change how it does business, you can either do business with it legally or not at all, those are your choices. If you want to download a film but you can't legally, then it's up to the rights owners to offer it IF THEY WANT TO. If they don't, then don't do business with them. Actually you have a third choice, to break the law, but then don't whine about the consequences.
All this talk about 'rights' and corporations not updating their business models makes me laugh. Pirates don't care about any of that, they just want stuff for free. Yeah some people might download stuff they couldn't otherwise buy, but there are always exceptions, most people are just cheap.
It's amazing how you can spin things so it seems as if breaking the law is a noble act.
What has happened is not theft, but a violation of the government-sanctioned monopoly over reproductive and distributive rights for these films.
That damn government, giving people full rights over their own creations. I wish we lived in an anarchy where I could take someone else's movie that they'd paid millions to make, then run an empire of shops nationwide selling the DVD for a tenth of the normal cost. This should be completely legal, otherwise my rights are being violated.
In other words, your right to download and watch whatever you want off the internet like any other site has been trampled on.
Fucking hell, the bastards. Next you'll be telling me I can't plagliarise people's works, photocopy money, download all my music illegally off the Internet. Fucking governments, trampling on my rights.
Exactly: Even in the US, it would possible to live (miserably) for many years with such an amount of money.
Miserably? Over 5 years, that's 30k per year, double what I make, enough to live pretty comfortably. An insanely large figure for such a small and irrelevent 'crime'. Perhaps we should fine the MPAA 150k for each stupid lawsuit?
On the other hand, this means you get complete retard fan-boys who give 10/10 and write gushing reviews for even the most awful films, or people who bitch and moan about how a film is 'the worst film ever' because it wasn't exactly what they want from a film, or the people who spend five paragraphs moaning that they didn't like the ending, or worse of all: reviews of films based on books which consist of whining fanboys complaining that the film wasn't exactly like the book. Most of the time, I haven't even read the book, I don't give a damn how accurate it is. It's a film not a book, shut the fuck up.
I read the comments sections a lot though, mainly because I like hearing the opinions of people who agree with me, because they're right.
Well, people liked Star Wars because of spaceships blowing each other up, and lightsabre fights. Do you think millions of kids put up posters of Star Wars because they liked the talk about senates and republics?
I'd take 60k any day, that's four times what I earn now. And it would mean sitting down at a computer all day rather than doing any actual work. Also London isn't a 'cool' city. It's a horrible city full of southerners and flat beer.
That example doesn't mean that outsourcing isn't good for employees. If a company outsources to the middle of nowhere, that's good for the people in the middle of nowhere. Also it's often the case that houses in quiet rural settings sell for more than houses in the middle of horrible cities, especially with the market for rich people in the city buying holiday homes in the middle of nowhere.
Secondly, your last paragraph begs the question of whether it's worth sacrificing your youth living in hardship in a smoggy city just to have some meaningless 'net worth' later on.
Umm.. no. The home directory is mostly personal preferences and documents. They should be backed up regularly anyway, so an admin just needs to replace with a last known good backup.
The key is that it's very hard to destroy a system with a Linux virus.
You don't need to destroy the system if you can delete all the important files. If all your work (weeks, or months worth) is gone, it's small consolation that you don't need to spend another hour reinstalling.
And how many people keep regular backups? Not very many. Either way, if you get a malicious worm or virus, you're fucked.
How much lateral force does a typical home get exposed to? These straw bale houses have survived for over 60 years, and some from the 1800s are still standing in Nebraska.
That's not impressive. Come back when there's one which has survived constant wind, rain and earthquakes for at least 1000 years.
Considering that Linux is not monoculture and Linux machines never run as root the way Windows machines do, the support ratio will not change.
It will. Linux WILL be monoculture if it becomes mainstream. Most of Linux will come from a handful of vendors, who will eventually converge in respect to system configuration.
Also it doesn't matter if it's not run as root. All the damage can be done to the home directory. That's where all the important files are. Also the virii/wormii can put themselves into configuration files.
and what exactly is going to happen when a non rooted user executes that worm? about the worst thing that can happen is the home directory to be wiped out.. which amazingly tends to fix the worm problem. with proper backups, you lose a day of work tops? Delete all your home directories, rsync or rdiff your backup in and magically things just work.
Oh lovely, so as long as only your personal files and work are wiped out. As long as the files which are identical to the ones on the installation disk survive. At least you don't need to reinstall on the odd occassion when you get a virus. It's far easier to keep a daily backup system.
On another note, have you heard about that new innovation in car safety? If you get in a crash, everyone inside will be burnt alive, but the car itself will be absolutely undamaged.
I didn't say that. Stop putting words in my mouth, it makes you look like an idiot, and a cunt. What I'm saying is, it's common acceptable practice to give no benefits or sickpay, so the shops should do this to help them survive with their razor thin margins.
I work part-time at a grocery store (and 9 credits short of a masters', too), and I know how unreliable cashiers are. They call out sick. A lot. Or they simply don't show up. And then there's the whole thing about having to provide benefits--these are all expenses, and the food industry (outside of 5 star restaurants) is notoriously low margin. They have to save money where they can.
I have some better ideas to save money:
1. Don't pay anyone sick-pay, and if they're off too much, sack them. Grocery shop workers are ten a penny. 2. Don't provide benefits. Benefits are for permanent long-term important employees in big companies, not hired grunt work in a crap shop.
I work in a job much harder than sitting at a till in a shop, and I don't get sick pay nor benefits, so I don't see why they can't be cut off completely for shop workers.
There's no such thing as a 'British' accent. You're probably thinking of the posh southern accent you hear from most British actors on TV. When you're from Britain, such an accent has terribly negative connotations, so is a massive turn-off.
A great climate? 99% of the year it's either rainy, overcast or windy. When the sun does come out it's too cold to enjoy. You get about a week a year where the weather is pleasant, and even then the sun gets covered up by a cloud every five minutes, making you freezing cold again. The brain reacts to sunlight and warmth. The warmer and sunnier it is, the happier and more content you are. Living in a miserable climate makes you miserable. That's why scandanavian countries have such high suicide rates.
Granted there are no poisonous spiders/snakes, but Australians seem to survive, they don't live in constant terror. Then again there aren't too many poisonous spiders in France/Spain/Italy, and they are infinitely more pleasant places to live.
English breakfasts are vile. Yes they're satisfying in a salty/greasy way after a night on the booze, but they're bland and horrible, especially when you have them every day.
Slashdot Mirror
Instead of people creating art like it was a commodity worth trading, people would create art for the sheer joy of it.
Yes! People would make TV programmes and films for free. Those actors would spend months/years filming without being paid, and their bills/mortgage/food would be paid for with magic beans. Also they'd get all the equipment out of thin air, and the room to film would be given to them by generous landowners.
Copyright's up to, what, life of the author + 70 years? How's the public good served by that?
Copyright law isn't there to serve the public good, it's there to protect the copyright owner from the 'public', the public being people who would steal their intellectual property. The law is to protect everyone, not just the mysterious 'public'. Are you saying that people with copyrighted works aren't part of the public?
To play devil's advocate, why should copyright law only last 70 years after death? Why not forever? Why should there be a time when the floodgates are unleashed and people can start ripping off people's works for free?
you're being told you can't do something with your own bandwidth and computer that you paid for.
Yes, you're being told that using a computer doesn't make the law disappear. Do you think that you can break the law if you're in your own home using your own bandwidth? You have not justified this position.
You're taking ideas, thoughts, art and moving it about in a digital fashion. Why should that be illegal?
Simple: because it breaks copyright law. The law doesn't disappear because you don't like it and it means you have to pay for things.
Yeah, they should take parts from various foreign films:
- First 10 minutes some pretentious shit in black and white.
- Two hours of badly-acted crap with an unoriginal plot, interspersed with irrelevent singing and dancing.
- An ending that makes no sense whatsover.
Seriously though, most films don't follow the above formula. Yes the odd action film does, but most of Hollywood has a lot of variety, there are all sorts of genres. Of course the shit rises to the top, but that's what sells. It could be a lot worse, just look at Bollywood. Every single song is a shitty musical with the same identical songs which have NOTHING to do with the plot, which is usually exactly the same in every film with exactly the same characters and actors.
On another note, does anyone know how to actually get flash to work on Firefox on Linux? Everytime I click on some link to install it, I usually end up going round in circles and never finding anywhere to actually install it.
Yeah, but then again TV advertising can be pretty ineffective, especially when it's attention-grabbing. The more obnoxious it is, the more you tune out to it when it's on. And I'm sure that most people can't remember which exact brand is being advertised, they just tune out. For instance most car adverts are exactly the same, and most shaving adverts, and supermarket adverts. That new car advert is particularly irritating. I can't remember exactly what car it's for, but they're on this football pitch with some horrible music on and I always change the channel when it comes on. Great tactic there advertising people, piss people off so they don't watch your advert.
The worst ones are the 'sub-adverts', the one's they have between the programme and the actual normal adverts, like some sort of sponsor. In the UK on Sky One they used to show the Simpsons, and they'd have this irritating pizza advert before and after every advert break. Now it's on Channel 4 and they still have the same damn pizza adverts. They must think people who watch the Simpsons are all fat bastards who eat nothing but junk food. Even worse the adverts are even more annoying then before, and they have this really ugly girl in that always depresses me. They apparently haven't realised that people like adverts with attractive people in, they create a positive happy feeling for the product.
Text ads might be fine for massive sites like Google which gets enough hits to make money from text ads, but for smaller sites, you need to get a higher click/hit ratio, which you get via image ads, rather than obscure text ads. Also a smaller site would need the money from image ads, rather than the smaller amount you'd pay for a text ad.
As for countermeasures, well people have always wanted to avoid adverts. On recorded TV programmes, people have always fast-forwarded through the adverts, yet TV adverts are still considered very effective. There'll always be obstrusive flashy adverts on websites as long as morons keep clicking on them.
Also I wonder whether people don't mind Google's adverts so much because they're tricked into thinking they're part of the search results. I'm not sure either of the effectiveness of these text adverts, whether the money/hit ratio is any good, or whether people just buy google adverts because they think millions of people will see them.
Why try to adapt? Changing your corporate ways is always a risk, it's much better when you can scare everyone into submission with absolutely insane punishment to give example.
Adapt? You can already download legal songs off the Internet, what are you talking about? Anyway it's not your place to force a company to change how it does business, you can either do business with it legally or not at all, those are your choices. If you want to download a film but you can't legally, then it's up to the rights owners to offer it IF THEY WANT TO. If they don't, then don't do business with them. Actually you have a third choice, to break the law, but then don't whine about the consequences.
All this talk about 'rights' and corporations not updating their business models makes me laugh. Pirates don't care about any of that, they just want stuff for free. Yeah some people might download stuff they couldn't otherwise buy, but there are always exceptions, most people are just cheap.
It's amazing how you can spin things so it seems as if breaking the law is a noble act.
What has happened is not theft, but a violation of the government-sanctioned monopoly over reproductive and distributive rights for these films.
That damn government, giving people full rights over their own creations. I wish we lived in an anarchy where I could take someone else's movie that they'd paid millions to make, then run an empire of shops nationwide selling the DVD for a tenth of the normal cost. This should be completely legal, otherwise my rights are being violated.
In other words, your right to download and watch whatever you want off the internet like any other site has been trampled on.
Fucking hell, the bastards. Next you'll be telling me I can't plagliarise people's works, photocopy money, download all my music illegally off the Internet. Fucking governments, trampling on my rights.
Exactly: Even in the US, it would possible to live (miserably) for many years with such an amount of money.
Miserably? Over 5 years, that's 30k per year, double what I make, enough to live pretty comfortably. An insanely large figure for such a small and irrelevent 'crime'. Perhaps we should fine the MPAA 150k for each stupid lawsuit?
Solution: Get a girlfriend you see during the week instead. Problem solved. Also neither sex nor anime take up the whole of the weekend.
On the other hand, this means you get complete retard fan-boys who give 10/10 and write gushing reviews for even the most awful films, or people who bitch and moan about how a film is 'the worst film ever' because it wasn't exactly what they want from a film, or the people who spend five paragraphs moaning that they didn't like the ending, or worse of all: reviews of films based on books which consist of whining fanboys complaining that the film wasn't exactly like the book. Most of the time, I haven't even read the book, I don't give a damn how accurate it is. It's a film not a book, shut the fuck up.
I read the comments sections a lot though, mainly because I like hearing the opinions of people who agree with me, because they're right.
Looks like Google Movies is going to be in beta quite a long time.
What a surprise, this is totally unlike all Google's other services.
Well, people liked Star Wars because of spaceships blowing each other up, and lightsabre fights. Do you think millions of kids put up posters of Star Wars because they liked the talk about senates and republics?
So you're saying that 90% of American students are below standards compared to other poorer countries?
THe US is punished in these tests by the diversity of it's population.
By 'diversity' you mean that some are clever and some are completely thick, whereas in other countries most of them are clever?
I'd take 60k any day, that's four times what I earn now. And it would mean sitting down at a computer all day rather than doing any actual work. Also London isn't a 'cool' city. It's a horrible city full of southerners and flat beer.
That example doesn't mean that outsourcing isn't good for employees. If a company outsources to the middle of nowhere, that's good for the people in the middle of nowhere. Also it's often the case that houses in quiet rural settings sell for more than houses in the middle of horrible cities, especially with the market for rich people in the city buying holiday homes in the middle of nowhere.
Secondly, your last paragraph begs the question of whether it's worth sacrificing your youth living in hardship in a smoggy city just to have some meaningless 'net worth' later on.
Sorry, didn't get a word of that.
Looks like shit.
D ome__Forstmehren-Germany_1.jpg
Your talking shit http://www.strawbale.com.au/AdvHTML_Upload/Music_
Er, the top half looks like a mud hut, the bottom half looks like a 1960s carpark. That isn't exactly a great example.
Umm.. no. The home directory is mostly personal preferences and documents. They should be backed up regularly anyway, so an admin just needs to replace with a last known good backup.
The key is that it's very hard to destroy a system with a Linux virus.
You don't need to destroy the system if you can delete all the important files. If all your work (weeks, or months worth) is gone, it's small consolation that you don't need to spend another hour reinstalling.
And how many people keep regular backups? Not very many. Either way, if you get a malicious worm or virus, you're fucked.
How much lateral force does a typical home get exposed to? These straw bale houses have survived for over 60 years, and some from the 1800s are still standing in Nebraska.
That's not impressive. Come back when there's one which has survived constant wind, rain and earthquakes for at least 1000 years.
Considering that Linux is not monoculture and Linux machines never run as root the way Windows machines do, the support ratio will not change.
It will. Linux WILL be monoculture if it becomes mainstream. Most of Linux will come from a handful of vendors, who will eventually converge in respect to system configuration.
Also it doesn't matter if it's not run as root. All the damage can be done to the home directory. That's where all the important files are. Also the virii/wormii can put themselves into configuration files.
and what exactly is going to happen when a non rooted user executes that worm? about the worst thing that can happen is the home directory to be wiped out .. which amazingly tends to fix the worm problem. with proper backups, you lose a day of work tops? Delete all your home directories, rsync or rdiff your backup in and magically things just work.
Oh lovely, so as long as only your personal files and work are wiped out. As long as the files which are identical to the ones on the installation disk survive. At least you don't need to reinstall on the odd occassion when you get a virus. It's far easier to keep a daily backup system.
On another note, have you heard about that new innovation in car safety? If you get in a crash, everyone inside will be burnt alive, but the car itself will be absolutely undamaged.
I didn't say that. Stop putting words in my mouth, it makes you look like an idiot, and a cunt. What I'm saying is, it's common acceptable practice to give no benefits or sickpay, so the shops should do this to help them survive with their razor thin margins.
I work part-time at a grocery store (and 9 credits short of a masters', too), and I know how unreliable cashiers are. They call out sick. A lot. Or they simply don't show up. And then there's the whole thing about having to provide benefits--these are all expenses, and the food industry (outside of 5 star restaurants) is notoriously low margin. They have to save money where they can.
I have some better ideas to save money:
1. Don't pay anyone sick-pay, and if they're off too much, sack them. Grocery shop workers are ten a penny.
2. Don't provide benefits. Benefits are for permanent long-term important employees in big companies, not hired grunt work in a crap shop.
I work in a job much harder than sitting at a till in a shop, and I don't get sick pay nor benefits, so I don't see why they can't be cut off completely for shop workers.
But a good british accent can be sexy on a woman
There's no such thing as a 'British' accent. You're probably thinking of the posh southern accent you hear from most British actors on TV. When you're from Britain, such an accent has terribly negative connotations, so is a massive turn-off.
A great climate? 99% of the year it's either rainy, overcast or windy. When the sun does come out it's too cold to enjoy. You get about a week a year where the weather is pleasant, and even then the sun gets covered up by a cloud every five minutes, making you freezing cold again. The brain reacts to sunlight and warmth. The warmer and sunnier it is, the happier and more content you are. Living in a miserable climate makes you miserable. That's why scandanavian countries have such high suicide rates.
Granted there are no poisonous spiders/snakes, but Australians seem to survive, they don't live in constant terror. Then again there aren't too many poisonous spiders in France/Spain/Italy, and they are infinitely more pleasant places to live.
English breakfasts are vile. Yes they're satisfying in a salty/greasy way after a night on the booze, but they're bland and horrible, especially when you have them every day.