You think the fact that "having the balls to admit that what I'm doing is wrong" makes you better? When it comes to downloading media, there are three types of people:
1) those who consider it wrong, and dont do it
2) those who feel they have a fair use right to listen to music even if they didnt buy it
3) those who consider downloading media stealing, and do it anyway
the first two groups are likely to buy music that they like, since they realize that artists need to be supported, and fair use only gives us so many rights. The third group, however, is the group that gives everyone else a bad name. They tend to say things like "why buy music, when I can get it for free," or other stupid things. The fact that their actions are destroying fair use for the rest of us doesnt even affect them.
Bottom Line: If you know something is wrong, you shouldnt do it. Period.
If IE's Windows integration is a monopoly, then I'm all for the removal of Konqueror from KDE.
im guessing you are a troll just because of your sig. that or you have absolutely no understanding of why microsofts behavior is illegial. in case you are not a troll, here is the short version:
microsoft has a monopoly on operating systems. therefore, according to antitrust laws, it is illegial for them to use that monopoly to force out customers in other markets - i.e. browsers. so tying the browser to the operating system is illegial because they have an operating system monopoly.
kde, however, does not have a monopoly (expect perhaps on annoying slow windowing systems - and i bet microsoft has something designed to take that market back too). therefore, they can legally tie anything they want into their desktop environment.
wow. after a pay 1900 dollars for the monitor, the 150 bucks for a unix driver and conversion cable sounds like a bargin. maybe for another 100 bucks they could throw in a box of chocolates.
okay, it doesnt look like anybody has discussed what i have been thinking recently, so i will say it:
censorship has changed drastically in the last twenty years. sure, the government still trys to keep some things secret, and fundamentalists still try and keep people from "dangerous" material, but overall, this kind of information control just isnt possible anymore. if the us government tries to stop NBC and ABC and CBS from reporting a story, then some cable news network will pick it up. and if the cable networks are censored, then a foreign station will cover it, and americans will get it through the magic of cable. and nowdays, some semi-respectable internet news sites, like drudge report or something, will cover it too. or in the fundamentalist case - if you want to look at pornography, or worship the devil, you can do so, or find people and places with which to do so, very easily on the internet. the bottom line is that there is just no longer any way for top down control of information.
however, does this mean that there is no censorship? personally, i think no. people are censored everyday. bill mahr says something that may upset people, and so he is taken off the air for a while. and honestly, how can you blame ABC for doing that? their whole existance is tied to making money by having viewers watch their station. if bill mahr is alleinating viewers, it is ABC's economic interests to censor him. what is the effect of this though? dissenting opinions get squashed. what can be done? i am not really sure. you can argue that the diversication of information solves this problem too, since bill mahr will get picked up by a different station if he gets fired from his first, and there will always be internet sites which arent profit driven. overall though, the mass media is driven by profits, and therefore will tend to provide a "non-offensive" middle of the road point of view.
overall, i think that the real problem is that in america (i apologize if you are writing from somewhere else, but i tend to think in american terms), economic success is the ultimate good. i will spare you the rant, but i personally think it is the root of alot of problems. it essentially causes economic censorship.
to provide one more example, where i live, a rich man wants to build a 250ft cross on his private property near a highway. it will probably be rejected because it is ugly, but what if it was rejected because it was a religious symbol? is this censoring his religious views? does he have the right to "impose" his religious views on everyone who drives on the freeway? do rich people have more right to express their religious views then poor people?
anyways, the point is that while fareingheit 451 is a wonderful book, the way it presents censorship is very cut and dry. and nowdays, we have essentially moved past that simple issue to a much more complex and nuanced one. so by all means, cover the basics, but try and cover some of the "iffy" areas too, since these are the most interesting ones.
yes. in addition, we should ban cars:
- They also waste large amounts of gas
- If they slam into a pedistrian or a biker, they have a very high chance of killing them
- If you are not careful, you can flip one, or crush it, or cause it to explode
Personally, I think that cars should not be allowed on the road, and anyone who buys them is a doofus. Of course, bikes are dangerous to pedistrians. So they should be banned. And rollerblades. And in addition, I think that rap music is annoying, so lets just ban that too. In fact, to make the world a better place, lets just ban everything we dont like. That will solve everything.
Yea, i cant believe that you would be such an asshole as to steal something from someone else. And on top of that, you are using someone elses resources to do it.
I dont get it - no body seems to have a problem with him stealing mp3's, but steal a little bandwith, and they guy is a rapist and car theif. Does music want to be free, but not bandwith?
Personally, I have no problem with mp3 sharing. But the examples you used to try and demonstrate that bandwith stealing was bad seem very similar to the ones that the RIAA use to demonize mp3 stealing. what is the difference?
while it is true that slashdot does very little thinking, Microsofts proposal is still a bad idea. The who point in the lawsuits is that MIcrosoft illegially leveraged a monopoly so that no one else could compete in the operating system market. so the issue of whether they are the best or not is irrelevant. they got where they are by breaking the law. that is documented fact.
the whole point of the lawsuits is to try and remedy the situtation. and unless i am missing something, the last thing this settlement would do is help make the operating system market more fair. it costs them essentially no money, and helps them get more users of their operating system.
The fact that RedHat was willing to give the same amount of software just shows that it is not a punishment, it is a benefit. And to complain that RedHat has not already given this software to schools is a bit strange, since RedHat is a struggling company that has yet to turn a profit, whereas microsft is sitting on something like 36 billion dollars.
I think you missed the point of the Redhat proposal. The reason they made that offer was to demonstrate that Micorsofts proposal was not a punishment at all: in fact, it was something that any operating system maker would want to do. I am not in favor of any sort of brainwashing in schools, but I would rather have linux computers then MIcrosoft computers any day. Hopefully, as you mentioned, there will be a variety of operating systems, and the kids can learn them all. (expect for apple - they suck).
Dark Reign is the best stragety game I have ever played. Me and my brother used to play games that would last hours, but they were fun the whole way through. I could never get anyone else to play it with me though, becuase it just took to long to learn. That really is the problem. No body wants to take the time to learn a complex game.
Slashdot Mirror
So ethics aside, don't necessarily chastise the guy for enforcing what he believes to be right.
Ethics aside, and ignoring their opinions on what is right, hitler, stalin, osama bin laden, and jack the ripper are all pretty decent people.
What exactly do you propose to use to judge people if you put ethics aside, and ignore what they think is right?
You think the fact that "having the balls to admit that what I'm doing is wrong" makes you better? When it comes to downloading media, there are three types of people:
1) those who consider it wrong, and dont do it
2) those who feel they have a fair use right to listen to music even if they didnt buy it
3) those who consider downloading media stealing, and do it anyway
the first two groups are likely to buy music that they like, since they realize that artists need to be supported, and fair use only gives us so many rights. The third group, however, is the group that gives everyone else a bad name. They tend to say things like "why buy music, when I can get it for free," or other stupid things. The fact that their actions are destroying fair use for the rest of us doesnt even affect them. Bottom Line: If you know something is wrong, you shouldnt do it. Period.
If IE's Windows integration is a monopoly, then I'm all for the removal of Konqueror from KDE.
im guessing you are a troll just because of your sig. that or you have absolutely no understanding of why microsofts behavior is illegial. in case you are not a troll, here is the short version:
microsoft has a monopoly on operating systems. therefore, according to antitrust laws, it is illegial for them to use that monopoly to force out customers in other markets - i.e. browsers. so tying the browser to the operating system is illegial because they have an operating system monopoly.
kde, however, does not have a monopoly (expect perhaps on annoying slow windowing systems - and i bet microsoft has something designed to take that market back too). therefore, they can legally tie anything they want into their desktop environment.
wow. after a pay 1900 dollars for the monitor, the 150 bucks for a unix driver and conversion cable sounds like a bargin. maybe for another 100 bucks they could throw in a box of chocolates.
okay, it doesnt look like anybody has discussed what i have been thinking recently, so i will say it:
censorship has changed drastically in the last twenty years. sure, the government still trys to keep some things secret, and fundamentalists still try and keep people from "dangerous" material, but overall, this kind of information control just isnt possible anymore. if the us government tries to stop NBC and ABC and CBS from reporting a story, then some cable news network will pick it up. and if the cable networks are censored, then a foreign station will cover it, and americans will get it through the magic of cable. and nowdays, some semi-respectable internet news sites, like drudge report or something, will cover it too. or in the fundamentalist case - if you want to look at pornography, or worship the devil, you can do so, or find people and places with which to do so, very easily on the internet. the bottom line is that there is just no longer any way for top down control of information.
however, does this mean that there is no censorship? personally, i think no. people are censored everyday. bill mahr says something that may upset people, and so he is taken off the air for a while. and honestly, how can you blame ABC for doing that? their whole existance is tied to making money by having viewers watch their station. if bill mahr is alleinating viewers, it is ABC's economic interests to censor him. what is the effect of this though? dissenting opinions get squashed. what can be done? i am not really sure. you can argue that the diversication of information solves this problem too, since bill mahr will get picked up by a different station if he gets fired from his first, and there will always be internet sites which arent profit driven. overall though, the mass media is driven by profits, and therefore will tend to provide a "non-offensive" middle of the road point of view.
overall, i think that the real problem is that in america (i apologize if you are writing from somewhere else, but i tend to think in american terms), economic success is the ultimate good. i will spare you the rant, but i personally think it is the root of alot of problems. it essentially causes economic censorship.
to provide one more example, where i live, a rich man wants to build a 250ft cross on his private property near a highway. it will probably be rejected because it is ugly, but what if it was rejected because it was a religious symbol? is this censoring his religious views? does he have the right to "impose" his religious views on everyone who drives on the freeway? do rich people have more right to express their religious views then poor people?
anyways, the point is that while fareingheit 451 is a wonderful book, the way it presents censorship is very cut and dry. and nowdays, we have essentially moved past that simple issue to a much more complex and nuanced one. so by all means, cover the basics, but try and cover some of the "iffy" areas too, since these are the most interesting ones.
yes, good point. you being able to watch television is defiently more important then students getting good science education.
way to go. someone was paying attention during Legally Blonde.
yes. in addition, we should ban cars:
- They also waste large amounts of gas
- If they slam into a pedistrian or a biker, they have a very high chance of killing them
- If you are not careful, you can flip one, or crush it, or cause it to explode
Personally, I think that cars should not be allowed on the road, and anyone who buys them is a doofus. Of course, bikes are dangerous to pedistrians. So they should be banned. And rollerblades. And in addition, I think that rap music is annoying, so lets just ban that too. In fact, to make the world a better place, lets just ban everything we dont like. That will solve everything.
Yea, i cant believe that you would be such an asshole as to steal something from someone else. And on top of that, you are using someone elses resources to do it.
I dont get it - no body seems to have a problem with him stealing mp3's, but steal a little bandwith, and they guy is a rapist and car theif. Does music want to be free, but not bandwith?
Personally, I have no problem with mp3 sharing. But the examples you used to try and demonstrate that bandwith stealing was bad seem very similar to the ones that the RIAA use to demonize mp3 stealing. what is the difference?while it is true that slashdot does very little thinking, Microsofts proposal is still a bad idea. The who point in the lawsuits is that MIcrosoft illegially leveraged a monopoly so that no one else could compete in the operating system market. so the issue of whether they are the best or not is irrelevant. they got where they are by breaking the law. that is documented fact. the whole point of the lawsuits is to try and remedy the situtation. and unless i am missing something, the last thing this settlement would do is help make the operating system market more fair. it costs them essentially no money, and helps them get more users of their operating system. The fact that RedHat was willing to give the same amount of software just shows that it is not a punishment, it is a benefit. And to complain that RedHat has not already given this software to schools is a bit strange, since RedHat is a struggling company that has yet to turn a profit, whereas microsft is sitting on something like 36 billion dollars.
I think you missed the point of the Redhat proposal. The reason they made that offer was to demonstrate that Micorsofts proposal was not a punishment at all: in fact, it was something that any operating system maker would want to do. I am not in favor of any sort of brainwashing in schools, but I would rather have linux computers then MIcrosoft computers any day. Hopefully, as you mentioned, there will be a variety of operating systems, and the kids can learn them all. (expect for apple - they suck).
Dark Reign is the best stragety game I have ever played. Me and my brother used to play games that would last hours, but they were fun the whole way through. I could never get anyone else to play it with me though, becuase it just took to long to learn. That really is the problem. No body wants to take the time to learn a complex game.
I thought that Microsoft has been doing web development for a long time now.