I've been an Acer user for two generations of laptops at this point, and in each case, I bought it to run Linux. I know I'd certainly have liked to not pay the Microsoft Tax on 'em.
That said, why do you have such a problem with a "browser OS" as you call it? If there's one thing I noticed when I went back to school a while back to finish a degree, it's that most students could certainly have gotten by with nothing but this so-called "browser OS".
Knowledge-based service is a very different concept from copyright no matter how you slice it. Your response may be long, but it is without substance and largely based on fallacy.
Be that as it may, the biggest market for laptop drives is manufacturers. As long as the benchmarks and first impressions hit where they should, Seagate doesn't care about you.
The article says laptop drives, so it's not exactly the most convincing of arguments here that gamers are what they have in mind. Gamers aren't exactly the target market.
I seldom see one. Seems pretty lame as a promise. Stop making 7200 RPM desktop drives, and I'll find the claims made here to be a bit more of a confidence indicator.
Why is it that people in this thread keep insisting that if there were no copyrights, other people would profit monetarily from their creative works? Bad logic is bad. If that person can copy it freely, so can anyone else.
Besides, I'd rather have a thousand of people profit intellectually from any given work than the five who might be willing to pay for it. I might be more inclined to change my mind if we shortened copyright to something reasonable, like seven years. Maybe even ten, or fourteen. And definitely nothing on the scale of 50+ years, and definitely not starting the clock only after the creator's death.
Actually, I don't care much for Hollywood movies, and I don't care for much of what has come out of the musical world in the past couple decades. Most of what I have enjoyed was enjoyed live (a clear situation of potential profit).
What he did worked in his day specifically because of the age he lived in and the technology of the times. Comparing what he did to what thousands of people do all the time today (indeed, most people have a camera on their person at all times) is just silly. As I've said numerous times, the copyright in today's world may have outlived its usefulness.
The thing is, how many times do you see the exact same uniquely-styled terrorist attack? The mere fact that they're looking for people with pressure cookers and backpacks tells me that they wouldn't know what to look for on their best day. It's just like how now everyone has to take off their shoes at airports, but we all know there's no shoe-bombing suspects being caught by it.
your simplistic equation doesn't prove what you think it proves. Even if the increases in income and profits exist, that doesn't rule out an increase in expenses in any way, shape, or form. You seem to be looking for an argument that says the increases were disproportionate to the increases in expenses, which is an entirely different topic. Especially since the increase in profits is not directly proportionate to the increases in insurance costs people are seeing.
Slashdot Mirror
The same thing the Fourth Amendment is for. Keeping out people who have no business reading your mail.
Well, I meant in the literal sense. In the figurative sense, the fight is in progress and I can only hope the forces of liberty win.
I've been an Acer user for two generations of laptops at this point, and in each case, I bought it to run Linux. I know I'd certainly have liked to not pay the Microsoft Tax on 'em.
That said, why do you have such a problem with a "browser OS" as you call it? If there's one thing I noticed when I went back to school a while back to finish a degree, it's that most students could certainly have gotten by with nothing but this so-called "browser OS".
It's absolutely without substance. "Artists need money" does not justify what you're claiming it does.
I'm pretty sure that only works when you make withdrawals from the accounts of others. I really hope it doesn't come to that in my lifetime.
Anyone know a good freedom dealer? I'm an addict and need my fix of freedom, but I can't seem to find it within the borders of the US at this point.
I like my coffee like I like my women. Tied up in a burlap sack and dragged through the Andes behind a donkey.
Knowledge-based service is a very different concept from copyright no matter how you slice it. Your response may be long, but it is without substance and largely based on fallacy.
Which totally explains making everyone remove their shoes on a Southwest Airlines hop from Dallas to Austin, amirite?
yes, exactly.
Prioritize on the important vulnerabilities. But that should in no way discourage people from fixing the less important ones.
Don't let perfect become the enemy of good.
I would tend to agree with you. I'm simply pointing out that risking the 7200rpm laptop drive segment isn't exactly a huge gamble for them.
Be that as it may, the biggest market for laptop drives is manufacturers. As long as the benchmarks and first impressions hit where they should, Seagate doesn't care about you.
The article says laptop drives, so it's not exactly the most convincing of arguments here that gamers are what they have in mind. Gamers aren't exactly the target market.
I seldom see one. Seems pretty lame as a promise. Stop making 7200 RPM desktop drives, and I'll find the claims made here to be a bit more of a confidence indicator.
Why is it that people in this thread keep insisting that if there were no copyrights, other people would profit monetarily from their creative works? Bad logic is bad. If that person can copy it freely, so can anyone else.
Besides, I'd rather have a thousand of people profit intellectually from any given work than the five who might be willing to pay for it. I might be more inclined to change my mind if we shortened copyright to something reasonable, like seven years. Maybe even ten, or fourteen. And definitely nothing on the scale of 50+ years, and definitely not starting the clock only after the creator's death.
Actually, I don't care much for Hollywood movies, and I don't care for much of what has come out of the musical world in the past couple decades. Most of what I have enjoyed was enjoyed live (a clear situation of potential profit).
What he did worked in his day specifically because of the age he lived in and the technology of the times. Comparing what he did to what thousands of people do all the time today (indeed, most people have a camera on their person at all times) is just silly. As I've said numerous times, the copyright in today's world may have outlived its usefulness.
The thing is, how many times do you see the exact same uniquely-styled terrorist attack? The mere fact that they're looking for people with pressure cookers and backpacks tells me that they wouldn't know what to look for on their best day. It's just like how now everyone has to take off their shoes at airports, but we all know there's no shoe-bombing suspects being caught by it.
Or a man. Or black, or white, or latino, or asian.
I think the next Doctor should be the right person for the role. Everything else is irrelevant.
That's one theory.
I'm sure you can't. Especially when your reasoning is so flawed. I'm done here, I'm clearly playing chess with a pigeon.
well if it changes nothing for the artist, why fight to keep the copyrights going?
Ah, but you're comparing it to physically taking something. That comparison always rings false to me.
your simplistic equation doesn't prove what you think it proves. Even if the increases in income and profits exist, that doesn't rule out an increase in expenses in any way, shape, or form. You seem to be looking for an argument that says the increases were disproportionate to the increases in expenses, which is an entirely different topic. Especially since the increase in profits is not directly proportionate to the increases in insurance costs people are seeing.