i did not realize how bad new movies are until i rented "On The Waterfront". The whole cast was absolutely amazing, the plot and script was so intense. i am now just renting classic movies. don't get me wrong, i still love "The Matrix" and other sci-fi eye candy, but to fully understand the power of a movie, you need to see a film that was created to tell a story, not just written and edited for a best demographic to dollar ratio and actors who love to act, not just are pretty and get by on that. True, my wife could not get over how "gorgeous" Marlon Brando use to be, but he had the acting skills to back it up.
Even in an offical capacity, I really feel uneasy if my boss was able to take a copy of my harddrive image and see what I've been working on.
your boss has the right and the ability (at least at my company) to do that. plus, i leave my personal and secret stuff on my box at home, not at work, where it belongs. if i was a boss, i would want the ability to see what my employees are working on. that's why i pay them.
i think the issue is Linus is so dead set against closed source drivers in the kernel, but it is ok to develop used closed source tools? i think that is wherein lies his hyporcrosy. if there were no open source tools to do what he needed, he should have written his own. isn't that what the fanboys are always screaming?
it's like a vegetarian eating a hamburger because he it's to inconvienant to go to the health food store for a tofu sandwich.
i have no problem with closed sources if it is a better choice, so what i say matches what i do. (btw, i am a vegetarian, so if i go out with people, and there is nothing for me to eat, i just do not eat. sometimes i get really hungry, but i do not go against my ethics because it's easier...)
who is being violated? i guess that is what i do not understand. Lucas? no, it's his project and he can do whatever he wants. the Star Wars fan? no, they have a choice whether or not to go. the Star War fan who has mental damage because he saw a bad rerelease of a Star Wars films? well, maybe, but they had quite a few issues to deal with before going to the movies....
"in what new ways can I rape the fond memories of a younger generation"
wow, when a person redoes a film of his, and you call that "rape", either you had a very bad childhood or you are very, very weak minded. or maybe you do not understand the definition of rape. i do not think redoing a movie in a way you do not like constitutes rape.
"Please.... please stop hurting us"
if you do not watch the new releases, it won't affect you. if you stay on the meds, you will be differentiate betweem reality and fiction.
"AOL has responded to the recent slashdot attention."
where in the article did it say that slashdot was the motivating force? i read that it was just received a "firestorm of privacy-related criticism". please, this might be a popular site, but don't take credit where none is deserved. especially when the article never mentioned any group in particular. i am sure slashdot was one of MANY groups, organization, sites, etc. that complained. but in no did it change it's policy just because of slashdot...
2. Are the people who provide the mechanism whereby this is done contributory infringers? Answer: No, and what are you smoking?
in this instance, i agree with you. they setup a service to share files. it's would be like blaming Ginsu Knifes because someone stabbed someone with there knives, and DuPont because they murderer walked on there carpet.
Is someone who downloads that content necessarily infringing? Answer: No, not necessarily.
this is where i might disagree. why should downloaders not be held accountable? they are also breaking the license by using illegaly distributed content. it just like drugs (for the record, i beleive should be legal), the buyers and sellers are both breaking law (not that i am equating the two, just the fact that both parties are willingly breaking the law).
when you buy music, movies in any format, it says you are not allowed to distribute it without consent from whoever produced it. why is that so hard to understand? just like i can not distribute GPL software without the source code. well, can i just distribute a binary, call it "sharing" and then claim it is my bits, and i can do what i want with it? no, because the bits in those order are under a license. if you are against controlled distribution, than your are against the GPL. it's just that one protects the commercial interests and another protects the intellectual interests. either way, the produces of the product, bits, whatever have a right to be able to dictate how the creations are distributed, regardless if you personally do not like, or you think you have to spend to much money to buy it. and if you do not like the license, then do not buy it. but do not steal it under some flag of freedom just because you think the MPAA or RIAA is making to much money.
Slashdot Mirror
i did not realize how bad new movies are until i rented "On The Waterfront". The whole cast was absolutely amazing, the plot and script was so intense. i am now just renting classic movies. don't get me wrong, i still love "The Matrix" and other sci-fi eye candy, but to fully understand the power of a movie, you need to see a film that was created to tell a story, not just written and edited for a best demographic to dollar ratio and actors who love to act, not just are pretty and get by on that. True, my wife could not get over how "gorgeous" Marlon Brando use to be, but he had the acting skills to back it up.
that is a really disturbing post. perhaps "girlfriend" or "wife" or "partner" instead of sister would make it a little less...uhh...wrong...
Even in an offical capacity, I really feel uneasy if my boss was able to take a copy of my harddrive image and see what I've been working on.
your boss has the right and the ability (at least at my company) to do that. plus, i leave my personal and secret stuff on my box at home, not at work, where it belongs. if i was a boss, i would want the ability to see what my employees are working on. that's why i pay them.
i think the issue is Linus is so dead set against closed source drivers in the kernel, but it is ok to develop used closed source tools? i think that is wherein lies his hyporcrosy. if there were no open source tools to do what he needed, he should have written his own. isn't that what the fanboys are always screaming?
it's like a vegetarian eating a hamburger because he it's to inconvienant to go to the health food store for a tofu sandwich.
i have no problem with closed sources if it is a better choice, so what i say matches what i do. (btw, i am a vegetarian, so if i go out with people, and there is nothing for me to eat, i just do not eat. sometimes i get really hungry, but i do not go against my ethics because it's easier...)
the poster called me a "pussy".. and when random, unknown people call me names.. well ... you know, it hurts... i think i need some warm coco
who is being violated? i guess that is what i do not understand. Lucas? no, it's his project and he can do whatever he wants. the Star Wars fan? no, they have a choice whether or not to go. the Star War fan who has mental damage because he saw a bad rerelease of a Star Wars films? well, maybe, but they had quite a few issues to deal with before going to the movies....
wow, you really can't handle comments about comments. you degraded yourself to such childish name calling....
i feel bad for you. have some warm coco. everything will be ok.
and who is the victim and how did they become the victim?
man, people put WAY to much into relevance into a space movie...
"hyperbole for humorous effect"
oh, i got it. because rape is HILARIOUS.
pedantic? how am i being pedantic? please explain. because i disagree that releasing a movie in 3d is rape?
actually, i do. i just do not understand how rereleasing a movie in 3d "rapes" his memory.
"in what new ways can I rape the fond memories of a younger generation"
wow, when a person redoes a film of his, and you call that "rape", either you had a very bad childhood or you are very, very weak minded. or maybe you do not understand the definition of rape. i do not think redoing a movie in a way you do not like constitutes rape.
"Please.... please stop hurting us"
if you do not watch the new releases, it won't affect you. if you stay on the meds, you will be differentiate betweem reality and fiction.
> As user you cannot violate the GPL dumbo, go read
> the licence now...
"dumbo"?!?!?!? are you serious? when you have to use insults to make your point, you kind of lose a credibiltity.
ok, so you still have the right to use the music, but you do not have the right to distribute without the authors permission.
what's the difference?
do not by the music. that's why i buy CDs and not download music because i do not like being limited by the DRM.
by the way, let say i do not like the GPL license. should i:
1. not use GPL software
or
2. use, and violate it because i do not like it.
a lot people find the GPL license "viral" and disagree with it. but we still expect people to respect it and follow it.
"AOL has responded to the recent slashdot attention."
where in the article did it say that slashdot was the motivating force? i read that it was just received a "firestorm of privacy-related criticism". please, this might be a popular site, but don't take credit where none is deserved. especially when the article never mentioned any group in particular. i am sure slashdot was one of MANY groups, organization, sites, etc. that complained. but in no did it change it's policy just because of slashdot...
well, i am glad your anecdotal evidence, from your personal experience in one company is enough to justify an entire stereotype.
2. Are the people who provide the mechanism whereby this is done contributory infringers? Answer: No, and what are you smoking?
in this instance, i agree with you. they setup a service to share files. it's would be like blaming Ginsu Knifes because someone stabbed someone with there knives, and DuPont because they murderer walked on there carpet.
Is someone who downloads that content necessarily infringing? Answer: No, not necessarily.
this is where i might disagree. why should downloaders not be held accountable? they are also breaking the license by using illegaly distributed content. it just like drugs (for the record, i beleive should be legal), the buyers and sellers are both breaking law (not that i am equating the two, just the fact that both parties are willingly breaking the law).
when you buy music, movies in any format, it says you are not allowed to distribute it without consent from whoever produced it. why is that so hard to understand? just like i can not distribute GPL software without the source code. well, can i just distribute a binary, call it "sharing" and then claim it is my bits, and i can do what i want with it? no, because the bits in those order are under a license. if you are against controlled distribution, than your are against the GPL. it's just that one protects the commercial interests and another protects the intellectual interests. either way, the produces of the product, bits, whatever have a right to be able to dictate how the creations are distributed, regardless if you personally do not like, or you think you have to spend to much money to buy it. and if you do not like the license, then do not buy it. but do not steal it under some flag of freedom just because you think the MPAA or RIAA is making to much money.
thanks for clearing it up... :)
what's the difference? (not a challenge, just trying to shed off some ignorance)
uhhh...can't you just by a mobo with a built-in video card?