Shouldn't a person's internal code of ethics provide some sort of obligation to the funder anyways? It's sort of like doing favors. If all your friends constantly do you favors and you don't do anything for them, they will stop giving you favors. Same with investors, you are given cash and you give them nothing in return, you will build up a bad reputtion and no one will fund you.
Re:There ARE other ways
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 2
A lot of people in this thread pointed out the obvious flaws in the parent, but there is a level of truth to it.
You don't want your works and creations to be copied, don't make it easy to copy. If you have book, and you don't want mass copies of the original to be made, leave it as a hand written manuscript. All copies will be cheaply made imitations. Only original handwriten versions will have worth. The same goes for music, don't want it copied, leave it as sheet music only to be performed. These are ways you keep your property under control, but there is no such thing as perfect control. There will always be a copy cat somwhere, but imitation is the best form of flattery.
Re:There ARE other ways
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 2
Anyone who tries to capitalize on a cure for cancer should be shot dead. Period. If you're going to withold something like that because you aren't getting paid, you're an evil asswipe that should not be living.
Re:Just read the Constitution, fer chrissakes.
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
How about making copywrites non-transferable. The creator of something retains the original copy write. If they decide they want to be paid for their product, they can sell a copy of such a product to someone. They can arbitrarily decide whether or not a certain use of their invention violates the copywrite. That way, those people that want to keep their ideas to themselves can, and those that want to allow their stuff to be availible can. Instead of RIAA deciding that downloading the songs is bad, let the artists decide. And let them take the people to court. Everyone should be able to decide what happens to their own inventions, not some corporation, not some publisher, the individual. And when the individual dies, the item becomes public domain, none of this stuff where Michael Jackson owning the rights to the beatles music.
Theoreticaly the same could done in a closed source system. While I see your point that there are more blockages to be avoided if you were to create a sucessful *NIX virus, that does not mean that it is any less threatening to a system. Even if it could only fill up/data2, it's still using HD resources, leading to fragmentation, longer seek times and reduced system performance. All in all a nusence rather than a serious problem, but a problem no less.
Base generalizations are only dangerous if they are false. However, common sense is very lacking in this world. If you need any proof, you need not look any further than the warning lables on common household products such as a hair dryer (Do not use while sleeping or Do not use while showering) or on packages of peanuts (may contain nuts). Also, you might want to reconsider your position in society if you took offence to my previous statement and assumed it applied to you.
Did anyone besides me notice that some of the clone troopers looked like they were CG characters? I'm not talking the lage group/wide angle shots. I'm talking like the guy at Yoda's side in the command center during the battle.
That said, I love the movie. I'm going back again.
And what will you do when the code for the virus is recompiled to run in *NIX? No OS is perfectly secure, the fact that *NIX based OSes and Mac OS was not hit is just an indication of the limited programing skills and/or time of the creator.
Given the average intelligence of an American citizen (fairly low seeing as how the NY Times is supposedly written at an 8th grade reading level) and the average intelligence of many people, I would be willing to bet that the money trail does at some point lead to the virus creator. And even if it doesn't, I would still be willing to be there is a trail back to the virus writer.
Political correctness can bite me. All I was trying to draw attention to is the fact that any claim that somehow religious groups are naturaly less evil than any other faction is false. A religious institution is a item of human design, flawed by the same flaws that affect the rest of society.
And when a Z6 costs me a year and a half's salary, does this justify me spending an hour looking for a good quality Z6 (for me to) rip (off)?
You missed the main point of my post. The point was consumers will do what is convenient for them. This takes into account all aspects of convenience, including jail time, cost, and "utility" (which defined economicaly is the satisfaction you get from having a product). I am not saying that the theft is in any way justified, but it is the convenient and consumer friendly method. Theft of this magnitude, rationalized the way it is even in the minds of law abiding people only comes about when there is something inherrently wrong with the current system. Though it may not be the best or most legal way to do so, file sharing is society as a whole saying that there is something wrong with the system and they want it fixed. Instead of fixing it, the industry just wants to shut us up.
Obviously you haven't spent any time downloading rips. Any one who has can tell you most of the digital files you get are crap. People some how manage to scew up the process of moving a file from a CD to an MP3. And most Divx rips are really low quality. On top of that, any file that you download has the possibility of having missing data bits. I can't tell you how many files I've gotten that have random blips in the file or fades of soud etc. Digital piracy is no better or worse than analog piracy. The only reason the MPAA and the RIAA are after this is because they already lost the battle for VCRs and Audio Cassetes, they need a new target to keep their profits higher than the market equilibrium price.
You mean like in Germany where, despite their immensly strict gun control, they still had a kid go psycho on them and kill his school-mates. Yeah, gun control works nicely doesn't it.
Not only that, but there was a shoot out in California a few years back that ended sucessfuly for the police only because there was a gun shop near by that had more powerful weapons than they did
The other thing that often get's overlooked is that most people given the opportunity, will follow the law if it is easy to do so. Case in point, jay walking. Technicaly it is against the law, yet I'll bet all of us have done it. Yet when we come to a street corner, we don't go out of our way to walk across outside of the cross walk and against the light because following the law is more convenient in this instance.
So the same would apply to file-sharing and music theft. People would be less inclined to steal music if purchasing the real music was more convenient and more desireable. If I could buy a CD knowing exactly what was on the CD, and at a price which the CD was worth (not $16+ for a 9 song manufactured pop CD) I would be far more inclined to purchase the CD than to download the songs. Partly because it is more convienient to get a guarenteed quality original recording.
But when one CD costs me 3 hours of work (at minimum wage, for us "middle class teens") it's easier to spend an hour looking for a good quality rip. Every law is followed simply because it is convenient and desireable as compared to the alternative. The same applies to music sharing and boot legging.
Regarding religions: Religions really only work at the local and individual basis. Any time religion starts to become a massive movement centered arround a single living leader, problems arise. Not nessesarily war, but usualy it does end in blood shed of some type (i.e. crusades, Hitler, Bin Laden, centuries of holy wars). More people have died in the name of God than for any other cause. There's something about this that doesn't fit right with me.
If he goes through with the next 3 movies (or someone else (spielberg) does) they better follow the Zahn books because next to Lucas, when it comes to the Star Wars universe, Zahn is god.
Most of the back history says that he's really mostly human, it's just the external damage coupled with the destruction of his resperatory system makes it impossibile for him to live without the suit. so the fact that his arm was robotic in Jedi means he had to loose his arm somewhere
As we react to being attacked by "seperatists" with increased government control over our lives, we move in the direction of the dark side- of fascism- does it need to be pointed out how similar the empire's soldiers in the first three movies looked like our Nazis? The fixation with Nazis shown in the indiana jones movies? They do make great villains, especially visually. but there's a lot more going on here. Hitler was freely elected in Germany. A chancellor, or senator, he was. Germans, after the defeat and Trade Federations imposition at the treaty of versailles, wanted a strong leader. One who would raise an army despite the prohibitions. Hitler was that leader. He raised an army of genetically pure "clones" with rigid behavioral conformity and turned the country into an empire.
In 7th grade I bought a book which was all 3 of the original novelizations of the SW movies (including all the deleted scenes). But the thing that caught my eye was the prolouge. It described how the empire came into power. And I remember saying to my Social Studies teacher at the time, "This looks a lot like how Hitler came to power". Since then, I never looked at the Star Wars movies in quite the same way. There is a lot of political statements going on in the movies. It doesn't make the fact that they are just good fun stories first and foremost, but the politics are there.
Slashdot Mirror
Shouldn't a person's internal code of ethics provide some sort of obligation to the funder anyways? It's sort of like doing favors. If all your friends constantly do you favors and you don't do anything for them, they will stop giving you favors. Same with investors, you are given cash and you give them nothing in return, you will build up a bad reputtion and no one will fund you.
A lot of people in this thread pointed out the obvious flaws in the parent, but there is a level of truth to it.
You don't want your works and creations to be copied, don't make it easy to copy. If you have book, and you don't want mass copies of the original to be made, leave it as a hand written manuscript. All copies will be cheaply made imitations. Only original handwriten versions will have worth. The same goes for music, don't want it copied, leave it as sheet music only to be performed. These are ways you keep your property under control, but there is no such thing as perfect control. There will always be a copy cat somwhere, but imitation is the best form of flattery.
Anyone who tries to capitalize on a cure for cancer should be shot dead. Period. If you're going to withold something like that because you aren't getting paid, you're an evil asswipe that should not be living.
How about making copywrites non-transferable. The creator of something retains the original copy write. If they decide they want to be paid for their product, they can sell a copy of such a product to someone. They can arbitrarily decide whether or not a certain use of their invention violates the copywrite. That way, those people that want to keep their ideas to themselves can, and those that want to allow their stuff to be availible can. Instead of RIAA deciding that downloading the songs is bad, let the artists decide. And let them take the people to court. Everyone should be able to decide what happens to their own inventions, not some corporation, not some publisher, the individual. And when the individual dies, the item becomes public domain, none of this stuff where Michael Jackson owning the rights to the beatles music.
Yeah, but that's what made it believable. The fact that they can move like normal humans in such bulky armor makes it seem unreal
Coments shoud, from what I remember from my CS courses.
a) Describe in detail what the function does, or what the variable(s) store
b) Describe the preconditions of the function (what has to happen for the function to be called)
c) Describe the post conditions (what the end result of the function is (what does it return and where does it send the data)
Theoreticaly the same could done in a closed source system. While I see your point that there are more blockages to be avoided if you were to create a sucessful *NIX virus, that does not mean that it is any less threatening to a system. Even if it could only fill up /data2, it's still using HD resources, leading to fragmentation, longer seek times and reduced system performance. All in all a nusence rather than a serious problem, but a problem no less.
Base generalizations are only dangerous if they are false. However, common sense is very lacking in this world. If you need any proof, you need not look any further than the warning lables on common household products such as a hair dryer (Do not use while sleeping or Do not use while showering) or on packages of peanuts (may contain nuts). Also, you might want to reconsider your position in society if you took offence to my previous statement and assumed it applied to you.
Did anyone besides me notice that some of the clone troopers looked like they were CG characters? I'm not talking the lage group/wide angle shots. I'm talking like the guy at Yoda's side in the command center during the battle.
That said, I love the movie. I'm going back again.
Haven't watched the originals in a while have you?
Watch AotC again, there is lots of that sort of humorous dialouge going on. But it's all missed if you sit there going
"Where is the deep and moving conversations and where is the quality acting and where are the quality sex inducing romance scenes."
If you go looking for the above, you will miss the rest of the moive and you'll hate it.
And what will you do when the code for the virus is recompiled to run in *NIX? No OS is perfectly secure, the fact that *NIX based OSes and Mac OS was not hit is just an indication of the limited programing skills and/or time of the creator.
Given the average intelligence of an American citizen (fairly low seeing as how the NY Times is supposedly written at an 8th grade reading level) and the average intelligence of many people, I would be willing to bet that the money trail does at some point lead to the virus creator. And even if it doesn't, I would still be willing to be there is a trail back to the virus writer.
And then go here to read the story with out signing up:
http://www.majcher.com/nytview.html
If the original poster actualy cared about his Karma, do you honestly think he would have posted under his account instead of anonymously?
Political correctness can bite me. All I was trying to draw attention to is the fact that any claim that somehow religious groups are naturaly less evil than any other faction is false. A religious institution is a item of human design, flawed by the same flaws that affect the rest of society.
And when a Z6 costs me a year and a half's salary, does this justify me spending an hour looking for a good quality Z6 (for me to) rip (off)?
You missed the main point of my post. The point was consumers will do what is convenient for them. This takes into account all aspects of convenience, including jail time, cost, and "utility" (which defined economicaly is the satisfaction you get from having a product). I am not saying that the theft is in any way justified, but it is the convenient and consumer friendly method. Theft of this magnitude, rationalized the way it is even in the minds of law abiding people only comes about when there is something inherrently wrong with the current system. Though it may not be the best or most legal way to do so, file sharing is society as a whole saying that there is something wrong with the system and they want it fixed. Instead of fixing it, the industry just wants to shut us up.
Obviously you haven't spent any time downloading rips. Any one who has can tell you most of the digital files you get are crap. People some how manage to scew up the process of moving a file from a CD to an MP3. And most Divx rips are really low quality. On top of that, any file that you download has the possibility of having missing data bits. I can't tell you how many files I've gotten that have random blips in the file or fades of soud etc. Digital piracy is no better or worse than analog piracy. The only reason the MPAA and the RIAA are after this is because they already lost the battle for VCRs and Audio Cassetes, they need a new target to keep their profits higher than the market equilibrium price.
You mean like in Germany where, despite their immensly strict gun control, they still had a kid go psycho on them and kill his school-mates. Yeah, gun control works nicely doesn't it.
Not only that, but there was a shoot out in California a few years back that ended sucessfuly for the police only because there was a gun shop near by that had more powerful weapons than they did
The other thing that often get's overlooked is that most people given the opportunity, will follow the law if it is easy to do so. Case in point, jay walking. Technicaly it is against the law, yet I'll bet all of us have done it. Yet when we come to a street corner, we don't go out of our way to walk across outside of the cross walk and against the light because following the law is more convenient in this instance.
So the same would apply to file-sharing and music theft. People would be less inclined to steal music if purchasing the real music was more convenient and more desireable. If I could buy a CD knowing exactly what was on the CD, and at a price which the CD was worth (not $16+ for a 9 song manufactured pop CD) I would be far more inclined to purchase the CD than to download the songs. Partly because it is more convienient to get a guarenteed quality original recording.
But when one CD costs me 3 hours of work (at minimum wage, for us "middle class teens") it's easier to spend an hour looking for a good quality rip. Every law is followed simply because it is convenient and desireable as compared to the alternative. The same applies to music sharing and boot legging.
Regarding religions: Religions really only work at the local and individual basis. Any time religion starts to become a massive movement centered arround a single living leader, problems arise. Not nessesarily war, but usualy it does end in blood shed of some type (i.e. crusades, Hitler, Bin Laden, centuries of holy wars). More people have died in the name of God than for any other cause. There's something about this that doesn't fit right with me.
If he goes through with the next 3 movies (or someone else (spielberg) does) they better follow the Zahn books because next to Lucas, when it comes to the Star Wars universe, Zahn is god.
Most of the back history says that he's really mostly human, it's just the external damage coupled with the destruction of his resperatory system makes it impossibile for him to live without the suit. so the fact that his arm was robotic in Jedi means he had to loose his arm somewhere
As we react to being attacked by "seperatists" with increased government control over our lives, we move in the direction of the dark side- of fascism- does it need to be pointed out how similar the empire's soldiers in the first three movies looked like our Nazis? The fixation with Nazis shown in the indiana jones movies?
They do make great villains, especially visually. but there's a lot more going on here.
Hitler was freely elected in Germany. A chancellor, or senator, he was. Germans, after the defeat and Trade Federations imposition at the treaty of versailles, wanted a strong leader. One who would raise an army despite the prohibitions. Hitler was that leader. He raised an army of genetically pure "clones" with rigid behavioral conformity and turned the country into an empire.
In 7th grade I bought a book which was all 3 of the original novelizations of the SW movies (including all the deleted scenes). But the thing that caught my eye was the prolouge. It described how the empire came into power. And I remember saying to my Social Studies teacher at the time, "This looks a lot like how Hitler came to power". Since then, I never looked at the Star Wars movies in quite the same way. There is a lot of political statements going on in the movies. It doesn't make the fact that they are just good fun stories first and foremost, but the politics are there.