I find it highly interesting that Rowling assigns what is essentially a modern view of "intellectual property" to some of the least admirable characters in the books. Especially since Rowling benefits greatly from said IP laws and made extensive use of them to try to lockdown the book before the artifically created release date.
It pretty much just means someone who wants to see two particular characters make out with each other. "ship" is short for "relationship", thus a "shipper" is someone who wants to see a romantic relationship develop between certain characters. This is a corner of fandom that I roll my eyes at every single day.
Yeah, that was great, having every bard in the kingdom start singing songs containing the name in question. I guess you don't live for ten thousand years without picking up a few clever tricks. Although I also thought, from a writing standpoint, it was a fairly obvious ploy to keep from revealing too much of the plot too quickly, discarded with a clever trick as soon as it became inconvenient. I still love the series though.
The guy who took the pictures isn't spoiling it, he's leaking it. He's making the whole thing available for people to read a couple days early. I hate the idea of artificially enforced release dates, so I really have no problem with the leak. You can't just walk into the store and buy the book yet even though they almost certainly have copies tucked away in the storeroom, so I think it's quite justifiable to read a leaked copy if you want.
Now, the people spamming spoiler tidbits everywhere, those are the ones spoiling it, and those are the ones you're quite welcome to get mad at.
Why would you want to remove a story you perceive as untrue?
Because there are lots of gullible fools out there who will believe it, and I can't be bothered to sit around refuting snake oil all day for their benefit.
It may not be a legal right, but I would consider it a natural right. You know, one of those certain inalienable rights that all men are endowed with by their Creator. Namely, it's the right to do whatever the heck you want to with your property so long as it doesn't impact someone else. Assuming that you don't distribute the stuff you're ripping (I know, big assumption) then it isn't impacting anyone else in any way. Copyright, by the way, is NOT one of those natural rights; according to the U.S. Constitution, copyright is granted by the government. Obviously, if it's something that's granted, then it isn't an inherent right. I hold the majority of copyright law as it exists today unconstitutional because it treats copyright as a property right, which would be an inherent right, and that is clearly incompatible with the constitutional copyright model.
By that definition creationists "believe in evolution" too, but that's not what the disagreement is really about. Saying it that way is a straw man argument, using the definition of the word "evolution" to make it look like creationists are rejecting things we don't really reject. The real debate is about whether life evolved from nonliving substances to its present complexity over millions of years. When creationists talk about "evolution" that's what we're talking about. We accept change and adaptation and speciation --- after all, we do believe that all of the different varieties of cats evolved (to use the word in question) from one pair of cats that came off of Noah's ark --- but we don't accept the sort of change that can, say, make a dinosaur grow feathers and learn to fly. The latter sort of change is what we believe is impossible.
No one that knows anything about Biblical archaeology believes the Hebrews built the pyramids anyway. By all accounts the pyramids were built a good long while before there were any Hebrews around in the first place. There are also a number of interesting theories about where the Exodus fits into Egyptian history, although most of them do require a certain amount of reinterpretation of traditional dates. I wouldn't really expect to see too many accounts of it in Egyptian sources, though, because the pharoahs didn't generally seem to want to brag about the low points in their history for some reason.
Either you respect other's licenses, or do not request that anyone request yours. To do otherwise is to be hippicritical.
I don't really care if Microsoft, or anyone else, respects the GPL or not. I think you only need a license if you intend to distribute software, not if you just plan to use it. The act of buying a copy of a piece of software gives me all the rights I need to use it. I think it's perfectly consistent to ignore shrinkwrap licenses while upholding the GPL, because they serve two different purposes. They cover two different actions. There's nothing inconsistent with treating them differently.
If you don't want to respect their license, that's fine, but then you shouldn't expect them to respect the GPL either.
There's an inherent difference here. Microsoft's licenses try to restrict you from doing things you would otherwise have the right to do. The GPL gives you rights to do things that you would not otherwise have. If you don't want to respect the GPL, that's fine, but you'd essentially be a software pirate if you distribute GPL software in violation of its terms. On the flip side, if you violate some of Microsoft's license terms, you might not have done anything illegal at all (running Vista in a VM, for instance). So I really do see a huge difference between the two licensing models, and therefore a difference between the nature of respect for them.
Maybe they do, but we as consumers also have the right to call them on the carpet for it. And, for that matter, the right to modify the software to overcome those artificial limitations. (This isn't a matter of piracy --- this sort of hack has nothing to do with whether or not the game or the OS is pirated.) Just because someone has the right to do something does not mean it's right to do it. Microsoft is morally wrong here, even if their actions are legal.
You forgot Eric S. Raymond and Richard Stallman. On that note, I would add that referring to these people by their initials annoys me almost as much as the people themselves.
That's what I think when I see the term "Identity theft" too. A better term might be "Identity fraud" or "Identity-based theft" or something. You're using someone else's identity to steal from them or from others, not actually stealing their identity. It's a fine distinction to be sure, but when you've got scum like the RIAA throwing the word "theft" around all the time for things that really aren't theft, I think it's an important distinction to make.
A better argument is that since the sale was completed before he was presented with the EULA, you don't have to agree to it, regardless of whatever stupid human tricks the computer makes you do.
I believe the record labels actually do assert that giving a copy to your friends is illegal and wrong. I disagree with them in the strongest possible way, and I think that is the strongest representation of their greed you'll find, but they DO say that.
In my opinion it's really better for a show to have a decent run, say four or five years, with a set end date. That allows the writers to plan out the storyline and not have to come up with extra fluff to pad out a longer run than the concept can really support. It could keep the show from jumping the shark. Think about it --- a serialized show like BSG almost inevitably jumps the shark when it runs longer than what it was originally designed for. I think it's better to end it while it's still good, then move on to something new. If you keep it going too long you also risk getting cancelled without having time to end the series properly, which is the worst possible thing that can happen to a show. Ending, by itself, isn't a bad thing; everything ends eventually. You regret it, but it's far better to end well in a timely manner than to try to keep something going long after it should have been buried.
He played all nine holes over and over, and really got the hang of it, but at the end decided that it was a kids game as the graphics were cartoonish. He asked if someone was likely to bring out an 'adult version' of the game.
They did that, too. There's a Tiger Woods game out for the Wii. Haven't played it, but I understand it uses a similar control scheme to the Wii Sports golf game. Myself, I wish the Wii Sports games would stick a bit closer to the actual rules of the sports in question; the tennis game is incredibly fun, but I wish you could actually play a set according to the actual scoring system used in tennis rather than the best-of-five thing they're using. Same for baseball. But the game is still fun, and that's what really counts, right?
The fact that he prefaced his statement with something to the effect of "I am a strong believer in copyright" indicates to me that he doesn't really understand the debate over copyright, or he doesn't care to get it right and is just tossing out a bone. His statement seems to imply that releasing something under a permissive CC license is equivalent to abolishing copyright entirely.
Most people involved in the debate believe in the idea of copyright; it's just that we disagree over how strong copyright protection should be. I believe the majority of so-called "anti-copyright" folks would strongly support new copyright laws that return us to what's stated in the Constitution --- temporary protection designed to encourage the development of content, rather than essentially permanent protection that treats content as an inalienable property right. There aren't really that many people who would abolish copyright entirely.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, at least you're honest.
The English translation is great, but you can't truly appreciate Tolkien unless you've read him in the original Klingon.
I find it highly interesting that Rowling assigns what is essentially a modern view of "intellectual property" to some of the least admirable characters in the books. Especially since Rowling benefits greatly from said IP laws and made extensive use of them to try to lockdown the book before the artifically created release date.
It pretty much just means someone who wants to see two particular characters make out with each other. "ship" is short for "relationship", thus a "shipper" is someone who wants to see a romantic relationship develop between certain characters. This is a corner of fandom that I roll my eyes at every single day.
I actually wondered if Rowling was making some backhanded commentary about copyrights when she wrote that bit...
Yeah, that was great, having every bard in the kingdom start singing songs containing the name in question. I guess you don't live for ten thousand years without picking up a few clever tricks. Although I also thought, from a writing standpoint, it was a fairly obvious ploy to keep from revealing too much of the plot too quickly, discarded with a clever trick as soon as it became inconvenient. I still love the series though.
... or for those of you who have not seen "A Christmas Story", which is where most people have encountered that reference.
The guy who took the pictures isn't spoiling it, he's leaking it. He's making the whole thing available for people to read a couple days early. I hate the idea of artificially enforced release dates, so I really have no problem with the leak. You can't just walk into the store and buy the book yet even though they almost certainly have copies tucked away in the storeroom, so I think it's quite justifiable to read a leaked copy if you want. Now, the people spamming spoiler tidbits everywhere, those are the ones spoiling it, and those are the ones you're quite welcome to get mad at.
Oh. I guess that explains why I liked it.
It may not be a legal right, but I would consider it a natural right. You know, one of those certain inalienable rights that all men are endowed with by their Creator. Namely, it's the right to do whatever the heck you want to with your property so long as it doesn't impact someone else. Assuming that you don't distribute the stuff you're ripping (I know, big assumption) then it isn't impacting anyone else in any way. Copyright, by the way, is NOT one of those natural rights; according to the U.S. Constitution, copyright is granted by the government. Obviously, if it's something that's granted, then it isn't an inherent right. I hold the majority of copyright law as it exists today unconstitutional because it treats copyright as a property right, which would be an inherent right, and that is clearly incompatible with the constitutional copyright model.
No one that knows anything about Biblical archaeology believes the Hebrews built the pyramids anyway. By all accounts the pyramids were built a good long while before there were any Hebrews around in the first place. There are also a number of interesting theories about where the Exodus fits into Egyptian history, although most of them do require a certain amount of reinterpretation of traditional dates. I wouldn't really expect to see too many accounts of it in Egyptian sources, though, because the pharoahs didn't generally seem to want to brag about the low points in their history for some reason.
Maybe they do, but we as consumers also have the right to call them on the carpet for it. And, for that matter, the right to modify the software to overcome those artificial limitations. (This isn't a matter of piracy --- this sort of hack has nothing to do with whether or not the game or the OS is pirated.) Just because someone has the right to do something does not mean it's right to do it. Microsoft is morally wrong here, even if their actions are legal.
You forgot Eric S. Raymond and Richard Stallman. On that note, I would add that referring to these people by their initials annoys me almost as much as the people themselves.
Unfortunately, there hasn't been a device yet invented that is capable of disguising my severe redneck accent.
That's what I think when I see the term "Identity theft" too. A better term might be "Identity fraud" or "Identity-based theft" or something. You're using someone else's identity to steal from them or from others, not actually stealing their identity. It's a fine distinction to be sure, but when you've got scum like the RIAA throwing the word "theft" around all the time for things that really aren't theft, I think it's an important distinction to make.
A better argument is that since the sale was completed before he was presented with the EULA, you don't have to agree to it, regardless of whatever stupid human tricks the computer makes you do.
I believe the record labels actually do assert that giving a copy to your friends is illegal and wrong. I disagree with them in the strongest possible way, and I think that is the strongest representation of their greed you'll find, but they DO say that.
In my opinion it's really better for a show to have a decent run, say four or five years, with a set end date. That allows the writers to plan out the storyline and not have to come up with extra fluff to pad out a longer run than the concept can really support. It could keep the show from jumping the shark. Think about it --- a serialized show like BSG almost inevitably jumps the shark when it runs longer than what it was originally designed for. I think it's better to end it while it's still good, then move on to something new. If you keep it going too long you also risk getting cancelled without having time to end the series properly, which is the worst possible thing that can happen to a show. Ending, by itself, isn't a bad thing; everything ends eventually. You regret it, but it's far better to end well in a timely manner than to try to keep something going long after it should have been buried.
Most people involved in the debate believe in the idea of copyright; it's just that we disagree over how strong copyright protection should be. I believe the majority of so-called "anti-copyright" folks would strongly support new copyright laws that return us to what's stated in the Constitution --- temporary protection designed to encourage the development of content, rather than essentially permanent protection that treats content as an inalienable property right. There aren't really that many people who would abolish copyright entirely.