"After reading the entire interview, I'm sort of sick of seeing him respond with the word "freedom" without really clarifying."
RMS relies on ambiguous, emotionally charged terms like "freedom" (good) and "anti-social" (bad) to win people over to his cause. Because who doesn't want to fight for the cause of "freedom"??
"Other companies like Oracle, don't actually sell their software. You purchase a "support plan" which includes the software. All the companies are constantly devising ways to leverage their mediocre products to get more money from consumers."
"I think a great majority of the editing disputes could be solved by requiring disputants to cite and/or quote reputable sources."
Which would only further erode the influence of experts who would, by definition, post their own knowledge of the subject.
Instead, you would have people simply regurgitate what they read somewhere else, without any way to validate whether or not they correctly interpreted the information.
If somebody wants you off of their property, and you refuse to leave, that's called trespassing.
Or would you presume to walk into people's houses, and start shouting whatever you feel entitled to subject them to, and claim a first amendment right to do so when they ask you to leave?
Thanks for letting me know that this article is about an OS that wants to conquer and rape and pillage, and not just another software review. I was beginning to think that Slashdot was developing a pro-Microsoft bias.
"Beyond which, most/.ers feel the copyright laws that ARE getting inforced are rediculous or outdated."
...or (I would argue) inconvenient. Let's be honest, a lot of people (and a lot of Slashdotters, for sure) just want shit for free. Before they were able to copy what they wanted, and to Hell with the law. Now that copyright laws are being enforced, these people feel threatened. Rather than modify their behavior, they instead piss and moan that the law is unfair.
Notice the same indignant outrage coming from spammers every time new anti-spam legislation is passed?
Why is it that when governments enforce copyright laws, people piss and moan about the other more important things they should be focusing on, but then cheer when the government focuses on something as trivial as spam?
Perhaps it's because governments have a long history of doing things inefficiently and ineffectively. I think this project is exactly the kind of innovation and ingenuity that governments lack. Best of luck to them in proving that scientific progress can thrive without government shackles.
You really have to wonder when Rachel says something like "I like this game because I can do all these things that are so against what I'd ever do in reality. Of course eventually the boundary between reality and video game will become blurred, and I will be compelled to act out my violent fantasies against my classmates. And it's all because evil corporations prey on weak, susceptible minds like mine, so they can desensitize me to violence and demand more and more violent video games."
I'd love some of these "theories" proven for once. Results are nice, I suppose, but I guess sounding eclectic and enlightened is enough to get the funding.
Anyone can spout a wild and "surreal" theory. A real scientist can prove it.
Stop rewarding these whores for violating YOUR private information! They piss and moan about spam, and then turn around and sell out their friends and family to advertising firms. Shame on you all!
Slashdot Mirror
Who says anyone is going to pay Microsoft for anything here? It's a free download, just like their service packs.
You mean like how makers of P2P software make it possible for people to violate copyright law?
Then that makes Apple an accomplice to the RIAA's scheme. Why are they let off the hook?
So let me get this straight.
It's OK for Apple to use copyright law to restrict how people can use the music they sell to people, but it's not OK for the RIAA to do the same?
And why does the submission read like an advertisement? Oh wait, that's because it IS an advertisement.
Why not? It might be the best/easiest option available. Why must you automatically dismiss all things Microsoft?
This sounds like just another case of self-defeating zealotry.
My advice? Pick whatever works best meets your needs.
How new technologies are increasing my advertising income
Say what ya will about the guy, that's some funny stuff!
Get insured before meddling with the metal ones!
RMS relies on ambiguous, emotionally charged terms like "freedom" (good) and "anti-social" (bad) to win people over to his cause. Because who doesn't want to fight for the cause of "freedom"??
Sounds familiar.
Which would only further erode the influence of experts who would, by definition, post their own knowledge of the subject.
Instead, you would have people simply regurgitate what they read somewhere else, without any way to validate whether or not they correctly interpreted the information.
I can picture it already: "Next article posted in 3... 2... 1..."
If somebody wants you off of their property, and you refuse to leave, that's called trespassing.
Or would you presume to walk into people's houses, and start shouting whatever you feel entitled to subject them to, and claim a first amendment right to do so when they ask you to leave?
Thanks for letting me know that this article is about an OS that wants to conquer and rape and pillage, and not just another software review. I was beginning to think that Slashdot was developing a pro-Microsoft bias.
Spending some karma to get parent modded up. That was some funny shit, man!
Here you go.
They are, hence the lawsuits.
"Beyond which, most /.ers feel the copyright laws that ARE getting inforced are rediculous or outdated."
...or (I would argue) inconvenient. Let's be honest, a lot of people (and a lot of Slashdotters, for sure) just want shit for free. Before they were able to copy what they wanted, and to Hell with the law. Now that copyright laws are being enforced, these people feel threatened. Rather than modify their behavior, they instead piss and moan that the law is unfair.
Notice the same indignant outrage coming from spammers every time new anti-spam legislation is passed?
Why is it that when governments enforce copyright laws, people piss and moan about the other more important things they should be focusing on, but then cheer when the government focuses on something as trivial as spam?
Perhaps it's because governments have a long history of doing things inefficiently and ineffectively. I think this project is exactly the kind of innovation and ingenuity that governments lack. Best of luck to them in proving that scientific progress can thrive without government shackles.
You really have to wonder when Rachel says something like "I like this game because I can do all these things that are so against what I'd ever do in reality. Of course eventually the boundary between reality and video game will become blurred, and I will be compelled to act out my violent fantasies against my classmates. And it's all because evil corporations prey on weak, susceptible minds like mine, so they can desensitize me to violence and demand more and more violent video games."
I'd love some of these "theories" proven for once. Results are nice, I suppose, but I guess sounding eclectic and enlightened is enough to get the funding. Anyone can spout a wild and "surreal" theory. A real scientist can prove it.
Sorry.
My thoughts exactly. Is there a point to this story?
Stop rewarding these whores for violating YOUR private information! They piss and moan about spam, and then turn around and sell out their friends and family to advertising firms. Shame on you all!
I hate to be a spelling Nazi, but I believe you misspelled "taxpayer-funded".