I've already responded to this sentiment in another post. But I feel compelled to respond to one aspect in particular of yours:
So how about you give up your fair use rights, and any other rights you don't think might be at odds with the "greater good", and I'll happily keep mine thankyouverymuch.
This is what galls me about your point of view. People like you believe that everyone else should do the right thing, but within your solipsistic coccoon, you are free to define a new morality. This is why America is such a bloated, imperial country--when someone else blows some of our stuff up, you want the government to rush blindly to go fight a war for you, but heaven forbid the government takes away some frivolous right to protect the rights of many others.
CD-Ripping leads to piracy. I don't believe that you are foolish enough to think that because you might be playing fair and keeping your mp3 collection to yourself that everyone else in the world is doing the same. The empirical evidence weighs crushingly against you. P2P networks aren't even able to accommodate the massive daily influx of more and then even more subscribers, all of whom seek to pirate music (and software, and movies).
I'm tempted to tell you to choke on a cock, but I don't want that to taint the sincerity of what I'm saying. You are an arrogant american snot. Fair use isn't a right- it's a gift, made in trust. People have abused that trust egregiously. If you don't like it, take it up not with the government but with your fellow citizens.
Really it has to do with a trend towards disregarding annoying laws and disrespecting property. I'm encouraging sane, non-hypocritical behavior. You slashdotters scream willy-nilly if someone violates the GPL, a fucking toy license with no legal precedents. But heaven forbid YOU should have to respect laws in that same arena.
Perhaps my "little social movement" will fall flat. That's a depressing consequence of living in a society of hypocrites.
You'd be surprised, actually. Most Mac users (and PC users too--I only fingered Mac users because Apple was the company in question) that I've encountered have no interest in running a cable between their soundcard and a tape recorder, don't have the cables to do it, or have no idea that a computer soundcard and a tape recorder can even interact. So yeah, in this scenario, I do think that they don't know how to use one.
Like I said- if it's a private institution, you can take your whining to the dean or you can get your education elsewhere. I did concede that this would probably be a rights violation in a state school or something similar.
I suppose you think people should be allowed to keep nuclear weapons and launchers in their backyards, should they so desire. It might be hyperbolic, but some things are obviously used by most people for a predominantly bad purpose. Those things are made illegal.
What about high-end lockpicking kits? A friend of mine (ex-military) has one that's highly illegal--showing me how to use it was probably illegal too. Frankly, I'd rather let a few innocent people not be able to pick their own locks than have criminals have the option of picking mine.
If there were a way to introduce controls on crowbars to make them unusable for auto-theft you'd better fucking believe I think we should do it. Can you give me a real answer why we shouldn't? Or are you a car thief?
Ripping in the vast majority of cases leads to piracy. Sorry. For the sake of the people using mp3s and oggs legitmately, that sucks balls. But it's the truth.
You're confused. I'm saying that perhaps we should consider giving up our love of CD-ripping for the greater good. The fact that it isn't currently in defiance of the law doesn't mean that it isn't somewhat in defiance of the spirit of the law. It's not really worth my time to respond to the rest of your post. Figure it out yourself.
If this is being implemented at state universities, that's one thing, but otherwise I would say that if you don't like it, get your education elsewhere. Cheating devalues everybody's degree, and if you aren't cheating, then why should you care? It's not even invasive, so what gives?
The real question is how to get more institutions to adopt such a system.
"Creating" theft. I never said the ripping was the theft. It does, however, create more opportunity for theft. Vastly more. I'm not frightented of the precedent that would create. It's more akin to outlawing "Moto-Vodka: the drink for drivers who like to see twice the sights." Technically, it might not be used to break the DWI laws but.. FUCKING DUH. Ripping leads to piracy. Nobody believes you when you pretend it doesn't. That's like hiding behind your hand and saying you're invisible.
Ripping in its current, uncontrolled state leads to piracy. Plainly. What's nice is that unlike your examples, we can introduce controls on ripping that would make it uncriminal. I'm down with that, but I would suspect you aren't. You speak with the vituperation of someone who rather likes pirating your music.
Get over yourself. The law should be fair and useful, not idiotic and vague. No wonder we elect demagogues; shitheads like you vote.
Not being able to rip music would substantially reduce music piracy. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. I can't believe you would even suggest that it wouldn't. Luckily, ripping isn't going to stop anytime soon. But from a copyright standpoint, fair use is a dicey issue. Ripping music is MUCH closer to being inextricably linked with music piracy than lighters are to arson.
My point about meth labs (I'll reiterate it, since it seems you missed it) was that Meth Labs exist to create meth. Pseudoephedrine does not exist to create meth. Fertilizer is the primary ingredient of many car bombs. Obviously we should not outlaw fertilizer.
My greater point, however, was that Apple encourages people to rip music who wouldn't otherwise do it. They do. And since ripping is an INTEGRAL part of music piracy, there does seem to be a claim that Apple is obliquely responsible. Ripping your music isn't a copyright violation, but sharing it is. Creating a carbomb isn't terrorism, but detonating it is. If a fertilizer company advertised that fertilizer was also explosive, people would get pretty upset at them.
And re: your request for an example: if someone murders someone else, they have violated the law. Their potential victim could be you. So you are protected. Technically, however, the government is inhibiting you from killing someone you don't like. What a nuisance! I can think of many people I'd like to kill, though I can't. However, I got over it, because it's better that I can't kill them and they can't kill me.
Cool. So you didn't read my last paragraph, I take it.
Ripping music is much more directly related to music piracy than any of those stupid examples you gave anyway. Way to be hyperbolic and predictable. Yeah, drunk drivers have to be in cars, but we don't outlaw cars, therefore we shouldn't outlaw Meth labs, just the meth itself?
Anyway, as my last paragraph stated, I don't care to stop music ripping. As a matter of fact, the ease of music piracy suggests to me that the music industry had better adapt to, rather than resist the coming changes. But your arrogant stupidity astounds me. You forfeit basic "rights" every day without thinking, and it's for the greater good that way. Who's the government to tell you not to steal? You accept the law because it protects you as much as it limits you.
Whoever modded this up misses the point. It's a matter of "creating" theft--there would be no music piracy if people could not rip the music first. And encouraging people to rip CDs and burn them is the first step in creating theft.
Of course blah blah information wants to be free, and you can copy the signal if you really want to, etc etc. But the average Mac user isn't the average Slashdotter; he or she has neither the will nor the knowledge to capture the analog signal, or crack the encryption or whatever. For many of them, Rip-Mix-Burn would not have even been an option until suggested and made easy by Apple.
I'm not saying this makes Apple liable in any way (I'm not sure it doesn't, either; just that I'm not in a position to speculate), but to claim that downloading is the only important step in music piracy is simpleminded in a typically slashdot way.
Yes. But in order for you to distribute it to other people over copyright-flouting P2P networks, you have to rip it first. Even the/. write-up tells us that Disney claims that Apple helps "create" theft. Ripping is an integral part of the theft process, even if by itself it isn't necessarily theft.
This is far more unsettling than you let on. Not only does Donald not wear pants, but the fact that he wraps a towel around his waist after showering indicates that he should be wearing pants, and would be if he weren't such a gosh-darn pervert.
At the moment he may actually have a point. I can't think of any open source companies making billions of dollars, and I can't really foresee it in the near future.
However, this is likely to change as open source alternatives become real, viable alternatives, and develop solid reputations. At that point, the tables may turn, and company representatives will say "software companies that don't allow user modification of their software and who require far more R&D can't possibly survive."
While Microsoft is currently the dominant paradigm, there is no reason to suspect that they will remain that way forever. As in all cases in the capitalist model, their success has been determined by equal parts skill and luck, and they will eventually sink into the background again.
Remember, though most Slashdotters use GPL software for "freedom" reasons, there are legitimate business reasons to use free software that will only continue to grow as the software base matures.
Makes you wonder how such an intelligently run business could have possibly been forced to switch protocols. Makes you wonder how intentional this protocol switch is at all.
No wonder you laugh in their faces; you certainly couldn't posit these arguments to my face.
Just about everything you said is idiotic. I wouldn't be so harsh except that I figure if you're so keen on dishing it out, you'll probably be alright with taking it.
What we need to look at is the *effects* of otherworldly life, and i'm not talking about the "face of Mars"...i'm talking about other signs, real signs of unnatural form/structure in space. We need to quit anthropomorphizing possible alien life and we need to quit looking for life "as we know it."
Yeah? What the hell are you talking about? How can we quit anthropomorphizing possible aliens while simultaneously looking for expected effects of alien intelligence? Here's a hint: we look for life that is like we are because we are the only example of life we know. Your theory about giants living in stars is cute, but until you find an example of one of those that's as real as the life here on earth, I'm going to have a tough time believing that that's an acceptable alternative.
What's amazing about life on earth is the lack of diversity. Yeah, that's right. Given some of the extreme isolation our planet has afforded some organisms, we are able to easily perceive and study all life on earth. Nearly all organisms respire, and those that don't can be understood anyway. I find this remarkable. It may be that life on a planet like earth is predisposed to develop like earthly life. That's not too hard to believe, considering that it DID.
Of course there may be extreme life out there that we would never be able to communicate with even if they were living on the moon. Why the fuck would we want to find them? We want to find intelligent life with whom we'd be able to interact and eventually forge some sort of diplomacy with. This means that we look for planets that would evolve similar life to ours; sun-giants are quite out of the question.
Whomever should never be used as the subject in a sentence. Whoever. Whoever. Whoever.
Normally I doubt I would be moved to complaint, but accusations of illiteracy with such pretentious mistakes as improperly using "whomever" piss me off.
How the shit was this offtopic? It's a valid question inspired by the article. I.E., could not be more on-topic. Obviously the moderator did not read the article.
The singular form of criteria is criterion. It comes from Greek.
You're further wrong when you finger "agenda" is a plural--the word agenda means "things having to be done," that is, a list of things having to be done.
Color me pink if this sort of frivolity is exactly the sort of thing that makes such prolix and intimidating EULAs necessary. Imagine if Slashdot were liable if someone clicked a goatse.cx link and had a heart attack (lord knows I nearly did--until I learned to love it).
The legal system is in place to uphold justice. Unless you can prove that Microsoft did it on purpose (or were grossly negligent--which even Slashdotters should be able to realize they were certainly not), this will remain a GNU/Wet Dream.
As others have said, making wide and snotty proclamations about the capabilities of science and assuming that those capabilities will stay constant is a recipe for embarrassment. You would almost have had a point if you had claimed that the development in the womb (protein interaction etc) has more to do with the resulting person than the DNA. In the future, though, look for babies cultured in tubes (or artificial wombs, if tubes make you nervous) rather than gestated in wombs; i.e., we will certain reach a point where we will be able to control every stage of the development process. And if we can do that, we can probably "flash" brains with the upbringing we want them to have. Artificial intelligence will make the creating of these artificial upbringings pretty easy.
I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing. But you are far too myopic and arrogant for your own good.
I sincerely hope that the next time you try to eat a cake, it is in fact a huge piece of your mother's shit, and you notice this sad reality halfway through the meal. That is the extent to which I hate you.
Slashdot Mirror
I've already responded to this sentiment in another post. But I feel compelled to respond to one aspect in particular of yours:
So how about you give up your fair use rights, and any other rights you don't think might be at odds with the "greater good", and I'll happily keep mine thankyouverymuch.
This is what galls me about your point of view. People like you believe that everyone else should do the right thing, but within your solipsistic coccoon, you are free to define a new morality. This is why America is such a bloated, imperial country--when someone else blows some of our stuff up, you want the government to rush blindly to go fight a war for you, but heaven forbid the government takes away some frivolous right to protect the rights of many others.
CD-Ripping leads to piracy. I don't believe that you are foolish enough to think that because you might be playing fair and keeping your mp3 collection to yourself that everyone else in the world is doing the same. The empirical evidence weighs crushingly against you. P2P networks aren't even able to accommodate the massive daily influx of more and then even more subscribers, all of whom seek to pirate music (and software, and movies).
I'm tempted to tell you to choke on a cock, but I don't want that to taint the sincerity of what I'm saying. You are an arrogant american snot. Fair use isn't a right- it's a gift, made in trust. People have abused that trust egregiously. If you don't like it, take it up not with the government but with your fellow citizens.
Really it has to do with a trend towards disregarding annoying laws and disrespecting property. I'm encouraging sane, non-hypocritical behavior. You slashdotters scream willy-nilly if someone violates the GPL, a fucking toy license with no legal precedents. But heaven forbid YOU should have to respect laws in that same arena.
Perhaps my "little social movement" will fall flat. That's a depressing consequence of living in a society of hypocrites.
You'd be surprised, actually. Most Mac users (and PC users too--I only fingered Mac users because Apple was the company in question) that I've encountered have no interest in running a cable between their soundcard and a tape recorder, don't have the cables to do it, or have no idea that a computer soundcard and a tape recorder can even interact. So yeah, in this scenario, I do think that they don't know how to use one.
Like I said- if it's a private institution, you can take your whining to the dean or you can get your education elsewhere. I did concede that this would probably be a rights violation in a state school or something similar.
I suppose you think people should be allowed to keep nuclear weapons and launchers in their backyards, should they so desire. It might be hyperbolic, but some things are obviously used by most people for a predominantly bad purpose. Those things are made illegal.
What about high-end lockpicking kits? A friend of mine (ex-military) has one that's highly illegal--showing me how to use it was probably illegal too. Frankly, I'd rather let a few innocent people not be able to pick their own locks than have criminals have the option of picking mine.
If there were a way to introduce controls on crowbars to make them unusable for auto-theft you'd better fucking believe I think we should do it. Can you give me a real answer why we shouldn't? Or are you a car thief?
Ripping in the vast majority of cases leads to piracy. Sorry. For the sake of the people using mp3s and oggs legitmately, that sucks balls. But it's the truth.
Pro musicians would be pretty hypocritical to be pirating music. I guess that went over your head too.
You're confused. I'm saying that perhaps we should consider giving up our love of CD-ripping for the greater good. The fact that it isn't currently in defiance of the law doesn't mean that it isn't somewhat in defiance of the spirit of the law. It's not really worth my time to respond to the rest of your post. Figure it out yourself.
If this is being implemented at state universities, that's one thing, but otherwise I would say that if you don't like it, get your education elsewhere. Cheating devalues everybody's degree, and if you aren't cheating, then why should you care? It's not even invasive, so what gives?
The real question is how to get more institutions to adopt such a system.
Ha-ha.
"Creating" theft. I never said the ripping was the theft. It does, however, create more opportunity for theft. Vastly more. I'm not frightented of the precedent that would create. It's more akin to outlawing "Moto-Vodka: the drink for drivers who like to see twice the sights." Technically, it might not be used to break the DWI laws but.. FUCKING DUH. Ripping leads to piracy. Nobody believes you when you pretend it doesn't. That's like hiding behind your hand and saying you're invisible.
Ripping in its current, uncontrolled state leads to piracy. Plainly. What's nice is that unlike your examples, we can introduce controls on ripping that would make it uncriminal. I'm down with that, but I would suspect you aren't. You speak with the vituperation of someone who rather likes pirating your music.
Get over yourself. The law should be fair and useful, not idiotic and vague. No wonder we elect demagogues; shitheads like you vote.
Not being able to rip music would substantially reduce music piracy. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. I can't believe you would even suggest that it wouldn't. Luckily, ripping isn't going to stop anytime soon. But from a copyright standpoint, fair use is a dicey issue. Ripping music is MUCH closer to being inextricably linked with music piracy than lighters are to arson.
My point about meth labs (I'll reiterate it, since it seems you missed it) was that Meth Labs exist to create meth. Pseudoephedrine does not exist to create meth. Fertilizer is the primary ingredient of many car bombs. Obviously we should not outlaw fertilizer.
My greater point, however, was that Apple encourages people to rip music who wouldn't otherwise do it. They do. And since ripping is an INTEGRAL part of music piracy, there does seem to be a claim that Apple is obliquely responsible. Ripping your music isn't a copyright violation, but sharing it is. Creating a carbomb isn't terrorism, but detonating it is. If a fertilizer company advertised that fertilizer was also explosive, people would get pretty upset at them.
And re: your request for an example: if someone murders someone else, they have violated the law. Their potential victim could be you. So you are protected. Technically, however, the government is inhibiting you from killing someone you don't like. What a nuisance! I can think of many people I'd like to kill, though I can't. However, I got over it, because it's better that I can't kill them and they can't kill me.
Cool. So you didn't read my last paragraph, I take it.
Ripping music is much more directly related to music piracy than any of those stupid examples you gave anyway. Way to be hyperbolic and predictable. Yeah, drunk drivers have to be in cars, but we don't outlaw cars, therefore we shouldn't outlaw Meth labs, just the meth itself?
Anyway, as my last paragraph stated, I don't care to stop music ripping. As a matter of fact, the ease of music piracy suggests to me that the music industry had better adapt to, rather than resist the coming changes. But your arrogant stupidity astounds me. You forfeit basic "rights" every day without thinking, and it's for the greater good that way. Who's the government to tell you not to steal? You accept the law because it protects you as much as it limits you.
Welcome to reality. Cheers!
Whoever modded this up misses the point. It's a matter of "creating" theft--there would be no music piracy if people could not rip the music first. And encouraging people to rip CDs and burn them is the first step in creating theft.
Of course blah blah information wants to be free, and you can copy the signal if you really want to, etc etc. But the average Mac user isn't the average Slashdotter; he or she has neither the will nor the knowledge to capture the analog signal, or crack the encryption or whatever. For many of them, Rip-Mix-Burn would not have even been an option until suggested and made easy by Apple.
I'm not saying this makes Apple liable in any way (I'm not sure it doesn't, either; just that I'm not in a position to speculate), but to claim that downloading is the only important step in music piracy is simpleminded in a typically slashdot way.
Yes. But in order for you to distribute it to other people over copyright-flouting P2P networks, you have to rip it first. Even the /. write-up tells us that Disney claims that Apple helps "create" theft. Ripping is an integral part of the theft process, even if by itself it isn't necessarily theft.
This is far more unsettling than you let on. Not only does Donald not wear pants, but the fact that he wraps a towel around his waist after showering indicates that he should be wearing pants, and would be if he weren't such a gosh-darn pervert.
Anyone have any information about duck phalluses?
At the moment he may actually have a point. I can't think of any open source companies making billions of dollars, and I can't really foresee it in the near future.
However, this is likely to change as open source alternatives become real, viable alternatives, and develop solid reputations. At that point, the tables may turn, and company representatives will say "software companies that don't allow user modification of their software and who require far more R&D can't possibly survive."
While Microsoft is currently the dominant paradigm, there is no reason to suspect that they will remain that way forever. As in all cases in the capitalist model, their success has been determined by equal parts skill and luck, and they will eventually sink into the background again.
Remember, though most Slashdotters use GPL software for "freedom" reasons, there are legitimate business reasons to use free software that will only continue to grow as the software base matures.
Makes you wonder how such an intelligently run business could have possibly been forced to switch protocols. Makes you wonder how intentional this protocol switch is at all.
No wonder you laugh in their faces; you certainly couldn't posit these arguments to my face.
Just about everything you said is idiotic. I wouldn't be so harsh except that I figure if you're so keen on dishing it out, you'll probably be alright with taking it.
What we need to look at is the *effects* of otherworldly life, and i'm not talking about the "face of Mars"...i'm talking about other signs, real signs of unnatural form/structure in space. We need to quit anthropomorphizing possible alien life and we need to quit looking for life "as we know it."
Yeah? What the hell are you talking about? How can we quit anthropomorphizing possible aliens while simultaneously looking for expected effects of alien intelligence? Here's a hint: we look for life that is like we are because we are the only example of life we know. Your theory about giants living in stars is cute, but until you find an example of one of those that's as real as the life here on earth, I'm going to have a tough time believing that that's an acceptable alternative.
What's amazing about life on earth is the lack of diversity. Yeah, that's right. Given some of the extreme isolation our planet has afforded some organisms, we are able to easily perceive and study all life on earth. Nearly all organisms respire, and those that don't can be understood anyway. I find this remarkable. It may be that life on a planet like earth is predisposed to develop like earthly life. That's not too hard to believe, considering that it DID.
Of course there may be extreme life out there that we would never be able to communicate with even if they were living on the moon. Why the fuck would we want to find them? We want to find intelligent life with whom we'd be able to interact and eventually forge some sort of diplomacy with. This means that we look for planets that would evolve similar life to ours; sun-giants are quite out of the question.
Whomever should never be used as the subject in a sentence. Whoever. Whoever. Whoever.
Normally I doubt I would be moved to complaint, but accusations of illiteracy with such pretentious mistakes as improperly using "whomever" piss me off.
How the shit was this offtopic? It's a valid question inspired by the article. I.E., could not be more on-topic. Obviously the moderator did not read the article.
Or, as it turns out, not at all.
The singular form of criteria is criterion. It comes from Greek.
You're further wrong when you finger "agenda" is a plural--the word agenda means "things having to be done," that is, a list of things having to be done.
Color me pink if this sort of frivolity is exactly the sort of thing that makes such prolix and intimidating EULAs necessary. Imagine if Slashdot were liable if someone clicked a goatse.cx link and had a heart attack (lord knows I nearly did--until I learned to love it).
The legal system is in place to uphold justice. Unless you can prove that Microsoft did it on purpose (or were grossly negligent--which even Slashdotters should be able to realize they were certainly not), this will remain a GNU/Wet Dream.
But I think we're all wondering: does it run Linux? If so, why? ..
And.. imagine a Beowulf cluster of these! Imagine a Beowulf cluster of erect penises!
Who modded this up?
As others have said, making wide and snotty proclamations about the capabilities of science and assuming that those capabilities will stay constant is a recipe for embarrassment. You would almost have had a point if you had claimed that the development in the womb (protein interaction etc) has more to do with the resulting person than the DNA. In the future, though, look for babies cultured in tubes (or artificial wombs, if tubes make you nervous) rather than gestated in wombs; i.e., we will certain reach a point where we will be able to control every stage of the development process. And if we can do that, we can probably "flash" brains with the upbringing we want them to have. Artificial intelligence will make the creating of these artificial upbringings pretty easy.
I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing. But you are far too myopic and arrogant for your own good.
I sincerely hope that the next time you try to eat a cake, it is in fact a huge piece of your mother's shit, and you notice this sad reality halfway through the meal. That is the extent to which I hate you.
+1 first post! euphoria!