There is no difference if it results in a potential loss of sales or revenue.
There is a HUGE difference. If someone steals a physical object, you're always out the cost of the physical object. If someone steals a software producct, and they weren't planning on buying it anyway (how many people who steal Maya would ever, ever buy it?), then this theft has cost you not one red cent. $X of piracy does NOT equal $X of lost revenue.
Right, and if this were the case, but Ferrari's had the same cost they do now, you'd expect to see a warez scene for car. Basically, everyone who opposes warez would oppose ferrari reproduction, everyone who supports warez would support ferrari reproduction. The ferrari analogy, with matter reproduction added, becomes valid, but is no longer a tool for argument.
What the crap are you talking about? Didn't just recently (shortly before or after the release of 1.0) get OpenOffice working on OS X? I remember running n OS X version from a few months ago that was incredibly ugly and somewhat buggy...I have zero confidence that OS X has taken the lead on OO compatibility. OO has worked on Windows for much longer.
I submit that one need not and should not consult the highest ideal and form a goal of the ideal universe, then dedicate your entire life to making it so. The world is a beautiful place, and should be enjoyed as it is, rather than shaped into a warped reflection of human desire. Watch the world carefully, and it will probably present you a world even better than your highest ideal.
Of course its a basic characteristic of humanity. Its not a cultural product.
The idea that work is bad-- that's a cultural idea
Two sides of the same coin--if thinking that work is bad is a cultural idea, then thinking it is good must be as well. I don't think it's bad either--I just don't think it's a goal in and of itself. You might enjoy your work, if so, go to it. You might need to work to do what you enjoy, if so, again, go to it.
But to believe that life wouldn't be worthwhile without work--to not see the value of life and existance outside of work, even outside of creation--well, I feel very sorry for anyone who could put such a simplistic worldview into practice.
Are you saying that if you had all the money you need you'd spend the rest of your days in your underwear eating Cheetos?
I might. Or I might wander through the wilderness in quiet contemplation. Or analyze great tomes of philosophy in the Library. Journey across the world.
Talk to interesting people. I
It strikes me as sad that so many (perhaps not yourself) wouldn't be able to find something to do without asking some company or government for a job...
The need to WORK in order to satisfy that need, if not the need itself, is most certainly CULTURAL (and probably a product of Puritan-thinking America), not a basic characteristic of human instinct.
Show me a Doctor, Sociologist, Ecologist, or Economist who says "I don't know", and I'll show you someone who won't be getting funding next fiscal year.
You won't find this easily on the web. (Wonder why?) You have to, (horrors!) go look it up in a bricks and mortar library.
This crap isn't insightful. You mean to tell me there's some kind of horrible conspiracy censoring the entire internet keeping studies it doesn't like off? That's moronic. A horrible conspiracy preventing funding of the studies in the first place--THAT I can believe. That they aren't broadcasted on television--THAT I can believe. TV is controlled by a few corporate interests. But once the studies are done, no corporation can order them off the internet. The only one who can prevent the study being on the internet is the author of the study.
And I'd also like to say that before the internet, people didn't look things up in the brick and mortar library, they just didn't look shit up!
Wrong. The term is used in many (if not most) non-english speaking countries.
Whether it sounds the same or if it's of the form , no, it isn't the same term. It's in another language, and for the purpose of figuring out whether the English word for you-know-what is football, it's not relevant.
Soccer also exists in Australia and Canada. "Football" probably doesn't exist in most non-English speaking lands. It's highly possible that if you threw all English-speaking people together, showed them a man kicking a black and white ball, asked them what it was called, that most would say "soccer". But it's not likely, as I think they call it "football" in India.
Yeah, but he's leeching off the enemy by disregarding laws many of us don't consider worthwhile laws. Hoist your banner, foolish theif, for I will salute!
Not really that worrying.
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 2
I don't find myself particularly worried about this survey. It's from an organization with an interest in getting everyone worried about how everyone else wants to surrender their freedom, yet most of the percentages listed in the article were still below 50%.
And even if a majority did support rolling back freedom, civil liberties fans can still count on an NRA effect--a majority of Americans seem to want further restrictions on guns, but more of those who want to keep guns tend to vote solely on the basis of the gun issue. Likewise, I think there are a lot of obsessed civil libertarians--if there were a serious assualt on Amendment One, they would become better organized (though this effect is mitigated by civil libertarians focus on the judiciary rather than the legislature as a target for activism.)
Also, although I don't agree that the First Amendment has gone too far, I don't find this such a radical, offensive position either. I don't think school should have a pledge of allegiance (this issue probably has more of an impact on American's perception of the First Amendment than the War on Terror) and I think Nazis should be free to scream and holler as much as they want, but I'm not so silly as to believe I'd be living in a Police state if my wishes on these issues do not become reality. We'd have to go a long, long way before there was any significant legal impediment to criticizing the government. Indeed, the concentration of news media in to the hands of a few corporations frightens me a lot more, and the First Amendment has nothing to say regarding that.
Everyone here cries foul when someone violates the GPL, and no one chastises the author of the software for it (recent xvid fiasco) but if it's another license, whoooo boy, watch out. the hypocricy comes out to play!
Dumbass. There is no hypocrisy. People who support the GPL would prefer if there were NO software licenses, including the GPL. Restrictive licenses are bad. If someone violates the GPL by putting a restrictive license on your software, that's bad. If someone violates a restrictive license, I don't particularly care.
The GPL is a software license designed to prevent software licenses. If you think it's hypocrisy to support that but oppose regular software licenses, well, you're retarded.
In those terms it doesn't sound so horrible. But think of all that free software that's basically illegal no matter how much the developer pays--because the developer has no way to control how many copies of BSD/GPL software are made (this being the point of said software.)
So, in reality, it really sucks. Many man hours of labor annihilated (or at least the fruits of said labor now made completely illegal.)
Okay, so bringing the discussion back to the topic at hand, by letting people use my CD burner without watching them I'm being irresponsible? Since we've now left the domain of abstract legalism, the difference of scale between dead people and copied music becomes important--the potential of dead bodies compels a decent human being to restrict his fellow man, the potential of stolen music doesn't compel much of anything.
The part about water in caffeine drinks counting towards you're recommended intake struck me as most contrary to my own anecdotal expereience--it seems like whenever I drink anything caffeinated, I'm thirsty for water shortly afterwards. I suppose this discrepancy is either in my head, a bizarre artifact of my own physiology, or a misinterpretation of the abstract linked to here.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a HUGE difference. If someone steals a physical object, you're always out the cost of the physical object. If someone steals a software producct, and they weren't planning on buying it anyway (how many people who steal Maya would ever, ever buy it?), then this theft has cost you not one red cent. $X of piracy does NOT equal $X of lost revenue.
Right, and if this were the case, but Ferrari's had the same cost they do now, you'd expect to see a warez scene for car. Basically, everyone who opposes warez would oppose ferrari reproduction, everyone who supports warez would support ferrari reproduction. The ferrari analogy, with matter reproduction added, becomes valid, but is no longer a tool for argument.
I've got Mozilla 1.2a, and I can't find this TypeAheadFind feture at all. What am I missing?
What the crap are you talking about? Didn't just recently (shortly before or after the release of 1.0) get OpenOffice working on OS X? I remember running n OS X version from a few months ago that was incredibly ugly and somewhat buggy...I have zero confidence that OS X has taken the lead on OO compatibility. OO has worked on Windows for much longer.
We don't buy bread for $10 a loaf because sliced bread, humanity's greatest invention, had it's patent expire a long time ago.
The things I mentioned weren't for the purpose of achieving some goal. They were to be enjoyed as they were being done.
I submit that one need not and should not consult the highest ideal and form a goal of the ideal universe, then dedicate your entire life to making it so. The world is a beautiful place, and should be enjoyed as it is, rather than shaped into a warped reflection of human desire. Watch the world carefully, and it will probably present you a world even better than your highest ideal.
Two sides of the same coin--if thinking that work is bad is a cultural idea, then thinking it is good must be as well. I don't think it's bad either--I just don't think it's a goal in and of itself. You might enjoy your work, if so, go to it. You might need to work to do what you enjoy, if so, again, go to it.
But to believe that life wouldn't be worthwhile without work--to not see the value of life and existance outside of work, even outside of creation--well, I feel very sorry for anyone who could put such a simplistic worldview into practice.
I might. Or I might wander through the wilderness in quiet contemplation. Or analyze great tomes of philosophy in the Library. Journey across the world. Talk to interesting people. I
It strikes me as sad that so many (perhaps not yourself) wouldn't be able to find something to do without asking some company or government for a job...
The need to WORK in order to satisfy that need, if not the need itself, is most certainly CULTURAL (and probably a product of Puritan-thinking America), not a basic characteristic of human instinct.
Show me a Doctor, Sociologist, Ecologist, or Economist who says "I don't know", and I'll show you someone who won't be getting funding next fiscal year.
Ture, but Western Science and Medicine are surely the worst offenders in this regard.
This crap isn't insightful. You mean to tell me there's some kind of horrible conspiracy censoring the entire internet keeping studies it doesn't like off? That's moronic. A horrible conspiracy preventing funding of the studies in the first place--THAT I can believe. That they aren't broadcasted on television--THAT I can believe. TV is controlled by a few corporate interests. But once the studies are done, no corporation can order them off the internet. The only one who can prevent the study being on the internet is the author of the study.
And I'd also like to say that before the internet, people didn't look things up in the brick and mortar library, they just didn't look shit up!
Whether it sounds the same or if it's of the form , no, it isn't the same term. It's in another language, and for the purpose of figuring out whether the English word for you-know-what is football, it's not relevant.
Soccer also exists in Australia and Canada. "Football" probably doesn't exist in most non-English speaking lands. It's highly possible that if you threw all English-speaking people together, showed them a man kicking a black and white ball, asked them what it was called, that most would say "soccer". But it's not likely, as I think they call it "football" in India.
Yeah, but he's leeching off the enemy by disregarding laws many of us don't consider worthwhile laws. Hoist your banner, foolish theif, for I will salute!
And even if a majority did support rolling back freedom, civil liberties fans can still count on an NRA effect--a majority of Americans seem to want further restrictions on guns, but more of those who want to keep guns tend to vote solely on the basis of the gun issue. Likewise, I think there are a lot of obsessed civil libertarians--if there were a serious assualt on Amendment One, they would become better organized (though this effect is mitigated by civil libertarians focus on the judiciary rather than the legislature as a target for activism.)
Also, although I don't agree that the First Amendment has gone too far, I don't find this such a radical, offensive position either. I don't think school should have a pledge of allegiance (this issue probably has more of an impact on American's perception of the First Amendment than the War on Terror) and I think Nazis should be free to scream and holler as much as they want, but I'm not so silly as to believe I'd be living in a Police state if my wishes on these issues do not become reality. We'd have to go a long, long way before there was any significant legal impediment to criticizing the government. Indeed, the concentration of news media in to the hands of a few corporations frightens me a lot more, and the First Amendment has nothing to say regarding that.
Dumbass. There is no hypocrisy. People who support the GPL would prefer if there were NO software licenses, including the GPL. Restrictive licenses are bad. If someone violates the GPL by putting a restrictive license on your software, that's bad. If someone violates a restrictive license, I don't particularly care.
The GPL is a software license designed to prevent software licenses. If you think it's hypocrisy to support that but oppose regular software licenses, well, you're retarded.
In those terms it doesn't sound so horrible. But think of all that free software that's basically illegal no matter how much the developer pays--because the developer has no way to control how many copies of BSD/GPL software are made (this being the point of said software.)
So, in reality, it really sucks. Many man hours of labor annihilated (or at least the fruits of said labor now made completely illegal.)
canadian?!!! i totally resent that!! I am a master of uneducated trailer trash technology!
what the ... my Coca-cola aluminum can mobile would become totally useless!!! Down with the EU!!!!!!
the natives never use capital letters
Okay, so bringing the discussion back to the topic at hand, by letting people use my CD burner without watching them I'm being irresponsible? Since we've now left the domain of abstract legalism, the difference of scale between dead people and copied music becomes important--the potential of dead bodies compels a decent human being to restrict his fellow man, the potential of stolen music doesn't compel much of anything.
man after reading your post i really have to go for some reason!!!!!!!
The part about water in caffeine drinks counting towards you're recommended intake struck me as most contrary to my own anecdotal expereience--it seems like whenever I drink anything caffeinated, I'm thirsty for water shortly afterwards. I suppose this discrepancy is either in my head, a bizarre artifact of my own physiology, or a misinterpretation of the abstract linked to here.