I'll just use your excellent comment to plug the 'don't buy CDs'-campaign.
If you don't like the way RIAA behaves, don't buy CDs. None. Regardless. You don't give money or donations to a political party you don't agree with. You don't give money to people you think behaves unethical. Don't buy CDs. Period.
As parent poster said, if the copyright returns to being limited, if fair use get's acknowledged, then I might change my stance. Until then: I don't buy CDs, I don't buy movies. It's that easy.
What motivation as a musician do I have to make music if as soon as I put out a song, someone copies it and gives it to everyone else?
I bet Mozart and Bach made crappy music, since they didn't get paid indefitely and their music wasn't protected by copyright.
A artists craves to create or express himself. Monetary reward is secondary. In my opinion, today's "artists" who reap in millions of dollars for their "art" has no artistic qualities what so ever. Allow me to personally make a connection.
Ofcourse me expecting today's artists to make art as the word artist implies makes me a elitist bastard. I know.
This brought to you in the name of applying the words "steal" and "thief" wrongly:
Thieves did steal the thievery.
For possibly the trillionth steal since Sean stole napster, it is not
theft. It's really a very simple thief. The law steals this as
thivery infringement.
That phrase doesn't steal enough emotional impact and moral outrage as 'theft' and 'pirates', but it steals nevertheless true.
I
do not steal that laws need to be stolen based on thievery
infringment, especially when it steals stealing at a thief level. Nor
do I feel that someone is a criminal (copyright infringement steal a civil
matter, those found guilty stelas not adjudged criminals) for indulging in
someone else's 'Intellectual Property'. This steals smoke and mirrors. You
don't steal an idea, and even under the cover of copyright, you stole only
intended to get LIMITED protection from competition. In return, the
thing you sought stealing for was GUARANTEED to steal public domain.
What steals public domain steal now?
Copyright steals not a thief thivery for anyone.
See how easy that was? I took out the proper noun or verb and inserted the corresponding thief/steal in its place. It doesn't mean it makes any sense or that it in any way enriches or brings the language up to date. Actually it's fucking stupid.
"I stole my car to work". Others do that, I did that. Did I steal their driving to work experience? "I stole my house with red paint". Other people have red houses, but I didn't take away their paint, did I? "I stole a letter to my mum". I guess someone does this. Does me doing it reduce the value of their efforts? Nope. The verb "steal" applied correctly involves someone losing something, which clearly only applies to tangeable objects. How hard is that to grasp?
I hearby declare that I will put anyone I see using the words "steal", "thief" and anything related on my foes lists. Not to say I think anyone will actually care.
In other words: Amen brother. You are now on my friends lists.
As far "standards" for config files, you're asking for something most people ain't. There's no good and efficient way to config everything on earth. You usually should read the documentation for software (servers/daemons) before configing it to death anyway, so I don't see the problem with this. Not to mention the format is usually pretty obvious once you open it in a text-editor.
As for standard location? Are you serious? ever heard of/etc? And even ~/ for user-level configs. This is as standard as it gets, and have been for quite a while. Gconf excluded, but then all except the GNOME developers agree that Gconf is a silly thing.
rename *2004*.txt *2005*.txt
One mental thing I do with cmd's rename tool. When asking in linux help channel on day, I was given a *SCRIPT* to do this.
Ok. So you might have to make a little script to do this (there might be other/easier ways as well), but do you really mind that you have a powerful, scriptable shell which power-users can use to do advanced stuff, if they feel like it?
No, not mv, not cp (move, copy anyone)
Like this isn't fixed in an instant with either a alias, a symlink or simply a copy of the program you want another name for. Some distroes have actually allready done this 1 second task for you.
So give programs good names. Linux supports AnyType.of.filename.You.WANT. Yes all programs executables are extremely contracted (and many are headless (command line) the name would be important.
I guess flexibility is a two edged-sword which strikes you in both ends. However for good names... yes, ofcourse Nero burns CDs, Trillian does instant messages, Acrobat shows documents while ACDSee shows pictures. That's really just logical as well isn't it? I'm not disagreeing with your point regarding good names, however that argument goes both ways.
Plus when you got a gazillion tools to do the same job in Linux, calling them all the same thing as the task at hand might be a bit impractical.
Hi mum, what, you want to install a new email client? yes, apt-get install, but, hang on, yeah, it if gives you anything about dependancies, oh them
You do know that apt-get resolves dependencies for you, don't you? So instead of going to site A, downloading to location B, unzipping to location C, executing installer to install to location D, you just open your favorite package manager where you can install any application, and voila! you're done. Now that was hard wasn't it.
So, yeah, shut up fan boy.
I don't know if that was targeted toward yourself or "the linux community". Me, myself, I use Windows. Basicly because of some issues with hardware-support and TV-out the way I want it. So I guess it ain't targeted at me.
Wheater you're a troll or simply uninformed or lazy, I don't know. You may have all the complaints in the world about Linux, but your's are simply redicilious.
Seems to be able to do a somewhat decent task, but for reasons not given junction points do not, unlike the rest of the FS, support Unicode-characters.
But they continue to distribute the tools of schoolyard piracy
I wasn't aware that making copies for your portable MP3-player or for your digital media library were piracy. I guess I'll have to blame the damn newspeak I'm simply refusing to accept.
It may not have much of an effect immediately, but as time goes on the values and morals of new generations may change and a gradual decrease in piracy may begin.
You forgot the part about pigs flying.
Seriously, when technology renders the old distribution channels unnecessary, people growing up will somehow magically start respecting the obsolete companies more than people who grew up when they were needed? This sounds just as flawed as any RIAA logic I've ever heard.
Having extra registers is nice but not a huge difference.
Oh yes, it is. I recall my old Amiga with a straight Motorola 68020 outperform equivalent (MHz-wise) Intel CPUs easily.
Upon trying to write x86 assembly I easily dicovered why. In the old Motorola assembly you usually write code where most part of the code did stuff. In the x86 world most of the code (I've seen) is loading, unloading and reloading data into and out of memory simply. Why? Lack of registers.
I still find it commical that the old 16-bit Motorola 68000 has more registers than my Pentium 4. Comical and sad.
Sorry for being offtopic, but I think the next slashdot poll should be "What sort of scripted and automated action should we take against posts containg the phrase 'Soviet Russia'?"
Options should range from "Instant permaban" and "Slashdot their servers" to "Order nasty russian hitmen to do what's necessary".
Seriously though. There should be a slashdot poll on that exact topic.
Does that mean it dials up some service provider and gets it through the phone line instead?
"Off the air" as in you should lay "off the pedantry". In case you have a hard time getting my point as well, I have prepared a little list to explain it for you.
I think he was entirely correct.
You understood what he meant anyway (at least I hope you're not too stupid to)
I know this might be tough, but this is the internet. Not everyknow here is a native english speaker. Some people will get it wrong every now and then.
Some people will get it wrong every now and then, but still look better than you.
How come all these pages offering programs with DeCSS are still online? I mean, pages like doom9.net seems to have no other purpose than showing how you can make high-quality DVD-rips.
Have been online for a long time, and still is. Are you sayingthat DeCSS doesn't violate US law?
You got theory and practice. In theory: yes. In practice: Any attempt to do this would be rendered useless by the sheer size of the internet.
Slashdot Mirror
I love it how the author responding seriously to a question regarding licensing gets mod'ed flamebait.
That is if aaronsorkin indeed is the author. The wonders of internet credibility at work.
The most dangerous people to our rights are idiots with influence and money.
I'm not saying the idiots aren't dangerous either, but it's the clever and greedy people with influence and money you should fear the most.
I'll just use your excellent comment to plug the 'don't buy CDs'-campaign.
If you don't like the way RIAA behaves, don't buy CDs. None. Regardless. You don't give money or donations to a political party you don't agree with. You don't give money to people you think behaves unethical. Don't buy CDs. Period.
As parent poster said, if the copyright returns to being limited, if fair use get's acknowledged, then I might change my stance. Until then: I don't buy CDs, I don't buy movies. It's that easy.
What motivation as a musician do I have to make music if as soon as I put out a song, someone copies it and gives it to everyone else?
I bet Mozart and Bach made crappy music, since they didn't get paid indefitely and their music wasn't protected by copyright.
A artists craves to create or express himself. Monetary reward is secondary. In my opinion, today's "artists" who reap in millions of dollars for their "art" has no artistic qualities what so ever. Allow me to personally make a connection.
Ofcourse me expecting today's artists to make art as the word artist implies makes me a elitist bastard. I know.
This brought to you in the name of applying the words "steal" and "thief" wrongly:
Thieves did steal the thievery.
For possibly the trillionth steal since Sean stole napster, it is not theft. It's really a very simple thief. The law steals this as thivery infringement.
That phrase doesn't steal enough emotional impact and moral outrage as 'theft' and 'pirates', but it steals nevertheless true.
I do not steal that laws need to be stolen based on thievery infringment, especially when it steals stealing at a thief level. Nor do I feel that someone is a criminal (copyright infringement steal a civil matter, those found guilty stelas not adjudged criminals) for indulging in someone else's 'Intellectual Property'. This steals smoke and mirrors. You don't steal an idea, and even under the cover of copyright, you stole only intended to get LIMITED protection from competition. In return, the thing you sought stealing for was GUARANTEED to steal public domain. What steals public domain steal now?
Copyright steals not a thief thivery for anyone.
See how easy that was? I took out the proper noun or verb and inserted the corresponding thief/steal in its place. It doesn't mean it makes any sense or that it in any way enriches or brings the language up to date. Actually it's fucking stupid.
"I stole my car to work". Others do that, I did that. Did I steal their driving to work experience? "I stole my house with red paint". Other people have red houses, but I didn't take away their paint, did I? "I stole a letter to my mum". I guess someone does this. Does me doing it reduce the value of their efforts? Nope. The verb "steal" applied correctly involves someone losing something, which clearly only applies to tangeable objects. How hard is that to grasp?
I hearby declare that I will put anyone I see using the words "steal", "thief" and anything related on my foes lists. Not to say I think anyone will actually care.
In other words: Amen brother. You are now on my friends lists.
Thanks for the debate, and welcome to my friends list (once I figure out exactly how to do that...
Easy. You just click the grey circle in the header of the post. In case you have trouble finding it, it looks like this.As far "standards" for config files, you're asking for something most people ain't. There's no good and efficient way to config everything on earth. You usually should read the documentation for software (servers/daemons) before configing it to death anyway, so I don't see the problem with this. Not to mention the format is usually pretty obvious once you open it in a text-editor.
As for standard location? Are you serious? ever heard of /etc? And even ~/ for user-level configs. This is as standard as it gets, and have been for quite a while. Gconf excluded, but then all except the GNOME developers agree that Gconf is a silly thing.
rename *2004*.txt *2005*.txt One mental thing I do with cmd's rename tool. When asking in linux help channel on day, I was given a *SCRIPT* to do this.
Ok. So you might have to make a little script to do this (there might be other/easier ways as well), but do you really mind that you have a powerful, scriptable shell which power-users can use to do advanced stuff, if they feel like it?
No, not mv, not cp (move, copy anyone)
Like this isn't fixed in an instant with either a alias, a symlink or simply a copy of the program you want another name for. Some distroes have actually allready done this 1 second task for you.
So give programs good names. Linux supports AnyType.of.filename.You.WANT. Yes all programs executables are extremely contracted (and many are headless (command line) the name would be important.
I guess flexibility is a two edged-sword which strikes you in both ends. However for good names... yes, ofcourse Nero burns CDs, Trillian does instant messages, Acrobat shows documents while ACDSee shows pictures. That's really just logical as well isn't it? I'm not disagreeing with your point regarding good names, however that argument goes both ways.
Plus when you got a gazillion tools to do the same job in Linux, calling them all the same thing as the task at hand might be a bit impractical.
Hi mum, what, you want to install a new email client? yes, apt-get install, but, hang on, yeah, it if gives you anything about dependancies, oh them
You do know that apt-get resolves dependencies for you, don't you? So instead of going to site A, downloading to location B, unzipping to location C, executing installer to install to location D, you just open your favorite package manager where you can install any application, and voila! you're done. Now that was hard wasn't it.
So, yeah, shut up fan boy.
I don't know if that was targeted toward yourself or "the linux community". Me, myself, I use Windows. Basicly because of some issues with hardware-support and TV-out the way I want it. So I guess it ain't targeted at me.
Wheater you're a troll or simply uninformed or lazy, I don't know. You may have all the complaints in the world about Linux, but your's are simply redicilious.
Seems to be able to do a somewhat decent task, but for reasons not given junction points do not, unlike the rest of the FS, support Unicode-characters.
Arrg!
Does this new shell have a 'ln -s' command? I guess not, since no reports (I've heard) of the filesystem have mentioned symlinks.
Did I mention how much I hate not having symlinks in Windows? A new usuable shell is all dandy, but I'd like symlinks as well.
Ok. Film, Digital, whatever. The point is that TV has redicilously low resolution, while whatever you watch at the theaters doesn't.
Not to mention that whatever you watch at home is transfered from these original film/digital-video and thus has the same lackings.
Home Theater: Currently limited to crappy-ass TV-resolution
Theater: Experience the awesomeness of film.
But yeah, I agree. Movie theaters haven't really got all that stuff going for them these days.
Give me DVDs with full HD-resolution released in a somewhat sane timeframe, and you probably won't see me going to the theaters anytime soon.
But they continue to distribute the tools of schoolyard piracy
I wasn't aware that making copies for your portable MP3-player or for your digital media library were piracy. I guess I'll have to blame the damn newspeak I'm simply refusing to accept.
It may not have much of an effect immediately, but as time goes on the values and morals of new generations may change and a gradual decrease in piracy may begin.
You forgot the part about pigs flying.
Seriously, when technology renders the old distribution channels unnecessary, people growing up will somehow magically start respecting the obsolete companies more than people who grew up when they were needed? This sounds just as flawed as any RIAA logic I've ever heard.
I'll just pop in to say that nothing from that department is able to surprise me anymore.
That is apart from the ability to sustain incometence this solid over so much time.
Oh yes, it is. I recall my old Amiga with a straight Motorola 68020 outperform equivalent (MHz-wise) Intel CPUs easily.
Upon trying to write x86 assembly I easily dicovered why. In the old Motorola assembly you usually write code where most part of the code did stuff. In the x86 world most of the code (I've seen) is loading, unloading and reloading data into and out of memory simply. Why? Lack of registers.
I still find it commical that the old 16-bit Motorola 68000 has more registers than my Pentium 4. Comical and sad.
Sorry for being offtopic, but I think the next slashdot poll should be "What sort of scripted and automated action should we take against posts containg the phrase 'Soviet Russia'?"
Options should range from "Instant permaban" and "Slashdot their servers" to "Order nasty russian hitmen to do what's necessary".
Seriously though. There should be a slashdot poll on that exact topic.
"Off the air" as in you should lay "off the pedantry". In case you have a hard time getting my point as well, I have prepared a little list to explain it for you.
Using non-standard MS-HTML to promote non-MS standard-compliant browsers? You heathen!
I bet Microsoft didn't see this coming :)
How come all these pages offering programs with DeCSS are still online? I mean, pages like doom9.net seems to have no other purpose than showing how you can make high-quality DVD-rips.
Have been online for a long time, and still is. Are you sayingthat DeCSS doesn't violate US law?
You got theory and practice. In theory: yes. In practice: Any attempt to do this would be rendered useless by the sheer size of the internet.
I say my point still stands.
And this would prevent local registrars from allowing porn just how?
According to my knowledge alot of sites deemed illegal in the US, for instance Pirate Bay, still seems to be up and running just fine.
It may not be extremely insightful, but due to the relativness of things I think it deserves it.
Why? As it seems to be the only post so far that acknowledges the fact that US Congress doesn't rule the world or the internet.
Anyway, whatever makes it easier to filter/detect people browsing porn (for the children).
Why? Because we took so much dammage watching porn in our younger days? Anything "for the children" triggers my BS-detector, and this is no exception.
It's going to be about a year before Congress tries to find someway to outlaw all porn that isn't on a .xxx domain.
Because the entire internet is in the US. (Not saying the morons won't try it)
they should be looking at the needs of other net users. .blog would be a good start.
It would make it so much easier to filter. Google: "usefulstuff -site:.blog". I like it allready.