Actually, that sounds like the lyrics from half the songs ever put out by N-Sync, 98 Degrees, and every other boy band since New Kids on the Block. Maybe that's why they can't sell music--because they've been selling the same shit for 20 years already!
Y'know, I can't stand seeing posts marked "troll" just because someone disagrees with the point the poster's trying to make. If you disagree, that's fine. . . but where was the insulting connotation that distinguishes a troll from a dissenting opinion?
If someone calls you an asshole, they're a troll. If you choose to get angry just because you disagree with them, that's your problem. Hopefully I'll get to meta-mod the parent today or tomorrow.
I'm not a lawyer, so I have to ask: is that legal? Can you claim copyright on someone else's derivative work? My gut tells me, "no," so the question then ought to be if Linux differs enough from System V to be considered a derivative work. I think, and hope, that the answer will be, "yes."
You might have something. If Microsoft felt a need to reply to every negative article that made it onto Slashdot, their PR costs would skyrocket. We could drag them into bankruptcy!
That's all well and good - and I don't necessarily disagree, even though Windows 2000/XP and Office are ubiquitous through the US Armed Forces for personal computer use. But there's a difference between a government saying, "We're only going to buy open source software," and saying, "We're going to tax closed-source software." There's good justification for the former; but there's no justification at all, IMO, for the latter.
That would be billions of dollars to Open Source to compensate for an unlevel playing field until it is leveled.
That isn't leveling the field for open source, it's tilting the field unfairly in favor of open source. If the technology can't compete on its own merits, why throw good money after bad to support it? Of course, I think open source software can compete on its own merits, so this measure is redundant.
It's just a high-tech double standard, and that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
The hatred against the spammers is stronger 'round here. I've never seen a Slashdot campaign to subscribe Bill Gates to hundreds of magazines and newsletters, after all; and the worst I've seen done to Ballmer is the Monkey-Dance video.
The "piracy" label is just habit, that's what it's been called as long as I've been BBSing/'Net-active.:) I agree with your reasoning, I just think people who opt for illegal methods should fess up and say, "I'm doing it this way because I'm a greedy bastard." I wouldn't respect them any less for that; I'm a greedy bastard, too.
You think it's okay for American corporations to disrupt activities of American citizens?
Actually, when it's an illegal activity, then yes. The occasions where "music-sharing" is legal are the exception right now, not the rule. Don't blame the record company if you downloaded something you shouldn't. To hell with sex education, schools should start teaching personal responsibility.
Re:Hypocrisy or Censorship - take your pick...
on
SMS, SARS, And Censorship
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I had to find a Google Cache, as the government-owned proxy I work behind blocked access to the original article. I love the smell of irony in the morning!
Does Yahoo News have editors, or do they just reprint AP, Reuters, etc.? And as for Slashdot editors, **grins** do I really need to say anything about them?
The fools are leaving customer satisfaction out of the equation...
Let's be honest: someone who's going to pirate music is going to do it and then find a reason to justify it, more often than not. But ultimately, it comes down to: they don't want to pay for what the recording studios are offering. And you know, if you don't want to pay for something, fine. But as limited as your rights may be to an artist's music even if you do pay for it, your rights to it are zero if you don't.
Actually, Microsoft had released a patch for the vulnerability that was exploited. Unfortunately, no one (including Microsoft) bothered to implement it.
Why should you, or I, or anyone else have the "right" to post slanderous or just plain false comments about companies/people without their ability to respond?
You don't have that right - and if you do libel another party, they don't just have the "right to reply." They have the right to sue the pants off your arse.
In many cases, slashdotter's have been able to overlook Malda's homosexuality. ..
Nice to see the moderators are still reading the entire post and catching phrases like the above. I guess that's how it got its "informative" moderation.
That was actually Bush the First, if I recall correctly. Bush the Second has been more respectful of most individuals' religious rights, in word and in action.
That would rock, especially since the military isn't held to the same standard of investigative integrity as civilian agencies. If we accidentally bomb a wedding or two, we just say, "Another potential spammer bites the dust!" This wouldn't even be that much of a stretch, if we redefine unsolicited commercial e-mail as a terrorist attack on the nation's information infrastructure.
Slashdot Mirror
The artists don't exactly have any control over the pricing of the albums. That's on the recording studios.
Actually, that sounds like the lyrics from half the songs ever put out by N-Sync, 98 Degrees, and every other boy band since New Kids on the Block. Maybe that's why they can't sell music--because they've been selling the same shit for 20 years already!
Y'know, I can't stand seeing posts marked "troll" just because someone disagrees with the point the poster's trying to make. If you disagree, that's fine. . . but where was the insulting connotation that distinguishes a troll from a dissenting opinion?
If someone calls you an asshole, they're a troll. If you choose to get angry just because you disagree with them, that's your problem. Hopefully I'll get to meta-mod the parent today or tomorrow.
I'm not a lawyer, so I have to ask: is that legal? Can you claim copyright on someone else's derivative work? My gut tells me, "no," so the question then ought to be if Linux differs enough from System V to be considered a derivative work. I think, and hope, that the answer will be, "yes."
You might have something. If Microsoft felt a need to reply to every negative article that made it onto Slashdot, their PR costs would skyrocket. We could drag them into bankruptcy!
Worse. . . it's a glitch in the Matrix! Run for your lives! :p
That's all well and good - and I don't necessarily disagree, even though Windows 2000/XP and Office are ubiquitous through the US Armed Forces for personal computer use. But there's a difference between a government saying, "We're only going to buy open source software," and saying, "We're going to tax closed-source software." There's good justification for the former; but there's no justification at all, IMO, for the latter.
That would be billions of dollars to Open Source to compensate for an unlevel playing field until it is leveled.
That isn't leveling the field for open source, it's tilting the field unfairly in favor of open source. If the technology can't compete on its own merits, why throw good money after bad to support it? Of course, I think open source software can compete on its own merits, so this measure is redundant.
It's just a high-tech double standard, and that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
The hatred against the spammers is stronger 'round here. I've never seen a Slashdot campaign to subscribe Bill Gates to hundreds of magazines and newsletters, after all; and the worst I've seen done to Ballmer is the Monkey-Dance video.
The "piracy" label is just habit, that's what it's been called as long as I've been BBSing/'Net-active. :) I agree with your reasoning, I just think people who opt for illegal methods should fess up and say, "I'm doing it this way because I'm a greedy bastard." I wouldn't respect them any less for that; I'm a greedy bastard, too.
You think it's okay for American corporations to disrupt activities of American citizens?
Actually, when it's an illegal activity, then yes. The occasions where "music-sharing" is legal are the exception right now, not the rule. Don't blame the record company if you downloaded something you shouldn't. To hell with sex education, schools should start teaching personal responsibility.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstech nology/134994939_esiod14.html
I had to find a Google Cache, as the government-owned proxy I work behind blocked access to the original article. I love the smell of irony in the morning!
Does Yahoo News have editors, or do they just reprint AP, Reuters, etc.? And as for Slashdot editors, **grins** do I really need to say anything about them?
The fools are leaving customer satisfaction out of the equation...
Let's be honest: someone who's going to pirate music is going to do it and then find a reason to justify it, more often than not. But ultimately, it comes down to: they don't want to pay for what the recording studios are offering. And you know, if you don't want to pay for something, fine. But as limited as your rights may be to an artist's music even if you do pay for it, your rights to it are zero if you don't.
Actually, Microsoft had released a patch for the vulnerability that was exploited. Unfortunately, no one (including Microsoft) bothered to implement it.
Anyone with a copy of both Linux and System V can easily find which lines they have in common.
Why don't you get right on that? Oh, and I'll need you to come in Saturday, too. Okay? Grreeeeaat.
Let's put this in perspective: What's to stop Microsoft(tm)(c)(r) from posting right here on /. (no points for answering "the moderation system")
What stops them from posting right here right now?
but how often does /. get to post on the MS site?
How often does Microsoft make comments that are critical of Slashdot?
Why should you, or I, or anyone else have the "right" to post slanderous or just plain false comments about companies/people without their ability to respond?
You don't have that right - and if you do libel another party, they don't just have the "right to reply." They have the right to sue the pants off your arse.
In many cases, slashdotter's have been able to overlook Malda's homosexuality. . .
Nice to see the moderators are still reading the entire post and catching phrases like the above. I guess that's how it got its "informative" moderation.
</sarcasm>
There may be a certain amount of luck in that "no fatalities" datum.
"God protects children, fools, and ex-Soviet Russia." :)
Use a firewall to block port 80 traffic on ICQ. That will eliminate the ads, then you can use whatever version you want.
A lvl200 character and a buck-fifty buys you a cup of coffee.
Actually, a Lvl 200 character is probably worth a lot more than $1.50 on E-Bay.
The difference is, you can choose to buy (or download) Linux from another distributor. Who, besides Microsoft, sells Windows?
That was actually Bush the First, if I recall correctly. Bush the Second has been more respectful of most individuals' religious rights, in word and in action.
That would rock, especially since the military isn't held to the same standard of investigative integrity as civilian agencies. If we accidentally bomb a wedding or two, we just say, "Another potential spammer bites the dust!" This wouldn't even be that much of a stretch, if we redefine unsolicited commercial e-mail as a terrorist attack on the nation's information infrastructure.