While I certainly can empathize (and agree) with all that you've said, I have to ask: Did this happen to you in the last thirty seconds?
In addition to your point, I can't fathom how anyone can really enjoy the game when they know they're cheating; I'd rather "Get My Ass Royally Kicked" than win the round/game/whatever using some cheat hack.
...but I can laugh now because you sound just like I do right while it's happening. With my usual attention to spelling and grammar lying comatose in the corner, riddled with shrapnel, you'll find me screaming at the monitor and banging on the keyboard. I get so flustered that my already-crippled 55-WPM typing plummets to around 20, and is still as riddled with holes as my poor character's cyber-body. Zedmelon the Online Gamer can be quite the poster child for rage-supressing medication.
YOu stup8id mother*($&@#!! Can't y0ou just pul;l up your panti3es and play fair?!?/1 what p9ossibvle enjoymeaint couildf you get ou5t of fragging me fr0om behind a wall.002 seconds after I spa2wned??!?! WHat the hell is your G0da^m problem?!? DId your mother jkeep you in the xcellaer as a child!??!
"ESB clearly needed a sequel, and neither ESB nor ROTJ make much sense if you haven't seen what came before."
Which just shows that Lucas put more effort than the Wachowskis into planning plot lines, dialogue, and things of that sort, extrapolating them beyond the scope of the original film. Once the original "Holy SHIT, this is a veritible GOLD MINE" observation was made, that is.
Well, okay, maybe not dialogue.;)
I was *six*; I didn't know until today that the "Episode IV" header wasn't in the original release of Star Wars. But one reason this isn't very common knowledge is that details and plot (r)evolution were considered before commencing film production on "Cash Cow - Parts 2 & 3."
Okay, I see your point about the panties scenario.
Maybe I'm being too naive and idealistic, but isn't it safe to assume that these scans will trigger an alert if a particular promiscuous parcel prompts a probe (sorry), and the remaining envelopes will be ignored by the machine and therefore never be associated with a name at all?
With this, I may be circumventing the very principle you're attempting to emphasize, but I don't really mind if my package gets scanned and the items inside are identified; if it's a complete stranger whose face I'll never see--as opposed to the person carrying the box to my door--there's no cause for embarrassment no matter *what* they find.
Assuming the above, the worst that would happen is the postal employees who have always suspected that they carried taboo items to their customers would finally have a method to confirm.... okay, I guess I just blew away my argument there, didn't I?
When you make a post like this, please don't post anonymously. I'm sure I'm not alone in trying to keep current with those with insightful things to say.
Soon, thousands of unemployed software engineers moonlighting as "couriers" will be forced to find other means of supplementing that "Mervyn's" income.
Speaking of "catalog" sites, I can't believe that in over an hour, no one's mentioned this. It'd be perfect for a VP with a few thousand-dollar bills escaping pockets through gaping, firey holes.
Check their transportation page for plenty of stuff I'd be able to afford if I lost enough limbs to prevent my being able to use it.
I don't pretend to know if VIA is doing well as a company or not; I personally don't give a rip either way.
I merely observed that the article is loaded with propaganda like "Dawn of Digital Intelligence" and "Empowered Connectivity," and therefore reads like a bad pitch to the board of directors for an okay on a huge, underdeveloped product. These things sound to me just like the rest of the crap you hear 10,000 percent more than you heard five years ago, such as "synergy," "paradigm," and "financial viability." When someone spends more time/money on marketing a product than they've spent developing that product, they use phrases like these to dazzle and distract the customer and their superiors.
I then stated that the ARTICLE contains far too many phrases from the Bullshit Bingo Handbook, which it does.
Sorry, I meant to say that the article reads like a marketing meeting with the Startup Dot Com CEO trying to keep his employees from realizing the company is sinking.
The idea is pretty interesting. I can only hope that it turns out better than this article suggests.
The pics are arranged in a three by three grid, but don't bother. Pics one and two are decent, three is okay, and nine is passable, but the rest are so blurry that once you've heard the board is 120 mm square, they're nothing you can't get from just viewing the thumbnails.
I'm not trolling; I'm trying to get what you're saying. I don't know enough about the nuts & bolts. For a long time, I thought Ethernet was all there is.
I'm sure glad that every time new software gets developed and people need guinea pigs for testing, they choose
non-critical users
running non-critical applications
on non-critical systems
performing non-critical services.
Can everyone please speak more slowly so I can catch up?
I'm not meaning this as a troll, but I don't see this huge difference between "stealing" and "copyright infringement."
Firstly, I have to say that yes, the spyware approach is a bit drastic.
Secondly, I can appreciate the distinction between physical theft and pirating an unlicensed copy of software. But I'm still having trouble reconciling with the idea that 'Information "theft" is not really theft or stealing.'
I'm not a programmer, but I am a musician, and I think there can be a common viewpoint between the two, or at least similarities.
Let me further complicate things by saying I support the sharing of.mp3 (ogg, whatever you like) files. Dave Matthews has allowed recording of his shows since day one, and he can afford to eat out once or twice a week. It gives more exposure to a performer than it detracts from that performer's profits.
[hypocrisy disclaimer]This is not to say I agree with the idea that it's everyone's right to make a copy for themselves.[/hypocrisy disclaimer]
Music fans that expect everything to be free are wrong, no matter what they tell themselves in justification. If you like someone's.mp3s, pay for a concert ticket, buy a shirt while you're there. At least go buy the CD from the artist's website. The notion that "NO ONE has a natural right to profit" isn't very clear. Are you saying that when someone works on something, they don't have a right to be paid for it? As arguable as it might be, I think Billy Ray deserves to be paid for every hopeless lemming that he managed to con into purchasing a copy of the painful abomination he released in the early 90s. If the artist chooses to sell their records through the RIAA, then it's their own fault if they're not getting a decent cut. But are you fixing that by not paying at all?
"Thousands of my users probably "steal" my software, but guess what! I DON'T CARE! It is information, which I CANNOT OWN!"
You wrote the code, and you can distribute it for free if you like, or you can charge (don't you?) for a pro version. Besides, don't you make money from the ad supported version of bearshare as well? As owner of BearShare, it would be a bit of a stretch for us to accept your opinion as completely unbiased. You SIG says, "Help me out, and use BearShare." Is that just for celebrity status?
AFA molecular reconstruction, I can't imagine technology like that being available to the average consumer to the point where it would be economically viable for anyone to "morph" themselves a brake pad. Ever.
Where does the my-copy-your-copy distinction lie in code? Open source is open source because people have voluntarily worked on it knowing that it will be shared. Smart money says these people have external sources of income; you can't pay the mortgage by working for free. There's a difference between 'personal "posession & ownership" of information' and writing original code with the intent of selling it. I don't see anything wrong with a programmer expecting money for every copy of his/her software that gets distributed.
Hmmm. "stealing money/goods/services" vs. merely "potential profits," I'll offer my Dad as an example. If he was going to buy a new computer, he could call Gateway or Dell, and he'd end up getting a licensed copy of M$ crap, for which they (M$) would receive a royalty. If I knew about it before he made the purchase, I'd have him get online, and we'd find and order the parts he needed, and then I'd... er, refer him to a friend who has an old copy of WinBlows he doesn't use anymore, and my Dad would no longer be contributing to the Expansion Of The Empire. Now assuming this would be an
Okay. Argue this one all day, but there's one thing you're missing: No matter what you think you should or shouldn't be allowed to do, right or wrong, they're all illegal. Are less severe offenses any less against the law?
"Speeding is not a crime unless you go over a certain limit."
Well, yes, but unfortunately, until you exceed that limit, it's not CALLED speeding. No, speeding is NOT the perfect analogy for this. Last January, my girlfriend got "a little bit pregnant," and now I'm "kind of a dad." It doesn't work that way.
Okay, we'll stop calling it "STEALING," if it'll make you feel better, but it's still "WRONG."
"If using unlicensed software was a crime, Microsoft would have had a lot of people in jail by now."
If Microsoft put as much money into tracking you down as they put into "What Would Bill Do?" advertising campaigns, there would be lots more people paying fines.
"Believe me, no matter how smart we make our devices, we will never have to worry that our toaster is making plots against us. Unless, of course, it's being run by Microsoft."
Slashdot Mirror
While I certainly can empathize (and agree) with all that you've said, I have to ask: Did this happen to you in the last thirty seconds?
In addition to your point, I can't fathom how anyone can really enjoy the game when they know they're cheating; I'd rather "Get My Ass Royally Kicked" than win the round/game/whatever using some cheat hack.
...but I can laugh now because you sound just like I do right while it's happening. With my usual attention to spelling and grammar lying comatose in the corner, riddled with shrapnel, you'll find me screaming at the monitor and banging on the keyboard. I get so flustered that my already-crippled 55-WPM typing plummets to around 20, and is still as riddled with holes as my poor character's cyber-body. Zedmelon the Online Gamer can be quite the poster child for rage-supressing medication.
YOu stup8id mother*($&@#!! Can't y0ou just pul;l up your panti3es and play fair?!?/1 what p9ossibvle enjoymeaint couildf you get ou5t of fragging me fr0om behind a wall .002 seconds after I spa2wned??!?! WHat the hell is your G0da^m problem?!? DId your mother jkeep you in the xcellaer as a child!??!
etc...
I feel for you, GooberToo. I really do.
Maybe that 75% will pull up the rottentomatoes rating, which is still at 38%.
Trebek: "That's *S Words*. S Words.
Burt Reynolds, choose a category."
Burt Reynolds: "Ahh, (chews gum) what the hell. Let's go with swords."
Which just shows that Lucas put more effort than the Wachowskis into planning plot lines, dialogue, and things of that sort, extrapolating them beyond the scope of the original film. Once the original "Holy SHIT, this is a veritible GOLD MINE" observation was made, that is.
Well, okay, maybe not dialogue. ;)
I was *six*; I didn't know until today that the "Episode IV" header wasn't in the original release of Star Wars. But one reason this isn't very common knowledge is that details and plot (r)evolution were considered before commencing film production on "Cash Cow - Parts 2 & 3."
That has always been one of my favorite adverbs. ;)
Norm McDonald's Burt Reynolds is pristine, and "Chandler" from "Friends" did a great Michael Keaton as well.
Okay, now mod me down as offtopic. ;)
Maybe I'm being too naive and idealistic, but isn't it safe to assume that these scans will trigger an alert if a particular promiscuous parcel prompts a probe (sorry), and the remaining envelopes will be ignored by the machine and therefore never be associated with a name at all?
With this, I may be circumventing the very principle you're attempting to emphasize, but I don't really mind if my package gets scanned and the items inside are identified; if it's a complete stranger whose face I'll never see--as opposed to the person carrying the box to my door--there's no cause for embarrassment no matter *what* they find.
Assuming the above, the worst that would happen is the postal employees who have always suspected that they carried taboo items to their customers would finally have a method to confirm.... okay, I guess I just blew away my argument there, didn't I?
D'oh!
PS: You're welcome. I like it! ;)
Mod parent up
2. I have to ask as a side-note: I like your .sig, but did you mean to put an "I" in it?
Soon, thousands of unemployed software engineers moonlighting as "couriers" will be forced to find other means of supplementing that "Mervyn's" income.
That's a "seven-person TRIcycle."
PS: It's really nice that's the only page that seems to be having issues today.
Check their transportation page for plenty of stuff I'd be able to afford if I lost enough limbs to prevent my being able to use it.
A seven-person bicycle?
To paraphrase Trolling4Dollars, I'll give mikerich a virtual "+3, Damn Interesting" in hopes it will spark a favorable trend.
I'll also give him a "+1, you're now on my friends list," despite the fact that no one will care.
;)
I don't pretend to know if VIA is doing well as a company or not; I personally don't give a rip either way.
I merely observed that the article is loaded with propaganda like "Dawn of Digital Intelligence" and "Empowered Connectivity," and therefore reads like a bad pitch to the board of directors for an okay on a huge, underdeveloped product. These things sound to me just like the rest of the crap you hear 10,000 percent more than you heard five years ago, such as "synergy," "paradigm," and "financial viability." When someone spends more time/money on marketing a product than they've spent developing that product, they use phrases like these to dazzle and distract the customer and their superiors.
I then stated that the ARTICLE contains far too many phrases from the Bullshit Bingo Handbook, which it does.
Sheesh.
Total Connectivity
Complete Empowerment.
Mleh.
The idea is pretty interesting. I can only hope that it turns out better than this article suggests.
The pics are arranged in a three by three grid, but don't bother. Pics one and two are decent, three is okay, and nine is passable, but the rest are so blurry that once you've heard the board is 120 mm square, they're nothing you can't get from just viewing the thumbnails.
:\
What's wrong with Ethernet in this situation?
I'm curious to see how well this works if you're not seated in ideal conditions, which is the premise behind the moniker "laptop."
No, I didn't RTFA, but the blurb was enough.
Air traffic controllers...
I'm sure glad that every time new software gets developed and people need guinea pigs for testing, they choose
non-critical users
running non-critical applications
on non-critical systems
performing non-critical services.
I'm not meaning this as a troll, but I don't see this huge difference between "stealing" and "copyright infringement."
Firstly, I have to say that yes, the spyware approach is a bit drastic.
Secondly, I can appreciate the distinction between physical theft and pirating an unlicensed copy of software. But I'm still having trouble reconciling with the idea that 'Information "theft" is not really theft or stealing.'
I'm not a programmer, but I am a musician, and I think there can be a common viewpoint between the two, or at least similarities.
Let me further complicate things by saying I support the sharing of .mp3 (ogg, whatever you like) files. Dave Matthews has allowed recording of his shows since day one, and he can afford to eat out once or twice a week. It gives more exposure to a performer than it detracts from that performer's profits.
[hypocrisy disclaimer]This is not to say I agree with the idea that it's everyone's right to make a copy for themselves.[/hypocrisy disclaimer]
Music fans that expect everything to be free are wrong, no matter what they tell themselves in justification. If you like someone's .mp3s, pay for a concert ticket, buy a shirt while you're there. At least go buy the CD from the artist's website. The notion that "NO ONE has a natural right to profit" isn't very clear. Are you saying that when someone works on something, they don't have a right to be paid for it? As arguable as it might be, I think Billy Ray deserves to be paid for every hopeless lemming that he managed to con into purchasing a copy of the painful abomination he released in the early 90s. If the artist chooses to sell their records through the RIAA, then it's their own fault if they're not getting a decent cut. But are you fixing that by not paying at all?
"Thousands of my users probably "steal" my software, but guess what! I DON'T CARE! It is information, which I CANNOT OWN!"
You wrote the code, and you can distribute it for free if you like, or you can charge (don't you?) for a pro version. Besides, don't you make money from the ad supported version of bearshare as well? As owner of BearShare, it would be a bit of a stretch for us to accept your opinion as completely unbiased. You SIG says, "Help me out, and use BearShare." Is that just for celebrity status?
AFA molecular reconstruction, I can't imagine technology like that being available to the average consumer to the point where it would be economically viable for anyone to "morph" themselves a brake pad. Ever.
Where does the my-copy-your-copy distinction lie in code? Open source is open source because people have voluntarily worked on it knowing that it will be shared. Smart money says these people have external sources of income; you can't pay the mortgage by working for free. There's a difference between 'personal "posession & ownership" of information' and writing original code with the intent of selling it. I don't see anything wrong with a programmer expecting money for every copy of his/her software that gets distributed.
Hmmm. "stealing money/goods/services" vs. merely "potential profits," I'll offer my Dad as an example. If he was going to buy a new computer, he could call Gateway or Dell, and he'd end up getting a licensed copy of M$ crap, for which they (M$) would receive a royalty. If I knew about it before he made the purchase, I'd have him get online, and we'd find and order the parts he needed, and then I'd... er, refer him to a friend who has an old copy of WinBlows he doesn't use anymore, and my Dad would no longer be contributing to the Expansion Of The Empire. Now assuming this would be an
Okay. Argue this one all day, but there's one thing you're missing: No matter what you think you should or shouldn't be allowed to do, right or wrong, they're all illegal. Are less severe offenses any less against the law?
"Speeding is not a crime unless you go over a certain limit."
Well, yes, but unfortunately, until you exceed that limit, it's not CALLED speeding. No, speeding is NOT the perfect analogy for this. Last January, my girlfriend got "a little bit pregnant," and now I'm "kind of a dad." It doesn't work that way.
Okay, we'll stop calling it "STEALING," if it'll make you feel better, but it's still "WRONG."
"If using unlicensed software was a crime, Microsoft would have had a lot of people in jail by now."
If Microsoft put as much money into tracking you down as they put into "What Would Bill Do?" advertising campaigns, there would be lots more people paying fines.
Jeez, is there any possibility where I can put the word there there?
He's right. And let's not forget that going with $1000, winning $50, and leaving will ensure that you have $1050 to SPEND instead of potentially LOSE.
ummmmmm, did you /. your band's site?
"Believe me, no matter how smart we make our devices, we will never have to worry that our toaster is making plots against us. Unless, of course, it's being run by Microsoft."
[/obligatory MS slam]