Alternate answer: Heck, yes Zelda needs an "overhaul" if she looks like this.
Am I the only person here who grew up associating the name Zelda with the Terrahawks baddie and not some Nintendo character? Particularly as I wasn't even aware that "Zelda" was a real name at the time. Anyway, the two characters seem like chalk and cheese...
BINGO!.... that's your answer! Nintendo can refresh their "Zelda" series by replacing their Zelda with the evil-Martian-android-that-looks-like-a-really-old- person namesake from Terrahawks. It'll be worth it to see the expression on the Nintendo fanboys' faces alone.
And they can get Windsor Davies to do the voice for that spherical robot Sergeant-Major, and have a game of Xs and Os for the "Game Over" sequence (Anyone who hasn't seen Terrahawks will be wonder WTF I am rambling about now... do a search at YouTube if you're curious)
Hmm, what does the word "premium" mean in there? More expensive? Just some subset of their catalog? Oh, I fucking *hate* that word now. It's been devalued by tossers in marketing who'll slap it on anything to give them an air of luxury and use it as an excuse to charge a lot more for marginally better (at best) products.
It's one of those words like "heritage" that has been soiled by its overuse in certain contexts.
I sold cars.
Used cars.
I'm still making payments to the devil.
for my soul. Those are rental payments. You don't seriously think he's ever going to sell it back, do you?:-P
lol, bubble WRAP plastic memory would be the shit! Just break the bubbles for all zeros, for each memory update just replace the sheet of bubble wrap and break all the appropriate bubbles again:D I don't think that you've thought your clever plan all the way through; is there anyone strong-willed enough to resist popping bubble wrap? Imagine a student getting back to their dorm only to find that their roommate has popped all the bubbles on their final dissertation...
I don't live in NY.... in fact I don't even live in the US, so it doesn't bother (nor affect) me anyway. That said, consider the following made-up situation. Suppose I buy a radio, the quality is awful, and it explodes in a shower of sparks after a few weeks; in short, the radio is crap, and broken. I take it back to the shop, and a clueless holiday-job teenage assistant suggests changing the batteries or rearranging my house to avoid interference. Maybe he insinuates that it's my fault without being able to explain why. The guy who has the power to make a refund is oh-so-conveniently never available, and I'm asked repeatedly to come back another time.
They do this to lots of different people. In short, the retailer is exploiting its customer service setup to avoid refunds on crappy products.
Should everyone be required to take the shop to court individually (for many, many times the cost of the radio) when it's clear that the shop is systematically abusing its power?
Just out of curiosity, did you consider posting the solution to Usenet, choosing the words so that they'd be picked up by anyone with a similar problem using a search engine? On the other hand, it could be argued that this might be acting as unpaid customer support to Linksys and rewarding them for crap service, so perhaps you ought to mention your experience at the same time:-|
I find that I spend the next hour verifying "who is the owner of this machine," "Where do they live," "Please give me enough identification to steal the owners identity please" so that the 5 minute diagnosis takes over an hour to resolve. For a $5 part. That still has to be sent back to Dell. Mmm... that sounds annoying enough that it might actually dissuade people from calling up altogether, don't you think?
I usually don't even bother calling Dell support for clients with non-gold support. Buying new hardware at OverpricedShack (tm) is usually cheaper that the time it will take Dell to replace it. ...and this is a win-win for Dell; by cutting back on expensive customer support, they dissuade people from calling and save even more.
Only if it starts seriously affecting the bottom line, or they get seriously hammered in court will Dell change this; and regardless of what they claim, there is always a large percentage of people who will buy almost exclusively on price and only change supplier if they have a really bad experience. Sure, they'll bitch about it when they're on hold for an hour, but they'll still buy on price the next time.
That reminds me of something I'd almost forgotten; the first Amstrad PC clones (*) that my Dad had at work required you to run a utility to "manually" park the heads on the hard drive before you powered down. Or maybe I'm remembering it wrong.
(*) Amstrad is a British company who (amongst other things) sold the first *really* successful PC clones on the UK market.
All value is based on scarcity. When you digitize something, it becomes instantly, perfectly reproducable across teh internets at practically zero cost.
Hence it no longer has any value.
Stop whining about how your intellectual property has been stolen, realise that it isn't actually worth anything. Your smartass intellectual answer is in fact nothing more than a lightly modernised restatement of the practical problem that underlies most IP laws.
Literature, for example, has always been fairly "digital", in that the relevant part (i.e. the words and not their typeset printed appearance) can be reproduced "exactly". Hand-copying is laborious and thus self-limiting, but although printed material isn't as easily distributed as the Internet, it still makes mass ripping off of intellectual works technically feasible.
The fact is that most intellectual property requires work (physical or mental) to create, regardless of how easy it is to copy *once created*. Unless you're living in some lala land, you'll realise that whilst some types of intellectual property (e.g. *certain* forms of art, *certain* types of computer programs) may be created for the love of it, many others will be created with the expectation of financial reward- and likely wouldn't be otherwise.
Might be unpleasant for you to accept, but some people are in it for the money. Very many worthwhile things have been designed/produced/etc in the name of filthy lucre, and may not have been otherwise. Copyright was (and is) intended to encourage such efforts by stopping parasitism because exactly as you said, if IP is able to be freely copied with no obligation to reward the creator, it is effectively worthless.
And you either accept that such things will not be produced and/or rely on someone being willing to create these things purely for the love of it (except that this will be restricted to their leisure time because most people have to earn a living, and they won't have the money to invest in expensive research equipment, etc.)
In short, you haven't stated the solution, you've stated the problem. Copyright was one solution and to imply "Ha ha, your material is worthless because it can be copied" is smug and misguided.
As I said, copyright should be a practical measure. It has doubtless been abused, and I'm not defending that, or badly-written copyright laws. However, the principle is (IMHO) sound, and if we accept your comment the implication is that we need to find new ways of making sure that people are rewarded- either via copyright or by other means.
While there *is* a certain amount of hypocrisy amongst some Slashdotters regarding copyright, the two examples you give are *not* the same IMHO.
Microsoft is a large monopolist which has used its market dominance and financial power to bully and coerce other companies, to crush its rivals, stall legal action and government investigations against it and to entrench its power. This using tactics which are all at best ethically dubious, many of which would likely be found criminal or illegal if taken to court- except that most businesses can't risk pissing off Microsoft, so won't- and at worst *have* been found criminal.
Ms. Guðleifsdóttir has not (apparently) yet behaved in a comparable manner, even accounting for the discrepancies in size.
If you think the two are comparable, that's your prerogative; but I hope you'll understand why I disagree.
Also, from a later post she says
there were photos on there being sold under the same false name as was put on my images (Rebekka Sigrún). They were still up there yesterday morning, under the artist name "Marco Van Eych".
The fact that these images were also being sold (months ago) under that same false name should lead any clear-headed individual to believe that those images had been stolen as well. Only-Dreemin themselves reply in that thread (link here again for your convenience); some have expressed scepticism at the supposed death threats. Personally, I'm tempted to believe that- simply because there *is* a somewhat mob mentality here, and in such situations there's always some hyped-up fuckwit willing to make such threats in the face of something they see as wrong. This is neither acceptable nor helpful, regardless of whether only-dreemin.com were in the wrong or not.
However, one moronic zealot's actions are not the fault of Rebekka, and *if* she was intentionally ripped off by only-dreemin themselves, this does not justify or excuse their actions in the slightest.
As I said, read the thread linked above and those linked to by the summary also.
Regarding the claims of the seller having been the victim of a dubious third-party/picture libary/whatever, it is not entirely clear that this is true. Note one of the later comments from Rebekka states (my emphasis):-
Their claims of a third party selling them the images are not new. This is something they told to my lawyer back in february, claiming "someone" presented them with the high-res files and "official looking documents". When asked by my lawyer to show us evidence of this transaction, they simply stopped replying.
Yesterday they openly admitted to having sold my images, albeit without the knowlege of them belonging to me. Suddenly they have a name for the mysterious seller, "wild aspects and panoramics LTD" which, as someone already mentioned above, does not exist, and does not appear to have ever existed. If they are telling the truth, explain this to me:
why did they refuse to put forth evidence that this party exists when my laywer requested it? If anything, it would help their argument, and if this party conned them, why on earth would they want to protect them? Afer all, they claim to have payed them 3000 pounds, there must exist some sortof bill or something?
Furthermore, if you realize you've inadvertantly sold something that was stolen, you've still committed a crime. In their case, they seem to feel its perfectly OK for them to keep the money they illegally made from my stolen work. Saying their sorry isnt enough. If they were conned, that's their problem, and they are free to go after that mysterious seller and sue THEM. Its not my problem. I still deserve to get paid damages from them for the profit they made from my copyrighted work.
There is nothing complicated about this matter. They did wrong. Theyve admitted it. Its not fair that they just get away with it by putting forth some very dubious excuse and saying their sorry. I'd advise people to read the whole thread on the rustylime.com website (which I haven't done myself yet). There are two dozen sides to every story, and this appears to be one, but it's misleading to imply that the company was definitely a victim here; their explanation seems dubious, and is not yet accepted by Rebekka Guðleifsdóttir herself.
If those folks were using an abacus, they'd probably get their head stuck in it Nice one! Is anyone keeping a bash.org-style archive of Slashdot quotes?
The sad thing is that using something more enticing like "Free boobs this way" would send millions of clueless Joe Windowses your way... I can see the advert now:-
I suppose I am giving this troll what they really subliminally want. Trolls are people, and deserve rewards too. So for all of you out there who get off on making people angry, here's a link to one *seriously* pissed off guy. He's so wound up his face is purple... brilliant!
I thought the programme was interesting, but I'd also be interested to see a documentary that covers the other aspects of Scientology. This one was (partly by design and partly by consequence) focused on the "Fair Game"/stalking aspect.
I'll say one thing; Tommy Davis is one creepy, manipulative fuck.
Mr. Hilf: 'Ello, I wish to complain about this Free Software parrot what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique. Owner: Oh yes, the, uh, the Finnish Blue...What's,uh...What's wrong with it? Mr. Hilf: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it! (Parrot squawks noisily and flaps about) Owner: Looks fine to me. Mr. Hilf: Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now. (The parrot is attempting to move but seems to be having some trouble. It squawks loudly). Owner: Are you sure he's not just pining for the fjords? Mr. Hilf: PININ' for the FJORDS?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, look, why did he fall flat on his back the moment I got 'im home? (Owner inspects parrot closely. Looks up incredulously, then takes another look before raising his head again) Owner: It looks like someone nailed him there! Look. (Owner removes the nail, and the parrot flaps about).. Mr. Hilf: Well, erm.... of course it was nailed there! If I hadn't nailed that bird down, it would have nuzzled up to those bars, bent 'em apart with its beak, and started eating into our market share! Owner: I thought you said 'e was dead? Mr. Hilf: Ermm....... 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a..... OOOOUCH! Little bastard bit my finger. Owner: I'd say that clearly proves your Finnish Free Software parrot isn't dead. Mr. Hilf: Well, can I stick a nail through its head just to be sure? Owner: Get out of my shop before I call animal protection, you sick bastard! Mr. Hilf: This is the worst bastardisation of a Monty Python sketch I've ever been in. I never wanted to be this creepy Microsoft shill you know... I wanted to be a lumberja... Owner: Get out!
Doing a Scientology-bashing documentary these days is like criticizing Michael Jackson for being weird. It's not thought-provoking, and it isn't really informing anyone, regardless of how fundamentally true it might be. Given that they're moving to increase their membership in the UK, and that this is a British documentary, it certainly *is* relevant and informative.
Also, as another poster said, power isn't solely dependent on raw numbers. Finally, even if its potential for damage is more limited that it was during the 70s and 80s, it's all relative, and certainly no excuse for letting it off the hook.
Apologies for another trite Slashdot analogy, but if homocides were down from 3 in 100 to 1 in 100 per year should we just shrug and say "it's not as bad as it used to be"?
hey this is just proof of how well google translate works! I don't know how well Google Translate works, but if you want to see the results of Babelfish's Japanese->English translation, view Slashdot Japan through it. (Yes, that's the link I've had as "my" URL for a while now).
The results are..... interesting, to say the least.
I'm not normally a fan of vapid "please mod parent up" posts, but... please mod parent up.
As for scientology as a *belief* system, it's batshit crazy, of course (aliens were brought to Earth millions of years ago in DC-8s, stuffed into volcanoes and blown up with atom bombs, and anyone who tries to remember this will die of pneumonia? wtf?), but not *per se* dangerous than other religious dogma. [..] But the belief system doesn't matter, anyway. The CoS is an evil cult because it does evil things, not because of what it believes - or claims to believe, since scientological dogma is just used as a tool of control, anyway. The CoS has never been about anything except power and money, without regard for anyone or anything standing in the way. That's what makes them evil and dangerous. It wouldn't surprise me if L Ron Hubbard recognised this from the start; in fact, it wouldn't surprise me if he intentionally made the beliefs so ludicrous so that the cult would be laughed at rather than seen as the dangerous entity it actually is.
I mean, let's face it; most previous times Scientology has come up on Slashdot, it's been as the subject of jokes rather than The Unfunny Truth behind it.
You're living 10 years in the past. The Church of Scientology doesn't have the resources it had in the 70s, at the peak of its power, or the 90s, when everything bad about it was exposed and they tried to sue it all into the cornfield.
Like the South Park episode, this is beating a dead horse. It's almost enough to make me root for Scientology, being a sucker for the underdog. I'd be more willing to believe that were it not posted anonymously, and coming from an established account whose biases I could judge.
If you're referring to the "Chef" episode of South Park, and assuming that Hayes did say the things attributed to him (*), then he deserved all the piss-taking he got. No-one likes a hypocrite who's happy to take part in making fun of any religion until it comes to their own.
(*) At the time (he was ill with a stroke) it was unclear if words had been put in his mouth by other figures in the Scientology movement, but I don't see him denying it now.
Yes, but what someone means (or wants) to say isn't always what they actually say, or what comes across; such are the things diplomatic rows are made of:-)
Of course, there are frequently disagreements across societies, and I didn't mean to overstate the homogeneity of US opinion. Nevertheless, being a single country with some notable collective values, and a shared history means that general opinion and concerns *will* coalesce around a different point. The militaristic feel and terrorist paranoia of Battlestar Galactica did strike me as very reflective of what I had been led to believe- and had deducted- were US concerns and perspective.
In the case of the US, you don't need to look any further than the Iraq war to see that there is no consensus reaction to terrorism here. Specifically, I had the reaction to terrorist attacks on US citizens on US soil in mind; Iraq is a different situation altogether (and despite the large number of attacks on US/allied soldiers, most terrorist attacks are aimed at other Iraqis).
Slashdot Mirror
Alternate answer: Heck, yes Zelda needs an "overhaul" if she looks like this.
- person namesake from Terrahawks. It'll be worth it to see the expression on the Nintendo fanboys' faces alone.
Am I the only person here who grew up associating the name Zelda with the Terrahawks baddie and not some Nintendo character? Particularly as I wasn't even aware that "Zelda" was a real name at the time. Anyway, the two characters seem like chalk and cheese...
BINGO!.... that's your answer! Nintendo can refresh their "Zelda" series by replacing their Zelda with the evil-Martian-android-that-looks-like-a-really-old
And they can get Windsor Davies to do the voice for that spherical robot Sergeant-Major, and have a game of Xs and Os for the "Game Over" sequence (Anyone who hasn't seen Terrahawks will be wonder WTF I am rambling about now... do a search at YouTube if you're curious)
It's one of those words like "heritage" that has been soiled by its overuse in certain contexts.
Note: The Toastmasters logo looks like Goatse.
I don't live in NY.... in fact I don't even live in the US, so it doesn't bother (nor affect) me anyway. That said, consider the following made-up situation. Suppose I buy a radio, the quality is awful, and it explodes in a shower of sparks after a few weeks; in short, the radio is crap, and broken. I take it back to the shop, and a clueless holiday-job teenage assistant suggests changing the batteries or rearranging my house to avoid interference. Maybe he insinuates that it's my fault without being able to explain why. The guy who has the power to make a refund is oh-so-conveniently never available, and I'm asked repeatedly to come back another time.
They do this to lots of different people. In short, the retailer is exploiting its customer service setup to avoid refunds on crappy products.
Should everyone be required to take the shop to court individually (for many, many times the cost of the radio) when it's clear that the shop is systematically abusing its power?
As Del(l) Boy would say, "Lovely Jubbly!"
Just out of curiosity, did you consider posting the solution to Usenet, choosing the words so that they'd be picked up by anyone with a similar problem using a search engine? On the other hand, it could be argued that this might be acting as unpaid customer support to Linksys and rewarding them for crap service, so perhaps you ought to mention your experience at the same time :-|
Only if it starts seriously affecting the bottom line, or they get seriously hammered in court will Dell change this; and regardless of what they claim, there is always a large percentage of people who will buy almost exclusively on price and only change supplier if they have a really bad experience. Sure, they'll bitch about it when they're on hold for an hour, but they'll still buy on price the next time.
That reminds me of something I'd almost forgotten; the first Amstrad PC clones (*) that my Dad had at work required you to run a utility to "manually" park the heads on the hard drive before you powered down. Or maybe I'm remembering it wrong.
(*) Amstrad is a British company who (amongst other things) sold the first *really* successful PC clones on the UK market.
Literature, for example, has always been fairly "digital", in that the relevant part (i.e. the words and not their typeset printed appearance) can be reproduced "exactly". Hand-copying is laborious and thus self-limiting, but although printed material isn't as easily distributed as the Internet, it still makes mass ripping off of intellectual works technically feasible.
The fact is that most intellectual property requires work (physical or mental) to create, regardless of how easy it is to copy *once created*. Unless you're living in some lala land, you'll realise that whilst some types of intellectual property (e.g. *certain* forms of art, *certain* types of computer programs) may be created for the love of it, many others will be created with the expectation of financial reward- and likely wouldn't be otherwise.
Might be unpleasant for you to accept, but some people are in it for the money. Very many worthwhile things have been designed/produced/etc in the name of filthy lucre, and may not have been otherwise. Copyright was (and is) intended to encourage such efforts by stopping parasitism because exactly as you said, if IP is able to be freely copied with no obligation to reward the creator, it is effectively worthless.
And you either accept that such things will not be produced and/or rely on someone being willing to create these things purely for the love of it (except that this will be restricted to their leisure time because most people have to earn a living, and they won't have the money to invest in expensive research equipment, etc.)
In short, you haven't stated the solution, you've stated the problem. Copyright was one solution and to imply "Ha ha, your material is worthless because it can be copied" is smug and misguided.
As I said, copyright should be a practical measure. It has doubtless been abused, and I'm not defending that, or badly-written copyright laws. However, the principle is (IMHO) sound, and if we accept your comment the implication is that we need to find new ways of making sure that people are rewarded- either via copyright or by other means.
While there *is* a certain amount of hypocrisy amongst some Slashdotters regarding copyright, the two examples you give are *not* the same IMHO.
Microsoft is a large monopolist which has used its market dominance and financial power to bully and coerce other companies, to crush its rivals, stall legal action and government investigations against it and to entrench its power. This using tactics which are all at best ethically dubious, many of which would likely be found criminal or illegal if taken to court- except that most businesses can't risk pissing off Microsoft, so won't- and at worst *have* been found criminal.
Ms. Guðleifsdóttir has not (apparently) yet behaved in a comparable manner, even accounting for the discrepancies in size.
If you think the two are comparable, that's your prerogative; but I hope you'll understand why I disagree.
However, one moronic zealot's actions are not the fault of Rebekka, and *if* she was intentionally ripped off by only-dreemin themselves, this does not justify or excuse their actions in the slightest.
As I said, read the thread linked above and those linked to by the summary also.
...vaguely reminiscent of "Bubble Memory" 25 years ago. And everyone was saying *that* was going to replace hard drives too.
Free boobies for all!
Cute booby chicks for your delectation! aff
en.wikipedia.org
I thought the programme was interesting, but I'd also be interested to see a documentary that covers the other aspects of Scientology. This one was (partly by design and partly by consequence) focused on the "Fair Game"/stalking aspect.
I'll say one thing; Tommy Davis is one creepy, manipulative fuck.
A customer enters a pet shop.
Mr. Hilf: 'Ello, I wish to complain about this Free Software parrot what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique.
Owner: Oh yes, the, uh, the Finnish Blue...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?
Mr. Hilf: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it!
(Parrot squawks noisily and flaps about)
Owner: Looks fine to me.
Mr. Hilf: Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
(The parrot is attempting to move but seems to be having some trouble. It squawks loudly).
Owner: Are you sure he's not just pining for the fjords?
Mr. Hilf: PININ' for the FJORDS?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, look, why did he fall flat on his back the moment I got 'im home?
(Owner inspects parrot closely. Looks up incredulously, then takes another look before raising his head again)
Owner: It looks like someone nailed him there! Look. (Owner removes the nail, and the parrot flaps about)..
Mr. Hilf: Well, erm.... of course it was nailed there! If I hadn't nailed that bird down, it would have nuzzled up to those bars, bent 'em apart with its beak, and started eating into our market share!
Owner: I thought you said 'e was dead?
Mr. Hilf: Ermm....... 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a..... OOOOUCH! Little bastard bit my finger.
Owner: I'd say that clearly proves your Finnish Free Software parrot isn't dead.
Mr. Hilf: Well, can I stick a nail through its head just to be sure?
Owner: Get out of my shop before I call animal protection, you sick bastard!
Mr. Hilf: This is the worst bastardisation of a Monty Python sketch I've ever been in. I never wanted to be this creepy Microsoft shill you know... I wanted to be a lumberja...
Owner: Get out!
Also, as another poster said, power isn't solely dependent on raw numbers. Finally, even if its potential for damage is more limited that it was during the 70s and 80s, it's all relative, and certainly no excuse for letting it off the hook.
Apologies for another trite Slashdot analogy, but if homocides were down from 3 in 100 to 1 in 100 per year should we just shrug and say "it's not as bad as it used to be"?
The results are..... interesting, to say the least.
I mean, let's face it; most previous times Scientology has come up on Slashdot, it's been as the subject of jokes rather than The Unfunny Truth behind it.
If you're referring to the "Chef" episode of South Park, and assuming that Hayes did say the things attributed to him (*), then he deserved all the piss-taking he got. No-one likes a hypocrite who's happy to take part in making fun of any religion until it comes to their own.
(*) At the time (he was ill with a stroke) it was unclear if words had been put in his mouth by other figures in the Scientology movement, but I don't see him denying it now.
Of course, there are frequently disagreements across societies, and I didn't mean to overstate the homogeneity of US opinion. Nevertheless, being a single country with some notable collective values, and a shared history means that general opinion and concerns *will* coalesce around a different point. The militaristic feel and terrorist paranoia of Battlestar Galactica did strike me as very reflective of what I had been led to believe- and had deducted- were US concerns and perspective. In the case of the US, you don't need to look any further than the Iraq war to see that there is no consensus reaction to terrorism here. Specifically, I had the reaction to terrorist attacks on US citizens on US soil in mind; Iraq is a different situation altogether (and despite the large number of attacks on US/allied soldiers, most terrorist attacks are aimed at other Iraqis).