I think it's funny that we won't let the RIAA/MPAA lock up computers to enforce their laws, but when our 'oh so precious movies' are at stake, executions are warranted.
"Why do I mention these? Because they're illustrative of the sort of asshole that's endemic these days; the sort who doesn't give a shit, and who can only be controlled by laws and/or 2x4s. "
Funny you should mention that. When I saw MiiB, somebody brought a laser pointer and started playing pong on the screen with it during the previews. After about 15 seconds, some bloke shouted "You do that again and I'm going to break your arm!"
When the applause died down, and the movie started, no red dots were to be seen. Problem solved.
... they could block all domains relating to the RIAA. Their reasoning could be "Well, you expect us to enforce your copyrights, so we're prventing people from copying data from your site and resposting it elsewhere. This is what you wanted. I mean, somebody could copy and paste images from your site and use them illegally!"
The RIAA would be forced to sue the ISP's to unblock them. Then the ISP's could be court ordered to remove all the blocks and let free-speech reign. Either the ISP's have the right to choose which sites they block, or they cannot block any at all. So either the RIAA earns their own blockage, or the ISP's cannot be forced to block anybody they don't want to.
"If this suit passes in the favor of the RIAA, then you can kiss justice goodbye, as well as the common sense of that judge."
If this suit passes in the favor of the RIAA, then you can kiss Listen4Ever.com goodbye. The rest is only speculation.
Before you mod me as redundant, consider this: What are the real consequences of the RIAA winning this? Well, Listen4Ever.com will probably be blocked, fair enough. Does this give the RIAA too much power? Well, that depends. Let's say that the RIAA demands that ISP's sue another site like Listen4Ever that pops up. Will that mean the RIAA can demand ISP's to block it? That depends on the exact findings of the judge. The judge could say "ISP's must block this site..." or he/she could say "ISP's must block sites that break copyrights...".
In the first case, the RIAA would have to sue again in order to block another site. (Eventually that'll get a bit spendy...) In the second case, the ISP's could appeal. They could challenge any site that the RIAA attempts to block. It wouldn't take long for a freedom of speech case to come up. It is hard to imagine that the RIAA could develop any real policing powers.
In other words, nothing is absolute. The more ridiculous steps that the RIAA takes to control content (especially when they can't prove they've lost money on 'unauthorized copies'...), the harder it is for any legislation to be passed to lock up the content. "We shut down this site, but our income didn't suddenly grow." -- How well will that hold up? I think this type of crap makes it less likely that new versions of the SSSCA will get passed. I see a silver lining either way.
why? no really, why?
oh that's right, commerce is the downfall of society...
you ad vigilantes make me sick, i'm sure you scavenged for/built yourself every product you own right?
Why the FUCK can't I make a joke without some dumbshit taking it seriously? It wouldn't be so bad if they wouldn't take it to such extremes. "You think the RIAA's charging too much for CDs? That must mean you're unwilling to pay for anything! You're the reason that society is bad!!"
There's a difference between 'lack of interest' and 'stupidity'. It's hard to want to go back and change the spelling of the word if it's obvious what is meant. It's one thing when a typo causes confusion it's another when it's plainly obvious what they meant.
It's silly to get all bent out of shape when the message got through. It's certainly not a mesaure of intellect. Grammar does not a point affect.
"Atrocious spelling is barely tolerable. Grammatical errors, particularly those which completely reverse what you are trying to say, are not."
Oh grow up. Nobody jumps into a higher class by winning a spelling bee.
Anybody else sick of people complaining about spelling/gram,ar errors? Here's a hint: All of us that post on Slashdot are human. That means we make mistakes. It also means that our fancy-ass neural network brains are capable of understanding error-riddled comments.
"Why don't you learn proper English grammer and spelling before posting, eh moron?"
What's the matter? Couldn't understand him? You should learn how to talk to people instead of expecting them to adhere to extreme standards set for people attempting to write books.
heh. That kinda reminds me of that Far Side cartoon where some scientists are trying to decipher the Dolphin language. They were extremely frustrated because they couldn't figure out why the translator kept saying 'ah blow ess pan yol.'
"Of all the free OS's out there, why FreeDOS of all things? (Not that there is anything wrong with FreeDOS, it just wouldn't be my first choice for a modern workstation OS)."
Simply because it boots. I plan on buying a laptop in the not too distant future. I plan on retiring my old laptop and transferring my Windows 2000 license over to it. I'd buy a 'FreeDOS' machine so I could then format and put my copy of Windows 2000 on it, saving me tons of money.
Not everybody who buys one of these machines wants to run Linux, they just don't want to pay $200 more for something they already have. Frankly, I like this 'install your own OS' idea. It keeps Dell out of the position to enforce a monopoly.
"what i said was simply that our sig comes off as saying there is no good rendering software for linux - and thats wrong"
It shouldn't. It should come off as saying "It wont solve my problems". Cos that's what I meant.
It's silly to think I meant there's no alternatives. I talk about Maya and Renderman (completley superior to Lightwave) all the time. Those run on Linux.:P
"no actually i couldnt care less if you use/like linux. my point is very simple your sig is making a statement that is untrue."
Um yes, my statement is very true. Linux won't help me.
" you obviously think because you have a webserver running the most bloated and commercial flavor of linux that you know linux."
Okay.. so based on your logic, I don't know that After Effects really does exist for Linux. I also don't know that Photoshop is available for Linux. (and no, not Gimp. Used it. It sucks.) I'm also unaware that Lightwave is running on Linux with full i386 plug-in support.
My mistake, you're right, Linux will solve all my problems. I'll start installing it right away!
Well I guess you got a point. All the 3D rendering I'm doing is really just an illusion. It's not reality at all. Pity, I was making a good living off it. Hmm I'd like an extra blue pill pls.
"I noticed a couple things. First, Windows supporters are not all technically blind idiots... and some of them aren't entirely misguided. Secondly, I found myself dangerously close to being like those Mac Zealots who used to puzzle me so much."
I'll tell ya something: I useta have a thing against Mac fanatics as well. I understand their point of view today.
You're right, though, not all of us are technically blind idiots. I use Windows 2000 because it's the best choice for me. As my title suggests, I use Lightwave, and I'm heavy into Photoshop and After Effects. Those are unavailable on Linux, and on Mac they don't have near the plugin support. Funny thing is, I'm not having stability issues. I haven't lost a render to Windows. But these pre-conceptions about Windows 2000 make people think that Im, at best, a masochist. They don't understand that it'd cost me close to $10,000 to get the software I need to make a Linux box do what I'm doing with my Windows box today with only $2,500 worth of software.
I aint no dummy. My computer has an IDE drive, 5 scsi, and two firewire drives. It's a dual processor machine with a gig of RAM (all assembled myself, I didn't buy this thing from Gateway...). It has two network cards, a scanner (well, ok, USB scanners aren't a challenge to install...), a DVD-RAM, and a CD Burner (Seperate unit from the DVD-RAM). I don't have stability issues. As a matter of fact, I can easily go a couple of weeks without a reboot. (it's considerably longer when I don't play games... heh.) Trust me when I say: If Windows 2000 was so painful to use, I wouldn't be running it now. I'd be out of a job.
In any case, I'm not out to tell the Linux world that Windows 2000 is great. The only reason I'm venting all this to you is that I hope at least somebody here understands that I am not misguided, I'm not misinformed, and I'm not an MS zealot. For me, Windows 2000 is the perfect fit. There are people who have very similar jobs that I do who feel the exact same way.
In any case, I've gone around this block too many times. Thanks for listening. Being understood is a nice feeling.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's funny that we won't let the RIAA/MPAA lock up computers to enforce their laws, but when our 'oh so precious movies' are at stake, executions are warranted.
Funny that.
"Why do I mention these? Because they're illustrative of the sort of asshole that's endemic these days; the sort who doesn't give a shit, and who can only be controlled by laws and/or 2x4s. "
Funny you should mention that. When I saw MiiB, somebody brought a laser pointer and started playing pong on the screen with it during the previews. After about 15 seconds, some bloke shouted "You do that again and I'm going to break your arm!"
When the applause died down, and the movie started, no red dots were to be seen. Problem solved.
Yeah, good idea, punish everybody, including those that didn't commit any crimes.
"If the site being blocked were a child pornography site, would you the general slashdotter have the same reactions?"
No. They're not equal to compare. Child pornography is totally illegal. Music downloads are not.
... they could block all domains relating to the RIAA. Their reasoning could be "Well, you expect us to enforce your copyrights, so we're prventing people from copying data from your site and resposting it elsewhere. This is what you wanted. I mean, somebody could copy and paste images from your site and use them illegally!"
The RIAA would be forced to sue the ISP's to unblock them. Then the ISP's could be court ordered to remove all the blocks and let free-speech reign. Either the ISP's have the right to choose which sites they block, or they cannot block any at all. So either the RIAA earns their own blockage, or the ISP's cannot be forced to block anybody they don't want to.
"If this suit passes in the favor of the RIAA, then you can kiss justice goodbye, as well as the common sense of that judge."
If this suit passes in the favor of the RIAA, then you can kiss Listen4Ever.com goodbye. The rest is only speculation.
Before you mod me as redundant, consider this: What are the real consequences of the RIAA winning this? Well, Listen4Ever.com will probably be blocked, fair enough. Does this give the RIAA too much power? Well, that depends. Let's say that the RIAA demands that ISP's sue another site like Listen4Ever that pops up. Will that mean the RIAA can demand ISP's to block it? That depends on the exact findings of the judge. The judge could say "ISP's must block this site..." or he/she could say "ISP's must block sites that break copyrights...".
In the first case, the RIAA would have to sue again in order to block another site. (Eventually that'll get a bit spendy...) In the second case, the ISP's could appeal. They could challenge any site that the RIAA attempts to block. It wouldn't take long for a freedom of speech case to come up. It is hard to imagine that the RIAA could develop any real policing powers.
In other words, nothing is absolute. The more ridiculous steps that the RIAA takes to control content (especially when they can't prove they've lost money on 'unauthorized copies'...), the harder it is for any legislation to be passed to lock up the content. "We shut down this site, but our income didn't suddenly grow." -- How well will that hold up? I think this type of crap makes it less likely that new versions of the SSSCA will get passed. I see a silver lining either way.
Why the FUCK can't I make a joke without some dumbshit taking it seriously? It wouldn't be so bad if they wouldn't take it to such extremes. "You think the RIAA's charging too much for CDs? That must mean you're unwilling to pay for anything! You're the reason that society is bad!!"
I'm not referring to idiocy, I'm referring to zealousy. I've seen a whole lotta that.
It's new and gimmicky, therefore will get attention for a little while. Then it'll go extinct like Burma Shave ads.
The problem with showing commercials on LCD's is that people'll tune them out.
I said it before and I'll say it again: How much do they think my wimpy organic mind can retain?
Start selling helmets with blast shields? Heh I wonder what Valenti would say to that? "People who impair their vision to avoid ads are stealing."
"Are you sure she was trying?"
Yes I am. She doesn't sound like Steve Urkel in real life.
I dunno.. Kathy Ireland from 'Alien from L.A.' was trying harder than Jar Jar to be annoying.
There's a difference between 'lack of interest' and 'stupidity'. It's hard to want to go back and change the spelling of the word if it's obvious what is meant. It's one thing when a typo causes confusion it's another when it's plainly obvious what they meant.
It's silly to get all bent out of shape when the message got through. It's certainly not a mesaure of intellect. Grammar does not a point affect.
"Atrocious spelling is barely tolerable. Grammatical errors, particularly those which completely reverse what you are trying to say, are not."
Oh grow up. Nobody jumps into a higher class by winning a spelling bee.
Anybody else sick of people complaining about spelling/gram,ar errors? Here's a hint: All of us that post on Slashdot are human. That means we make mistakes. It also means that our fancy-ass neural network brains are capable of understanding error-riddled comments.
"Why don't you learn proper English grammer and spelling before posting, eh moron?"
What's the matter? Couldn't understand him? You should learn how to talk to people instead of expecting them to adhere to extreme standards set for people attempting to write books.
It's not. I bought a legit Win2k disk. Got a free USB Zip drive with it. :P
heh. That kinda reminds me of that Far Side cartoon where some scientists are trying to decipher the Dolphin language. They were extremely frustrated because they couldn't figure out why the translator kept saying 'ah blow ess pan yol.'
"Of all the free OS's out there, why FreeDOS of all things? (Not that there is anything wrong with FreeDOS, it just wouldn't be my first choice for a modern workstation OS)."
Simply because it boots. I plan on buying a laptop in the not too distant future. I plan on retiring my old laptop and transferring my Windows 2000 license over to it. I'd buy a 'FreeDOS' machine so I could then format and put my copy of Windows 2000 on it, saving me tons of money.
Not everybody who buys one of these machines wants to run Linux, they just don't want to pay $200 more for something they already have. Frankly, I like this 'install your own OS' idea. It keeps Dell out of the position to enforce a monopoly.
"what i said was simply that our sig comes off as saying there is no good rendering software for linux - and thats wrong"
:P
It shouldn't. It should come off as saying "It wont solve my problems". Cos that's what I meant.
It's silly to think I meant there's no alternatives. I talk about Maya and Renderman (completley superior to Lightwave) all the time. Those run on Linux.
"and i dont give a good hoot nany weather you agree with me or not. you just imply there is no alternative on linux, - WRONG !"
Im not implying there are no alternatives on Linux, I said that it wont solve my problems! Can't you read?
"no actually i couldnt care less if you use/like linux. my point is very simple your sig is making a statement that is untrue."
Um yes, my statement is very true. Linux won't help me.
" you obviously think because you have a webserver running the most bloated and commercial flavor of linux that you know linux."
Okay.. so based on your logic, I don't know that After Effects really does exist for Linux. I also don't know that Photoshop is available for Linux. (and no, not Gimp. Used it. It sucks.) I'm also unaware that Lightwave is running on Linux with full i386 plug-in support.
My mistake, you're right, Linux will solve all my problems. I'll start installing it right away!
No worries man, s'all cool.
:)
Good day.
Well I guess you got a point. All the 3D rendering I'm doing is really just an illusion. It's not reality at all. Pity, I was making a good living off it. Hmm I'd like an extra blue pill pls.
True true...
"I noticed a couple things. First, Windows supporters are not all technically blind idiots... and some of them aren't entirely misguided. Secondly, I found myself dangerously close to being like those Mac Zealots who used to puzzle me so much."
I'll tell ya something: I useta have a thing against Mac fanatics as well. I understand their point of view today.
You're right, though, not all of us are technically blind idiots. I use Windows 2000 because it's the best choice for me. As my title suggests, I use Lightwave, and I'm heavy into Photoshop and After Effects. Those are unavailable on Linux, and on Mac they don't have near the plugin support. Funny thing is, I'm not having stability issues. I haven't lost a render to Windows. But these pre-conceptions about Windows 2000 make people think that Im, at best, a masochist. They don't understand that it'd cost me close to $10,000 to get the software I need to make a Linux box do what I'm doing with my Windows box today with only $2,500 worth of software.
I aint no dummy. My computer has an IDE drive, 5 scsi, and two firewire drives. It's a dual processor machine with a gig of RAM (all assembled myself, I didn't buy this thing from Gateway...). It has two network cards, a scanner (well, ok, USB scanners aren't a challenge to install...), a DVD-RAM, and a CD Burner (Seperate unit from the DVD-RAM). I don't have stability issues. As a matter of fact, I can easily go a couple of weeks without a reboot. (it's considerably longer when I don't play games... heh.) Trust me when I say: If Windows 2000 was so painful to use, I wouldn't be running it now. I'd be out of a job.
In any case, I'm not out to tell the Linux world that Windows 2000 is great. The only reason I'm venting all this to you is that I hope at least somebody here understands that I am not misguided, I'm not misinformed, and I'm not an MS zealot. For me, Windows 2000 is the perfect fit. There are people who have very similar jobs that I do who feel the exact same way.
In any case, I've gone around this block too many times. Thanks for listening. Being understood is a nice feeling.
Cheers, man.
Ouch, that's shitty. Yeah I'll haveta look into that, thank you.
Cheers man.