You're exactly right on this. Remember everyone, the major labels are trying to take away the right to second-sale and basically have you lease the music from them.
Flaunting marijuana use is exactly what's causing change. And media opinion and public opinion feed back on each other: it's what makes the moguls money.
Amusingly enough, folklore states that Rizla's official explanation of king skins is that they are for lorry drivers, who need their smokes to last longer before their next roll.
Strange that you should think this way. I'm a vegetarian and whenever I wonder about becoming vegan, I think to myself, well, I'd still be drawing the line unless I went fruitarian.
Fruiarianism is a logical conclusion. Omnivorism is a logical conclusion. Vegetarianism and veganism are a compromise.
This is so far from being a perfect solution that I'm bound to miss something out of this reply, but here goes.
Exactly how do you restrict access to the internet without binding an IP address to a person even more closely, thus losing any chance we had at anonymity?
If you want a private network, why don't you set up an isolated MAN? You will be free to enforce whatever screening process you desire - but leave the internet out of this.
I don't think you're trolling - but you don't seem to understand that personal morality is personal.
People don't seem to have any rational basis for their anti-company bias
You are kidding, right? You think I didn't know that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing before I watched The Cube?!
It makes much less sense for a company to be 'altruistic', because there is no measure on the return of that (in the sense of psychological egotism) other than advertising revenue.
Don't get me started. I was installing the latest version of IE the other day whilst posting to Slashdot, and during the process it stole my focus (without even requiring anything of me) no less than seven times; then, at the end of the process, just as I was pressing the 'return' key, what should pop up but a dialog saying 'You must restart your computer before the settings will take effect. Do you want to do so now? NO YES'!!
(cue comments slagging me off for installing IE in the first place, my mother cooks socks in hell, etc.)
It's interesting that you bring up LaTeX, since the reason that people don't use it is that it isn't WYSIWYG.
The way I see it is, that if we want people not to use proprietary Micros~1 extensions, we have to come up with the best WYSIWYG editor, and have it create real HTML
Are you sure? My understanding of the GPL if you use GPL'ed software in your product, and you make your product available, then you have to make the source available to everyone, not just those who have bought your product.
Or you could just sign other users' Napster keys with your Napster key, where a 'Napster key' is something you have created purely for the purpose of working out a web of trust on Napster, and has no link to meatspace whatsoever.
Read Bruce's original comment. He makes an analogy to existing broadcast law. There is a great difference between using (playing a CD at home) and providing a service (broadcasting a CD).
Let's say you go to the store and buy a coke. The coke machine runs Linux. Should you get a free CD with every can? No.
Your analogy is completely flawed. Its equivalent in our current understanding of the GPL is a follows:
Let's say you create a document with MS Word. Should you get the source code to Word every time you create a document?
If the author of the software running on the drinks machine releases it under the GPL, and you modify it to power your drinks machine and then sell that drinks machine to soda distributors then yes, you should have to release the source code. If you don't distribute your new drinks machine, then the current GPL says you don't have to release the source. The question is whether or not we need a new license to prevent that.
The point was that heroin today doesn't hurt anyone who's not asking for it.
This reminds me of the argument, "People who want to be able to use encryption must have something to hide".
It's been illegal for a long time, and everybody knows how unhealthy the junk you can buy on the street is.
So if you legalise it, then users can get nice clean heroin, and your point is moot.
People had ways of doing things (like partying) that required alcohol, and when their regulated, healthy supply was cut off, they naturally used the unregulated, dangerous supply (having had access to the good stuff all their lives, they just expected that the most dangerous think in their bathtub gin would be ethanol).
Well, you still haven't explained what you mean by "required" (my question previously stated as "Define 'need'."). But is your argument really based on the assertion that alcohol prohibition was dangerous because people hadn't yet caught on to the dangers? If so, are you saying that if they'd kept it up a bit longer, things would have been okay?
The point was that alcohol prohibition killed healthy, productive members of society, while the heroin prohibition mostly kills suicidal nutcases who will probably find some other way to off themselves a bit at a time if heroin is made relatively safe.
Escapism and self-destruction are not the same thing, although they might share many of the same causes. Besides, my original point still stands: heroin's current and potential situations are different. There is plenty of interesting literature influenced by opium experiences; why should heroin, a close relative, have no beneficial side?
Is the moderator correct? Are you really just trolling me?
I read the first two comments you posted to this article and was impressed. This one, however, was doomed from the moment you started: "Everybody knows that..."
Everybody knows that heroin (as it is available on the street) is 1) very addictive and 2) bad for your health to the point where you might die every time you use it.
Your number 2 is a property of street heroin, which is exactly the point that the original poster was making. You think that heroin would be administered in hospitals if it were really a case of Russian Roulette every time?
Do you think that the people who take heroin aren't just the same "too chicken-shit to just jump off a bridge" people who drink everything in sight as soon as they can get their hands on it?
I think that heroin attracts a class of people who are running away from problems; but I don't see why that should be an inherent property. To my mind, one should never take drugs as an answer, only as a question. This applies to heroin and to alcohol.
Yes, heroin might not be the "horrible, horrible thing it is today", but that doesn't mean that the same people wouldn't destroy themselves somehow.
That isn't the case with alcohol.
This is a complete non-sequitur. In the first sentence you are talking about people, but then in the second you are talking about drugs. To separate the two is entirely the point.
When prohibition came, people still didn't know how to party without booze. So a lot of normal, non-self-destructive people were put in the position of needing to buy bathtub gin. It's pretty different.
Define 'need'. Now tell me how that differs from people's choice to abuse other drugs. As long as it doesn't harm anyone else (and pretty much the only problem I have with taking drugs is the funding of terrorism), why take away people's liberties?
So, it's meaningless to say that 'snowboarding is fun', for instance, because you're likely to be under the influence of adrenaline when you make that decision?
Have you ever come into contact with embedded software? Then you will have heard of Windriver's vxWorks operating system. Perhaps you've even heard of the vxWorks development environment, Tornado? Then you will be fully aware that it uses gcc to compile for most targets (including x86).
Let me guess. You spend hours on IRC having conversations like this:
You: Hello. HornyFem: Hello. You: How are you? HornyFem: Why do you ask how am I? You: Just trying to make conversation. HornyFem: Please continue. You: I can't unless you talk as well! HornyFem: Would you feel better if you could unless I talk as well? You: You talk strange. HornyFem: Please continue.
Slashdot Mirror
You just don't get it, do you?
You're exactly right on this. Remember everyone, the major labels are trying to take away the right to second-sale and basically have you lease the music from them.
Hamish
Since intellectual property was unethical.
Since when was a point of view other than my own valid?
Since it reversed the meaning of a concept by the use of pejoratives.
Hamish
Flaunting marijuana use is exactly what's causing change. And media opinion and public opinion feed back on each other: it's what makes the moguls money.
Hamish
Amusingly enough, folklore states that Rizla's official explanation of king skins is that they are for lorry drivers, who need their smokes to last longer before their next roll.
;)
Whatever
Strange that you should think this way. I'm a vegetarian and whenever I wonder about becoming vegan, I think to myself, well, I'd still be drawing the line unless I went fruitarian.
Fruiarianism is a logical conclusion. Omnivorism is a logical conclusion. Vegetarianism and veganism are a compromise.
Hamish
This is so far from being a perfect solution that I'm bound to miss something out of this reply, but here goes.
Exactly how do you restrict access to the internet without binding an IP address to a person even more closely, thus losing any chance we had at anonymity?
If you want a private network, why don't you set up an isolated MAN? You will be free to enforce whatever screening process you desire - but leave the internet out of this.
I don't think you're trolling - but you don't seem to understand that personal morality is personal.
Hamish
People don't seem to have any rational basis for their anti-company bias
You are kidding, right? You think I didn't know that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing before I watched The Cube?!
It makes much less sense for a company to be 'altruistic', because there is no measure on the return of that (in the sense of psychological egotism) other than advertising revenue.
Hamish
Don't get me started. I was installing the latest version of IE the other day whilst posting to Slashdot, and during the process it stole my focus (without even requiring anything of me) no less than seven times; then, at the end of the process, just as I was pressing the 'return' key, what should pop up but a dialog saying 'You must restart your computer before the settings will take effect. Do you want to do so now? NO YES'!!
(cue comments slagging me off for installing IE in the first place, my mother cooks socks in hell, etc.)
Hamish
It's interesting that you bring up LaTeX, since the reason that people don't use it is that it isn't WYSIWYG.
The way I see it is, that if we want people not to use proprietary Micros~1 extensions, we have to come up with the best WYSIWYG editor, and have it create real HTML
Hamish
Those are the two options, don't talk about his rights...... He voluntarily signed those away, by choosing not to follow society's rules.
Reminds me of a shrinkwrap license. Your being born implies consent, etc.
Hamish
Are you sure? My understanding of the GPL if you use GPL'ed software in your product, and you make your product available, then you have to make the source available to everyone, not just those who have bought your product.
Hamish
Or you could just sign other users' Napster keys with your Napster key, where a 'Napster key' is something you have created purely for the purpose of working out a web of trust on Napster, and has no link to meatspace whatsoever.
Hamish
So we'll probably need a different license. The gcc (and indeed most software) would continue to be covered by the GPL.
Hamish
Read Bruce's original comment. He makes an analogy to existing broadcast law. There is a great difference between using (playing a CD at home) and providing a service (broadcasting a CD).
Hamish
Let's say you go to the store and buy a coke. The coke machine runs Linux. Should you get a free CD with every can? No.
Your analogy is completely flawed. Its equivalent in our current understanding of the GPL is a follows:
Let's say you create a document with MS Word. Should you get the source code to Word every time you create a document?
If the author of the software running on the drinks machine releases it under the GPL, and you modify it to power your drinks machine and then sell that drinks machine to soda distributors then yes, you should have to release the source code. If you don't distribute your new drinks machine, then the current GPL says you don't have to release the source. The question is whether or not we need a new license to prevent that.
Hamish
The point was that heroin today doesn't hurt anyone who's not asking for it.
This reminds me of the argument, "People who want to be able to use encryption must have something to hide".
It's been illegal for a long time, and everybody knows how unhealthy the junk you can buy on the street is.
So if you legalise it, then users can get nice clean heroin, and your point is moot.
People had ways of doing things (like partying) that required alcohol, and when their regulated, healthy supply was cut off, they naturally used the unregulated, dangerous supply (having had access to the good stuff all their lives, they just expected that the most dangerous think in their bathtub gin would be ethanol).
Well, you still haven't explained what you mean by "required" (my question previously stated as "Define 'need'."). But is your argument really based on the assertion that alcohol prohibition was dangerous because people hadn't yet caught on to the dangers? If so, are you saying that if they'd kept it up a bit longer, things would have been okay?
The point was that alcohol prohibition killed healthy, productive members of society, while the heroin prohibition mostly kills suicidal nutcases who will probably find some other way to off themselves a bit at a time if heroin is made relatively safe.
Escapism and self-destruction are not the same thing, although they might share many of the same causes. Besides, my original point still stands: heroin's current and potential situations are different. There is plenty of interesting literature influenced by opium experiences; why should heroin, a close relative, have no beneficial side?
Is the moderator correct? Are you really just trolling me?
Hamish
I read the first two comments you posted to this article and was impressed. This one, however, was doomed from the moment you started: "Everybody knows that..."
Everybody knows that heroin (as it is available on the street) is 1) very addictive and 2) bad for your health to the point where you might die every time you use it.
Your number 2 is a property of street heroin, which is exactly the point that the original poster was making. You think that heroin would be administered in hospitals if it were really a case of Russian Roulette every time?
Do you think that the people who take heroin aren't just the same "too chicken-shit to just jump off a bridge" people who drink everything in sight as soon as they can get their hands on it?
I think that heroin attracts a class of people who are running away from problems; but I don't see why that should be an inherent property. To my mind, one should never take drugs as an answer, only as a question. This applies to heroin and to alcohol.
Yes, heroin might not be the "horrible, horrible thing it is today", but that doesn't mean that the same people wouldn't destroy themselves somehow.
That isn't the case with alcohol.
This is a complete non-sequitur. In the first sentence you are talking about people, but then in the second you are talking about drugs. To separate the two is entirely the point.
When prohibition came, people still didn't know how to party without booze. So a lot of normal, non-self-destructive people were put in the position of needing to buy bathtub gin. It's pretty different.
Define 'need'. Now tell me how that differs from people's choice to abuse other drugs. As long as it doesn't harm anyone else (and pretty much the only problem I have with taking drugs is the funding of terrorism), why take away people's liberties?
Hamish
So, it's meaningless to say that 'snowboarding is fun', for instance, because you're likely to be under the influence of adrenaline when you make that decision?
It's a chemical world. Get over it.
Hamish
And be sure he isn't running sash.
Hamish
Have you ever come into contact with embedded software? Then you will have heard of Windriver's vxWorks operating system. Perhaps you've even heard of the vxWorks development environment, Tornado? Then you will be fully aware that it uses gcc to compile for most targets (including x86).
Hamish
In my proposal, the watermarks identify the designer of the original pattern for the copy
You appear to be describing digital signatures.
You think that's a joke - but does anyone remember when Micros~1 tried to have a go at someone for publishing benchmarks about SQL Server performance?
Let me guess. You spend hours on IRC having conversations like this:
You: Hello.
HornyFem: Hello.
You: How are you?
HornyFem: Why do you ask how am I?
You: Just trying to make conversation.
HornyFem: Please continue.
You: I can't unless you talk as well!
HornyFem: Would you feel better if you could unless I talk as well?
You: You talk strange.
HornyFem: Please continue.
etc...
Hamish
Here is your Daddy-o.
Hamish