Why can't there be a search engine with a picture of a cuntler or a titler? I suppose there are those who would prefer a picture of a cockler, as well.
If your player works for you, what's to be angry about? Has anyone denied you admittance to a restaurant because your player wasn't an iPod? Been turned down for a job because your earphone wires weren't white?
From your reference to "zealous fanboys", I might guess that Apple's success is sticking in your craw. I hope I'm wrong about that, because if that's the case, it would indicate that you've got unresolved personal issues.
Anyway, good on you. You're not apologetic and you're not trying to clothe your copying as if it were a noble cause (although that's an awfully stylish vintage tinfoil hat you're wearing).
All I'm saying is that if you're going to make copies, or download copirs or whatever, just go ahead and DO IT, and spare me your platitudes. You, gandy, are righteous because you're not pretending to be righteous, to yourself or anyone else. Thank you for the refreshment.
Another positive might be that there would be a lot less zombies out there and malware might be less damaging. Most people don't security from their ass, nor should we realistically expect them to. Not everyone has a pet geek to help them out.
In these cases, some aspects of Trusted Computing would be a good thing.
However, I don't trust the likes of MS to not subvert it for their own benefit and the benefit of the large content companies. From what I've read, it's pretty much a given.
The OP said the worst thing today is formatting. He'll probably change his mind tomorrow.
For now, let's compromise and say that the worst thing today is poorly formatted opinions. Tomorrow we'll go with what you said, and throw in "with not enough white space" at the end.
I definitely get what you're saying now. A good comparison would be a control economy, like we saw in Soviet Russia. (I'm avoiding the temptation to make a really dumb joke.) Under the Communist Party, a huge black market developed, a true second economy, that spread into all levels of society.
So I think you're saying that because a cartel is artificially controlling supply when there is high demand for a product, the p2p black market has developed. Or looking at it another way, people route around the blockage.
I think the same will happen no matter what laws Orrin Hatch manages to hatch. Someone will figure out a way to route around the damage. This doesn't mean that it's not worth it to oppose such laws, it just means that ultimately the laws and the copy protection schemes won't work.
Oh, you pure air pussies make me want to puke. Or maybe cough up a bit of lung. Look, wuss, I'm from Los Angeles, where we say, "If you can't see it, how can you be sure you're really breathing it?"
I'd call you more bad names, but I've got to go hack up some mucus.
For someone who just wants to dick around surfing the web, it's an expensive optional luxury. It's not insanely exhorbitant, but someone who's just bored might think twice. If they're on a tight budget, they won't even seriously consider it. It's not like it's that hard to wait ten to fifteen hours to get back online (for most people =)). It's not like you'll be able to play WoW or HL2 anyway, with that kind of latency.
For someone who needs internet access to work while they're inflight, it's invaluable, and pays for itself a few times over (at least).
Eventually the price might come down enough for one to use this service recreationally without wincing at the price. However, satellites are expensive and satellite time is expensive. So you're looking at either cheap ubiquitous satellites at some time in the future, or some scheme to squeeze more bandwith out of a scarce resource.
You make a reasonable argument, and it's very well put.
You describe the sorry state of the current system in regards to copyright extensions, and you point out the likely revolting developments, if Hatch has his way (given his track record).
However, there is something wrong with congratulating yourself for violating a law on one hand, while also relying on that law to protect something you value. It's self-deceptive and hypocritical. I was applauding the original poster for not being a hypocrite, for not trying to wrap his behavior in some sort of pseudo-political rationalization of "fighting the Man". I don't know if this applies, but that's often the same excuse that habitual shoplifters offer as moral justification.
Point taken, David. The copyright system is broken, and the patent system is worse. And the trend for both is downward, ever downward. The balance of the system is heavily in favor of "giant soulless corporations", as you put it. However, it is copyrights that make the GPL work. This is because, despite the dysfunction of the system, the underlying principle, that a creator has certain rights pertaining to his creation, is sound.
So to make a moral and ethical distinction between one behavior and another, when they really are the same behavior, is false. It's worse than false, because it is self-deceptive and hypocritical.
I'm not going to address in depth the other points in your comment, but I have to wonder. Are you against investing? Because some police abuse their authority, that is moral justification for driving recklessly? I don't think you think these things, but maybe you can explain what exactly you do mean.
And this gives you license to download any movie that you want?
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm just trying to see where your comment fits into the discussion.
Are you saying, "They screw me over, so I'm going to screw them over"? If you are, fine. You're not operating at a high ethical level, but I'm in no position to judge you and I'm no better than you. I just can't stand it when a person does this and then tries to pass it off as somehow noble. Talk about polishing a turd.
Thanks for not bullshitting us, and throwing out lame excuses or psuedo-philosophical crap about how it's OK for the little guy, but not OK for a big bully corporation to violate copyright.
You know it's wrong, but you do it anyway. I can respect that. I have no problem with that. You have your reasons, but they're not offered as excuses. I tip my hat to you (or I would if I were wearing a hat).
So the basis of what's right and what's wrong is whether it's a business or an individual that's engaged in the violation?
If that's the case, then we should give the CherryOS guy a free ride, since it's pretty clear that he's just one guy, trying to get something for nothing, much like the majority of downloaders.
Either you are not thinking clearly, you're not being honest with yourself about your own activities, or a combination of both. Stop making excuses and accept responsibility for your actions.
Note: I'm not saying to stop downloading. I'm just saying stop bullshitting yourself about it, and by extension, bullshitting others.
I think there's as much chance of that as of Richard Clarke being brought back onboard. MS is too big a contributor to political campaigns on both sides of the aisle for that to ever happen.
Because we haven't seen as naked a power grab since. ..ever?
At least you knew that Clinton wouldn't get away with too much in the way of hurting our civil liberties, because the Republicans controlled Congress for most of his Presidency. And despite Clinton's fiscal conservatism, he was a liberal at heart, so he wasn't interested so much in curtailing civil liberties as he was in growing social welfare programs, i.e., growing the "feel good" side of government, often at the expense of defense programs. One of the things I respect about Clinton is that he was at least realistic about fiscal responsibility, so we could actually pay for the programs he wanted. (Just a note: I'm not totally against social welfare programs, I just suspect the liberal tendency to go overboard on them and attempt to solve all of our problems.)
Bush, on the other hand, might talk a good game of conservatism, but his actions speak differently. And so it is with his and congress's actions to "protect our liberty. Bush pays lip service to conservative ideals, but at heart he is a criminal who will do anything to gain more power for himself or his friends.
There are many many examples, far too many to list. So, I'll just mention the latest in a long line of power grabs, some minor, some major. Schiavo.
No, those people still actively invade a space somewhat considered "yours". You came to slashdot, I didn't go to your space.
I see you're determined to justify your nuisance, by saying "I'm not as annoying at the flyer people, because I'm not touching anyone's car."
I could counter with a further example of the "make money at home with your computer" signs that pollute every available square inch of public vertical surface and telephone pole where I live, but I won't, as you'll just come up with another minor difference to prove how you're not a nuisance and perfectly innocent.
The point is, you are polluting the commons. Maybe not to the same degree as blog spammers, but you're practically there. You're like the suburban brats that come into San Francisco and bum change on Haight, only worse, because you should know better.
I'm really surprised that you don't realize this. I wonder if you actually know what "the commons" is. Read this, so you'll know what I'm talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
Why can't there be a search engine with a picture of a cuntler or a titler? I suppose there are those who would prefer a picture of a cockler, as well.
What about MY needs?
If your player works for you, what's to be angry about? Has anyone denied you admittance to a restaurant because your player wasn't an iPod? Been turned down for a job because your earphone wires weren't white?
From your reference to "zealous fanboys", I might guess that Apple's success is sticking in your craw. I hope I'm wrong about that, because if that's the case, it would indicate that you've got unresolved personal issues.
If you had followed the instructions and just used a ground down screwdriver, you could have just stabbed her. Much less clean up afterwards.
Yeah, they call them head phones, because they're only for stoners.
OK, you're a troll. Do you care? =)
Anyway, good on you. You're not apologetic and you're not trying to clothe your copying as if it were a noble cause (although that's an awfully stylish vintage tinfoil hat you're wearing).
All I'm saying is that if you're going to make copies, or download copirs or whatever, just go ahead and DO IT, and spare me your platitudes. You, gandy, are righteous because you're not pretending to be righteous, to yourself or anyone else. Thank you for the refreshment.
Another positive might be that there would be a lot less zombies out there and malware might be less damaging. Most people don't security from their ass, nor should we realistically expect them to. Not everyone has a pet geek to help them out.
In these cases, some aspects of Trusted Computing would be a good thing.
However, I don't trust the likes of MS to not subvert it for their own benefit and the benefit of the large content companies. From what I've read, it's pretty much a given.
Well, you certainly live up to your name. (second definition)
The OP said the worst thing today is formatting. He'll probably change his mind tomorrow.
For now, let's compromise and say that the worst thing today is poorly formatted opinions. Tomorrow we'll go with what you said, and throw in "with not enough white space" at the end.
I definitely get what you're saying now. A good comparison would be a control economy, like we saw in Soviet Russia. (I'm avoiding the temptation to make a really dumb joke.) Under the Communist Party, a huge black market developed, a true second economy, that spread into all levels of society.
So I think you're saying that because a cartel is artificially controlling supply when there is high demand for a product, the p2p black market has developed. Or looking at it another way, people route around the blockage.
I think the same will happen no matter what laws Orrin Hatch manages to hatch. Someone will figure out a way to route around the damage. This doesn't mean that it's not worth it to oppose such laws, it just means that ultimately the laws and the copy protection schemes won't work.
Oh, you pure air pussies make me want to puke. Or maybe cough up a bit of lung. Look, wuss, I'm from Los Angeles, where we say, "If you can't see it, how can you be sure you're really breathing it?"
I'd call you more bad names, but I've got to go hack up some mucus.
=)
I take it you've never heard of the Solo Squadron?
The worst thing about the internet today is reading horribly formatted text when your stoned/wasted/bored.
Not much joy in it when you're sober, either.
For someone who just wants to dick around surfing the web, it's an expensive optional luxury. It's not insanely exhorbitant, but someone who's just bored might think twice. If they're on a tight budget, they won't even seriously consider it. It's not like it's that hard to wait ten to fifteen hours to get back online (for most people =)). It's not like you'll be able to play WoW or HL2 anyway, with that kind of latency.
For someone who needs internet access to work while they're inflight, it's invaluable, and pays for itself a few times over (at least).
Eventually the price might come down enough for one to use this service recreationally without wincing at the price. However, satellites are expensive and satellite time is expensive. So you're looking at either cheap ubiquitous satellites at some time in the future, or some scheme to squeeze more bandwith out of a scarce resource.
You make a reasonable argument, and it's very well put.
You describe the sorry state of the current system in regards to copyright extensions, and you point out the likely revolting developments, if Hatch has his way (given his track record).
However, there is something wrong with congratulating yourself for violating a law on one hand, while also relying on that law to protect something you value. It's self-deceptive and hypocritical. I was applauding the original poster for not being a hypocrite, for not trying to wrap his behavior in some sort of pseudo-political rationalization of "fighting the Man". I don't know if this applies, but that's often the same excuse that habitual shoplifters offer as moral justification.
Point taken, David. The copyright system is broken, and the patent system is worse. And the trend for both is downward, ever downward. The balance of the system is heavily in favor of "giant soulless corporations", as you put it. However, it is copyrights that make the GPL work. This is because, despite the dysfunction of the system, the underlying principle, that a creator has certain rights pertaining to his creation, is sound.
So to make a moral and ethical distinction between one behavior and another, when they really are the same behavior, is false. It's worse than false, because it is self-deceptive and hypocritical.
I'm not going to address in depth the other points in your comment, but I have to wonder. Are you against investing? Because some police abuse their authority, that is moral justification for driving recklessly? I don't think you think these things, but maybe you can explain what exactly you do mean.
And this gives you license to download any movie that you want?
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm just trying to see where your comment fits into the discussion.
Are you saying, "They screw me over, so I'm going to screw them over"? If you are, fine. You're not operating at a high ethical level, but I'm in no position to judge you and I'm no better than you. I just can't stand it when a person does this and then tries to pass it off as somehow noble. Talk about polishing a turd.
It's still a funny troll. I really like this one line:
It was one of those boutique record stores that sell obscure, independent releases that no-one listens to, not even the people that buy them.
=)
Better shut my pie-hole.
Damn straight. They don't serve pie to captives^Wdetainees at Gitmo.
Thanks for not bullshitting us, and throwing out lame excuses or psuedo-philosophical crap about how it's OK for the little guy, but not OK for a big bully corporation to violate copyright.
You know it's wrong, but you do it anyway. I can respect that. I have no problem with that. You have your reasons, but they're not offered as excuses. I tip my hat to you (or I would if I were wearing a hat).
So the basis of what's right and what's wrong is whether it's a business or an individual that's engaged in the violation?
If that's the case, then we should give the CherryOS guy a free ride, since it's pretty clear that he's just one guy, trying to get something for nothing, much like the majority of downloaders.
Either you are not thinking clearly, you're not being honest with yourself about your own activities, or a combination of both. Stop making excuses and accept responsibility for your actions.
Note: I'm not saying to stop downloading. I'm just saying stop bullshitting yourself about it, and by extension, bullshitting others.
I think there's as much chance of that as of Richard Clarke being brought back onboard. MS is too big a contributor to political campaigns on both sides of the aisle for that to ever happen.
Because we haven't seen as naked a power grab since. . .ever?
At least you knew that Clinton wouldn't get away with too much in the way of hurting our civil liberties, because the Republicans controlled Congress for most of his Presidency. And despite Clinton's fiscal conservatism, he was a liberal at heart, so he wasn't interested so much in curtailing civil liberties as he was in growing social welfare programs, i.e., growing the "feel good" side of government, often at the expense of defense programs. One of the things I respect about Clinton is that he was at least realistic about fiscal responsibility, so we could actually pay for the programs he wanted. (Just a note: I'm not totally against social welfare programs, I just suspect the liberal tendency to go overboard on them and attempt to solve all of our problems.)
Bush, on the other hand, might talk a good game of conservatism, but his actions speak differently. And so it is with his and congress's actions to "protect our liberty. Bush pays lip service to conservative ideals, but at heart he is a criminal who will do anything to gain more power for himself or his friends.
There are many many examples, far too many to list. So, I'll just mention the latest in a long line of power grabs, some minor, some major. Schiavo.
Gentlemen. Make your time. At the 2005 World Toilet Expo.
No, the building will manage itself. And the super will look just like Arnold Schwarznegger.
No, those people still actively invade a space somewhat considered "yours". You came to slashdot, I didn't go to your space.
I see you're determined to justify your nuisance, by saying "I'm not as annoying at the flyer people, because I'm not touching anyone's car."
I could counter with a further example of the "make money at home with your computer" signs that pollute every available square inch of public vertical surface and telephone pole where I live, but I won't, as you'll just come up with another minor difference to prove how you're not a nuisance and perfectly innocent.
The point is, you are polluting the commons. Maybe not to the same degree as blog spammers, but you're practically there. You're like the suburban brats that come into San Francisco and bum change on Haight, only worse, because you should know better.
I'm really surprised that you don't realize this. I wonder if you actually know what "the commons" is. Read this, so you'll know what I'm talking about.