Sorry for playing, but you must turn in your MCSD at the door. There will be a nice parting kick in the pants for your stupidity.
The.Net framework has nothing to do with development. The.Net framework has to do with running programs compiled to the ".Net" CIL.
VS.Net is a development environment that you could create ".Net" applications with. C# is one of these languages, with the special C#.Net designation for.Net programing..Net is also the name associated with a special type of component normally refered to as web components..Net is an ambiguous term that loosely describes several different aspects of things that may or may not have something to do with a VM.
But the.Net framework is nothing more than a VM, and nothing less than a VM, and if you don't understand that, you shouldn't even be on this board, let alone modded to insightful.
MS doesn't distribute all their software with service packs. You can't download a base installation of XP that is compliant. That is the point. You buy a non-compliant product, then have to jump through hoops to download a patch to make it compliant.
The average user, even developer, isn't going to do that. That is what the whole lawsuit was about. They distribute products that use the undo leverage they have in the field to squash the competition. A little later they might issue a service pack to fix the situation, just to try to look like a fair competitor.
If it is so easy a 10 year old can use it, explain to the rest of us how to disable the.Net runtime? It isn't easy.
And what icon are you looking at? The icon to run the CRL interpreter?
How are you going to put that quirky wit in a movie without a lot of narration. And if you have enough narration to do Douglas Adams' wit justice, you can't hope to have an entertaining movie. Maybe a book on tape.
Let's face it. The little insites into the world around the characters is almost all of what makes the books worth reading. The story is slightly interesting, yes, but how long did it take you to figure out what was slightly unpleasant about being drunk.
Depending on the context, this can be quite useful. Especially if you want to refer to X in several different manners.
There is no one naming convention that solves all problems.
This notation style is quite nice of a contracting firm that has a lot of different eyes on the project through out its life.
If I know the graphical control is the only one of its kind on a form, say an option button, the prefix "opt" jumps right out at you in code.
Or let us say that you have a selection of an item, and then additional information to gather for that item. optItem and txtItem is a lot simpler and extremly obvious, as opposed to item_chosen_or_not and item_value.
Then again all my loop counters are i,j,k,l, etc. I really have a problem naming loop counters simple enough to not be annoying, and more descriptive than i. The loops tend to be pretty ovious upon inspection, so the time wasted thinking up a good name is just that, wasted.
There is no one right school. If everyone agrees on a convention that will be working on a specific problem, then that is a good convention.
Although I understand that there have probably been some pretty obvious product placements (Pottery Barn for instance), unless they are blatent, I tend to miss them.
I actually watch friends, on Thursday's and in reruns, and I couldn't tell you the answer any of these questions.
Speaking of the Pottery Barn episode. I had never heard of Pottery Barn until that episode. The next day we recieved a Pottery Barn catalogue in the mail. I have never seen a Pottery Barn catalogue before that, and I have been a homeowner for a while (recieving all the junk mail that goes with that). I think there was more than a little coincidence that I got a catalogue the day after it was featured on TV's number 1 show.
They probably didn't get anything from Pepsi, got threatened to get sued, and decided to ask permission.
In the car ride over to McDonalds headquarters to get explicit permission to use its name, some brilliant person said, "Instead of just getting permission to use the ubiquitous standard of fast food in our game, why don't we charge them to put it in the game."
If in fact the Pepsi machine is in there, I wonder how close this scenario is.
All you have to do is look at all the conjecture that flies as truth to know this.
People are more interested in getting published than actually finding out somthing new. My sister even ran into this in her masters studies. The doctor she was working on research with flat out told her to massage the data to look more like what they wanted, ignoring experimental data that didn't fit, and worse.
Not explain it, mind you, not try to figure out whether the experimentor made a mistake, or if the expectations were incorrect. Just ignore the data we don't want to pay attention to.
Maybe it will come out in the wash, maybe not. If they are just papers to get published to keep your professorship and the like, then you can find a journal obscure enough where no one will care enough to double check your findings, especially if the research is obscure enough.
If they were in the US, we would be the assholes, and would be insulted, and chastised until we let anyone in. If we didn't, we would be called ignorant, arrogant, classless, knuckle scraping rubes that don't deserve to breathe, and how dare we try to foist our control on world history. Somehow this would also make us imperialistic, I am sure.
But since it isn't in the US, I guess the Egyptian government is well within their rights to control something that was built before the current incarnation of Egypt was even thought of.
You see, if you aren't American, you can't make a mistake. I just realized this, and boy do I feel bad about being American.
I am sorry that everyone speaks English.
I am sorry that France and other countries have to make laws to keep their language alive. This is obviously as a result of some covert American plot to pollute the world with our language. The French saw fit to give over control of everything to the Germans upon the asking, but somehow we have sullied their language, how dare we.
I am sorry that we came over to Europe in the early 20th century, and again in the 40's. I know we should have just left Stalin kill another 20 million Christians, and Hitler kill another 6 million Jews. We were insensitive, and imperialistic.
I am sorry that we tried to force capitalism on the North Koreans in order to protect our oil interests. Same with all the Vietnamese. These people wanted, and have thrived under the communism they recieved. We were rude, brutish, and totally out of line in both of these actions.
I am sorry that we stopped a thug and a thief from stealing millions of dollars worth of property, and a chance to control a significant portion of the worlds oil supply. This was selfish, and imperialistic. I am sorry that we allowed our women service people to remain uncovered, offending all the right thinking people we just saved, because our women have the same rights as the men.
I am sorry that we stopped a racist, religious zealot from trying to cleanse his country of other races. They clearly didn't belong there, since an arbitrary border said they didn't belong in the same place they had for severl centuries. I am sorry that we stopped his troops from systematically raping all the females of these other races as their troops moved from town to town. Clearly these people deserved to be raped and killed and we were insensitive and arrogant to impose our ideas on that eastern european community.
And most recently I am sorry that we feel the need to try to dictate how another country can defend its borders. We have no reason to believe a man that has already gased citizens of his own country to test chemical weapons would release a weapon of mass destruction on the world. How dare we get that attitude.
Yeah, we are just a bunch of arrogant, classless hillbillies over here that don't have the common sense to commit suicide because we are so beneath the rest of the world.
I am sorry that the rest of the world has to deal with us Americans. If only we had never been organized as a country.
He also didn't say that there wasn't any OSS alternatives to the full range of Exchange/Outlook. What he was saying was you can use Exchange with an IMAP/SMTP mailer, but you don't have access to all of Exchanges functionality. He didn't say that Exchange was desirable, just being able to do the tasks that his office already require of him. Namely being able to schedule hsi day in a manner that his managers can easily keep up with, etc.
His attitude isn't paradoxical at all. There is no two faced way about it. I use Novell Groupwise at work, and really don't like it, but I really wish I could find a Palm conduit for it that I didn't have to sell a kidney for.
This doesn't mean that I like Groupwise at all, just that since I have to use it, I wish I could use it more effectively. He is not happy that he is using Exchange. He is happy that he can use tools that he determines to work in a fashion he chooses while still using a back office product that he has no control over.
Learn how to read, and stop seeing hypocrisy under every stone.
Nice parrot job, but you are no more correct than RMS is.
And idea has a real cost to create. It also has a real value to the creator. If you abuse that creators ownership of his idea, then you have deprived him of something.
I can't believe so many people simply parrot RMS's argument without really understanding it. He makes the point that hard ideas are different than software (or music here). He is right. He makes the point that somehow these products deserve more protection since they cost a lot of money to R&D, produce, and even develop production means. This is where the wheels fall off. This is a perfect argument for them getting less protection (or actually, no hard ideas getting more).
These things (cost of production, and cost of means of production) are known as barriers of entry. It isn't very easy to steal my idea when you have to dump millions into it to capitalize on the idea.
Stealing an idea, where the idea is itself what is worth something (whether that be you getting your work done with a stolen word processing program, or enjoying yourself while you work with a stolen piece of music) needs more protection, because there is no barrier of entry.
It is stealing. The fact that it is worth something to a lot of people demonstrates that it has real value. The fact that you don't pay the creator for that demonstrates that you have just deprived him of something that has real value.
Although you may be right
on
"Squishy" DRM?
·
· Score: 1
You are wrong in your conclusion. Just because I buy more music today than I did yesterday doesn't mean I haven't stolen any today also.
You fall into the trap of wanting to redefine fair use to your benefit, as I already pointed out.
The argument that downloading and sharing music is good for the music industry is a strong one, I haven't denied that in my earlier post. The problem is, it isn't even remotely fair use. It will never be considered fair use. Hopefully some day it will be considered a good marketing strategy, but not fair use as the term is used.
Contrary to popular belief, information doesn't want anything. Music, in its role as information (content), doesn't want anything. The people that generate the information should have the right to dictate how it is used.
So, back to my point, if you can not argue that DRM infringes on your fair use rights without associating yourself with the thieves, the you won't even be heard. And that is where the unfortunate side comes in.
It isn't as easy as just saying that you aren't a thief, as another poster suggested. No one believes you. The people that don't copy their music just assume you are stealing. They don't need to rip their CD's, so why should you. The vast majority of people that do rip CD's, "share" their music. They also just assume you "share" your music as well.
This is why it it is unfortunate that we are all lumped together, and why we will always have a problem being taken seriously.
How do we distance ourselves from the thieves
on
"Squishy" DRM?
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
The real problem with the whole DRM debate is that people steal music. The words download or p2p and the phrase fair use have no place in the same breath.
I am all for ripping CD's to put all my music on my computer, so I can shake up all my CD's, make my own playlists, and the like. This is fair use.
Unfortunately, the people that only do this are in the minority. The majority, even giving them the benefit of the doubt, steal music. Sure they may have never bought it before, but that doesn't make it right. Sure they might have protected themselves from buying a whole disk just for one song, but did they delete the song they did like when they decided not to buy the music?
These types of arguments do make a reasonable argument for consumer rights and advocacy, but are still stealing and don't fall under the purview of fair use.
Until we can argue against DRM without bringing up these types of arguments, redefining fair use to what we'd like it to be, then we as a downloading, file sharing community will have a hard time being taken seriously, let alone winning the argument.
You have smooshed them all together in one big mass of confusion.
As others have pointed out, you must defend your trademark in order to keep it.
There is a law similar to what you are talking about, but it refers to specifically trying to camoflauge your patent. You still aren't forced to enforce it right away.
You are responsible of enforcing your patent yourself, as a matter of civil law. This is different from Copyrights, in which the government is obliged to protect your IP as a matter of criminal law.
Trademarks = civil = must enforce or can lose
Patent = civil = may or may not enforce, can't lose (unless found to be invalid after issued)
Copyright = criminal = government enforces, can't lose
Richard Stallman is known for his wit and intellect. I am sure he would be a great addition to your meeting with the government.
Or you could just have them peruse/. for a week. It would become clear to them why patents suck. They really hinder innovation. I couldn't possibly build a better car if a car had never been built, but having to acknowledge that someone built one first hampers my ability to innovate a new, better design.
Each piece of the picture are seperated with metal. If the individual pieces of glass settle, the picture is going to be just as clear as before. They are pieces of glass set in a frame work of lead or other metal.
It isn't like a tatoo where all the colors would bleed together.
Just goes to show you that you can't argue experimental evidence with logic. I wish I would have met you in a group of people, had you calmly point your astounding piece of logic out ot me, so I could have pointed out how pretentious and silly you were arguing that somthing very verifiable didn't exist, because it didn't make sense.
"I don't care what the micrometer says. You wouldn't be able to see the picture. Logic tells us this micrometer lies."
Because you can't read, and draw reasonable conclusions from what you just read, I was refering to/. writing and linking stories with shocking and unnerving content to sell their own advertising.
And this vein of conversation really makes my point. And then a lot of people will have read this post, and others like it, and have to click through.
Then they will come back tomorrow to see what other sites/. links to, or other stories about the man trying to keep us down, and be exposed to the banner ads. It is a viscious circle, and one that drives all media.
Local news stations all over the country (US) started to run public interest/local hero type stories at the end of the news cast. They noted people started turn off the news when these came on. People like to be scared for some reason. There is no reason to get excited about good stuff, and so people don't watch it. People don't watch, no one buys advertising space.
So, yes, I understand/. didn't make any money on the popups from the linked site, but they make money by linking to content like that.
i didn't think it was that ahard to figure out, but I guess when you are used to dealing with the/. crowd, you assume everyone that posts is stupid, and don't give any post even the slightest analytical thought.
Your argument is the very same defense MS used in its recent anti-trust lawsuit. It didn't hold water with trained jurists anymore than yours holds water with the common man.
It was easy enough, but why install a differnt (VM/Browser) when the one we already have works. "Java sucks, I have already seen that." is why no one wanted it.
Why did everyone think like that? Because MS put out the purposfully rotten VM.
Not to mention that the people would have had to install a different browser, which the courts have specifically shown was anti-competitive, to use a different VM. You can't put a different VM in IE.
What kind of questioning
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 0
What kind of questioning of the government do you mean?
If you mean that you don't want a man imprisoned for asking "Why are we invovled in an unpopular war?", then I wholly agree.
If you mean that you don't want a man imprisoned for asking "Why did you attack this village, and burn it to the ground?", then I wholly agree.
If you mean you want an answer to "Are we gonig to secretly invade Iraq?", I disagree.
i actually watched as a SEAL team landed on a beach head under the cover of darkness, trying to be secretive, only to have news media floods and cameras trained on them. That was ridiculous, and a product of Pentagon being too media friendly. The news channel justified its abuse of the NDA, because they didn't tell anyone about the attack before it happened. They just pointed everyone right to the scene as it was happening.
The courts have ruled, and rightfully so in my opinion, that your right to free speech (press) ends at the truth, and my safety. No shouting of "FIRE" in a crowded theater, or inciting riots, that sort of thing. Although I applaud the Freedom of Information Act, and hope it never gets repealed, I don't think our right to say anything that is true correlates to our ability to demand someone else (including government) tell us the whole truth. There are oversite commitees in place to look into the things that the common man shouldn't have knowledge of.
And yes, there are things that a government needs to know, that the common man doesn't.
And no, I am not naive. I am some what of an idealist. The oversite process doesn't work as well as it should, and probably err's too much on the side of the government control. I wish this wasn't the fact, but I don't wish that we would scrap the entire idea of national security because you think Saddam Hussein has a first ammendmant right to know when we are going to send our secret hit squads.
don't get me wrong. I understand the gravity of the situation, when a question is posed "Do you think we should give up freedom a in order to protect ourselves?"
The problem I have is the seperation of church and state has gone to far. There is no reason they (churches) shouldn't pay sales tax, property tax, and income tax (on monies other than donations, and "requiring" a "donation" to partake in a fundraiser isn't really a donation, is it). Removing the Tax Exempt status of churches doesn't have an effect of the state crippling the church or supporting one religion over the other.
And NO WHERE in the constitution does it even imply that they should be granted some sort of EXTRA legal protection from being monitored. They don't have the right not to be monitored. The IRS frequently monitors them, to make sure they don't cross for profit lines.
If the question was "Do you think we should take away churches rights not to be monitored, as per the first ammendmant, in order to protect our national security?", then I have no feeling on the subject. It would be the same as asking "Do you think we should take away cowboyNeal's right to sell drugs to school children dressed as a nun in order to protect national security?", or "How many more apples do I need to add to this basket to get a bushel of oranges."
He isn't the one that will sue himself for sexual harrasment.
He isn't the one that will fire himself for lewd behavior at work.
And for the one people that have a platform forced on them, they might not be able to disable popups.
I understand that/. needs to make money, and shock journalism brings in the clicks, even if to say "I was so shocked, I had to re-enter the site several times, just to see if I was still as shocked.", but linking to porn sites is a little over the top.
Why not just sell the advertising spot to the porn kings. They will only lose about 10% of the more mature audience, and pick up a lot more skript kiddies, overall increasing OSDN's profits.
Slashdot Mirror
*BZZZT*
.Net framework has nothing to do with development. The .Net framework has to do with running programs compiled to the ".Net" CIL.
.Net programing. .Net is also the name associated with a special type of component normally refered to as web components. .Net is an ambiguous term that loosely describes several different aspects of things that may or may not have something to do with a VM.
.Net framework is nothing more than a VM, and nothing less than a VM, and if you don't understand that, you shouldn't even be on this board, let alone modded to insightful.
Sorry for playing, but you must turn in your MCSD at the door. There will be a nice parting kick in the pants for your stupidity.
The
VS.Net is a development environment that you could create ".Net" applications with. C# is one of these languages, with the special C#.Net designation for
But the
MS doesn't distribute all their software with service packs. You can't download a base installation of XP that is compliant. That is the point. You buy a non-compliant product, then have to jump through hoops to download a patch to make it compliant.
.Net runtime? It isn't easy.
The average user, even developer, isn't going to do that. That is what the whole lawsuit was about. They distribute products that use the undo leverage they have in the field to squash the competition. A little later they might issue a service pack to fix the situation, just to try to look like a fair competitor.
If it is so easy a 10 year old can use it, explain to the rest of us how to disable the
And what icon are you looking at? The icon to run the CRL interpreter?
I don't think you get the complaint.
It wasn't hydrogen that burned.
The evidence suggests that it was the paint.
There is even evidence that the Hindenberg never existed.
In fact the Germans probably never even had balloons.
In fact Germany never existed. It was all done with paint and mirrors.
Exactly like bricks don't.
How are you going to put that quirky wit in a movie without a lot of narration. And if you have enough narration to do Douglas Adams' wit justice, you can't hope to have an entertaining movie. Maybe a book on tape.
Let's face it. The little insites into the world around the characters is almost all of what makes the books worth reading. The story is slightly interesting, yes, but how long did it take you to figure out what was slightly unpleasant about being drunk.
Depending on the context, this can be quite useful. Especially if you want to refer to X in several different manners.
There is no one naming convention that solves all problems.
This notation style is quite nice of a contracting firm that has a lot of different eyes on the project through out its life.
If I know the graphical control is the only one of its kind on a form, say an option button, the prefix "opt" jumps right out at you in code.
Or let us say that you have a selection of an item, and then additional information to gather for that item. optItem and txtItem is a lot simpler and extremly obvious, as opposed to item_chosen_or_not and item_value.
Then again all my loop counters are i,j,k,l, etc. I really have a problem naming loop counters simple enough to not be annoying, and more descriptive than i. The loops tend to be pretty ovious upon inspection, so the time wasted thinking up a good name is just that, wasted.
There is no one right school. If everyone agrees on a convention that will be working on a specific problem, then that is a good convention.
I couldn't tell you.
Although I understand that there have probably been some pretty obvious product placements (Pottery Barn for instance), unless they are blatent, I tend to miss them.
I actually watch friends, on Thursday's and in reruns, and I couldn't tell you the answer any of these questions.
Speaking of the Pottery Barn episode. I had never heard of Pottery Barn until that episode. The next day we recieved a Pottery Barn catalogue in the mail. I have never seen a Pottery Barn catalogue before that, and I have been a homeowner for a while (recieving all the junk mail that goes with that). I think there was more than a little coincidence that I got a catalogue the day after it was featured on TV's number 1 show.
There has to be food.
There has to be computers.
You have to call them something.
They probably didn't get anything from Pepsi, got threatened to get sued, and decided to ask permission.
In the car ride over to McDonalds headquarters to get explicit permission to use its name, some brilliant person said, "Instead of just getting permission to use the ubiquitous standard of fast food in our game, why don't we charge them to put it in the game."
If in fact the Pepsi machine is in there, I wonder how close this scenario is.
That is the offical view of our government. Any disenting opionions can be taken up with jailor at their leisure.
I think we have seen this before. Do we really learn nothing from our past.
All you have to do is look at all the conjecture that flies as truth to know this.
People are more interested in getting published than actually finding out somthing new. My sister even ran into this in her masters studies. The doctor she was working on research with flat out told her to massage the data to look more like what they wanted, ignoring experimental data that didn't fit, and worse.
Not explain it, mind you, not try to figure out whether the experimentor made a mistake, or if the expectations were incorrect. Just ignore the data we don't want to pay attention to.
Maybe it will come out in the wash, maybe not. If they are just papers to get published to keep your professorship and the like, then you can find a journal obscure enough where no one will care enough to double check your findings, especially if the research is obscure enough.
If they were in the US, we would be the assholes, and would be insulted, and chastised until we let anyone in. If we didn't, we would be called ignorant, arrogant, classless, knuckle scraping rubes that don't deserve to breathe, and how dare we try to foist our control on world history. Somehow this would also make us imperialistic, I am sure.
But since it isn't in the US, I guess the Egyptian government is well within their rights to control something that was built before the current incarnation of Egypt was even thought of.
You see, if you aren't American, you can't make a mistake. I just realized this, and boy do I feel bad about being American.
I am sorry that everyone speaks English.
I am sorry that France and other countries have to make laws to keep their language alive. This is obviously as a result of some covert American plot to pollute the world with our language. The French saw fit to give over control of everything to the Germans upon the asking, but somehow we have sullied their language, how dare we.
I am sorry that we came over to Europe in the early 20th century, and again in the 40's. I know we should have just left Stalin kill another 20 million Christians, and Hitler kill another 6 million Jews. We were insensitive, and imperialistic.
I am sorry that we tried to force capitalism on the North Koreans in order to protect our oil interests. Same with all the Vietnamese. These people wanted, and have thrived under the communism they recieved. We were rude, brutish, and totally out of line in both of these actions.
I am sorry that we stopped a thug and a thief from stealing millions of dollars worth of property, and a chance to control a significant portion of the worlds oil supply. This was selfish, and imperialistic. I am sorry that we allowed our women service people to remain uncovered, offending all the right thinking people we just saved, because our women have the same rights as the men.
I am sorry that we stopped a racist, religious zealot from trying to cleanse his country of other races. They clearly didn't belong there, since an arbitrary border said they didn't belong in the same place they had for severl centuries. I am sorry that we stopped his troops from systematically raping all the females of these other races as their troops moved from town to town. Clearly these people deserved to be raped and killed and we were insensitive and arrogant to impose our ideas on that eastern european community.
And most recently I am sorry that we feel the need to try to dictate how another country can defend its borders. We have no reason to believe a man that has already gased citizens of his own country to test chemical weapons would release a weapon of mass destruction on the world. How dare we get that attitude.
Yeah, we are just a bunch of arrogant, classless hillbillies over here that don't have the common sense to commit suicide because we are so beneath the rest of the world.
I am sorry that the rest of the world has to deal with us Americans. If only we had never been organized as a country.
The two statements aren't mutually exclusive.
He also didn't say that there wasn't any OSS alternatives to the full range of Exchange/Outlook. What he was saying was you can use Exchange with an IMAP/SMTP mailer, but you don't have access to all of Exchanges functionality. He didn't say that Exchange was desirable, just being able to do the tasks that his office already require of him. Namely being able to schedule hsi day in a manner that his managers can easily keep up with, etc.
His attitude isn't paradoxical at all. There is no two faced way about it. I use Novell Groupwise at work, and really don't like it, but I really wish I could find a Palm conduit for it that I didn't have to sell a kidney for.
This doesn't mean that I like Groupwise at all, just that since I have to use it, I wish I could use it more effectively. He is not happy that he is using Exchange. He is happy that he can use tools that he determines to work in a fashion he chooses while still using a back office product that he has no control over.
Learn how to read, and stop seeing hypocrisy under every stone.
Nice parrot job, but you are no more correct than RMS is.
And idea has a real cost to create. It also has a real value to the creator. If you abuse that creators ownership of his idea, then you have deprived him of something.
I can't believe so many people simply parrot RMS's argument without really understanding it. He makes the point that hard ideas are different than software (or music here). He is right. He makes the point that somehow these products deserve more protection since they cost a lot of money to R&D, produce, and even develop production means. This is where the wheels fall off. This is a perfect argument for them getting less protection (or actually, no hard ideas getting more).
These things (cost of production, and cost of means of production) are known as barriers of entry. It isn't very easy to steal my idea when you have to dump millions into it to capitalize on the idea.
Stealing an idea, where the idea is itself what is worth something (whether that be you getting your work done with a stolen word processing program, or enjoying yourself while you work with a stolen piece of music) needs more protection, because there is no barrier of entry.
It is stealing. The fact that it is worth something to a lot of people demonstrates that it has real value. The fact that you don't pay the creator for that demonstrates that you have just deprived him of something that has real value.
You are wrong in your conclusion. Just because I buy more music today than I did yesterday doesn't mean I haven't stolen any today also.
You fall into the trap of wanting to redefine fair use to your benefit, as I already pointed out.
The argument that downloading and sharing music is good for the music industry is a strong one, I haven't denied that in my earlier post. The problem is, it isn't even remotely fair use. It will never be considered fair use. Hopefully some day it will be considered a good marketing strategy, but not fair use as the term is used.
Contrary to popular belief, information doesn't want anything. Music, in its role as information (content), doesn't want anything. The people that generate the information should have the right to dictate how it is used.
So, back to my point, if you can not argue that DRM infringes on your fair use rights without associating yourself with the thieves, the you won't even be heard. And that is where the unfortunate side comes in.
It isn't as easy as just saying that you aren't a thief, as another poster suggested. No one believes you. The people that don't copy their music just assume you are stealing. They don't need to rip their CD's, so why should you. The vast majority of people that do rip CD's, "share" their music. They also just assume you "share" your music as well.
This is why it it is unfortunate that we are all lumped together, and why we will always have a problem being taken seriously.
The real problem with the whole DRM debate is that people steal music. The words download or p2p and the phrase fair use have no place in the same breath.
I am all for ripping CD's to put all my music on my computer, so I can shake up all my CD's, make my own playlists, and the like. This is fair use.
Unfortunately, the people that only do this are in the minority. The majority, even giving them the benefit of the doubt, steal music. Sure they may have never bought it before, but that doesn't make it right. Sure they might have protected themselves from buying a whole disk just for one song, but did they delete the song they did like when they decided not to buy the music?
These types of arguments do make a reasonable argument for consumer rights and advocacy, but are still stealing and don't fall under the purview of fair use.
Until we can argue against DRM without bringing up these types of arguments, redefining fair use to what we'd like it to be, then we as a downloading, file sharing community will have a hard time being taken seriously, let alone winning the argument.
Could you even see a Beowolf cluster of these?
You have smooshed them all together in one big mass of confusion.
As others have pointed out, you must defend your trademark in order to keep it.
There is a law similar to what you are talking about, but it refers to specifically trying to camoflauge your patent. You still aren't forced to enforce it right away.
You are responsible of enforcing your patent yourself, as a matter of civil law. This is different from Copyrights, in which the government is obliged to protect your IP as a matter of criminal law.
Trademarks = civil = must enforce or can lose
Patent = civil = may or may not enforce, can't lose (unless found to be invalid after issued)
Copyright = criminal = government enforces, can't lose
Richard Stallman is known for his wit and intellect. I am sure he would be a great addition to your meeting with the government.
/. for a week. It would become clear to them why patents suck. They really hinder innovation. I couldn't possibly build a better car if a car had never been built, but having to acknowledge that someone built one first hampers my ability to innovate a new, better design.
Or you could just have them peruse
Each piece of the picture are seperated with metal. If the individual pieces of glass settle, the picture is going to be just as clear as before. They are pieces of glass set in a frame work of lead or other metal.
It isn't like a tatoo where all the colors would bleed together.
Just goes to show you that you can't argue experimental evidence with logic. I wish I would have met you in a group of people, had you calmly point your astounding piece of logic out ot me, so I could have pointed out how pretentious and silly you were arguing that somthing very verifiable didn't exist, because it didn't make sense.
"I don't care what the micrometer says. You wouldn't be able to see the picture. Logic tells us this micrometer lies."
Because you can't read, and draw reasonable conclusions from what you just read, I was refering to /. writing and linking stories with shocking and unnerving content to sell their own advertising.
/. links to, or other stories about the man trying to keep us down, and be exposed to the banner ads. It is a viscious circle, and one that drives all media.
/. didn't make any money on the popups from the linked site, but they make money by linking to content like that.
/. crowd, you assume everyone that posts is stupid, and don't give any post even the slightest analytical thought.
And this vein of conversation really makes my point. And then a lot of people will have read this post, and others like it, and have to click through.
Then they will come back tomorrow to see what other sites
Local news stations all over the country (US) started to run public interest/local hero type stories at the end of the news cast. They noted people started turn off the news when these came on. People like to be scared for some reason. There is no reason to get excited about good stuff, and so people don't watch it. People don't watch, no one buys advertising space.
So, yes, I understand
i didn't think it was that ahard to figure out, but I guess when you are used to dealing with the
Your argument is the very same defense MS used in its recent anti-trust lawsuit. It didn't hold water with trained jurists anymore than yours holds water with the common man.
It was easy enough, but why install a differnt (VM/Browser) when the one we already have works. "Java sucks, I have already seen that." is why no one wanted it.
Why did everyone think like that? Because MS put out the purposfully rotten VM.
Not to mention that the people would have had to install a different browser, which the courts have specifically shown was anti-competitive, to use a different VM. You can't put a different VM in IE.
What kind of questioning of the government do you mean? If you mean that you don't want a man imprisoned for asking "Why are we invovled in an unpopular war?", then I wholly agree. If you mean that you don't want a man imprisoned for asking "Why did you attack this village, and burn it to the ground?", then I wholly agree. If you mean you want an answer to "Are we gonig to secretly invade Iraq?", I disagree. i actually watched as a SEAL team landed on a beach head under the cover of darkness, trying to be secretive, only to have news media floods and cameras trained on them. That was ridiculous, and a product of Pentagon being too media friendly. The news channel justified its abuse of the NDA, because they didn't tell anyone about the attack before it happened. They just pointed everyone right to the scene as it was happening. The courts have ruled, and rightfully so in my opinion, that your right to free speech (press) ends at the truth, and my safety. No shouting of "FIRE" in a crowded theater, or inciting riots, that sort of thing. Although I applaud the Freedom of Information Act, and hope it never gets repealed, I don't think our right to say anything that is true correlates to our ability to demand someone else (including government) tell us the whole truth. There are oversite commitees in place to look into the things that the common man shouldn't have knowledge of. And yes, there are things that a government needs to know, that the common man doesn't. And no, I am not naive. I am some what of an idealist. The oversite process doesn't work as well as it should, and probably err's too much on the side of the government control. I wish this wasn't the fact, but I don't wish that we would scrap the entire idea of national security because you think Saddam Hussein has a first ammendmant right to know when we are going to send our secret hit squads.
don't get me wrong. I understand the gravity of the situation, when a question is posed "Do you think we should give up freedom a in order to protect ourselves?"
The problem I have is the seperation of church and state has gone to far. There is no reason they (churches) shouldn't pay sales tax, property tax, and income tax (on monies other than donations, and "requiring" a "donation" to partake in a fundraiser isn't really a donation, is it). Removing the Tax Exempt status of churches doesn't have an effect of the state crippling the church or supporting one religion over the other.
And NO WHERE in the constitution does it even imply that they should be granted some sort of EXTRA legal protection from being monitored. They don't have the right not to be monitored. The IRS frequently monitors them, to make sure they don't cross for profit lines.
If the question was "Do you think we should take away churches rights not to be monitored, as per the first ammendmant, in order to protect our national security?", then I have no feeling on the subject. It would be the same as asking "Do you think we should take away cowboyNeal's right to sell drugs to school children dressed as a nun in order to protect national security?", or "How many more apples do I need to add to this basket to get a bushel of oranges."
He isn't the one that will sue himself for sexual harrasment.
/. needs to make money, and shock journalism brings in the clicks, even if to say "I was so shocked, I had to re-enter the site several times, just to see if I was still as shocked.", but linking to porn sites is a little over the top.
He isn't the one that will fire himself for lewd behavior at work.
And for the one people that have a platform forced on them, they might not be able to disable popups.
I understand that
Why not just sell the advertising spot to the porn kings. They will only lose about 10% of the more mature audience, and pick up a lot more skript kiddies, overall increasing OSDN's profits.
I was actually surprised, when I read the blurb.
I just assumed it was Katz, then it slowly dawned on me that it was in italics. I then assumed it was one of Katz's little correspondance affairs.
I looked at the by-line and was surprised to see that it was michael that posted the story.
They are all linked stories, not original investigative journalism, what is your point?
Never heard of the AP news wire. A lot of papers, periodicals, and broadcasts run the exact same story.
What was the point?