What "those people" are you referring to? The artists? A&R, producers, singers, sound engineers, your girlfriend? This makes no point. How is this +5 interesting?
That's because everything and everyone outside the moderators' respective monkeyspheres are greedy and evil. Even moreso if they are somehow associated with some big company or association, all of which in their minds are likened to evil big green globs of goo.
Just once, I wish that all the "security administrators" out there who are convinced that they are protecting their network from "the evil hackers" by blocking *outgoing* ports need a swift kick in the ass.
Well, I don't want anyone logged on to eDonkey or somesuch at work. And believe me, no company policy is enough to stop people from running those things on warehouse terminals having a direct connection to our ERP.
God forbid that the evil hackers work their way back up the finger connection and destroy the entire LAN!
Well, I guess you aren't familiar with this, then.
I don't get it. I'm pretty sure that IT people weren't always this clueless.
Well, you'd never get employed by me, that's for certain.
The algorithm for calculating md5 checksums (and any other crypto or crypto-style processes) are made publicly available. This is because these security features aren't secure because of obfuscation, but because of the rules of mathematics. Releasing the code will only weed out poor crypto[*], not compromise good crypto.
That wasn't my point at all. MD5 was used merely as an example.
What I meant was, if I embedded some GPL'd code (maybe only 1 %) to my production web site, and as a result would need to publish the whole 100 % of it, then all the security holes (not necessarily the ones in the GPL'd bit) would be open to the whole world to see. There would be no community to fix those bugs, either, so the end result would be something of a hacker smorgasbord.
If you are embedding, say, GPL md5 checksum calculator in otherwise proprietary software, will you need to publish the whole source code? If so, I'm willing to bet most companies would rather re-invent the wheel and rewrite it. I wouldn't want to publish the source code to a production web site for obvious security reasons.
All the fruits of all human endeavour belong to all humanity. The songs you write, the films you make, the programs you write, the inventions you invent, the clever little logos you create -- they are all ours and you can't take any of them off us. And if you don't like that, I suggest you stop having ideas.
That kind of thinking was pretty popular in the 20th century. In fact, it still is in countries such as Cuba and China. If you dismiss the value of human effort so much, maybe you should look into moving to one of those countries.
Quote from the page: "Non-OPEC production is expected to peak in the next 10 years or so, with 70% of production from seven areas: Russia, the U.S., the North Sea, Mexico, Canada, China and Brazil."
Exactly. To point out racial differences is NOT RACIST because then they can be fixed.
To ignore races and their differences (ie; colorblind) IS RACIST because it means you are ignoring the minorities.
Anyone else see something backwards there?
Wow, you've just summed up what I've been thinking about for a long time but could never quite put to words.
I always thought that racism doesn't end when everyone is forced to stop using words such as "nigger." It ends on the day when everyone CAN use them and no one gives a f**k because they have lost their racist "charge."
I buy the media labeled 'music' on purpose actually. Then I fire up a bittorrent client, or limewire pro, and get whatever music I want. You know why? 'Cuz Fuck em, I'm not paying twice! If you treat people like criminals, then that's what you get.
I am probably one of the biggest opponents of Internet music piracy on Slashdot, but even I think this is somewhat alright. I still think you shouldn't share the music further to others or even keep it on the hard drive, though.
Consider buying a song from iTunes Music Store. You pay a tax for this song. Then, when you want to back it up on a CD, you pay a tax again for the same song.
But then you'd have two paid, legal copies of the song, wouldn't you? I fail to see the problem here.
Copyright infringement - For electronic and audio-visual media, unauthorized reproduction and distribution is often referred to as piracy or theft... However there is no legal basis for this and indeed in one US copyright lawsuit the judge ordered the plaintiff's legal team to stop using the term.
Theft or piracy? I can understand why it should not be called theft in court, but piracy is defined as "copyright infrigement" in every dictionary I own, so Wikipedia is clearly wrong there.
I think people become sensitized to CRT flicker over time. Used to be, a long time ago, I had a 60 Hz interlaced computer montitor that didn't bother me.
It probably had "slower phosphor" as they used to call it, i.e. more ghosting.
I am not, however, sensitive to the rainbow effect from DLP color wheels.
I am, to the point of needing to vomit. Newer models are a bit better, but they still make me feel dizzy.
Perhaps you've never heard of this neat technology called *RADIO* that's used for that very purpose?
If you can get your song on the air, yes... But at least for now, any band who does something like this get their website posted to blogs and nerd news sites all around the Internet.
I wonder how long it will take until it has been done enough so it is no more news. Apparantly, ten years isn't enough.
Do you have an exaple of a country reducing the rate of AIDS by promoting condoms?
That's a stupid question. HIV never even spread to countries who have been promoting condom use as a precaution. In Scandinavian countries, for example, they talk about condom use in school starting at a very young age. All of them have a prevalence rate of 0.1 % or less. I couldn't find up to date statistics, but there were a total of 500 people with AIDS in Finland in 2003, for example. I'd love to see your prime example Uganda top that.
Should we have Larry Wall or RMS lumped into the same category as the asshole who unleashed Sasser? Should the 12-year-old girl who simply downloaded a music video (and is now brought to tears after by the accusation that she's supporting the terrorists that want to destroy America) be made to stand in the same dock as the CEO of that Vietnamese company which is now shipping as many copies of Office as Microsoft ever did?
You know, people aren't really that narrow-minded and stupid. If you say a 12-year old girl is pirating games, no one is going assume she runs around killing people, one-eyed with a hook in place of her right hand, either. A word can easily have several meanings, and everyone who isn't mentally challenged can realize the difference in a fraction of a second.
Language can never be 100 % descriptive, there is always a lot of interpretation involved. Therefore, arguing semantics is pointless. In my opinion that's something that people of less intelligence resort to when run out of real arguments supporting their point. Just just like mud-slinging in politics.
The entire context is right here in this thread. Please explain how the two statements can be reconciled. Be as non-literal and imaginative as you like; it might be interesting.
This sentence, for instance taken directly from his post: "Therefore, if you steal from others, you effectively waive your right to complain when others steal from you."
I think that puts his point across nicely.
At this level this discussion is pointless, though.
Why, of course! Because no one should be held accountable for the things they say, the accusations they make, no matter how unfounded in reality or substance they are. It would be my fault for associating, however briefly, with someone who might make wild-ass, untrue and random accusations against me.
You know, I see a difference between calling someone who makes illegal copies of software a pirate and unfoundedly accusing someone a rapist.
In fact, given your response to my obviously light-hearted comment, I think you need professional help. You haven't gotten over it. You are in denial.
Do you accept that that isn't anything like the original post "it is illogical (and hypocritical) to act in a way that you would not wish to see reciprocated."
Yes, that would be correct, when taken out of context and interpreted literally.
Slashdot Mirror
That's because everything and everyone outside the moderators' respective monkeyspheres are greedy and evil. Even moreso if they are somehow associated with some big company or association, all of which in their minds are likened to evil big green globs of goo.
Well, I don't want anyone logged on to eDonkey or somesuch at work. And believe me, no company policy is enough to stop people from running those things on warehouse terminals having a direct connection to our ERP.
God forbid that the evil hackers work their way back up the finger connection and destroy the entire LAN!
Well, I guess you aren't familiar with this, then.
I don't get it. I'm pretty sure that IT people weren't always this clueless.
Well, you'd never get employed by me, that's for certain.
That wasn't my point at all. MD5 was used merely as an example.
What I meant was, if I embedded some GPL'd code (maybe only 1 %) to my production web site, and as a result would need to publish the whole 100 % of it, then all the security holes (not necessarily the ones in the GPL'd bit) would be open to the whole world to see. There would be no community to fix those bugs, either, so the end result would be something of a hacker smorgasbord.
If you are embedding, say, GPL md5 checksum calculator in otherwise proprietary software, will you need to publish the whole source code? If so, I'm willing to bet most companies would rather re-invent the wheel and rewrite it. I wouldn't want to publish the source code to a production web site for obvious security reasons.
He's the Antichrist.
I didn't, actually, although his e-mail does read like a communist manifesto.
I happen to believe that people should be compensated for their work regardless of the nature of the work. Others may choose to disagree.
That kind of thinking was pretty popular in the 20th century. In fact, it still is in countries such as Cuba and China. If you dismiss the value of human effort so much, maybe you should look into moving to one of those countries.
> No.
I guess you didn't get his joke, then.
Exxon seems to think otherwise.
Quote from the page: "Non-OPEC production is expected to peak in the next 10 years or so, with 70% of production from seven areas: Russia, the U.S., the North Sea, Mexico, Canada, China and Brazil."
I Doubt It
To ignore races and their differences (ie; colorblind) IS RACIST because it means you are ignoring the minorities.
Anyone else see something backwards there?
Wow, you've just summed up what I've been thinking about for a long time but could never quite put to words.
I always thought that racism doesn't end when everyone is forced to stop using words such as "nigger." It ends on the day when everyone CAN use them and no one gives a f**k because they have lost their racist "charge."
UP AND COMING!?
Classic and troll, yes. Classic and joke, no.
I am probably one of the biggest opponents of Internet music piracy on Slashdot, but even I think this is somewhat alright. I still think you shouldn't share the music further to others or even keep it on the hard drive, though.
But then you'd have two paid, legal copies of the song, wouldn't you? I fail to see the problem here.
Theft or piracy? I can understand why it should not be called theft in court, but piracy is defined as "copyright infrigement" in every dictionary I own, so Wikipedia is clearly wrong there.
It probably had "slower phosphor" as they used to call it, i.e. more ghosting.
I am not, however, sensitive to the rainbow effect from DLP color wheels.
I am, to the point of needing to vomit. Newer models are a bit better, but they still make me feel dizzy.
Actually, in most cases, and certainly with software, the law of supply and demand applies to monopolies, too.
And FWIW, there are very good alternatives to both Photoshop and Autocad.
If you can get your song on the air, yes... But at least for now, any band who does something like this get their website posted to blogs and nerd news sites all around the Internet.
I wonder how long it will take until it has been done enough so it is no more news. Apparantly, ten years isn't enough.
That's a stupid question. HIV never even spread to countries who have been promoting condom use as a precaution. In Scandinavian countries, for example, they talk about condom use in school starting at a very young age. All of them have a prevalence rate of 0.1 % or less. I couldn't find up to date statistics, but there were a total of 500 people with AIDS in Finland in 2003, for example. I'd love to see your prime example Uganda top that.
You know, people aren't really that narrow-minded and stupid. If you say a 12-year old girl is pirating games, no one is going assume she runs around killing people, one-eyed with a hook in place of her right hand, either. A word can easily have several meanings, and everyone who isn't mentally challenged can realize the difference in a fraction of a second.
Language can never be 100 % descriptive, there is always a lot of interpretation involved. Therefore, arguing semantics is pointless. In my opinion that's something that people of less intelligence resort to when run out of real arguments supporting their point. Just just like mud-slinging in politics.
This sentence, for instance taken directly from his post: "Therefore, if you steal from others, you effectively waive your right to complain when others steal from you."
I think that puts his point across nicely.
At this level this discussion is pointless, though.
You know, I see a difference between calling someone who makes illegal copies of software a pirate and unfoundedly accusing someone a rapist.
In fact, given your response to my obviously light-hearted comment, I think you need professional help. You haven't gotten over it. You are in denial.
Yes, that would be correct, when taken out of context and interpreted literally.
I guess that would depend on your defintion of misuse.
I'll remember that the next time I try to kiss my date goodnight and she accuses me of rape. It's silly to argue semantics, after all.
You should choose the people you date better.