Somebody came up with a proggie that puts up a program launcher window that covers the Opera ads precisely.
Some people in the freeware newsgroup complained that this violated the user's agreement with Opera allowing use of the ad-supported version of Opera.
I argued that since Opera's EULA makes absolutely NO mention of any requirement to view the ads (or even not to alter them), there was NO deal between the end user and Opera concerning the ads in any way. And even if there was, it would be ridiculous to demand that people actually view the ads.
There have been some ad-supported programs, IIRC, that actually demanded that people click on the ads before the program would function. I suspect most of these programs died a quick death in the marketplace.
The proggie was just a more sophisticated way of putting tape over that section of the monitor...
I've told this story before, but here it is again:
I was in the Federal Marshall holding cell in the Federal Building in San Francisco in 1993 during my pre-trial for armed bank robbery.
Another defendant in another case came in from his court appearance laughing. It seems he was in the Magistrate's court and heard another case being brought before the Magistrate. The prosecuting attorney had a DEA agent testify to the Magistrate. The Magistrate was having doubts about the agent's testimony. The Federal prosecutor said, "But, Your Honor, this man is a Federal agent! He wouldn't lie!"
The Magistrate laughed in the attorney's face and said, "Don't try to tell me a Federal agent wouldn't come into my courtroom and lie!"
That's how common knowledge it is that the Feds ROUTINELY lie about cases.
Nothing they did to Kevin is any surprise to me. Similar things are done on a daily basis in the Federal "justice" system.
I own a Walkman and haven't listened to it in a year. I either listent to my MP3's downloaded from the Net, or listen to radio stations broadcasting over Shoutcast through Winamp...
I suspect 50 million other people are doing the same...
Rereading my post, I think I can see where you got the notion that I support government behavior.
You read my comment as being supportive of the British actions against the Irish and the Scots. That was not what I meant at all - I merely referred to the fact that the British were brutal to those two countries but less so to India (at least as far as Gandhi was concerned).
The distributor may legally have that right (that is, after all, what copyright is about), but it is not an economically valid principle. It is a coercive state intervention in the free market which has the inevitable effect of distorting what the market would have done had it not existed, i.e., it changes what people are allowed to do and the economic effects of those actions. And most likely, it changes them for the worse, not the better.
There is apparently no evidence whatsoever that copyright or other IP does in fact stimulate production of new ideas or intellectual product in any significant way over what would exist without such IP laws. And even if it did, this still would not justify the coercive intervention against other property rights.
It is amusing that people in favor of IP think they are arguing in favor of property rights, when in fact they are arguing against them - to wit, certain persons are granted a license to control the property rights of everyone else. This issue has been discussed in Austrian economic circles - Google for Kinsella's article "Do Patents And Copyrights Undermine Private Property?" and related works such as Julio Cole's "Patents and Copyrights - Do The Benefits Exceed the Costs?". The ethical case (which interests me less since I don't believe it is rigorous) is presented by Tom Palmer in Vol 13, No. 3, Summer 1990, in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.
The facts are that IP is not a valid property "right" (I quote the word because I believe the concept of "rights" is a vacant and useless concept, for reasons I won't go into here). Its history stems from state monopoly charters and only in recent centuries has the attempt been made to justify it on the economic grounds (never supported by either correct reasoning or historical or economic evidence) that it has benefits over costs. Therefore, the argument is not that because it is easy to copy, it should be legal to copy (although one *could* argue for that point since it establishes some other points about economics, such as how economics does not guarantee anyone a SALE), but that it should never have been illegal to copy at all.
You are of course entirely wrong about my attitude toward the US. I do not support the US government or the United States people, for that matter. I could care less about Iraq or Al Qaida (as long as they aren't blowing me up, of course.) Nor do I support US policy in practically any instance you could name, most likely.
My comment on Gandhi is simply to point out that his methods wouldn't have worked against a more ruthless government. OTOH, it is possible that the Nazis, faced with the massive population of India, would also have backed off from suppressing Gandhi as ruthlessly as they might otherwise have done.
I am not a pacifist, nor am I a believer in any form of "first initiated" coercion (although I do believe in preemptive assault where needed.)
And I don't doubt Gandhi would have stood up to the Nazis - it's just that they would have killed him early on, most likely, and you'd never have heard of him...
It's pathetic "my government right or wrong" morons like you that allowed the state to control the human race and will eventually destroy the species...
And as a Transhuman I can't wait to see you get wasted by "your" state...
You're going to die for your stupid belief system - I won't. Have a nice day, asshole...
Like Britney Spears complaining in an RIAA ad that downloading music is the same as stealing a CD from a store?
Ian's story may be anecdotal but it entirely agrees with any economic analysis of the situation.
Retailers have a rule of thumb that cutting the price of an item in half increases your market by a factor of (IIRC) four - until it's free and everyone wants one whether they need it or not.
If you allow people to download your music for slightly over the cost of providing the bandwidth and overhead (i.e., you still profit), people will have no incentive to get it from a competitor (unless that competitor has better marketing - which is an expense he has that the original artist does not). This is basic economics.
The difference is, you don't have a middleman - the record label - charging you for the production of your product, then wasting money on payola, then cheating you on the royalties by claiming X% "breakage", etc., not to mention that you are not supporting THEIR profits instead of yours...
It's common sense that an artist selling their own product will make money if they can do a reasonable amount of marketing to come to the attention of the people who might like their work.
What WON'T happen is that artists will make millions of dollars because some corporation paid some radio station operators in cocaine and hookers to play those few songs the corporation decided to promote.
It's laughable - first the record labels screw over Metallica, then Metallica thinks they're owed millions of dollars, then they sue their fans to get it...
This is what happens when the vast majority of domesticated primates are clueless about economics...
Control very definitely is the issue - and the nature of property is control. Which means if I get an MP3 from somebody over the Net, IT'S MINE. And if it was given freely, it is NOT theft on my part. And the person who bought and ripped the CD is not guilty of theft either - he or she did exactly what they should be allowed to do - control their property as they see fit - which includes producing and distributing it as a competitor to the original producer.
Intellectual property violates the primary characteristic of property and that renders it an invalid (i.e., economically unproductive) concept...
Somebody on/. who has some understanding of economics...
The notion that Dr. Dre and Metallica are somehow OWED millions of dollars in income by consumers is bullshit. If they have to compete with every other form of entertainment for the consumer dollar, we might find artists (and art in general) having its "holier than thou" aspect peeled away and have it revealed as the economic activity it always was (and in the case of so-called "great art", it is egregiously and obviously commercial...).
I'm sick of hearing him held up as the poster boy for nonviolence...
He should have tried it with the Nazis...
The British were bad in their day (read: Ireland and Scotland), but by the time they got India, they were washed up and their government too scared of public and international opinion (not to mention the sheer population size of India which meant pissing people off was not going to help matters and even the Brits could see that...) to do the sort of things they did to the Irish and Scots...
Since if we all started our own businesses, there probably wouldn't be any corporations left (i.e., no employees, therefore no masters), it probably would solve most market problems...
Getting rid of the government completely would solve the rest...
And the GAO has released a report calling Homeland Security IT a major risk problem since they are trying to merge dozens of incompatible hardware, software and application systems - many from gov departments which were already considered major risks...
In other words, Al Qaida will eventually find dozens and dozens of insecure systems in "Homeland Security"...
This is where Al Qaida sneaks into your room and cuts your throat...
Or is it where the CIA sneaks into your room and cuts your throat...?
Or is it where George Bush dreams how his father had a high approval rating immediately after the Gulf War, and then a year later during the election he was considered a liability to his party because the economy sucked...?
I've read the entire Unabomber Manifesto. It is very similar to material published some years ago in various anarchist zines I've read.
I thought about it - and was able to refute almost all of it within a very short time.
Unfortunately, I can't do that now because it's been a few years since I read it. No doubt if I were to bother to pick it up again, I could trash it again.
It really is very "sophomore" (or maybe even "freshman") philosophy... Any Transhumanist worthy of the name could trash it in seconds...
Re:If Rambo used a spudgun....
on
Potato Bazookas
·
· Score: 1
Jeezus! This thing is awrsome! It looks like Barrett.50 caliber sniper rifle!
Slashdot Mirror
Somebody came up with a proggie that puts up a program launcher window that covers the Opera ads precisely.
Some people in the freeware newsgroup complained that this violated the user's agreement with Opera allowing use of the ad-supported version of Opera.
I argued that since Opera's EULA makes absolutely NO mention of any requirement to view the ads (or even not to alter them), there was NO deal between the end user and Opera concerning the ads in any way. And even if there was, it would be ridiculous to demand that people actually view the ads.
There have been some ad-supported programs, IIRC, that actually demanded that people click on the ads before the program would function. I suspect most of these programs died a quick death in the marketplace.
The proggie was just a more sophisticated way of putting tape over that section of the monitor...
What makes you think it's US citizens only?
The US corporate state would like it to be everybody on the planet.
I did eight years in Federal prison (about three of it in The Hole including one two-year straight stretch) and here I am on
Don't know which is worse...eight years or no mod points...
I've told this story before, but here it is again:
I was in the Federal Marshall holding cell in the Federal Building in San Francisco in 1993 during my pre-trial for armed bank robbery.
Another defendant in another case came in from his court appearance laughing. It seems he was in the Magistrate's court and heard another case being brought before the Magistrate. The prosecuting attorney had a DEA agent testify to the Magistrate. The Magistrate was having doubts about the agent's testimony. The Federal prosecutor said, "But, Your Honor, this man is a Federal agent! He wouldn't lie!"
The Magistrate laughed in the attorney's face and said, "Don't try to tell me a Federal agent wouldn't come into my courtroom and lie!"
That's how common knowledge it is that the Feds ROUTINELY lie about cases.
Nothing they did to Kevin is any surprise to me. Similar things are done on a daily basis in the Federal "justice" system.
Oh, I don't know, that Vegas picture doesn't indicate she looks too bad.
Even better - it would be cheaper to hire some smuck, just call him Carson Daly, and let him read the stuff...
Of course, Carson would complain, but the only people with a legitimate complaint would be Carson's fans who would be defrauded...
They don't - they're not listening to it...
They're getting their music from the Net...
I own a Walkman and haven't listened to it in a year. I either listent to my MP3's downloaded from the Net, or listen to radio stations broadcasting over Shoutcast through Winamp...
I suspect 50 million other people are doing the same...
I'd say "Stupid-Carson-Dating-Stupid-Bimbo-Actresses-Daly
Not that those two aren't hot...
From the first sentence, I thought Max was back!
I'd really like to see if Amanda Pays is as hot these days as she was then...
Max Headroom was a great show. Best line:
"You remember when we said there was no future? Well, this is it!"
Rereading my post, I think I can see where you got the notion that I support government behavior.
You read my comment as being supportive of the British actions against the Irish and the Scots. That was not what I meant at all - I merely referred to the fact that the British were brutal to those two countries but less so to India (at least as far as Gandhi was concerned).
The distributor may legally have that right (that is, after all, what copyright is about), but it is not an economically valid principle. It is a coercive state intervention in the free market which has the inevitable effect of distorting what the market would have done had it not existed, i.e., it changes what people are allowed to do and the economic effects of those actions. And most likely, it changes them for the worse, not the better.
There is apparently no evidence whatsoever that copyright or other IP does in fact stimulate production of new ideas or intellectual product in any significant way over what would exist without such IP laws. And even if it did, this still would not justify the coercive intervention against other property rights.
It is amusing that people in favor of IP think they are arguing in favor of property rights, when in fact they are arguing against them - to wit, certain persons are granted a license to control the property rights of everyone else. This issue has been discussed in Austrian economic circles - Google for Kinsella's article "Do Patents And Copyrights Undermine Private Property?" and related works such as Julio Cole's "Patents and Copyrights - Do The Benefits Exceed the Costs?". The ethical case (which interests me less since I don't believe it is rigorous) is presented by Tom Palmer in Vol 13, No. 3, Summer 1990, in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.
The facts are that IP is not a valid property "right" (I quote the word because I believe the concept of "rights" is a vacant and useless concept, for reasons I won't go into here). Its history stems from state monopoly charters and only in recent centuries has the attempt been made to justify it on the economic grounds (never supported by either correct reasoning or historical or economic evidence) that it has benefits over costs. Therefore, the argument is not that because it is easy to copy, it should be legal to copy (although one *could* argue for that point since it establishes some other points about economics, such as how economics does not guarantee anyone a SALE), but that it should never have been illegal to copy at all.
You are of course entirely wrong about my attitude toward the US. I do not support the US government or the United States people, for that matter. I could care less about Iraq or Al Qaida (as long as they aren't blowing me up, of course.) Nor do I support US policy in practically any instance you could name, most likely.
My comment on Gandhi is simply to point out that his methods wouldn't have worked against a more ruthless government. OTOH, it is possible that the Nazis, faced with the massive population of India, would also have backed off from suppressing Gandhi as ruthlessly as they might otherwise have done.
I am not a pacifist, nor am I a believer in any form of "first initiated" coercion (although I do believe in preemptive assault where needed.)
And I don't doubt Gandhi would have stood up to the Nazis - it's just that they would have killed him early on, most likely, and you'd never have heard of him...
You have to be the biggest idiot on /...
It's pathetic "my government right or wrong" morons like you that allowed the state to control the human race and will eventually destroy the species...
And as a Transhuman I can't wait to see you get wasted by "your" state...
You're going to die for your stupid belief system - I won't. Have a nice day, asshole...
Like Britney Spears complaining in an RIAA ad that downloading music is the same as stealing a CD from a store?
Ian's story may be anecdotal but it entirely agrees with any economic analysis of the situation.
Retailers have a rule of thumb that cutting the price of an item in half increases your market by a factor of (IIRC) four - until it's free and everyone wants one whether they need it or not.
If you allow people to download your music for slightly over the cost of providing the bandwidth and overhead (i.e., you still profit), people will have no incentive to get it from a competitor (unless that competitor has better marketing - which is an expense he has that the original artist does not). This is basic economics.
The difference is, you don't have a middleman - the record label - charging you for the production of your product, then wasting money on payola, then cheating you on the royalties by claiming X% "breakage", etc., not to mention that you are not supporting THEIR profits instead of yours...
It's common sense that an artist selling their own product will make money if they can do a reasonable amount of marketing to come to the attention of the people who might like their work.
What WON'T happen is that artists will make millions of dollars because some corporation paid some radio station operators in cocaine and hookers to play those few songs the corporation decided to promote.
It's laughable - first the record labels screw over Metallica, then Metallica thinks they're owed millions of dollars, then they sue their fans to get it...
This is what happens when the vast majority of domesticated primates are clueless about economics...
I'm not sure - was that a joke?
Control very definitely is the issue - and the nature of property is control. Which means if I get an MP3 from somebody over the Net, IT'S MINE. And if it was given freely, it is NOT theft on my part. And the person who bought and ripped the CD is not guilty of theft either - he or she did exactly what they should be allowed to do - control their property as they see fit - which includes producing and distributing it as a competitor to the original producer.
Intellectual property violates the primary characteristic of property and that renders it an invalid (i.e., economically unproductive) concept...
Mod that last comment up!
/. who has some understanding of economics...
Somebody on
The notion that Dr. Dre and Metallica are somehow OWED millions of dollars in income by consumers is bullshit. If they have to compete with every other form of entertainment for the consumer dollar, we might find artists (and art in general) having its "holier than thou" aspect peeled away and have it revealed as the economic activity it always was (and in the case of so-called "great art", it is egregiously and obviously commercial...).
Yes he does...
I'm sick of hearing him held up as the poster boy for nonviolence...
He should have tried it with the Nazis...
The British were bad in their day (read: Ireland and Scotland), but by the time they got India, they were washed up and their government too scared of public and international opinion (not to mention the sheer population size of India which meant pissing people off was not going to help matters and even the Brits could see that...) to do the sort of things they did to the Irish and Scots...
Since if we all started our own businesses, there probably wouldn't be any corporations left (i.e., no employees, therefore no masters), it probably would solve most market problems...
Getting rid of the government completely would solve the rest...
$15 a month for all the sex you can get is TOO MUCH?
Oh, wait, this has got to be a
Nobody said the broads hadda be good-looking, find some desperate fat ones, and just distribute the stuff to the pervy freaks on
Throw in some foot fetish and all you have to film is feet - so nobody cares what the rest of the body looks like...
And the GAO has released a report calling Homeland Security IT a major risk problem since they are trying to merge dozens of incompatible hardware, software and application systems - many from gov departments which were already considered major risks...
In other words, Al Qaida will eventually find dozens and dozens of insecure systems in "Homeland Security"...
The whole concept is a joke...
This is where Al Qaida sneaks into your room and cuts your throat...
Or is it where the CIA sneaks into your room and cuts your throat...?
Or is it where George Bush dreams how his father had a high approval rating immediately after the Gulf War, and then a year later during the election he was considered a liability to his party because the economy sucked...?
I can never remember...
The whole Earth would collapse into strange matter.
I'd say Slashdot is proof it already has...
I've read the entire Unabomber Manifesto. It is very similar to material published some years ago in various anarchist zines I've read.
I thought about it - and was able to refute almost all of it within a very short time.
Unfortunately, I can't do that now because it's been a few years since I read it. No doubt if I were to bother to pick it up again, I could trash it again.
It really is very "sophomore" (or maybe even "freshman") philosophy... Any Transhumanist worthy of the name could trash it in seconds...
Jeezus! This thing is awrsome! It looks like Barrett .50 caliber sniper rifle!