Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.
I'm probably going to get modded down for this, but yours is probably the most unfunny.sig I have ever seen. I do understand the sentiment, yes. However, deliberate cruelty and unkindness should never be humorous, and your.sig manages to be both. Might I convince you to change it?
Are you going to try to use averages to justify searching everyone?
The BSA doesn't perform the searches unless they have been legally authorized to do so by a judge. This is not _everyone_, obviously, but only those businesses on whom the BSA has collected enough evidence that a judge is convinced of probable wrong-doing.
You are innocent until proven guilty in the US. You can not search without proable cause. You do not get probable cause because you are a business that some company targets software at.
See above.
Imagine a MLA (Media License Assoc.)... Imagine getting a letter in the mail stating a MLA rep will be by your house later in the week to examine ALL of your video tapes, audio cassettes, CD's, players, cable boxes, Macrovision removers, computer HD's, etc for unauthorized media.... I bet there is a better chance a consumer would have some form of illegal media then a business has illegal software. Does this simple fact give probable cause to search everyones house?
Wrong. You are guilty of assuming that the people who pirate software would otherwise pay your company for that software.
The people who pirate software either do it for the kudos of their peers in the "l33t" warez community, because they are anal-retentive collectors, or because they actually use the software and a) can't afford to purchase it or b) can afford to purchase it but have no qualms about being thieves (or some combination). If they are using it, they should pay for it. So I am guilty of nothing. If you are using commercial software that you can afford to purchase and you choose not to, then you are a thief, and depriving programmers of their due.
Next:
Uh, yes. It is wrong. It is indicative of the fact that the BSA knows that what they're doing does constitute extortion under any legal or other definition of the term... and so on in an irrelevant tangent. You have refuted nothing with your bullshit. Verbiage without substance is easy.
And finally:
There's a big difference. A robbery victim can usually offer pretty good evidence that he/she has actually been deprived of property.
Again, bullshit. Federal marshals don't go marching into anyone's premises until they have convinced a judge to issue a warrant. INAL, but I do know that waarants aren't issued willy nilly. A judge has to be convinced, first, that a crime has been committed. Of course, sometimes mistakes will be made. However, I'd be willing to bet that, in the majority of cases, the BSA doesn't both securing a case unless they are near-100% certain that they can also secure a conviction.
Let's put this perspective. Let's say that I own a business manufacturing foo X's, and I have a friend who manufactures a related product (foo Y). We know that we are being illegally deprived of millions of dollars annually, but the law doesn't adequately protect us. We have been in our particular industry for a long time, and we each know of many other businesses in a similar situation. We form an alliance with all of these businesses, and we work with the government to help stop the crimes against us.
Suddenly, by announcing a grace period for these criminals, we are extortionists? Since when did extortion include benevolence?
The legal definition of extortion is: the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right. 18 U.S.C. S 1951(b)(2).
The key words here are wrongful use. Is it wrong, when someone has stolen something from you, to offer them a conditional amnesty? You steal from me, and not some hypothetic company, and I'll do everything I can to see you put in jail.
Calling this extortion is akin to the robbery victim who pleads on the news for the return of his wallet - no questions asked - and all will be forgiven: is the victim then the extortionist?
I note that Borland, the developers of Kylix, is a member of the BSA. Are they evil for expecting people to pay for some of their products? Or, because Microsoft is also a member, does that mean that OF COURSE it is extortion, and OF COURSE the federal marshals are mercenaries? Or will the federal marshals be exempted when they are protecting your ass on an airliner?
Is that the equation? Federal Marshals On Airlines = Good Guys, Federal Marshals Helping Microsoft/the BSA = Bad Guys? And if the BSA are really extortionists, does that make the marshals guilty of aiding and abetting?
Re:You Believe This??
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I spent a great deal of time in Saudi during Desert Storm - from approximately the start until the end - and I know firsthand that the myth you are trying to spread is false.
To clarify (for the conspiracy junkies and the paranoid): THERE WERE NO SECRET CASUALTIES DURING DESERT STORM.
The US learned from Cambodia (and too many other egregious examples to list) that Americans don't like their government to lie to them. In this age, there is no reason for anyone to be "out of the loop" except for reasons of deliberate obtuseness, or having been seduced by too many episodes of the X-Files.
I think these prosthetic arms might be misused. The concept is great -- everyone can now have the ability to wave and and pick up litter and stuff -- but what would stop them from including built-in razors and anthrax infected needles? Perhaps adding a toothbrush adaptor or squirt gun extension... and then you would need the abiity to aim... slightly modified it would let you shoot acid at people, I think these plastic arms would be perfect weapons...
For those incapable of recognizing sarcasm, I will give you a clue by indicating that the above paragraph was NOT flamebait or troll, but merely expressing my frustration that anyone could be so fucking stupid as to moderate the parent post as "Insightful."
You misunderstand. The previous poster was merely speculating that Apple might be dominant over PC's, instead of the reverse, if Apple had been more open to 3rd party cloning\licensing.
He then extrapolated this speculation to apply to the Nintendo/Panasonic situation.
This example could also be drawn from VHS/Betamax. Betamax was technically the superior technology, but it lost to VHS in the home consumer market because anyone could manufacture VHS machines (and nearly everyone did), whereas only a few (or only one? Sony? I forget) could manufacture Betamax machines.
...but contradicting opinions are the basis for discussions, aren't they?
Yes and no. I'm happy to be contradicted, as it promises that I might learn something new, but contradiction without intelligence (and, hopefully, literacy) is an experience I want to minimize.
I do enjoy argument or debate just for the sake of it, but only if we are playing by rules where logic and reason take primacy.
Re:Ability to tag friend or foe
on
Slashdot Code Update
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
To me, this modification allows me the sort of freedom I've always wanted on a forum. If a post isn't insightful, interesting, or informative, I'm not really interested in reading it, at least not on Slashdot. I'll turn on BBC America if I want to be amused, I'll peruse alt.binaries.erotica.* if I want to be aroused - you get the idea.
I discovered long ago that the friend or foe concept works well in separating the shite from the non. I think the terminology is too confrontational, but the concept works.
On Amazon.com, for example, if reviewer X gives a film that I loathe 5 stars, I'll generally dislike all of the films that he might recommend. The converse is also true. The same concept also seems to apply to books, music, and ideas.
No, this isn't limiting. I see too much overlap in tastes and opinion for that to be a problem, and I know of many films I've enjoyed that I would never have watched had they not been recommended to me by a trusted critic/friend. Ditto books, music, interesting philosophies.
It's about whatever the original poster intended, allowing for permutations as the thread evolves/devolves. It isn't about self-described "arrogant bastards" dictating what it's about.
The odds are that I'm going to die eventually. When I do, I'll have listened to tens of thousands of hours of music of my choice, watched hundreds of films that I chose, ditto that freedom for books and trips that I've planned and men or women that I've loved. In the end, I'll probably have been as happy as you are, but I won''t have ulcers.
When I die and when you die, we'll both be in the same boat. We will cease to exist and what we owned or didn't own won't fucking matter. The difference might be that your heirs will have more shit to sort through than mine, and, if that is what you want for them, I'm happy for you. I won't necessarily be happy for them, assuming that I am still alive when you die, but that is another matter.
I don't drive and I don't own a car. I walk nearly everywhere, and I like it that way. I rent my home, and I only buy books that I can't borrow from the library. I don't generally buy music CD's or DVD's. If I never had to buy them because I could listen to any music that I wanted, anytime that I wanted, on a continuously-streaming high-quality music server - and I could bookmark the songs that I liked in a sort of playlist - I would sell all of my music CD's tomorrow, assuming that I could afford the subscription cost. Ownership is a burden. You have to pack it when you move and unpack it when you arrive, and buy it again when it wears out or gets/lost/stolen/damaged.
One day in not too many more years I'll be able to stroll down the street, or be backpacking up a mountainside, and say to apparently open air "Sabbath mix 6" and be able to listen to my favorite Sabbath mix without carrying anything larger than the watch I'm already wearing. I'll probably have to pay someone a subscripton for that service, as it will involve satellites and billions of dollars of technology that others worry about and maintain.
And I'll be as free as you are sitting in your room with thousands of CD's and expensive equipment that can only become obsolete, but hey, you'll OWN your music, and I'll only be free to listen to mine because I've paid for the service.
I'm assuming you'll have paid for your CD's, unless you pirate them all, in which case our expenses might have reached parity, but when we die our measure of happiness will have been the same.
About a decade ago, BT tried this in Ipswich, UK. I don't know how successful it was, or how many consumers were actually able to use it, but it was demonstrated at the public library where I played with it for a bit.
The demo wasn't very impressive, as I suppose there were too many technical hurdles which hadn't been properly thought through, let alone surmounted, but the public access portions were working. It actually was designed to function over copper phone lines, with pause and reverse possible in the middle of a movie you selected from a menu, via Teletext.
What is/was Teletext? Well, before the web, it was pretty cool, and I'd still like it if I could access it here in the US. It was a textual overlay, sent during the VBI, that you surfed with your TV's remote control. There was news, horoscopes, puzzles, jokes, competitions, local TV and film schedules, film reviews, and even downloadable games (with the right attachment).
Anyway, BT's VOD system was also surfed via your TV remote.
Does anyone remember the name of this vanished but once promising system, now part of geek-interest history?
Scarcity has everything to do with it, and nothing to do with it.
Let us perform a thought experiment, and imagine that we live in a world where K. Eric Drexler's nanotechnology has come to pass, and we all have garage-sized devices in which we replicate anything smaller than the devices just by dumping in refuse or bits of obsolete technology and pressing the appropriate buttons.
Nothing is scarce, except for maybe the garbage that we use as raw ingredients, and the objects that we want to reproduce that are larger than the replication units.
So, in 2056, or whenever this future comes to pass, the big steaming pile of shit I've collected straight from the bottoms of dogs living comfortably in their luxury condo-kennels has incredible value.
Or does it? It is worth more, the same, or less than the expensive "original" that I have copied? Yes, I've commissioned a unique sculpture by an octogenarian artist (or older, this _is_ Science Fiction) and, the day after the unveiling, thugs break it from its moorings and duplicate it in their own replication units. Is my original suddenly worth less? Is there any sense in visiting the Louvre to see the Mona Lisa, when I can just download the pirated blueprint off of the Internet, and copy it from discarded tennis shoes in my own replicator?
Would copying the artist be acceptable? What if he - meaning the original - gave his consent? Now we have 20,000 copies of the most important artist of the year 2056 running around creating original works which are then ripped off by admirers. Or do you object that we shouldn't be allowed to duplicate living things? Does life, then, have some special quality that that should exempt it from copying? Would that quality, perhaps, be rarity? That argument wouldn't work anymore, in an age when anything can be copied.
To take this to absurd extremes, suppose it is an offence to duplicate persons. What do we do with the duplicates, once the offence has been committed? And the offender, suppose that he has made 20,000 copies of himself before making a copy of that formerly rare original artist, do we arrest them all, as they are all sworn to continue in their duplicating ways?
Why would anyone, or any corporation, spend billions of dollars and years of work developing the next great consumer gizmo - say, another copier capable of duplicating objects bigger than itself - why would they bother, if their efforts were immediately stolen?
Yes, I know, they'll just support their employees and continued research providing service and support for products that have in-built AI, hence require no service, and can always be duplicated with a downloaded blueprint using yesterdays (valuable?) rubbish, so it effectively never breaks down. I can see that as highly profitable.
We need a new paradigm in which scarcity can't be trotted out as the supposed underpinnings of everything we value. If we can't do that, maybe the idea of "consent" needs to be discarded, as it would have virtually no meaning. But shouldn't I have the right to say no to you copying my creations, regardless of the media? If you answer in the negative, just wait until my projected Science Fiction tomorrow isn't Science Fiction, and deal with it then, but by then it will be too late, and our current selfishness will have given the government the excuse to make all of our IP decisions for us, because, darnit, I want to copy my MP3's NOW, and rip of Big Evil Corporations NOW, and not worry about the eventual consequences.
So, scarcity has everything to do with it, and nothing to do with it, and fuck what may happen tomorrow because I want it NOW.
Has there ever been a movie that's been "as good" as the book?
Interestingly, yes, especially if the the book wasn't very good in the first place.
I'm not being a smart-ass: I thought Stephen King's The Dead Zone was a terrible book, but David Cronenberg turned into into an excellent movie. Likewise, I thought the Mists of Avalon novel was awful (I don't think MZB could write anything well), but the TV adaption wasn't bad.
More controversially, I don't think that LotR was particularly good, as a work of prose. Tolkien was an adequate storyteller, nothing more. Yes, this is coming from a rabid Science fiction and Fantasy fan, and I do acknowledge the enormous importance of LotR to the fantasy genre.
This isn't flamebait or a troll, but a very honest expression of opinion. I think that LotR:FotR was the best pure fantasy film ever made. I _do_ believe that I have seen them all. As such, it deserves to be in the IMDB top 250, although it certainly won't remain at the #1 spot. There are many better films, but not any better fantasy films.
I apologize for not using even one obligatory WTC reference in the above paragraphs(s).:-)
IMHO, religious belief doesn't belong to an exhalted category deserving of special protection or respect, but I still doubt that use of this technology will become widespread; the "666" crowd will object too loudly for it ever to be adopted.
I guess, strangely, that in this case I am glad for the religious right.:-)
I can visualize some rather disturbing advertisements.
TEARFUL MOTHER:
My daughter, Jennifer, was abducted, raped, tortured and murdered by a known sex offender. If this monster had been tagged with VeriChip, she might still be alive!
Cut to another scene, where an obviously grieving family stand in front of the WTC ruins, the mother clutching the American flag. A little boy, approximately 6 years old, holds a photo of his firefighter father.
REPORTER:
Jimmy, what do you think of the VeriChip?
Jimmy:
I think the VeriChip is great! If all immigrants and aliens of Arab-American descent had been tagged with VeriChip, my Daddy would still be alive!
'Fraid not, PG-13 means they won't be admitted unless they're with mom and dad -- no 13 year old would be caught dead going out with their parents...
This comment hit a raw nerve with me, so, though it may be irrelevant, a tangent, I will respond anyway.
My eldest daughter never went through a phase where she was embarrassed by her parents (myself or my wife), and nor did I experience such a stage.
It might be genetics. I've never wasted an instant wanting to be tough, or cool, or anything other than to be me. I didn't like being teased or bullied, but being popular wasn't worth compromising my own values. My eldest was/is the same. However, my brother, who always spent a lot of time worrying about the brands of jeans he wore - his children are as shallow as a puddle after a light rain. I don't mean this to sound like a judgement, though I suppose it _is_ a judgement.
Geeks especially should know that fitting in isn't important, or, rather, it is only important for about 15 minutes, if one has any self-respect, and most geeks I know have oodles of that.
Re:physics as an argument
on
This is IT?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Pure physics states that a bumblebee can't fly.
Pure physics states no such thing. Individual scientists might have made such statements, but they would have been unwise, as a bumblebee inarguably flies, and to state that it is physically impossible for them to do so would be ludicrous and incorrect. A scientist, or anyone else, might argue that the aerodynamics of bumblebee flight are a mystery, and they would not be an ass for stating that opinion.
If one believes that humans are different from animals in that we contain a spirit and an awareness of God,
Religious belief doesn't deserve a special category, and should not be confused with ethics. I can think of several ethical objections to this type of research, and none of them involve a belief in God(s) or ensoulment.
Moreover, as an advanced society, do we really wish to combine our gene pool with that of an animal?
As we are animals, this question could almost be considered facetious, but I doubt that was your intent. The question should perhaps be:
As a society, advanced or otherwise, should we engage in research which mixes human and non-human gene pools?
My ethics ascribe nothing special to the state of being human (or nothing which would be pertinent to this debate), so the question, for me, becomes:
Should we engage in research which involves the mixing of interspecies gene pools?
Yes, we should, or at least we should not restrict ourselves from such research without solid, logical reasons. This reasons may also be ethical reasons, as logic and ethics are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
I _did_ read the original headline. My comment wasn't flamebait.
No one should have taken offence at the original version, which I what I was trying to point out. Hell, no one should have even drawn attention to the original version, as the alleged insensitive humor was too obvious to merit any comment at all. But, hey, anything for moderation points.
Another obvious and trite comment posted by the humorless, and modded up by the same.
It took a quarter second for my eyes to move from the headline to the article, during which time I did not succumb to a panic attack or suffer overwhelming confusion.
Should I infer from your post that you believe most Slashdot readers are thin-skinned and stupid?
Peter Jackson (www.imdb.com) hopefully won't be considered one of the next great director[s] of American film, as he is a New Zealander. And he wasn't as unknown as you might think, as he had previously directed Kate Winslet in the wonderful Heavenly Creatures.
Re:A great example of open-source at work.
on
Five Years of KDE
·
· Score: 1
This is not flamebait, but...
KDE has had five years to learn from the mistakes, and copy the successes, of Win9xNT/MacOS, etc., which, while prudent and praiseworthy, certainly isn't as amazing as it initially sounds.
When I can install an application with a mouse-click, and remove it with a mouse-click, and ALL vestiges of the previous install are wiped, then I will be impressed, as this is something that MS hasn't managed to do with any of their OS's, yet.
It might be off-topic, but does anybody know why this task is so difficult?
I don't know that we are actually disagreeing. You say:
First of all, I'd dispute your statement that there's no social pressure for gays [to] couple with those of the opposite sex.
I wasn't referring to kids who may or may not have sorted out their sexuality. I was referring to adults or late teens (yes, I know that the two are not _necessarily_ mutually exclusive) who are certain of their gayness, and have self-identified as such. Your original statement implied, to me, that adult gays - and by adult I mean those of acceptable child-bearing age, not children fathering or giving birth to children - felt compelled to couple with those of the opposite sex. Proto or closeted gays might feel this social pressure, but I don't think that lifestyle gays do.
As for nuture-nature and gayness, I really believe that the jury is in, but that society is not ready to accept the vote. I am the only gay member of my family. However, my wife is gay, her middle brother is gay, and her sister is gay. Most of the rest of our siblings are almost agressively heterosexual.
Maybe our mothers were talking the same drugs or experiencing similar traumatic events. I doubt it. I also find it largely irrelevant. I am gay, and I can't imagine being any other way. I wouldn't want to be any other way. I don't steal, cheat, lie, murder - heck, I don't even smoke or drink alcohol excessively.
Note that I use the word gay in its most generic sense - not differentiating between homosexual men, women, or bisexuals.
If I knew that gayness was triggered environmentally, I would be opposed to eliminating that trigger. I like diversity. I like Chinese food, Indian food, Korean food, and, well, just about any edible substance. I find things to admire in Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and virtually every other religion. All races and colors and shapes and sizes can be beautiful to me. Every day that the world is made more homogenized it becomes a less interesting place.
Anyway, thanks for the chat, and keep dating that bisexual girlfriend. I kept dating mine, and we've been married 21 years this next July.:-)
There needn't be any specific traits that identify someone as gay. I am gay, and I can almost always identify others of my kind with few, if any, words being spoken, but that might be hard for a straight person to understand or believe, assuming you are straight.
Star Trek portays no same-gender loving couples, either in the continuing storyline or in flashback. Star Trek does depict romantic relationships of a hetetosexual nature, so it seems remiss not to depict romantic relationships between same-gender loving partners.
There is nothing likely at all that these enlighted future people have eliminated homosexuality because it serves no practical purpose; virtually all species in the animal kingdom practice homosexuality, so it seems to serve some purpose, even if it is not clear what that purpose is. I certainly don't see my gayness as a mistake of evolution, but merely as one more permutation to be riddled and appreciated.
Slashdot Mirror
Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.
.sig I have ever seen. I do understand the sentiment, yes. However, deliberate cruelty and unkindness should never be humorous, and your .sig manages to be both. Might I convince you to change it?
I'm probably going to get modded down for this, but yours is probably the most unfunny
Or are you going to tell me to fuck off?
What's next? A loss of that sexy beard?
Never mock a man's hirsute appendage. It isn't "Insightful," it isn't clever, but it does reveal one of two things:
1. You weren't mocking; you really do find RMS's beard arousing, but were disguising this truth, even from yourself, behind sarcasm.
2. You judge people based on faulty criteria.
Which is it?
Are you going to try to use averages to justify searching everyone?
The BSA doesn't perform the searches unless they have been legally authorized to do so by a judge. This is not _everyone_, obviously, but only those businesses on whom the BSA has collected enough evidence that a judge is convinced of probable wrong-doing.
You are innocent until proven guilty in the US. You can not search without proable cause. You do not get probable cause because you are a business that some company targets software at.
See above.
Imagine a MLA (Media License Assoc.)... Imagine getting a letter in the mail stating a MLA rep will be by your house later in the week to examine ALL of your video tapes, audio cassettes, CD's, players, cable boxes, Macrovision removers, computer HD's, etc for unauthorized media.... I bet there is a better chance a consumer would have some form of illegal media then a business has illegal software. Does this simple fact give probable cause to search everyones house?
No, it doesn't. See above.
Let's start this off here:
Wrong. You are guilty of assuming that the people who pirate software would otherwise pay your company for that software.
The people who pirate software either do it for the kudos of their peers in the "l33t" warez community, because they are anal-retentive collectors, or because they actually use the software and a) can't afford to purchase it or b) can afford to purchase it but have no qualms about being thieves (or some combination). If they are using it, they should pay for it. So I am guilty of nothing. If you are using commercial software that you can afford to purchase and you choose not to, then you are a thief, and depriving programmers of their due.
Next:
Uh, yes. It is wrong. It is indicative of the fact that the BSA knows that what they're doing does constitute extortion under any legal or other definition of the term... and so on in an irrelevant tangent. You have refuted nothing with your bullshit. Verbiage without substance is easy.
And finally:
There's a big difference. A robbery victim can usually offer pretty good evidence that he/she has actually been deprived of property.
Again, bullshit. Federal marshals don't go marching into anyone's premises until they have convinced a judge to issue a warrant. INAL, but I do know that waarants aren't issued willy nilly. A judge has to be convinced, first, that a crime has been committed. Of course, sometimes mistakes will be made. However, I'd be willing to bet that, in the majority of cases, the BSA doesn't both securing a case unless they are near-100% certain that they can also secure a conviction.
Let's put this perspective. Let's say that I own a business manufacturing foo X's, and I have a friend who manufactures a related product (foo Y). We know that we are being illegally deprived of millions of dollars annually, but the law doesn't adequately protect us. We have been in our particular industry for a long time, and we each know of many other businesses in a similar situation. We form an alliance with all of these businesses, and we work with the government to help stop the crimes against us.
Suddenly, by announcing a grace period for these criminals, we are extortionists? Since when did extortion include benevolence?
The legal definition of extortion is: the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right. 18 U.S.C. S 1951(b)(2).
The key words here are wrongful use. Is it wrong, when someone has stolen something from you, to offer them a conditional amnesty? You steal from me, and not some hypothetic company, and I'll do everything I can to see you put in jail.
Calling this extortion is akin to the robbery victim who pleads on the news for the return of his wallet - no questions asked - and all will be forgiven: is the victim then the extortionist?
I note that Borland, the developers of Kylix, is a member of the BSA. Are they evil for expecting people to pay for some of their products? Or, because Microsoft is also a member, does that mean that OF COURSE it is extortion, and OF COURSE the federal marshals are mercenaries? Or will the federal marshals be exempted when they are protecting your ass on an airliner?
Is that the equation? Federal Marshals On Airlines = Good Guys, Federal Marshals Helping Microsoft/the BSA = Bad Guys? And if the BSA are really extortionists, does that make the marshals guilty of aiding and abetting?
I spent a great deal of time in Saudi during Desert Storm - from approximately the start until the end - and I know firsthand that the myth you are trying to spread is false.
To clarify (for the conspiracy junkies and the paranoid): THERE WERE NO SECRET CASUALTIES DURING DESERT STORM.
The US learned from Cambodia (and too many other egregious examples to list) that Americans don't like their government to lie to them. In this age, there is no reason for anyone to be "out of the loop" except for reasons of deliberate obtuseness, or having been seduced by too many episodes of the X-Files.
I think these prosthetic arms might be misused. The concept is great -- everyone can now have the ability to wave and and pick up litter and stuff -- but what would stop them from including built-in razors and anthrax infected needles? Perhaps adding a toothbrush adaptor or squirt gun extension... and then you would need the abiity to aim... slightly modified it would let you shoot acid at people, I think these plastic arms would be perfect weapons...
For those incapable of recognizing sarcasm, I will give you a clue by indicating that the above paragraph was NOT flamebait or troll, but merely expressing my frustration that anyone could be so fucking stupid as to moderate the parent post as "Insightful."
You misunderstand. The previous poster was merely speculating that Apple might be dominant over PC's, instead of the reverse, if Apple had been more open to 3rd party cloning\licensing.
He then extrapolated this speculation to apply to the Nintendo/Panasonic situation.
This example could also be drawn from VHS/Betamax. Betamax was technically the superior technology, but it lost to VHS in the home consumer market because anyone could manufacture VHS machines (and nearly everyone did), whereas only a few (or only one? Sony? I forget) could manufacture Betamax machines.
...but contradicting opinions are the basis for discussions, aren't they?
Yes and no. I'm happy to be contradicted, as it promises that I might learn something new, but contradiction without intelligence (and, hopefully, literacy) is an experience I want to minimize.
I do enjoy argument or debate just for the sake of it, but only if we are playing by rules where logic and reason take primacy.
To me, this modification allows me the sort of freedom I've always wanted on a forum. If a post isn't insightful, interesting, or informative, I'm not really interested in reading it, at least not on Slashdot. I'll turn on BBC America if I want to be amused, I'll peruse alt.binaries.erotica.* if I want to be aroused - you get the idea.
I discovered long ago that the friend or foe concept works well in separating the shite from the non. I think the terminology is too confrontational, but the concept works.
On Amazon.com, for example, if reviewer X gives a film that I loathe 5 stars, I'll generally dislike all of the films that he might recommend. The converse is also true. The same concept also seems to apply to books, music, and ideas.
No, this isn't limiting. I see too much overlap in tastes and opinion for that to be a problem, and I know of many films I've enjoyed that I would never have watched had they not been recommended to me by a trusted critic/friend. Ditto books, music, interesting philosophies.
It's about whatever the original poster intended, allowing for permutations as the thread evolves/devolves. It isn't about self-described "arrogant bastards" dictating what it's about.
The odds are that I'm going to die eventually. When I do, I'll have listened to tens of thousands of hours of music of my choice, watched hundreds of films that I chose, ditto that freedom for books and trips that I've planned and men or women that I've loved. In the end, I'll probably have been as happy as you are, but I won''t have ulcers.
When I die and when you die, we'll both be in the same boat. We will cease to exist and what we owned or didn't own won't fucking matter. The difference might be that your heirs will have more shit to sort through than mine, and, if that is what you want for them, I'm happy for you. I won't necessarily be happy for them, assuming that I am still alive when you die, but that is another matter.
I don't drive and I don't own a car. I walk nearly everywhere, and I like it that way. I rent my home, and I only buy books that I can't borrow from the library. I don't generally buy music CD's or DVD's. If I never had to buy them because I could listen to any music that I wanted, anytime that I wanted, on a continuously-streaming high-quality music server - and I could bookmark the songs that I liked in a sort of playlist - I would sell all of my music CD's tomorrow, assuming that I could afford the subscription cost. Ownership is a burden. You have to pack it when you move and unpack it when you arrive, and buy it again when it wears out or gets/lost/stolen/damaged.
One day in not too many more years I'll be able to stroll down the street, or be backpacking up a mountainside, and say to apparently open air "Sabbath mix 6" and be able to listen to my favorite Sabbath mix without carrying anything larger than the watch I'm already wearing. I'll probably have to pay someone a subscripton for that service, as it will involve satellites and billions of dollars of technology that others worry about and maintain.
And I'll be as free as you are sitting in your room with thousands of CD's and expensive equipment that can only become obsolete, but hey, you'll OWN your music, and I'll only be free to listen to mine because I've paid for the service.
I'm assuming you'll have paid for your CD's, unless you pirate them all, in which case our expenses might have reached parity, but when we die our measure of happiness will have been the same.
About a decade ago, BT tried this in Ipswich, UK. I don't know how successful it was, or how many consumers were actually able to use it, but it was demonstrated at the public library where I played with it for a bit.
The demo wasn't very impressive, as I suppose there were too many technical hurdles which hadn't been properly thought through, let alone surmounted, but the public access portions were working. It actually was designed to function over copper phone lines, with pause and reverse possible in the middle of a movie you selected from a menu, via Teletext.
What is/was Teletext? Well, before the web, it was pretty cool, and I'd still like it if I could access it here in the US. It was a textual overlay, sent during the VBI, that you surfed with your TV's remote control. There was news, horoscopes, puzzles, jokes, competitions, local TV and film schedules, film reviews, and even downloadable games (with the right attachment).
Anyway, BT's VOD system was also surfed via your TV remote.
Does anyone remember the name of this vanished but once promising system, now part of geek-interest history?
Scarcity has everything to do with it, and nothing to do with it.
Let us perform a thought experiment, and imagine that we live in a world where K. Eric Drexler's nanotechnology has come to pass, and we all have garage-sized devices in which we replicate anything smaller than the devices just by dumping in refuse or bits of obsolete technology and pressing the appropriate buttons.
Nothing is scarce, except for maybe the garbage that we use as raw ingredients, and the objects that we want to reproduce that are larger than the replication units.
So, in 2056, or whenever this future comes to pass, the big steaming pile of shit I've collected straight from the bottoms of dogs living comfortably in their luxury condo-kennels has incredible value.
Or does it? It is worth more, the same, or less than the expensive "original" that I have copied? Yes, I've commissioned a unique sculpture by an octogenarian artist (or older, this _is_ Science Fiction) and, the day after the unveiling, thugs break it from its moorings and duplicate it in their own replication units. Is my original suddenly worth less? Is there any sense in visiting the Louvre to see the Mona Lisa, when I can just download the pirated blueprint off of the Internet, and copy it from discarded tennis shoes in my own replicator?
Would copying the artist be acceptable? What if he - meaning the original - gave his consent? Now we have 20,000 copies of the most important artist of the year 2056 running around creating original works which are then ripped off by admirers. Or do you object that we shouldn't be allowed to duplicate living things? Does life, then, have some special quality that that should exempt it from copying? Would that quality, perhaps, be rarity? That argument wouldn't work anymore, in an age when anything can be copied.
To take this to absurd extremes, suppose it is an offence to duplicate persons. What do we do with the duplicates, once the offence has been committed? And the offender, suppose that he has made 20,000 copies of himself before making a copy of that formerly rare original artist, do we arrest them all, as they are all sworn to continue in their duplicating ways?
Why would anyone, or any corporation, spend billions of dollars and years of work developing the next great consumer gizmo - say, another copier capable of duplicating objects bigger than itself - why would they bother, if their efforts were immediately stolen?
Yes, I know, they'll just support their employees and continued research providing service and support for products that have in-built AI, hence require no service, and can always be duplicated with a downloaded blueprint using yesterdays (valuable?) rubbish, so it effectively never breaks down. I can see that as highly profitable.
We need a new paradigm in which scarcity can't be trotted out as the supposed underpinnings of everything we value. If we can't do that, maybe the idea of "consent" needs to be discarded, as it would have virtually no meaning. But shouldn't I have the right to say no to you copying my creations, regardless of the media? If you answer in the negative, just wait until my projected Science Fiction tomorrow isn't Science Fiction, and deal with it then, but by then it will be too late, and our current selfishness will have given the government the excuse to make all of our IP decisions for us, because, darnit, I want to copy my MP3's NOW, and rip of Big Evil Corporations NOW, and not worry about the eventual consequences.
So, scarcity has everything to do with it, and nothing to do with it, and fuck what may happen tomorrow because I want it NOW.
Has there ever been a movie that's been "as good" as the book?
:-)
Interestingly, yes, especially if the the book wasn't very good in the first place.
I'm not being a smart-ass: I thought Stephen King's The Dead Zone was a terrible book, but David Cronenberg turned into into an excellent movie. Likewise, I thought the Mists of Avalon novel was awful (I don't think MZB could write anything well), but the TV adaption wasn't bad.
More controversially, I don't think that LotR was particularly good, as a work of prose. Tolkien was an adequate storyteller, nothing more. Yes, this is coming from a rabid Science fiction and Fantasy fan, and I do acknowledge the enormous importance of LotR to the fantasy genre.
This isn't flamebait or a troll, but a very honest expression of opinion. I think that LotR:FotR was the best pure fantasy film ever made. I _do_ believe that I have seen them all. As such, it deserves to be in the IMDB top 250, although it certainly won't remain at the #1 spot. There are many better films, but not any better fantasy films.
I apologize for not using even one obligatory WTC reference in the above paragraphs(s).
IMHO, religious belief doesn't belong to an exhalted category deserving of special protection or respect, but I still doubt that use of this technology will become widespread; the "666" crowd will object too loudly for it ever to be adopted.
:-)
I guess, strangely, that in this case I am glad for the religious right.
I can visualize some rather disturbing advertisements.
TEARFUL MOTHER:
My daughter, Jennifer, was abducted, raped, tortured and murdered by a known sex offender. If this monster had been tagged with VeriChip, she might still be alive!
Cut to another scene, where an obviously grieving family stand in front of the WTC ruins, the mother clutching the American flag. A little boy, approximately 6 years old, holds a photo of his firefighter father.
REPORTER:
Jimmy, what do you think of the VeriChip?
Jimmy:
I think the VeriChip is great! If all immigrants and aliens of Arab-American descent had been tagged with VeriChip, my Daddy would still be alive!
My apologies for the obligatory WTC reference.
'Fraid not, PG-13 means they won't be admitted unless they're with mom and dad -- no 13 year old would be caught dead going out with their parents...
This comment hit a raw nerve with me, so, though it may be irrelevant, a tangent, I will respond anyway.
My eldest daughter never went through a phase where she was embarrassed by her parents (myself or my wife), and nor did I experience such a stage.
It might be genetics. I've never wasted an instant wanting to be tough, or cool, or anything other than to be me. I didn't like being teased or bullied, but being popular wasn't worth compromising my own values. My eldest was/is the same. However, my brother, who always spent a lot of time worrying about the brands of jeans he wore - his children are as shallow as a puddle after a light rain. I don't mean this to sound like a judgement, though I suppose it _is_ a judgement.
Geeks especially should know that fitting in isn't important, or, rather, it is only important for about 15 minutes, if one has any self-respect, and most geeks I know have oodles of that.
Pure physics states that a bumblebee can't fly.
Pure physics states no such thing. Individual scientists might have made such statements, but they would have been unwise, as a bumblebee inarguably flies, and to state that it is physically impossible for them to do so would be ludicrous and incorrect. A scientist, or anyone else, might argue that the aerodynamics of bumblebee flight are a mystery, and they would not be an ass for stating that opinion.
Religious belief doesn't deserve a special category, and should not be confused with ethics. I can think of several ethical objections to this type of research, and none of them involve a belief in God(s) or ensoulment.
Moreover, as an advanced society, do we really wish to combine our gene pool with that of an animal?
As we are animals, this question could almost be considered facetious, but I doubt that was your intent. The question should perhaps be:
As a society, advanced or otherwise, should we engage in research which mixes human and non-human gene pools?
My ethics ascribe nothing special to the state of being human (or nothing which would be pertinent to this debate), so the question, for me, becomes:
Should we engage in research which involves the mixing of interspecies gene pools?
Yes, we should, or at least we should not restrict ourselves from such research without solid, logical reasons. This reasons may also be ethical reasons, as logic and ethics are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
I _did_ read the original headline. My comment wasn't flamebait.
No one should have taken offence at the original version, which I what I was trying to point out. Hell, no one should have even drawn attention to the original version, as the alleged insensitive humor was too obvious to merit any comment at all. But, hey, anything for moderation points.
Another obvious and trite comment posted by the humorless, and modded up by the same.
It took a quarter second for my eyes to move from the headline to the article, during which time I did not succumb to a panic attack or suffer overwhelming confusion.
Should I infer from your post that you believe most Slashdot readers are thin-skinned and stupid?
One correction:
Peter Jackson (www.imdb.com) hopefully won't be considered one of the next great director[s] of American film, as he is a New Zealander. And he wasn't as unknown as you might think, as he had previously directed Kate Winslet in the wonderful Heavenly Creatures.
This is not flamebait, but...
KDE has had five years to learn from the mistakes, and copy the successes, of Win9xNT/MacOS, etc., which, while prudent and praiseworthy, certainly isn't as amazing as it initially sounds.
When I can install an application with a mouse-click, and remove it with a mouse-click, and ALL vestiges of the previous install are wiped, then I will be impressed, as this is something that MS hasn't managed to do with any of their OS's, yet.
It might be off-topic, but does anybody know why this task is so difficult?
I don't know that we are actually disagreeing. You say:
:-)
First of all, I'd dispute your statement that there's no social pressure for gays [to] couple with those of the opposite sex.
I wasn't referring to kids who may or may not have sorted out their sexuality. I was referring to adults or late teens (yes, I know that the two are not _necessarily_ mutually exclusive) who are certain of their gayness, and have self-identified as such. Your original statement implied, to me, that adult gays - and by adult I mean those of acceptable child-bearing age, not children fathering or giving birth to children - felt compelled to couple with those of the opposite sex. Proto or closeted gays might feel this social pressure, but I don't think that lifestyle gays do.
As for nuture-nature and gayness, I really believe that the jury is in, but that society is not ready to accept the vote. I am the only gay member of my family. However, my wife is gay, her middle brother is gay, and her sister is gay. Most of the rest of our siblings are almost agressively heterosexual.
Maybe our mothers were talking the same drugs or experiencing similar traumatic events. I doubt it. I also find it largely irrelevant. I am gay, and I can't imagine being any other way. I wouldn't want to be any other way. I don't steal, cheat, lie, murder - heck, I don't even smoke or drink alcohol excessively.
Note that I use the word gay in its most generic sense - not differentiating between homosexual men, women, or bisexuals.
If I knew that gayness was triggered environmentally, I would be opposed to eliminating that trigger. I like diversity. I like Chinese food, Indian food, Korean food, and, well, just about any edible substance. I find things to admire in Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and virtually every other religion. All races and colors and shapes and sizes can be beautiful to me. Every day that the world is made more homogenized it becomes a less interesting place.
Anyway, thanks for the chat, and keep dating that bisexual girlfriend. I kept dating mine, and we've been married 21 years this next July.
There needn't be any specific traits that identify someone as gay. I am gay, and I can almost always identify others of my kind with few, if any, words being spoken, but that might be hard for a straight person to understand or believe, assuming you are straight.
Star Trek portays no same-gender loving couples, either in the continuing storyline or in flashback. Star Trek does depict romantic relationships of a hetetosexual nature, so it seems remiss not to depict romantic relationships between same-gender loving partners.
There is nothing likely at all that these enlighted future people have eliminated homosexuality because it serves no practical purpose; virtually all species in the animal kingdom practice homosexuality, so it seems to serve some purpose, even if it is not clear what that purpose is. I certainly don't see my gayness as a mistake of evolution, but merely as one more permutation to be riddled and appreciated.