Well thought out????
on
Back To SCO
·
· Score: 3, Funny
"Their response does a good job of presenting many of the finer points we have been arguing about around here, but it's nice to see them in such a formal, well-thought-out letter."
You mean posting "$C0 $|_|x0r$" on slashdot doesn't qualify as well-thought-out?
"I first discovered one of these tiles when I moved to Cincinnati in 1998. Working in the Schmidt Building, I crossed Sixth and Walnut every day. At the time, I didn't think much of the tile, dismissing it as nothing more than typical street graffiti. It never occurred to me that the tile could be, as one Scientologist recently put it, "some graffiti from Mars."
So, wheres the good free (non-riaa) Indie radio stations? With all the talk of "F*CK" the RIAA, wheres the alternative Garage/Indie/etc radio? I listen to Techno, and the best streams are UK Based. Wheres the alternatives?
You just made a very good point...there aren't any "good alternatives". Even the unknown musicians I listen to are signed to big labels like Sony and Atlantic. You know why most "good" artists don't sign with independent labels or get played on independent radio stations? Because indies don't have the huge corporate marketing engine behind them to make their artists world famous and filthy rich! Once an artist wants to make money off their work, the work is no longer about the art, it is about business. Making a record is not about creating a work of art, it is about a bunch of zeros on your paycheck, having five different beach houses, 10 luxury cars in the driveway, and having your mug all over TV and magazines. The most reliable way to get that is to go with a big label and the RIAA. It's sad, but true. If you believe anything else, you're fooling yourself.
For a start, Humanity is no longer the sole "summit of creation", as claimed by the Bible. We are no longer "created to God's image". And even with your idea of a "Christ-incarnate" in the different alien races which solves the problem of having multiple sons of God, that still means that the Crucifixion and the Resurrection were not unique - they happened a number of time in different alien worlds.
I suppose Religions, including Christian one, would adapt, but definite proof of the existence of Alien civilizations would require massive updating of the Churches' beliefs.
I strongly disagree with this, and on one very simple idea. Almost everyone who is looking for life on other planets is assuming they will find some great civilization that is much more advanced than us in every aspect - biology, science, technology, intelligence, whatever. I am Christian, and if the Bible says that man is made in God's image, blah blah blah - then from my view it's safe to assume that whatever life we do find is not as advanced as we are - much to the disappointment of sci-fi authors and UFO hunters. And even if they are more advanced, then maybe the we are still created in God's image but that has nothing to do with being the most advanced civilization. So it still works.
meaning you can't get anything (other than an item of token value, say, $8 or less) in return.
Thank you for reminding me of that - you are partially right...the rule is anything over the stated value of the item is tax deductible. So if you pay $1,000 for something that is valued at $500, the remaining $500 is tax deductible.
Even if they can't claim it on their taxes, the concept of paying charities for advertising time on their phone calls still works.
I can't wait to see companies buying time on charity organization's phone calls. Imagine this:
1) Company makes donation to charity 2) Charity promises to advertise company during charity's fund raising calls 3) Company claims donation on their taxes 4) ???? 5) Profit!!! (or in the case of the charity: Non-Profit!!!!!)
...does that mean we can stop paying to use it? If I want to add an NT server or a fww NT workstations to my network do I have to buy a 2000 license to use it? I think if Microsoft doesn't have to spend any more money on it, than neither should I.
Wow that was a lengthy post and I enjoyed reading it. Now for my rebuttal:
. Section 1008 of the 1992 Audio Home Recording Act states that all non-commericial copying of musical recordings by consumers is legal [cornell.edu] in the US
I interpret this as meaning there are no restrictions on devices or media, as that is what it specifies - it does not say anything about the contents of the recording itself. It does not say that a consumer is immune from violating the copyright of an artist. I think it is saying it is not enough to prosecute someone for simply posessing, using, or distrubuting analog/digital recording devices or media. But again IANAL either:) If it is OK to copy copyrighted songs off the radio, then why is it wrong to do so on a P2P network?
I think this has to do with the issue of time-shifting...i.e. recording something off of TV or radio for use at a later date. If a song played on the radio in the morning, you can't hear it again in the afternoon without recording it first. Since the source of most mp3s are CDs that can be listened to at any time, the time shifting argument does not hold water. Which raises an interesting question: If all mp3s were recorded off radio as opposed to ripped from a CD, would the RIAA have a case? After all, they can be described not as copies of a CD but recordings of a radio broadcast that are simply replayed at a later date!
I don't have the time to go into the many, many flaws and injustices in our copyright system: the virtual destruction of fair-use by the DMCA
I agree with this...the DMCA really sucks and should not be on the books.
Finally, from a practical standpoint, file-sharing cannot be stopped.
This is also true...even if P2P networks were stopped, people would still distribute all sorts of digital works via IRC, FTP, whatever.
I prefer to view this debate as an economic policy question rather than a moraistic argument. P2P is here to stay, so how can we best utilize it to help the music industry?
In the current situation, I do believe that the music industry needs to reinvent itself - to innovate and create something other than lawsuits that encourage people to buy rather than download. But how can "we" help the industry? That is not our decision...it's a free market, let the industry decide how it responds to P2P/filesharing. We've seen how it is responding, and most people don't like it. The economic solution is not to simply stop buying, but to turn away from the product completely. Right now, recording companies take the position that their product is in demand because people are downloading it - that makes them think they still have a good, marketable, product. This is incorrect, as many people are unhappy with today's music and recording companies' business practices, but they won't get that message until people reject the music itself.
But again, I do not believe piracy is justified. I see it as both an economic and moral/legal issue. Just because the recording industry does not respond to consumer demands by changing their business practices in a way that is good for consumers does not make it right for consumers to freely copy and distribute what those businesses sell.
What you're selling is merely their wish list, not anything either fundamentally right or even better for the economy. That in itself is not a problem, except that you dress up your interests as a moral imperative -- you try to guilt people into doing what you want, rather than just honestly saying it's nothing but your preference.
I am not dressing up my interests, I truly believe in the moral stance I am taking. I have not and will not share or download any music, software, etc that I have not paid for because I take a position that it is morally wrong. However regardless of my position in the moral sense, I still do not believe downloading music sends a clear message to the RIAA in the economic sense be
When are people going to get it? Downloading music that is copyrighted is illegal. I can't believe how many people here try to justify their actions through some weak argument about how they are actually supporting music sales, or making the artist more popular, or that all big bad corporations need to be crushed, etc etc. Musicians sign contracts with record labels out of their own free will - they agree to what the contract says, it's their decision to do it. If they let the RIAA/studio/whatever have the rights to their music, distribution, etc than obviously THAT IS WHAT THE ARTIST WANTS!!!!
So the recording companies charge an arm and an ass for CDs. If a car costs 2 billion dollars and you want it, but don't want to pay for it cause it costs 2 billion dollars, should you steal that too? Nope. If a computer program costs way to friggen much but you want it, should you copy/download (steal) that too? No. Why? Cause it's stealing! Damn how stupid can people be?
If something costs too much, don't buy it. If you don't like a certain product, don't use it. You can't say a product costs too much and it really sucks to boot, but then still want it and use it. The concept of not liking something but wanting it anyway is irrational, just like most arguments people have for sharing copyrighted music.
I defy a cop to spot the date on a 3 inch square while the car is traveling 65 mph. I suppose you could color code, it, but even that has its limits.
Believe me they can do it...in NJ our inspection stickers are color coded and are less than 3in square. Plus we have little registration tags that go on either license plate that are about.5 in square and color coded - and cops have no problem picking out people with expired stickers.
...for musicians that actually use the album as a collection of works that are connected or otherwise have some meaning by being together and in a certain order - not "I want to write 10 songs and put them on a CD". Moody Blues "Days Of Future Passed", Rush's "2112" and "Hemispheres" come to mind here....they are albums and the songs on them are written in such a way that they tell a story when played in the order they are presented - and if you just play one track off the album or play them in a different order, the songs lose their meanings.
I think your comparison to the Mitnick case is a little off. In the Mitnick case, the companies he broke into/social engineered called the federales and reported a crime on their systems. It is their responsibility to report crimes on their computer systems, and I don't see why law enforcement would respond to a call from someone concerning a crime that is not specific to that person's computer system. Technically you do not have the authority to ask the police to investigate crimes on computers you do not own or otherwise have responsibility for. That's like saying my ISP can call the police if they notice someone hacking into my computer. It's my decision or responsibility to report the crime. The hacker in your dilemma hacked your ISP, not you specifically. However it is a different matter if the hacker actually used information they collected from hacking your ISP against you - such as credit card information, SS number, passwords, whatever. At that point you can report credit card fraud, stolen identity, etc.
Compare this to a non-computer situation: If someone breaks into your house, the cops can't enter your house to investigate without your permission, even if a neighbor calls up and reports the crime.
I seriously believe that this is the result of constant pressure and bad PR Microsoft has been getting from techies like us. Even powerful, monopolistic companies like Microsoft must respond to the dissent of the public. We must continue to discuss our grievances while educating techies and non-techies alike about how things like EULAs and buggy software can affect our lives. This is the only way companies will be forced to make better products and treat their customers better.
This is disgusting. I run shit on an older RS/6000 and I need to replace it soon, and plan to use the old server elsewhere. My ERP software only runs on AIX. How the fuck am I gonna replace my server if IBM can't sell me a server with AIX on it? This blows. Fuck SCO. This is one time I want to see the oversized corporate menace kick the little guy's ass...
...that "lot lizards" will become a thing of the past? Why should truck drivers pay scraggly women who hang out at truck stops for services when they can get much better looking pr0n without leaving the driver's seat? Will they include a tube for restroom facilities, or at least a box of tissues for cleanup afterwards?
What is this world coming to??? Next they'll tell us that cows are a major contributor to the greenhouse effect!!! Oh wait a minute - they just did!!! Cow breath blamed for greenhouse gas
I think the main difference here is that people with WWJD stickers and the like truly feel that by advertising their religion (read: preaching) that they will reach you and save your soul. They think that getting a nonbeliever to believe is helping that person in some way.
Honestly as a Christian I think alot of those bumper stickers are dumb and do nothing for the religion, or to convince somebody that their religion is correct. I've seen a few that do stimulate my thought or present a good argument about religion, but not many. Most are simply self-righteous statements that people think make themselves look better than others - which is absolute bullshit IMHO. If that is your frustration then I understand and agree with you.
Maybe you are frustrated with it because there is nothing for the atheists to preach/advertise in return? Let's reverse the situation - what can an atheist say to somebody who is religious to save them, and save them from what? How do you save someone from an afterlife by telling them the afterlife is not there? What could an atheist preach or advertise that would cause a thought or have such a profound effect on another person's life that if he/she believed it, it would change what happens to that person when/after they die?
Well then that's your problem. You are also taking that quote out of context - the quote refers to a statement made by Egypt about the country of Egypt, not you. I love how athiests take personal offense to every little comment that somehow refers to religion, even when said comment does not personally involve them. It's like they think they'll go to Hell for being tolerant, accepting, or respectful of someone else's beliefs, and...oh I'm sorry. I guess I shouldn't have said Hell in your presence....damn I said it again!
Slashdot Mirror
Imagine a beowulf cluster of those!!!
"Their response does a good job of presenting many of the finer points we have been arguing about around here, but it's nice to see them in such a formal, well-thought-out letter."
You mean posting "$C0 $|_|x0r$" on slashdot doesn't qualify as well-thought-out?
CityBeat article
So, wheres the good free (non-riaa) Indie radio stations? With all the talk of "F*CK" the RIAA, wheres the alternative Garage/Indie/etc radio? I listen to Techno, and the best streams are UK Based. Wheres the alternatives?
You just made a very good point...there aren't any "good alternatives". Even the unknown musicians I listen to are signed to big labels like Sony and Atlantic. You know why most "good" artists don't sign with independent labels or get played on independent radio stations? Because indies don't have the huge corporate marketing engine behind them to make their artists world famous and filthy rich! Once an artist wants to make money off their work, the work is no longer about the art, it is about business. Making a record is not about creating a work of art, it is about a bunch of zeros on your paycheck, having five different beach houses, 10 luxury cars in the driveway, and having your mug all over TV and magazines. The most reliable way to get that is to go with a big label and the RIAA. It's sad, but true. If you believe anything else, you're fooling yourself.
Imaging a beowulf cluster of those!
...but I'll only use it if it sucks me into the computer, puts me in a blue suit, and lets me hurl those lightning disc thingies at the MCP...
For a start, Humanity is no longer the sole "summit of creation", as claimed by the Bible. We are no longer "created to God's image". And even with your idea of a "Christ-incarnate" in the different alien races which solves the problem of having multiple sons of God, that still means that the Crucifixion and the Resurrection were not unique - they happened a number of time in different alien worlds. I suppose Religions, including Christian one, would adapt, but definite proof of the existence of Alien civilizations would require massive updating of the Churches' beliefs.
I strongly disagree with this, and on one very simple idea. Almost everyone who is looking for life on other planets is assuming they will find some great civilization that is much more advanced than us in every aspect - biology, science, technology, intelligence, whatever. I am Christian, and if the Bible says that man is made in God's image, blah blah blah - then from my view it's safe to assume that whatever life we do find is not as advanced as we are - much to the disappointment of sci-fi authors and UFO hunters. And even if they are more advanced, then maybe the we are still created in God's image but that has nothing to do with being the most advanced civilization. So it still works.
Looks like we just slashdotted The Matrix! The machines no longer have control over us!!!!
Lovely Spaaam! Wonderful Spaaam!
Lovely Spaaam! Wonderful Spam.
Spa-a-a-a-a-a-a-am.
Spa-a-a-a-a-a-a-am.
Lovely Spaaam! (Lovely Spam!)
Lovely Spaaam! (Lovely Spam!)
Lovely Spaaam!
Spaaam, Spaaam, Spaaam, Spaaaaaam!
meaning you can't get anything (other than an item of token value, say, $8 or less) in return.
Thank you for reminding me of that - you are partially right...the rule is anything over the stated value of the item is tax deductible. So if you pay $1,000 for something that is valued at $500, the remaining $500 is tax deductible.
Even if they can't claim it on their taxes, the concept of paying charities for advertising time on their phone calls still works.
I can't wait to see companies buying time on charity organization's phone calls. Imagine this:
1) Company makes donation to charity
2) Charity promises to advertise company during charity's fund raising calls
3) Company claims donation on their taxes
4) ????
5) Profit!!! (or in the case of the charity: Non-Profit!!!!!)
...does that mean we can stop paying to use it? If I want to add an NT server or a fww NT workstations to my network do I have to buy a 2000 license to use it? I think if Microsoft doesn't have to spend any more money on it, than neither should I.
Wow that was a lengthy post and I enjoyed reading it. Now for my rebuttal:
:)
. Section 1008 of the 1992 Audio Home Recording Act states that all non-commericial copying of musical recordings by consumers is legal [cornell.edu] in the US
I interpret this as meaning there are no restrictions on devices or media, as that is what it specifies - it does not say anything about the contents of the recording itself. It does not say that a consumer is immune from violating the copyright of an artist. I think it is saying it is not enough to prosecute someone for simply posessing, using, or distrubuting analog/digital recording devices or media. But again IANAL either
If it is OK to copy copyrighted songs off the radio, then why is it wrong to do so on a P2P network?
I think this has to do with the issue of time-shifting...i.e. recording something off of TV or radio for use at a later date. If a song played on the radio in the morning, you can't hear it again in the afternoon without recording it first. Since the source of most mp3s are CDs that can be listened to at any time, the time shifting argument does not hold water. Which raises an interesting question: If all mp3s were recorded off radio as opposed to ripped from a CD, would the RIAA have a case? After all, they can be described not as copies of a CD but recordings of a radio broadcast that are simply replayed at a later date!
I don't have the time to go into the many, many flaws and injustices in our copyright system: the virtual destruction of fair-use by the DMCA
I agree with this...the DMCA really sucks and should not be on the books.
Finally, from a practical standpoint, file-sharing cannot be stopped.
This is also true...even if P2P networks were stopped, people would still distribute all sorts of digital works via IRC, FTP, whatever.
I prefer to view this debate as an economic policy question rather than a moraistic argument. P2P is here to stay, so how can we best utilize it to help the music industry?
In the current situation, I do believe that the music industry needs to reinvent itself - to innovate and create something other than lawsuits that encourage people to buy rather than download. But how can "we" help the industry? That is not our decision...it's a free market, let the industry decide how it responds to P2P/filesharing. We've seen how it is responding, and most people don't like it. The economic solution is not to simply stop buying, but to turn away from the product completely. Right now, recording companies take the position that their product is in demand because people are downloading it - that makes them think they still have a good, marketable, product. This is incorrect, as many people are unhappy with today's music and recording companies' business practices, but they won't get that message until people reject the music itself.
But again, I do not believe piracy is justified. I see it as both an economic and moral/legal issue. Just because the recording industry does not respond to consumer demands by changing their business practices in a way that is good for consumers does not make it right for consumers to freely copy and distribute what those businesses sell.
What you're selling is merely their wish list, not anything either fundamentally right or even better for the economy. That in itself is not a problem, except that you dress up your interests as a moral imperative -- you try to guilt people into doing what you want, rather than just honestly saying it's nothing but your preference.
I am not dressing up my interests, I truly believe in the moral stance I am taking. I have not and will not share or download any music, software, etc that I have not paid for because I take a position that it is morally wrong. However regardless of my position in the moral sense, I still do not believe downloading music sends a clear message to the RIAA in the economic sense be
When are people going to get it? Downloading music that is copyrighted is illegal. I can't believe how many people here try to justify their actions through some weak argument about how they are actually supporting music sales, or making the artist more popular, or that all big bad corporations need to be crushed, etc etc. Musicians sign contracts with record labels out of their own free will - they agree to what the contract says, it's their decision to do it. If they let the RIAA/studio/whatever have the rights to their music, distribution, etc than obviously THAT IS WHAT THE ARTIST WANTS!!!!
So the recording companies charge an arm and an ass for CDs. If a car costs 2 billion dollars and you want it, but don't want to pay for it cause it costs 2 billion dollars, should you steal that too? Nope. If a computer program costs way to friggen much but you want it, should you copy/download (steal) that too? No. Why? Cause it's stealing! Damn how stupid can people be?
If something costs too much, don't buy it. If you don't like a certain product, don't use it. You can't say a product costs too much and it really sucks to boot, but then still want it and use it. The concept of not liking something but wanting it anyway is irrational, just like most arguments people have for sharing copyrighted music.
Imagine a beowulf cluster of MandrakeClusters!
I defy a cop to spot the date on a 3 inch square while the car is traveling 65 mph. I suppose you could color code, it, but even that has its limits.
.5 in square and color coded - and cops have no problem picking out people with expired stickers.
Believe me they can do it...in NJ our inspection stickers are color coded and are less than 3in square. Plus we have little registration tags that go on either license plate that are about
...for musicians that actually use the album as a collection of works that are connected or otherwise have some meaning by being together and in a certain order - not "I want to write 10 songs and put them on a CD". Moody Blues "Days Of Future Passed", Rush's "2112" and "Hemispheres" come to mind here....they are albums and the songs on them are written in such a way that they tell a story when played in the order they are presented - and if you just play one track off the album or play them in a different order, the songs lose their meanings.
I think your comparison to the Mitnick case is a little off. In the Mitnick case, the companies he broke into/social engineered called the federales and reported a crime on their systems. It is their responsibility to report crimes on their computer systems, and I don't see why law enforcement would respond to a call from someone concerning a crime that is not specific to that person's computer system. Technically you do not have the authority to ask the police to investigate crimes on computers you do not own or otherwise have responsibility for. That's like saying my ISP can call the police if they notice someone hacking into my computer. It's my decision or responsibility to report the crime. The hacker in your dilemma hacked your ISP, not you specifically. However it is a different matter if the hacker actually used information they collected from hacking your ISP against you - such as credit card information, SS number, passwords, whatever. At that point you can report credit card fraud, stolen identity, etc.
Compare this to a non-computer situation: If someone breaks into your house, the cops can't enter your house to investigate without your permission, even if a neighbor calls up and reports the crime.
I seriously believe that this is the result of constant pressure and bad PR Microsoft has been getting from techies like us. Even powerful, monopolistic companies like Microsoft must respond to the dissent of the public. We must continue to discuss our grievances while educating techies and non-techies alike about how things like EULAs and buggy software can affect our lives. This is the only way companies will be forced to make better products and treat their customers better.
Someone I just spoke with made a good point....that if IBM wanted to, they could just buy SCO for about 70 mil and this whole ordeal would be over!
This is disgusting. I run shit on an older RS/6000 and I need to replace it soon, and plan to use the old server elsewhere. My ERP software only runs on AIX. How the fuck am I gonna replace my server if IBM can't sell me a server with AIX on it? This blows. Fuck SCO. This is one time I want to see the oversized corporate menace kick the little guy's ass...
...that "lot lizards" will become a thing of the past? Why should truck drivers pay scraggly women who hang out at truck stops for services when they can get much better looking pr0n without leaving the driver's seat? Will they include a tube for restroom facilities, or at least a box of tissues for cleanup afterwards?
What is this world coming to??? Next they'll tell us that cows are a major contributor to the greenhouse effect!!! Oh wait a minute - they just did!!! Cow breath blamed for greenhouse gas
I think the main difference here is that people with WWJD stickers and the like truly feel that by advertising their religion (read: preaching) that they will reach you and save your soul. They think that getting a nonbeliever to believe is helping that person in some way.
Honestly as a Christian I think alot of those bumper stickers are dumb and do nothing for the religion, or to convince somebody that their religion is correct. I've seen a few that do stimulate my thought or present a good argument about religion, but not many. Most are simply self-righteous statements that people think make themselves look better than others - which is absolute bullshit IMHO. If that is your frustration then I understand and agree with you.
Maybe you are frustrated with it because there is nothing for the atheists to preach/advertise in return? Let's reverse the situation - what can an atheist say to somebody who is religious to save them, and save them from what? How do you save someone from an afterlife by telling them the afterlife is not there? What could an atheist preach or advertise that would cause a thought or have such a profound effect on another person's life that if he/she believed it, it would change what happens to that person when/after they die?
Excuse me, I'm an atheist.
Well then that's your problem. You are also taking that quote out of context - the quote refers to a statement made by Egypt about the country of Egypt, not you. I love how athiests take personal offense to every little comment that somehow refers to religion, even when said comment does not personally involve them. It's like they think they'll go to Hell for being tolerant, accepting, or respectful of someone else's beliefs, and...oh I'm sorry. I guess I shouldn't have said Hell in your presence....damn I said it again!