What inconveniences? Slackware is not for everyone. It can be used by everyone, of course, but it's meant to be set up and maintained by people who understand the basics of UNIX OS administration. If you are willing to (1) read the bloody manual and (2) edit plain text files in an editor of you choice, then you will find that Slackware is one of the most convenient distributions around.
When I came back to Slackware 12.0 after years of using Ubuntu and toying with other distros, I was simply stunned because it was far more stable, simple, and much easier to manage. I keep Debian around because it's good to have a plan B, and I tend to recommend it to people who would like to use GNU/Linux without necessarily learning all the nuts and bolts of OS administration. Wheezy is a bit dated, but Squeeze already looks and feels gorgeous.
Which Bible are you reading? It says really plainly in the very next sentence: others will be sure to apply your own measuring stick to you, duh. So judge away, but don't act surprised when people point out your hypocrisy. Example: when a chaste man tells you are a scum for fucking prepubescent boys, he is on the money. But when a Catholic bishop tells you the same, he is only exposing his own sin, being by choice a member of the club that actively covers up child molestation. Your understanding of this passage is some kind of warped moral relativism, which is as far from the original thought as you could get.
Logic is a branch of philosophy, but IMHO that's just inertia. For about 100 years now logic properly belongs to mathematicians. Any kind of logic that cannot be given a mathematical description is trash. Here's one: statements are decided to be "true" or "false" according to what the New Testament tells us about the matters. This is a mostly consistent and very practical way to sort statements, but do we want to call this "logic"? And any other logic with a subjective or mystical element will fall on its face just as hard. Philosophers are free do the philosophy of logic, though, and it will be as fruitful as their work in the philosophy of mathematics.
If he does have the real document how will he prove it? I mean all Romney will need to say is Those are not my returns but a forgery made by some crazed radical liberal who is willing to lie and cheat to get his party to win.
But if the copies are true, then in saying that he would be lying to the public. So we'll know whether it's a bluff soon enough. Everyone should have the right to privacy, even Romney, and he should have the right to keep his returns private. But privacy is a funny thing: the more famous one is, the more expensive it is to protect it. Famous people cannot expect the taxpayer to foot an infinite bill to protect their privacy. They must understand that the society can only offer them a trade-off between privacy on one hand and fame and fortune on the other.
Just like with all leaks, once it's out, it's not a private info anymore. If this thing is true, then I can't wait to see it:)
When computers have brain interfaces that produce vision overlays, the software will detect all real-world ads and replace them with calendar reminders:)
Actually, your Kindle was broken when you bought it. Unless you want your books to disappear while you are reading them, I'd suggest this rugged beast.
Even RMS agrees, there is no ethical issue with non-free games. But as long as the game is closed-sourced, there is a security issue. From a security-conscious user's point of view, the best solution is running games on dedicated hardware. If it runs Linux, all the better, since it's probably going to be cheaper. However, suckers will install crap like Flash and closed-sourced games on the same computer they use to write emails and do their taxes, and will get burned for it. This is the downside of the Valve's decision: more gullible users will put closed-sourced malware onto their general-purpose Linux desktops and laptops and by doing so they will completely give up all privacy and security.
This proves conclusively that any data preserved will be readily available to the government, the law enforcement, the crooks, anyone with pile of cash, and, ironically, NOT you, the person whose privacy was sacrificed. Saving all communications is beyond retarded. I agree with RMS: obtain a court order and then start logging, not the other way around.
Only 1/. comment out of about 350 is both funny and insightful. In order to improve customer satisfaction and thread efficiency,/. 3.0 will auto-moderate these down to -1.
MAFIAA is not interested in drawing any lines. Their business is racket: they use the obscene statutory damages in the broken copyright law to shake down everyone, from industry giants to single moms. Frivolous litigation or even fear of litigation is often enough to produce a settlement. This has nothing to do with art, artists, or even the meaning of copyright: their only wish to crush anyone who dares to compete.
No-no, EFF really struck out on this one. I want the patent system reformed as much as the next guy, but I can't in good conscience consent to wide classes of algorithms being patentable. I am not signing any part of that and I am letting them know. It is beyond doubt that virtually all the software we have today was developed without patent protection. How much more do we expect to gain by handing out monopolies? For the most expensive type of software, a general purpose OS, we have Windoze, OS X, FreeBSD, and GNU/Linux. That's 4 if you count GNU/Linux as one OS, which is questionable. We have multiple OSes for mobile devices, again, developed in-spite of the patent wars. IMHO, patents today slow down innovation and increase costs in every industry, but they are especially and undeniably bad for software.
Economic reasons aside, consider also that the conceptual gap between inventions like Velcro and mobile app is enormous compared to the gap between a mobile app and a mathematical formula. Did the patent wars over file formats teach us nothing? Any mathematical recipe for computing something, any formula, any statement, and any proof can be formalized nicely in a programming language of your choice. This is not just a slippery slope, it's the steep side of the Half Dome. If we let in software patents, we also let in software implementations of pure math. Next thing we know, applications like gnuplot will have a choice of gimping themselves or being illegal in US, just because Wolfram or some other wanker files a few patent applications.
No thanks. I would be willing to put my name under a similar proposal if it did not explicitly approve software patents. As it is, I see no point.
They're not giving it away for free; they're trying to sell it, and you're taking it.
"Artists" like the one in TFA are not "trying to sell it". Here are just some ways in which they can try to sell it: collect cover and play live, sell physical copies, sell digital copies, sell streaming subscription. When they shake people down for thousands of dollars for non-commercial sharing, they are not "trying to sell it". They are not "trying to sell it" when they strong-arm hardware manufacturers into making devices that are broken by design with DRM, while missing essential features everyone wants. They are gangsters who pretend that they own the art itself, and have the final word about what you can and cannot do behind the closed doors of your house. And if you are audacious enough to share music you love with others over the Internet, without any hope of compensation, just because you love the music and want others to partake, they send lawyers to your house and leave you without a dime. Trying to sell it my ass.
This is a wrong way to frame the question, IMHO. The value of the artistic output is entirely subjective. One could objectively measure the volume and the rate of production, but any comparison in value between a larger volume of crappy work and a smaller volume of superb work is also subjective. There are somewhat more objective metrics, like how many professional artists are out there and how much money they make. But again, measuring the value of having a ton of poor artists versus fewer better-paid artists is subjective. It all comes down to a realization that art to economy is what peacock feathers are to reproduction: it looks fucking awesome, but no one is sure how useful it is. Because of that, I don't believe it would do much good (or bad) to abolish copyright on woks of art for entertainment. Just as long as terms are reasonable and non-commercial sharing is a human right, copyright sits well with me.
There are places, though, where copyright does damage we can quantify. This is off-topic, but anyway. We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that commodity software, for example, is up to 10 times cheaper when it's libre (as it necessarily would be if copyrights and patents were abolished). And economic research shows that in every area where art has utility, copyrights and patents at best do absolutely nothing, and at worst set back the technological innovation by decades. Rent-seekers are the only ones who benefit from it, and everyone else ends up with a bill. Here too, copyrights would not do any harm if they were reasonably framed. A patent law, on the other hand, is just a racket waiting to happen.
Some food for thought: All property is a legal fiction.
No it's not. Try yanking a purse from a girl on a street and see whether she opts to scream or to calmly go home and have her lawyer contact you. Personal property is way, way older than any law or religion, and is understood on a visceral level. The fact that chimps own personal tools should be a dead giveaway.
He is just another troll. He ignores basic facts, like the one that no jurisdiction treats copyrightable material as property. He says that the system worked really well for artists, even though from its very inception in the Statute of Anne, copyright was used by printers to rob artists, and the practice continues to this day. When he complains about corporations taking his profit, it is an ultimate strawman, since no reasonable copyright reformer calls for a free-for-all commercialization. Instead, we want reasonable terms of several years and acceptance of non-commercial sharing as a basic right guaranteed to us by the UN charter in the free expression article. Sure, there are some abolitionists out there, but arguing with them is just as productive as arguing with people who want to abolish civilization.
Go back under the bridge, pal. If you are defending MAFIAA shaking down single moms, you are not an artist but a gangster.
As a HC-only player, I think the game shreds. It is an improvement over D2 in pretty much every respect. It was designed from the ground up as an MMO with an option to create private rooms. All the usual MMO-related caveats are present, including cheaters, botters, scammers, lag spikes, and downtime, but if you were expecting otherwise, I have a bridge to sell you.
Call me vain, but I don't care at all about the single-player mode. Bragging about loot and progression is a huge incentive for me, and it would be meaningless in an offline mode. I like knowing that we are all playing the same exact game, and those who cheat get banned. Blizzard doesn't owe you an offline mode, and they certainly did not deceive anyone about its absence.
Slashdot Mirror
What inconveniences? Slackware is not for everyone. It can be used by everyone, of course, but it's meant to be set up and maintained by people who understand the basics of UNIX OS administration. If you are willing to (1) read the bloody manual and (2) edit plain text files in an editor of you choice, then you will find that Slackware is one of the most convenient distributions around.
When I came back to Slackware 12.0 after years of using Ubuntu and toying with other distros, I was simply stunned because it was far more stable, simple, and much easier to manage. I keep Debian around because it's good to have a plan B, and I tend to recommend it to people who would like to use GNU/Linux without necessarily learning all the nuts and bolts of OS administration. Wheezy is a bit dated, but Squeeze already looks and feels gorgeous.
Slackware, Ubuntu, and now Slackware & Debian.
Which Bible are you reading? It says really plainly in the very next sentence: others will be sure to apply your own measuring stick to you, duh. So judge away, but don't act surprised when people point out your hypocrisy. Example: when a chaste man tells you are a scum for fucking prepubescent boys, he is on the money. But when a Catholic bishop tells you the same, he is only exposing his own sin, being by choice a member of the club that actively covers up child molestation. Your understanding of this passage is some kind of warped moral relativism, which is as far from the original thought as you could get.
Logic is a branch of philosophy, but IMHO that's just inertia. For about 100 years now logic properly belongs to mathematicians. Any kind of logic that cannot be given a mathematical description is trash. Here's one: statements are decided to be "true" or "false" according to what the New Testament tells us about the matters. This is a mostly consistent and very practical way to sort statements, but do we want to call this "logic"? And any other logic with a subjective or mystical element will fall on its face just as hard. Philosophers are free do the philosophy of logic, though, and it will be as fruitful as their work in the philosophy of mathematics.
HOMER (to Gates) I reluctantly accept your proposal!
GATES Well everyone always does. Buy 'em out, boys!
Bill Gates companions begin to trash the "office".
HOMER Hey, what the hell's going on!
GATES Oh, I didn't get rich by writing a lot of checks!
If advertisers don't pay you already, they should!
If he does have the real document how will he prove it? I mean all Romney will need to say is Those are not my returns but a forgery made by some crazed radical liberal who is willing to lie and cheat to get his party to win.
But if the copies are true, then in saying that he would be lying to the public. So we'll know whether it's a bluff soon enough. Everyone should have the right to privacy, even Romney, and he should have the right to keep his returns private. But privacy is a funny thing: the more famous one is, the more expensive it is to protect it. Famous people cannot expect the taxpayer to foot an infinite bill to protect their privacy. They must understand that the society can only offer them a trade-off between privacy on one hand and fame and fortune on the other.
Just like with all leaks, once it's out, it's not a private info anymore. If this thing is true, then I can't wait to see it :)
When computers have brain interfaces that produce vision overlays, the software will detect all real-world ads and replace them with calendar reminders :)
I don't trust Adblock Plus anymore, not after Vladimir Palant sold out to advertisers (oh, the ironing). But there is Adblock Lite :)
Actually, your Kindle was broken when you bought it. Unless you want your books to disappear while you are reading them, I'd suggest this rugged beast.
Even RMS agrees, there is no ethical issue with non-free games. But as long as the game is closed-sourced, there is a security issue. From a security-conscious user's point of view, the best solution is running games on dedicated hardware. If it runs Linux, all the better, since it's probably going to be cheaper. However, suckers will install crap like Flash and closed-sourced games on the same computer they use to write emails and do their taxes, and will get burned for it. This is the downside of the Valve's decision: more gullible users will put closed-sourced malware onto their general-purpose Linux desktops and laptops and by doing so they will completely give up all privacy and security.
This proves conclusively that any data preserved will be readily available to the government, the law enforcement, the crooks, anyone with pile of cash, and, ironically, NOT you, the person whose privacy was sacrificed. Saving all communications is beyond retarded. I agree with RMS: obtain a court order and then start logging, not the other way around.
And watching quantum porn, of course.
TFIFY
screenshot: http://melikamp.com/pictures/screenshots/dosbox-win-3-11.png
dosbox ftw!
Only 1 /. comment out of about 350 is both funny and insightful. In order to improve customer satisfaction and thread efficiency, /. 3.0 will auto-moderate these down to -1.
MAFIAA is not interested in drawing any lines. Their business is racket: they use the obscene statutory damages in the broken copyright law to shake down everyone, from industry giants to single moms. Frivolous litigation or even fear of litigation is often enough to produce a settlement. This has nothing to do with art, artists, or even the meaning of copyright: their only wish to crush anyone who dares to compete.
No-no, EFF really struck out on this one. I want the patent system reformed as much as the next guy, but I can't in good conscience consent to wide classes of algorithms being patentable. I am not signing any part of that and I am letting them know. It is beyond doubt that virtually all the software we have today was developed without patent protection. How much more do we expect to gain by handing out monopolies? For the most expensive type of software, a general purpose OS, we have Windoze, OS X, FreeBSD, and GNU/Linux. That's 4 if you count GNU/Linux as one OS, which is questionable. We have multiple OSes for mobile devices, again, developed in-spite of the patent wars. IMHO, patents today slow down innovation and increase costs in every industry, but they are especially and undeniably bad for software.
Economic reasons aside, consider also that the conceptual gap between inventions like Velcro and mobile app is enormous compared to the gap between a mobile app and a mathematical formula. Did the patent wars over file formats teach us nothing? Any mathematical recipe for computing something, any formula, any statement, and any proof can be formalized nicely in a programming language of your choice. This is not just a slippery slope, it's the steep side of the Half Dome. If we let in software patents, we also let in software implementations of pure math. Next thing we know, applications like gnuplot will have a choice of gimping themselves or being illegal in US, just because Wolfram or some other wanker files a few patent applications.
No thanks. I would be willing to put my name under a similar proposal if it did not explicitly approve software patents. As it is, I see no point.
They're not giving it away for free; they're trying to sell it, and you're taking it.
"Artists" like the one in TFA are not "trying to sell it". Here are just some ways in which they can try to sell it: collect cover and play live, sell physical copies, sell digital copies, sell streaming subscription. When they shake people down for thousands of dollars for non-commercial sharing, they are not "trying to sell it". They are not "trying to sell it" when they strong-arm hardware manufacturers into making devices that are broken by design with DRM, while missing essential features everyone wants. They are gangsters who pretend that they own the art itself, and have the final word about what you can and cannot do behind the closed doors of your house. And if you are audacious enough to share music you love with others over the Internet, without any hope of compensation, just because you love the music and want others to partake, they send lawyers to your house and leave you without a dime. Trying to sell it my ass.
This is a wrong way to frame the question, IMHO. The value of the artistic output is entirely subjective. One could objectively measure the volume and the rate of production, but any comparison in value between a larger volume of crappy work and a smaller volume of superb work is also subjective. There are somewhat more objective metrics, like how many professional artists are out there and how much money they make. But again, measuring the value of having a ton of poor artists versus fewer better-paid artists is subjective. It all comes down to a realization that art to economy is what peacock feathers are to reproduction: it looks fucking awesome, but no one is sure how useful it is. Because of that, I don't believe it would do much good (or bad) to abolish copyright on woks of art for entertainment. Just as long as terms are reasonable and non-commercial sharing is a human right, copyright sits well with me.
There are places, though, where copyright does damage we can quantify. This is off-topic, but anyway. We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that commodity software, for example, is up to 10 times cheaper when it's libre (as it necessarily would be if copyrights and patents were abolished). And economic research shows that in every area where art has utility, copyrights and patents at best do absolutely nothing, and at worst set back the technological innovation by decades. Rent-seekers are the only ones who benefit from it, and everyone else ends up with a bill. Here too, copyrights would not do any harm if they were reasonably framed. A patent law, on the other hand, is just a racket waiting to happen.
Some food for thought: All property is a legal fiction.
No it's not. Try yanking a purse from a girl on a street and see whether she opts to scream or to calmly go home and have her lawyer contact you. Personal property is way, way older than any law or religion, and is understood on a visceral level. The fact that chimps own personal tools should be a dead giveaway.
He is just another troll. He ignores basic facts, like the one that no jurisdiction treats copyrightable material as property. He says that the system worked really well for artists, even though from its very inception in the Statute of Anne, copyright was used by printers to rob artists, and the practice continues to this day. When he complains about corporations taking his profit, it is an ultimate strawman, since no reasonable copyright reformer calls for a free-for-all commercialization. Instead, we want reasonable terms of several years and acceptance of non-commercial sharing as a basic right guaranteed to us by the UN charter in the free expression article. Sure, there are some abolitionists out there, but arguing with them is just as productive as arguing with people who want to abolish civilization. Go back under the bridge, pal. If you are defending MAFIAA shaking down single moms, you are not an artist but a gangster.
I never knew the RIAA was so holistic. Maybe next they'll be wearing beads and tie-dyed t-shirts
Wrong crowd: they are wearing silk shirts, Thomas Pink ties, smoking jackets, and evening dresses. All signs point to cocaine, lots of it.
As a HC-only player, I think the game shreds. It is an improvement over D2 in pretty much every respect. It was designed from the ground up as an MMO with an option to create private rooms. All the usual MMO-related caveats are present, including cheaters, botters, scammers, lag spikes, and downtime, but if you were expecting otherwise, I have a bridge to sell you.
Call me vain, but I don't care at all about the single-player mode. Bragging about loot and progression is a huge incentive for me, and it would be meaningless in an offline mode. I like knowing that we are all playing the same exact game, and those who cheat get banned. Blizzard doesn't owe you an offline mode, and they certainly did not deceive anyone about its absence.