Yeah, we don't threaten with violence. Except, maybe, for Iraq. And Afghanistan. And Kosovo. And Somalia. And, going ever further back, Vietnam and Korea. Those are just the ones that come to my mind immediately.
Tell me again the last war we fought that we came out of feeling fully vindicated and unified as a nation. World War II? Wasn't that quite a while ago? And didn't we still manage to embarass ourselves, moving Japanese Americans to concentration camps during the war?
Not to be an isolationist, but we seem to screw up just about all our foreign forays in short order.
How bout that 4th amendment, folks? It sure went up in flames quick. Let's torch the 1st next. We'll get to the 2nd after the country has mostly depopulated itself with small arms, or when they organize and start to turn on the government. Better do the 5th pretty soon, too. Numbers 6 and 9 are no worries, they're taken care of.
So? I don't mind giving my name out on the Internet. There aren't a whole lot of Abe Thurtells out there, so my name is a unique identifier, but I don't care. There's nothing very dangerous about giving it to people.
My address and phone number I keep a little more guarded, but the one thing I really don't post publicly, anywhere, is my e-mail address. Just let me keep that to myself, and I'm happy.
Well, that and obvious things like my social security number and various bank account numbers and personal identification numbers.
Except that they cost more to make, and they're just selling them for a quarter on the dollar compared with other cars. This means that they're gouging the hell out of us on most of their cars.
Stretch the analogy too far, and it breaks. It was a joke, after all.
I'm not a Marxist, but his criticisms of the system of his day were quite cogent.
As I understand it, Marx himself wasn't a Marxist.
His ideas got twisted and manipulated into what is known as Marxism, to the point that he disagreed with the people who claimed to be espousing his own views.
The public is granting the right to control a creative work for some period of time. This gives the creator a chance to make some money, gives the public the chance to enjoy the work, and gives the public complete control of the work when copyright expires. That seems like a good basis for a fair system.
You've missed his point. We didn't force the creators of those works to create them; they create of their own accord. They usually create something with the expectation of getting something in return, and our current system makes sure they get it. The only reason for our current system is so that more people will create stuff, because there's an incentive to do so.
If we get rid of copyright law, then we're not stealing anything from anybody. Basically, if you don't see any profit to be made by making music or movies, go into some other business, make your living some other way. Some people will still try to satisfy the public's need for such things, so we'll still get some satisfaction of goal #1 (stuff being created) and full satisfaction of goal #2 (we can use that stuff as we see fit). Total lack of copyright is bad for the public because this "baseline" satisfaction of goal #1 is much lower than what we currently enjoy, etc., etc. But total lack of copyright isn't stealing from the artists, because without copyright law there are no promises that they'll get anything for their work anyway. So, if they do it, they do it, and if nobody pays them for it, there's nothing to complain about, because nobody promised to pay.
Captain Kangaroo makes a good point, in that there's nothing inherently "correct" about our current copyright system, right down to its very existence. The point of copyright is to serve the public good by slightly curbing satisfaction of goal #2 while greatly increasing satisfaction of goal #1. The fact that the artists get paid for their work is essentially a means to an end, not an end in itself, as it is commonly construed.
Or, you could wait until it "expires", scrape the discolored layer off the disc, buff the resulting surface till it's nice and clear and not scratched up, and get another 48 hours of play time.
What we really need is an amendment to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights protects most of our important rights, but one that is conspicuously missing is the right to privacy. Beyond "unreasonable search and seizure", our privacy is not protected constitutionally, and until it is it will be much harder to ensure legally than our right to freedom of speech or religion.
You might not like to include it, but technically Mac OS X is probably one of the leading Unix versions out there, with an installed base of well over 5 million users. Of course, what you really meant was the top 4 Unix server platforms, right?
No, each joke actually has one free parameter, one part that is totally arbitrary--they just differ in which one it is. The original starts with 586 for the name of the processor, adds a totally arbitrary 100, and comes up with the wrong number in reference to the adding error in the Pentium. The 970 version starts with 620, for IBM's first 64-bit desktop processor, adds 350 for some other processor, and the arbitrary part lies in the fact that it didn't add correctly, since there's no such bug in the 970 (as far as anyone knows yet).
Good question. And I'd like the moderator who called it redundant to show me a link to the previous post that said the same thing, because I can't seem to find it.
Maybe I can help end this silly little flame war. (Or maybe I misread his original argument too. Let's find out, at any rate.)
I don't think he claimed that Microsoft innovated. He claimed that various Linux GUIs try to imitate Microsoft. This isn't saying that what they're imitating is a good or even innovative product, it's just saying that's what they're trying to imitate. They want to be shitty because people seem to like shittiness--after all, how else do you interpret Microsoft's success?
Mind you, I'm not in any position to say whether or not this argument has merit, as I don't use Linux at all. I'm just trying to clarify, so you can argue the point he made, rather than the point you assumed he was making.
The problem with patents these days is that you can patent an idea, which is counter to the original concept of patents. A patent was originally supposed to be for an implementation, not for an idea, and many of the software patents we have today are for ideas.
The mentioned Apple patent, however, is for an implementation. It's a legal, valid patent; get over it.
Slashdot Mirror
Some of my favorites:
explodingdog
Homestar Runner
Nationstates
I have them all categorized as "Silly" in my Safari button bar.
I know how a hacker can get into computers (because I am one)
/.!
What advances A.I. researchers have made recently, that computers can post comments to
Somebody set them up the code. They have no chance to survive make their time. All their kernel are belong to SCO.
HARD DRIVE cleans YOU!
What also floats on public opinion?
Freedom!
Churches!
Very small rocks!
Logic! Reason!
...
Terrorist propaganda!
<gasp>Who are you that are so wise in the ways of public relations?</gasp>
I am W, King of the Americans!
Yeah, we don't threaten with violence. Except, maybe, for Iraq. And Afghanistan. And Kosovo. And Somalia. And, going ever further back, Vietnam and Korea. Those are just the ones that come to my mind immediately.
Tell me again the last war we fought that we came out of feeling fully vindicated and unified as a nation. World War II? Wasn't that quite a while ago? And didn't we still manage to embarass ourselves, moving Japanese Americans to concentration camps during the war?
Not to be an isolationist, but we seem to screw up just about all our foreign forays in short order.
How bout that 4th amendment, folks? It sure went up in flames quick. Let's torch the 1st next. We'll get to the 2nd after the country has mostly depopulated itself with small arms, or when they organize and start to turn on the government. Better do the 5th pretty soon, too. Numbers 6 and 9 are no worries, they're taken care of.
What should come after the 1st? Any suggestions?
Thsi is
So? I don't mind giving my name out on the Internet. There aren't a whole lot of Abe Thurtells out there, so my name is a unique identifier, but I don't care. There's nothing very dangerous about giving it to people.
My address and phone number I keep a little more guarded, but the one thing I really don't post publicly, anywhere, is my e-mail address. Just let me keep that to myself, and I'm happy.
Well, that and obvious things like my social security number and various bank account numbers and personal identification numbers.
Except that they cost more to make, and they're just selling them for a quarter on the dollar compared with other cars. This means that they're gouging the hell out of us on most of their cars.
Stretch the analogy too far, and it breaks. It was a joke, after all.
That's odd...my family just junked a 1992 Taurus with over 120,000 miles on it.
I'm not a Marxist, but his criticisms of the system of his day were quite cogent.
As I understand it, Marx himself wasn't a Marxist.
His ideas got twisted and manipulated into what is known as Marxism, to the point that he disagreed with the people who claimed to be espousing his own views.
Just food for thought. I agree with your post.
The public is granting the right to control a creative work for some period of time. This gives the creator a chance to make some money, gives the public the chance to enjoy the work, and gives the public complete control of the work when copyright expires. That seems like a good basis for a fair system.
You've missed his point. We didn't force the creators of those works to create them; they create of their own accord. They usually create something with the expectation of getting something in return, and our current system makes sure they get it. The only reason for our current system is so that more people will create stuff, because there's an incentive to do so.
If we get rid of copyright law, then we're not stealing anything from anybody. Basically, if you don't see any profit to be made by making music or movies, go into some other business, make your living some other way. Some people will still try to satisfy the public's need for such things, so we'll still get some satisfaction of goal #1 (stuff being created) and full satisfaction of goal #2 (we can use that stuff as we see fit). Total lack of copyright is bad for the public because this "baseline" satisfaction of goal #1 is much lower than what we currently enjoy, etc., etc. But total lack of copyright isn't stealing from the artists, because without copyright law there are no promises that they'll get anything for their work anyway. So, if they do it, they do it, and if nobody pays them for it, there's nothing to complain about, because nobody promised to pay.
Captain Kangaroo makes a good point, in that there's nothing inherently "correct" about our current copyright system, right down to its very existence. The point of copyright is to serve the public good by slightly curbing satisfaction of goal #2 while greatly increasing satisfaction of goal #1. The fact that the artists get paid for their work is essentially a means to an end, not an end in itself, as it is commonly construed.
Or, you could wait until it "expires", scrape the discolored layer off the disc, buff the resulting surface till it's nice and clear and not scratched up, and get another 48 hours of play time.
Perhaps he meant, what exactly is wrong with the current DVD format, that won't be wrong with this disposable version?
So that we can treat him how we treated that spammer?
Seriously, does anyone have this information? I'm game.
What we really need is an amendment to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights protects most of our important rights, but one that is conspicuously missing is the right to privacy. Beyond "unreasonable search and seizure", our privacy is not protected constitutionally, and until it is it will be much harder to ensure legally than our right to freedom of speech or religion.
You might not like to include it, but technically Mac OS X is probably one of the leading Unix versions out there, with an installed base of well over 5 million users. Of course, what you really meant was the top 4 Unix server platforms, right?
Whoa! A duplicate article, this I've seen before. But this is nuts!
No, each joke actually has one free parameter, one part that is totally arbitrary--they just differ in which one it is. The original starts with 586 for the name of the processor, adds a totally arbitrary 100, and comes up with the wrong number in reference to the adding error in the Pentium. The 970 version starts with 620, for IBM's first 64-bit desktop processor, adds 350 for some other processor, and the arbitrary part lies in the fact that it didn't add correctly, since there's no such bug in the 970 (as far as anyone knows yet).
Not to mention that if you actually put this laptop on the top of your lap, you might get your testicles hard boiled.
Somebody mod the parent -1 Stomach-Turning!
Eeeeyuch!
Good question. And I'd like the moderator who called it redundant to show me a link to the previous post that said the same thing, because I can't seem to find it.
Maybe I can help end this silly little flame war. (Or maybe I misread his original argument too. Let's find out, at any rate.)
I don't think he claimed that Microsoft innovated. He claimed that various Linux GUIs try to imitate Microsoft. This isn't saying that what they're imitating is a good or even innovative product, it's just saying that's what they're trying to imitate. They want to be shitty because people seem to like shittiness--after all, how else do you interpret Microsoft's success?
Mind you, I'm not in any position to say whether or not this argument has merit, as I don't use Linux at all. I'm just trying to clarify, so you can argue the point he made, rather than the point you assumed he was making.
Maybe Apple's interface designers are dipping in both wells!
Nah, I think the quality of Microsoft products can dispell this illusion.
How does filing a patent make Apple the bad guy?
The problem with patents these days is that you can patent an idea, which is counter to the original concept of patents. A patent was originally supposed to be for an implementation, not for an idea, and many of the software patents we have today are for ideas.
The mentioned Apple patent, however, is for an implementation. It's a legal, valid patent; get over it.