The Chronicles of Narnia are based, in places, on the Bible (particularly The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe and The Last Battle - which also implies that all Muslims are devil worshippers, oh dear)
Why the 'oh dear'? Is it suddenly wrong for someone to hold a belief and be convinced that it is the only truth and therefore other beliefs are lies? The Bible clearly states that Jesus is the only way to know God and therefore anyone claiming to following God but denying Jesus is not in fact following him, but rather oppossing him, which is tantamount to being ont he side of the devil, whether the people realise it or not. That is what Lewis understood. But of course these days political correctness rules supreme so you can't hold ideas beliefs that require that of others to be wrong. Tolerance has come to mean saying that everyone is right rather than being able ot say they are wrong, while respecting their right to chose their beliefs.
I'd also add 'the Magician's Nephew' to the list of books that are most recognisably influenced by the Bible. Chunks of it are essentially Genesis. There are plenty of parallels in the other books, but it's been too long since I last read them.
As far as I'm concerned, "cooperative multitasking" is a misnomer.
Well as far as the actual definition of multi-tasking is concerning, it is multi-tasking.
It may sound nice on paper, but in practice it is useless.
I found it very useful in practice to be able to listen to iTunes, check my email in the background automatically and browse the web at the same time. No, that isn't very taxing and yes, it's a bit daft that holding your mouse button down long enough would drop your net connection, but it was multi-taskign and I did find it very useful. Not as useful as the proper pre-emptive stuff we have now, but still useful.
Okay, i was unaware of the recent ruling about price fixing and now stand corrected. The communism mark was not childish however. I very much get the impression from/. that a lot of people don't like being charged for music and the comment was aimed at that attitude.
You're going to have trouble making a livivng off of open source. If you don't charge for the software, you're going to end up charging for support. And open source is not op to the quality of commerical software in a great amny areas precisely because the money isn't there. I have a little laugh every time someone compares the GIMP to Photoshop.
Also in times past artists had patrons that supported them.
In times past. Are you going ot be happy with fewer artists in a much more selcted style? You're going to have to be happy with whatever these patrons, if any would appear, would be happy istening to. Sure, prices may be high now, but at least we're getting plenty of music to choose from.
Of course, how foolish of us. They spent time composing the music, writing the lyrics, performing the piece, but it's actually us, the listner who own it. Why should the artist get any money?
With your logic, we would end up with no artists because no-one would be able to afford the time to make music. They'd also be pretty sick of people being too ungrateful for what they're doing.
How are they extracting money from people unnecassarily? If you're talking about the artists, then they are offering them a service. It's at a steep price, yes, but it's perfectly legal and the artists are at no point forced to go with it. If you're talking about consumers, you are at no point forced to buy music. A high price does not justify taking the music for free. If you really object, don't buy it and lobby for changes in the law to encourage lower prices.
So yes, it is hard to justify violating their rights. Using pejorative statements such as 'ill-begotten' is very misleading and does not an argument make. They are acting within the law, unlike a protection racket and you're just a cheap-skate who wants to set all the prices yourelf. If you really want everything for free, vote for whatever communist party is in your country. see how far that gets you.
Are you saying the Bible was archaic and repressive? Because Jesus pointed out that the Pharisees had misunderstood/misrepresneted scripture and were wrong to accuse him i.e. they there the repressive ones while the Bible was the liberarting factor.
They don't have to prove it, they just have to show that any doubt is unreasonable. If you have several dozen Metallica mp3s along with hundreds of other tracks, then your excuse would be laughed out of court.
So in other words, you think it's fine that other people pay for something, but you shouldn't have to. You are more deserving of seeing a film than them. If a price is set for a film, only they should have to pay it. But this 'I'm more deserving than other people' attitude doesn't cause any harm does it?
Why should you get to watch something for free, regardless of what value you attach to it? It was made at a cost, a price is set for watching it, law-abiding people way that price to see it, but you think that you are somehow above paying a price. If the film has no value, don't watch it! If you do want to watch it then obviously it does have value and beside which you should be giving credit to those responsible for the film by paying them and you should be complying with the law. Unless you think it's perfectly moral to break the law when a price is more than you are willing to pay.
it might be a _little_ easier to believe they know what they're saying if they hadn't said that about Mac OS 8 and 9 too, which didn't even have multitasking,
Who told you they didn't have multitasking? I've been runnng multiple prgorams at once on Macs since System 7 days. IIRC, Multi-finder was in 6, but can't remember what exactly i did and whether it qualified as multi-tasking.
I think that waht you meant to say is that they didn't have pre-emptive multi-tasking. Co-operative is still a version of multitasking however and, in some circumstances (though not many) better than pre-emptive. I'm much happier with pre-emptive, however, as the majority of the world likely is.
Or maybe you meant protected memory which would be a very valid point to join up and down and scream about. I was in denial about the problem for years. Used to be that an application crashed and until you restarted the computer, you'd be really nervous about something going horribly wrong after that. Now, an application crashes and you just restart that app. Don't remember the last time I had to restart for any reason other than a system update.
They seemed to have fixed the problem with the BBC News site. Used to be that it would take 5-10 seconds for the newsticker at the top to load, occassioanlly it would corrupt the rest of the page and RAM usage would jump to over 100MB. Now it loads instantly, looks better and only grabs another meg or two.
It implication of 'downloading an mp3 is, at most, a copyright violation.' is that dl-ing one is probably less serious than copyright violation and really not something to make a big deal out of.
Alright then. By that line of reasoning, murder, arson and rape aren't "that wrong" because they aren't stealing.
I doubt he's stupid enough to think that. It's pretty obvious that what we're talking about is restricted to crimes of the subset of copyright violation, theft, etc. i.e. taking something which is not rightfully yours.
The real "rubbish" are spouted by people who insist that copyright infringment and theft are one in the same because they are morally and legally wrong, despite any resoning or proof to the contrary.
I'm claiming they're the same, I'm saying it's just as wrong to violate the copyright of a song as it is to steal because either way you are taking something you have no right to have, without giving the owner the price they have quite legally set. There is no justification for piracy.
Well, just because you don't like a song doesn't mean it was only there to act as a filler. Take 'The Joshua Tree' for instance. I really don't like 'One Tree Hill'. It was, however, written as a tribute to a close friend of the band who died close to the time of recording the album and there are quite a few other people who do like it, so I wouldn't be justified in calling it a filler. I think people are too quick to call songs fillers and claiming that there is only 1 or 2 good songs on an album and there wasn't intended to be anything good on the rest is an exaggeration.
Actualy, the point he was making was that he didn't think it was that serious. If sometihng isn't physically beign stolen then it isn't really that wrong. It's the kind of rubbish that gets sprouted every week here. I'm kinda sick of it.
Is that what you say to assure your guilty conscience? How is it your birthright to get for free music that other people worked hard to produce and have decided to share with the world, providing it pays a price for it? Just because you don't like the price doesn't mean you're entitled to take it for free. Either pay or don't listen. Sure, the RIAA is heavy handed but the smug moral superiority of people like you who call them predatory and goons is just hypocritical when in reality you are the ones refusing to give the artists money, the ones taking their work without giving them the credit, the ones looking for a free ride, demanding that they give you exactly the music you want for exactly the price you demand. And then maybe you'll consider paying. You're every bit as much of a predatorial goon, if not more so.
Why should every song have to be good/great? Bands/artists are always going to try something that doesn't quite work for everyone. And a song that sounds great to me might not sound great to you. If 50%+ of the songs on the album are good/great, surely it is worthwhile? And sometimes it takes a while for songs to grow on you.
P2P downloading is at the very least, illegal, hypocritical when you claim to do it on principle and morally corrupt. You think people charge too much? Stop buying the CDs, petition companies ot lower prices, listen to better bands, buy second hand CDs. But don't think it gives you the moral perogative to take something that you haven't paid for.
Why is it that so many people are arrogant enough to believe they have a right to get music someone else made for the price that they want?
Just as the free software people tell you to quit complaining and write some code if you don't like a program, quit complaining and make your own music if you dont like the price of what's on sale.
I think you mean 1 year ago. My iBook was bottom of the line less than two years ago and has a Rage Mobility. The bottom of the line ones went to radeons in October of 2001 I think. But that's just me being pedantic. And bitter that I bought by 'book in late August.
Slashdot Mirror
Why the 'oh dear'? Is it suddenly wrong for someone to hold a belief and be convinced that it is the only truth and therefore other beliefs are lies? The Bible clearly states that Jesus is the only way to know God and therefore anyone claiming to following God but denying Jesus is not in fact following him, but rather oppossing him, which is tantamount to being ont he side of the devil, whether the people realise it or not. That is what Lewis understood. But of course these days political correctness rules supreme so you can't hold ideas beliefs that require that of others to be wrong. Tolerance has come to mean saying that everyone is right rather than being able ot say they are wrong, while respecting their right to chose their beliefs.
I'd also add 'the Magician's Nephew' to the list of books that are most recognisably influenced by the Bible. Chunks of it are essentially Genesis. There are plenty of parallels in the other books, but it's been too long since I last read them.
U2 were one of the headline acts and they are Irish. You don't get many countries more embracing of Europe than the Irish.
Well as far as the actual definition of multi-tasking is concerning, it is multi-tasking.
I found it very useful in practice to be able to listen to iTunes, check my email in the background automatically and browse the web at the same time. No, that isn't very taxing and yes, it's a bit daft that holding your mouse button down long enough would drop your net connection, but it was multi-taskign and I did find it very useful. Not as useful as the proper pre-emptive stuff we have now, but still useful.
Okay, i was unaware of the recent ruling about price fixing and now stand corrected. The communism mark was not childish however. I very much get the impression from /. that a lot of people don't like being charged for music and the comment was aimed at that attitude.
You're going to have trouble making a livivng off of open source. If you don't charge for the software, you're going to end up charging for support. And open source is not op to the quality of commerical software in a great amny areas precisely because the money isn't there. I have a little laugh every time someone compares the GIMP to Photoshop.
In times past. Are you going ot be happy with fewer artists in a much more selcted style? You're going to have to be happy with whatever these patrons, if any would appear, would be happy istening to. Sure, prices may be high now, but at least we're getting plenty of music to choose from.
Oh right, cool. Maybe I'm a little paranoid these days :^)
With your logic, we would end up with no artists because no-one would be able to afford the time to make music. They'd also be pretty sick of people being too ungrateful for what they're doing.
And what terribly unjust law are you hoping to change? I hardly think civil disobedience applies to thinking that CD prices are too high.
Newsflash: charging higher prices (for something you are not forced to buy) than you are willing to pay is not stealing!
So yes, it is hard to justify violating their rights. Using pejorative statements such as 'ill-begotten' is very misleading and does not an argument make. They are acting within the law, unlike a protection racket and you're just a cheap-skate who wants to set all the prices yourelf. If you really want everything for free, vote for whatever communist party is in your country. see how far that gets you.
Are you saying the Bible was archaic and repressive? Because Jesus pointed out that the Pharisees had misunderstood/misrepresneted scripture and were wrong to accuse him i.e. they there the repressive ones while the Bible was the liberarting factor.
They don't have to prove it, they just have to show that any doubt is unreasonable. If you have several dozen Metallica mp3s along with hundreds of other tracks, then your excuse would be laughed out of court.
Why should you get to watch something for free, regardless of what value you attach to it? It was made at a cost, a price is set for watching it, law-abiding people way that price to see it, but you think that you are somehow above paying a price. If the film has no value, don't watch it! If you do want to watch it then obviously it does have value and beside which you should be giving credit to those responsible for the film by paying them and you should be complying with the law. Unless you think it's perfectly moral to break the law when a price is more than you are willing to pay.
Who told you they didn't have multitasking? I've been runnng multiple prgorams at once on Macs since System 7 days. IIRC, Multi-finder was in 6, but can't remember what exactly i did and whether it qualified as multi-tasking.
I think that waht you meant to say is that they didn't have pre-emptive multi-tasking. Co-operative is still a version of multitasking however and, in some circumstances (though not many) better than pre-emptive. I'm much happier with pre-emptive, however, as the majority of the world likely is.
Or maybe you meant protected memory which would be a very valid point to join up and down and scream about. I was in denial about the problem for years. Used to be that an application crashed and until you restarted the computer, you'd be really nervous about something going horribly wrong after that. Now, an application crashes and you just restart that app. Don't remember the last time I had to restart for any reason other than a system update.
They seemed to have fixed the problem with the BBC News site. Used to be that it would take 5-10 seconds for the newsticker at the top to load, occassioanlly it would corrupt the rest of the page and RAM usage would jump to over 100MB. Now it loads instantly, looks better and only grabs another meg or two.
You'd be a fool to buy the RAM from Apple. Cheaper to buy it elsewhere and install yourself.
It implication of 'downloading an mp3 is, at most, a copyright violation.' is that dl-ing one is probably less serious than copyright violation and really not something to make a big deal out of.
I doubt he's stupid enough to think that. It's pretty obvious that what we're talking about is restricted to crimes of the subset of copyright violation, theft, etc. i.e. taking something which is not rightfully yours.
I'm claiming they're the same, I'm saying it's just as wrong to violate the copyright of a song as it is to steal because either way you are taking something you have no right to have, without giving the owner the price they have quite legally set. There is no justification for piracy.
Well, just because you don't like a song doesn't mean it was only there to act as a filler. Take 'The Joshua Tree' for instance. I really don't like 'One Tree Hill'. It was, however, written as a tribute to a close friend of the band who died close to the time of recording the album and there are quite a few other people who do like it, so I wouldn't be justified in calling it a filler. I think people are too quick to call songs fillers and claiming that there is only 1 or 2 good songs on an album and there wasn't intended to be anything good on the rest is an exaggeration.
Actualy, the point he was making was that he didn't think it was that serious. If sometihng isn't physically beign stolen then it isn't really that wrong. It's the kind of rubbish that gets sprouted every week here. I'm kinda sick of it.
Is that what you say to assure your guilty conscience? How is it your birthright to get for free music that other people worked hard to produce and have decided to share with the world, providing it pays a price for it? Just because you don't like the price doesn't mean you're entitled to take it for free. Either pay or don't listen. Sure, the RIAA is heavy handed but the smug moral superiority of people like you who call them predatory and goons is just hypocritical when in reality you are the ones refusing to give the artists money, the ones taking their work without giving them the credit, the ones looking for a free ride, demanding that they give you exactly the music you want for exactly the price you demand. And then maybe you'll consider paying. You're every bit as much of a predatorial goon, if not more so.
Why should every song have to be good/great? Bands/artists are always going to try something that doesn't quite work for everyone. And a song that sounds great to me might not sound great to you. If 50%+ of the songs on the album are good/great, surely it is worthwhile? And sometimes it takes a while for songs to grow on you.
Why is it that so many people are arrogant enough to believe they have a right to get music someone else made for the price that they want?
Just as the free software people tell you to quit complaining and write some code if you don't like a program, quit complaining and make your own music if you dont like the price of what's on sale.
Bah. The Marathon series had Durandal, the insane AI of the colony ship Marathon before that. He was cool.
I think you mean 1 year ago. My iBook was bottom of the line less than two years ago and has a Rage Mobility. The bottom of the line ones went to radeons in October of 2001 I think. But that's just me being pedantic. And bitter that I bought by 'book in late August.
I thought was much, but decided to give hi the benefit of the doubt. The discussion is well off the front page now so he'll probably shut up now.