Incorrect. Only the copyright holder has the rights to determine distribution. That is a one for one scarcity. When you thumb your nose at a person's desires to distribute their work as they see fit, you're simply an asshat saying that "I want it, you want money, screw you, I'm taking it over your desires and not going to pay you because I'm just too friggin' cheap."
There needn't be physical items involved for stealing to be stealing.
That was funny! A nice blend of psychobabble, psuedo-philosophy and a definite dash of bio-ignorance blended into a seemingly serious rant. Great work.
If FF were unintuitive, I might agree. Since I'm using it right now and it's just fine, I don't.
If you want to change the interface, fine. But either allow users to fall back to the one they like or expect abandonment. A browser's a browser's a browser. Beyond browsing, I don't want clutter.
Allowing a minor and inexperienced person freedom does not mean you don't watch them. You can let them play on the jungle gym and be there when they fall. Doing what you indicate is falling. You're there and take appropriate action. If the actions are innocuous, you do nothing. If they are criminal (some of your examples) you deal harshly.
Other than it's not an analogy. Gay sex does not involve the creation and distribution of one's work. It involves private matters between two consenters. Piracy on the other hand, involves two people, one of whom does not at all care what the other wishes and simply rips them off.
A better sexual analogy would be in the B/D realm, where one person keeps the bound person against their will simply because, well "I want the sex and they don't want to give it to me".
No. You are incorrect. Most money flows to those who produce and distributer. The author choses a producer and distributor and knowlingly assigns some percentage of the income to them. That's their choice. And yes, many performers own them. Besides, you're still talking music. How about books?
The opposing argument always boils down to "I don't want to pay for something." Fine. Don't. Don't rip it off either. Ripping it off is empirical evidence the ripper wants the product but is to friggin' cheap to pay the owner for it.
Yeah, but if he hadn't, he'd be jumped by some thin-skinned geekazoid for talking about him and have it lengthily pointed out that he wasn't as described.
'You' should be actively handing it down to the next generation.
Well yes, Sparky. And you know how that's done? By watching to see who the hell deserves it. You know who gets to decide? Those doing the handing, not those with their hands out.
You people are the ones watching Brittany, not the ones in control. They smirk at the fool and feed you what you will tune in to. Turn the channel.
"However, there is a huge amount of bright young people who have every right to ask more of their employers. More money, better conditions, not to be treated as children just because they only started working in last year or so. It takes forever for a young person to advance, even if he/she is more productive and better educated."
You say they have a "right" as if that were true. Please give a cogent reason.
The employer has a "right" that more productive, better educated Johnny prove they are more productive and can friggin' work, too.
In my 35 year salaried life, I've seen a large share of worthless new folks claiming they're better.
Yes, of course. Not being adequately challenged at school means it's ok to go and screw with people's safety. The son of a bitch was fourteen. If he knew enough to do what he did, he knew enough science to figure out the results.
So, if you've got a program that shits itself and brings down the system every once in a blue moon and you discover the reason for this during refactoring -- you just keep that bug right in there and bring down the system? Hardly.
I have done just that. Taken a system that works, which not a damned person could read except the original author and restructured it from the inside out so that it became legible and malleable and worked correctly at each stage. This, on a system that recorded and aged telephone billing transactions in real time.
Perhaps your rant is no more than that of someone who enjoys having code designed for job security.
Oh, please. At no time should you replicate errors. Refactoring is a method for finding and correcting errors as well as providing structure and legibility.
Slashdot Mirror
Incorrect. Only the copyright holder has the rights to determine distribution. That is a one for one scarcity. When you thumb your nose at a person's desires to distribute their work as they see fit, you're simply an asshat saying that "I want it, you want money, screw you, I'm taking it over your desires and not going to pay you because I'm just too friggin' cheap."
There needn't be physical items involved for stealing to be stealing.
Wonder how they're viewing the documents being released that outline exactly such a relationship?
That was funny! A nice blend of psychobabble, psuedo-philosophy and a definite dash of bio-ignorance blended into a seemingly serious rant. Great work.
I note that in your response you had to put quotes around the word lie.
We don't have a programmer.
"The wise atheists among us don't need to be told the obvious--..."
As a hard core atheist, allow me to be the first to say fuck you and the high horse you rode in on.
Atheism has no a jot to do with accepting or discarding human augmentation.
If FF were unintuitive, I might agree. Since I'm using it right now and it's just fine, I don't.
If you want to change the interface, fine. But either allow users to fall back to the one they like or expect abandonment. A browser's a browser's a browser. Beyond browsing, I don't want clutter.
"...however when you have transitioned it is an improvement."
Uh, no. That's an opinion only, not a statement of fact.
Allowing a minor and inexperienced person freedom does not mean you don't watch them. You can let them play on the jungle gym and be there when they fall. Doing what you indicate is falling. You're there and take appropriate action. If the actions are innocuous, you do nothing. If they are criminal (some of your examples) you deal harshly.
Other than it's not an analogy. Gay sex does not involve the creation and distribution of one's work. It involves private matters between two consenters. Piracy on the other hand, involves two people, one of whom does not at all care what the other wishes and simply rips them off.
A better sexual analogy would be in the B/D realm, where one person keeps the bound person against their will simply because, well "I want the sex and they don't want to give it to me".
"Intellectual property has the nasty effect of stifling thinking and innovation, and becoming a neo-fuedal or private dictatorship for the rich."
Bullshit. You're bland assertion does not make it fact.
IP has made thousands of people wealthier by their own effort.
And we see that idealism expressed consistently in the /. crowd, where they work for free because they love... the....
Oh, wait. Isn't this the place where every screams about how they aren't getting what they're worth?
No. You are incorrect. Most money flows to those who produce and distributer. The author choses a producer and distributor and knowlingly assigns some percentage of the income to them. That's their choice. And yes, many performers own them. Besides, you're still talking music. How about books?
The opposing argument always boils down to "I don't want to pay for something." Fine. Don't. Don't rip it off either. Ripping it off is empirical evidence the ripper wants the product but is to friggin' cheap to pay the owner for it.
"Watermarks tied to users offer the RIAA an easy way to frame anyone.."
Yeah, 'cause there's such a dearth of people uploading stuff that's not theirs.
Yeah, but if he hadn't, he'd be jumped by some thin-skinned geekazoid for talking about him and have it lengthily pointed out that he wasn't as described.
'You' should be actively handing it down to the next generation.
Well yes, Sparky. And you know how that's done? By watching to see who the hell deserves it. You know who gets to decide? Those doing the handing, not those with their hands out.
You people are the ones watching Brittany, not the ones in control. They smirk at the fool and feed you what you will tune in to. Turn the channel.
"Adapt or die."
Now I know you're lying about how old you are.
An anomaly does not ruin his analogy.
"However, there is a huge amount of bright young people who have every right to ask more of their employers. More money, better conditions, not to be treated as children just because they only started working in last year or so. It takes forever for a young person to advance, even if he/she is more productive and better educated."
You say they have a "right" as if that were true. Please give a cogent reason.
The employer has a "right" that more productive, better educated Johnny prove they are more productive and can friggin' work, too.
In my 35 year salaried life, I've seen a large share of worthless new folks claiming they're better.
Yes, of course. Not being adequately challenged at school means it's ok to go and screw with people's safety. The son of a bitch was fourteen. If he knew enough to do what he did, he knew enough science to figure out the results.
Let me guess. You're in IT and think everyone else is inferior, right?
So, if you've got a program that shits itself and brings down the system every once in a blue moon and you discover the reason for this during refactoring -- you just keep that bug right in there and bring down the system? Hardly.
I have done just that. Taken a system that works, which not a damned person could read except the original author and restructured it from the inside out so that it became legible and malleable and worked correctly at each stage. This, on a system that recorded and aged telephone billing transactions in real time.
Perhaps your rant is no more than that of someone who enjoys having code designed for job security.
Oh, please. At no time should you replicate errors. Refactoring is a method for finding and correcting errors as well as providing structure and legibility.
Uh, do both.
Oh, bullshit. Having one set of asshats does not beget the second set of asshats.