Uh, no. Firefly is firmly in the sf category because it is speculative fiction based upon possible (though maybe implausible) as yet unknown science. The ratios shouldn't strike you as odd. Male viewers are much more prone to be satisfied with visual shoot-'em up bang bang. The interactions of the crew would draw brighter and more emotive people than your average young male.
"Role playing is about turning the dreams of adventure we all have in to some sort of reality."
The reality of sitting around a table arguing about the results of a roll? Really, if you want to have a combat experience, do so. Claiming RPG's give you any sort of "real" substitute is delusional.
If the role-playing game skillset is the same as the computer programmer's skill set, then the computer programmer has no more of a skill set that anyone else, as a significant number of role-players are not programmers.
Um. The problem with your counter argument is that citizens have a history of breaking laws and doing nasty, bad things to each other and organizations. What then, your point? Do you want to live in a world where the average joe has the technological capability, if not the legal right, to break whatever law/mores they choose? The coin has two sides.
Holy shit. Are you really so dense that you cannot see that a blog (which is published to the world-at-large for free viewing in the first place) is not the same as a published, for-sale book?
'I know books aren't quite the same as websites, but it's the "I don't want you to index my stuff because of copyright" principle I'm getting at.'
They are totally different, not "quite". Blogs are copyrighted, you know. Don't believe me? Check a few. That means they want you to read if for free, but you cannot copy parts for free without the copyright owners permission.
1st "wrong". It's you, not he. Not statement about the author not being "greedy" (if wanting recompense is greed). Only the infringer is attempting to get something for nothing.
2nd "wrong". You again. You're stretching to justify infringement. Getting something for nothing is avoiding the barter. No transaction, just pilfering.
"If you add up the cost of the PC, routing hardware, bandwidth and users' time spent, you'll see monetary cost involved. But its split among billions of users and little trickles to the original producer."
Puh-fucking-lease. Like the theif having bought his car makes robbing the grocery story any less immoral. By the way, none of it trickles to the author.
"Exactly. Download it for free."
So, you're actually promoting and condoning immoral and illegal activity? The author (you know, like you, the one who wants to make money for their novel) did not put it on the net, an infringer did. So, since you've now told everyone here you've written said novel, it would be OK if someone rummaged around your house during a party, took a copy and P2P'd it without your permission? Yes?
As for the rest of your post, you can justify your views if you take my proposition up and P2P it free first, then see how much you'll make afterward. Anything else shows your true color.
No, Simonetta, you're missing the point. The author and the publisher as his/her agent has the right to determine dissemination. Not you, not Google, not anyone but they.
But, but, but.... Shouldn't you, you know, just put on P2P for free. After all, you're holding all those people who may want to read it for free hostage to your corporate greed? Try this. Freely distribute it in digital form, then get a book deal. After all, you'll have done the publishers advertising for them. True?
"For new releases, if they are bestsellers then you have to spend months on a waiting list to get your copy, and if they are obscure or specific to a particular field, like the latest edition of Code Complete, odds are your library doesn't have it and won't until you go in and request it."
Ah, you defeat your own argument. The scientists are now publishing directly to the web themselves. If an author wishes to do so, fine. To force them to do so shows no respect at all for their authorship.
"People are going to digitally scan, copy and share books if someone isn't there to sell them."
Bullshit. You have it backwards. People digitally scanning and illegally distributing said materials will drive the books to extinction. Not the other way round.
Slashdot Mirror
Provide a cite for your presumption. How about http://www.authorsguild.org/news/sues_google_citin g.htm ??
'... other entites with a vested interest in "protection copyrights".'
Yeah, the authors.
I'll agree with Emeye. Since registering in Mo., I haven't been bothered by anyone.
Uh, no. Firefly is firmly in the sf category because it is speculative fiction based upon possible (though maybe implausible) as yet unknown science. The ratios shouldn't strike you as odd. Male viewers are much more prone to be satisfied with visual shoot-'em up bang bang. The interactions of the crew would draw brighter and more emotive people than your average young male.
"Role playing is about turning the dreams of adventure we all have in to some sort of reality."
The reality of sitting around a table arguing about the results of a roll? Really, if you want to have a combat experience, do so. Claiming RPG's give you any sort of "real" substitute is delusional.
Obviously, you do not do carpentry. He didn't compare burger flipping to programming. You missed his point.
ID is pushed by a small subset of the Right and is not taught in schools.
If the role-playing game skillset is the same as the computer programmer's skill set, then the computer programmer has no more of a skill set that anyone else, as a significant number of role-players are not programmers.
You need to reread the sentence for comprehension. "Completely unable to discuss" is not the same as "without any mention of".
You fail to mention that authors, you know the ones who own the damn material, are also protesting this.
Please. Remember you're talking to the "I want it free" crowd.
Um. The problem with your counter argument is that citizens have a history of breaking laws and doing nasty, bad things to each other and organizations. What then, your point? Do you want to live in a world where the average joe has the technological capability, if not the legal right, to break whatever law/mores they choose? The coin has two sides.
"Why buy a physical disk player and physical disks when bandwidth provides the same experience?"
Because it doesn't?
"... the best - in fact, the only available - way of getting it is..."
No, the best way (moral, legal and all) is to have the maturity and patience for it to be distributed.
"... so why should I put their profits above my own convenience ? They certainly aren't putting my interests above theirs."
See above. It's their movie and their copyright. It's your immaturity and "I want it now" attitude. Nothing else.
"I simply want least hassle for myself. P2P manages to be a lesser hassle than DVDs a lot of time."
Read "I don't want to pay for it, I want it now, and I don't have any self-restraint".
So, geeks don't only have unrealistic fantasies and expectations about sex?
Holy shit. Are you really so dense that you cannot see that a blog (which is published to the world-at-large for free viewing in the first place) is not the same as a published, for-sale book?
'I know books aren't quite the same as websites, but it's the "I don't want you to index my stuff because of copyright" principle I'm getting at.'
They are totally different, not "quite". Blogs are copyrighted, you know. Don't believe me? Check a few. That means they want you to read if for free, but you cannot copy parts for free without the copyright owners permission.
Well, you're oblivious to the obvious difference of web-page authors having placed their work in public view for free then, ain't ya?
In all your ranting you seem to have avoided the violating of the author's rights.
1st "wrong". It's you, not he. Not statement about the author not being "greedy" (if wanting recompense is greed). Only the infringer is attempting to get something for nothing.
2nd "wrong". You again. You're stretching to justify infringement. Getting something for nothing is avoiding the barter. No transaction, just pilfering.
"If you add up the cost of the PC, routing hardware, bandwidth and users' time spent, you'll see monetary cost involved. But its split among billions of users and little trickles to the original producer."
Puh-fucking-lease. Like the theif having bought his car makes robbing the grocery story any less immoral. By the way, none of it trickles to the author.
"Exactly. Download it for free."
So, you're actually promoting and condoning immoral and illegal activity? The author (you know, like you, the one who wants to make money for their novel) did not put it on the net, an infringer did. So, since you've now told everyone here you've written said novel, it would be OK if someone rummaged around your house during a party, took a copy and P2P'd it without your permission? Yes?
As for the rest of your post, you can justify your views if you take my proposition up and P2P it free first, then see how much you'll make afterward. Anything else shows your true color.
No, Simonetta, you're missing the point. The author and the publisher as his/her agent has the right to determine dissemination. Not you, not Google, not anyone but they.
But, but, but.... Shouldn't you, you know, just put on P2P for free. After all, you're holding all those people who may want to read it for free hostage to your corporate greed? Try this. Freely distribute it in digital form, then get a book deal. After all, you'll have done the publishers advertising for them. True?
"For new releases, if they are bestsellers then you have to spend months on a waiting list to get your copy, and if they are obscure or specific to a particular field, like the latest edition of Code Complete, odds are your library doesn't have it and won't until you go in and request it."
This makes them not free how? Please be specific.
Ah, you defeat your own argument. The scientists are now publishing directly to the web themselves. If an author wishes to do so, fine. To force them to do so shows no respect at all for their authorship.
If Google is wholesale copying copyrighted books, that is piracy in and of itself. Google is not a library, they are a corporation out to make money.
Then you, sir, are free to wade through the internet looking for it. What you are not free to do is scan it and illegally distribute it.
"People are going to digitally scan, copy and share books if someone isn't there to sell them."
Bullshit. You have it backwards. People digitally scanning and illegally distributing said materials will drive the books to extinction. Not the other way round.