I think you have a problem if you think there's not much difference between your steps one and two. And just as significant leap betwixt two and three exists.
"Sneaking into a movie theatre deprives them of a seat. Downloading does not."
You're not paying to see the movie, which you obviously intended to do.
"record label prints 10,000 CDs"
Which they cannot sell now, because their customer base just evaporated. Oh yeah, you righteously presume they either have more customers or should wither and die.
"Every company that engages in any form of commerce is directly depriving..."
So you're justifying your actions as "competition"? Exactly what goods are you producing to compete with?
"The incentive for the public good..."
This is merely your opinion, as you admit.
"...the vast majority of artists are never compensated anyway."
And that is utter bullshit. You think they don't need food and shelter? Oh, you mean the "starving artist" thing? Well, that art won't be seen by anyone, no distribution. By the way, as with any other endeavor, the "vast magjority" of participants aren't very good at it. Why should they get paid?
"Getting something they don't deserve?"
Puh-lease. "Found a way to get it themselves without any external intervention". Had to think a bit on that one, eh? Just another way of saying "found the item offered illegally". And the movie bit, sheesh. Sophomoric.
"Stop pretending that copyright is a moral issue."
Fine. Stop pretending piracy isn't about ripping someone off. "Big Business". Right.
"but I think that our insistence on applying physical property norms to the fundamentally different product of ideas and creativity is dangerous."
Physical property norms are not applied to music, art, writing; physical property norms are for the duration of the physical object in your possession, copyright is for the duration of you for the possessing.
"conception of creativity as property"
That is not the concept. They concept is the creation as property.
In a more abstract sense, indeed my "creativity" is my "personal property" because it is, perforce mine, not yours.
If you want something created, do it yourself or humiliate yourself and pay someone who can do it to do it for you.
Look at the problems in Brazil, for instance. Two ways to attack the problem. Pour assistance into said country, or have said country control their breeding population.
Yes, well, they do that. My wonder about those nuts is why it's OK for life to have evolved elsewhere, then came here, but not to have evolved here? Some basic fear of not being devine, I guess.
"The inconvenient reality of the humanist is that he cannot logically defend his beliefs as the way to live."
Right. You've probably not sat and talked with one. I certainly can logically defend them.
Re:Maybe it is because we are skeptical...
on
A New Ice Age?
·
· Score: 1
I'm not saying anything is going on, but the first two graphs don't jibe. Either part of the first is missing, or they use different data. Import them and see.
Ahhh, political ass-holes. Unable to allow others to have discussions about unrelated topics without jamming their personal friggin' political opinions in. Get a damn life.
Been designing and implementing systems for 35 years. I use portions of UML. I find chunks of it equivalent to blithering. Others are excellent ways to communicate to clients. Those parts happen to have existed since the 70-80's. Not much of use is really new here.
I don't really see a significant distinction between "designers" and "programmers". One needs to know each to do well.
Slashdot Mirror
What about the chance that we might, just MIGHT screw things up far more radically than if we left it alone?
By the way, people aren't saying GWT=BS, they're saying the current hysteria = BS.
Do you know for certain that what you propose to do will not cause more harm? No? Then, don't suggest we do it.
Curing disease and stopping the Earth from warming up by the sun are magnitudes of difference.
"at least consider that we may be messing with things that we cannot control"
You mean like whatever we might consider doing to "rectify" the situation?
Yes, it's an anolgy. It's also a lame one.
I think you have a problem if you think there's not much difference between your steps one and two. And just as significant leap betwixt two and three exists.
"Sneaking into a movie theatre deprives them of a seat. Downloading does not."
..."
You're not paying to see the movie, which you obviously intended to do.
"record label prints 10,000 CDs"
Which they cannot sell now, because their customer base just evaporated. Oh yeah, you righteously presume they either have more customers or should wither and die.
"Every company that engages in any form of commerce is directly depriving..."
So you're justifying your actions as "competition"? Exactly what goods are you producing to compete with?
"The incentive for the public good
This is merely your opinion, as you admit.
"...the vast majority of artists are never compensated anyway."
And that is utter bullshit. You think they don't need food and shelter? Oh, you mean the "starving artist" thing? Well, that art won't be seen by anyone, no distribution. By the way, as with any other endeavor, the "vast magjority" of participants aren't very good at it. Why should they get paid?
"Getting something they don't deserve?"
Puh-lease. "Found a way to get it themselves without any external intervention". Had to think a bit on that one, eh? Just another way of saying "found the item offered illegally". And the movie bit, sheesh. Sophomoric.
"Stop pretending that copyright is a moral issue."
Fine. Stop pretending piracy isn't about ripping someone off. "Big Business". Right.
Incorrect. Shakespear's "copyright" enforcers would simply have been a couple of cheap thugs. Lots of law was different, back then.
"but I think that our insistence on applying physical property norms to the fundamentally different product of ideas and creativity is dangerous."
Physical property norms are not applied to music, art, writing; physical property norms are for the duration of the physical object in your possession, copyright is for the duration of you for the possessing.
"conception of creativity as property"
That is not the concept. They concept is the creation as property.
In a more abstract sense, indeed my "creativity" is my "personal property" because it is, perforce mine, not yours.
If you want something created, do it yourself or humiliate yourself and pay someone who can do it to do it for you.
Don't look in the
developed countries, chum.
Look at the problems in Brazil, for instance. Two ways to attack the problem. Pour assistance into said country, or have said country control their breeding population.
You mean *facts* like doctoring the temperatures used, or *facts* like dropping two small jogs that upset their hockey-stick?
Dedication to *facts* like that?
Thank you, opposite end of the hysterical spectrum.
By the way, screw you for gratuitously throwing atheist in there.
Puh-lease.
The first are just making money for themselves.
The second are trying to get their names immortalized for "saving the world".
No contest, the second set, obviously.
Webster's Unabridged - mood:
5) "A state of sullenness, gloom, or bad temper."
"He's in a mood" = "He's pissed off"
Certainly gramatically correct. Always dictionary-check first.
Unless he's pissed about it.
Perhaps a link to your assertion.
You DO know that the little "..." is supposed to only remove non-essential info, don't you Mr. Lawyer?
"meteorite ... shed rock and ice from its tail"
An excellent indication of your depth of astronomy.
"The conspiracy theorists and UFO nuts ... "
Yes, well, they do that. My wonder about those nuts is why it's OK for life to have evolved elsewhere, then came here, but not to have evolved here? Some basic fear of not being devine, I guess.
"We have conciousness, which as far as we can tell, makes us a unique lifeform."
Your argument fails there. We are not the only possessors of conciousness on Earth.
Depending on what you meant by "wasier", I'd agree with the rest.
"The inconvenient reality of the humanist is that he cannot logically defend his beliefs as the way to live."
Right. You've probably not sat and talked with one. I certainly can logically defend them.
I'm not saying anything is going on, but the first two graphs don't jibe. Either part of the first is missing, or they use different data. Import them and see.
Ah, got it. Use the lowest-denominator features to ensure it runs on whatever JVM the user dains get? Yeesh.
Out of curiosity, does .NET run on Apple or midi or mainframes?
Java runs on mainframes. How do you propose to have a "cross-platform UI" which works on IBM, Tandem, AND a PC?
Ahhh, political ass-holes. Unable to allow others to have discussions about unrelated topics without jamming their personal friggin' political opinions in. Get a damn life.
Been designing and implementing systems for 35 years. I use portions of UML. I find chunks of it equivalent to blithering. Others are excellent ways to communicate to clients. Those parts happen to have existed since the 70-80's. Not much of use is really new here.
I don't really see a significant distinction between "designers" and "programmers". One needs to know each to do well.