He's definitely a very talented kid, I mean he wrote DeCSS when he was around 16. Did any of his teachers notice his talents? Of course not. So he takes his skills underground where he meets people like himself. These people are tossed aside by an uncaring system, of course he thinks the way he does. He hates the system because it created him.
and watch the KDE vs GNOME flamewars come to fisticuffs after a couple beers. Nothing like a bunch of nerds slapping each other. Oh well someone tape it for me.
First of all I don't endorse the removal of copyright law nor the removal of intellectual property. My point which I've had to repeat over and over again is that art/ideas/creativity existed before copyright/IP law. And also will continue to exist if these things are removed.
BTW, just out of interest, how much art (and/or other "intellectual property") do you regularly produce and give away? Or do you simply consume?
I don't see any reason to get personal but if you think this method of attack somehow strengthens whatever argument you have, you are wrong. During my high school years I wrote some code for different projects that are GPL. Some of it might be floating around but that was awhile ago. Currently I'm a mathematics major at university, I have yet to publish but when I do of course it will be public domain. Anyway I never represented myself as some gifted person who gives away his talents for free. Nor did I suggest that one should.
My point which I will repeat one last time is creativity is instilled in the human condition. A person does not first become aware of his material needs then create art to fulfill them. Actually sometimes its the opposite where in the complete desperation of material and spiritual wealth, something beautiful is created.
Without property and money there would still exist art and good art as well. Also without propery and money there would exist ideas and good ideas as well. The human function of creativity is a priori any function of gaining material wealth.
The idea that somehow without copyright law or intellectual property, art and ideas would ceast to exist is simply wrong.
Well without copyright laws you are not really buying my story but the paper it is printed on. Again I have a problem with the ability to sell things you have no ownership claims of. But that scenario is one without any intellectual property. I guess we can have a second scenario, one without copyright laws. However basically you are buying the paper and not my story.
I could do what they used to do in ancient Greece. I could write my story on a scroll and read it in public. Have a little bucket where I could get donations. Then hopefully some rich patron will invite me to their toga party where I can read my story and take questions. Then again this is a service.
How do you make money off ideas that entail no serivce? If I write a story a publisher could just steal it and print it on paper. I would have no rights to any profits they make. My feeling is pure ideas and not applied ones... need copyright law or something like it.
Oh yes services can be paid for. I totally agree with that. There is a business model where intellects can be paid for services without intellectual property. However not all ideas entail a service to be done. If I write a story surely you can read it yourself without me.
For most people, rent and food are rather more immediate priorities.
Will you please get the point that artists who are not the majority sometimes are willing to starve for their art. The creative human function sometimes outrules the stomach. just because you can't imagine yourself doing it doesnt mean there doesnt exist people who will.
well what comes first... being creative and creating the art or trying to make art for money. the artists ability to create art is something of a reflex... automatic. those who make art for money are not really artists... in my opinion anyway. i wouldn't consider their "art" art.
anyway i could list you many artists who never made any money off their art but did it anyway... however i'll just name you one... Van Gogh.
Without copyright law, people would have no incentive at all to write music since anyone could play it without paying them.
no incentive... how about being creative?... the money earned afterwards is just a bonus.
Btw, getting rid of copyrights will also destroy every open source project as some greedy company would be able to easily rip off the hard work of the developers.
If you eliminate IP then selling ideas would be against the law. All ideas would be free and without copyrights any idea is public domain. I mean of course you wouldn't be able to provide yourself a means to live if you were in the trade of ideas.
However maybe there is a business model or economic system that can provide a means to live for those who do work in the trade of ideas. Just because there doesn't seem to exist one currently doesn't mean there will never exist one.
they're too busy eating their lobster in their mansions and making love to their hot super model wives. after that they drive around in their new european sports cars throwing candy to all the orphans who parents were killed by Microsoft.
i'm not going to mess around with my hw clock just to see the counter change... btw the real storage space.. when you log in is determined by their server's hw clock.
hrm you click in the link and it asks for registered account? it doesnt for me.. oh well I'll paste it.
--------------
A new group set up to advance the cause of free and open source software has decided to recruit socialite Paris Hilton into its ranks as a means to gain more exposure.
The Open Source Development League said it was recruiting Ms Hilton because it knew of nobody else who had managed to gain such a degree of exposure despite having no apparent learning in this direction.
"What she managed to do with that video was amazing. If that wasn't enough, then there was the mobile phone address book episode," Jeremy Bleats, the chief executive officer of the League, told a crowded media conference on the banks of the Yarra in Melbourne early today.
Bleats said the only thing that was holding back Linux and other software of the FOSS genre was a lack of exposure. "People should be aware of the breadth and scope of what FOSS has to offer and Ms Hilton can definitely advance that objective," he said. "She can expose things like nobody else can."
He said the League had considered the merits of Pamela Denise Anderson - said by many to be the most downloaded person on the internet - but had finally decided in favour of Ms Hilton. AdvertisementAdvertisement
"It was more or less a two-horse race when it came to the question of appointing an Exposure Executive," Bleats said. "The horse with longer legs finally won."
Bleats had a word of caution for journalists. "Please do not confuse our League with the Red-Headed League about which Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wove a tale involving Sherlock Holmes," he said. "I have to say this because our Exposure Executive is, at the moment, a redhead."
In the US, the founder of the Free Software Foundation, Richard M. Stallman, dismissed the League's move as a "cheap stunt."
well it's half joke half real... as you can see the counter is going to approach 2 GB at around 12am EST. So I suppose it will end there and the storage capicity will be 2 GB instead of 1 GB. But it's still a joke I mean the drawing is hilarious.
It's self delusional to rationalize an action to be right or wrong depending on how you view the effects on the victim.
There are two stances one can take. There exists absolute rules in which one can infer a moral action in any situation. Or there exist no absolute rules and morality is based on belief and feeling.
I accept the latter. I do not rationalize my actions but rather take responsibility for them. I accept whatever consequences there exists for an action I take. But I'm not going to delude myself with morality and believe somehow I'm a better person than someone else. And when you think about that's the only role morality plays in people's lives. It makes them feel better or superior than other people.
Slashdot Mirror
He's definitely a very talented kid, I mean he wrote DeCSS when he was around 16. Did any of his teachers notice his talents? Of course not. So he takes his skills underground where he meets people like himself. These people are tossed aside by an uncaring system, of course he thinks the way he does. He hates the system because it created him.
and watch the KDE vs GNOME flamewars come to fisticuffs after a couple beers. Nothing like a bunch of nerds slapping each other. Oh well someone tape it for me.
i'll take Roland Piquepaille over Jon Katz any day.
First of all I don't endorse the removal of copyright law nor the removal of intellectual property. My point which I've had to repeat over and over again is that art/ideas/creativity existed before copyright/IP law. And also will continue to exist if these things are removed.
BTW, just out of interest, how much art (and/or other "intellectual property") do you regularly produce and give away? Or do you simply consume?
I don't see any reason to get personal but if you think this method of attack somehow strengthens whatever argument you have, you are wrong. During my high school years I wrote some code for different projects that are GPL. Some of it might be floating around but that was awhile ago. Currently I'm a mathematics major at university, I have yet to publish but when I do of course it will be public domain. Anyway I never represented myself as some gifted person who gives away his talents for free. Nor did I suggest that one should.
My point which I will repeat one last time is creativity is instilled in the human condition. A person does not first become aware of his material needs then create art to fulfill them. Actually sometimes its the opposite where in the complete desperation of material and spiritual wealth, something beautiful is created.
Without property and money there would still exist art and good art as well. Also without propery and money there would exist ideas and good ideas as well. The human function of creativity is a priori any function of gaining material wealth.
The idea that somehow without copyright law or intellectual property, art and ideas would ceast to exist is simply wrong.
Well without copyright laws you are not really buying my story but the paper it is printed on. Again I have a problem with the ability to sell things you have no ownership claims of. But that scenario is one without any intellectual property. I guess we can have a second scenario, one without copyright laws. However basically you are buying the paper and not my story.
I could do what they used to do in ancient Greece. I could write my story on a scroll and read it in public. Have a little bucket where I could get donations. Then hopefully some rich patron will invite me to their toga party where I can read my story and take questions. Then again this is a service.
How do you make money off ideas that entail no serivce? If I write a story a publisher could just steal it and print it on paper. I would have no rights to any profits they make. My feeling is pure ideas and not applied ones... need copyright law or something like it.
Oh yes services can be paid for. I totally agree with that. There is a business model where intellects can be paid for services without intellectual property. However not all ideas entail a service to be done. If I write a story surely you can read it yourself without me.
For most people, rent and food are rather more immediate priorities.
Will you please get the point that artists who are not the majority sometimes are willing to starve for their art. The creative human function sometimes outrules the stomach. just because you can't imagine yourself doing it doesnt mean there doesnt exist people who will.
well what comes first... being creative and creating the art or trying to make art for money. the artists ability to create art is something of a reflex... automatic. those who make art for money are not really artists... in my opinion anyway. i wouldn't consider their "art" art.
anyway i could list you many artists who never made any money off their art but did it anyway... however i'll just name you one... Van Gogh.
Don't say that. That's not even close to true.
If there would exist no property rights to ideas then how can one sell them? You first need to prove property rights of said item to sell it.
The rest of your comment does not apply to me since you mistakenly took a comment I put in italic as my own.
Without copyright law, people would have no incentive at all to write music since anyone could play it without paying them.
no incentive... how about being creative?... the money earned afterwards is just a bonus.
Btw, getting rid of copyrights will also destroy every open source project as some greedy company would be able to easily rip off the hard work of the developers.
If you eliminate IP then selling ideas would be against the law. All ideas would be free and without copyrights any idea is public domain. I mean of course you wouldn't be able to provide yourself a means to live if you were in the trade of ideas.
However maybe there is a business model or economic system that can provide a means to live for those who do work in the trade of ideas. Just because there doesn't seem to exist one currently doesn't mean there will never exist one.
they're too busy eating their lobster in their mansions and making love to their hot super model wives. after that they drive around in their new european sports cars throwing candy to all the orphans who parents were killed by Microsoft.
can anyone confirm that Leni Riefenstahl was behind this film?
i'm not going to mess around with my hw clock just to see the counter change... btw the real storage space.. when you log in is determined by their server's hw clock.
as if millions of geeks sighed in frustration and were suddenly silenced.
actually look at the page's source
var START = 1112331600000;
var END = 1112439600000;
1112439600 (extra 000s?) is Sat, 02 Apr 2005 11:00:00 GMT
Sat Apr 2 05:14:07 FJT 2005
uh no....
you sure about that i'm messing with my timezone and it isn't changing...
hang on... lemme use my time machine....
okay back it'll reach 2GB at 12am EST.
hrm you click in the link and it asks for registered account? it doesnt for me.. oh well I'll paste it.
--------------
A new group set up to advance the cause of free and open source software has decided to recruit socialite Paris Hilton into its ranks as a means to gain more exposure.
The Open Source Development League said it was recruiting Ms Hilton because it knew of nobody else who had managed to gain such a degree of exposure despite having no apparent learning in this direction.
"What she managed to do with that video was amazing. If that wasn't enough, then there was the mobile phone address book episode," Jeremy Bleats, the chief executive officer of the League, told a crowded media conference on the banks of the Yarra in Melbourne early today.
Bleats said the only thing that was holding back Linux and other software of the FOSS genre was a lack of exposure. "People should be aware of the breadth and scope of what FOSS has to offer and Ms Hilton can definitely advance that objective," he said. "She can expose things like nobody else can."
He said the League had considered the merits of Pamela Denise Anderson - said by many to be the most downloaded person on the internet - but had finally decided in favour of Ms Hilton.
AdvertisementAdvertisement
"It was more or less a two-horse race when it came to the question of appointing an Exposure Executive," Bleats said. "The horse with longer legs finally won."
Bleats had a word of caution for journalists. "Please do not confuse our League with the Red-Headed League about which Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wove a tale involving Sherlock Holmes," he said. "I have to say this because our Exposure Executive is, at the moment, a redhead."
In the US, the founder of the Free Software Foundation, Richard M. Stallman, dismissed the League's move as a "cheap stunt."
check here.
well it's half joke half real... as you can see the counter is going to approach 2 GB at around 12am EST. So I suppose it will end there and the storage capicity will be 2 GB instead of 1 GB. But it's still a joke I mean the drawing is hilarious.
haha that shit was hilarious... i love april 1st
2005 Britannica takeover of Wikimedia.
Gmail rolls out Infinity+1 storage plan.
It's self delusional to rationalize an action to be right or wrong depending on how you view the effects on the victim.
There are two stances one can take. There exists absolute rules in which one can infer a moral action in any situation. Or there exist no absolute rules and morality is based on belief and feeling.
I accept the latter. I do not rationalize my actions but rather take responsibility for them. I accept whatever consequences there exists for an action I take. But I'm not going to delude myself with morality and believe somehow I'm a better person than someone else. And when you think about that's the only role morality plays in people's lives. It makes them feel better or superior than other people.