>Does that mean that when you download music for free you are stealing? Yes
You'd better plug the holes in your legal system. It's not illegal to download music which has fallen into the public domain.
Similarly, the first guy to write the "Hello World" program 'owned' that code, right? You completely ignored by question, which related to your lack of desire to actually take a position on what the relative strength and duration of that ownership should be.
Thats an important point, because it makes your last question result in 'yes' sometimes and 'no' sometimes, according to the letter of the law.
Yeah, next thing you know, somebody is going to claim that the head of the group that represents movie makers (hint: his name is Velenti) compared VCRs to a man who murdered women!
> Joe Programmer has intellectual ownership of the code he produces at his company.
No he doesn't. His company does. And why? Because there are few companies who won't allow him to work without him signing owenership away.
How does this relate to the music biz? Same thing: The only reason IP is such a hot topic is because the groups with the leverage (ie, the suppliers) are able to use that leverage to claim that IP is an inherent right (and _finally_ are on the verge of aquiring the technology to enforce it at their discretion, which is really the more poingant difference today). Is it? Should it be -forever-? 90 years? 2 years? I hear you cheerleading IP alot, but you've yet to make any statement that actually defines what you believe the contraints to IP should be. Certainly a glib position to take, and all the more so when its a view championed by those who've the most to gain from infinate and absolute protection of one's work.
So state the nature of your position or keep your redundant and ill defined IP kissing to your lonesome. Believe me, you've yet to add anything new or relevant to the topic, and I've been following your 'me too' posts for awhile.
> it's ILLEGAL to use ILLEGALY OBTAINED music. Sure I do it
Does that mean you'd surrender yourself to the legal punishment for said behavior?
Re:MacOSX **IS** Slow
on
Is Mac OS X Slow?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Uh, what kinda vid card?
My understanding is if your windows are being buffered in ram, its slow. If you have an open GL vid card and quartz starts using GL and vram to store the window buffers (its called quartz extreme, right?), much of the slowness disappears. At least until you have tons of windows open.. a problem that my win2K box encounters anyways.
Personally, if 3d/trans desktops are to be the norm in the future, every window will have to be buffered *anyway*, so I think Apple is just taking a performance hit to stay a little ahead of the elegance-curve.
Note to moderators: I might be talking shit, as I'm a former Mac head and now watch from the sidelines. Wait for confirmation from toher folks if you feel like modding my post.
[rant] I personally suspect the "-1, Redundant" mod point was made specifically to deal with posts that link to "mod abuse" journal entries or threads.
Not that I neccessarily deny the existance of the abuse, but c'mon, who're you englightening here?
Some might sympathize to the cause, but certainly not the methods used by/. users who feel they've been abused. (hint: most people stop caring once the personal insults start flying) [/rant]
This is true. I certainly didn't intend for my post to construe criticism. I just wanted everybody to keep in mind that when you're asked to make important decisions in circumstances that represent less than 2% of your 'normal' circumstances, you would be wise to keep the timing angle in mind.
> Are the editors not even trying to appear like normal, rational human beings rather than blithering idiot linux fanboys?
Are posters not even trying to appear like they read the links and not even considering that the text they're bitching about wasn't written by the editors?
PS. Data leech is somebody who takes data from somewhere without volountarily repaying in kind. People believe they are far more individualist than they truely are; the better companies get at matching our perceived 'wants', the more likely we are to change in a manner that befits the company. In other words, when companies get access to what kinds of marketing/communication/interests influence your decision making process, your power of free choice is sacrificed. In the extreme, this would be companies finding out what things are important to you, and using those things as ways of manipulating you. Advertising becomes _very_ effective when the advertiser knows what your weaknesses are.
But.. erm... if Fox really did shed some new light that hasn't been discussed a zillion tims over, other networks would have also noted that new evidence has come to light. I mean, they wouldn't just sit around in a vacuum if the FOX programming in question had any new revelationist thinking to it. But it didn't. There was nothing in that special that hasn't been debated a zillion times before; although, the way FOX pitched it, they'd be loathe to have you, the viewer, realize this.
> The same people who created "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire" are not the same people who created the moon landing hoax thing are not the same people who created "Magic Releaved" are not the same people who created...
Nope, but its the same people who put them on all television.
Yeah, they do air Simpsons, but then again, given its popularity, what network wouldn't?
I think its fairly clear that FOX programming borders on expositional and exploitive, at the cost of reasonable editorial judgement. I'm not against shows refuting the langing on the moon; only a network that runs the same old same old and tries to fool the viewer into thinking that there is some shocking new development in the age old debate. They pitched it like there was; unsurprisingly there wasn't.
Or you could start with the approach that would have avoided everything you went through:
The chances that you will be subjected to useful, intelligent, exposes on the same network that created "Who wants to marry a millionaire?" are -1 to 0. Seriously, didn't it occurr to you that if the argment was really that compelling, other stations would be jumping on the bandwagon too? I thought FOX should start advertising a "Tinfoil Tuesday" lineup after that special (which was amusing if you watched it in a "how would *I* try to convince gullible people" light.)
I think you shouldn't have admitted it man. I mean, come _on_! FOX practically makes all its money exploiting Blue Collar's distrust of academia and his eagerness to disassociate himself from anything remotely 'artsy' (read: original.)
Ah, your logic offers a glipse of hope such that we might be able to test your reasoning against a loved one of yours.
For instance.. ou know your car goes fast, so you might crash sometime. If you crash, its your own fault!
I'm going to tamper with your throttle and cut your brakes. After all, you expect your car to go _forward_ right, so whether you hit the wall at 20PMH or 200PMH, its your fault for not checking the throttle and brake lines.
(Ie, HOT means dipshit. There 'ouch, thats burns' hot, and 'ouch, where did the skin on my legs go' hot. One kind of hot is a safety hazard; and those who recklessly endager the safety of citizens should have their asses sued off or go to jail. You could try going to a McDonalds and pouring coffee on yourself and suing them, but I'm afraid you're not going to get very far with only a stained pair of pants and no 3rd degree burns.)
Its been awhile since I've read it, but I believe the thing is.. you can selectively enforce patents, but you also cannot purposely _delay_ litigation protecting your patents such that the delay harms the accused infringer.
Basically means "You are not responsible for policing the marketplace and cannot lose enforcability of your patent by not actively protecting it; however, you are also not allowed to purposely delay protecting your patent. If you become aware of an infringer, you can't sit around for a rainy day when you really need the money to commence an infringement suit."
'Tis terrible to make your case with the nearly urban-lengend-sized McDonalds coffee case.
Anybody who's fairly anti-litigation at least is aware that that was a *very* fair suit she lodged.
The coffee was served WAY HOTTER than coffee is or should be. It burned through her SKIN. This wasn't a 'oops, that hurt, lets get rich', but 'oops, I'm missing half my leg skin, thats shouldn't happen when you spill coffee. I think I'd like the money to cover wages and the cost of getting that skin grafted back on.'
It was a very legit case and she was not money grubbing. Money grubbing happens alot, but if you wanna score any points, you'll make sure that your case studies represent situations where the litigation truely was frivilous.
Try spilling coffee on yourself sometime. If it burns _through_ your skin, sue away. You won't hear any complaints from me.
> Seriously, how can you sue "The Little Pie Company [littlepiecompany.com]" and still claim to have a soul?
After the littlepiecompany.com took over thetinypiecomany.com in a heartless corperate merger that left pieces of crust and cherry spattered over quartly results reports, I think all bets were off.
Hrm, this seems too simple an answer, there must be something wrong with it.. but can't gcc cross compile? At least then you could dump alot of the compiler-specific scripting in your build procedures.
Hh yeah, you definately dont want to make information available that might affect a company's stock while the stock is still being traded. That'd be terrible!
> the disclosure of which would compromise the security of a particular installation or group of installations of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights management, encryption.. blah blah blah
Hey, security through obfuscation - now in new tastier, stronger legal flavour!
> to yet again make a piss poor attempt to chat the attractive barmaid up
barmaids get slashdotted by drunk guys every night. i recommend you search your neighbourhood for a mirror so you can have all the bandwidth to yourself.
Yeah, I found it funny they held that meeting in a place where if protesters went en masse, theyd be labeled hypocrites (ie harm to the delicate environment there) by default. Very clever.
Slashdot Mirror
>Does that mean that when you download music for free you are stealing? Yes
You'd better plug the holes in your legal system. It's not illegal to download music which has fallen into the public domain.
Similarly, the first guy to write the "Hello World" program 'owned' that code, right? You completely ignored by question, which related to your lack of desire to actually take a position on what the relative strength and duration of that ownership should be.
Thats an important point, because it makes your last question result in 'yes' sometimes and 'no' sometimes, according to the letter of the law.
Yeah, next thing you know, somebody is going to claim that the head of the group that represents movie makers (hint: his name is Velenti) compared VCRs to a man who murdered women!
> Joe Programmer has intellectual ownership of the code he produces at his company.
No he doesn't. His company does. And why? Because there are few companies who won't allow him to work without him signing owenership away.
How does this relate to the music biz? Same thing: The only reason IP is such a hot topic is because the groups with the leverage (ie, the suppliers) are able to use that leverage to claim that IP is an inherent right (and _finally_ are on the verge of aquiring the technology to enforce it at their discretion, which is really the more poingant difference today). Is it? Should it be -forever-? 90 years? 2 years? I hear you cheerleading IP alot, but you've yet to make any statement that actually defines what you believe the contraints to IP should be. Certainly a glib position to take, and all the more so when its a view championed by those who've the most to gain from infinate and absolute protection of one's work.
So state the nature of your position or keep your redundant and ill defined IP kissing to your lonesome. Believe me, you've yet to add anything new or relevant to the topic, and I've been following your 'me too' posts for awhile.
> it's ILLEGAL to use ILLEGALY OBTAINED music. Sure I do it
Does that mean you'd surrender yourself to the legal punishment for said behavior?
Uh, what kinda vid card?
.. a problem that my win2K box encounters anyways.
My understanding is if your windows are being buffered in ram, its slow. If you have an open GL vid card and quartz starts using GL and vram to store the window buffers (its called quartz extreme, right?), much of the slowness disappears. At least until you have tons of windows open
Personally, if 3d/trans desktops are to be the norm in the future, every window will have to be buffered *anyway*, so I think Apple is just taking a performance hit to stay a little ahead of the elegance-curve.
Note to moderators: I might be talking shit, as I'm a former Mac head and now watch from the sidelines. Wait for confirmation from toher folks if you feel like modding my post.
[rant]
/. users who feel they've been abused. (hint: most people stop caring once the personal insults start flying)
I personally suspect the "-1, Redundant" mod point was made specifically to deal with posts that link to "mod abuse" journal entries or threads.
Not that I neccessarily deny the existance of the abuse, but c'mon, who're you englightening here?
Some might sympathize to the cause, but certainly not the methods used by
[/rant]
This is true. I certainly didn't intend for my post to construe criticism. I just wanted everybody to keep in mind that when you're asked to make important decisions in circumstances that represent less than 2% of your 'normal' circumstances, you would be wise to keep the timing angle in mind.
You make a good point, though.
> where the public wants to draw the line between liberty and safety
Just dont ask me after a traumatizing event. I might say some things I regret down the road.
> Are the editors not even trying to appear like normal, rational human beings rather than blithering idiot linux fanboys?
Are posters not even trying to appear like they read the links and not even considering that the text they're bitching about wasn't written by the editors?
PS. Data leech is somebody who takes data from somewhere without volountarily repaying in kind. People believe they are far more individualist than they truely are; the better companies get at matching our perceived 'wants', the more likely we are to change in a manner that befits the company. In other words, when companies get access to what kinds of marketing/communication/interests influence your decision making process, your power of free choice is sacrificed. In the extreme, this would be companies finding out what things are important to you, and using those things as ways of manipulating you. Advertising becomes _very_ effective when the advertiser knows what your weaknesses are.
Hey, there's a difference between holding your breath until you die and holding your breath until you walk past the garbage heap.
Oh, the truth doesn't have to be compelling.
.. erm ... if Fox really did shed some new light that hasn't been discussed a zillion tims over, other networks would have also noted that new evidence has come to light. I mean, they wouldn't just sit around in a vacuum if the FOX programming in question had any new revelationist thinking to it. But it didn't. There was nothing in that special that hasn't been debated a zillion times before; although, the way FOX pitched it, they'd be loathe to have you, the viewer, realize this.
But
> The same people who created "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire" are not the same people who created the moon landing hoax thing are not the same people who created "Magic Releaved" are not the same people who created...
Nope, but its the same people who put them on all television.
Yeah, they do air Simpsons, but then again, given its popularity, what network wouldn't?
I think its fairly clear that FOX programming borders on expositional and exploitive, at the cost of reasonable editorial judgement. I'm not against shows refuting the langing on the moon; only a network that runs the same old same old and tries to fool the viewer into thinking that there is some shocking new development in the age old debate. They pitched it like there was; unsurprisingly there wasn't.
Or you could start with the approach that would have avoided everything you went through:
The chances that you will be subjected to useful, intelligent, exposes on the same network that created "Who wants to marry a millionaire?" are -1 to 0. Seriously, didn't it occurr to you that if the argment was really that compelling, other stations would be jumping on the bandwagon too? I thought FOX should start advertising a "Tinfoil Tuesday" lineup after that special (which was amusing if you watched it in a "how would *I* try to convince gullible people" light.)
I think you shouldn't have admitted it man. I mean, come _on_! FOX practically makes all its money exploiting Blue Collar's distrust of academia and his eagerness to disassociate himself from anything remotely 'artsy' (read: original.)
Ah, your logic offers a glipse of hope such that we might be able to test your reasoning against a loved one of yours.
.. ou know your car goes fast, so you might crash sometime. If you crash, its your own fault!
For instance
I'm going to tamper with your throttle and cut your brakes. After all, you expect your car to go _forward_ right, so whether you hit the wall at 20PMH or 200PMH, its your fault for not checking the throttle and brake lines.
(Ie, HOT means dipshit. There 'ouch, thats burns' hot, and 'ouch, where did the skin on my legs go' hot. One kind of hot is a safety hazard; and those who recklessly endager the safety of citizens should have their asses sued off or go to jail. You could try going to a McDonalds and pouring coffee on yourself and suing them, but I'm afraid you're not going to get very far with only a stained pair of pants and no 3rd degree burns.)
here
.. you can selectively enforce patents, but you also cannot purposely _delay_ litigation protecting your patents such that the delay harms the accused infringer.
Its been awhile since I've read it, but I believe the thing is
Basically means "You are not responsible for policing the marketplace and cannot lose enforcability of your patent by not actively protecting it; however, you are also not allowed to purposely delay protecting your patent. If you become aware of an infringer, you can't sit around for a rainy day when you really need the money to commence an infringement suit."
'Tis terrible to make your case with the nearly urban-lengend-sized McDonalds coffee case.
Anybody who's fairly anti-litigation at least is aware that that was a *very* fair suit she lodged.
The coffee was served WAY HOTTER than coffee is or should be. It burned through her SKIN. This wasn't a 'oops, that hurt, lets get rich', but 'oops, I'm missing half my leg skin, thats shouldn't happen when you spill coffee. I think I'd like the money to cover wages and the cost of getting that skin grafted back on.'
It was a very legit case and she was not money grubbing. Money grubbing happens alot, but if you wanna score any points, you'll make sure that your case studies represent situations where the litigation truely was frivilous.
Try spilling coffee on yourself sometime. If it burns _through_ your skin, sue away. You won't hear any complaints from me.
> Seriously, how can you sue "The Little Pie Company [littlepiecompany.com]" and still claim to have a soul?
After the littlepiecompany.com took over thetinypiecomany.com in a heartless corperate merger that left pieces of crust and cherry spattered over quartly results reports, I think all bets were off.
Yes indeedie. Go gcc!
:)
> He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom -- Gandalf the Grey
[cannot resist joke]
Like a cherry? Ahah! I always wondered why LotR fans were virgins well into life.
[/cannot resist joke]
Now mod me into the core of the earth; the pun was simply too juicy to ignore!
LOL! Well, you didn't suggest Javascript, so I guess that counts for something.
why all the different compilers?
.. but can't gcc cross compile? At least then you could dump alot of the compiler-specific scripting in your build procedures.
Hrm, this seems too simple an answer, there must be something wrong with it
>Nothing worse than seeing alleged armies on screen being represented by 5 guys and a dog.
Shit yeah, I'd hate to have to call upon my imagination. Have we perfected surgically removing imaginations now that they've been rendered obsolete?
Cause thats how I determine what movie I wanna see; the crowds! Spend millions on crowds. Millions, I tell you!
Hh yeah, you definately dont want to make information available that might affect a company's stock while the stock is still being traded. That'd be terrible!
> the disclosure of which would compromise the security of a particular installation or .. blah blah blah
group of installations of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights
management, encryption
Hey, security through obfuscation - now in new tastier, stronger legal flavour!
> to yet again make a piss poor attempt to chat the attractive barmaid up
barmaids get slashdotted by drunk guys every night. i recommend you search your neighbourhood for a mirror so you can have all the bandwidth to yourself.
I stand corrected. :)
Yeah, I found it funny they held that meeting in a place where if protesters went en masse, theyd be labeled hypocrites (ie harm to the delicate environment there) by default. Very clever.