/sarcasm RIP Action RPGs like Diablo 3, Path of Exile, and "idle games" like Clicker Heroes, Cookie Clicker, etc. =P
-- For the record, I don't run any ad blockers. Basically, I consider them unethical -- Idiot and retard Lauren Weinstein So, going to the bathroom is unethical???
Spotted the armchair critic who is magically an "expert" on other people's experience with something they have never even experienced.
/sarcasm Oh look, it is a blind man arguing there is no such thing as color!
> Some studies have shown that out of body experiences is real.
FTFY.
But keep trying to ignore the evidence (Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 1968, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 3-27.) of both OBEs and NDEs.
The shared OBE is proof that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
There is NO such thing as "hate speech". As soon as you start censoring contrary opinionbased on artificial labels you no longer have free speech -- you have censored speech which is one step removed from fascism. Ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away!
As George Carlin summarized:
Political Correctness is fascism pretending to be Manners" -- George Carlin
Jordan Peterson points out the same thing -- Facebook censoring SOME speech and not others is a very bad idea.
"@0:29 Now they have decided that they are ethically responsible for the content on their platforms. So good luck with that decision. Because they have an awful lot of content and drawing the lines is going to be extraordinary difficult thing to do. @0:45 Basically, the way these companies were setup up to begin with is that people could post content and then other people could watch it, and basically decide by their viewing, they could value the content by their proclivity to view. And now they have decided as a consequence of this decision that they are going to be in the business of arbitrarily determining what should and shouldn't be presented for public viewing and they'll never run out of decisions to make."
Liberals wanting "tolerance" have swung so far around that they have now become conservatives -- intolerant of anything they disagree with.
As Francois-Marie Arouet famously said:
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Without the ability to communicate about a subject there is no opportunity to learn about it.
Without an opportunity to comment and criticize there is no growth.
Why is this an issue? Because censorship is a slippery slope.
As Martin Niemoller famously said:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me.
History has shown this time and time again.
Paraphrasing another YouTuber who summarized philosopher John Stuart Mill:
If we censor hate speech our fundamental beliefs of what is right and wrong are not tested.
If our beliefs are aren't argued against then we don't attempt to rationalize what we believe to be true.
We don't think about why our beliefs are right.
When we don't question our beliefs we don't think about them.
And when we don't think about our beliefs we don't learn new things. We don't advance and improve our thoughts about what is right and wrong.
He argued that even if someone's argument is wrong it still serves a purpose of making us rationalize and check our beliefs and even improve them.
Being able to listen to an argument that is wrong lets us understand what makes an argument wrong and improve our own beliefs from learning from someone else's failure.
People have forgotten:
What you resists, persists
The truth is:
Only children censor. Adults communicate and even laugh at taboo subjects.
Censorship is NOT the solution -- it is precisely the problem.
Socialism: Robbing from Peter to pay Paul. Works fine until you run out of other people's money.
Capitalism: Exploiting everyone else for the sake of profit. Left unchecked this unbridled greed infects Laws.
Communism: No private ownership.
Most people aren't aware that the 1st century Christians were the first communists. Acts 4:32 - 35 (emphasis added)
32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.... 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.
While I agree with you that the current artificial ignorance (A.I.) (*) that tries to pass for Artificial Intelligence is a joke -- nothing more then a glorified table lookup -- you're jumping the gun to say "no: intelligent computers will never happen". i.e. a.i. = Actual Intelligence.
THE fundamental problem is that Scientists don't know what the fuck consciousness is. Without a way to measure it you can't copy it (or create it.)
Let's pretend it is 100 years in the future, and we have ways to:
* Upload * Download
consciousness. With the ability to "clone" consciousness we _actually_ would have a way to have an intelligent computer. But yeah, until we get to THAT point, we're (probably) barking up the wrong tree with "just throw hardware at it."
Second, you are ignoring bio-computing. If tomorrow's computers switched from using electricity to using chemistry, much the way a physical body does, then again, intelligent computers is within the realm of possibility.
The million dollar question is: How do we get there? I'm not aware of anyone knowing. If they do know, they sure as hell aren't saying -- and I can't blame them. Think of the implications: If we could clone human consciousness effectively death would be wiped out which I'm sure there are enough bad sci-fi writers out there who have discussed this before.
Your lament about the sorry state of software reminds me of that old Murphy's Computer Law joke:
Weinberg's Second Law:If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization.
(*) Yes, A.I = artificial ignorance was intentional.
I personally don't wear a watch so I have no bias either way, but I could see some people wanting this internet connectivity in a watch in case they don't have their phone.
For the rest, yup. Why the fuck would you want half of your (unsecured) house connected to the internet where any Tom, Dick, or Harry can hack it???
IoT is just a disaster waiting to happen. Can we rename that stupid Internet of Things to be what it really is?
IoT = In-waiting of Tragedy
I guess the masses need to have their home hacked before they learn.:-/
> have never heard anybody, least of all someone from CompuServe, pronounce GIF with a soft G.
Same. Guess it depends on location: east/west, US vs UK, etc.
> why weren't they being corrected 25 years ago?
Because no one really gives a fuck except the pedantic. A similar argument arose over how "gib" was pronounced in the Quake 1 days:
* Hard G, like "gift" (with near-close front unrounded vowel) (/g_ft/), similar to gibbous; rhymes with "rib",
* Soft G, like "jive" pronounced "jib", (with tailed z,/d_rb/) a boom used in Crane (machine), Jib (crane), or Cinematography, or Sailing -- a triangular sail that sets ahead of the foremast on sail boat. Ironically, in 1847 "jib" was spelled "gib".
Notice how even "b" is getting hijacked: gibibyte is pronounced like gigabyte acording to the Cambridge dictionary.
/Oblg. US vs UK English Joke
An Englishman and an American were on their way to a business meeting on the 3rd floor.
The Englishman said: "Let's take the Lift"
The American said: "Don't you mean the Elevator?"
The englishman said: "Look, we invented the bloody language, and it's called a Lift!"
And the American said: "Yeah, but we invented the Elevator, so it's called an Elevator!"
> No where in the constitution nor in any of the amendments is there a right to individual gun ownership specified.
BZZZT. Thanks for playing.
The right is explicit, implicit, AND intrinsic.
1. Explicit: What part of 2nd Amendment do you not know how to fucking read???
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Furthermore,
The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.
2. Implicit: At the time of writing, (unloaded) gun ownership was NOT prohibited by the states; ergo, it is reserved to the people. What part of the and 10th Amendment do you not understand???
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
3. Intrinsic: Governments derive their power FROM the governed. Meaning the people had the right in the FIRST place. From the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed,
The fact that they are censoring certain sites and not others shows a couple of things:
* They are a bunch of children who think they have the moral right to be the thought police. What gives them the right to decide what is acceptable or not? * There are FAR worse sites that are allowed to be linked -- why aren't THOSE also removed?
Since corporations are...
* legal entities * have the same free speech rights as individuals (2010 ruling of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission with a 5-4 decision) * are covered by the First Amendment
... does that mean they are infringing upon the rights of others when they block OTHER free speech rights?
Is communication on FaceBook's platform considered to be on "private property"?
Is Facebook a "common carrier" or not when they have become a de facto Common / Town Square?
If they acted like adults, why can't they allow the link but ALSO put up a banner saying "We believe this link to be irresponsible".. and then let the user decide if the link is worth clicking or not?
Slashdot's own moderation system of downvoting, but keeping, unpopular links, is the better way to handle this.
The fact that they are censoring communication that they (politically) disagree with just proves that they are immature and scared and operating under the modus operandi of "CYA".
-- Only children censor. Adults communicate and even laugh about taboo subjects.
> Let's face it, if you have someone's IP without paying for it, it's IP theft, and no amount of "but I'm poor" justifies it.
/sarcasm Damn! And here all the gifts I've given/received actually turned out to be "IP theft"! Who knew!
/sarcasm Wait till my family finds out that they are commiting "IP theft" when I buy a DVD / BluRay and they watch it for free !
/sarcasm Who knew that Libraries were part of IP theft !? My friends can rent a book / CD / DVD and we can all enjoy it. OH NO!
/sarcasm Wait till you find out about Project Gutenberg -- one can read over 57,000 books!/sarcasm Look at ALL that IP theft!
On a more serious note, you are out of touch with reality. It is obvious you don't have a clue how the Fashion Industry works. It has no copyright or patent protection and yet it thrives.
Are you against books / movies / games passing into the public domain after X amount of time?
* If so, then WHAT length of time is reasonable ? * If not, then why do you get to hold culture hostage? What gives you the right to dictate to who I can or can't share it with after you are dead??
> whining about their entitlement to intellectual property
Red Herring Fallacy much?
Disagreeing with the premise and/or the definitions is NOT whining -- it's called having a discussion. Not everyone agrees with:
* Hijacking the term "copyright" to mean "Intellectual Property", * Extending the duration of copyright to some unreasonable length of time, and * The delusion of "Imaginary Property" that magically becomes some bullshit "Intellectual Property" because lawyers say so. It is in their best self-serving interest to make copyright as long as possible.
Artists did NOT invent copyright. Copyright was invented by --> Publishers <-- to maintain control by preventing other publishers from making a profit.
"The history of copyright law starts with early privileges and monopolies granted to printers of books. The British Statute of Anne 1710, full title "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned", was the first copyright statute. Initially copyright law only applied to the copying of books."
Not everyone agrees with the shenanigans of life plus 70 years or 95 or 120 years. The ONLY reason the original 20 year copyright was extended was due to excessive greed by corporations lobbying, er, bribing congress.
Copyright is NOT property. It is a compromise contract:
* Creator gets exclusivity for a certain amount of time, and * In exchange the Public gets free access to it afterwards.
Most people would, probably, be OK with the original 20 year copyright.
The current 120 years is TOO long.
Even back in 1841 the "dangers" of a long copyright was being discussed by Thomas Babbington Macaulay and the House of Commons.
> Because that is what artists agreed to for copyright to exist.
Copyright was invented by --> Publishers <-- to maintain control by preventing other publishers from making a profit !!
I've posted about this in the past...
"The history of copyright law starts with early privileges and monopolies granted to printers of books. The British Statute of Anne 1710, full title "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned", was the first copyright statute. Initially copyright law only applied to the copying of books."
and
"Pope Alexander VI issued a bull in 1501 against the unlicensed printing of books and in 1559 the Index Expurgatorius, or List of Prohibited Books, was issued for the first time."
and
"The first copyright privilege in England bears date 1518 and was issued to Richard Pynson, King's Printer, the successor to William Caxton. The privilege gives a monopoly for the term of two years. The date is 15 years later than that of the first privilege issued in France. Early copyright privileges were called "monopolies,"...
and
"In England the printers, known as stationers, formed a collective organization, known as the Stationers' Company. In the 16th century the Stationers' Company was given the power to require all lawfully printed books to be entered into its register. Only members of the Stationers' Company could enter books into the register. This meant that the Stationers' Company achieved a dominant position over publishing in 17th century England"
Companies latter lobbied ^H^H^H^H bribed congress to extend it.
Many of these ROMs are no longer even sold -- the original developer and publisher are LONG gone from the market.
This is a classic case of copyright holding culture hostage due to greed.
The fact that people WANT to download these old ROMs shows there is a demand, even if minor. The _financial_ value is INDEPENDENT of this.
Can we stop trying to make everything about money and just let people enjoy the classics already instead of copyright holding every fucking thing of culture hostage?
No one gives a fuck if some kid downloads a game that has been out of print for 20+ years except parasites, aka, lawyers.
By your logic if I *borrow* a book or CD from the library then "I'm depriving the author from a sale" ??? (You are *assuming* I was going to buy it in the first place.)
When I buy a BluRay and DVD and my *entire* family watches are "the rest of my family depriving the author from a sale" ??? No, because in this instance they weren't going to buy it in the first place.
Pull your head out of your ass. There are LEGAL ways to obtain the information WITHOUT paying for it.
Stop trying to justify your failed marketing and sales strategy with archaic, and retarded, law(s).
It's called Imaginary Property to show the absurdity of how broken the current legal system is.
Due to your profession's excessive greed you guys are even patenting Math !?!?!?! Worse, the fucking algorithm is even named, Carmack's Reverse, after the person who independently discovered and shared it. Yet assholes like you think it is OK that a company can "own" another man's original and independent thought -- preventing the idea from being implemented.
Your (blatant) greed is a cancer upon society and I will continue to call out your Imaginary Property bullshit while you continue to "justify" and provide excuses for a corrupt system based on flim flam definitions.
> But feel free to explain how the law does not define property,
ALL (Legal) Laws are ARTIFICIAL contracts. Physical property can't be copied and shared like "Intellectual Property." Gee, maybe you should pay more attention to the principal author of the Declaration of Independence when he said:
"He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me." -- Thomas Jefferson
Hijacking the term "property" and trying to refine the "definition" of Property in context of "Intellectual Property" to be treated the same way as physical property is nothing more then a charade for plutocracy propaganda. You produce nothing of "value" except what you can profit from the work of others -- without inventors you would have nothing to patent! Pretending that you think you "own" an idea doesn't make it so regardless of how much legal intimidation you try to use. Someday you will realize it is better to share knowledge instead of hoarding it and profiting off of artificial scarcity. Children hoard, Adults share. It sounds like you missed that kindergarten class?/rhetorical
> whereupon I shall be freed to appropriate that vehicle that you use to get to work.
I walk to work. Maybe you should stick to facts instead of conjecture. How LONG have you been practicing law again???
Now kindly please fuck off when you realize there are more important things then money.
Slashdot Mirror
Dam right this isn't your father's Microsoft.
* Thinks MSVC telemtry is OK
* Thinks Forced updates is OK
* Thinks 100+ endpoints for Win10 is OK
* Thinks DX12 only for Win10 is OK
Yeah, no. Sorry, no longer interested in what spyware you are peddling today MS.
> they will tell you what to watch and when. and you will watch and like it.
Nope. *I* decide what and when I want to watch. And If I watch crap like Hardcore Henry I tell others about it.
> And the ability to rapidly click the mouse.
/sarcasm RIP Action RPGs like Diablo 3, Path of Exile, and "idle games" like Clicker Heroes, Cookie Clicker, etc. =P
--
For the record, I don't run any ad blockers. Basically, I consider them unethical -- Idiot and retard Lauren Weinstein
So, going to the bathroom is unethical???
Spotted the armchair critic who is magically an "expert" on other people's experience with something they have never even experienced.
/sarcasm Oh look, it is a blind man arguing there is no such thing as color!
> Some studies have shown that out of body experiences is real.
FTFY.
But keep trying to ignore the evidence (Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 1968, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 3-27.) of both OBEs and NDEs.
The shared OBE is proof that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
Hate speech vs free speech ...
*facepalm*
Censored Speech vs Free Speech ...
FTFY.
There is NO such thing as "hate speech". As soon as you start censoring contrary opinion based on artificial labels you no longer have free speech -- you have censored speech which is one step removed from fascism. Ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away!
As George Carlin summarized:
Jordan Peterson points out the same thing -- Facebook censoring SOME speech and not others is a very bad idea.
Liberals wanting "tolerance" have swung so far around that they have now become conservatives -- intolerant of anything they disagree with.
As Francois-Marie Arouet famously said:
Without the ability to communicate about a subject there is no opportunity to learn about it.
Without an opportunity to comment and criticize there is no growth.
Why is this an issue? Because censorship is a slippery slope.
As Martin Niemoller famously said:
History has shown this time and time again.
Paraphrasing another YouTuber who summarized philosopher John Stuart Mill:
People have forgotten:
What you resists, persists
The truth is:
Only children censor.
Adults communicate and even laugh at taboo subjects.
Censorship is NOT the solution -- it is precisely the problem.
Indeed.
As as bad as the cognitive dissonance of voluntary compliance.
Huh? Is it voluntary or compulsive?
*facepalm*
1. So how does Print / Save to PDF work?
2. The browser does not know if I am going to view the page offline later.
TL:DR;
Socialism: Robbing from Peter to pay Paul. Works fine until you run out of other people's money.
Capitalism: Exploiting everyone else for the sake of profit. Left unchecked this unbridled greed infects Laws.
Communism: No private ownership.
Most people aren't aware that the 1st century Christians were the first communists. Acts 4:32 - 35 (emphasis added)
> consciousness ... is certainly not a pre-requisite for intelligence.
OK, prove it. Show me intelligence *without* it (*).
(*) Once we agree on _exactly_ what consciousness is.
/sarcasm You mean like in 2002? :-)
(OK, technically reddit didnâ(TM)t exit until ~2007 but you get the point.)
While I agree with you that the current artificial ignorance (A.I.) (*) that tries to pass for Artificial Intelligence is a joke -- nothing more then a glorified table lookup -- you're jumping the gun to say "no: intelligent computers will never happen". i.e. a.i. = Actual Intelligence.
THE fundamental problem is that Scientists don't know what the fuck consciousness is. Without a way to measure it you can't copy it (or create it.)
Let's pretend it is 100 years in the future, and we have ways to:
* Upload
* Download
consciousness. With the ability to "clone" consciousness we _actually_ would have a way to have an intelligent computer. But yeah, until we get to THAT point, we're (probably) barking up the wrong tree with "just throw hardware at it."
Second, you are ignoring bio-computing. If tomorrow's computers switched from using electricity to using chemistry, much the way a physical body does, then again, intelligent computers is within the realm of possibility.
The million dollar question is: How do we get there? I'm not aware of anyone knowing. If they do know, they sure as hell aren't saying -- and I can't blame them. Think of the implications: If we could clone human consciousness effectively death would be wiped out which I'm sure there are enough bad sci-fi writers out there who have discussed this before.
Your lament about the sorry state of software reminds me of that old Murphy's Computer Law joke:
Weinberg's Second Law: If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization.
(*) Yes, A.I = artificial ignorance was intentional.
> Nor for your watch
I personally don't wear a watch so I have no bias either way, but I could see some people wanting this internet connectivity in a watch in case they don't have their phone.
For the rest, yup. Why the fuck would you want half of your (unsecured) house connected to the internet where any Tom, Dick, or Harry can hack it???
IoT is just a disaster waiting to happen. Can we rename that stupid Internet of Things to be what it really is?
IoT = In-waiting of Tragedy
I guess the masses need to have their home hacked before they learn. :-/
> have never heard anybody, least of all someone from CompuServe, pronounce GIF with a soft G.
Same. Guess it depends on location: east/west, US vs UK, etc.
> why weren't they being corrected 25 years ago?
Because no one really gives a fuck except the pedantic. A similar argument arose over how "gib" was pronounced in the Quake 1 days:
* Hard G, like "gift" (with near-close front unrounded vowel) (/g_ft/), similar to gibbous; rhymes with "rib",
* Soft G, like "jive" pronounced "jib", (with tailed z, /d_rb/) a boom used in Crane (machine), Jib (crane), or Cinematography, or Sailing -- a triangular sail that sets ahead of the foremast on sail boat. Ironically, in 1847 "jib" was spelled "gib".
Notice how even "b" is getting hijacked: gibibyte is pronounced like gigabyte acording to the Cambridge dictionary.
/sarcasm Because graphics is pronounced Jraphics, oh wait!
/pedantic: Last time I checked crows AND humans were part of nature. *shrugs*
The usage is that nature refers to everything else but us, which is a little bit of oxymoron.
You can read it two ways:
* Nature itself can teach nature to take care of the environment"
Or
* Another part of nature can teach our part of nature to take care of the environment.
I won't fault your response if it is:
Gee, no shit, Sherlock!
But yeah, either way, it is still an awkward phrasing.
> No where in the constitution nor in any of the amendments is there a right to individual gun ownership specified.
BZZZT. Thanks for playing.
The right is explicit, implicit, AND intrinsic.
1. Explicit: What part of 2nd Amendment do you not know how to fucking read???
Furthermore,
2. Implicit: At the time of writing, (unloaded) gun ownership was NOT prohibited by the states; ergo, it is reserved to the people. What part of the and 10th Amendment do you not understand???
3. Intrinsic: Governments derive their power FROM the governed. Meaning the people had the right in the FIRST place. From the Declaration of Independence:
QED.
Learn to fucking read next time.
Looks like sloppy editing in the original article?
The demo only shows 2 bytes: 0xF, 0x3F -- as you mentioned.
What is the size (employee count) of the company by chance?
The fact that they are censoring certain sites and not others shows a couple of things:
* They are a bunch of children who think they have the moral right to be the thought police. What gives them the right to decide what is acceptable or not?
* There are FAR worse sites that are allowed to be linked -- why aren't THOSE also removed?
Since corporations are ...
* legal entities
* have the same free speech rights as individuals (2010 ruling of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission with a 5-4 decision)
* are covered by the First Amendment
Is communication on FaceBook's platform considered to be on "private property"?
Is Facebook a "common carrier" or not when they have become a de facto Common / Town Square?
If they acted like adults, why can't they allow the link but ALSO put up a banner saying "We believe this link to be irresponsible" .. and then let the user decide if the link is worth clicking or not?
Slashdot's own moderation system of downvoting, but keeping, unpopular links, is the better way to handle this.
The fact that they are censoring communication that they (politically) disagree with just proves that they are immature and scared and operating under the modus operandi of "CYA".
--
Only children censor.
Adults communicate and even laugh about taboo subjects.
> Let's face it, if you have someone's IP without paying for it, it's IP theft, and no amount of "but I'm poor" justifies it.
On a more serious note, you are out of touch with reality. It is obvious you don't have a clue how the Fashion Industry works. It has no copyright or patent protection and yet it thrives.
Are you against books / movies / games passing into the public domain after X amount of time?
* If so, then WHAT length of time is reasonable ?
* If not, then why do you get to hold culture hostage? What gives you the right to dictate to who I can or can't share it with after you are dead??
> whining about their entitlement to intellectual property
Red Herring Fallacy much?
Disagreeing with the premise and/or the definitions is NOT whining -- it's called having a discussion. Not everyone agrees with:
* Hijacking the term "copyright" to mean "Intellectual Property",
* Extending the duration of copyright to some unreasonable length of time, and
* The delusion of "Imaginary Property" that magically becomes some bullshit "Intellectual Property" because lawyers say so. It is in their best self-serving interest to make copyright as long as possible.
Artists did NOT invent copyright. Copyright was invented by --> Publishers <-- to maintain control by preventing other publishers from making a profit.
I suggest reading the History of Copyright Law
Not everyone agrees with the shenanigans of life plus 70 years or 95 or 120 years. The ONLY reason the original 20 year copyright was extended was due to excessive greed by corporations lobbying, er, bribing congress.
Copyright is NOT property. It is a compromise contract:
* Creator gets exclusivity for a certain amount of time, and
* In exchange the Public gets free access to it afterwards.
Most people would, probably, be OK with the original 20 year copyright.
The current 120 years is TOO long.
Even back in 1841 the "dangers" of a long copyright was being discussed by Thomas Babbington Macaulay and the House of Commons.
--
Greed is a cancer that destroys society
> Because that is what artists agreed to for copyright to exist.
Copyright was invented by --> Publishers <-- to maintain control by preventing other publishers from making a profit !!
I've posted about this in the past ...
and
and
and
Companies latter lobbied ^H^H^H^H bribed congress to extend it.
You'll probably want to read History of Copyright Law
Aren't you fun at parties.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
> Unlike other forms of entertainement , art and culture, gaming
No one died and made you God to judge what it, or isn't, a valid form of entertainment. Get off your fucking high horse already.
> Like other forms of entertainment, gaming is NOT a colossal waste of time, resources and energy when done in moderation
FTFY.
Many of these ROMs are no longer even sold -- the original developer and publisher are LONG gone from the market.
This is a classic case of copyright holding culture hostage due to greed.
The fact that people WANT to download these old ROMs shows there is a demand, even if minor. The _financial_ value is INDEPENDENT of this.
Can we stop trying to make everything about money and just let people enjoy the classics already instead of copyright holding every fucking thing of culture hostage?
No one gives a fuck if some kid downloads a game that has been out of print for 20+ years except parasites, aka, lawyers.
By your logic if I *borrow* a book or CD from the library then "I'm depriving the author from a sale" ??? (You are *assuming* I was going to buy it in the first place.)
When I buy a BluRay and DVD and my *entire* family watches are "the rest of my family depriving the author from a sale" ??? No, because in this instance they weren't going to buy it in the first place.
Pull your head out of your ass. There are LEGAL ways to obtain the information WITHOUT paying for it.
Stop trying to justify your failed marketing and sales strategy with archaic, and retarded, law(s).
/whoosh
It's called Imaginary Property to show the absurdity of how broken the current legal system is.
Due to your profession's excessive greed you guys are even patenting Math !?!?!?! Worse, the fucking algorithm is even named, Carmack's Reverse, after the person who independently discovered and shared it. Yet assholes like you think it is OK that a company can "own" another man's original and independent thought -- preventing the idea from being implemented.
The fact that you defend patents proves that you are nothing more then a leech upon society when your profession patents bullshit like "a single click for buying", illegal numbers, TWO prime numbers (512-bit and 1024-bit) (WTF???), or even a fucking minimal web page!?!
Your (blatant) greed is a cancer upon society and I will continue to call out your Imaginary Property bullshit while you continue to "justify" and provide excuses for a corrupt system based on flim flam definitions.
> But feel free to explain how the law does not define property,
ALL (Legal) Laws are ARTIFICIAL contracts. Physical property can't be copied and shared like "Intellectual Property." Gee, maybe you should pay more attention to the principal author of the Declaration of Independence when he said:
Hijacking the term "property" and trying to refine the "definition" of Property in context of "Intellectual Property" to be treated the same way as physical property is nothing more then a charade for plutocracy propaganda. You produce nothing of "value" except what you can profit from the work of others -- without inventors you would have nothing to patent! Pretending that you think you "own" an idea doesn't make it so regardless of how much legal intimidation you try to use. Someday you will realize it is better to share knowledge instead of hoarding it and profiting off of artificial scarcity. Children hoard, Adults share. It sounds like you missed that kindergarten class? /rhetorical
> whereupon I shall be freed to appropriate that vehicle that you use to get to work.
I walk to work. Maybe you should stick to facts instead of conjecture. How LONG have you been practicing law again???
Now kindly please fuck off when you realize there are more important things then money.