You know, putting the [sigh] in like that makes you look like a pompous ass. Note that I'm not saying you are. It's just an easy way to come off like one.
Now here's the issue - why? Why should the US cede control to someone else? How is that in the interests of the US? Posters on/. spent tremendous energy excorciating the US for not practicing diplomacy - try a little now. Convince me. For what reason would the US give up what it currently has?
I hate joining into these political wankfests, but I have to know - what exactly makes you think the US is in decline? Do you have anything specific in mind, or is this the usual/. anti-US bias?
Nobody said anything about your ability to pay - it's the willingness. You're taking something and using a flimsy justification about the physical medium.
All I'm saying is at least be honest about your greed, instead of trying to portray yourself as some kind of hero for wanting free entertainment.
Every damn time someone has to make a terrible car analogy.
It would fit more if the carriage industry went down because people took the introduction of the automobile as license to take carriages, but that didn't happen.
It's in my sig, but I'll copy it here for posterity - The Slashdot credo: Entertainment wants to be free.
Let me preface this by saying I don't agree with the proposed legislation in the least - it goes way too far. No one is guaranteed a profit.
Still, is this level of hyperbole necessary? Like this choice quote from the article:
This is like a shopkeeper hiding a "I reserve the right to punch you in the nose" sign somewhere in his shop and then randomly clobbering his customers, answering any complaints by saying that you agreed to it when you came through the door.
No, not allowing you to watch a tv show on your own terms is nothing like being assaulted.
The studios will "enable the business-model" of charging you money for the stuff that you get for free today. Here's a quote: "Doing this stuff has value, and if it has value, we should be able to charge money for it." They do indeed have value: you currently enjoy that value. Under this proposal, the value will be stolen (emphasis mine) from you and sold back to you piecemeal.
Stolen? Okay, so the rhetoric normally says that intellectual property can not be stolen from its creators. The reasoning? It isn't tangible. Fine. So rewinding a recorded TV show is something that can be stolen? Wow... just wow.
Now, I reiterate - I think this proposed legislation is way over the line. My question becomes, how does sinking to this level help the cause?
I get all my news from a mix of Slashdot, Fark, and a selection of blogs written by 19 year old college coeds. Can't say I'm all that well informed, exactly, but the webcams keep me happy.
But slashdot taught me that capitalism was always wrong. People should make movies and music for the joy of making them, with no expectation of compensation beyond what I (or some other duly self-appointed minister) think they should make.
When you click the link, it gets handed off to the registered protocol handler. This will generally be IE, which will offer to 'Open' or 'Save' the resultant file that resides on the other end of the link. Nothing sinister, and certainly not behavior we want to change any time soon.
An 'attack' of this nature could work against any operating system, because it relies on the user downloading and executing the file, which is fairly basic, common behavior across most of computerdom.
What I find interesting is that pretty much no one in the system has any logically self consistent views. People in favor of abortion are typically against war, and the death penalty, and much more likely to be vegetarians for cruelty reasons, while people who want to end abortion typically are happy to kill just about everything except fetuses.
I know this isn't 100% applicable, but it's close enough to be right.
And why not --x instead of x--? You don't need the old value of x there, so aren't you potentially wasting some cycles and thereby having possession of your soul revoked or whatever the punishment is for not being as efficient as possible in all situations? I mean, if you're going to micro-optimize, why not go all the way?
I guess I'm just really sick of having to copy+paste my code.
I don't want to come off like I'm picking on you, but this is a problem with your design, not the language. It's not Java/C#'s fault if you try to use them like they're C++.
You know, I think I'd notice a reboot, too. I am somewhat observant, and the fact that all my work disappeared and I was dumped to a logon would probably register.
Face it, the BSOD complaint is toasted. The only time I saw one under XP is when I had a faulty memory stick, and I'm pretty sure just about any OS would be hard pressed to work under those circumstances (on a regular desktop PC, before someone tries to shoot this down with some big iron example.)
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously. I personally also like 'alive' and 'human.'
You know, putting the [sigh] in like that makes you look like a pompous ass. Note that I'm not saying you are. It's just an easy way to come off like one.
/. spent tremendous energy excorciating the US for not practicing diplomacy - try a little now. Convince me. For what reason would the US give up what it currently has?
Now here's the issue - why? Why should the US cede control to someone else? How is that in the interests of the US? Posters on
I hate joining into these political wankfests, but I have to know - what exactly makes you think the US is in decline? Do you have anything specific in mind, or is this the usual /. anti-US bias?
This was rhetorically cute, and semantically meaningless. Is this the best you can do?
Here's the honesty: I make my money selling my intellect, so yes, I like the concept of intellectual property. Nothing to hide here.
Wow, you even got modded up. You're my new slashdot hero.
Nobody said anything about your ability to pay - it's the willingness. You're taking something and using a flimsy justification about the physical medium.
All I'm saying is at least be honest about your greed, instead of trying to portray yourself as some kind of hero for wanting free entertainment.
Every damn time someone has to make a terrible car analogy.
It would fit more if the carriage industry went down because people took the introduction of the automobile as license to take carriages, but that didn't happen.
It's in my sig, but I'll copy it here for posterity - The Slashdot credo: Entertainment wants to be free.
it works best in democracies
You know, even though you apparently have no sense of humor, you sure made me laugh.
Just kidding...
Simply put, 95%+ of all users don't care at all, and see no reason to change.
Still, is this level of hyperbole necessary? Like this choice quote from the article:
No, not allowing you to watch a tv show on your own terms is nothing like being assaulted.
Stolen? Okay, so the rhetoric normally says that intellectual property can not be stolen from its creators. The reasoning? It isn't tangible. Fine. So rewinding a recorded TV show is something that can be stolen? Wow... just wow.
Now, I reiterate - I think this proposed legislation is way over the line. My question becomes, how does sinking to this level help the cause?
...a woman in a low-cut dress. Some people just don't get it.
Yeah, seriously, why are they wearing anything at all?
Wow, you really lubed it up to come to that kind of conclusion. I can only hope you forgot the sarcasm tags.
Build it, and they will come.
Provided it doesn't suck tremendouns donkey balls.
I get all my news from a mix of Slashdot, Fark, and a selection of blogs written by 19 year old college coeds. Can't say I'm all that well informed, exactly, but the webcams keep me happy.
Turn off autorun.
But slashdot taught me that capitalism was always wrong. People should make movies and music for the joy of making them, with no expectation of compensation beyond what I (or some other duly self-appointed minister) think they should make.
When you click the link, it gets handed off to the registered protocol handler. This will generally be IE, which will offer to 'Open' or 'Save' the resultant file that resides on the other end of the link. Nothing sinister, and certainly not behavior we want to change any time soon.
An 'attack' of this nature could work against any operating system, because it relies on the user downloading and executing the file, which is fairly basic, common behavior across most of computerdom.
Face it, telcos are in it to make money, not serve the public interest.
Are you expecting a capitalist to argue against this statement? There's not really a lot to face, here.
What I find interesting is that pretty much no one in the system has any logically self consistent views. People in favor of abortion are typically against war, and the death penalty, and much more likely to be vegetarians for cruelty reasons, while people who want to end abortion typically are happy to kill just about everything except fetuses.
I know this isn't 100% applicable, but it's close enough to be right.
And why not --x instead of x--? You don't need the old value of x there, so aren't you potentially wasting some cycles and thereby having possession of your soul revoked or whatever the punishment is for not being as efficient as possible in all situations? I mean, if you're going to micro-optimize, why not go all the way?
I guess I'm just really sick of having to copy+paste my code.
I don't want to come off like I'm picking on you, but this is a problem with your design, not the language. It's not Java/C#'s fault if you try to use them like they're C++.
You think that's hard, try polishing the one-eyed gopher at the same time.
You know, I think I'd notice a reboot, too. I am somewhat observant, and the fact that all my work disappeared and I was dumped to a logon would probably register.
Face it, the BSOD complaint is toasted. The only time I saw one under XP is when I had a faulty memory stick, and I'm pretty sure just about any OS would be hard pressed to work under those circumstances (on a regular desktop PC, before someone tries to shoot this down with some big iron example.)
I have been programming pretty steadily for about 30 years now, and only once have I seen a computer fail in a way I'd classify as "interesting."
I really wanted to hear the end of this...
Also, I don't think a language should be designed around keeping a stupid programmer or project team from shooting themselves in the foot.
I definitely agree with you there. It's not like the 'eye on safety' in Java has prevented people from writing some of the ugliest code on earth.