I'm not saying that, exactly, and I'm not really defending the patent system, as such. I'm just saying I don't see how not allowing people to copy each other stifles innovation. I'm attacking the supposed problem from a slightly different angle, if you will.
Personally, I agree this is a little too obvious to patent. I think software patents in general need a full-on reformation (along with process patents).
On the other hand, I haven't seen this slowing anything down. Again, I have no evidence. This is strictly an opinion. (and anything that gets rid of shitty IE plugins is a good thing in my book. Lesser of two evils and all that)
But morality is a subjective thing. Your morality doesn't apply to me insofar as my actions are concerned. It only applies regarding your judgement of my actions.
(with the caveat that 'you' and 'me' in the above paragraph are meant in the general sense.)
I've gotta say, I don't really see the innovation yet being stifled. Maybe it's a foregone conclusion, and maybe I'm just missing something, but things do seem to be proceeding apace. Honestly, it all seems a bit 'Chicken Little' to me.
Maybe the fact that people can't 'innovate' tiny little changes to other people's ideas is forcing creativity to higher levels.
I have nothing to back my opinions up, unfortunately, but I also have nothing refute them.
You find the morality shift disturbing, and I find it refreshing. It's nice to see that each progressive generation puts less emphasis on some arbitrary definition of correct behavior.
You'll have a hard time convincing me (and a lot of others) that human sexuality is something dirty that needs to be suppressed. All in all, free sexuality is a good thing, because repression is universally evil.
It's the typical flaw of taking Slashdot too seriously. The people who post here, by and large, do not represent anything near the mainstream. Reading this site makes it easy to forget that for most people, a 'fire-and-forget' system that someone else maintains is ideal. Your typical consumer doesn't want to spend six hours editing, transcoding, burning, and maintaining the storage for one show. They don't want to do research for a month to figure out how to build something they can just pay $10 a month to get from someone else. They just want to watch TV, conveniently.
That's not even mentioning the rights issues. Most people aren't concerned with their ability to share the media over the internet (and let's face it, that's really the only thing DRM really tries to restrict. Successfully is a different story.)
Not trying to troll, that frequent answer is a legitimate point. Feel free to make any assumptions you want about countries of origin on sites that originate in other countries.
Saying the.xxx domain would make filters work is a specious argument. It would require global cooperation, and there is no possible enforcement that would make cooperation unnecessary.
Note that I don't oppose the domain, I just don't see any reason for it.
Please, by all means, criticize away. It's definitely within your rights.
By your logic, of course, I should be able to walk into someone's house and take my pick of their property. After all, laws against stealing are merely artificial constraints placed upon the natural physical properties of the objects I want.
Your logic works if you apply morality to the situation, although morality doesn't actually apply. Following the 'laws' of the market, the movie producer is right, anyway, because it's their product and they can sell it however they see fit. Since the product is highly desired, however they sell it, it will be bought. They may have to fiddle with existing contracts and such, but they get to do what they want in any case.
So we agree. Sort of.
This won't affect piracy, though. There are no high-minded ideals behind copyright infringement that will be met by earlier DVD releases. Piracy is predicated solely on greed, and the somewhat specious notion that entertainment wants to be free. The consumers will continue this unto the end of time.
You were close, it caught a 'Troll' mod. Troll, of course, means exactly as I stated: Unpopular Amongst the Unpopular. It's the nature of this site, populated as it is by traditional 'losers,' as it were, to have the people band together into a sort of groupthink where any opinion that doesn't meet mass approval be suppressed. This is the basic problem with human interaction. It's a nonstop feedback loop that merely reinforces previously held ideas. After all, in no way could someone not like playing D&D, right?
I am, however, neither stupid, ignorant, nor a hoodlum, despite your desire to dismiss me as such. Don't worry, it's natural for people to be unable to overcome such base instincts as you have - that is, to violently ignore those whom with which we disagree.
There's a limited area in which funny resides, and the borders aren't marked too clearly, so it's tough for people to get it right. You can find more examples of funny that just isn't if you think it will help.
I bought it impulsively last night, having never played any games in the series. I haven't been this entranced since Ocarina of Time. It feels so real it's scary - this game is what role playing is all about.
Re:I don't get the question, I think
on
AJAX and IE7?
·
· Score: 1
Even still, that kind of change is easily isolated, and is already covered by all the major AJAX libraries I'm aware of. The actually usage interface shouldn't have changed, and that's much more important since client code typically deals with that a whole lot more than simple construction.
I don't get the question, I think
on
AJAX and IE7?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Why not just install the beta and see how it behaves? I can't imagine they're going to change the interface to the XMLHTTPRequest object now, but even if they do, you can isolate that change. Bam, AJAX still works.
Seems your question might be more about DOM manipulation, but I have the same advice: install the beta.
The reality is, people want free entertainment. That's the problem that's breaking everyone else's good time. All of this copyright tightening, excessive punishment, and harsh regulation is a result of the fact that greedy people turned the internet into a free-for-all of rights violation. The chicken-and-egg problem of internet piracy is easy to trace back - it was the pirates who fired the first volley, with Napster, running roughshod over the copyright holders in a fashion that made them retreat into the defensive posture they're in now. The fact that they believe a strong offense defends them best is more a consequence of the the situation they were forced to react against than any attempt to hold onto an outdated business model. After all, plenty of records get sold, plenty of music gets recorded. The business model isn't an abject failure. It just has some detractors, who quite obviously are willing to steal what they want anyway. Why pander to them?
Or maybe you would agree if I said that since guns facilitate physical theft, people should just accept that everything they own will be stolen, and that they shouldn't expect to keep anything due to shifting realities?
I can put it in simpler terms, and maybe show you why the direction you want to take this debate makes no sense: two wrongs don't make a right. Doesn't matter what those wrongs are. You can't justify shitty behavior by pointing and saying "He's being a dick, too!"
And when those recording artists were forced to sign those contracts, guns pressed tightly to their temples, surely you could have saved them the trouble of believing they even should be paid for what they were doing, since people would just take it anyway.
Thanks for replying in a rhetorically bankrupt fashion in an attempt to bolster a point that wasn't even related to mine. Hijacking legitimate questions does work against lesser minds. It doesn't work against me. In general, it doesn't work on Slashdot. Go troll Digg with that crap.
Okay, so here's what I would like explained from your comment:
Is entertainment a necessary good and/or service in your mind?
Is this 'group of thieves' (who produces and sells entertainment, that apparently you believe is a necessity) morally worse than people who infringe upon their rights? Is this infringement done in the name of good in your mind?
What is just about taking the results of someone's hard labor and giving them nothing in return for it?
So, yes, these n00bs exists that think they need the greatest and most expensive hardware. It takes experience to value what one has *and* use older machines where other people think they need expensive new machines.
Of course, some of us recognize that 'need' and 'computer' don't belong in the same sentence, so we don't have to justify things that way since we know it's all desire anyway. Frankly, I have the money, and I want the performance. That's my decision. It doesn't make you a wiser man.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not saying that, exactly, and I'm not really defending the patent system, as such. I'm just saying I don't see how not allowing people to copy each other stifles innovation. I'm attacking the supposed problem from a slightly different angle, if you will.
Personally, I agree this is a little too obvious to patent. I think software patents in general need a full-on reformation (along with process patents).
On the other hand, I haven't seen this slowing anything down. Again, I have no evidence. This is strictly an opinion. (and anything that gets rid of shitty IE plugins is a good thing in my book. Lesser of two evils and all that)
But morality is a subjective thing. Your morality doesn't apply to me insofar as my actions are concerned. It only applies regarding your judgement of my actions.
(with the caveat that 'you' and 'me' in the above paragraph are meant in the general sense.)
I've gotta say, I don't really see the innovation yet being stifled. Maybe it's a foregone conclusion, and maybe I'm just missing something, but things do seem to be proceeding apace. Honestly, it all seems a bit 'Chicken Little' to me.
Maybe the fact that people can't 'innovate' tiny little changes to other people's ideas is forcing creativity to higher levels.
I have nothing to back my opinions up, unfortunately, but I also have nothing refute them.
You find the morality shift disturbing, and I find it refreshing. It's nice to see that each progressive generation puts less emphasis on some arbitrary definition of correct behavior.
You'll have a hard time convincing me (and a lot of others) that human sexuality is something dirty that needs to be suppressed. All in all, free sexuality is a good thing, because repression is universally evil.
It's the typical flaw of taking Slashdot too seriously. The people who post here, by and large, do not represent anything near the mainstream. Reading this site makes it easy to forget that for most people, a 'fire-and-forget' system that someone else maintains is ideal. Your typical consumer doesn't want to spend six hours editing, transcoding, burning, and maintaining the storage for one show. They don't want to do research for a month to figure out how to build something they can just pay $10 a month to get from someone else. They just want to watch TV, conveniently.
That's not even mentioning the rights issues. Most people aren't concerned with their ability to share the media over the internet (and let's face it, that's really the only thing DRM really tries to restrict. Successfully is a different story.)
For your edification.
Not trying to troll, that frequent answer is a legitimate point. Feel free to make any assumptions you want about countries of origin on sites that originate in other countries.
Saying the .xxx domain would make filters work is a specious argument. It would require global cooperation, and there is no possible enforcement that would make cooperation unnecessary.
Note that I don't oppose the domain, I just don't see any reason for it.
Please, by all means, criticize away. It's definitely within your rights.
By your logic, of course, I should be able to walk into someone's house and take my pick of their property. After all, laws against stealing are merely artificial constraints placed upon the natural physical properties of the objects I want.
Your logic works if you apply morality to the situation, although morality doesn't actually apply. Following the 'laws' of the market, the movie producer is right, anyway, because it's their product and they can sell it however they see fit. Since the product is highly desired, however they sell it, it will be bought. They may have to fiddle with existing contracts and such, but they get to do what they want in any case.
So we agree. Sort of.
This won't affect piracy, though. There are no high-minded ideals behind copyright infringement that will be met by earlier DVD releases. Piracy is predicated solely on greed, and the somewhat specious notion that entertainment wants to be free. The consumers will continue this unto the end of time.
You were close, it caught a 'Troll' mod. Troll, of course, means exactly as I stated: Unpopular Amongst the Unpopular. It's the nature of this site, populated as it is by traditional 'losers,' as it were, to have the people band together into a sort of groupthink where any opinion that doesn't meet mass approval be suppressed. This is the basic problem with human interaction. It's a nonstop feedback loop that merely reinforces previously held ideas. After all, in no way could someone not like playing D&D, right?
I am, however, neither stupid, ignorant, nor a hoodlum, despite your desire to dismiss me as such. Don't worry, it's natural for people to be unable to overcome such base instincts as you have - that is, to violently ignore those whom with which we disagree.
D&D is boring, though, and frankly, it can really only be played with people I don't wanna be around.
Sorry for the bluny opinion. I'm sure someone will mod it -1, Unpopular Amongst the Unpopular.
There's a limited area in which funny resides, and the borders aren't marked too clearly, so it's tough for people to get it right. You can find more examples of funny that just isn't if you think it will help.
Three different answers for what boils down to a grade school story problem. At least we know you three didn't cheat from each other.
I bought it impulsively last night, having never played any games in the series. I haven't been this entranced since Ocarina of Time. It feels so real it's scary - this game is what role playing is all about.
Even still, that kind of change is easily isolated, and is already covered by all the major AJAX libraries I'm aware of. The actually usage interface shouldn't have changed, and that's much more important since client code typically deals with that a whole lot more than simple construction.
Why not just install the beta and see how it behaves? I can't imagine they're going to change the interface to the XMLHTTPRequest object now, but even if they do, you can isolate that change. Bam, AJAX still works.
Seems your question might be more about DOM manipulation, but I have the same advice: install the beta.
The reality is, people want free entertainment. That's the problem that's breaking everyone else's good time. All of this copyright tightening, excessive punishment, and harsh regulation is a result of the fact that greedy people turned the internet into a free-for-all of rights violation. The chicken-and-egg problem of internet piracy is easy to trace back - it was the pirates who fired the first volley, with Napster, running roughshod over the copyright holders in a fashion that made them retreat into the defensive posture they're in now. The fact that they believe a strong offense defends them best is more a consequence of the the situation they were forced to react against than any attempt to hold onto an outdated business model. After all, plenty of records get sold, plenty of music gets recorded. The business model isn't an abject failure. It just has some detractors, who quite obviously are willing to steal what they want anyway. Why pander to them?
Or maybe you would agree if I said that since guns facilitate physical theft, people should just accept that everything they own will be stolen, and that they shouldn't expect to keep anything due to shifting realities?
I can put it in simpler terms, and maybe show you why the direction you want to take this debate makes no sense: two wrongs don't make a right. Doesn't matter what those wrongs are. You can't justify shitty behavior by pointing and saying "He's being a dick, too!"
And when those recording artists were forced to sign those contracts, guns pressed tightly to their temples, surely you could have saved them the trouble of believing they even should be paid for what they were doing, since people would just take it anyway.
Thanks for replying in a rhetorically bankrupt fashion in an attempt to bolster a point that wasn't even related to mine. Hijacking legitimate questions does work against lesser minds. It doesn't work against me. In general, it doesn't work on Slashdot. Go troll Digg with that crap.
Okay, so here's what I would like explained from your comment:
Is entertainment a necessary good and/or service in your mind?
Is this 'group of thieves' (who produces and sells entertainment, that apparently you believe is a necessity) morally worse than people who infringe upon their rights? Is this infringement done in the name of good in your mind?
What is just about taking the results of someone's hard labor and giving them nothing in return for it?
I anxiously await your answers.
Spoken like a coward who apparentally never actually used it. Terrible trolling technique. No biscuit for you.
Makes you wonder what is it that I can't time
The boot sequence?
Que?
Everyone falls prey to the same syndrome: "I can't do it, so it must be easy."
Ridiculous when you think about it, but I'd say about 95% of humanity is infected with this particular stupidity.
Some dreams were never meant to be.
Especially when they're nightmares for everyone else.
So, yes, these n00bs exists that think they need the greatest and most expensive hardware. It takes experience to value what one has *and* use older machines where other people think they need expensive new machines.
Of course, some of us recognize that 'need' and 'computer' don't belong in the same sentence, so we don't have to justify things that way since we know it's all desire anyway. Frankly, I have the money, and I want the performance. That's my decision. It doesn't make you a wiser man.