You're missing the fucking point. It doesn't have to be granted or codified to be a right. EVERY POSSIBLE HUMAN ACTION is your right, unless it's forbidden or causes harm to others. What you call rights, common parlance calls privileges.
But the law never granted everybody a right to copy anything they might want to copy.
It seems people these days have forgotten what natural law means... thinking of rights as gifts to be granted, rather than inherent properties of the nature of man. Look, before copyright was invented, not too long ago, everybody had that right. It didn't have to be granted by any law, it simply was. The true nature of copyright law, therefore, is that it took away a right from all the people.
No, it is a right granted by the government. "Privilege" would imply that it's some kind of special reward, but (legally) it's not.
Too often, what is legal is not moral. Tell me if this sounds right: in a free society, everyone has the right to do anything, except when it interferes with someone else's freedom or well-being. Good thus far? Now, copyright is a monopoly on the replication of a work of human creation. It limits everyone's right to copy, everyone's access to information -- everyone's freedom. It is a hindrance to all the people, for the benefit of one, or a few. Therefore, a privilege.
What does that have to do with the legal definition of copyright?
Copyright exists for a purpose, as defined by the copyright clause.. It does not say: to make sure people make a profit. It says: to promote the progress of science and useful arts.
But is said progress an end in itself? No, it benefits all of the people.
It is sensible to say, then: copyright must exist for the benefit of all people. Thus we must ask: does copyright accomplish this goal? Was it a good deal for the people, to trade a freedom for this potential of progress?
Ask other questions as well:
Is it good for all the people that copyright exists? Perhaps, but--
Is it good for all the people that copyright terms last longer than a human lifetime?
Is it good for all the people that copyright terms keep getting extended, and pretty much nothing falls into public domain anymore?
Is it good for all the people that copyright holders invent methods to keep content from being copied -- some of those methods causing all sorts of compatibility issues, some causing people to lose content they have paid for, some nothing short of malware?
Is it good for all the people that copyright holders have bought legislation that criminalizes the distribution of tools that break the aforementioned anti-copy methods?
Is it good for all the people that copyright holders can use the legal system to extort money from the people, threatening you with financial ruin for copying a bunch of songs or movies, whether you did it or not -- claiming to be defending the artists, while they use every trick in the book to cheat artists out of their pay?
Copyright is not respected because it is not respectable in the first place. People are waking up to the fact that, at least the way things are set now, it's a disastrous deal.
That word is very misleading; it should be called copy privilege, copy exclusivity, or copy monopoly. It is a privilege, granted by the government in detriment of everyone's else right to copy, on the assumption that it would serve as an incentive to creators, to promote the progress of science and useful arts. The ultimate goal of copyright was as a richer public domain. It was for the benefit of ALL THE PEOPLE, not the artists', and certainly not the MAFIAA's.
If copyright has failed to give us a richer public domain, it has failed to fulfill its sole intended goal. Therefore, it must be abolished.
I've played Torchlight a bit, and it was interesting, but I thought the control scheme was awful. Then again, I'd say the same of almost every PC RPG or action-RPG: you have a cursor, click on the ground to have your character walk there, and click an enemy to attack it. FUCK THIS SHIT! It makes me feel I'm not really in control. I want direct, cursor-less control. Like pretty much any console action-RPG, such as - obvious example here - the Zelda series, the very definition of the damn genre!
I've commented the same in Runic's forums, and fans were quite defensive, "the controls you want wouldn't work in a Diablo-like game". Which is quite silly, frankly.
Most users don't distribute a movie to thousands, but a tiny fraction of the movie to thousands. In fact, if your ratio is under 1, you can't even say you have distributed the whole movie!
That'd be missing the point of a hackintosh (a powerful and expandable Mac for a low price) and the point of a Mac mini (a very small and discreet computer).
Unless, of course, you intend to plug a bunch of external drives to the mini. Then it'd make sense.
Gut it and use the case to build a modern PC, on which you can install Mac OS X by using Prasys' EmpireEFI. Or just install whatever you want. The G5 may be outdated, but the case is still beautiful.
Well, there's a difference between a regular newbie and a complete newbie. Lots of people rote-learn Windows; then, anything different, no matter how well designed, is "too complicated".
Mint is more newbie-friendly than Ubuntu, I'd say: the interface (only one taskbar, buttons on the right corner of each window) is more familiar to people who only know Windows. Also, it already comes with Flash and some hardware drivers that are separate downloads in Ubuntu (because they're proprietary).
Today's Manuzios are the flock of researchers looking for display materials capable of producing handy, portable, and pocket-size flat-panel displays for PDAs [...] In general, these efforts miss the point of "bookness," because the act of flipping through pages is an indisputable part of the book experience. In 1978 at MIT, we animated flipping pages on a screen and even generated fluttering sounds. Cute, but no cigar.
No, that was the time when Coca-Cola deliberately created 100 million cans of faulty Coke. Heh. Actually I've never tried the "new coke"
Also, do not diss David Puttnam, check his IMDB profile. He has quite consistently produced quality, high-class movies, such as The Duellists, Chariots of Fire, Midnight Express, Local Hero, The Killing Fields, and The Mission.
If Coca-Cola accidentally created 100 million cans of faulty Coke, you know for sure the entire 100 million cans would be dropped in the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean, without a second thought and irrespective of what that did to the year's profits. What do we do with a crappy movie? We double its advertising budget and hope for a big opening weekend. What have we done for the audience as they walk out of the cinema? We've alienated them. We've sold audiences a piece of junk; we just took twelve dollars away from a couple and we think we've done ourselves no long-term damage. -- David Puttnam, movie producer; GQ magazine, April 1987
Slashdot Mirror
plenty of Macs run Windows.
Plenty of PCs runs Mac OS X too... it just takes a lil' hack.
You're missing the fucking point. It doesn't have to be granted or codified to be a right. EVERY POSSIBLE HUMAN ACTION is your right, unless it's forbidden or causes harm to others. What you call rights, common parlance calls privileges.
But the law never granted everybody a right to copy anything they might want to copy.
It seems people these days have forgotten what natural law means... thinking of rights as gifts to be granted, rather than inherent properties of the nature of man. Look, before copyright was invented, not too long ago, everybody had that right. It didn't have to be granted by any law, it simply was. The true nature of copyright law, therefore, is that it took away a right from all the people.
No, it is a right granted by the government. "Privilege" would imply that it's some kind of special reward, but (legally) it's not.
Too often, what is legal is not moral. Tell me if this sounds right: in a free society, everyone has the right to do anything, except when it interferes with someone else's freedom or well-being. Good thus far? Now, copyright is a monopoly on the replication of a work of human creation. It limits everyone's right to copy, everyone's access to information -- everyone's freedom. It is a hindrance to all the people, for the benefit of one, or a few. Therefore, a privilege.
What does that have to do with the legal definition of copyright?
Copyright exists for a purpose, as defined by the copyright clause. . It does not say: to make sure people make a profit. It says: to promote the progress of science and useful arts.
But is said progress an end in itself? No, it benefits all of the people.
It is sensible to say, then: copyright must exist for the benefit of all people. Thus we must ask: does copyright accomplish this goal? Was it a good deal for the people, to trade a freedom for this potential of progress?
Ask other questions as well:
Is it good for all the people that copyright exists? Perhaps, but--
Is it good for all the people that copyright terms last longer than a human lifetime?
Is it good for all the people that copyright terms keep getting extended, and pretty much nothing falls into public domain anymore?
Is it good for all the people that copyright holders invent methods to keep content from being copied -- some of those methods causing all sorts of compatibility issues, some causing people to lose content they have paid for, some nothing short of malware?
Is it good for all the people that copyright holders have bought legislation that criminalizes the distribution of tools that break the aforementioned anti-copy methods?
Is it good for all the people that copyright holders can use the legal system to extort money from the people, threatening you with financial ruin for copying a bunch of songs or movies, whether you did it or not -- claiming to be defending the artists, while they use every trick in the book to cheat artists out of their pay?
Copyright is not respected because it is not respectable in the first place. People are waking up to the fact that, at least the way things are set now, it's a disastrous deal.
That word is very misleading; it should be called copy privilege, copy exclusivity, or copy monopoly. It is a privilege, granted by the government in detriment of everyone's else right to copy, on the assumption that it would serve as an incentive to creators, to promote the progress of science and useful arts. The ultimate goal of copyright was as a richer public domain. It was for the benefit of ALL THE PEOPLE, not the artists', and certainly not the MAFIAA's.
If copyright has failed to give us a richer public domain, it has failed to fulfill its sole intended goal. Therefore, it must be abolished.
which is an exclusive temporary privilege granted by the government to the owner of the copyright.
Fixed. People keep making the mistake of thinking of copyright as a right - which is absurd.
I've played Torchlight a bit, and it was interesting, but I thought the control scheme was awful. Then again, I'd say the same of almost every PC RPG or action-RPG: you have a cursor, click on the ground to have your character walk there, and click an enemy to attack it. FUCK THIS SHIT! It makes me feel I'm not really in control. I want direct, cursor-less control. Like pretty much any console action-RPG, such as - obvious example here - the Zelda series, the very definition of the damn genre!
I've commented the same in Runic's forums, and fans were quite defensive, "the controls you want wouldn't work in a Diablo-like game". Which is quite silly, frankly.
Yahoo is quite cluttered in any language.
If it's legal, it's not called piracy. Duh.
Most users don't distribute a movie to thousands, but a tiny fraction of the movie to thousands. In fact, if your ratio is under 1, you can't even say you have distributed the whole movie!
Rip the guts out and out a Mini in there.
That'd be missing the point of a hackintosh (a powerful and expandable Mac for a low price) and the point of a Mac mini (a very small and discreet computer).
Unless, of course, you intend to plug a bunch of external drives to the mini. Then it'd make sense.
Gut it and use the case to build a modern PC, on which you can install Mac OS X by using Prasys' EmpireEFI. Or just install whatever you want. The G5 may be outdated, but the case is still beautiful.
Well, there's a difference between a regular newbie and a complete newbie. Lots of people rote-learn Windows; then, anything different, no matter how well designed, is "too complicated".
I vaguely recall reading it on the demo's README file.
Ubuntu is probably the easiest Linux out there
Mint is more newbie-friendly than Ubuntu, I'd say: the interface (only one taskbar, buttons on the right corner of each window) is more familiar to people who only know Windows. Also, it already comes with Flash and some hardware drivers that are separate downloads in Ubuntu (because they're proprietary).
That rise was all because of the nonsensical "war on (some) drugs".
Quake had no story and took the gaming world by storm.
Quake's story was largely irrelevant, but it was there.
Somebody set up us the bomb.
Now significantly fewer people download music.
Oh, you almost got me there! Someone mod this man +1 funny! XD
Does someone still have all those cute 'anime' style Green Dam Girl pics?
This? (alert, NSFW)
All continental China authorities are unofficial. The official, legitimate government of China is the one in Taipei.
Today's Manuzios are the flock of researchers looking for display materials capable of producing handy, portable, and pocket-size flat-panel displays for PDAs [...] In general, these efforts miss the point of "bookness," because the act of flipping through pages is an indisputable part of the book experience. In 1978 at MIT, we animated flipping pages on a screen and even generated fluttering sounds. Cute, but no cigar.
Bill Maher the anti-vaxer
I swear, when I read that, I wondered why one would have a dislike for DEC computers.
No, that was the time when Coca-Cola deliberately created 100 million cans of faulty Coke. Heh. Actually I've never tried the "new coke"
Also, do not diss David Puttnam, check his IMDB profile. He has quite consistently produced quality, high-class movies, such as The Duellists, Chariots of Fire, Midnight Express, Local Hero, The Killing Fields, and The Mission.
If Coca-Cola accidentally created 100 million cans of faulty Coke, you know for sure the entire 100 million cans would be dropped in the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean, without a second thought and irrespective of what that did to the year's profits. What do we do with a crappy movie? We double its advertising budget and hope for a big opening weekend. What have we done for the audience as they walk out of the cinema? We've alienated them. We've sold audiences a piece of junk; we just took twelve dollars away from a couple and we think we've done ourselves no long-term damage. -- David Puttnam, movie producer; GQ magazine, April 1987