however, I think it worth noting that SCO has essentially been screaming from the ramparts "We are SCO, we are greedy morons, we deserve to be removed from existence."
I just wanted to say that before a slew of soi-trolls began yammering about how biased/. is.
>> And here go my mod points and karma-I doubt that Linux would be where it is today without the domination of Microsoft.
You're right - if there was no domineering, unethical, incompetent and generally narcissistic 800-lb Gorilla pushing a shoddy OS and other semi-cruddy products on the world, Linus' project might never have attracted so much interest, effort, dedication and mad 'leet proponents.
But who knows, maybe the Open Source model/method would have fostered Linux's growth even without them.
>> Contrary to popular belief, Satanism isn't actually a religion. It may be a cult, but from personal experience, Satanism is nothing but a stance against Christianity.
Well, I read LaVey's book, and I don't see where you're coming from. I'm not a satanist but I don't see why you say it's not a religion. Although I certainly understand why some people might prefer to think of it as a cult instead of a religion.
>> (There are plenty of teenagers who think they're being cool rebels, too, but that's not the point.) Satanism is, as far as I can tell, a political stance; a more aggressive form of atheism.
With all due respect, what the hell are you smoking? I could easily say that christianity is not a religion but rather an aggressive political organization. Is there a criterion you are using to weed out satanism as "not a religion" or do you simply find it offensive?
>> Therefore, if a Satanist told me to have a totally Satanic day, it would be the rough equivalent of "Have an atheistic day." I would try to find any sense in the statement, fail, and go on my way, wondering if a 24-hour period can have a political stance.We clearly differ in our use of some terms here.. If someone told *me* to have a "totally satanic day", I would presume he meant it in the LaVey-ish sense and that s/he meant I should not take any sh*t from anyone today. Where do you get your impression of satanism? Do you know any satanists (who aren't 14 year olds trying to scare/offend their parents/friends?)?
>>Live long and prosper. (that can't be offensive, can it?)Someone planning suicide might find that to be in bad taste. (Hey, you asked.)
Interesting response! I like it. And since suicidal people are low on my list of considerations...;)
>> Someone wishes you something good you weren't responding to him... it was me...
>> and you bitch about it.He wasn't bitching about the blessing, he was pointing out that the blessing is contraindicated by the position you took on being open minded.
>> Wow. I mean really...FORCE a blessing? It's the equivalent of saying "have a great day"
Maybe to a christian, but some people take offense at stuff like that. I know I do sometimes. Presuming you are christian, would you like it if someone told you to "Have a totally satanic day"?
>> It's the equivalent of saying "have a great day" and you screaming "F YOU BUDDY. I'LL HAVE WHATEVER DAMN DAY I PLEASE".
I'm not sure what you mean when you say that, because I disagree with what I take to be your point, but I totally agree, except not screaming, and without the "f you buddy". Cause quite frankly, and I'm just speaking for me here, I *will* have whatever damn day I please.
I take this exchange to imply that people who say "god bless you" take offense at rejection of the blessing, in the same way that people who reject the blessing take offense at it being made. Since I'm sure you already understand your side, let me note mine: When someone I don't know tells me "God bless you", I hear a faint undertone of "you heedless pagan" echoing after. They may not have meant it but sometimes, that's how it comes off.
Live long and prosper. (that can't be offensive, can it?)
>> like the terms "born-again democrat" or "born-again republican" used to describe an extremist that switches sides and only gets more extreme.
Exactly:) heh. Like I consider myself a liberal, but a "true believer" republican would consider me a "born again" liberal (unless they considered "born again" too complimentary to ascribe to a liberal?)
without naming names, good on you all for being so calm in discussing... this is what makes slashdot so cool. Although I think some people misread my meaning (if not my attitudes about right wing christians), you showed fortitude of character and maturity by not using the F word on every line. I'm probably the only person who is still replying to this thread, heh.
Oh yeah, the line "Oh come on, don't pretent".. was meant as a buddy-buddy to the reader, I didn't mean to imply that the poster to who I replied was pretending anything. I realized it sounded that way while replying to other replies.
I wonder if the God Mobile (there is such a thing where I live) is going to be at my place when I get off work carrying bats?;-) heh prolly not.
I always thought the born-agains were the ones who had a major breakdown (like bush when he quit alcohol) and became hyper-zealous super-proselytizers.
>> However, I can't even pretend to know what the poster was actually thinking, so maybe he really did think he was making a distinction somehow.>>He was making a real distinction, but you two were speaking a different common language. (at least, i was trying to make a distinction between *nutty* christians and *all* christians)
I was thinking basically: "I want to make a statement that is as obviously and ridiculously biased as possible as a way of putting a spotlight on the statements I seem to be bombarded with whenever I watch FOX News or catch a sound-byte of a conservative talkshow." I'm surprised I didn't get flamed harder, althoug I wasn't trying to make a flame war, I actually had a point. Consider it an artistic statement if the idea of making a wildly exaggerated statemtent to bring reality into releif strikes you as odd.
In my original post my intended audience was not "everyone".. and although I wasn't intentionally trolling, let me state here that I don't hate by group, although some groups I do disdain. For the line, there are nutty, hyperzealous agnostics and liberals too, no one has cornered the market.
I'm not even sure whether I would tone down what I said if I could re edit my post. I don't thrive on hate, but sometimes I feel like I'm the only liberal in the world... usually whenever there's a white house briefing... I'm going to stop blabbing now.
I am replying because I feel like it. I'm not trying to have a flame war (but if it happens, meh)
>> What bias do you have against Christians?
1) they try to get me to accept all kinds of mystical nonsense with zero thought that I might already have a spiritual belief (have you accepted jesus as your personal[...]). 2) republicans. 3)the christian church as a group tends to favor "faith" over "common sense" when they feel threatened. I could list more but i'm not going to work myself up (more).
>> Why do you lump all Christians together as nutty liberal haters that love big oil? let me ask you: do you think I really think that EVERY christian is a "nutty liberal hater"? I was making a point. Alternate answer,: for the same reason conservatives lump all liberals together as tin-foil hat wearing, america hating, flag burning nutcases - because they're "them" and slamming them in passing while making another point both lets me let off steam and counter some of the equally pointless rage coming from the "other side". For the record, I don't hate *all* christians. I know many that are good people. I'm simply sick of being peppered with rushlimbaughanncoulterseanhannitytammyfayebakerkar lroveites who feel no compunctions about saying things like "Liberals hate america, they hate flag wavers, they are terrorist sympathisers, blah blah blah". I'm (as i see it) fighting fire with fire. Yes, this will definitely irritate people who don't see things exactly as I do. good. I hope some neo-con has a heart attack because he read my post. As for people like yourself, I think it's a good thing for us to talk about things we disagree on. That's the dialectic. No i'm not a marxist.
>> If you learn one thing in this life, I pray that you actually learn to have an open mind, instead of just professing to have one. Well, that's "very christian" of you. i hope that you are as calm and compassionate to everyone as you are in your response to me (with whom you clearly have ideological differences) because in that way the world becomes a better place.
Clarification: my above post uses exageration to make a point. If think that I think every christian is an insane conservative bent on the liberation of coconut harvesters, then what can I say. Generalizations of that scale should be obvious as such. Come on, only a moron would think that there are no christian liberals.
Yes, I was over the top. Apologies to LIBERAL christians, who may have been offended. Everyone else, see what you want. I'll stop republi-christian-bashing when they stop agnosto-liberal-bashing, ie, probably never.
Wow, you got me really defensive there. Good job. 1.
>> People are much more likely to accept something as a fact if it comes from 'a scientist'.
you'd love an intro polysci class.
yes and no; born-again evangelican christians (also known as religio-loonies) are apt to fervently disagree with something just on the basis that it was said by a "scientist". Eg, Scientist: "global warming could potentially have a negative effect on the world's ecosystem and agribusinesses." Christian nut: "...another liberal lie, god bless Texaco!"
People tend to trust and believe things said by persons they identify with. People on slashdot are probably more likely (as a group) to identify with "scientist"s than are say, people in a baptist church in dixieland. Just like people in that church would be more likely to agree with their minister that "the plight of coconut harvesters in equatorial guinea has got to STOP!" based on who said it than say, a crowd of random people on the street. (don't read too much into these example... as far as I know there are no coconuts in Eq Guinea).
It's just an information processing shortcut.
Oh come on, don't pretent you hold up every single assertion to a microscope. We all take this shortcut. Some of us just have better bs detectors. Also happenstance is everpresent (some people call this luck).
PS: I am not denying the existence of stupidity, or of stupid people. I also don't think I am shocking parent's author with blinding wisdom. Just sayin'.
rrr... with all the recent hoop-la about 3d printers and advanced robotics, I misinterpreted the title... "Epson's Female Printer"... not as a printer *for* females, but *of* females.
Oh well, back to cryo-sleep until it all comes together.;)
(booth) "welcome to the suicide booth, please deposit twenty-five cents." (Bender deposits a coin) *clink*! (booth) "Thank you. Fast and Easy or Slow and Painful?"
(Fry) "I'm not so sure I--"
(booth) "Slow and Painful. Thank you, have a nice day."
(Bender) "Bring it on!"
(Fry) "Aaaaaah!"
With apologies to Matt Groening. That really was the greatest space opera ever (Star trek, of course, being prophecy). =)
>> Unless you buy into the theory that EVERY OTHER MEDIA OUTLET is controlled by The Man, could it be that, oh, the public just doesn't give a shit?
It's all so clear now... the "mainstream" media, often derided for it's "liberal" bias, which in point of fact consistently shelters conservatives and lambastes liberals, and which is largely run by conservatives, ignores issues which are front and center on the world stage (when they put republicans in a bad light) or magnifies issues that are irrelevant (when they are even true) to attack democrats... yes, the "mainstream" media,
It doesn't need to ask people what they want, it just has to tell them.
>> BTW, what happened before Creation? See, everyone, at some point, gets backed into the taking-something-on-faith corner. Some are just more explicit about it than others.
Eggzactly.
One of the less ridiculous "proofs" for God's existence is that, "the world exists. Because there cannot be infinite causes, an ultimate originator must exist and that originator is God."
The "no infinite causes" ('nic') line is from Aristotle. The problem is that NIC is only true if you take Aristotle's word for it. Now, he was assuredly a smart dude, but he was not infallible. His philosophy denies the existence of atomic particles (so if you agree with Aristotle 100%, you either have a fantastic take on all the science of the last 100 years, or you're provably wrong about something.)
The second problem is the assumption that, "if there is an ultimate originator, then it is God." This is also simply an article of faith, which does not per se make it wrong, merely unjustified.
I can say with equal emphasis and personal faith that, "Since there cannot be an ultimate originator, there must be infinite causes." Further, I could say: "Therefore, those infinite causes are God", or equally, "Therefore, belief in God as an ultimate originator is fallacious."
No one can disprove that without assuming something on faith, either in a trusted authority (philosophical, religious, or otherwise) because no one actually has evidence either way.
Faith is a natural and healthy part of the human experience. Self righteousness and moral absolutism are comfy illusions. The difference between faith and zealotry is that zealots can't or won't change their beliefs under any cirumstances. Even when their own intelligence officers tell them that Iraq abandonded it's WMD programs in 1991.
Where do the courts draw the line between "confusingly similar" (which I assume is a legal term since it's in the IDG threat letters... if not, replace with whichever legal term is apropos)?
What about a line of books "for Drummers"? is that infringment? if not, how about "four dummies"? what about "for gummy bears"?
IMHO your copyright should cover a single, (upper/lower)case insensitive instance of a string of letters and numbers and whitespace...
Those 2 things could prevent much or maybe even most hardware and associated specs from being made available to the public, but couldn't a new product enjoy greater demand if purchasers knew that when it was discontinued, updates might still be available? This doesn't get around stuff with still-secret designs but maybe a manufacturer's curiousity would be piqued if this possiblity were advanced?
just my 2/10ths of a cent.
"A witty saying proves nothing." -Voltaire
Re:Indie movies on Linux ONLY viewers?? y not?
on
Quantum Project
·
· Score: 1
ps, rage all you want, you're just entertaining me! hee hee hoho, look at the anonymous pussy!
and as far as my "1337" spelling and sucky web page, they're for humor and the learning experience respectively. You must really be a pathetic bitch no wait, 810tc# (:PPP) if you get that wound up about it. HAHAHAHAH hahah..... HAHAH!:PPPPP suck it.
"A witty saying proves nothing." -Voltaire
look at the anonymous pussies.
on
Quantum Project
·
· Score: 1
oooooh, i'm so hurt!:)
Well i'm just sooooooo sorry that i don't measure up to your standards of geekiness, asshole, but then again you don't have the guts to even put your name on it so you're probably some masturbating 15 year old with delusions of not getting his ass kicked in middle school.
They released code with gpl'd code in it. Thus, they must release the source for the code at the time it contained the GPL'd material. Right?
Or can I just galavant around selling GPL'd material, make a profit, then stop with but a wrist slapping or less when caught? I don't want to see someone who is even slightly linux friendly get sued over this boner, but they need to face up to the fact that they broke the law!
Restitutions are in order!!!
"A witty saying proves nothing." -Voltaire
Indie movies on Linux ONLY viewers?? y not?
on
Quantum Project
·
· Score: 1
C'mon people, fight fire with fire!!
Obviously we need to scout out some cool independant movie makers, offer them internet distribution, and put out linux-only movies. It's the only way to fight the tyranny of The Man (c)!!<P> And when The Man (c) finally wakes up to our distribution scheme, he won't be able to sue us to stop because we'll have created a sick proprietary license and refuse to open up until he ports his viewer to Linux, BSD Macintosh BeOS Minix Tenex Solaris OS/2Warp and Commodore 64 (plus anything else we want) and if he refuses we'll say "JUST OPEN YOUR SOURCE AND THE RESt WILL FOLLOW!!!!!"<P> Then we'll leave a burning bag on his porch and run.
"A witty saying proves nothing." -Voltaire
Beating Warez Dudes, for just long enough?
on
Quantum Project
·
· Score: 1
Okay, lets face it: if you make it downloadable, they will crack it. If you stream it, they will capture the session. If you threaten to sue them, they will hide and continue to trade.
Quite a conundrum eh wot? Not exactly.
All you have to do is keep your product secure for *long*enough* to make a profit. Permanent security is laughable. You're either going to leave some kind of easily exploitable hole, or you're going to make your encrypted file too big to distribute on cheap media (or too bloated to download on a 14.4kbps modem, thus losing potential customers).
So, imho a good solution is to do some math before jumping into a venture like this, and figure out how much money you think you can make in how short a period, determined by how good of protection you can build without making the product too bloated... 'cause as soon as it gets cracked once, the cracked version is available and spreads like a virus. Soon you're not making any money. So, just make it good enough, that it stymies the crackers until you've made a decent profit. And get decent crypto, instead of being the RIAA and just rot13'ing your product then crying like a b1-0tch.
Just a flash I had.. probably utterly obvious.... my 2 milrays in case its not obvious... gonna stop typing, wait for it.. wait for it.. now!
Slashdot Mirror
however, I think it worth noting that SCO has essentially been screaming from the ramparts "We are SCO, we are greedy morons, we deserve to be removed from existence."
I just wanted to say that before a slew of soi-trolls began yammering about how biased /. is.
You're right - if there was no domineering, unethical, incompetent and generally narcissistic 800-lb Gorilla pushing a shoddy OS and other semi-cruddy products on the world, Linus' project might never have attracted so much interest, effort, dedication and mad 'leet proponents.
But who knows, maybe the Open Source model/method would have fostered Linux's growth even without them.
Oak would be fine next to a roaring fire. Balsa is asking for a bonfire. Not all wood is created equal. At least, according to my g/f.
I imagine that this tech would be f*ing great in Intel's System-On-a-Chip (I forget the name).
Well, I read LaVey's book, and I don't see where you're coming from. I'm not a satanist but I don't see why you say it's not a religion. Although I certainly understand why some people might prefer to think of it as a cult instead of a religion.
>> (There are plenty of teenagers who think they're being cool rebels, too, but that's not the point.) Satanism is, as far as I can tell, a political stance; a more aggressive form of atheism.
With all due respect, what the hell are you smoking? I could easily say that christianity is not a religion but rather an aggressive political organization. Is there a criterion you are using to weed out satanism as "not a religion" or do you simply find it offensive?
>> Therefore, if a Satanist told me to have a totally Satanic day, it would be the rough equivalent of "Have an atheistic day." I would try to find any sense in the statement, fail, and go on my way, wondering if a 24-hour period can have a political stance.We clearly differ in our use of some terms here.. If someone told *me* to have a "totally satanic day", I would presume he meant it in the LaVey-ish sense and that s/he meant I should not take any sh*t from anyone today. Where do you get your impression of satanism? Do you know any satanists (who aren't 14 year olds trying to scare/offend their parents/friends?)?
>>Live long and prosper. (that can't be offensive, can it?)Someone planning suicide might find that to be in bad taste. (Hey, you asked.)
Interesting response! I like it. And since suicidal people are low on my list of considerations... ;)
I'm not greedy.. ;)
>> and you bitch about it.He wasn't bitching about the blessing, he was pointing out that the blessing is contraindicated by the position you took on being open minded.
>> Wow. I mean really...FORCE a blessing? It's the equivalent of saying "have a great day"
Maybe to a christian, but some people take offense at stuff like that. I know I do sometimes. Presuming you are christian, would you like it if someone told you to "Have a totally satanic day"?
>> It's the equivalent of saying "have a great day" and you screaming "F YOU BUDDY. I'LL HAVE WHATEVER DAMN DAY I PLEASE".
I'm not sure what you mean when you say that, because I disagree with what I take to be your point, but I totally agree, except not screaming, and without the "f you buddy". Cause quite frankly, and I'm just speaking for me here, I *will* have whatever damn day I please.
I take this exchange to imply that people who say "god bless you" take offense at rejection of the blessing, in the same way that people who reject the blessing take offense at it being made. Since I'm sure you already understand your side, let me note mine: When someone I don't know tells me "God bless you", I hear a faint undertone of "you heedless pagan" echoing after. They may not have meant it but sometimes, that's how it comes off.
Live long and prosper. (that can't be offensive, can it?)
Exactly :) heh. Like I consider myself a liberal, but a "true believer" republican would consider me a "born again" liberal (unless they considered "born again" too complimentary to ascribe to a liberal?)
without naming names, good on you all for being so calm in discussing... this is what makes slashdot so cool. Although I think some people misread my meaning (if not my attitudes about right wing christians), you showed fortitude of character and maturity by not using the F word on every line. I'm probably the only person who is still replying to this thread, heh.
Oh yeah, the line "Oh come on, don't pretent".. was meant as a buddy-buddy to the reader, I didn't mean to imply that the poster to who I replied was pretending anything. I realized it sounded that way while replying to other replies.
I wonder if the God Mobile (there is such a thing where I live) is going to be at my place when I get off work carrying bats? ;-) heh prolly not.
I didn't know that.. thanks :)
I always thought the born-agains were the ones who had a major breakdown (like bush when he quit alcohol) and became hyper-zealous super-proselytizers.
>> However, I can't even pretend to know what the poster was actually thinking, so maybe he really did think he was making a distinction somehow.>>He was making a real distinction, but you two were speaking a different common language. (at least, i was trying to make a distinction between *nutty* christians and *all* christians)
I was thinking basically: "I want to make a statement that is as obviously and ridiculously biased as possible as a way of putting a spotlight on the statements I seem to be bombarded with whenever I watch FOX News or catch a sound-byte of a conservative talkshow." I'm surprised I didn't get flamed harder, althoug I wasn't trying to make a flame war, I actually had a point. Consider it an artistic statement if the idea of making a wildly exaggerated statemtent to bring reality into releif strikes you as odd.
In my original post my intended audience was not "everyone".. and although I wasn't intentionally trolling, let me state here that I don't hate by group, although some groups I do disdain. For the line, there are nutty, hyperzealous agnostics and liberals too, no one has cornered the market.
I'm not even sure whether I would tone down what I said if I could re edit my post. I don't thrive on hate, but sometimes I feel like I'm the only liberal in the world... usually whenever there's a white house briefing... I'm going to stop blabbing now.
>> What bias do you have against Christians?
1) they try to get me to accept all kinds of mystical nonsense with zero thought that I might already have a spiritual belief (have you accepted jesus as your personal[...]). 2) republicans. 3)the christian church as a group tends to favor "faith" over "common sense" when they feel threatened. I could list more but i'm not going to work myself up (more).
>> Why do you lump all Christians together as nutty liberal haters that love big oil? let me ask you: do you think I really think that EVERY christian is a "nutty liberal hater"? I was making a point. Alternate answer,: for the same reason conservatives lump all liberals together as tin-foil hat wearing, america hating, flag burning nutcases - because they're "them" and slamming them in passing while making another point both lets me let off steam and counter some of the equally pointless rage coming from the "other side". For the record, I don't hate *all* christians. I know many that are good people. I'm simply sick of being peppered with rushlimbaughanncoulterseanhannitytammyfayebakerkar lroveites who feel no compunctions about saying things like "Liberals hate america, they hate flag wavers, they are terrorist sympathisers, blah blah blah". I'm (as i see it) fighting fire with fire. Yes, this will definitely irritate people who don't see things exactly as I do. good. I hope some neo-con has a heart attack because he read my post. As for people like yourself, I think it's a good thing for us to talk about things we disagree on. That's the dialectic. No i'm not a marxist.
>> If you learn one thing in this life, I pray that you actually learn to have an open mind, instead of just professing to have one. Well, that's "very christian" of you. i hope that you are as calm and compassionate to everyone as you are in your response to me (with whom you clearly have ideological differences) because in that way the world becomes a better place.
Clarification: my above post uses exageration to make a point. If think that I think every christian is an insane conservative bent on the liberation of coconut harvesters, then what can I say. Generalizations of that scale should be obvious as such. Come on, only a moron would think that there are no christian liberals.
Yes, I was over the top. Apologies to LIBERAL christians, who may have been offended. Everyone else, see what you want. I'll stop republi-christian-bashing when they stop agnosto-liberal-bashing, ie, probably never.
Wow, you got me really defensive there. Good job. 1.
you'd love an intro polysci class.
yes and no; born-again evangelican christians (also known as religio-loonies) are apt to fervently disagree with something just on the basis that it was said by a "scientist". Eg, Scientist: "global warming could potentially have a negative effect on the world's ecosystem and agribusinesses." Christian nut: "...another liberal lie, god bless Texaco!"
People tend to trust and believe things said by persons they identify with. People on slashdot are probably more likely (as a group) to identify with "scientist"s than are say, people in a baptist church in dixieland. Just like people in that church would be more likely to agree with their minister that "the plight of coconut harvesters in equatorial guinea has got to STOP!" based on who said it than say, a crowd of random people on the street. (don't read too much into these example... as far as I know there are no coconuts in Eq Guinea).
It's just an information processing shortcut.
Oh come on, don't pretent you hold up every single assertion to a microscope. We all take this shortcut. Some of us just have better bs detectors. Also happenstance is everpresent (some people call this luck).
PS: I am not denying the existence of stupidity, or of stupid people. I also don't think I am shocking parent's author with blinding wisdom. Just sayin'.
Oh well, back to cryo-sleep until it all comes together. ;)
Even if you are Microsoft!!
(Fry) "I'm not so sure I--"
(booth) "Slow and Painful. Thank you, have a nice day."
(Bender) "Bring it on!"
(Fry) "Aaaaaah!"
With apologies to Matt Groening. That really was the greatest space opera ever (Star trek, of course, being prophecy). =)
>> Unless you buy into the theory that EVERY OTHER MEDIA OUTLET is controlled by The Man, could it be that, oh, the public just doesn't give a shit?
It's all so clear now... the "mainstream" media, often derided for it's "liberal" bias, which in point of fact consistently shelters conservatives and lambastes liberals, and which is largely run by conservatives, ignores issues which are front and center on the world stage (when they put republicans in a bad light) or magnifies issues that are irrelevant (when they are even true) to attack democrats... yes, the "mainstream" media,
It doesn't need to ask people what they want, it just has to tell them.
Eggzactly.
One of the less ridiculous "proofs" for God's existence is that, "the world exists. Because there cannot be infinite causes, an ultimate originator must exist and that originator is God."
The "no infinite causes" ('nic') line is from Aristotle.
The problem is that NIC is only true if you take Aristotle's word for it. Now, he was assuredly a smart dude, but he was not infallible. His philosophy denies the existence of atomic particles (so if you agree with Aristotle 100%, you either have a fantastic take on all the science of the last 100 years, or you're provably wrong about something.)
The second problem is the assumption that, "if there is an ultimate originator, then it is God."
This is also simply an article of faith, which does not per se make it wrong, merely unjustified.
I can say with equal emphasis and personal faith that, "Since there cannot be an ultimate originator, there must be infinite causes." Further, I could say: "Therefore, those infinite causes are God", or equally, "Therefore, belief in God as an ultimate originator is fallacious."
No one can disprove that without assuming something on faith, either in a trusted authority (philosophical, religious, or otherwise) because no one actually has evidence either way.
Faith is a natural and healthy part of the human experience. Self righteousness and moral absolutism are comfy illusions. The difference between faith and zealotry is that zealots can't or won't change their beliefs under any cirumstances. Even when their own intelligence officers tell them that Iraq abandonded it's WMD programs in 1991.
pimply employee: We need more special sauce! go put some mayonaise out in the sun.
be careful, sometimes I don't finish my sent...
"A witty saying proves nothing." -Voltaire
What about a line of books "for Drummers"? is that infringment? if not, how about "four dummies"? what about "for gummy bears"?
IMHO your copyright should cover a single, (upper/lower)case insensitive instance of a string of letters and numbers and whitespace...
but then, I don't make the laws.
that's what corporations are for.
"A witty saying proves nothing." -Voltaire
just my 2/10ths of a cent.
"A witty saying proves nothing." -Voltaire
and as far as my "1337" spelling and sucky web page, they're for humor and the learning experience respectively. You must really be a pathetic bitch no wait, 810tc# (:PPP) if you get that wound up about it. HAHAHAHAH hahah..... HAHAH!
"A witty saying proves nothing." -Voltaire
Well i'm just sooooooo sorry that i don't measure up to your standards of geekiness, asshole, but then again you don't have the guts to even put your name on it so you're probably some masturbating 15 year old with delusions of not getting his ass kicked in middle school.
get a life.
"A witty saying proves nothing." -Voltaire
Or can I just galavant around selling GPL'd material, make a profit, then stop with but a wrist slapping or less when caught? I don't want to see someone who is even slightly linux friendly get sued over this boner, but they need to face up to the fact that they broke the law!
Restitutions are in order!!!
"A witty saying proves nothing." -Voltaire
Obviously we need to scout out some cool independant movie makers, offer them internet distribution, and put out linux-only movies. It's the only way to fight the tyranny of The Man (c)!!<P>
And when The Man (c) finally wakes up to our distribution scheme, he won't be able to sue us to stop because we'll have created a sick proprietary license and refuse to open up until he ports his viewer to Linux, BSD Macintosh BeOS Minix Tenex Solaris OS/2Warp and Commodore 64 (plus anything else we want) and if he refuses we'll say "JUST OPEN YOUR SOURCE AND THE RESt WILL FOLLOW!!!!!"<P>
Then we'll leave a burning bag on his porch and run.
"A witty saying proves nothing." -Voltaire
Quite a conundrum eh wot? Not exactly.
All you have to do is keep your product secure for *long*enough* to make a profit. Permanent security is laughable. You're either going to leave some kind of easily exploitable hole, or you're going to make your encrypted file too big to distribute on cheap media (or too bloated to download on a 14.4kbps modem, thus losing potential customers).
So, imho a good solution is to do some math before jumping into a venture like this, and figure out how much money you think you can make in how short a period, determined by how good of protection you can build without making the product too bloated... 'cause as soon as it gets cracked once, the cracked version is available and spreads like a virus. Soon you're not making any money. So, just make it good enough, that it stymies the crackers until you've made a decent profit. And get decent crypto, instead of being the RIAA and just rot13'ing your product then crying like a b1-0tch.
Just a flash I had.. probably utterly obvious.... my 2 milrays in case its not obvious... gonna stop typing, wait for it.. wait for it.. now!
"A witty saying proves nothing." -Voltaire