I'd like to see you say that when asked the same question in a few years from now.
The cheap quip, "so use last year's machine" is so myopic that it's ridiculous. The principle is "DRM is bad" and, now that Apple have fully embraced it, I am no longer even going to consider trying a Macbook, regardless of what the Apple guys I know tell me about the wonderful OS.
DRM is bad, I do not want to support a company that buys into the whole attempt to control what I can and can not do on my computer.
Incidentally, if you think the DRM situation is getting bad now, imagine a world where all your computing gets done "in the cloud" (forgive me for using that idiotic buzzword) and you have no control over the platform you use to do whatever it is you want to do with your computer.
Big business wants to control your actions, so they can dictate what you need to spend money on. Recognize it. Fight it by not buying into it.
I note that your previous posts are pretty much exclusively on topics involving war and combat, and also note that you are a member of the US Army infantry.
I no longer find it surprising that your understanding or war is limited to combat related issues, and that questions like "Should this war be fought" and "Is the life of one of our soldiers worth more than the life of a civilian on the other side" are utterly beyond you. You are trained to be too stupid to ask questions.
I've met soldiers like you before. You think that because you're a soldier, you understand war. Meat heads like you don't understand war any more than police dogs understand the principles of the legal system. That's all you are; a trained dog fighting for something you don't understand or gain anything from.
Half assed? You continued a joke without adding anything to it, and followed it up with a kinda sarcastic reply which reduces the chances that a reader would even recognize your joke.
That's not even a quarter-assed attempt. I'd put it somewhere in the neighborhood of 12.5% of an assed attempt.
If we could just drop a bomb every time we saw an enemy in a building that would be great.
You are a frothing at the mouth lunatic, all your posts here indicate that you are totally jingoist and have, behind the lip-service you pay for political correctness, nothing but total disregard for the lives of those who are not from Your Side(tm).
How about you step back a moment, and have look at the whole war in context, recognize that it's a war based on a lie (the claim that WMDs posed a threat vs the greed for oil and economic gain) and that discussing the issue about civilian collateral damage is moot next to the discussion about whether we (the coalition of the willing) should even be there in the first place.
Damn you for dragging the world into an era of perpetual war, damn you to hell.
You're not seeing the real force behind the evilness here. They need to sue monkeys for evolving into humans who would then go on to commit copyright infringement. Damn those tree-dwelling purveyors of immorality!
My kid would never get arrested for sharing a DVD because the law will never get that draconian.
Must be nice and warm under that rock then.
In the US, and most countries, we don't have direct democracies to add a level of insulation to the law. Most also have a piece of paper somewhere new laws have to be measured against to see if they fly. This is so we don't have moral majority's commonly accepted morality ruling, but the law as written, to be modified, after careful consideration.
Right, and if that's how you think it is then I once again marvel at the level of bliss available under rocks these days.
The value and cost of movies is determined by many things like utility and supply and demand(thats econ 101 BTW, which is a "Market Fundamental")
Before you jump on that high horse, I studied economics in university.
You can keep the "Imaginary property" idealism to yourself, it's utter BS given the current state of affairs. The system needs reform, not people justifying theft.
What on Earth is wrong with you? I've said it *twice* now, I'm not justifying his actions, I'm saying, let the punishment fit the crime. The RIAA/MPAA and their global sidekicks are running around slapping people with fines in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The Canadian association here, as stated in the summary, wants him to go to jail. I'm not saying he's blameless or even that his actions are not a crime. Bloody hell, you're arguing against a point I'm not even making. What I *am* saying is that arguing for jail time and fines that you normally see corporations being slapped with for anti-trust is absurd.
The law exists, at least in a democracy, for the betterment of society and the people's rights.
As decided by whom? In answer to my rhetorical question; the society itself decides what is in its interest, and selects leaders to fashion rules (legislators) and apply it (executive and judiciary) according to those common conceptions.
A CD may no longer cost $12 to make, but a full length motion movie still takes $400 million.
Disagree. Some of the best movies I've ever seen were made by hobbyists. Clerks and Blair Witch Project come to mind immediately, but there are many more. The myth of the billion dollar industry is nothing more than an artificial barrier to entry. Sure, you need a $5k camera to get a good picture, but you do *not* need a $5m actor.
They produce the movie, you have no right to it while it's copyright still holds unless you enter into an agreement with them.
I don't disagree. I disagree with the absurd punishments being handed out for copyright infringement, especially when the police treat burglary and drug offenses with such nonchalance these days.
Copyright exists for the betterment of society. While ideal length is debatable the value of the system in general really isn't. The law protects rights of producers so they continue to produce, to the betterment of society.
That may have been the original idea, but the system is so corrupted now that it has resulted in an industry that sends a tiny share of the profits to the actual content creators and the majority to a bloated management structure that stifles, instead of encourages, free creative expression. So keep the copyright idealism to yourself, it's utter BS given the current state of affairs.
I believe the RIAA has been socially harmful and the current length of copyright is too long, but you [sic] quasi-socialist mumbojumbo is just as harmful in the opposite direction.
Aah the rant of the market fundamentalist; "You commie!" There's nothing Socialist (note the capital "S") about not wanting to be anti-social or keeping an idea on the real effects of things among the real people. Your rabid capitalist shill speech is pathetic, and I guarantee you'll change your tune if your parent/kid/sibling gets jail time for copying a film for a friend.
I don't disagree that it should be discouraged, just that the punishment should fit the crime. Giving harsher penalties to copyright infringers than to drug dealers is so far beyond absurd that there is no word in the English language strong enough to adequately express it.
That you think that jail time is remotely acceptable, such that not getting it makes him "lucky", speaks volumes about the level of brainwashing that the RIAA and its global cohorts have managed to inflict upon the public.
In the digital age, copying a film or music track should be a misdemeanor, given that the principles of the rule of law instruct that the ease of the offense, its commonality, the view that the general public has of it and the mindset that people have when they do it all have to be taken into account.
Assigning jail time to an action that is as socially innocuous as copying an MP3 violates all of these. It is obviously only there to protect the now-defunct business model that the recording studios live by, and has no basis as a common social conception of what is and is not morally acceptable.
Which, when you break it down, is what the law is supposed to be; commonly accepted morality. We as a society have become so socially sick that this fundamental concept seems odd to even state.
Slashdot Mirror
My point --->
You --->
We have a backup plan. Chuck Norris will roundhouse kick that asteroid the hell outta here.
If those tools were military spec then retrieving them would more than pay for the mission.
OMG! That CIA program to identify people by their writing style ACTUALLY WORKS!!!
Linux has no DRM.
I listen to music.
I watch movies.
I'd like to see you say that when asked the same question in a few years from now.
The cheap quip, "so use last year's machine" is so myopic that it's ridiculous. The principle is "DRM is bad" and, now that Apple have fully embraced it, I am no longer even going to consider trying a Macbook, regardless of what the Apple guys I know tell me about the wonderful OS.
DRM is bad, I do not want to support a company that buys into the whole attempt to control what I can and can not do on my computer.
Incidentally, if you think the DRM situation is getting bad now, imagine a world where all your computing gets done "in the cloud" (forgive me for using that idiotic buzzword) and you have no control over the platform you use to do whatever it is you want to do with your computer.
Big business wants to control your actions, so they can dictate what you need to spend money on. Recognize it. Fight it by not buying into it.
Must... resist... flying... chair... joke...
Bah!
With a 1% success rate that's a higher success rate than Microsoft's effort which involved throwing chairs at popups.
*Cries and begs for forgiveness*
To have had a greater effect, the court should have ordered that their hands be held in the door when it was being slammed.
Get out more? Basement? I took the time to read a bit about you before jumping to conclusions, perhaps you should return the favour.
Few indeed, are the people who "get out" (whatever that means) more than I do.
In other words, EAL ratings are completely divorced of any relationship with actual, real-world, security.
Out of interest, I wonder what EAL they'd give to what most of us here consider the most secure OS currently available, OpenBSD.
You're complaining about a news story that is devoid of anything noteworthy.
I was going to make some quip about you being new here, and then I noticed that your UID is an order of magnitude lower than mine.
So, complain on :)
Worst.
Grammar.
In.
Summary.
Ever.
Seriously, was this submitted by a 5 year old and edited by a 6 year old?
I like to refer to it as "humanity".
Perhaps.
I note that your previous posts are pretty much exclusively on topics involving war and combat, and also note that you are a member of the US Army infantry.
I no longer find it surprising that your understanding or war is limited to combat related issues, and that questions like "Should this war be fought" and "Is the life of one of our soldiers worth more than the life of a civilian on the other side" are utterly beyond you. You are trained to be too stupid to ask questions.
I've met soldiers like you before. You think that because you're a soldier, you understand war. Meat heads like you don't understand war any more than police dogs understand the principles of the legal system. That's all you are; a trained dog fighting for something you don't understand or gain anything from.
Half assed? You continued a joke without adding anything to it, and followed it up with a kinda sarcastic reply which reduces the chances that a reader would even recognize your joke.
That's not even a quarter-assed attempt. I'd put it somewhere in the neighborhood of 12.5% of an assed attempt.
You haven't met a feminist before, have you?
You are a frothing at the mouth lunatic, all your posts here indicate that you are totally jingoist and have, behind the lip-service you pay for political correctness, nothing but total disregard for the lives of those who are not from Your Side(tm).
How about you step back a moment, and have look at the whole war in context, recognize that it's a war based on a lie (the claim that WMDs posed a threat vs the greed for oil and economic gain) and that discussing the issue about civilian collateral damage is moot next to the discussion about whether we (the coalition of the willing) should even be there in the first place.
Damn you for dragging the world into an era of perpetual war, damn you to hell.
"A little sociopathic" ?
Dude, you're a freaking maniac. Please go see a shrink before you manage to rationalize killing your neighbor.
You're not seeing the real force behind the evilness here. They need to sue monkeys for evolving into humans who would then go on to commit copyright infringement. Damn those tree-dwelling purveyors of immorality!
Must be nice and warm under that rock then.
Right, and if that's how you think it is then I once again marvel at the level of bliss available under rocks these days.
Before you jump on that high horse, I studied economics in university.
What on Earth is wrong with you? I've said it *twice* now, I'm not justifying his actions, I'm saying, let the punishment fit the crime. The RIAA/MPAA and their global sidekicks are running around slapping people with fines in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The Canadian association here, as stated in the summary, wants him to go to jail. I'm not saying he's blameless or even that his actions are not a crime. Bloody hell, you're arguing against a point I'm not even making. What I *am* saying is that arguing for jail time and fines that you normally see corporations being slapped with for anti-trust is absurd.
As decided by whom? In answer to my rhetorical question; the society itself decides what is in its interest, and selects leaders to fashion rules (legislators) and apply it (executive and judiciary) according to those common conceptions.
Disagree. Some of the best movies I've ever seen were made by hobbyists. Clerks and Blair Witch Project come to mind immediately, but there are many more. The myth of the billion dollar industry is nothing more than an artificial barrier to entry. Sure, you need a $5k camera to get a good picture, but you do *not* need a $5m actor.
I don't disagree. I disagree with the absurd punishments being handed out for copyright infringement, especially when the police treat burglary and drug offenses with such nonchalance these days.
That may have been the original idea, but the system is so corrupted now that it has resulted in an industry that sends a tiny share of the profits to the actual content creators and the majority to a bloated management structure that stifles, instead of encourages, free creative expression. So keep the copyright idealism to yourself, it's utter BS given the current state of affairs.
Aah the rant of the market fundamentalist; "You commie!" There's nothing Socialist (note the capital "S") about not wanting to be anti-social or keeping an idea on the real effects of things among the real people. Your rabid capitalist shill speech is pathetic, and I guarantee you'll change your tune if your parent/kid/sibling gets jail time for copying a film for a friend.
I don't disagree that it should be discouraged, just that the punishment should fit the crime. Giving harsher penalties to copyright infringers than to drug dealers is so far beyond absurd that there is no word in the English language strong enough to adequately express it.
Not here on Slashdot it isn't.
You're nuts if you think ODF files are larger than DOC or DOCX files.
And whining about download times when using dialup is like whining about commute times when you're traveling to work on a tricycle.
Not as bad as Microsoft.
That you think that jail time is remotely acceptable, such that not getting it makes him "lucky", speaks volumes about the level of brainwashing that the RIAA and its global cohorts have managed to inflict upon the public.
In the digital age, copying a film or music track should be a misdemeanor, given that the principles of the rule of law instruct that the ease of the offense, its commonality, the view that the general public has of it and the mindset that people have when they do it all have to be taken into account.
Assigning jail time to an action that is as socially innocuous as copying an MP3 violates all of these. It is obviously only there to protect the now-defunct business model that the recording studios live by, and has no basis as a common social conception of what is and is not morally acceptable.
Which, when you break it down, is what the law is supposed to be; commonly accepted morality. We as a society have become so socially sick that this fundamental concept seems odd to even state.