So we shouldn't bother honoring the persons killed in past wars in defense of our nation because we disagree (however strongly) with the war going on today?
Not really. They are talking about copyright, and the performance or specific telling of a story is copyrightable. For example, I'm fine with orchestras producing copyright performances of pieces that were composed centuries ago.
I have problems with them getting and extension for copyright far longer then should ever have been granted though.
>>We still research the bug and come up with ****tentative**** solutions, but we don't patch the problem.
They come up with a tentative solution, but they don't spend the time to do full testing on it unless it's a critical security hole. Why? As mentioned, they prefer to: 1) Use limited resources to focus on finding critical problems 2) Not introduce new code to a known system unless necessary 3) Not put their real-world, paying-customers-who-don't/can't-patch in danger.
Again, the letter makes clear that they do patch the most critical things, and anything that is public (and thus likely to be exploited).
If the hole becomes known, they can issue a fix more quickly because they already have a starting point.
Exactly the point I made in both emails I sent to the @#$@# idiots legislating "for me". It's not like we have a lot of extra money to throw away for the RIAA in the first place either.
I TRIED to vote for someone who had at least HALF a clue. I really did. =(
My flowchart goes more like... "and thus I don't bother buying new music because I have enough already".
I'll occasionally buy something, but generally the cost is too high for the benefit and I just do without.
If you buy only top 40 current hits, the $1.30/song *might* make sense--those songs are at the beginning of their lifecycle. However, the music I'm prone to listen to usually sells for less then $10 for the entire CD. Often, it'll sell as low as $5.00.
Itunes simply didn't make sense before, and it makes even LESS sense now. Switching to a DRM free option shouldn't automatically mean that I have to buy the more expensive version.
When you sit closer to the screen, you don't WANT a screen the same size as a theatre. (Ever sat on the front row? Too close/big!)
I have a simple 800X600 projector (so movies are standard def) showing on a 7' diagonal screen, and it's nearly as enjoyable as going to the theatre. I can enjoy much better seating, all the treats I want, and not have to worry about random people ruining the experience. If I had the money for a nicer (1080p) projector and high definition movies, I can see going to theatres even less than I already do. Sure, it's not QUITE the same -- but the benefits outweigh the costs.
How can I afford it? The projector was under $1000 (3 years ago) and the screen is homemade. Not really that expensive.
Of course, from the rest of your post, I'm not sure we aren't arguing the same point.:P
>>Well if so many tools out there weren't mindless lemmings, having to have the latest PC games
What if I don't HAVE to have the latest games, but I happen to want them, and have thought out the pros and cons and decided to go ahead and get them anyway? Does that still make me mindless? Or are you just trolling?
Really, the/. summary is just an example of bad reporting. I mean, you take the story, completely twist it, and come out with something brand new. It's like some kind of bizarre transmogrification.
THAT is an excellent idea. I have no idea why that didn't occur to me before. Too busy avoiding inkjets I suppose. Of course, you DO have to deal with the bulk of the all-in-one, but it's probably worth the trade-off.
There's an offline mode I believe, but generally you just stay logged in to the service and play your games. I much prefer it to dealing with swapping CD/DVDs every time I want to play, and I don't have to deal with things like Starforce, or hacked.exe files from people I have no reason to trust.
There are no subscriptions that I'm aware of on Steam currently. You pay once, download as many times as needed. (Unless you want a new game, then you have to pay a whole new price!)
No. Wii points can be purchased online with the Wii itself. Wii points (and xbox live points, etc) are just a way of guaranteeing that you will spend a minimum of X dollars at a certain store, AND that you will want to buy MORE points to use up the "left over" points you likely have.
No. Like it or not, IE is the standard. Firefox is like the "better, but less used" pig-latin in your story.
It would be more correct to say that they're requiring English in the U.S. to order. Note that I said "more" correct, because it's still not a good analogy -- but it's better than the one you offered.
Just because Firefox is better doesn't make it the dominate browser.
Slashdot Mirror
So we shouldn't bother honoring the persons killed in past wars in defense of our nation because we disagree (however strongly) with the war going on today?
Good solid thinking.
And copyright is a granted, temporary monopoly on distribution, not a right.
It's justified because it's legal in the company of operation. Or were you talking morality? In that case, the RIAA argument makes a lot of sense.
You must not have heard the song he's quoting from?
Don't miss the alt text.
"Anybody else see parallels...."
Not really. They are talking about copyright, and the performance or specific telling of a story is copyrightable. For example, I'm fine with orchestras producing copyright performances of pieces that were composed centuries ago.
I have problems with them getting and extension for copyright far longer then should ever have been granted though.
>>We still research the bug and come up with ****tentative**** solutions, but we don't patch the problem.
They come up with a tentative solution, but they don't spend the time to do full testing on it unless it's a critical security hole. Why? As mentioned, they prefer to:
1) Use limited resources to focus on finding critical problems
2) Not introduce new code to a known system unless necessary
3) Not put their real-world, paying-customers-who-don't/can't-patch in danger.
Again, the letter makes clear that they do patch the most critical things, and anything that is public (and thus likely to be exploited).
If the hole becomes known, they can issue a fix more quickly because they already have a starting point.
I googled and googled, but I couldn't find what your signature is related to--and that HAS to be some kind of great story.
But if physical sales are a pain, people will turn to the internet. Ebay for example. Sales tax is generally not charged on internet sales.
(Which was supposed to be my point. Apparently I failed to make that clear.)
Exactly the point I made in both emails I sent to the @#$@# idiots legislating "for me". It's not like we have a lot of extra money to throw away for the RIAA in the first place either.
I TRIED to vote for someone who had at least HALF a clue. I really did. =(
My flowchart goes more like ... "and thus I don't bother buying new music because I have enough already".
I'll occasionally buy something, but generally the cost is too high for the benefit and I just do without.
If you buy only top 40 current hits, the $1.30/song *might* make sense--those songs are at the beginning of their lifecycle. However, the music I'm prone to listen to usually sells for less then $10 for the entire CD. Often, it'll sell as low as $5.00.
Itunes simply didn't make sense before, and it makes even LESS sense now. Switching to a DRM free option shouldn't automatically mean that I have to buy the more expensive version.
Agreed. It's now significantly more expensive to buy music from Apple compared to Wal-mart. This is progress?
In that case, it wasn't funny, and was done better several posts prior.
When you sit closer to the screen, you don't WANT a screen the same size as a theatre. (Ever sat on the front row? Too close/big!)
:P
I have a simple 800X600 projector (so movies are standard def) showing on a 7' diagonal screen, and it's nearly as enjoyable as going to the theatre. I can enjoy much better seating, all the treats I want, and not have to worry about random people ruining the experience. If I had the money for a nicer (1080p) projector and high definition movies, I can see going to theatres even less than I already do. Sure, it's not QUITE the same -- but the benefits outweigh the costs.
How can I afford it? The projector was under $1000 (3 years ago) and the screen is homemade. Not really that expensive.
Of course, from the rest of your post, I'm not sure we aren't arguing the same point.
Of course, they're only available in lossless, coincidentally more expensive, files.
What about the times we mock the editors for grammar, spelling, and factual errors?
>>Well if so many tools out there weren't mindless lemmings, having to have the latest PC games
What if I don't HAVE to have the latest games, but I happen to want them, and have thought out the pros and cons and decided to go ahead and get them anyway? Does that still make me mindless? Or are you just trolling?
Um... yeah. If they made some *significant* changes to the OS, they could get the new features in.
Hey! They did. It's available as WINDOWS VISTA.
Really, the /. summary is just an example of bad reporting. I mean, you take the story, completely twist it, and come out with something brand new. It's like some kind of bizarre transmogrification.
THAT is an excellent idea. I have no idea why that didn't occur to me before. Too busy avoiding inkjets I suppose. Of course, you DO have to deal with the bulk of the all-in-one, but it's probably worth the trade-off.
Correct me if I'm forgetting my geometry, but volume is usually a 3-dimensional measure while area is for 2 dimensions.
There's an offline mode I believe, but generally you just stay logged in to the service and play your games. I much prefer it to dealing with swapping CD/DVDs every time I want to play, and I don't have to deal with things like Starforce, or hacked .exe files from people I have no reason to trust.
There are no subscriptions that I'm aware of on Steam currently. You pay once, download as many times as needed.
(Unless you want a new game, then you have to pay a whole new price!)
No. Wii points can be purchased online with the Wii itself. Wii points (and xbox live points, etc) are just a way of guaranteeing that you will spend a minimum of X dollars at a certain store, AND that you will want to buy MORE points to use up the "left over" points you likely have.
No. Like it or not, IE is the standard. Firefox is like the "better, but less used" pig-latin in your story.
It would be more correct to say that they're requiring English in the U.S. to order. Note that I said "more" correct, because it's still not a good analogy -- but it's better than the one you offered.
Just because Firefox is better doesn't make it the dominate browser.