Pong was the first, but Wizardry on my best friend's Apple II will always have a special place in my heart. "Creeping Coins breathe on you causing 1hp of damage." *sigh*
I'm only replying because that's the first sig in a long time that's made me LOL. Thanks. Wish I'd thought of it. Now back to setting up mysql users via command line on my G4 ssh'd into my Xserve. Yeah, I'm just a non-tech-savvy Apple customer!
In terms of functionality, there's little difference
WHAAA? You must be joking. I own several Macs and one Windoze box. XP is about as clunky as it gets. I loathe having to go near it.
For my business, web and print design, there's a HUGE difference in what I can get done on my Macs vs the PC. In fact, the PC has been relegated to little more than testing Suxplorer's pathetic CSS rendering. Little difference indeed!
Google should develop their own standards compliant browser. Though Firefox is great, it's still relatively unknown to the general public. Google on the other hand, is a household name. I think most users and companies would feel supremely confident installing and using a Google browser.
Google could crush IE in no time at all. That would make me so very happy, as I'm sick to death of the time I lose applying hacks and workarounds to my code for Suxplorer.
Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
judgment
The act or process of judging; the formation of an opinion after consideration or deliberation.
opinion
A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: "The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion" (Elizabeth Drew).
A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a medical opinion.
If I interpret those definitions correctly, morality is a "judgment" based on the "opinion" of a given entity--be it you, me, the supreme court, society, whatever. So, morality isn't an absolute. It's a perception of right and wrong. Apply that to copyright law and you'll get a wide variety of opinions. There's no absolute arbiter on morality, and your perception of morality is simply your opinion.
copyright is an absolute moral principle, not merely a legal construction
Really? I understand the legal part, but what book did you pull the "absolute moral principle" from? And who wrote it? If there's a book of "absolute moral priciples" out there, I'd love to read it. And don't tell me, "The Constitution" or "The Bible". Both works are flawed. Remember slavery? Immoral, but legal in the U.S. at one time. Legal doesn't necessarily equate to moral. Is copyright violation illegal? Yes. Immoral? That's a personal opinion.
since you have chosen to reject reality, you are wrong.
Nope, I merely reject your perception of reality. Apparently there's no room for gray area or interpretation in your world. It's "immoral this" and "immoral that." On what do you base morality? Regardless of your source, it's subject to interpretation and opinion.
Immoral to whom? You?! Like it or not, morality absolutely IS subjective. Some folks believe eating meat is immoral, others don't. I don't want either side of that argument legislating what I eat for breakfast based on their concept of morality. Some religions espouse polygamy, and other religions practice animal sacrifice. One man's religious or culturally influenced concept of morality is another man's paganism or crime. So yes, morality IS subjective. Don't give me this "patently false." bull.
Just because YOU say software piracy is immoral doesn't make it so. You aren't God, nor do you speak on God's behalf. You're certainly entitled to your opinion of morality, but that's all it is pal, opinion.
BTW, I don't take exception to anyone declaring software piracy illegal. It most likely will be judged so in this case. I would suggest, however, as many others have, that our government's priorities are totally out of whack.
One last thing: Try to reserve the word "immoral" for crimes that really are immoral, like rape, murder, child molestation, etc. It you paint stupid sh*t like software piracy with the word "immoral", the word will eventually lose it's gravity.
You're confusing "immoral" with "illegal". Morality is subjective, based largely on individual principles. In a legal context, it's the facts that matter, not your interpretation of what's moral.
Uh, that was sarcasm my friend... The average citizen doesn't give a crap about piracy cases. We'd prefer to see spammers STOPPED! My point was, that our govenment doesn't care what WE want. The RIAA and MPAA are a stronger force than you or I and our ISPs, and therefore those b&st*rds get catered to first.
The other point I was making, is that the really successful spammers generate a nice tax revenue for the government, so why would the government really care about shutting them down? It's free money for them. Get it?
I presume most spammers pay taxes, therefore represent a nice little revenue stream for Uncle Sam. Why would the U.S. government bother spending its resources squashing profitable spam companies just because we peons (or our ISPs) complain about a little extra email? Answer is, they wouldn't.
It's more fun and rewarding for them to work high-profile "piracy" cases, busting the evil "pirates" and "hackers" of the world. And face it, the major ISPs and the citizens of this country don't have the lobbying power of the RIAA or MPAA, so nothing much gets done on our behalf. I think we'll see more and more cases like this in the near future, while spam continues to gobble up bandwidth and fill our mailboxes.
Although the price of cable is ridiculous, it's really the endless scrolling through all these unwanted channels that irritates me. I'd be happy (sort of) paying the same price, but would like the option of removing from my menu these channels I never, ever watch.
For instance, I could start by removing Fox, MTV and all the religious channels from my menu. I'd still be paying for them, so the poor things wouldn't go belly up, but at least there'd be fewer channels of crap for me to scroll past on my way to something better!
If we're talking about desktops here, not servers, what exactly does the average user crave all this speed for? Is it just for games? Most of my thirty-something friends use PCs primarily for playing games or net-surfing with crappy-non-standards-compliant Explorer.
With 15 years of print design under my belt, my G4s seem plenty fast for high-end Photoshop work and anything else I throw at it. How fast does the average "business" machine need to be? I'm all for speed increases, but the PC vs. Mac speed debate is so OLD! Dell must be a huge crybaby to call shenanigans on an ad that's already played out.
Mac users know our Macs aren't the fastest, and most of us (I'll wager) were skeptical about Apple's G5 claim. Fact is, we don't really care. I'm making a living with these so-called "slow" computers, not playing Jedi Academy. I'd never trade a slow G4 for a fast Dell, unless I really needed a better gaming machine.
BTW, I do play Jedi Academy, and it rocks! Don't tell my wife...
Slashdot Mirror
Pong was the first, but Wizardry on my best friend's Apple II will always have a special place in my heart.
"Creeping Coins breathe on you causing 1hp of damage." *sigh*
I'm only replying because that's the first sig in a long time that's made me LOL. Thanks. Wish I'd thought of it. Now back to setting up mysql users via command line on my G4 ssh'd into my Xserve. Yeah, I'm just a non-tech-savvy Apple customer!
In terms of functionality, there's little difference WHAAA? You must be joking. I own several Macs and one Windoze box. XP is about as clunky as it gets. I loathe having to go near it. For my business, web and print design, there's a HUGE difference in what I can get done on my Macs vs the PC. In fact, the PC has been relegated to little more than testing Suxplorer's pathetic CSS rendering. Little difference indeed!
Google should develop their own standards compliant browser. Though Firefox is great, it's still relatively unknown to the general public. Google on the other hand, is a household name. I think most users and companies would feel supremely confident installing and using a Google browser. Google could crush IE in no time at all. That would make me so very happy, as I'm sick to death of the time I lose applying hacks and workarounds to my code for Suxplorer.
-
Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
judgment-
The act or process of judging; the formation of an opinion after consideration or deliberation.
opinionIf I interpret those definitions correctly, morality is a "judgment" based on the "opinion" of a given entity--be it you, me, the supreme court, society, whatever. So, morality isn't an absolute. It's a perception of right and wrong. Apply that to copyright law and you'll get a wide variety of opinions. There's no absolute arbiter on morality, and your perception of morality is simply your opinion.
copyright is an absolute moral principle, not merely a legal construction
Really? I understand the legal part, but what book did you pull the "absolute moral principle" from? And who wrote it? If there's a book of "absolute moral priciples" out there, I'd love to read it. And don't tell me, "The Constitution" or "The Bible". Both works are flawed. Remember slavery? Immoral, but legal in the U.S. at one time. Legal doesn't necessarily equate to moral. Is copyright violation illegal? Yes. Immoral? That's a personal opinion.
since you have chosen to reject reality, you are wrong.
Nope, I merely reject your perception of reality. Apparently there's no room for gray area or interpretation in your world. It's "immoral this" and "immoral that." On what do you base morality? Regardless of your source, it's subject to interpretation and opinion.
I'm with the rest, where can we get it?
Immoral to whom? You?! Like it or not, morality absolutely IS subjective. Some folks believe eating meat is immoral, others don't. I don't want either side of that argument legislating what I eat for breakfast based on their concept of morality. Some religions espouse polygamy, and other religions practice animal sacrifice. One man's religious or culturally influenced concept of morality is another man's paganism or crime. So yes, morality IS subjective. Don't give me this "patently false." bull.
Just because YOU say software piracy is immoral doesn't make it so. You aren't God, nor do you speak on God's behalf. You're certainly entitled to your opinion of morality, but that's all it is pal, opinion.
BTW, I don't take exception to anyone declaring software piracy illegal. It most likely will be judged so in this case. I would suggest, however, as many others have, that our government's priorities are totally out of whack.
One last thing: Try to reserve the word "immoral" for crimes that really are immoral, like rape, murder, child molestation, etc. It you paint stupid sh*t like software piracy with the word "immoral", the word will eventually lose it's gravity.
You're confusing "immoral" with "illegal". Morality is subjective, based largely on individual principles. In a legal context, it's the facts that matter, not your interpretation of what's moral.
Uh, that was sarcasm my friend... The average citizen doesn't give a crap about piracy cases. We'd prefer to see spammers STOPPED! My point was, that our govenment doesn't care what WE want. The RIAA and MPAA are a stronger force than you or I and our ISPs, and therefore those b&st*rds get catered to first.
The other point I was making, is that the really successful spammers generate a nice tax revenue for the government, so why would the government really care about shutting them down? It's free money for them. Get it?
I presume most spammers pay taxes, therefore represent a nice little revenue stream for Uncle Sam. Why would the U.S. government bother spending its resources squashing profitable spam companies just because we peons (or our ISPs) complain about a little extra email? Answer is, they wouldn't.
It's more fun and rewarding for them to work high-profile "piracy" cases, busting the evil "pirates" and "hackers" of the world. And face it, the major ISPs and the citizens of this country don't have the lobbying power of the RIAA or MPAA, so nothing much gets done on our behalf. I think we'll see more and more cases like this in the near future, while spam continues to gobble up bandwidth and fill our mailboxes.
Although the price of cable is ridiculous, it's really the endless scrolling through all these unwanted channels that irritates me. I'd be happy (sort of) paying the same price, but would like the option of removing from my menu these channels I never, ever watch.
For instance, I could start by removing Fox, MTV and all the religious channels from my menu. I'd still be paying for them, so the poor things wouldn't go belly up, but at least there'd be fewer channels of crap for me to scroll past on my way to something better!
If we're talking about desktops here, not servers, what exactly does the average user crave all this speed for? Is it just for games? Most of my thirty-something friends use PCs primarily for playing games or net-surfing with crappy-non-standards-compliant Explorer.
With 15 years of print design under my belt, my G4s seem plenty fast for high-end Photoshop work and anything else I throw at it. How fast does the average "business" machine need to be? I'm all for speed increases, but the PC vs. Mac speed debate is so OLD! Dell must be a huge crybaby to call shenanigans on an ad that's already played out.
Mac users know our Macs aren't the fastest, and most of us (I'll wager) were skeptical about Apple's G5 claim. Fact is, we don't really care. I'm making a living with these so-called "slow" computers, not playing Jedi Academy. I'd never trade a slow G4 for a fast Dell, unless I really needed a better gaming machine.
BTW, I do play Jedi Academy, and it rocks! Don't tell my wife...