Just because you think "upright character" doesn't include having a feminine side or homosexuality doesn't make you right.
There are many paths to the truth. Some are more convoluted than others. Thank goodness the Boy Scouts have finally started to acknowledge that life doesn't come in one flavor. I don't like the IP merit badges anymore than the next geek, but at least my head isn't buried in the sand.
Trying to educate them is hopeless--I know, I've tried.
No, it's not hopeless. It's hard. Those are not the same things. It takes patience and time to learn something new, and it takes patience and time to teach something. Just because you give up doesn't mean the task is impossible.
Hopefully, technology will get to the point where most users can both not know the details of the computer, and also not manage to mess things up at the same time. I think we're getting there. Slowly.
The lobbying done by alchohol, oil and forestry groups is where most of the US's info about the plant comes from.
I don't understand why people forget the biggest culprit in this debate, and the party that has most to lose from the legalization of marijuana: drug companies. Marijuana is superior to most of the pain-killing and/or anti-depressant drugs available, without the crippling side effects that accompany commercial drugs.
Also, don't forget that Marijuana is a MAJOR cash crop. It's a multi-billion dollar industry in British Columbia alone. At some point, governments are going to realize they can make more from taxing the use of marijuana than they receive from the pockets of the pharmaceuticals.
Wait till RC1 to review.
That's a great idea if you don't ever intend to use the product. The whole point of beta releases is to figure out problems, iron out difficulties, and help develop the software towards release. If you'll never use it, then wait. If you're going to use it, you might as well get your opinion in *early*, before everything gets set in stone.
you're obviously not the sharpest tool in the shed.
all you need is a dialtone, which verizon would have provided you for $12 a month. all this does is drop that $12 fee. if you paid more, there's only one place to point the blame, and you can do it tomorrow morning in the mirror right before you get in the shower.
oh, i assure you i am not being pedantic. the biggest problem with most individual's understanding of morality is their inability to break a situation into it's lowest common denominator.
it's well and good to say that rape is always immoral. but that is merely begging the question, because built into our definition of rape is the very wrongness of it. the true question should be: when is sex rape? rape, at its core, is an action involving intercourse between two individuals. the morality of that action lies not in the action itself, but in the motivation behind the action. sex can be moral, but it can also be immoral. one subsection of immoral sex is described as rape.
An entirely different question is my response to immorality. That moves away from the question we were talking about, which I believe was whether or not software patents are "moral".
So let's get into semantics. Of course the software patent itself isn't immoral. Perhaps you could argue that a government which provides software patents is immoral (but then I'm going to seriously question the basis you use to judge morality). Perhaps you could argue that anyone who applies for a patent is immoral, if the possession of software patents is immoral or unethical (and they really aren't the same thing at all, not that you've argued that, i'm just saying).
i'm not going to pretend to understand exactly what you were trying to claim in your first comment. what you said was that it is immoral to think that software patents are a misguided feature of American intellectual property laws, while simultaneously applaud those same laws being used to sue microsoft. well, actually, no.
let me give you a hitler example, just because i like extremes. dietrich bonhoeffer was a theologian in germany during wwii who joined a plot to assassinate hitler. he agonized long and hard over this decision, before joining it, because he realized that the immoral action of killing hitler was massively dwarfed by the immorality of hitler's own actions. the plot failed, but the logic holds.
you and i would never discuss whether or not murder is wrong. it is wrong by definition. murder is a subset of killing, however, and we could probably have a pretty enlightening discussion of the morality of certain killings if we wanted to do so.
Software patents in and of themselves are not wrong. They are concepts. Perhaps it is immoral of me to apply for a patent frivolously, or to steal someone's idea and patent it, or to go around abusing the intent of patent law. But those are human actions that relate to patents, not the patents themselves.
There's a world of difference between coming to a common definition of what we're talking about and coming to "the ultimate conclusion".
It's fine to say something (the SCO case) is unethical. It's not fine to just say that. Think about this - morals do not exist in our three-dimensional world. The morality of any action does not lie in the action itself - the action is a-moral, but the motivation behind the action is moral. So yes, every single lawsuit is "simply" a lawsuit. The ethical and moral qualities of said lawsuit are not found in the fact that there is a lawsuit, but in the motivation of the one pressing the lawsuit. It's called situational ethics - the same action can be right in one circumstance, and wrong in another.
Glance at SCO all you want. The only reason "morals" or "ethics" could be called into question in the SCO case is if they are pressing a case that they know to be false. I don't like them either, but it's not immoral or unethical simply to sue someone.
I'm quite aware of what ethics and morality are. Keep in mind that when we're talking about "intellectual property rights" we're talking about a DEBATE over LEGAL ISSUES. If we're talking about my behaviour in light of the current legal framework, THEN AND ONLY THEN are we talking about ethics or morality.
You're right. Things are *way* too serious in your world. You can start lightening up by remembering that not everything is a moral or ethical issue.
I've read some bad/. threads before, but this is terrible. Anyone who both RTFAs and is capable of reading comprehension would have noticed that the issue to be decided isn't specifically about Hubble - it's about whether the improved space shuttle can handle the assignment of dealing with Hubble. A decision will be made after the shuttle is flying again and why know it's capabilities.
I'm sorry, but this isn't news. It's called common sense.
Please, refrain from being ridiculous. Software patents aren't a moral issue, and they aren't an ethical issue. The issue of software patents is a legal question about property rights.
A simple little url trick you can do is to advertise with a different entry page than you're main page. Say mydomain.com/google, with that page redirecting to your main site. At that point, you pretty much know any traffic to that page is from people who clicked on your advertisement, so you know just who's interested. It's not perfect, but it sounds like step-up from where you are now. Remember, with advertising, it's impossible to know whether or not it's worthwhile if you're not getting the right information.
If tomrrow they decide that slashot isnt allowed, then you lose access..
Yeah, you're a real go-getter.
Let's go ahead and add the word temporarily to your statement. Most university network agreements will tell you that the network is reserved for academic purposes. Twenty minutes with a dean and a solid explanation for how something can be used academically would go a long way towards making that/. ban go away like the McRib.
Buying a CD single from my local record store costs me about £4. Buying that same single from an on-line vendor costs me less than one pound. Unless you're claiming the CD cover art is worth the difference, the DRM'd but downloadable content is far cheaper.
Hmm...
In the US there aren't that many people buying cd singles (and there aren't many available). A large number of cd singles sold here tend to be imports. You used to be able to buy tape singles for between $1-2.50, but it was hard to find those. We've always bought the entire album.
That said, don't most cd singles come with more than one song? Actually, almost every single I've bought in the UK (I've bought a few) or the US (as an import) had a minimum of 3 songs on it. Some of the crappier singles are just four different "remixed" versions of the same song, but be that as it may, it's still four songs.
I'm biting my tongue because I'm feeling particularly sarcastic tonight. But your illustrations are flat-out wrong. One that works would be the Rhapsody music service, which actually is like a rental service for music (and it's cheaper than buying all the cds). Some people like it, but you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks it's more than a niche in the online music world.
As for whether companies will get away with DRM'd content that doesn't work, let's think like the entertainment industry. The Apple iPod model is the model of the future - instead of trying to create content that's protected and therefore doesn't always work, the future will give us new technology tied to the hardware (If you ever read/. then you know this). A rented video played in any VCR you could get your hands on (unless I tried to play a US video in Britain). If I have a DRM AAC file, it only plays with iTunes or the iPod, unless I'm violating my license. They're not worried about the content not working - they're busy getting you new locked-down hardware.
if you just want to watch a film once, but don't want to keep the tape, you can pay a smaller amount but you have to give it back a couple of days later. Most of the arguments in posts like the parent would basically rule out such a model, despite the fact that it is welcomed by many and of benefit to them.
You're creating a straw man here. Let's think about the differences between DRM and rental.
1. Renting costs less than buying. DRM content is the same price or more than non-DRM content.
2. When I rent a movie for three days, I can freely share that movie with anyone during those three days. I can take it on a trip, watch it on my laptop, in the hotel, at my friend's house, and then bring it home for my roommate to watch on his computer. DRM content - not possible.
3. If my rented movie didn't work, I could take it bck to the store. If my DRM content doesn't work, it's probably because I violated the DMCA.
Look. If you really think this is about economics, go sit down with the RIAA and suggest that they start using a new business model similar to the rental industry. Charge more for non-DRMed content, less for DRMed content, see what people do. Is this a choice I have? NO!
That's called a straw man argument my friend. Nice try.
it's/. so i don't expect you to read, but i'm writing from my Athlon desktop machine, and I've had AMD chips on my last three desktops.
Notice that's DESKTOPS.
In my experience, the majority (but just to help your remedial reading skills, that's NOT ALL) of the people buying the AMD 64-bit laptops up until now probably really needed a desktop instead. The AMD mobile chips are terrible and have been for a while and consume an awful lot of power. Combine that with better design for pentium m and centrino laptops, and yeah, it has been a no brainer. I wouldn't mind that changing though.
diversity is always in the eye of the beholder. i mean, all the food may look the same, but you'd be surprised how different all those stray dogs taste.
The examples may be wrong, but I'm not exactly pulling them out of my ass...
From the New York Times: "City officials envision a seamless mesh of broadband signals that will enable the police to download mug shots as they race to crime scenes in their patrol cars, allow truck drivers to maintain Internet access to inventories as they roam the city, and perhaps most important, let students and low-income residents get on the net."
"I can say without a doubt, that there is not a single address in Philadelphia without access to broadband."
Having spent six months as a salesman in Manhattan for Verizon DSL, I would be willing to bet you an awful lot of money that this isn't true. There are people in Manhattan who don't have access to broadband (at least into their homes).
Slashdot Mirror
space
i would say your law career is off to a blazing start. definitely keep it up!
Just because you think "upright character" doesn't include having a feminine side or homosexuality doesn't make you right.
There are many paths to the truth. Some are more convoluted than others. Thank goodness the Boy Scouts have finally started to acknowledge that life doesn't come in one flavor. I don't like the IP merit badges anymore than the next geek, but at least my head isn't buried in the sand.
Trying to educate them is hopeless--I know, I've tried.
No, it's not hopeless. It's hard. Those are not the same things. It takes patience and time to learn something new, and it takes patience and time to teach something. Just because you give up doesn't mean the task is impossible.
Hopefully, technology will get to the point where most users can both not know the details of the computer, and also not manage to mess things up at the same time. I think we're getting there. Slowly.
I'll be looking for a hot brunette to help me with Cheeseman's Theory of Emotional Energy.
(wait, before you mod me off-topic, watch the movie this comes from: Happy Accidents, the best romantic comedy sci-fi in the history of the universe.)
time travel makes you a little "slow", if you know what i mean...
The lobbying done by alchohol, oil and forestry groups is where most of the US's info about the plant comes from.
I don't understand why people forget the biggest culprit in this debate, and the party that has most to lose from the legalization of marijuana: drug companies. Marijuana is superior to most of the pain-killing and/or anti-depressant drugs available, without the crippling side effects that accompany commercial drugs.
Also, don't forget that Marijuana is a MAJOR cash crop. It's a multi-billion dollar industry in British Columbia alone. At some point, governments are going to realize they can make more from taxing the use of marijuana than they receive from the pockets of the pharmaceuticals.
Wait till RC1 to review. That's a great idea if you don't ever intend to use the product. The whole point of beta releases is to figure out problems, iron out difficulties, and help develop the software towards release. If you'll never use it, then wait. If you're going to use it, you might as well get your opinion in *early*, before everything gets set in stone.
you're obviously not the sharpest tool in the shed. all you need is a dialtone, which verizon would have provided you for $12 a month. all this does is drop that $12 fee. if you paid more, there's only one place to point the blame, and you can do it tomorrow morning in the mirror right before you get in the shower.
oh, i assure you i am not being pedantic. the biggest problem with most individual's understanding of morality is their inability to break a situation into it's lowest common denominator.
it's well and good to say that rape is always immoral. but that is merely begging the question, because built into our definition of rape is the very wrongness of it. the true question should be: when is sex rape? rape, at its core, is an action involving intercourse between two individuals. the morality of that action lies not in the action itself, but in the motivation behind the action. sex can be moral, but it can also be immoral. one subsection of immoral sex is described as rape.
An entirely different question is my response to immorality. That moves away from the question we were talking about, which I believe was whether or not software patents are "moral".
So let's get into semantics. Of course the software patent itself isn't immoral. Perhaps you could argue that a government which provides software patents is immoral (but then I'm going to seriously question the basis you use to judge morality). Perhaps you could argue that anyone who applies for a patent is immoral, if the possession of software patents is immoral or unethical (and they really aren't the same thing at all, not that you've argued that, i'm just saying).
i'm not going to pretend to understand exactly what you were trying to claim in your first comment. what you said was that it is immoral to think that software patents are a misguided feature of American intellectual property laws, while simultaneously applaud those same laws being used to sue microsoft. well, actually, no.
let me give you a hitler example, just because i like extremes. dietrich bonhoeffer was a theologian in germany during wwii who joined a plot to assassinate hitler. he agonized long and hard over this decision, before joining it, because he realized that the immoral action of killing hitler was massively dwarfed by the immorality of hitler's own actions. the plot failed, but the logic holds.
you and i would never discuss whether or not murder is wrong. it is wrong by definition. murder is a subset of killing, however, and we could probably have a pretty enlightening discussion of the morality of certain killings if we wanted to do so.
Software patents in and of themselves are not wrong. They are concepts. Perhaps it is immoral of me to apply for a patent frivolously, or to steal someone's idea and patent it, or to go around abusing the intent of patent law. But those are human actions that relate to patents, not the patents themselves.
dude.
There's a world of difference between coming to a common definition of what we're talking about and coming to "the ultimate conclusion".
It's fine to say something (the SCO case) is unethical. It's not fine to just say that. Think about this - morals do not exist in our three-dimensional world. The morality of any action does not lie in the action itself - the action is a-moral, but the motivation behind the action is moral. So yes, every single lawsuit is "simply" a lawsuit. The ethical and moral qualities of said lawsuit are not found in the fact that there is a lawsuit, but in the motivation of the one pressing the lawsuit. It's called situational ethics - the same action can be right in one circumstance, and wrong in another.
I know, it's complicated.
Glance at SCO all you want. The only reason "morals" or "ethics" could be called into question in the SCO case is if they are pressing a case that they know to be false. I don't like them either, but it's not immoral or unethical simply to sue someone.
I'm quite aware of what ethics and morality are. Keep in mind that when we're talking about "intellectual property rights" we're talking about a DEBATE over LEGAL ISSUES. If we're talking about my behaviour in light of the current legal framework, THEN AND ONLY THEN are we talking about ethics or morality.
You're right. Things are *way* too serious in your world. You can start lightening up by remembering that not everything is a moral or ethical issue.
I've read some bad /. threads before, but this is terrible. Anyone who both RTFAs and is capable of reading comprehension would have noticed that the issue to be decided isn't specifically about Hubble - it's about whether the improved space shuttle can handle the assignment of dealing with Hubble. A decision will be made after the shuttle is flying again and why know it's capabilities.
I'm sorry, but this isn't news. It's called common sense.
It is a question of moral judgement.
Please, refrain from being ridiculous. Software patents aren't a moral issue, and they aren't an ethical issue. The issue of software patents is a legal question about property rights.
A simple little url trick you can do is to advertise with a different entry page than you're main page. Say mydomain.com/google, with that page redirecting to your main site. At that point, you pretty much know any traffic to that page is from people who clicked on your advertisement, so you know just who's interested. It's not perfect, but it sounds like step-up from where you are now. Remember, with advertising, it's impossible to know whether or not it's worthwhile if you're not getting the right information.
You know what? It might. It's called case-by-case basis, and if you can't understand that, you shouldn't be working for a university.
If tomrrow they decide that slashot isnt allowed, then you lose access..
/. ban go away like the McRib.
/. Sheesh.
Yeah, you're a real go-getter.
Let's go ahead and add the word temporarily to your statement. Most university network agreements will tell you that the network is reserved for academic purposes. Twenty minutes with a dean and a solid explanation for how something can be used academically would go a long way towards making that
Like the IT department is gonna ban
Buying a CD single from my local record store costs me about £4. Buying that same single from an on-line vendor costs me less than one pound. Unless you're claiming the CD cover art is worth the difference, the DRM'd but downloadable content is far cheaper.
/. then you know this). A rented video played in any VCR you could get your hands on (unless I tried to play a US video in Britain). If I have a DRM AAC file, it only plays with iTunes or the iPod, unless I'm violating my license. They're not worried about the content not working - they're busy getting you new locked-down hardware.
Hmm...
In the US there aren't that many people buying cd singles (and there aren't many available). A large number of cd singles sold here tend to be imports. You used to be able to buy tape singles for between $1-2.50, but it was hard to find those. We've always bought the entire album.
That said, don't most cd singles come with more than one song? Actually, almost every single I've bought in the UK (I've bought a few) or the US (as an import) had a minimum of 3 songs on it. Some of the crappier singles are just four different "remixed" versions of the same song, but be that as it may, it's still four songs.
I'm biting my tongue because I'm feeling particularly sarcastic tonight. But your illustrations are flat-out wrong. One that works would be the Rhapsody music service, which actually is like a rental service for music (and it's cheaper than buying all the cds). Some people like it, but you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks it's more than a niche in the online music world. As for whether companies will get away with DRM'd content that doesn't work, let's think like the entertainment industry. The Apple iPod model is the model of the future - instead of trying to create content that's protected and therefore doesn't always work, the future will give us new technology tied to the hardware (If you ever read
if you just want to watch a film once, but don't want to keep the tape, you can pay a smaller amount but you have to give it back a couple of days later. Most of the arguments in posts like the parent would basically rule out such a model, despite the fact that it is welcomed by many and of benefit to them.
You're creating a straw man here. Let's think about the differences between DRM and rental.
1. Renting costs less than buying. DRM content is the same price or more than non-DRM content.
2. When I rent a movie for three days, I can freely share that movie with anyone during those three days. I can take it on a trip, watch it on my laptop, in the hotel, at my friend's house, and then bring it home for my roommate to watch on his computer. DRM content - not possible.
3. If my rented movie didn't work, I could take it bck to the store. If my DRM content doesn't work, it's probably because I violated the DMCA.
Look. If you really think this is about economics, go sit down with the RIAA and suggest that they start using a new business model similar to the rental industry. Charge more for non-DRMed content, less for DRMed content, see what people do. Is this a choice I have? NO!
That's called a straw man argument my friend. Nice try.
I sure wish I had learned that lesson in high school.
it's /. so i don't expect you to read, but i'm writing from my Athlon desktop machine, and I've had AMD chips on my last three desktops.
Notice that's DESKTOPS.
In my experience, the majority (but just to help your remedial reading skills, that's NOT ALL) of the people buying the AMD 64-bit laptops up until now probably really needed a desktop instead. The AMD mobile chips are terrible and have been for a while and consume an awful lot of power. Combine that with better design for pentium m and centrino laptops, and yeah, it has been a no brainer. I wouldn't mind that changing though.
It's not like AMD has been stellar in the mobile processor world before this. Centrino has been a no-brainer for a while in the laptop world.
At least the food is better, if not as diverse.
diversity is always in the eye of the beholder. i mean, all the food may look the same, but you'd be surprised how different all those stray dogs taste.
The examples may be wrong, but I'm not exactly pulling them out of my ass...
From the New York Times: "City officials envision a seamless mesh of broadband signals that will enable the police to download mug shots as they race to crime scenes in their patrol cars, allow truck drivers to maintain Internet access to inventories as they roam the city, and perhaps most important, let students and low-income residents get on the net."
"I can say without a doubt, that there is not a single address in Philadelphia without access to broadband." Having spent six months as a salesman in Manhattan for Verizon DSL, I would be willing to bet you an awful lot of money that this isn't true. There are people in Manhattan who don't have access to broadband (at least into their homes).