I spent the better part of a week trying to get a linux build working at home. Note I say trying. Ultimately, getting ATI drivers turned into too much of a hassle and I gave up. Personally, I can get a working XP box up in about an hour.
Based on my personal experience, I rejected linux. I think it was quite a logical decision. It shouldn't be that hard to set up an OS. Your condescending attitude doesn't change my mind in the slightest. Linux may be a better choice in the long run, but windows works well enough that the gains just aren't worth the effort.
Why is Firefox doing so well? Easy IE isn't good enough.
Add one thing to this: Ease of switching. Installing firefox and getting up and running with it is trivial. The last time I tried installing *nix, I spent 2 days trying to get working ATI drivers. Eventually gave up and went back to my XP partition. I can't work in 640x480.
So once the gun-toting psychopath teenagers of today start getting older, their offspring will find violence 'un-cool' and turn into another generation of Hippies.
Guns appear to have been a normal part of your life from childhood. You were raised around them, and were obviously trained in their proper use. (As were your peeers) You think that might have had some impact on how you and your peers viewed guns? Probably more of an impact than the lack of 'shooter' games?
I'm suprised that people target games which feature gun violence, but ignore the glorified violence in other media. (Movies, pop music, etc)
If the given scenario is true, one would imagine that Sony is banking on more than game sales to recoup losses. Online serice subscriptions, and Blu-Ray royalties are possibilities.
Is not that 14 year olds are swearing alot, it's that they're SO BAD AT IT.
I remember a Halo 2 match on Live! where every sentence out of some kids mouth involved 'your mom'. Absolutely no creativity! He didn't even try to add variety to his smacktalk. 20 minutes of that will drive anyone insane.
If you're going to be vulgar and rude, you better be entertaining in the process or I'll report your ass.
But technically, in the specific situation we're discussing, you ARE making money on it. (Even if it is only getting back your initial investment)
I think the problem is that media in all forms has become far more portable than anyone anticipated when copyright laws were first drawn up. We used to think of things like recordings, books, etc as property. Simply because reproduction of them was not particularly effective to the consumer. Now technology now allows the average person to make exact copies of a work without any degradation. They can make these quickly and easily, and can distribute them just as easily. THe physical media is irrelevant, it's the data that's important. To put it bluntly, this changes everything.
Even though what is considered fair use has not changed over the years, what people actually do with their media has. Copyright honestly needs to be rebuilt from the ground up to address this radical shift. There is just too much grey area.
Again, I'm just as much a proponent of fair use as the next guy. I think the industry is reacting to these changes in their consumer base in a negative way, and it will hut them in the end. However, there are a LOT of people out there abusing technology to get stuff free. The trick is to be able to effectively curtail illegal activity without infringing on the rights of legitimate users.
But if I knew how to do that, I wouldn't be sitting here posting on Slashdot.:P
I'll admit, I'm not really arguing the letter of the law here, moreso what I think the original intent is. I'll do some background reading when I get the chance.
I have not changed my mind on the situation. I feel fair-use defines what we can do with media we have purchased. When you re-sell your purchase, you *should* lose any fair-use rights to that media, as you no longer own it.
Again, I'm talking logic and intent, not necessarily the letter of the law. I acknowledge that the two may differ.:)
I would imagine that if you sell the original copy, you would be expected to destroy any backups you had made.
The point is that you purchased the work, and made a backup copy for yourself. Because you own the original, then the backup is a legit copy. Both copies are in the possession of the original purchaser.
When you choose to sell your original, things change. Because you no longer own the original, any copies in your posession are no longer legit. Now two seperate parties have possession of the work, but only one was paid for.
That's the key to fair use. Who has access to the work vs. who has paid for the work. I'm a strong advocate of fair use, and I fully agree that the *IAA are overstepping their boundaries. However, I don't agree with abusing fair-use to get something free. IMO the scenario above (keeping a copy and re-selling the original) is an abuse of fair-use.
Lets be honest here. An audio CD is hardly a high fidelity recording. Quite honestly, they're crap. Complaining about loss of audio quality is like getting angry that someone got dirt all over a turd.
Just to back up my opinion a bit, I am a classically trained musician, and as such, have quite a few orchestral/choral/wind ensemble/etc recordings. The amount of detail that gets lost in those recordings is often quite significant. (Especially in the extreme low and high range)
As long as you still own the original media, then you're exercising fair use when making a backup copy. (IMO) As soon as you sell the original, then the backup is no longer legit.
Slashdot Mirror
Explain to me how, as a new *nix user, I would have any idea what commands to use to do stuff.
I spent the better part of a week trying to get a linux build working at home. Note I say trying. Ultimately, getting ATI drivers turned into too much of a hassle and I gave up. Personally, I can get a working XP box up in about an hour.
Based on my personal experience, I rejected linux. I think it was quite a logical decision. It shouldn't be that hard to set up an OS. Your condescending attitude doesn't change my mind in the slightest. Linux may be a better choice in the long run, but windows works well enough that the gains just aren't worth the effort.
And I'm sure Microsoft doesn't give OEM's extreme discounts if they agree to ship every machine with XP pre-installed...
Because when 30 students showed up with gelatin filled Pepsi cans the next year, it wouldn't be creative anymore.
Look at the monkey. Look at the silly monkey!
*Juror's head explodes*
So once the gun-toting psychopath teenagers of today start getting older, their offspring will find violence 'un-cool' and turn into another generation of Hippies.
Ironically, I thought it said 'mormons' when I first read that post.
Guns appear to have been a normal part of your life from childhood. You were raised around them, and were obviously trained in their proper use. (As were your peeers) You think that might have had some impact on how you and your peers viewed guns? Probably more of an impact than the lack of 'shooter' games?
I'm suprised that people target games which feature gun violence, but ignore the glorified violence in other media. (Movies, pop music, etc)
If the given scenario is true, one would imagine that Sony is banking on more than game sales to recoup losses. Online serice subscriptions, and Blu-Ray royalties are possibilities.
And what does that have to do with Xbox Live's VOICE chat?
Is not that 14 year olds are swearing alot, it's that they're SO BAD AT IT.
I remember a Halo 2 match on Live! where every sentence out of some kids mouth involved 'your mom'. Absolutely no creativity! He didn't even try to add variety to his smacktalk. 20 minutes of that will drive anyone insane.
If you're going to be vulgar and rude, you better be entertaining in the process or I'll report your ass.
What a novel idea: Paying a musical perfomer to PERFORM MUSIC!
If this idea takes off, all the studio groomed 'pop' performers are screwed. (Yay!)
But technically, in the specific situation we're discussing, you ARE making money on it. (Even if it is only getting back your initial investment)
:P
I think the problem is that media in all forms has become far more portable than anyone anticipated when copyright laws were first drawn up. We used to think of things like recordings, books, etc as property. Simply because reproduction of them was not particularly effective to the consumer. Now technology now allows the average person to make exact copies of a work without any degradation. They can make these quickly and easily, and can distribute them just as easily. THe physical media is irrelevant, it's the data that's important. To put it bluntly, this changes everything.
Even though what is considered fair use has not changed over the years, what people actually do with their media has. Copyright honestly needs to be rebuilt from the ground up to address this radical shift. There is just too much grey area.
Again, I'm just as much a proponent of fair use as the next guy. I think the industry is reacting to these changes in their consumer base in a negative way, and it will hut them in the end. However, there are a LOT of people out there abusing technology to get stuff free. The trick is to be able to effectively curtail illegal activity without infringing on the rights of legitimate users.
But if I knew how to do that, I wouldn't be sitting here posting on Slashdot.
Ding! First thing I though of when I read the summary. (TFA is for noobs)
I'll admit, I'm not really arguing the letter of the law here, moreso what I think the original intent is. I'll do some background reading when I get the chance.
:)
I have not changed my mind on the situation. I feel fair-use defines what we can do with media we have purchased. When you re-sell your purchase, you *should* lose any fair-use rights to that media, as you no longer own it.
Again, I'm talking logic and intent, not necessarily the letter of the law. I acknowledge that the two may differ.
I would imagine that if you sell the original copy, you would be expected to destroy any backups you had made.
The point is that you purchased the work, and made a backup copy for yourself. Because you own the original, then the backup is a legit copy. Both copies are in the possession of the original purchaser.
When you choose to sell your original, things change. Because you no longer own the original, any copies in your posession are no longer legit. Now two seperate parties have possession of the work, but only one was paid for.
That's the key to fair use. Who has access to the work vs. who has paid for the work. I'm a strong advocate of fair use, and I fully agree that the *IAA are overstepping their boundaries. However, I don't agree with abusing fair-use to get something free. IMO the scenario above (keeping a copy and re-selling the original) is an abuse of fair-use.
Lets be honest here. An audio CD is hardly a high fidelity recording. Quite honestly, they're crap. Complaining about loss of audio quality is like getting angry that someone got dirt all over a turd.
Just to back up my opinion a bit, I am a classically trained musician, and as such, have quite a few orchestral/choral/wind ensemble/etc recordings. The amount of detail that gets lost in those recordings is often quite significant. (Especially in the extreme low and high range)
As long as you still own the original media, then you're exercising fair use when making a backup copy. (IMO) As soon as you sell the original, then the backup is no longer legit.
No, I am well aware of what camp is. This is 'crap'. As in a 'crappy' film.
Slither looks like it will be a great campy horror film.
It's got Ray Liotta as an evil Mage, and Matthew Lillard trying to be a tough knight.
Besides, pirates > ninjas any day.
Has anyone else seen the trailer for Dungeon Seige? Words cannot convey the levels of suckage this movie appears to achieve. It's got zombie NINJAS!
Notice I didn't mention 'invent' anywhere in my post.
Nintendo made them work really well, and they became standards after that.
Way, WAY too big. It would be butchered.
Besides, that series defies categorization. Can you imagine trying to pitch it to a studio?