Why is it harsh? If you crack the software, you pay the consequences. You're not owed anything at that point. As far as ethics is concerned, the app could do anything it wanted.
Warez is a result of this lame sense of entitlement that today's computer users have. Arguing piracy is "good" for companies doesn't matter--it's not provable, but more importantly you don't have the permission from the copyright owners to do it. Pirates are just freeloaders who get bitter when the free ride is taken away.
id Software lost over a million dollars to record-breaking piracy the weekend before Doom 3's release. Ask Carmack sometime how he feels about that.
We've already seen game companies transitioning more and more to consoles (and the games suffering as a result). They're doing this because of the extra protection from piracy. As more and more people pirate the fuck out of everything, the system will eventually completely crumble, and nobody will be able to make a living off of any software. We won't have the Photoshops or 3D Studio Maxes or Cubases of the world, because there won't be businesses behind them doing the development. It's not like OSS is answering the call or anything--all the major software revolutions have been spawned by capitalist endeavors. I'm a musician, and I can load up fantastic plug-ins like FXpansion BFD as a VSTi in Cubase. Piracy hurts innovation like that because there's no incentive for people to make developing software their career. Little college dorm room kiddies will just come along and download it and then run to boards like Slashdot and justify it as "free advertising."
At some point, the issue will come to head and a resolution will be reached, going either way--all-out piracy or full-on copyright protection. But right now, it's just a tense string being pulled tighter and tighter...
That was my point, that normal users won't like those answers and will stop using Linux. And so don't whine when they do, and don't blame the "M$ monopoly" as people so often do.
How do you feel about what the Democrats are doing to Ralph Nader, preventing free choice by blocking him from the ballot because of some insane notion that someone doesn't have the right to run for President if they're not a Democrat or a Republican? Have you had any troubles yourself in this regard?
Remeber back when Coke said it was changing the recipe for Coca-Cola? Their sales went through the roof for the ORIGINAL coke!
Actually, that really was just a dumb mistake. Coke was trying to compete with the growing competitor, Pepsi. As Pepsi drinkers know, Pepsi has more of a duller, sweeter taste compared to Coke's more biting taste, and Coke was trying to replicate that formula since they were losing sales to Pepsi at a rapid rate.
It was unexpected by everyone that there would be a sudden public uproar over it, so they reintroduced the original Coke. Guess what, sales of that actually went up way more than they had been beforehand. The replacing of the original formula had reminded people how much they liked Coke, and got a lot of people drinking it again. Suddenly, Coke was a mainstay product in people's lives. All because of the replacement of the original formula.
All the former executives of the time have all stated they *wished* it was really someone's idea, because it would have been a brilliant one, but it really was just a fluke mistake on Coke's part.
Also when will the major heads of the different distros define a single good, method of packaging programs.
Never gonna happen. Too many fanboys will jump in and proclaim "Lack of free choice! Lack of free choice!" Then we'll see about 20 Sourceforge spin-offs, and the cycle of reinventing the wheel will repeat itself. I'll say it right now--over half the OSS forks out there are just people wanting to be the center of attention behind something and don't actually serve any real purpose or function for end-users.
The lack of API standards will forever prevent Linux from gaining any signficant ground on the desktop. Right now, a Linux distro is really a mish-mash of various hobbyware from all over the net, arranged in a preset default to make good-looking screenshots for the back of the box art...but horrible to use when you actually grab the mouse and try to use the thing.
Why do you automatically assume it's Windows and not a problem with your laptop, or some Windows driver? I've never experienced that problem on my HP laptop.
So? You're asking people who are doing things *in their spare time* to give you a deadline for fixing something that may be needed by exactly one person (you).
The "volunteer" excuse. If you think because they're volunteers that that justifies treating users like peons, then don't complain when users whine that Linux is only for developers, by developers. Don't complain when people mention that Linux desktop acceptance is stagnant.
If you want help feel free ask what the current state of the driver is, but don't expect anyone to do anything about it unless you're prepared to help, or give them money.
Consequently, don't expect very many users to stay interested since they could just easily run to the store and buy (or warez) Windows and have the same feature after a quick 30 minute install that some holier-than-thou developer expects your patches or your money for. Not exactly a "free" operating system in that kind of model, is it?
btw. MS are exactly the same. Try asking them when 'feature x' will work. They'll want money before you'll get a sensible answer about it (in that case you don't even have the option of doing it yourself).
BS. Microsoft won't ask for money just because you ask them when a certain feature will work. They'll take your response into their Customer Feedback program, correlate it with their database of entries. Guess what, if a lot of people are requesting something, it gets put in for the next version. THEN they ask for money. They have a financial incentive to please their customers, hence they have the features users want.
Don't claim Linux is free and then tell me that for it to be usable, you have to put your life on halt and learn to program, or start mailing people money.
Re:Why not "palatable" to have a .NET environment?
on
.Net On Lego Mindstorm
·
· Score: 1
I think this article has it completely wrong. It's not portability that is making MP3 so popular. Who doesn't have a cheap portable CD player?
The popularity of MP3s is directly due to their cheapness. Either buying through legal means via an online music service, or ripping off of Kazaa. Instead of having to go down to the store and pay $20, now people can pay $5...or if they're a freeloader in a dorm room with lots of bandwidth, entire album discographies without paying a cent.
*That's* why MP3s became popular. Their quality sucks ass, and everyone has known it forever. The reason they exploded is because of how easy it was to get music without paying $20 for it.
If we hadn't invaded Iraq, and 10 years from now it became a horrible nuclear power, the Michael Moores of the world would be blaming the American leadership for not doing anything and letting people suffer under Saddam's regime. When we'd be dealing with him in a full-out war, they'd be saying "It's America's fault they're such a major power right now. Where were we 10 years ago when he was just a minor threat who could have easily been removed?"
In contrast, pre-emptively remove the threat, and suddenly America is still evil. No matter what we do, it won't matter because America is a #1 superpower, and that means jealousy, envy, and just pure hatred. It's just a fact of the world.
North Korea's current power, as you pointed out, is just an illustration of what happens when you sit back passively like the UN and just let things sort them out with "sanctions." Europe doesn't want to sully its pastry fingers with removing a frightening regime. America is often an intended scapegoat for these things--bitch that they're actually *gasp* going to war, but sit back and be relieved that they did.
Just look at Germany in the buildup to World War II. After the attack from Japan, America was no longer going to sit around and play pacifist isolationist to the world. It's too dangerous. And look at all the countries who rolled over for the Germans and yet still bitch about the invasion of Iraq. Of course there are negative aspects to the war, but, again, it's WAR. It wasn't even a particularly nasty one compared to the real wars of history. And no matter how hard some people try, it's *not* another Vietnam--Vietnam was an entire issue of its own with regard to a government that was not properly supporting its military operation.
P.S. Whoever modded you "Flamebait" is a loser. If you disagree with someone, reply and explain why. Don't censor them by knocking them down.
Actually hearing people argue that trusting Saddam to give the inspectors full access to whatever they wanted (here's a hint, he DIDN'T!) is exactly why general voters are scared off from pacifist viewpoints. They just don't make sense in today's world. Hey, if you believe putting in UN sanctions and then not enforcing them for a decade is an effective method of law enforcement, go right ahead and sleep soundly at night while people take advantage of your naivete. I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of citizens slaughtered under Saddam's regime will agree with you.
As for the US controlling Iraq's oil fields, yeah, it sure looks like it considering our skyrocketing oil prices. Power has already been handed over to the Iraqi government...where are all the US-owned oilfields? Where's this mysterious American-owned oil industry that we took advantage of? It's just not there.
Even Kerry acknowledged that he would have authorized force in Iraq knowing then what we know now. Of course, days later he suddenly said the "war in Iraq was wrong," so it's hard to know exactly what the hell he thinks about anything with all the flip-flopping...but as for that particular day when Bush challenged him, force authorization was the answer he gave.
Clinton and the democrats safely contained these crazy dictators.
Which administration was it again under which Al-Qaeda and the Taliban grew to power, and intelligence agents were barred from taking information from "bad guys?"
The UN is unable to stop strong countries from attacking and invading smaller countries.
Based on experience, the UN is completely ineffective in preventing smaller countries from becoming bigger, strong tyrannical regimes. They pretend not to like the US for going in and getting rid of problem leaders, but behind the scenes, they expect us to do it and let us so that we can take the blame while they benefit from the removed threat. Except, of course, if you're France and you're doing business with a country that's supposed to have sanctions (that were being broken for over a decade...so you can scratch that "no reason at all" BS).
Who cares? China has been killing thousands upon thousands of their own people for decades. Should we invade? Oh wait, theres no oil in China. Guess thats a sure "no" from the Cheney camp.
So, care to tell me where all the America-owned oilfields are in Iraq now? Oil should be pretty cheap for us now, right? Since we're just so controlling of all that oil, even though we don't own any, haven't gotten any, and haven't seen a single benefit from it. Zzzz. The Iraqis own their oil.
Hahaha!! Sudan has been in a civil war for over two decades. Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton: all did absolutely nothing.
Just like the UN now. What's your point?
Bush Jr sends a tiny contingent of marines there who never touched the beach until French military secured the area for them. The French went through and brokered a peace deal while the marines ran right back to the boat a few weeks later.
Yeah, it's reeaall peaceful over there right now. "Disarm in a week, or else!" *deadline passes* "But we really meant it!"
Terrorists?
Yes, they were Muslim terrorists with indirect ties to Al-Queda.
Do you know what Russia has done to the Chechen people?
What this tells me is that you feel holding a FUCKING SCHOOL FULL OF CHILDREN HOSTAGE is a justifiable act of rebellion rather than an act of terrorism.
Gawd!!!! Its very apparent why the conservative media machine is so effective: its audience consist of idiots.
Don't you mean the liberal media machine? The one that falsely claimed and later retracted that people booed when Bush gave his best wishes to Clinton; the ones who have given a pass to all the Democratic 527 groups (including MoveOn.org; a member of the Kerry campaign is also a member of that group); the two CNN hosts who are now working for the Kerry campaign with nary a peep from the liberal press; the one that put out forged military documents? I could go on and on and on.
No your a "Prisoner of War" with is clearly defined in the Geneva Convention. Sadly, Bush keeps breaking those rules so in the future our soldiers captured in combat by enemy forces can look foward to being tortured and maimed. Thank you Bush.
Sometime, look up the definition of what constitutes an enemy combatant and get back to me. I'll let you figure it out.
Did you know that the Bush team has tried several times to make it possible for Americans to be labeled "Enemy Combatants". If that happens it will be possible for them to abduct people and lock them away forever. No trial, lawyers, or family notified. But who cares right?
Ah, nothing like a dose of liberal paranoia to make me smile.:)
Bush wont steer us wrong. He will only use that power for Good. Just remember this: even if Bush wins 4 more years he will be replaced. Who is to say the next president does not abuse that power?
The Checks and Balances system. Look it up sometime.
When the resolutions are broken seven times over the span of 12 years. What's the point of a UN resolution if it's never enforced? Are you just going to sit around and go, "Oh, that Saddam!" for every violation? I guess Saddam killing his own people is something you are okay with tolerating. Look at how "effective" the UN is now, sitting down and sipping tea at lunch while people are being slaughtered in Sudan. And now terrorists have killed children in Russia. At some point, you kind of have to do something to stop the bad guys.
Since when has it been legal to round people up, label them illegal enemy combatants and throw them in jail without trial or access to a lawyer?
Because when you're captured in combat, you're an enemy combatant.
As far as I can tell, the only project actually using Mozilla's "software development platform" is Mozilla. On the OSS side, people seem more interested in Mono than XUL.
"New Line has confirmed that the four-disc extended edition of Return of the King will arrive on the 14th December. The set will include around fifty-minutes of additional footage, including the highly anticipated confrontation with Saruman."
Slashdot Mirror
Why is it harsh? If you crack the software, you pay the consequences. You're not owed anything at that point. As far as ethics is concerned, the app could do anything it wanted.
Warez is a result of this lame sense of entitlement that today's computer users have. Arguing piracy is "good" for companies doesn't matter--it's not provable, but more importantly you don't have the permission from the copyright owners to do it. Pirates are just freeloaders who get bitter when the free ride is taken away.
id Software lost over a million dollars to record-breaking piracy the weekend before Doom 3's release. Ask Carmack sometime how he feels about that.
We've already seen game companies transitioning more and more to consoles (and the games suffering as a result). They're doing this because of the extra protection from piracy. As more and more people pirate the fuck out of everything, the system will eventually completely crumble, and nobody will be able to make a living off of any software. We won't have the Photoshops or 3D Studio Maxes or Cubases of the world, because there won't be businesses behind them doing the development. It's not like OSS is answering the call or anything--all the major software revolutions have been spawned by capitalist endeavors. I'm a musician, and I can load up fantastic plug-ins like FXpansion BFD as a VSTi in Cubase. Piracy hurts innovation like that because there's no incentive for people to make developing software their career. Little college dorm room kiddies will just come along and download it and then run to boards like Slashdot and justify it as "free advertising."
At some point, the issue will come to head and a resolution will be reached, going either way--all-out piracy or full-on copyright protection. But right now, it's just a tense string being pulled tighter and tighter...
That was my point, that normal users won't like those answers and will stop using Linux. And so don't whine when they do, and don't blame the "M$ monopoly" as people so often do.
How do you feel about what the Democrats are doing to Ralph Nader, preventing free choice by blocking him from the ballot because of some insane notion that someone doesn't have the right to run for President if they're not a Democrat or a Republican? Have you had any troubles yourself in this regard?
Remeber back when Coke said it was changing the recipe for Coca-Cola? Their sales went through the roof for the ORIGINAL coke!
Actually, that really was just a dumb mistake. Coke was trying to compete with the growing competitor, Pepsi. As Pepsi drinkers know, Pepsi has more of a duller, sweeter taste compared to Coke's more biting taste, and Coke was trying to replicate that formula since they were losing sales to Pepsi at a rapid rate.
It was unexpected by everyone that there would be a sudden public uproar over it, so they reintroduced the original Coke. Guess what, sales of that actually went up way more than they had been beforehand. The replacing of the original formula had reminded people how much they liked Coke, and got a lot of people drinking it again. Suddenly, Coke was a mainstay product in people's lives. All because of the replacement of the original formula.
All the former executives of the time have all stated they *wished* it was really someone's idea, because it would have been a brilliant one, but it really was just a fluke mistake on Coke's part.
Behind the stars is the warp zone and unfinished development levels. Unfortunately, flying past the stars sometimes results in a crash.
With a sane HAL and a nice driver API, ATI would be much more willing to port real drivers.
Also when will the major heads of the different distros define a single good, method of packaging programs.
Never gonna happen. Too many fanboys will jump in and proclaim "Lack of free choice! Lack of free choice!" Then we'll see about 20 Sourceforge spin-offs, and the cycle of reinventing the wheel will repeat itself. I'll say it right now--over half the OSS forks out there are just people wanting to be the center of attention behind something and don't actually serve any real purpose or function for end-users.
The lack of API standards will forever prevent Linux from gaining any signficant ground on the desktop. Right now, a Linux distro is really a mish-mash of various hobbyware from all over the net, arranged in a preset default to make good-looking screenshots for the back of the box art...but horrible to use when you actually grab the mouse and try to use the thing.
Why do you automatically assume it's Windows and not a problem with your laptop, or some Windows driver? I've never experienced that problem on my HP laptop.
You could say the exact same thing about Linux.
So? You're asking people who are doing things *in their spare time* to give you a deadline for fixing something that may be needed by exactly one person (you).
The "volunteer" excuse. If you think because they're volunteers that that justifies treating users like peons, then don't complain when users whine that Linux is only for developers, by developers. Don't complain when people mention that Linux desktop acceptance is stagnant.
If you want help feel free ask what the current state of the driver is, but don't expect anyone to do anything about it unless you're prepared to help, or give them money.
Consequently, don't expect very many users to stay interested since they could just easily run to the store and buy (or warez) Windows and have the same feature after a quick 30 minute install that some holier-than-thou developer expects your patches or your money for. Not exactly a "free" operating system in that kind of model, is it?
btw. MS are exactly the same. Try asking them when 'feature x' will work. They'll want money before you'll get a sensible answer about it (in that case you don't even have the option of doing it yourself).
BS. Microsoft won't ask for money just because you ask them when a certain feature will work. They'll take your response into their Customer Feedback program, correlate it with their database of entries. Guess what, if a lot of people are requesting something, it gets put in for the next version. THEN they ask for money. They have a financial incentive to please their customers, hence they have the features users want.
Don't claim Linux is free and then tell me that for it to be usable, you have to put your life on halt and learn to program, or start mailing people money.
Get him! He's threatening our hegemony!
I think this article has it completely wrong. It's not portability that is making MP3 so popular. Who doesn't have a cheap portable CD player?
The popularity of MP3s is directly due to their cheapness. Either buying through legal means via an online music service, or ripping off of Kazaa. Instead of having to go down to the store and pay $20, now people can pay $5...or if they're a freeloader in a dorm room with lots of bandwidth, entire album discographies without paying a cent.
*That's* why MP3s became popular. Their quality sucks ass, and everyone has known it forever. The reason they exploded is because of how easy it was to get music without paying $20 for it.
Go the route of DVD movies and offer not only the album, but the music videos, interviews, making-of documentaries, and so on, all on the same disc.
Finally fufill the dream of making an album of music more than just an album of music but an entire creative package.
Other non-government agencies have also stated the same. Forest fires can give off those sorts of clouds, as can other non-nuclear explosions.
Or maybe it has to do with the fact that we don't exactly have embedded reporters in North Korea who are around to report these things.
Do you know all that's going on in China right now?
with the aid of the US, who will invade foreign countries regardless of international law and opinion
Saddam broke sanctions. Therefore, we had the legal right. Part of the rules of the treaty were that we would have the right to use force.
Why does this still escape people to this day?
If we hadn't invaded Iraq, and 10 years from now it became a horrible nuclear power, the Michael Moores of the world would be blaming the American leadership for not doing anything and letting people suffer under Saddam's regime. When we'd be dealing with him in a full-out war, they'd be saying "It's America's fault they're such a major power right now. Where were we 10 years ago when he was just a minor threat who could have easily been removed?"
In contrast, pre-emptively remove the threat, and suddenly America is still evil. No matter what we do, it won't matter because America is a #1 superpower, and that means jealousy, envy, and just pure hatred. It's just a fact of the world.
North Korea's current power, as you pointed out, is just an illustration of what happens when you sit back passively like the UN and just let things sort them out with "sanctions." Europe doesn't want to sully its pastry fingers with removing a frightening regime. America is often an intended scapegoat for these things--bitch that they're actually *gasp* going to war, but sit back and be relieved that they did.
Just look at Germany in the buildup to World War II. After the attack from Japan, America was no longer going to sit around and play pacifist isolationist to the world. It's too dangerous. And look at all the countries who rolled over for the Germans and yet still bitch about the invasion of Iraq. Of course there are negative aspects to the war, but, again, it's WAR. It wasn't even a particularly nasty one compared to the real wars of history. And no matter how hard some people try, it's *not* another Vietnam--Vietnam was an entire issue of its own with regard to a government that was not properly supporting its military operation.
P.S. Whoever modded you "Flamebait" is a loser. If you disagree with someone, reply and explain why. Don't censor them by knocking them down.
After all, the UN is such a trustworthy organization, what with the food for oil scandals. *Of course* they didn't want the US to remove Saddam.
Yeah, those UN inspectors were reeeaal effective.
Actually hearing people argue that trusting Saddam to give the inspectors full access to whatever they wanted (here's a hint, he DIDN'T!) is exactly why general voters are scared off from pacifist viewpoints. They just don't make sense in today's world. Hey, if you believe putting in UN sanctions and then not enforcing them for a decade is an effective method of law enforcement, go right ahead and sleep soundly at night while people take advantage of your naivete. I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of citizens slaughtered under Saddam's regime will agree with you.
As for the US controlling Iraq's oil fields, yeah, it sure looks like it considering our skyrocketing oil prices. Power has already been handed over to the Iraqi government...where are all the US-owned oilfields? Where's this mysterious American-owned oil industry that we took advantage of? It's just not there.
Even Kerry acknowledged that he would have authorized force in Iraq knowing then what we know now. Of course, days later he suddenly said the "war in Iraq was wrong," so it's hard to know exactly what the hell he thinks about anything with all the flip-flopping...but as for that particular day when Bush challenged him, force authorization was the answer he gave.
Clinton and the democrats safely contained these crazy dictators.
Which administration was it again under which Al-Qaeda and the Taliban grew to power, and intelligence agents were barred from taking information from "bad guys?"
The UN is unable to stop strong countries from attacking and invading smaller countries.
Based on experience, the UN is completely ineffective in preventing smaller countries from becoming bigger, strong tyrannical regimes. They pretend not to like the US for going in and getting rid of problem leaders, but behind the scenes, they expect us to do it and let us so that we can take the blame while they benefit from the removed threat. Except, of course, if you're France and you're doing business with a country that's supposed to have sanctions (that were being broken for over a decade...so you can scratch that "no reason at all" BS).
Who cares? China has been killing thousands upon thousands of their own people for decades. Should we invade? Oh wait, theres no oil in China. Guess thats a sure "no" from the Cheney camp.
:)
So, care to tell me where all the America-owned oilfields are in Iraq now? Oil should be pretty cheap for us now, right? Since we're just so controlling of all that oil, even though we don't own any, haven't gotten any, and haven't seen a single benefit from it. Zzzz. The Iraqis own their oil.
Hahaha!! Sudan has been in a civil war for over two decades. Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton: all did absolutely nothing.
Just like the UN now. What's your point?
Bush Jr sends a tiny contingent of marines there who never touched the beach until French military secured the area for them. The French went through and brokered a peace deal while the marines ran right back to the boat a few weeks later.
Yeah, it's reeaall peaceful over there right now. "Disarm in a week, or else!" *deadline passes* "But we really meant it!"
Terrorists?
Yes, they were Muslim terrorists with indirect ties to Al-Queda.
Do you know what Russia has done to the Chechen people?
What this tells me is that you feel holding a FUCKING SCHOOL FULL OF CHILDREN HOSTAGE is a justifiable act of rebellion rather than an act of terrorism.
Gawd!!!! Its very apparent why the conservative media machine is so effective: its audience consist of idiots.
Don't you mean the liberal media machine? The one that falsely claimed and later retracted that people booed when Bush gave his best wishes to Clinton; the ones who have given a pass to all the Democratic 527 groups (including MoveOn.org; a member of the Kerry campaign is also a member of that group); the two CNN hosts who are now working for the Kerry campaign with nary a peep from the liberal press; the one that put out forged military documents? I could go on and on and on.
No your a "Prisoner of War" with is clearly defined in the Geneva Convention. Sadly, Bush keeps breaking those rules so in the future our soldiers captured in combat by enemy forces can look foward to being tortured and maimed. Thank you Bush.
Sometime, look up the definition of what constitutes an enemy combatant and get back to me. I'll let you figure it out.
Did you know that the Bush team has tried several times to make it possible for Americans to be labeled "Enemy Combatants". If that happens it will be possible for them to abduct people and lock them away forever. No trial, lawyers, or family notified. But who cares right?
Ah, nothing like a dose of liberal paranoia to make me smile.
Bush wont steer us wrong. He will only use that power for Good. Just remember this: even if Bush wins 4 more years he will be replaced. Who is to say the next president does not abuse that power?
The Checks and Balances system. Look it up sometime.
Very OT.
Since when have pre-emptive invasions been legal?
When the resolutions are broken seven times over the span of 12 years. What's the point of a UN resolution if it's never enforced? Are you just going to sit around and go, "Oh, that Saddam!" for every violation? I guess Saddam killing his own people is something you are okay with tolerating. Look at how "effective" the UN is now, sitting down and sipping tea at lunch while people are being slaughtered in Sudan. And now terrorists have killed children in Russia. At some point, you kind of have to do something to stop the bad guys.
Since when has it been legal to round people up, label them illegal enemy combatants and throw them in jail without trial or access to a lawyer?
Because when you're captured in combat, you're an enemy combatant.
As far as I can tell, the only project actually using Mozilla's "software development platform" is Mozilla. On the OSS side, people seem more interested in Mono than XUL.
It's the second line in the linked article:
"New Line has confirmed that the four-disc extended edition of Return of the King will arrive on the 14th December. The set will include around fifty-minutes of additional footage, including the highly anticipated confrontation with Saruman."