Re:A couple of other interesting points..
on
P2P Now and Then
·
· Score: 1
they "say" that Microsoft has 75% (didn't know Xvid / Divx was an MS Product)
Besides wmv, a lot of ed2k clients refer to any file ending in.avi as "Microsoft Avi Video" (since I'm pretty sure it doesn't check the codec, so it wouldn't be able to reliably classify it as divx or xvid). I can't vouch for any of the other networks, however.
Re:P2P Now and Then in a nutshell
on
P2P Now and Then
·
· Score: 1
If I had mod points I'd mod you up. It's a shame to see people frowning upon your post because they disagree with you, or don't want to face the truth, or because you said a bad word.
What is it's milage ( in miles of course, one would wonder why it was given in litres )? Not trying to start a flamewar, but I dont know what a MJ/L is.
While it may be prior art for the first gen ipod, all versions of the ipod created after the patent was approved (ipod mini, ipod photo, larger sizes of the ipod, maybe even ipod shuffle) would not fall under the prior art argument.
But could you find any false premises or invalid reasoning?
Too many to list. The most naieve of your absurd nintendo fanboy arguments consists of absurd suggestions such as advising people to buy a gameboy advance and a portable dvd player, instead of a PSP.
The nintendo DS obviously does not rival the game playing capacity of the PSP, and the DVD player does not rival the movie player capacity of the PSP (namely, the fact you can play them off the UMD). This is, of course, in addition to the fact that following your suggestion would cost you about 400 bucks more than a psp, about an extra pound, and less pocket room. Please be sure to check your arguments instead of just spewing them onto your website without a second thought.
Actually, he's correct. You are, in fact prosecuting them by making your previous post, and you have a responsibilty to back it up. Otherwise, you're just trolling (which you appear to be doing right now).
At what point does the cost of attempting to prevent piracy outweight the potential money not made from piracy?
Why would companies spend money on copy protection, when they can just throw together more obscure methods of displaying the content, and make it inaccessible (incompatible) to anything they don't want it accessible to?
If I download something without paying for it, It's something that I would NEVER pay for anyways. It's either free or nothing. That company will not get my money for that product. How is that a LOSS to them? They aren't gettign my money either way. I think the majority of illigal downloaders feel the same way. They don't do it to save money, it's to get something you would otherwise never pay for at all.
Of course it's a loss, we have no way of believing that you would not have bought it anyways. For all we know, if piracy stopped altogether, you just might buy it. But that's beside the point. You're saying that stealing something is ok, as long as you wouldn't have bought it anyways. Stealing is never okay, despite your incessant attempts to justify it. You're not fooling anybody, much less yourself.
If I really like the CD or Software, I BUY it. Otherwise its a quick download to check it out, or use it once or twice.
That's why the software companies have (and I stress) FULLY FUNCTIONAL trials for you to use. Adobe's trial of photoshop lasts for an entire month, plenty of time for you to "try it out".
Your argument is alltogether a hodgepodge of pretty much every excuse i've ever heard for stealing software, or anything else. In fact, while you're at it, why don't you take a crack at the companies themselves, and blame them for your blatant theft, because they charge too much or something. You act like you're morally obligated to steal software from legitimate companies.
Your logic is flawed because you are parroting a jaded argument that doesn't hold any water. Lets take an example.
You want a dodge viper, but you can't afford it, so you decide to steal it. You are saying that this isn't actually stealing, because you wouldn't have bought it if you didn't steal it. That's just stupid.
You seem to have emitted the fact that the single mother on welfare shouldn't have been blatantly breaking the law if she didn't want a fine. In addition to this, the law states that you wouldn't lose your car if it's the sole mode of supporting ones self.
normal people just don't want other people to be able to speak anonymously
Yeah, because that's not possible already with email, chatting, irc, online discussion boards (such as/.), and pretty much any existing form of online communication.
The needle itself isn't going to be turned into one giant antenna. They're just putting an access point on top of it (FTA: Antennas and radio equipment are being installed 605 feet up at the top of the Space Needle).
T1 isn't DSL or Cable. It's fiber. That means higher costs for laying the groundwork and higher costs for the fiber itself, which the ISP passes onto the consumer (usually a business). What you're mostly paying for, however, is a guaranteed 1.5mbps line, not one that fluctuates wildly like DSL or Cable. T1 is much better suited for business because it almost never has any downtime (which of course is greatly valued by businesses, since time = money).
Country with law: don't kill people.
Country without law: kill or don't kill people.
Conclusion: a country without law is more free than a country with law.
Your conclusion is correct. The country without law is indeed more free than the country with law in this instance. Thank you for proving his point.
By imposing fewer restrictions like in BSD, you impose more restrictions on people who get the software from a third party. And now it's suddenly less free because those people have less freedom.
But you, the person who licensed the software, have more freedom. The licensees don't matter, because thats not what this discussion is about. The discussion is about how much freedom the licenser is afforded by the license.
In which scenario do you think the licensees have more freedom? It's free as in liberty, not free as in 'free ride'.
This entire discussion isn't a question of the licensees, but the licenser.
No, the GPL is more free because it does not permit anyone to take away anyone else's freedom.
Being able to take away somebody's freedom is a freedom in itself. The BSD licence provides this freedom. The GPL does not. Therefore, the BSD license provides a freedom the GPL does not, meaning it is more free.
Slashdot Mirror
they "say" that Microsoft has 75% (didn't know Xvid / Divx was an MS Product)
.avi as "Microsoft Avi Video" (since I'm pretty sure it doesn't check the codec, so it wouldn't be able to reliably classify it as divx or xvid). I can't vouch for any of the other networks, however.
Besides wmv, a lot of ed2k clients refer to any file ending in
If I had mod points I'd mod you up. It's a shame to see people frowning upon your post because they disagree with you, or don't want to face the truth, or because you said a bad word.
What is it's milage ( in miles of course, one would wonder why it was given in litres )? Not trying to start a flamewar, but I dont know what a MJ/L is.
While it may be prior art for the first gen ipod, all versions of the ipod created after the patent was approved (ipod mini, ipod photo, larger sizes of the ipod, maybe even ipod shuffle) would not fall under the prior art argument.
But could you find any false premises or invalid reasoning?
Too many to list. The most naieve of your absurd nintendo fanboy arguments consists of absurd suggestions such as advising people to buy a gameboy advance and a portable dvd player, instead of a PSP.
The nintendo DS obviously does not rival the game playing capacity of the PSP, and the DVD player does not rival the movie player capacity of the PSP (namely, the fact you can play them off the UMD). This is, of course, in addition to the fact that following your suggestion would cost you about 400 bucks more than a psp, about an extra pound, and less pocket room. Please be sure to check your arguments instead of just spewing them onto your website without a second thought.
Actually, he's correct. You are, in fact prosecuting them by making your previous post, and you have a responsibilty to back it up. Otherwise, you're just trolling (which you appear to be doing right now).
At what point does the cost of attempting to prevent piracy outweight the potential money not made from piracy?
Why would companies spend money on copy protection, when they can just throw together more obscure methods of displaying the content, and make it inaccessible (incompatible) to anything they don't want it accessible to?
If I download something without paying for it, It's something that I would NEVER pay for anyways. It's either free or nothing. That company will not get my money for that product. How is that a LOSS to them? They aren't gettign my money either way. I think the majority of illigal downloaders feel the same way. They don't do it to save money, it's to get something you would otherwise never pay for at all. Of course it's a loss, we have no way of believing that you would not have bought it anyways. For all we know, if piracy stopped altogether, you just might buy it. But that's beside the point. You're saying that stealing something is ok, as long as you wouldn't have bought it anyways. Stealing is never okay, despite your incessant attempts to justify it. You're not fooling anybody, much less yourself.
If I really like the CD or Software, I BUY it. Otherwise its a quick download to check it out, or use it once or twice. That's why the software companies have (and I stress) FULLY FUNCTIONAL trials for you to use. Adobe's trial of photoshop lasts for an entire month, plenty of time for you to "try it out".
Your argument is alltogether a hodgepodge of pretty much every excuse i've ever heard for stealing software, or anything else. In fact, while you're at it, why don't you take a crack at the companies themselves, and blame them for your blatant theft, because they charge too much or something. You act like you're morally obligated to steal software from legitimate companies.
Your logic is flawed because you are parroting a jaded argument that doesn't hold any water. Lets take an example.
You want a dodge viper, but you can't afford it, so you decide to steal it. You are saying that this isn't actually stealing, because you wouldn't have bought it if you didn't steal it. That's just stupid.
You seem to have emitted the fact that the single mother on welfare shouldn't have been blatantly breaking the law if she didn't want a fine. In addition to this, the law states that you wouldn't lose your car if it's the sole mode of supporting ones self.
I viewed GTA3 as a game, and it's hardly artistic.
normal people just don't want other people to be able to speak anonymously
/.), and pretty much any existing form of online communication.
Yeah, because that's not possible already with email, chatting, irc, online discussion boards (such as
Mod parent down. What a worthless comment.
Only if you favor presentation over content.
If gamespy is going to be on the DS, no doubt one screen will be for gameplay and the other for gamespy-affliliated advertisements
Didn't they use to call that dialup?
Space Needle To Become WiMax Antenna
The needle itself isn't going to be turned into one giant antenna. They're just putting an access point on top of it (FTA: Antennas and radio equipment are being installed 605 feet up at the top of the Space Needle).
T1 isn't DSL or Cable. It's fiber. That means higher costs for laying the groundwork and higher costs for the fiber itself, which the ISP passes onto the consumer (usually a business). What you're mostly paying for, however, is a guaranteed 1.5mbps line, not one that fluctuates wildly like DSL or Cable. T1 is much better suited for business because it almost never has any downtime (which of course is greatly valued by businesses, since time = money).
But if you put fins and racing stripes on the space needle, the internet will go twice as fast
Country with law: don't kill people.
Country without law: kill or don't kill people.
Conclusion: a country without law is more free than a country with law.
Your conclusion is correct. The country without law is indeed more free than the country with law in this instance. Thank you for proving his point.
By imposing fewer restrictions like in BSD, you impose more restrictions on people who get the software from a third party. And now it's suddenly less free because those people have less freedom.
But you, the person who licensed the software, have more freedom. The licensees don't matter, because thats not what this discussion is about. The discussion is about how much freedom the licenser is afforded by the license.
"The ins and outs of usb"
In which scenario do you think the licensees have more freedom? It's free as in liberty, not free as in 'free ride'. This entire discussion isn't a question of the licensees, but the licenser.
No, the GPL is more free because it does not permit anyone to take away anyone else's freedom. Being able to take away somebody's freedom is a freedom in itself. The BSD licence provides this freedom. The GPL does not. Therefore, the BSD license provides a freedom the GPL does not, meaning it is more free.
An early draft of the badge design can be found here:
http://img226.echo.cx/img226/3209/ipbadge9cz.jpg
The organization has also announced new available merit badges in the following categories:
- Fascism
- Lawsuits
- Falsifying evidence
- Misinterpreting technlologies they don't understand