So, there should be no copyrights, then? Everything should be in the public domain?
Anyone can take a movie and claim its his?
Hm. Even open-source software has some amount "this code was written by..." and generally you don't steal it and say you wrote it. Recently, the Beryl vs. Compiz thing sorta had a fight in that regard.
Whatever we might think about various copyrighting methods, though, the fact remains that people will generally like to receive credit for their work, and possibly even money. So, you can blast the system all you want, but can you propose something better?
Eugenics is an interesting mixture of "science" and "metaphysics." Unfortunately, I don't think most people learn about the eugenic stuff that led up Hitler's mindset about people.
There are advantages, yes... there are advantages to Linux, and there are also (gasp) advantages to Windows.
I've used windows for a long time. I've never run into a network card or a sound card or a video card that Windows didn't support (yes, with a driver download, but drivers are really easy to install in Windows).
I've used Linux for a while, too. I've run into at least two wireless network cards and one soundcard, just in my own personal installations, that Linux did not support "out of the box" (well, out of the cd/dvd image...), and in fact, I was never able to get the sound and network card to work properly. There are lists of "incompatible" hardware online (and compatible) for linux. I don't usually hear about lists of incompatible hardware for Windows. Of course, I've never had to look for one, but I've still never really heard of one.
Oh, and something I forgot to mention... there are two sides against Microsoft on the service pack updates discussion. One says that Microsoft never releases updates fast enough, as opposed to Linux kernels or something like that. The other side seems to think that Microsoft's software should be perfect at release (because, as we all know, Mac and Linux boxes never have to updated for security or stability or any other reason).
It's not a first-release product, no... but a lot of hardware and software advances has been made since XP came out, haven't they? Which means that Vista has a lot of ground to cover.
I love Linux and run SuSE 10.2 on my laptop and use it far more often than I use XP on it, now. But, and I'm pretty sure everyone would have to agree, Linux is an operating system that does not support every piece of hardware out there. Same with a Mac. Windows took a different approach - Windows works phenomenally well for being an operating system that you can plug almost ANY piece of hardware into and have it work.
So... let's take Win2k. Would you like to have no hardware supported since Win2k came out on Vista? It would make it a lot more stable if MS only had to worry about supporting hardware that existed 7 years ago.
But when you are expected to support basically anything any random user wants stick into the case... and be able to work with it and work with it efficiently... well, I have to say that Windows does a pretty good job of it.
There's a lot of talk about it not being easy to use and everything. Try having your grandma even try to PICK a distro of linux, let alone try to install it on who knows what hardware, and then figure out how to use it. I'm pretty sure Windows has a really good edge on usability.
I wonder if these same arguments occur when new cars come out... maybe, like, when the first automatic transmission came around. What will people DO with their left foot and right hand?!
Entirely agree - if it runs Vista, it's Vista Compatible.
This would be as silly as saying my laptop is not "Linux Compatible" because, say, the network card doesn't work really well. I can still run Linux.
I fully support open source software, I am running Linux on my laptop as much as I can (and am as I type)... but it seems to have become an acceptable virtue to automatically bash Microsoft at any point possible, whether true or not. Even those that USE Windows because of functionality or compatibility still seem to think it's virtuous to bash it while they use it. That would be, to me, akin to an environmentalist bashing Hummers all the time while driving one. Hypocritical?
All that to say... it's not necessarily deceptive to say that something will run Windows if it will indeed run Windows, just not as well as a newer computer. That's to be expected. I can't expect my 2 year old computer to run Half-Life 2 as well as my new computer, at the highest settings. Actually, some settings simply won't be supported, because of T&L or antiscopic filtering because of hardware limitations - but I can still honestly say that my computer WILL run Half-Life. And nobody would accuse me of lying. Unless I was Microsoft.
Have you ever worked with someone with a huge ego? If the person with the ego is wrong, and unwilling to admit it, there's a huge problem.
Good coders need more than an ego. I'm in music, and there's a big problem with musicians that have an ego. Try telling them they are out of tune. Try telling them that they learned their music wrong. Try correcting anything... it doesn't work.
I'd imagine it's the same in computers. If you're dead-set that you're right because you're better than anyone else, you're going to be hard to work with. And, frankly, one-man-show software doesn't always work that well, especially when there are five one-man-shows all trying to do the same thing.
Ah, but there's a difference between what we see survival of the fittest as (sure, it exists amidst various breeds of animals) and animals actually creating new genetic material... as in, gaining systems of whatever, through many small modifications.
How evolution works itself does not seem to be a simple thing. Is it small tiny modifications (if so, then how would any small modifications last, since it'd just be extra random junk hanging around that does nothing), or is it more of a sudden one-generation-jump and you have eyesight, etc.
Even in the theory itself, there are a lot of mechanics that I think everyone would have to simply say, "We don't know."
Now my question is, why should evolutionists or creationists say that the other is stupid and unintelligent when both parties believe in things they can't prove? You can't prove, empirically, your mechanics of evolution, can you? We just recently had an article on the mechanics being rethought (well, the path the presumed mechanics took, anyways). So you're taking it sorta on faith (gasp, the evil word).
(of course, we all know that the real measure of intelligence is whether or not they use linux... *bites tongue*)
I think possibly the real reason for losing the tech edge is perhaps bad American public education in general.
Most Americans can barely name a capital of any non-European/North American country, it seems.:)
The interesting thing is... it seems nobody really cares about the artists that AREN'T wealthy.
I'm a classical musician. It's hard to make a living in music when you're purely musical, and not a celebrity figure like most "artists" these days tend to be.
So, the interesting thing about this little feud, to me, is that none of it really deals with the artists themselves. It seems that the RIAA is now seen as Microsoft is often seen (whether or not that's a valid vision of it or not I leave up to your discretion)... we fight it purely out of principle.
But does fighting the RIAA or opening up file sharing and making copyrights pretty much useless actually help the artists at all? I'm a composer... if there were no copyrights whatsoever, and if somebody malicious wanted to steal a work by me (presuming it was even good enough to be worth stolen, of course) and claim it as their own and make money off of it... well, it's rather nice to have laws in place to prevent that. OpenSource Composition doesn't work well. People don't often donate to composers. Copyrights are necessary in a world where people are perfectly happy with stealing other people's music and distributing it. Human nature is easily enticed to take something for free rather than pay for it.
So, what is this whole war between "private" file sharing and the RIAA doing to help the artists, whom, presumably, we all want to protect?
Because there ARE people that will steal other people's recordings and do all kinds of things with them; even among musicians, copying sheet music instead of buying it is pretty frequent (and illegal). Because, of course, we all know that all musicians and composers are as famous and rich as Spears or Shore.
So... I'm not trying to argue for or against intelligent design/evolution. Science is often championed as being very sure... especially evolution, it seems, when one looks at the court cases and news articles when the controversy comes up in schools, where it taught as pretty much proven fact. Does it raise questions in no one else's mind when it is quite consistently being "rethought?" It seems it should not be dogmatically asserted as it is now, nor should a "rethinking" be taken in stride as if it's entirely normal behavior for science. And yes, I know it's not a scientific fact, it is a scientific theory, as most scientific thoughts are - but most school kids don't know much of the difference between "fact" and "scientific theory." It's simply taught. Here's the chapter on gravity, here's the chapter on evolution. Maybe informative materials should be re-evaluated when the theory itself is re-evaluated.
The Bible is clear on things that matter. It is not right to assume that you know what matters to God if it is not clear in the Bible.
You're right.
If God had not wanted us to genetically engineer animals, He would have put in a passage like the one about not using mixed fabrics that everybody follows so diligently.
I would tend to agree. Although I do have to say that God would have to phrase it in some way that the people 2000 to 4000 years ago would at least partially understand. Maybe something about grafting animals, hehe.
God doesn't need to care about the Universe. It is omnipotent and omniscient.
Um.. the universe is not omnipotent nor omniscient. The universe is nothing. According to the Bible, the universe is only in existence because of God (specifically Christ) and the universe is actually only being held together by His power... which is why there are things in the universe that are so delicately balanced that, were one thing off... well, a Dr. Strangelove; or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Just Love the Bomb grade type of disaster might incur. (hooray for Peter Sellers)
I've looked, long and hard. I've searched for God my whole life.
The only thing I can think of to say is: what kind of God were you looking for?
but to me it sounds an awful lot like God is giving us complete dominion over Nature, and saying that Nature will be rightfully terrified of that dominion.
Well, look at the actual account.
God told Adam to subdue the earth. So, what did Adam do? All the animals came to him and he named them. Now, tell me if I'm wrong, but an animal that is terrified of someone isn't likely going to just randomly walk up to you and wait for you to name it.
It is only after the fall that fear, terror, misuse of dominion, etc., came about. Right now, I would say that yes, the "natural world" is "afraid" of us. Squirrels run away. But when some effects of the curse are done away with, in the Millennium, this fear will not be there anymore.
God never gave man the right to misuse dominion. That came with the fall.
This then, I think, is where some Christians take the stance against genetically modifying foods, animals, etc. Humans have a tendency to play with things they don't really understand, and bad things happen because of it. We don't really know where this 15% sheep thing is going, pretty much everyone on slashdot has seemed to imply that much, it seems. Is it necessarily evil to play around with genetics in animals? I, as a Christian, don't really think so. Glow in the dark jelly fish are kinda cool. But would I suggest eating a genetically modified carrot that glows in the dark? Hm, no. Is it "scientifically proven" to harm me? No, but I'd still be awfully leery about it.
It seems that the real test will be if a human body actually accepts it or not.
"Science" can claim it's 100% human all they want... science seems to often be trial and error... or trial and refinement, if you would rather.
So. Who is going to volunteer to have their body be a test environment for a sheep-build "human" liver? I guess if I was dying and needed a liver transplant, and can't get one.
Still. 15% human is progress, I suppose, but I don't think my body would react in a very nice way if you put a 75% sheep liver in it. It'd be... well, baaaad.
(sorry. couldn't resist.)
Many people listen, of course. A lot of people read stupid ads and look at stupid billboards, but few people will pay for something they think is stupid.
How many people will pay, I don't know, $75 to hear a concert of music that is, to use the popular term, garbage?
On the other hand, take a classical artist for instance. People will pay several hundred dollars for a good seat in a famous opera. I'm not sure how many operatic recordings are pirated... but it seems people are much more willing to pay for good music.
It's not the government's job to educate children, either, is it? Isn't that the parents' job also?
And yet, it seems most people entirely support public schools, and in fact, public school curriculum being regulated by the government (e.g., the whole debate regarding evolution/intelligent design being taught in schools).
Double standard, perhaps? IS it the government's job to educate but not protect children?
What about when children are at school, should they be allowed to access whatever they want there?
For the most part, I agree, the stuff that most of the music industry churns out is just that - stuff the music industry CHURNS out. It's default, boring, rehashed stuff. Why even listen to it, let alone buy it.
Places like iTunes, better yet, offer ways to buy just one track (how many times do people buy an entire CD simply because they like one, maybe two tracks?). Much cheaper.
Maybe it'll force "artists" to produce somewhat decent quality music.
Slashdot Mirror
So, there should be no copyrights, then? Everything should be in the public domain?
Anyone can take a movie and claim its his?
Hm. Even open-source software has some amount "this code was written by..." and generally you don't steal it and say you wrote it. Recently, the Beryl vs. Compiz thing sorta had a fight in that regard.
Whatever we might think about various copyrighting methods, though, the fact remains that people will generally like to receive credit for their work, and possibly even money. So, you can blast the system all you want, but can you propose something better?
Eugenics is an interesting mixture of "science" and "metaphysics." Unfortunately, I don't think most people learn about the eugenic stuff that led up Hitler's mindset about people.
Doesn't it more depend on what you do with the toxic materials... and how... than if you use them or not?
There are advantages, yes... there are advantages to Linux, and there are also (gasp) advantages to Windows.
I've used windows for a long time. I've never run into a network card or a sound card or a video card that Windows didn't support (yes, with a driver download, but drivers are really easy to install in Windows).
I've used Linux for a while, too. I've run into at least two wireless network cards and one soundcard, just in my own personal installations, that Linux did not support "out of the box" (well, out of the cd/dvd image...), and in fact, I was never able to get the sound and network card to work properly. There are lists of "incompatible" hardware online (and compatible) for linux. I don't usually hear about lists of incompatible hardware for Windows. Of course, I've never had to look for one, but I've still never really heard of one.
Oh, and something I forgot to mention... there are two sides against Microsoft on the service pack updates discussion. One says that Microsoft never releases updates fast enough, as opposed to Linux kernels or something like that. The other side seems to think that Microsoft's software should be perfect at release (because, as we all know, Mac and Linux boxes never have to updated for security or stability or any other reason).
Please note the sarcasm.
It's not a first-release product, no... but a lot of hardware and software advances has been made since XP came out, haven't they? Which means that Vista has a lot of ground to cover.
I love Linux and run SuSE 10.2 on my laptop and use it far more often than I use XP on it, now. But, and I'm pretty sure everyone would have to agree, Linux is an operating system that does not support every piece of hardware out there. Same with a Mac. Windows took a different approach - Windows works phenomenally well for being an operating system that you can plug almost ANY piece of hardware into and have it work.
So... let's take Win2k. Would you like to have no hardware supported since Win2k came out on Vista? It would make it a lot more stable if MS only had to worry about supporting hardware that existed 7 years ago.
But when you are expected to support basically anything any random user wants stick into the case... and be able to work with it and work with it efficiently... well, I have to say that Windows does a pretty good job of it.
There's a lot of talk about it not being easy to use and everything. Try having your grandma even try to PICK a distro of linux, let alone try to install it on who knows what hardware, and then figure out how to use it. I'm pretty sure Windows has a really good edge on usability.
I wonder if these same arguments occur when new cars come out... maybe, like, when the first automatic transmission came around. What will people DO with their left foot and right hand?!
Entirely agree - if it runs Vista, it's Vista Compatible.
This would be as silly as saying my laptop is not "Linux Compatible" because, say, the network card doesn't work really well. I can still run Linux.
I fully support open source software, I am running Linux on my laptop as much as I can (and am as I type)... but it seems to have become an acceptable virtue to automatically bash Microsoft at any point possible, whether true or not. Even those that USE Windows because of functionality or compatibility still seem to think it's virtuous to bash it while they use it. That would be, to me, akin to an environmentalist bashing Hummers all the time while driving one. Hypocritical?
All that to say... it's not necessarily deceptive to say that something will run Windows if it will indeed run Windows, just not as well as a newer computer. That's to be expected. I can't expect my 2 year old computer to run Half-Life 2 as well as my new computer, at the highest settings. Actually, some settings simply won't be supported, because of T&L or antiscopic filtering because of hardware limitations - but I can still honestly say that my computer WILL run Half-Life. And nobody would accuse me of lying. Unless I was Microsoft.
I disagree.
Have you ever worked with someone with a huge ego? If the person with the ego is wrong, and unwilling to admit it, there's a huge problem.
Good coders need more than an ego. I'm in music, and there's a big problem with musicians that have an ego. Try telling them they are out of tune. Try telling them that they learned their music wrong. Try correcting anything... it doesn't work.
I'd imagine it's the same in computers. If you're dead-set that you're right because you're better than anyone else, you're going to be hard to work with. And, frankly, one-man-show software doesn't always work that well, especially when there are five one-man-shows all trying to do the same thing.
Ah, but there's a difference between what we see survival of the fittest as (sure, it exists amidst various breeds of animals) and animals actually creating new genetic material... as in, gaining systems of whatever, through many small modifications.
How evolution works itself does not seem to be a simple thing. Is it small tiny modifications (if so, then how would any small modifications last, since it'd just be extra random junk hanging around that does nothing), or is it more of a sudden one-generation-jump and you have eyesight, etc.
Even in the theory itself, there are a lot of mechanics that I think everyone would have to simply say, "We don't know."
Now my question is, why should evolutionists or creationists say that the other is stupid and unintelligent when both parties believe in things they can't prove? You can't prove, empirically, your mechanics of evolution, can you? We just recently had an article on the mechanics being rethought (well, the path the presumed mechanics took, anyways). So you're taking it sorta on faith (gasp, the evil word).
(of course, we all know that the real measure of intelligence is whether or not they use linux... *bites tongue*)
I think possibly the real reason for losing the tech edge is perhaps bad American public education in general. Most Americans can barely name a capital of any non-European/North American country, it seems. :)
The interesting thing is... it seems nobody really cares about the artists that AREN'T wealthy.
I'm a classical musician. It's hard to make a living in music when you're purely musical, and not a celebrity figure like most "artists" these days tend to be.
So, the interesting thing about this little feud, to me, is that none of it really deals with the artists themselves. It seems that the RIAA is now seen as Microsoft is often seen (whether or not that's a valid vision of it or not I leave up to your discretion)... we fight it purely out of principle.
But does fighting the RIAA or opening up file sharing and making copyrights pretty much useless actually help the artists at all? I'm a composer... if there were no copyrights whatsoever, and if somebody malicious wanted to steal a work by me (presuming it was even good enough to be worth stolen, of course) and claim it as their own and make money off of it... well, it's rather nice to have laws in place to prevent that. OpenSource Composition doesn't work well. People don't often donate to composers. Copyrights are necessary in a world where people are perfectly happy with stealing other people's music and distributing it. Human nature is easily enticed to take something for free rather than pay for it.
So, what is this whole war between "private" file sharing and the RIAA doing to help the artists, whom, presumably, we all want to protect?
Because there ARE people that will steal other people's recordings and do all kinds of things with them; even among musicians, copying sheet music instead of buying it is pretty frequent (and illegal). Because, of course, we all know that all musicians and composers are as famous and rich as Spears or Shore.
So... I'm not trying to argue for or against intelligent design/evolution. Science is often championed as being very sure... especially evolution, it seems, when one looks at the court cases and news articles when the controversy comes up in schools, where it taught as pretty much proven fact. Does it raise questions in no one else's mind when it is quite consistently being "rethought?" It seems it should not be dogmatically asserted as it is now, nor should a "rethinking" be taken in stride as if it's entirely normal behavior for science. And yes, I know it's not a scientific fact, it is a scientific theory, as most scientific thoughts are - but most school kids don't know much of the difference between "fact" and "scientific theory." It's simply taught. Here's the chapter on gravity, here's the chapter on evolution. Maybe informative materials should be re-evaluated when the theory itself is re-evaluated.
I'm an idiot and didn't format it well.
It seems that the real test will be if a human body actually accepts it or not. "Science" can claim it's 100% human all they want... science seems to often be trial and error... or trial and refinement, if you would rather. So. Who is going to volunteer to have their body be a test environment for a sheep-build "human" liver? I guess if I was dying and needed a liver transplant, and can't get one. Still. 15% human is progress, I suppose, but I don't think my body would react in a very nice way if you put a 75% sheep liver in it. It'd be... well, baaaad. (sorry. couldn't resist.)
Which one is the modified one?
Many people listen, of course. A lot of people read stupid ads and look at stupid billboards, but few people will pay for something they think is stupid. How many people will pay, I don't know, $75 to hear a concert of music that is, to use the popular term, garbage? On the other hand, take a classical artist for instance. People will pay several hundred dollars for a good seat in a famous opera. I'm not sure how many operatic recordings are pirated... but it seems people are much more willing to pay for good music.
It's not the government's job to educate children, either, is it? Isn't that the parents' job also? And yet, it seems most people entirely support public schools, and in fact, public school curriculum being regulated by the government (e.g., the whole debate regarding evolution/intelligent design being taught in schools). Double standard, perhaps? IS it the government's job to educate but not protect children? What about when children are at school, should they be allowed to access whatever they want there?
For the most part, I agree, the stuff that most of the music industry churns out is just that - stuff the music industry CHURNS out. It's default, boring, rehashed stuff. Why even listen to it, let alone buy it.
Places like iTunes, better yet, offer ways to buy just one track (how many times do people buy an entire CD simply because they like one, maybe two tracks?). Much cheaper.
Maybe it'll force "artists" to produce somewhat decent quality music.
Yes, that's exactly what I think about first. :P