And since when is it a "bad thing" for a company to turn a profit.
Well, it isn't a bad thing in itself. See the idea is that some portion of the general population owns this company, and can direct it to spend its cash on its employees and on improving its services and/or products. The excess will be circulated amongst other people who will in turn spend it on other products.
If the companies weren't owned by the same bunch of really rich people who don't actually do any work anyway, and if the cash didn't stagnate in these people's pockets while the rest of us can't get pay increases in line with the inflation they cause, then there would be no problem. If you look at how impossible it is to get non-user-forum support for just about any piece of software these days you'll see just how little of doing business has anything to do with doing business.
And what about the results? Does the price of software go down? Do the employees (that were still left) get a pay rise? No, more money gets taken out of circulation and for some reason we have these 'economic crises' in which interest rates or fees affecting people, not companies, are increased or created in order to fill the gap.
IMO, economics in our world is one big pyramid scheme: it just seems that everyone is happy with it. I'm afraid I must agree that under our present economic and legal systems, companies making billion dollar profits that they then sit on is definitely a Bad Thing (TM).
Thankyou. And this is precisely why the patent offices of all countries need to stop and make major changes to how they operate.
In previous times, compiling such a glob of information and coming up with a way to index it for a user would be covered by copyright on the book you had written. This may have been inadequate for the guy who invented, say, the dictionary, which could basically be copied and extended to produce a new dictionary for a competitor... BUT......why this society has such a weak spot for treating things differently just because a computer was involved is beyond me. Such a work is clearly protectable under copyright laws, but patenting indexing of a certain type of information? Why? What the example of the dictionary highlights is that copyright itself is inadequate to protect innovators. I think we are all clear that [software] patents are a potential solution for this that have *NOT* worked out.
Perhaps if someone had merely patented what we now know as computer science from the beginning, everything would be much clearer. I for one, would welcome our 'patent on everything' overlords, if they would simply let us get on with innovations in computer technology and take their single, simple royalty on everything we create. It would be like: "Oh yes, you've created an address book. Pay your royalties to mega-corp (it would probably have been AMD or Motorola or someone like that) and you are set." instead of: "Microsoft registers patent on treating contact details as a computer object."
Has anyone come up with a fund for a think tank to open the patents on anything they can think of before these guys close them? Just start patenting the hell out of anything and use donations to open source proponents like SourceForge to fund them. Imagine the publicity for an open source software site that held a bunch of software patents for you to use - complete with example code of course;-)
Not to detract from your arguments, but to play devils advocate I must point out that I'm doing an open source project that integrates a couple of GPL libraries using free tools, all thanks to Visual Studio Express and.NET 2.0.
Sure, right now it only runs on Windows, but I'm just waiting for Mono to get Forms 2.0 support;-)
Here here. Alternatives: its simple - you have three. Put all your eggs in one basket with Linux, spread the jobs with Linux, or spread the jobs with Windows.
The reality is that the main cost of setting up a cluster of servers is paying a guy to set up 3 or 4 computers and get them to work together. It doesn't matter whose crappy OS you are using (and yes, they are *all* crap in their various ways), if you don't take the time (and expense) of laying things out properly, you will soon have a complete disaster on your hands.
Well technically, using BCD is just another approximation, again limited by bits. Its just that most humans are familiar with decimal rounding, not binary rounding. The only real way to ensure that numbers are stored exactly is not to limit the number of bits used in the first place.
Here here. Thanks so much for making sure this was right near the top of the comments. There was a time where the only response to this on slashdot would be 'ROFL', however it seems standards have slipped a long long way.
Granted, I am waiting with baited breath for UT2007 in hopes they add more gameplay fun instead of the stupid graphics and shiney crap that do not make a game more fun to play.
------
IMO, that makes you just another part of the problem. Nothing personal, but that's my strong belief. Are you *really* waiting for *another* game in which you hold guns and run up and down hallways? Exactly what do you expect from this that wasn't in UT? It may have a couple more game modes, but they'll be half-assed and un-fun, and will be more than made up for by the fact there will be only two maps.
When people stop shelling out for rehashed FPSs with pretty graphics, *then* you will see the industry change dramatically - no need to base the game's reputation on how pretty the graphics are, for a start. This drops pressure on consumers to upgrade constantly, giving them more money to spend on games.
The *only* new game to come out recently was Trackmania (at least, building my own levels in the game and racing them P2P style was new on me). I haven't seen a new idea in a mainstream game for at least 10 years. Trackmania Sunrise held my attention for a total of about 48 hours - zero new content. HL2 could have been great and really was, but again it lacked in content. At least they had some decent variations on the theme along the way. Flatout 2 - same game, throw in two extra maps (that should have been in Flatout 1). Even non-programmers are realising how much they are being ripped off for so little gameplay/content. The first game on CD I remember was Sherlock Holmes, and it had *hundreds* of hours of FMV content - EA Games wants me to pay $50 to add another couple of hours gameplay to BF2. YEAH RIGHT.
I run a computer shop, and I can tell you that the demand is definitely there, but it is too easily filled by a standard PC with XP Home and Media Player - just throw in a DVD drive, wireless control of some sort and a tuner card, all of which will cost less than $200AU total if you know what you're doing.
For anyone wanting more than that we are finding they simply prefer to source/build their own Shuttle or whatever. One thing that is definitely stifling demand right now is the fact that people simply don't know, don't understand or don't care about being able to get full 1080p out of an as-yet unspecified DVD format. This creates a schism between manufacturers and users, who don't want to hear about how you *might* get 1080i *if* you use the right connector, TV, drivers etc. etc.
So as contradictory as it might sound, the technology has both been ready for years and also is not ready yet. The demand for specialised devices to fill this niche is, as I said, too easily diverted towards what a cheap PC can do.
And before anyone comments, yes you can make normal PCs very small and quiet.:-) Various manufacturers are making fanless motherboards and heat-piped VGAs so it is not as big a problem as it used to be. In short, it would probably cost more for a Shuttle than to buy all these special parts yourself. Then again, I'm assuming you can put it together:-).
LOL, obviously that is what I posted for. I just can't handle all these different classifications for things in the real world.
Which came first, the idea of theft, or the legal definition? No wait a minute - in the minds of slashdot karma-whores there is no distinction. In any case it won't matter since despite anybodies good intentions the original argument never stands. Oh well, never mind.
LMAO. People actually can't understand where I'm coming from, and that is really sad. Worse yet I get to put up with morons who can't string my arguments together let alone counter them.
Would it make you happy if I said that copyright infringement is not theft?
Would it make you realise what an idiot you are if I said once again that I never thought they were?
"Yes, really. However, this is stating the obvious. Anyone familiar with either knows this. It is hardly insightful. It is like knowing the fact that rape and murder are (OMG!) two separate crimes. "
Without wanting to detract from my own arguments, yes.
"Sometimes, however, this is done in an abusive fashion. Use of words without meaning in the hopes of some sort of rhetorical or emotional effect."
Sometimes yes. Most the time no. In this case no. But where has the thread gone?
"If you really were informed of this, you would not use the word "thief" to describe Joe Blogg."
If you had personal experience with the problem and weren't anally retentive, you *would*. And for the millionth time, *I didn't*.
"It wouldn't happen if the trolls did not change the subject from copyright infringment to theft."
Hey, that's MY argument...
Oh sorry, that's right... when someone mentions another subject even in error, we all forget what we were thinking about don't we? Is that why we try so hard to stop it happening (and in fact have the opposite effect each time)?
"words that don't apply. The person who brings theft into a copyright infringement discussion is either ignorant, or is attempting to play on the ignorance of others."
Quote?
"If you are too "stoopid" to know that these words have nothing to do with each other, then you are intentionally trying to argue in the hopes that others are too stupid to know what the words mean."
This is what I love most about it. The people who are too inflexible to follow an argument that's been poorly worded constantly accuse those on the other side of the argument of being actually confused and worse yet of trying to mislead people. I'm probably the only person here silly enough to maintain that theft is applicable in the situation but to accuse a 'stoopid' person of being malicious is just paranoia and elitism.
Do you have a quote of where this happened on slashdot (ever)?
"It is rather obvious, but in message after message you miss the point and still make the incorrect confusion between two different terms."
Where am I confused? What have I asserted wrongly other than a word you disagree with?
"That statement is rather incoherent. However, it is quite certain that handsaws are as relevant to a discussion of copyright infringement as theft is!"
LMFAO you really can't see a simle parody can you?
"If you think it is OK to generalize beyond all reason (and without regard to understanding of the different meanings of different terms), then you are ignorant when it comes to word meanings."
Wrong again. I'm just not shallow enough to base my world view on a dictionary definition (should I point out just how long dictionaries have been around compared to languages?).
"With the exception of the word indicated in bold, the other meanings amount to a very general accusation of being a "bad guy". Generalization does not mess up these words. However, the word "theives" (sic) has a very specific meaning. If you use it, it has to be accurate. Just like if you had added the accusations of "pastry chefs, rapists, brain surgeons" to your list."
In your opinion. Want to go another round of stating our points? Think I'm going to change my position?
"You are probably right on this term: it is rather vague. Unlike "theif". "
In your opinion.
"Not at all. You are using the word "theif" in ignorance of the fact that it has a specific meaning that rules out it being applied in the conversation"
Wrong again. I can't reiterate any more strongly that I'm not the one who used the word.
"and with full knowledge of the attempt to mislead by the use of the word. Neither is very defensible."
Quote something. Anything. Who deliberately misled who? QUOTE SOMETHING. Then I'll start to think I might be defending against an argument rather than a statement, and we'll see whether the position is defensible.
"I stand by the correctness of this analogy. If the discussion of theft in a copyright infringement forum is on-topic, then so is discussion of pasta in a pie-baking forum."
The use of the word theft when talking about people ripping other people off can hardly be construed as comparable to this analogy. If you think its valid then fine, whatever. The point is that the pie-baking forum wouldn't mod its members insightful for making obvious statements about the differences between pasta and pies when someone happens to bring up pasta.
And that is precisely what has happened. Someone mentions pasta on the pie forum, perhaps even with very good reason to compare the two foods. But the discussion is stopped by a karma-whore who is oh-so-sure that pasta and pies have nothing in common. The attempt to group both foods into unleavened flour-based products would just be too much for their little brains period and so the poor original poster gets nothing but everyone else gets to pat themselves on the back. Yay for technical correctness.
"Those both happen to meet the definition of theft. However, they have nothing to do with the subject (copyright infringement)."
You simply have no attention span. Wasn't that the premise I was putting to YOU???
"I strongly recommend this for the next time you try to confuse unrelated terms."
You just don't get it. Also you've still yet to point out where we all got so confused.
LOL, I had thought this discussion well and truly over. Well, both of your posts basically hinge on saying that theft and copyright infringement are very different (really?), so I'll answer in one. My original and ongoing point is that:
a) theft is not just a legal term it's a term that I personally and most people I know (maybe cause I'm Aussie) would use in any situation where someone loses something as a result of someone else's actions. Call me wrong, I don't care. Language will be used by people to generalise things, and words will change their meanings whether you want them to or not: get over it. b) this is slashdot. We're all more informed of exactly what takes place (technically, socially, economically and legally) when Joe Bloggs shrinks and copies a DVD from Video Ezy than anyone else on the planet (at least I used to think so until I scratched the facade of what people around here call a constructive argument). I'm still waiting for someone to demonstrate what the OP had failed to understand about the process and business of piracy by using a five letter generalisation instead of a 20 letter legally correct description to make his point.
With both of these in mind at the same time (if you can do it), seeing a discussion lose focus because of this argument time and time again annoys me. Can't anyone else see the irony in that these posts are quite often modded informative of insightful, when really they are one sentence nit-picking, karma-whoring spam posts? How can it be worth discussing it every single time? Is it still 'insightful' when everybody knows something and somebody tells someone who doesn't know (or worse still, disagrees)? Why do these people do it, or do they simply throw it in because they had nothing more constructive to add?
I'll put it to you this way: If you want to argue for correct terminology (which wasn't really the focus of my post), either the post wasn't insighful, or copyright infringement is a form of theft. I suppose one could argue that insightful is a form of repetitive, but that would have to get philosophical...:-D
Anyway, by accusing me personally of being unaware of the difference (for f*ck's sake half my point is that I'm sick of hearing it) you've made it clear that you're on the train to point out the obvious like everyone else (yup you appear to have got points weeks after the discussion was over). I can see that this will (has) only degrade into further "no it isn't", "yes it is", and meanwhile my cry for sane modding and attention to people's arguments rather than their wording go completely unanswered. Everybody is willing to assert that this guy clearly has no idea because of his wording but noone can actually say where he got it wrong. Woot, we can all use dictionaries but not our brains. Sorry, but this is definitely my last post on the subject. I'll just ignore it and watch you all go nowhere with the same (lack of) arguments. Make sure you all mod yourselves 'Distended' or 'Handsaw' for being here to continue your cause for correct labelling tho...:-p
By the way, comparing apples and oranges is fine (kind of necessary) when you're actually talking about their differences.;-)
You again are simply attempting to accuse me of being ignorant when I am defending another's use of a generalisation. For the record if you've read all my posts, people who infringe copyright can be known as theives, mofos, bastards, scammers and so on in my vocabulary. A short stint with a dictionary will tell you which of these terms is correct and incorrect, a short discussion about the real world might reveal why some people feel that way. To try to compare that to mislabelling two foods is laughable.
Again, show me what the OPs (of all these 'insightful' sheep with a dictionary posts) had actually missed. Did he think that what had occurred was the total and final loss of someone's only master copy of some music/video/code? The theft of box after box of retail packaged digital media goods? Was he attempting to claim that the pirates were, in fact, sailing the high seas, plundering all they met? Once again, DID WE NEED TO STOP THE DISCUSSION THERE?
And now you are attempting to assert that 'ripping off' can only refer to theft. Ever heard of insurance fraud? I'm going to _blank_ the insurance company...
OMG, it appears that some words in English are interchangeable, and that although there are technically correct definitions for words (sometimes two or three!) there are also many, many colloquial uses. Are you seeing the other side of this argument *at all* yet?
Get off your damn high horse. You can read me the dictionary 'til you're blue in the face, but the fact that you can't construct any further argument only makes my belief that the posters of these stupid spams are not that insightful and that stagnant language leads to stagnant thinking all the stronger.
Because people keep calling it theft. Others think it is a very important distiction.
That's not what is happening here. What is happening is people are using a generalised term to refer to copyright infringement in order to build an argument. They are no doubt just as aware of the distinction as you are, although perhaps not in so many words. What then happens is one of the local karma whores will destroy the original intention of the thread by turning it into that discussion again. What REALLY irks me is that the modding is 'insightful'. What exactly did this poster piece together from the information presented by the article and the person they were replying to? Nothing.
As for your other arguments, once again you're preaching to the choir by dragging it all up again on Slashdot. The point everyone misses when I try to make this argument is simply that using a loose terminology doesn't alter the poster's argument. We know we're not talking about theft, what we now don't know thanks to this ridiculous 'insightful' post is where the discussion may have gone had the OP's original points been answered. Surely the intelligent people here are capable of using a generalisation in context without forgetting what we are talking about? I personally do take offense to the insinuation that if I were to call a spade a digger I would actually be thinking of a crowbar, and I think most people would.
In your example you cite a case where copyright infringement helped someone. If I have a junk car in my front yard and someone steals it, that could help me too. Now here's the difference - if I have ten junk cars in my front yard and someone steals the rest because it was cool the first time, that also benefits me. But if this band has all their music 'stolen' the second time around, while they are trying to bear the expenses of touring, interviews, studio time and all the things being a star entail, it will definitely NOT benefit them.;-p kidding, of course they've only been 'infringed', they won't have lost anything, right?
I should point out that I'm generalising here, I haven't really checked to see if this OP ever got any sensible reply. Anyway we have both made our points clear and arguing over whether or not this is appropriate posting could last years, so I rest my case.
Just following like with like. And since I've made my point, and since you've declined to make any new ones, I think I'll call it a day.
What point did you make again? That you were technically correct? How did that answer my plea for not stating the obvious (and pedantic) facts we are all aware of already (and how about we NOT mod people *insightful* for it)? More to the point did you end up answering the *OP's* assertions, or were you happy just to look good for doing basically nothing?
Since you've taken my general comments so personally (note to self, use more smileys for people with no sense of humour) its unlikely we will get any further with this. If you call it a flame-war (man you have no idea) when one person disagrees with your actions then I apologise for 'burning' you. But for the record I will assert that in the next discussion about copyright someone will get modded +5 insightful for doing exactly what you did, and I will stop reading the thread because I know that if that's the most interesting comments I'm likely to find then there is unlikely to be anything in there that I didn't know. If I'm having a bad day, I'll comment on the person's lack of originality and insight just as I did with you.
Perhaps/. simply needs a 'Well yeah, obviously...' modifier to make me happy.;-)
perhaps I can help you out with this. This is obviously an emotional issue for you, and affecting you financially. People who say that copyright infringement is not theft aren't all saying it's legal, or even moral, just that it's not theft. There are plenty of things that are wrong but aren't theft, ok?
This is exactly the reply I get when I point this out all the time. The question is why are we talking about it at all? Perhaps there are a few people here who don't know the distinction yet, but does it have to become the focus of every discussion about copyright? Can't we just once discuss it without pigeon-holing things and without wasting everyone's time re-re-re-explaining a distinction which I still maintain is purely semantic anyway? Again all it does is serve to cloud the issue and give people a platform on which to make pedantic distinctions between ripping people off indirectly vs going into their house to do it.
So I'm a cracked record and a karma whore all of a sudden? Hey, why don't we stop discussing these silly issues and start getting personal? Nothing like a good flame war to bury the issue under discussion, after all.
My point exactly. Why get buried in terminology when the original poster (may have) had a valid point?
I think it's useful for the debate to draw a distinction between piracy, theft, and copyright infringement. The moral aspects of terminological precision escape me. Of course, your comment would have made sense would be had I suggested that piracy, theft, or even copyright infringement were not illegal. Please don't think me pedantic if I point out that I said no such thing.
I won't think you pedantic, just somewhat non-confrontational. Of course at no point did I attempt to deny the fact that either of us considers both acts illegal. I think attempting to pigeon-hole different ways of ripping people off clouds what should be a very simple issue.
Except that semantics doesn't take out lawsuits against grandmothers and five year old girls, which suggests to me that your "just semantics" argument may be flawed in some small way.
Since when was that part of the discussion? The way in which a law is applied is completely irrespective of what you call it or what category you put it in. Again, you're stating my point for me.
Which immoral actions would these be, precisely? Is there a law that says I have to download a MP3 or something before I'm allowed to disagree with modern abuses of the copyright system? I think perhaps you're just looking to shore up a morally indefensible position by clouding the issue with ad hominem attacks, straw men arguments and sophistry.
I apologise for the generalisation, however this is a discussion about piracy. We're not talking about suing grandmothers at all, in fact we're talking about people who make it possible for these people to end up on the wrong side of the RIAA et. al. in the first place. Do you have a moral argument here or are you being pedantic again? Sorry, sorry, just kidding.:-)
I expect not. Certainly you don't see to have any inhibitions about launching unwarranted personal attacks. In the mean time, I plan to carry pointing out that using inappropriate and needlessly emotional terms isn't helping anyone who actually wants to resolve this issue.
My apologies again, but you've just joined a really long list of karma whores who get modded insightful for pointing out the obvious (without making any other point) in every discussion about a certain subject...
Don't you worry about Planet Express, let me worry about blank.
...about the only thing you forgot was to put IANAL at the start of every sentence.
Gawsh, shucks. You're just a plain spoken down to earth kind of guy what's had about enough of us high falutin' fancy talking city types, right? Well Mr salt-of-the-earth, if you've anything to add that isn't a cheap appeal to sentiment, a logical fallacy, or a personal insult, I'll be happy to discuss it. Otherwise I expect we can both find more productive uses for our time.
That depends on whether you have something to say to my assertions, other than to accuse me of being on a personally directed rant. So you got to 5 points for your post. Back it up with something to say other than "that's what we call it here in the big city." (And where the fsck() did *that* little attack come from?)
Splendid! There's nothing like exposure to new ideas to widen ones horizons. Don't you think?
Dont you ever get tired of typing the same argument to get modded insightful every couple of days? If you want to get bitchy about terminology, it could easily be argued that the legal stance (that copyright infringement is not theft) is not a moral one. With that in mind, the whole argument becomes semantic. Basically you're trying to justify your own immoral actions by hiding behind pedantry.
I don't plan to stop calling people who download my stuff illegally 'theives' any time soon, regardless of what legal beaurocrats and Mr. Look-at-me-i'm-insightful have to say.
Actually the really great thing about those traffic lights is that if one LED blows the traffic lights still work. This is a far better option than relying on one big lamp. They're also far more visible from a distance without being glaring up close. We have them going in all around NSW now too and I for one think they're great. Now if only someone would fix the holes in the roads and the lack of adequate lane markings and signage around intersections...
That's why the whole argument of control and routing on the internet is a farce. All it would take is for someone to start resolving URLs that end in.xxx and we will have a new 'TLD'. Screw the idiots that think they are in control of things - it is they themselves that want all this publicity, so that Joe Average thinks that someone actually controls the internet and doesn't give it a second thought.
...especially when you think about a tool like Snadboy's Revelation. There is only one purpose of the program, to discover passwords that are supposed to be hidden. But a lot of my clients would be pretty unhappy today if it weren't for that program.
This is why any VOIP box falls back to a landline when it can't connect. One could argue this feature was added to keep businesses running rather than save lives, but either way we aren't quite THAT stupid.
So now looking for boobies is a mistake? I think they're still in denial about how teenage boys are.
So looking for boobies is supposed to be considered a mistake as one gets older? I think some people are just to arrogant to admit they are organic beings.
You just got me thinking. Obviously this is a pretty cold place, but out there where things move slowly this moon must be in the shadow of its planet for very long periods, right? That would make it REALLY cold for a few years every hundred or something.
Damn I'm so lazy. I could obviously find all the facts on Google, but hey, this is slashdot, someone will get modded informative for replying to my 'factbait' and then I will know the answers without having to actually choose a URL to read myself.
Slashdot Mirror
And since when is it a "bad thing" for a company to turn a profit.
Well, it isn't a bad thing in itself. See the idea is that some portion of the general population owns this company, and can direct it to spend its cash on its employees and on improving its services and/or products. The excess will be circulated amongst other people who will in turn spend it on other products.
If the companies weren't owned by the same bunch of really rich people who don't actually do any work anyway, and if the cash didn't stagnate in these people's pockets while the rest of us can't get pay increases in line with the inflation they cause, then there would be no problem. If you look at how impossible it is to get non-user-forum support for just about any piece of software these days you'll see just how little of doing business has anything to do with doing business.
And what about the results? Does the price of software go down? Do the employees (that were still left) get a pay rise? No, more money gets taken out of circulation and for some reason we have these 'economic crises' in which interest rates or fees affecting people, not companies, are increased or created in order to fill the gap.
IMO, economics in our world is one big pyramid scheme: it just seems that everyone is happy with it. I'm afraid I must agree that under our present economic and legal systems, companies making billion dollar profits that they then sit on is definitely a Bad Thing (TM).
Thankyou. And this is precisely why the patent offices of all countries need to stop and make major changes to how they operate.
...why this society has such a weak spot for treating things differently just because a computer was involved is beyond me. Such a work is clearly protectable under copyright laws, but patenting indexing of a certain type of information? Why? What the example of the dictionary highlights is that copyright itself is inadequate to protect innovators. I think we are all clear that [software] patents are a potential solution for this that have *NOT* worked out.
;-)
In previous times, compiling such a glob of information and coming up with a way to index it for a user would be covered by copyright on the book you had written. This may have been inadequate for the guy who invented, say, the dictionary, which could basically be copied and extended to produce a new dictionary for a competitor... BUT...
Perhaps if someone had merely patented what we now know as computer science from the beginning, everything would be much clearer. I for one, would welcome our 'patent on everything' overlords, if they would simply let us get on with innovations in computer technology and take their single, simple royalty on everything we create. It would be like: "Oh yes, you've created an address book. Pay your royalties to mega-corp (it would probably have been AMD or Motorola or someone like that) and you are set." instead of: "Microsoft registers patent on treating contact details as a computer object."
Has anyone come up with a fund for a think tank to open the patents on anything they can think of before these guys close them? Just start patenting the hell out of anything and use donations to open source proponents like SourceForge to fund them. Imagine the publicity for an open source software site that held a bunch of software patents for you to use - complete with example code of course
[/rant]
Not to detract from your arguments, but to play devils advocate I must point out that I'm doing an open source project that integrates a couple of GPL libraries using free tools, all thanks to Visual Studio Express and .NET 2.0.
;-)
Sure, right now it only runs on Windows, but I'm just waiting for Mono to get Forms 2.0 support
Here here. Alternatives: its simple - you have three. Put all your eggs in one basket with Linux, spread the jobs with Linux, or spread the jobs with Windows.
The reality is that the main cost of setting up a cluster of servers is paying a guy to set up 3 or 4 computers and get them to work together. It doesn't matter whose crappy OS you are using (and yes, they are *all* crap in their various ways), if you don't take the time (and expense) of laying things out properly, you will soon have a complete disaster on your hands.
Well technically, using BCD is just another approximation, again limited by bits. Its just that most humans are familiar with decimal rounding, not binary rounding. The only real way to ensure that numbers are stored exactly is not to limit the number of bits used in the first place.
Here here. Thanks so much for making sure this was right near the top of the comments. There was a time where the only response to this on slashdot would be 'ROFL', however it seems standards have slipped a long long way.
Granted, I am waiting with baited breath for UT2007 in hopes they add more gameplay fun instead of the stupid graphics and shiney crap that do not make a game more fun to play.
------
IMO, that makes you just another part of the problem. Nothing personal, but that's my strong belief. Are you *really* waiting for *another* game in which you hold guns and run up and down hallways? Exactly what do you expect from this that wasn't in UT? It may have a couple more game modes, but they'll be half-assed and un-fun, and will be more than made up for by the fact there will be only two maps.
When people stop shelling out for rehashed FPSs with pretty graphics, *then* you will see the industry change dramatically - no need to base the game's reputation on how pretty the graphics are, for a start. This drops pressure on consumers to upgrade constantly, giving them more money to spend on games.
The *only* new game to come out recently was Trackmania (at least, building my own levels in the game and racing them P2P style was new on me). I haven't seen a new idea in a mainstream game for at least 10 years. Trackmania Sunrise held my attention for a total of about 48 hours - zero new content. HL2 could have been great and really was, but again it lacked in content. At least they had some decent variations on the theme along the way. Flatout 2 - same game, throw in two extra maps (that should have been in Flatout 1). Even non-programmers are realising how much they are being ripped off for so little gameplay/content. The first game on CD I remember was Sherlock Holmes, and it had *hundreds* of hours of FMV content - EA Games wants me to pay $50 to add another couple of hours gameplay to BF2. YEAH RIGHT.
Rambling ceases.
I run a computer shop, and I can tell you that the demand is definitely there, but it is too easily filled by a standard PC with XP Home and Media Player - just throw in a DVD drive, wireless control of some sort and a tuner card, all of which will cost less than $200AU total if you know what you're doing.
:-) Various manufacturers are making fanless motherboards and heat-piped VGAs so it is not as big a problem as it used to be. In short, it would probably cost more for a Shuttle than to buy all these special parts yourself. Then again, I'm assuming you can put it together :-).
For anyone wanting more than that we are finding they simply prefer to source/build their own Shuttle or whatever. One thing that is definitely stifling demand right now is the fact that people simply don't know, don't understand or don't care about being able to get full 1080p out of an as-yet unspecified DVD format. This creates a schism between manufacturers and users, who don't want to hear about how you *might* get 1080i *if* you use the right connector, TV, drivers etc. etc.
So as contradictory as it might sound, the technology has both been ready for years and also is not ready yet. The demand for specialised devices to fill this niche is, as I said, too easily diverted towards what a cheap PC can do.
And before anyone comments, yes you can make normal PCs very small and quiet.
LOL, obviously that is what I posted for. I just can't handle all these different classifications for things in the real world.
Which came first, the idea of theft, or the legal definition? No wait a minute - in the minds of slashdot karma-whores there is no distinction. In any case it won't matter since despite anybodies good intentions the original argument never stands. Oh well, never mind.
LMAO. People actually can't understand where I'm coming from, and that is really sad. Worse yet I get to put up with morons who can't string my arguments together let alone counter them.
Would it make you happy if I said that copyright infringement is not theft?
Would it make you realise what an idiot you are if I said once again that I never thought they were?
"Yes, really. However, this is stating the obvious. Anyone familiar with either knows this. It is hardly insightful. It is like knowing the fact that rape and murder are (OMG!) two separate crimes. "
Without wanting to detract from my own arguments, yes.
"Sometimes, however, this is done in an abusive fashion. Use of words without meaning in the hopes of some sort of rhetorical or emotional effect."
Sometimes yes. Most the time no. In this case no. But where has the thread gone?
"If you really were informed of this, you would not use the word "thief" to describe Joe Blogg."
If you had personal experience with the problem and weren't anally retentive, you *would*. And for the millionth time, *I didn't*.
"It wouldn't happen if the trolls did not change the subject from copyright infringment to theft."
Hey, that's MY argument...
Oh sorry, that's right... when someone mentions another subject even in error, we all forget what we were thinking about don't we? Is that why we try so hard to stop it happening (and in fact have the opposite effect each time)?
"words that don't apply. The person who brings theft into a copyright infringement discussion is either ignorant, or is attempting to play on the ignorance of others."
Quote?
"If you are too "stoopid" to know that these words have nothing to do with each other, then you are intentionally trying to argue in the hopes that others are too stupid to know what the words mean."
This is what I love most about it. The people who are too inflexible to follow an argument that's been poorly worded constantly accuse those on the other side of the argument of being actually confused and worse yet of trying to mislead people. I'm probably the only person here silly enough to maintain that theft is applicable in the situation but to accuse a 'stoopid' person of being malicious is just paranoia and elitism.
Do you have a quote of where this happened on slashdot (ever)?
"It is rather obvious, but in message after message you miss the point and still make the incorrect confusion between two different terms."
Where am I confused? What have I asserted wrongly other than a word you disagree with?
"That statement is rather incoherent. However, it is quite certain that handsaws are as relevant to a discussion of copyright infringement as theft is!"
LMFAO you really can't see a simle parody can you?
"If you think it is OK to generalize beyond all reason (and without regard to understanding of the different meanings of different terms), then you are ignorant when it comes to word meanings."
Wrong again. I'm just not shallow enough to base my world view on a dictionary definition (should I point out just how long dictionaries have been around compared to languages?).
"With the exception of the word indicated in bold, the other meanings amount to a very general accusation of being a "bad guy". Generalization does not mess up these words. However, the word "theives" (sic) has a very specific meaning. If you use it, it has to be accurate. Just like if you had added the accusations of "pastry chefs, rapists, brain surgeons" to your list."
In your opinion. Want to go another round of stating our points? Think I'm going to change my position?
"You are probably right on this term: it is rather vague. Unlike "theif". "
In your opinion.
"Not at all. You are using the word "theif" in ignorance of the fact that it has a specific meaning that rules out it being applied in the conversation"
Wrong again. I can't reiterate any more strongly that I'm not the one who used the word.
"and with full knowledge of the attempt to mislead by the use of the word. Neither is very defensible."
Quote something. Anything. Who deliberately misled who? QUOTE SOMETHING. Then I'll start to think I might be defending against an argument rather than a statement, and we'll see whether the position is defensible.
"I stand by the correctness of this analogy. If the discussion of theft in a copyright infringement forum is on-topic, then so is discussion of pasta in a pie-baking forum."
The use of the word theft when talking about people ripping other people off can hardly be construed as comparable to this analogy. If you think its valid then fine, whatever. The point is that the pie-baking forum wouldn't mod its members insightful for making obvious statements about the differences between pasta and pies when someone happens to bring up pasta.
And that is precisely what has happened. Someone mentions pasta on the pie forum, perhaps even with very good reason to compare the two foods. But the discussion is stopped by a karma-whore who is oh-so-sure that pasta and pies have nothing in common. The attempt to group both foods into unleavened flour-based products would just be too much for their little brains period and so the poor original poster gets nothing but everyone else gets to pat themselves on the back. Yay for technical correctness.
"Those both happen to meet the definition of theft. However, they have nothing to do with the subject (copyright infringement)."
You simply have no attention span. Wasn't that the premise I was putting to YOU???
"I strongly recommend this for the next time you try to confuse unrelated terms."
You just don't get it. Also you've still yet to point out where we all got so confused.
LOL, I had thought this discussion well and truly over. Well, both of your posts basically hinge on saying that theft and copyright infringement are very different (really?), so I'll answer in one. My original and ongoing point is that:
:-D
:-p
;-)
a) theft is not just a legal term it's a term that I personally and most people I know (maybe cause I'm Aussie) would use in any situation where someone loses something as a result of someone else's actions. Call me wrong, I don't care. Language will be used by people to generalise things, and words will change their meanings whether you want them to or not: get over it.
b) this is slashdot. We're all more informed of exactly what takes place (technically, socially, economically and legally) when Joe Bloggs shrinks and copies a DVD from Video Ezy than anyone else on the planet (at least I used to think so until I scratched the facade of what people around here call a constructive argument). I'm still waiting for someone to demonstrate what the OP had failed to understand about the process and business of piracy by using a five letter generalisation instead of a 20 letter legally correct description to make his point.
With both of these in mind at the same time (if you can do it), seeing a discussion lose focus because of this argument time and time again annoys me. Can't anyone else see the irony in that these posts are quite often modded informative of insightful, when really they are one sentence nit-picking, karma-whoring spam posts? How can it be worth discussing it every single time? Is it still 'insightful' when everybody knows something and somebody tells someone who doesn't know (or worse still, disagrees)? Why do these people do it, or do they simply throw it in because they had nothing more constructive to add?
I'll put it to you this way: If you want to argue for correct terminology (which wasn't really the focus of my post), either the post wasn't insighful, or copyright infringement is a form of theft. I suppose one could argue that insightful is a form of repetitive, but that would have to get philosophical...
Anyway, by accusing me personally of being unaware of the difference (for f*ck's sake half my point is that I'm sick of hearing it) you've made it clear that you're on the train to point out the obvious like everyone else (yup you appear to have got points weeks after the discussion was over). I can see that this will (has) only degrade into further "no it isn't", "yes it is", and meanwhile my cry for sane modding and attention to people's arguments rather than their wording go completely unanswered. Everybody is willing to assert that this guy clearly has no idea because of his wording but noone can actually say where he got it wrong. Woot, we can all use dictionaries but not our brains. Sorry, but this is definitely my last post on the subject. I'll just ignore it and watch you all go nowhere with the same (lack of) arguments. Make sure you all mod yourselves 'Distended' or 'Handsaw' for being here to continue your cause for correct labelling tho...
By the way, comparing apples and oranges is fine (kind of necessary) when you're actually talking about their differences.
Grrr, couldn't help it, this post is worse.
You again are simply attempting to accuse me of being ignorant when I am defending another's use of a generalisation. For the record if you've read all my posts, people who infringe copyright can be known as theives, mofos, bastards, scammers and so on in my vocabulary. A short stint with a dictionary will tell you which of these terms is correct and incorrect, a short discussion about the real world might reveal why some people feel that way. To try to compare that to mislabelling two foods is laughable.
Again, show me what the OPs (of all these 'insightful' sheep with a dictionary posts) had actually missed. Did he think that what had occurred was the total and final loss of someone's only master copy of some music/video/code? The theft of box after box of retail packaged digital media goods? Was he attempting to claim that the pirates were, in fact, sailing the high seas, plundering all they met? Once again, DID WE NEED TO STOP THE DISCUSSION THERE?
And now you are attempting to assert that 'ripping off' can only refer to theft. Ever heard of insurance fraud? I'm going to _blank_ the insurance company...
OMG, it appears that some words in English are interchangeable, and that although there are technically correct definitions for words (sometimes two or three!) there are also many, many colloquial uses. Are you seeing the other side of this argument *at all* yet?
Get off your damn high horse. You can read me the dictionary 'til you're blue in the face, but the fact that you can't construct any further argument only makes my belief that the posters of these stupid spams are not that insightful and that stagnant language leads to stagnant thinking all the stronger.
Because people keep calling it theft. Others think it is a very important distiction.
That's not what is happening here. What is happening is people are using a generalised term to refer to copyright infringement in order to build an argument. They are no doubt just as aware of the distinction as you are, although perhaps not in so many words. What then happens is one of the local karma whores will destroy the original intention of the thread by turning it into that discussion again. What REALLY irks me is that the modding is 'insightful'. What exactly did this poster piece together from the information presented by the article and the person they were replying to? Nothing.
As for your other arguments, once again you're preaching to the choir by dragging it all up again on Slashdot. The point everyone misses when I try to make this argument is simply that using a loose terminology doesn't alter the poster's argument. We know we're not talking about theft, what we now don't know thanks to this ridiculous 'insightful' post is where the discussion may have gone had the OP's original points been answered. Surely the intelligent people here are capable of using a generalisation in context without forgetting what we are talking about? I personally do take offense to the insinuation that if I were to call a spade a digger I would actually be thinking of a crowbar, and I think most people would.
In your example you cite a case where copyright infringement helped someone. If I have a junk car in my front yard and someone steals it, that could help me too. Now here's the difference - if I have ten junk cars in my front yard and someone steals the rest because it was cool the first time, that also benefits me. But if this band has all their music 'stolen' the second time around, while they are trying to bear the expenses of touring, interviews, studio time and all the things being a star entail, it will definitely NOT benefit them. ;-p kidding, of course they've only been 'infringed', they won't have lost anything, right?
I should point out that I'm generalising here, I haven't really checked to see if this OP ever got any sensible reply. Anyway we have both made our points clear and arguing over whether or not this is appropriate posting could last years, so I rest my case.
Take it easy.
Just following like with like. And since I've made my point, and since you've declined to make any new ones, I think I'll call it a day.
What point did you make again? That you were technically correct? How did that answer my plea for not stating the obvious (and pedantic) facts we are all aware of already (and how about we NOT mod people *insightful* for it)? More to the point did you end up answering the *OP's* assertions, or were you happy just to look good for doing basically nothing?
Since you've taken my general comments so personally (note to self, use more smileys for people with no sense of humour) its unlikely we will get any further with this. If you call it a flame-war (man you have no idea) when one person disagrees with your actions then I apologise for 'burning' you. But for the record I will assert that in the next discussion about copyright someone will get modded +5 insightful for doing exactly what you did, and I will stop reading the thread because I know that if that's the most interesting comments I'm likely to find then there is unlikely to be anything in there that I didn't know. If I'm having a bad day, I'll comment on the person's lack of originality and insight just as I did with you.
Perhaps /. simply needs a 'Well yeah, obviously...' modifier to make me happy. ;-)
Take it easy.
perhaps I can help you out with this. This is obviously an emotional issue for you, and affecting you financially. People who say that copyright infringement is not theft aren't all saying it's legal, or even moral, just that it's not theft. There are plenty of things that are wrong but aren't theft, ok?
This is exactly the reply I get when I point this out all the time. The question is why are we talking about it at all? Perhaps there are a few people here who don't know the distinction yet, but does it have to become the focus of every discussion about copyright? Can't we just once discuss it without pigeon-holing things and without wasting everyone's time re-re-re-explaining a distinction which I still maintain is purely semantic anyway? Again all it does is serve to cloud the issue and give people a platform on which to make pedantic distinctions between ripping people off indirectly vs going into their house to do it.
So I'm a cracked record and a karma whore all of a sudden? Hey, why don't we stop discussing these silly issues and start getting personal? Nothing like a good flame war to bury the issue under discussion, after all.
My point exactly. Why get buried in terminology when the original poster (may have) had a valid point?
I think it's useful for the debate to draw a distinction between piracy, theft, and copyright infringement. The moral aspects of terminological precision escape me. Of course, your comment would have made sense would be had I suggested that piracy, theft, or even copyright infringement were not illegal. Please don't think me pedantic if I point out that I said no such thing.
I won't think you pedantic, just somewhat non-confrontational. Of course at no point did I attempt to deny the fact that either of us considers both acts illegal. I think attempting to pigeon-hole different ways of ripping people off clouds what should be a very simple issue.
Except that semantics doesn't take out lawsuits against grandmothers and five year old girls, which suggests to me that your "just semantics" argument may be flawed in some small way.
Since when was that part of the discussion? The way in which a law is applied is completely irrespective of what you call it or what category you put it in. Again, you're stating my point for me.
Which immoral actions would these be, precisely? Is there a law that says I have to download a MP3 or something before I'm allowed to disagree with modern abuses of the copyright system? I think perhaps you're just looking to shore up a morally indefensible position by clouding the issue with ad hominem attacks, straw men arguments and sophistry.
I apologise for the generalisation, however this is a discussion about piracy. We're not talking about suing grandmothers at all, in fact we're talking about people who make it possible for these people to end up on the wrong side of the RIAA et. al. in the first place. Do you have a moral argument here or are you being pedantic again? Sorry, sorry, just kidding. :-)
I expect not. Certainly you don't see to have any inhibitions about launching unwarranted personal attacks. In the mean time, I plan to carry pointing out that using inappropriate and needlessly emotional terms isn't helping anyone who actually wants to resolve this issue.
My apologies again, but you've just joined a really long list of karma whores who get modded insightful for pointing out the obvious (without making any other point) in every discussion about a certain subject...
Don't you worry about Planet Express, let me worry about blank.
...about the only thing you forgot was to put IANAL at the start of every sentence.
Gawsh, shucks. You're just a plain spoken down to earth kind of guy what's had about enough of us high falutin' fancy talking city types, right? Well Mr salt-of-the-earth, if you've anything to add that isn't a cheap appeal to sentiment, a logical fallacy, or a personal insult, I'll be happy to discuss it. Otherwise I expect we can both find more productive uses for our time.
That depends on whether you have something to say to my assertions, other than to accuse me of being on a personally directed rant. So you got to 5 points for your post. Back it up with something to say other than "that's what we call it here in the big city." (And where the fsck() did *that* little attack come from?)
Splendid! There's nothing like exposure to new ideas to widen ones horizons. Don't you think?
Dont you ever get tired of typing the same argument to get modded insightful every couple of days? If you want to get bitchy about terminology, it could easily be argued that the legal stance (that copyright infringement is not theft) is not a moral one. With that in mind, the whole argument becomes semantic. Basically you're trying to justify your own immoral actions by hiding behind pedantry.
I don't plan to stop calling people who download my stuff illegally 'theives' any time soon, regardless of what legal beaurocrats and Mr. Look-at-me-i'm-insightful have to say.
Actually the really great thing about those traffic lights is that if one LED blows the traffic lights still work. This is a far better option than relying on one big lamp. They're also far more visible from a distance without being glaring up close. We have them going in all around NSW now too and I for one think they're great. Now if only someone would fix the holes in the roads and the lack of adequate lane markings and signage around intersections...
That's why the whole argument of control and routing on the internet is a farce. All it would take is for someone to start resolving URLs that end in .xxx and we will have a new 'TLD'. Screw the idiots that think they are in control of things - it is they themselves that want all this publicity, so that Joe Average thinks that someone actually controls the internet and doesn't give it a second thought.
Everyone should use SVN.
...especially when you think about a tool like Snadboy's Revelation. There is only one purpose of the program, to discover passwords that are supposed to be hidden. But a lot of my clients would be pretty unhappy today if it weren't for that program.
This is why any VOIP box falls back to a landline when it can't connect. One could argue this feature was added to keep businesses running rather than save lives, but either way we aren't quite THAT stupid.
So now looking for boobies is a mistake? I think they're still in denial about how teenage boys are.
So looking for boobies is supposed to be considered a mistake as one gets older? I think some people are just to arrogant to admit they are organic beings.
You just got me thinking. Obviously this is a pretty cold place, but out there where things move slowly this moon must be in the shadow of its planet for very long periods, right? That would make it REALLY cold for a few years every hundred or something.
Damn I'm so lazy. I could obviously find all the facts on Google, but hey, this is slashdot, someone will get modded informative for replying to my 'factbait' and then I will know the answers without having to actually choose a URL to read myself.