but you continue doing business with a dishonest company. editing posts is downright reprehensible. if you don't like the post, delte the entire thing, don't chop it up until it meets your needs.
they can fuck off and die. i'll never do business with those assholes.
yes because 300+ years ago, the british monarchy needed a way for people to accept that copies were in fact the original article (not to mention the censorship, for which copyright was born).
people back in the day (including now) didn't know any better. except for thomas jefferson and a few others who knew better, most accepted the propoganda of the time and treated copies as if they were physical property.
ideas are not owned by people, period. it belongs to everyone. anyone who tells you otherwise wants to be your master or some other nefarious purpose.
you want your ideas not to be used by anyone else? keep them in your own head. you'll be better off and so will the rest of the world who won't have to abide by your "terms".
i'd rather live free in the dark ages than to be handcuffed and shackled in the age of "information". but that's an extreme view. it'll never come to that. people who had the good sense, always shared freely with each other. sell actual goods, don't hoard knowledge.
there are fewer than a few thousand pirates in the world today.
oh you mean copyright infringers.
well, you can hardly blame me, i certainly try to use the right words to describe my intended targets. i also avoid using "politically venomous" euphamisms to portray copying digital data.
there's a reason it isn't treated as real property (except by the content cartels who would have you believe otherwise).
by definition, if it's in your distro's repository, then the program isn't arbitrary.
i mean you take the source, and build it yourself.
i mean, i'm sure all the programs you could ever want in any situation in your lifetime, would be located in the repository...
copying a friends frontpage directory could work. some programs asbolutely will not start without certain registry keys or certain other settings but many just recreate the settings as needed on startup. depends on the application. though that may not be a good example of what you want to express.
the only moron is you. biting my head off for basically no good reason. instead of being an ass, you could have said what you wanted to say.
to me, suse was a "commercial" distro. they have on their discs software which is not gpl. i thought it might not be legal to download those images. my post didn't say that i'm 100% certain that it was illegal, just a comment.
slashdot, news for nerds, anger management that matters.
Re:This is why I prefer PC gaming.
on
Xbox 360 for $300
·
· Score: 1
the difference is that pc games often debut for 35-40 bucks (50 for AAA titles) and QUICKLY go down in price, often for 25-30, within a matter of months.
console games often stay at 50 for 6-8 months and then go down to 35 or so. the popular games don't even budge an inch until up to 2 years later. (halo on the xbox only recently went down to 20 bucks... 4 years after it came out..)
high prices pretty much lead to copyright infringement, just the opposite of what they want. obviously the business majors are all incompetent or they are taught garbage at business schools. lower the damn prices, idiots!
and why would you want to put any money into sony's pockets?
they are a member of the MPAA/RIAA and are just as much a**holes as MS. more so in that very few people acknowledge or know it. nintendo isn't as powerful but they're pretty damned dirty too.
but if there's a problem, then linux makes win3.1 dll hell look like a paradise. even linux experts feel massively frustrated and helpless in that situation.
installing and uninstalling any !arbitrary! program is hell in linux. that's the one aspect of linux i would like to see improved, everything else is pretty much great (except drivers but that's not a linux-only problem)
what are you smoking and may i be allowed to bludgeon you with it?
try 5 years.
most sales of copyrighted products occur in the first year anyway. to say that you need 20+ (100+) years is just as bad as the cartels saying it.
if 1800+ days isn't enough to make money off of your "standing on the shoulders of humanity" product then you shouldn't be allowed to cross the street by yourself let alone get copyrights on things.
i already use firefox and other open source and GPL software. i've stopped using IE years ago. i don't have viruses or spy/mal/crapware. i keep my system clean and running well. i was talking more about the freedom and other aspects of computing rather than "windows sucks" (even though it does most of the things i want).
DRM and freedomless os's will turn off people from computing, including me. i am sick and tired of trying to get around things just to do the stuff i want, stuff that ought to be legal and moral but our overlords don't agree.
unfortunetly for now, i run a system that is taking more of my freedom in exchange for letting me play my paid for game software. (if you're a gamer and haven't spent a fortune on game software... well then...) windows/macos are turning into veritable "consoles"... having more and more restrictions on what you can do with what you legally and morally OWN.
GPL/GNU/LINUX/FREEDOM has the best chance to rescue us from this kind of crap we're going to be dealing with increasingly more in the future. that philosophy has a great appeal to me. it is the future, ultimately. it's just we're gonna be in a much worse situation by the time it's widespread enough so that even the laypeople appreciate it.
actually that line of thinking is very disasterous in the long run for the end users (they used to be called customers but people who read too quickly might think i've used the repugnant "word" consumer) because even when something is in your hands, after having paid for it, it is still THEIRS (the manufacturer).
when i buy a piece of software (which is not going to happen forever, i'm getting sick of the way i'm being treated) i expect that that copy is now mine. the manufacturer only has the rights which copyright grants them, in other words they have zero above and beyond that.
people who own xboxs/ps2/gc's/other computers wrongfully think that the machines still belong to the manufacturer. they forget that they paid for the hardware, the cpus, video, sound, drives. they think it is illegal and immoral to access the hardware for which they paid. the "console" manufacturers have brainwashed people into thinking that after the sale, the manufacturer still has a say over what i do with my machine. this is clearly immoral and illegal (for all decent definitions of illegal). so long as i don't violate copyright, they have zero, read that again, ZERO rights/say in what i do with it.
let me repeat that since speed readers might have missed it the first time, ZERO, NONE, NADA, ZIP, (running out of synonyms).
this is disgusting. just sell the damn stuff and let end-users buy them. if the business model doesn't work, try another. yeah commerce is hard but if you get it right, you are rewarded with many billions of dollars.
the quote that people sometimes use, forgive me if i paraphrase it wrongly "it's not the government's job to enact laws to help you continue making money ". it's a mess i know but i couldn't find the exact quote.
it's just so damn depressing trying to get people to stand up for themselves. these are things which you bought and are your right to use in any way you see fit and those who obstruct your path to that freedom, well... you can finish this sentence in your own minds.
if you want to be bound by eula's, you'd have to do it universally. if you've ever read any microsoft eula or anything even remotely like it, you'll find that 99% of it is complete and utter crap. the kinds of restrictions they put in those things makes one want to claw ones eyes out over the sheer stupidity and absurdity of it.
as far as i'm concerned, anything in a eula is automatically void. software vendors don't have rights to tell people what to do and how to use their software (other than distributing it en masse but that's covered under copyright law....) after the purchase.
a eula is not a contract. well of course unless you buy into the deceit that is.
1 a : a binding agreement between two or more persons or parties; especially : one legally enforceable b : a business arrangement for the supply of goods or services at a fixed price c : the act of marriage or an agreement to marry 2 : a document describing the terms of a contract
clearly, a contract is agreed upon BEFORE the transaction not after. it doesn't make sense. even after that is satisfied, other common sense issues come up. frankly i'm surprised any decent judge could ever stipulate that all eula's are valid, regardless of the terms included.
thankfully, intel came out with their DRM ahead of schedule.
the fact is, amd has to implement this crap to stay competitive (not forgetting that they are a member of the TCPA). the ultimate thing is, this is something NO CUSTOMER (i.e. end user) wants and it only wastes die space and increases costs which the end users have to pay for.
it's a lose lose proposition.
i wonder if hollywood is worth all of this.
far more people play games now than watch movies. i only see the disparity growing in the future.
well, the best of luck to those DRM ***holes. you'll need it when/if the public ever wakes up.
that's what i just said. that post was completely redundant.
apple can start making money just by selling the Software and selling hardware for people who want it but not making it mandatory. that way the people who want the best "experience" can buy both sw and hw from apple but people who just want the software can choose just that and it'll work on their computers.
and what about the population that has a high school level of reading comprehension and above and clearly understands that apple doesn't support the product?
another way to go would be to include in every package a piece of paper with 100 point fonts "DON'T CALL APPLE FOR SUPPORT IF YOU USE THIS PRODUCT IN AN UNAUTHORIZED WAY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO USING IT ON A COMPUTER THAT ISN'T MADE BY APPLE" etc etc.
the copyright infringers didn't put the DRM in the machines. trying to prevent people from copying on a computer is like preventing fish from getting wet.
you'll more than likely piss off the users/fish far more than you'll prevent copying.
but that's not even relevant to this issue.
how is paying for mac os x and installing it on an x86 computer you already own, copyright infringement? paying for the software obviously means that the vendor has complete control over what you do with it.
it's a sad world we live in... because we're all responsible for our ills, in one way or another.
Slashdot Mirror
but you continue doing business with a dishonest company. editing posts is downright reprehensible. if you don't like the post, delte the entire thing, don't chop it up until it meets your needs.
they can fuck off and die. i'll never do business with those assholes.
yes because 300+ years ago, the british monarchy needed a way for people to accept that copies were in fact the original article (not to mention the censorship, for which copyright was born).
people back in the day (including now) didn't know any better. except for thomas jefferson and a few others who knew better, most accepted the propoganda of the time and treated copies as if they were physical property.
ideas are not owned by people, period. it belongs to everyone. anyone who tells you otherwise wants to be your master or some other nefarious purpose.
you want your ideas not to be used by anyone else? keep them in your own head. you'll be better off and so will the rest of the world who won't have to abide by your "terms".
i'd rather live free in the dark ages than to be handcuffed and shackled in the age of "information". but that's an extreme view. it'll never come to that. people who had the good sense, always shared freely with each other. sell actual goods, don't hoard knowledge.
mmmm DRM
mmmm not being able to use a product you bought legally
mmmm having to phone home to get permission to play single player
mmmm gnome porn.
one of the best suggestions in this thread.
deny them the money they use to brib^H^H err lobby congress with.
less money = less control.
there are fewer than a few thousand pirates in the world today.
oh you mean copyright infringers.
well, you can hardly blame me, i certainly try to use the right words to describe my intended targets. i also avoid using "politically venomous" euphamisms to portray copying digital data.
there's a reason it isn't treated as real property (except by the content cartels who would have you believe otherwise).
i guess if you and your relatives stopped using microsoft software, then you'd buy an xbox/360?
they're evil for a lot more reasons than just """security""" (extra quotes mean extra thought went into the word)
you can believe what you want, it's just that it doesn't seem consistent to me.
by definition, if it's in your distro's repository, then the program isn't arbitrary.
i mean you take the source, and build it yourself.
i mean, i'm sure all the programs you could ever want in any situation in your lifetime, would be located in the repository...
copying a friends frontpage directory could work. some programs asbolutely will not start without certain registry keys or certain other settings but many just recreate the settings as needed on startup. depends on the application. though that may not be a good example of what you want to express.
the only moron is you. biting my head off for basically no good reason. instead of being an ass, you could have said what you wanted to say.
to me, suse was a "commercial" distro. they have on their discs software which is not gpl. i thought it might not be legal to download those images. my post didn't say that i'm 100% certain that it was illegal, just a comment.
slashdot, news for nerds, anger management that matters.
the difference is that pc games often debut for 35-40 bucks (50 for AAA titles) and QUICKLY go down in price, often for 25-30, within a matter of months.
console games often stay at 50 for 6-8 months and then go down to 35 or so. the popular games don't even budge an inch until up to 2 years later. (halo on the xbox only recently went down to 20 bucks... 4 years after it came out..)
high prices pretty much lead to copyright infringement, just the opposite of what they want.
obviously the business majors are all incompetent or they are taught garbage at business schools. lower the damn prices, idiots!
and why would you want to put any money into sony's pockets?
they are a member of the MPAA/RIAA and are just as much a**holes as MS. more so in that very few people acknowledge or know it. nintendo isn't as powerful but they're pretty damned dirty too.
yeah, sony is evil too, tonight at 11.
aren't those the "warez" versions?
infringing the copyright of a linux distribution is awfully naughty.
but if there's a problem, then linux makes win3.1 dll hell look like a paradise. even linux experts feel massively frustrated and helpless in that situation.
installing and uninstalling any !arbitrary! program is hell in linux. that's the one aspect of linux i would like to see improved, everything else is pretty much great (except drivers but that's not a linux-only problem)
they're locked up in guantanamo.
they aren't even allowed to talk to their lawyers.
the irony!
couple of decades?
what are you smoking and may i be allowed to bludgeon you with it?
try 5 years.
most sales of copyrighted products occur in the first year anyway. to say that you need 20+ (100+) years is just as bad as the cartels saying it.
if 1800+ days isn't enough to make money off of your "standing on the shoulders of humanity" product then you shouldn't be allowed to cross the street by yourself let alone get copyrights on things.
i already use firefox and other open source and GPL software. i've stopped using IE years ago. i don't have viruses or spy/mal/crapware. i keep my system clean and running well. i was talking more about the freedom and other aspects of computing rather than "windows sucks" (even though it does most of the things i want).
DRM and freedomless os's will turn off people from computing, including me. i am sick and tired of trying to get around things just to do the stuff i want, stuff that ought to be legal and moral but our overlords don't agree.
unfortunetly for now, i run a system that is taking more of my freedom in exchange for letting me play my paid for game software. (if you're a gamer and haven't spent a fortune on game software... well then...) windows/macos are turning into veritable "consoles"... having more and more restrictions on what you can do with what you legally and morally OWN.
GPL/GNU/LINUX/FREEDOM has the best chance to rescue us from this kind of crap we're going to be dealing with increasingly more in the future. that philosophy has a great appeal to me. it is the future, ultimately. it's just we're gonna be in a much worse situation by the time it's widespread enough so that even the laypeople appreciate it.
and what do we do with all our windows software?
just stop using it and throw away all the money we spent on it?
yeah, getting off proprietary OS's is the best thing for the computing industry but it'll take more time.
and lots of education.
umm is it written in assembly?
IE recommended... now there's something you hope not to see.
you can.
go buy a ff1 cart.
download an emulator.
download your legal rom of said game.
play game on any computer made in the last 10 years.
profit.
thank goodness nintendo/square didn't use something like DRM to prevent you from doing this innovative and useful act...
actually that line of thinking is very disasterous in the long run for the end users (they used to be called customers but people who read too quickly might think i've used the repugnant "word" consumer) because even when something is in your hands, after having paid for it, it is still THEIRS (the manufacturer).
when i buy a piece of software (which is not going to happen forever, i'm getting sick of the way i'm being treated) i expect that that copy is now mine. the manufacturer only has the rights which copyright grants them, in other words they have zero above and beyond that.
people who own xboxs/ps2/gc's/other computers wrongfully think that the machines still belong to the manufacturer. they forget that they paid for the hardware, the cpus, video, sound, drives. they think it is illegal and immoral to access the hardware for which they paid. the "console" manufacturers have brainwashed people into thinking that after the sale, the manufacturer still has a say over what i do with my machine. this is clearly immoral and illegal (for all decent definitions of illegal). so long as i don't violate copyright, they have zero, read that again, ZERO rights/say in what i do with it.
let me repeat that since speed readers might have missed it the first time, ZERO, NONE, NADA, ZIP, (running out of synonyms).
this is disgusting. just sell the damn stuff and let end-users buy them. if the business model doesn't work, try another. yeah commerce is hard but if you get it right, you are rewarded with many billions of dollars.
the quote that people sometimes use, forgive me if i paraphrase it wrongly "it's not the government's job to enact laws to help you continue making money ". it's a mess i know but i couldn't find the exact quote.
it's just so damn depressing trying to get people to stand up for themselves. these are things which you bought and are your right to use in any way you see fit and those who obstruct your path to that freedom, well... you can finish this sentence in your own minds.
just a little aside...
if you want to be bound by eula's, you'd have to do it universally. if you've ever read any microsoft eula or anything even remotely like it, you'll find that 99% of it is complete and utter crap. the kinds of restrictions they put in those things makes one want to claw ones eyes out over the sheer stupidity and absurdity of it.
as far as i'm concerned, anything in a eula is automatically void. software vendors don't have rights to tell people what to do and how to use their software (other than distributing it en masse but that's covered under copyright law....)
after the purchase.
a eula is not a contract. well of course unless you buy into the deceit that is.
1 a : a binding agreement between two or more persons or parties; especially : one legally enforceable b : a business arrangement for the supply of goods or services at a fixed price c : the act of marriage or an agreement to marry
2 : a document describing the terms of a contract
clearly, a contract is agreed upon BEFORE the transaction not after. it doesn't make sense. even after that is satisfied, other common sense issues come up. frankly i'm surprised any decent judge could ever stipulate that all eula's are valid, regardless of the terms included.
we live in absurd times .
thankfully, intel came out with their DRM ahead of schedule.
the fact is, amd has to implement this crap to stay competitive (not forgetting that they are a member of the TCPA). the ultimate thing is, this is something NO CUSTOMER (i.e. end user) wants and it only wastes die space and increases costs which the end users have to pay for.
it's a lose lose proposition.
i wonder if hollywood is worth all of this.
far more people play games now than watch movies. i only see the disparity growing in the future.
well, the best of luck to those DRM ***holes. you'll need it when/if the public ever wakes up.
yeah i guess so.
just wishful thinking that they could change their business model and become more profitable by selling their os to lots more people.
it may happen one day, just not in the foreseeable future.
that's what i just said. that post was completely redundant.
apple can start making money just by selling the Software and selling hardware for people who want it but not making it mandatory. that way the people who want the best "experience" can buy both sw and hw from apple but people who just want the software can choose just that and it'll work on their computers.
and what about the population that has a high school level of reading comprehension and above and clearly understands that apple doesn't support the product?
another way to go would be to include in every package a piece of paper with 100 point fonts "DON'T CALL APPLE FOR SUPPORT IF YOU USE THIS PRODUCT IN AN UNAUTHORIZED WAY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO USING IT ON A COMPUTER THAT ISN'T MADE BY APPLE" etc etc.
well anyway.
the copyright infringers didn't put the DRM in the machines. trying to prevent people from copying on a computer is like preventing fish from getting wet.
you'll more than likely piss off the users/fish far more than you'll prevent copying.
but that's not even relevant to this issue.
how is paying for mac os x and installing it on an x86 computer you already own, copyright infringement? paying for the software obviously means that the vendor has complete control over what you do with it.
it's a sad world we live in... because we're all responsible for our ills, in one way or another.