DA here: not all Irish or even close chose to represent the school as the fighting Irish. However, I don't really see any Irish people who are complaining about it (The Irish were abused here in the US too for a long time, although that seems to be pretty much over by now.). I would say that it probably doesn't fully represent Irish culture fully or well either. What does it matter if it was a white dude or an Indian dude who named the team?
By focusing on minor issues like this, pundits are eroding the support in this nation for true racial equality. When we focus on the minor things, the big things go out of focus, and more and more people begin thinking, "Oh, it's just *them* complaining again, move on."
Actually this is a good idea and something that I have practiced before. When you divide the cost of a book by two or, better, five, it doesn't really seem like it costs so much any more.
I agree that it hurts the people you say it hurts. I don't understand how you expect Microsoft to have a problem with this; indeed, they are probably glad to hurt those that they hurt.
FYI so that you don't sound ignorant when you complain about things:
1) Unemployment is down. 2) The administration, no matter what you would like to believe, has very little control over gas prices. As long as environmental groups continue preventing the exploitation of Alaska's oil reserves.
As for wars, it is true, that has changed, but I have to believe that a lot of it had to do with 9/11, and most of this war stuff wouldn't have happened without it. The same goes for the deficit (wars -> deficit). As for the police state comment, that's just a polemic attack with little basis.
In all seriousness, it's because he's a wise man who has worked widely and in many important positions. He very obviously knows what he is talking about. That's why articles are constantly being posted about him.
Teaching seems to me to be a totally separate muscle from any other. Whether you are a good teacher or not might have no bearing on how good of a programmer you are, and vice-versa.
However, I have found that skilled programmers do tend to be good learners. I have not yet seen anyone who needed a lot of help picking something up who was also a strong programmer.
If most programmers had a more realistic understanding of how crappy they really are at it, they would not be busy congratulating themselves right now.
If it's been going on for so long and no one has sued yet, what reason is there to believe that anyone will? Plus, I'll bet that Telus has its butt covered with stuff in the license agreement about how they can block anyone and everyone they choose and you are not allowed to complain.
First of all, I don't keep track of who I'm replying to, only of what I read in the immediate post. I guess this is why the news format of keeping the entire history in each post is good. Please consider the post I made as one in which the one I was replying to was the first I had spoken to you in, because that is how I perceived it, even though I was incorrect. If you can't accept that, I suppose it's only the internet, but I would rather that you did.
So, just to clear it up further, when I read the GGPP, I read just another guy who wants to get rid of the unreasonable pricetag and make everything available to everyone. So, if you consider that I did not know it was the same you I was talking to, I must assume that if everything is available to everyone, it must be at no cost, because no one can afford to pay the upkeep for everything, and if everyone is paying for everything (i.e. no descriminating market/conception of scarcity), that is socialism (again, taken outside of the context of our previous conversation). Most of the guys that have responded to me today have thought "unreasonable cost" == "any cost at all," and the way I read your post, you were just another one.
In any case, you are right, EOT is wise now. "The only thing worse than beating a dead horse is getting on one." And I am embarrassed, but I guess that in a heated subject like this that is unavoidable. I'm no image of perfection -- and I guess that is a cop-out too.
It is impractical to ferret out the truth, which is why users are being forced to endure DRM nowadays (since we can't prove who's stealing our stuff, let's just restrict everyone until they no longer are able -- gotta break a few eggs to make an omlette right?).
When I said enforceable, I meant ideally enforceable (as in, they are legally binding), not practically enforceable (as in, if you lie, you can still get caught). Just to clear that up.
If we managed that world, I would love to give everything away for free. I don't think we will see that within our lifetimes though. But isn't it a nice thought? Thanks for your insight.
I had not thought of the possibility that the bargain has become one sided. Do you think that as more competition comes to the software industry in the form of Mac moving to Intel that the rights will begin to shift back to consumers? I think we should also bear in mind that the software industry is still very young -- thirty years ago it was all but nonexistant -- and we still may be going through the growing pains of the early years.
Right those dark forces and the artists, software engineers, and musicians who need a paycheck to live are preventing this wonderful (socialist and impossible) vision from happening. How can I program great programs if I cannot get paid for the software I produce!? Do you have an answer for that question!? No one is going to pay for software that they can download for free, no matter how great the software is. What, do you expect me to work a day job programming in-house databases for some company and then slave away at night on my magnum opus? No. No, this is completely wrong.
I honestly think MS is just jazzed about everyone focusing on Firefox, because the reality is no one buys MS products for Internet Explorer. The more OSS people focus on Firefox, the less Microsoft has to worry about any competition for its real moneymakers.
Plus, most users simply won't upgrade because they don't experience any problems on IE and for that reason will not be compelled to download Firefox. And since MS is looking at competition that could probably in the end only take away the techiest people, there is no real reason why MS should throw THAT much money at the IE project.
In the first example, I agree, legislating the necessary restrictions for the sale of some arbitrary product is probably a bad idea. In the case of air, it's especially troublesome because I already have air, and I need it to live. On top of that, the producers aren't even producing anything, they're just bottling it and selling it to me!
The difference is that here on Earth, there are many types of "air" when compared with the example, which, once produced for the first time, only cost a very little bit to reproduce. However, don't you think the original producer of a new type of air, or music, or idea, has some rights to it, at least for a while (as in our current copyright system)? Let me put it to you this way: if I ever have a great idea and I am prohibited from selling the results of the idea without everyone else legally being able to steal them from me, then I will simply not release the idea at all. Perhaps that is selfish of me, but honestly the very idea that people could take what I worked for for free without my permission burns me up like nothing else. I'm sure that I'm not the only one.
PS. It's been really nice talking with you so far . . . it seems like some of these guys on here have no idea why copyrights and patents might possibly be a good idea. You seem to at least understand them, even if you don't agree.
I am afraid that I won't be able to convince you and don't care enough to try. Fortunately, the people making the decisions realize that it's important to have some kind of incentive to produce all kinds of goods, not just the physical ones, and for that reason will continue to view copyright infringement as a form of theft.
For all the activism and "free ideas" rhetoric that is spouted here and elsewhere, the thing I find most interesting is that there has been no movement that I can perceived to eliminate these things from the law, and my prediction is that, as selling ideas becomes more and more important, there will be more and more heat and light produced by people who want ideas to be free. When you are not the one who owns something, it is natural that you will try to take it. However, those in power and those with the ideas will continue to recognize the importance of treating them as property. This is just another evolution in our understanding of property, just as was the evolution in allowing land to be owned, and before that, allowing any kind of ownership at all.
Enforceability of EULAs. The author of this link is a lawyer, though not providing legal advice (naturally).
True or not, they are enforceable, which is what I was trying to lead you to with my post. It doesn't matter whether EULAs mesh with your ideals if you can be punished for breaking them. That EULAs are not valid in your understanding of the world will not be a working defense if you are ever dragged into court over the same.
Note: I am assuming with this post that you live in the US or some other country with similar contract laws; if not, forgive my Amero-centrism, but let me also ask the question, why are we having this debate?
I can think of one thing the original owner is deprived of, specifically, the profit that might be gained from selling that which is produced by the use of his idea. It's true, it's not as simple as calling it theft, but it's also not as simple as calling it "not theft."
PS. There is no such thing as a natural right, or really a right at all. There is only that which people cannot take away from you because you or someone else can prevent them from doing so by some force.
Nah, if "content providers" weren't such greedy bloodsucking parasites, then there'd be no need for DRM.
So . . . wanting to make a profit on what you invested in makes you a bloodsucking parasite . . . I see. In case I am misreading you, can you be more specific about what your criteria are for being a bloodsucking parasite?
I don't think many people would pay for anything if they could get it all for free with no consequences and no effort. Actually, it doesn't matter what I think -- there is no evidence to suggest that people will pay for anything they can obtain for free, unless they are hoodwinked into it. There is plenty of evidence that shows that they will steal. DRM is partially a move to add effort to the cost of gaining something illegally, the lawsuits companies are levying against software, music, and movie pirates are about adding consequences. Together, companies hope that these two forces will cause more people to buy their product.
Because those companies didn't actually EARN those profits by providing a desired good or service at a price that buyers were willing to pay? Like what would happen in a _real_ capitalistic market instead of a government-mandated one.
It is not the company's duty to satisfy its customers. As long as the customers are still willing to pay for some service the company provides or do without it, it's fine for companies to continue as they are. Note that the alternatives are:
1) Pay the company for the service
2) Pay some other company for the service
3) Render the service to yourself
4) Don't have the service
Stealing is not supposed to be an alternative in a capitalist marketplace.
All capitalistic markets are protected by the government. The reponsibility of the government in the free market is to prevent laws from being broken so that property owners are secure in knowing that their property cannot be stolen. With this in mind, the US government, far from being too restrictive to copyright breakers, is actually being unforgivably lenient (they should be dealt with like any other theives). See Characteristics of Capitalist Economies for more on these issues.
Well, I suppose that this is only a philsophical difference, but here's my question: if the law says it's true, and the courts say it's true, and the EULAs say it's true, and the companies say it's true, and the legal experts all say it's true . . . then it what meaningful way is it not true?
Slashdot Mirror
DA here: not all Irish or even close chose to represent the school as the fighting Irish. However, I don't really see any Irish people who are complaining about it (The Irish were abused here in the US too for a long time, although that seems to be pretty much over by now.). I would say that it probably doesn't fully represent Irish culture fully or well either. What does it matter if it was a white dude or an Indian dude who named the team?
By focusing on minor issues like this, pundits are eroding the support in this nation for true racial equality. When we focus on the minor things, the big things go out of focus, and more and more people begin thinking, "Oh, it's just *them* complaining again, move on."
Actually this is a good idea and something that I have practiced before. When you divide the cost of a book by two or, better, five, it doesn't really seem like it costs so much any more.
I doubt they would presume to ban you from letting your friend read your ebook on your own computer, so, please, enough with the FUD.
No.
I agree that it hurts the people you say it hurts. I don't understand how you expect Microsoft to have a problem with this; indeed, they are probably glad to hurt those that they hurt.
FYI so that you don't sound ignorant when you complain about things:
1) Unemployment is down.
2) The administration, no matter what you would like to believe, has very little control over gas prices. As long as environmental groups continue preventing the exploitation of Alaska's oil reserves.
As for wars, it is true, that has changed, but I have to believe that a lot of it had to do with 9/11, and most of this war stuff wouldn't have happened without it. The same goes for the deficit (wars -> deficit). As for the police state comment, that's just a polemic attack with little basis.
That will be all.
Hmmm it has no data on me and my parents' is several years out of date.
Child pr0n is also available on the web, but that doesn't make posting an article including it OK. You can probably even find the stuff using Google.
I'm not saying this is the same thing, but it amounts to the same logic, so your argument, though perhaps not the conclusion, is invalid.
Joel? Joel's just this guy.
In all seriousness, it's because he's a wise man who has worked widely and in many important positions. He very obviously knows what he is talking about. That's why articles are constantly being posted about him.
Teaching seems to me to be a totally separate muscle from any other. Whether you are a good teacher or not might have no bearing on how good of a programmer you are, and vice-versa.
However, I have found that skilled programmers do tend to be good learners. I have not yet seen anyone who needed a lot of help picking something up who was also a strong programmer.
If most programmers had a more realistic understanding of how crappy they really are at it, they would not be busy congratulating themselves right now.
If it's been going on for so long and no one has sued yet, what reason is there to believe that anyone will? Plus, I'll bet that Telus has its butt covered with stuff in the license agreement about how they can block anyone and everyone they choose and you are not allowed to complain.
First of all, I don't keep track of who I'm replying to, only of what I read in the immediate post. I guess this is why the news format of keeping the entire history in each post is good. Please consider the post I made as one in which the one I was replying to was the first I had spoken to you in, because that is how I perceived it, even though I was incorrect. If you can't accept that, I suppose it's only the internet, but I would rather that you did.
So, just to clear it up further, when I read the GGPP, I read just another guy who wants to get rid of the unreasonable pricetag and make everything available to everyone. So, if you consider that I did not know it was the same you I was talking to, I must assume that if everything is available to everyone, it must be at no cost, because no one can afford to pay the upkeep for everything, and if everyone is paying for everything (i.e. no descriminating market/conception of scarcity), that is socialism (again, taken outside of the context of our previous conversation). Most of the guys that have responded to me today have thought "unreasonable cost" == "any cost at all," and the way I read your post, you were just another one.
In any case, you are right, EOT is wise now. "The only thing worse than beating a dead horse is getting on one." And I am embarrassed, but I guess that in a heated subject like this that is unavoidable. I'm no image of perfection -- and I guess that is a cop-out too.
It is impractical to ferret out the truth, which is why users are being forced to endure DRM nowadays (since we can't prove who's stealing our stuff, let's just restrict everyone until they no longer are able -- gotta break a few eggs to make an omlette right?).
When I said enforceable, I meant ideally enforceable (as in, they are legally binding), not practically enforceable (as in, if you lie, you can still get caught). Just to clear that up.
If we managed that world, I would love to give everything away for free. I don't think we will see that within our lifetimes though. But isn't it a nice thought? Thanks for your insight.
I had not thought of the possibility that the bargain has become one sided. Do you think that as more competition comes to the software industry in the form of Mac moving to Intel that the rights will begin to shift back to consumers? I think we should also bear in mind that the software industry is still very young -- thirty years ago it was all but nonexistant -- and we still may be going through the growing pains of the early years.
Right those dark forces and the artists, software engineers, and musicians who need a paycheck to live are preventing this wonderful (socialist and impossible) vision from happening. How can I program great programs if I cannot get paid for the software I produce!? Do you have an answer for that question!? No one is going to pay for software that they can download for free, no matter how great the software is. What, do you expect me to work a day job programming in-house databases for some company and then slave away at night on my magnum opus? No. No, this is completely wrong.
I honestly think MS is just jazzed about everyone focusing on Firefox, because the reality is no one buys MS products for Internet Explorer. The more OSS people focus on Firefox, the less Microsoft has to worry about any competition for its real moneymakers.
Plus, most users simply won't upgrade because they don't experience any problems on IE and for that reason will not be compelled to download Firefox. And since MS is looking at competition that could probably in the end only take away the techiest people, there is no real reason why MS should throw THAT much money at the IE project.
It didn't stuck me.
Agreed.
In the first example, I agree, legislating the necessary restrictions for the sale of some arbitrary product is probably a bad idea. In the case of air, it's especially troublesome because I already have air, and I need it to live. On top of that, the producers aren't even producing anything, they're just bottling it and selling it to me!
The difference is that here on Earth, there are many types of "air" when compared with the example, which, once produced for the first time, only cost a very little bit to reproduce. However, don't you think the original producer of a new type of air, or music, or idea, has some rights to it, at least for a while (as in our current copyright system)? Let me put it to you this way: if I ever have a great idea and I am prohibited from selling the results of the idea without everyone else legally being able to steal them from me, then I will simply not release the idea at all. Perhaps that is selfish of me, but honestly the very idea that people could take what I worked for for free without my permission burns me up like nothing else. I'm sure that I'm not the only one.
PS. It's been really nice talking with you so far . . . it seems like some of these guys on here have no idea why copyrights and patents might possibly be a good idea. You seem to at least understand them, even if you don't agree.
I am afraid that I won't be able to convince you and don't care enough to try. Fortunately, the people making the decisions realize that it's important to have some kind of incentive to produce all kinds of goods, not just the physical ones, and for that reason will continue to view copyright infringement as a form of theft.
For all the activism and "free ideas" rhetoric that is spouted here and elsewhere, the thing I find most interesting is that there has been no movement that I can perceived to eliminate these things from the law, and my prediction is that, as selling ideas becomes more and more important, there will be more and more heat and light produced by people who want ideas to be free. When you are not the one who owns something, it is natural that you will try to take it. However, those in power and those with the ideas will continue to recognize the importance of treating them as property. This is just another evolution in our understanding of property, just as was the evolution in allowing land to be owned, and before that, allowing any kind of ownership at all.
Enforceability of EULAs. The author of this link is a lawyer, though not providing legal advice (naturally).
True or not, they are enforceable, which is what I was trying to lead you to with my post. It doesn't matter whether EULAs mesh with your ideals if you can be punished for breaking them. That EULAs are not valid in your understanding of the world will not be a working defense if you are ever dragged into court over the same.
Note: I am assuming with this post that you live in the US or some other country with similar contract laws; if not, forgive my Amero-centrism, but let me also ask the question, why are we having this debate?
I can think of one thing the original owner is deprived of, specifically, the profit that might be gained from selling that which is produced by the use of his idea. It's true, it's not as simple as calling it theft, but it's also not as simple as calling it "not theft."
PS. There is no such thing as a natural right, or really a right at all. There is only that which people cannot take away from you because you or someone else can prevent them from doing so by some force.
Nah, if "content providers" weren't such greedy bloodsucking parasites, then there'd be no need for DRM.
So . . . wanting to make a profit on what you invested in makes you a bloodsucking parasite . . . I see. In case I am misreading you, can you be more specific about what your criteria are for being a bloodsucking parasite?
I don't think many people would pay for anything if they could get it all for free with no consequences and no effort. Actually, it doesn't matter what I think -- there is no evidence to suggest that people will pay for anything they can obtain for free, unless they are hoodwinked into it. There is plenty of evidence that shows that they will steal. DRM is partially a move to add effort to the cost of gaining something illegally, the lawsuits companies are levying against software, music, and movie pirates are about adding consequences. Together, companies hope that these two forces will cause more people to buy their product.
Because those companies didn't actually EARN those profits by providing a desired good or service at a price that buyers were willing to pay? Like what would happen in a _real_ capitalistic market instead of a government-mandated one.
It is not the company's duty to satisfy its customers. As long as the customers are still willing to pay for some service the company provides or do without it, it's fine for companies to continue as they are. Note that the alternatives are:
1) Pay the company for the service
2) Pay some other company for the service
3) Render the service to yourself
4) Don't have the service
Stealing is not supposed to be an alternative in a capitalist marketplace.
All capitalistic markets are protected by the government. The reponsibility of the government in the free market is to prevent laws from being broken so that property owners are secure in knowing that their property cannot be stolen. With this in mind, the US government, far from being too restrictive to copyright breakers, is actually being unforgivably lenient (they should be dealt with like any other theives). See Characteristics of Capitalist Economies for more on these issues.
Well, I suppose that this is only a philsophical difference, but here's my question: if the law says it's true, and the courts say it's true, and the EULAs say it's true, and the companies say it's true, and the legal experts all say it's true . . . then it what meaningful way is it not true?