> If you want something that someone else produces, it is not unreasonable to pay for it.
They dont actually "produce" it, because its already produced and waitig to be copied. The "artists" actually do nothing but copy it over and over, but try to demand payments for every single piece as if it were a physical product which has to be individually fabricated.
So it's kinda reasonable to pay for this product as long its new and "fresh", for the artist to be able to return his money and time investment, but after a certain time, it just becomes not more reasonable to support him for a work he has done and that has paid off years oder even worse, decades ago, and now just cashes in.
When this specific time is over, is up for everyone to decide for themselves, and then just to start to ignore the copyrights, when the legislator is so ivory-tower to come up with copyright laws that last so fscking long (in average loger than a lifetime, so the contemporary music you paid for once will (from your point of view) _never_ reach the public domain) so nobody is able to instinctively find them "reasonable" and has to be forced and threatened with fines and jail time to obey.
She _IS_ a victim. She may have done something not legal at this time, but she hasn't done anything wrong or something what would hurt anybody. Copying is something pretty natural, and I would bet that almost all of her colleagues do it also. Enforced prohibition has never worked, under any circumstances, and it wont work here. Nobody will stop engaging in a natural activity like copying data just because it's "illegal" (And only so, for somebody else to be able to make money on this "illegality".) She just happened to have a bad luck getting caught and prosecuted under an unfair, unnatural and unjust law.
Hat this happened some 1000 years ago, she kinda would be eligible for becomming a martyr.
> Great for the hardware manufacturers; a distaster for the rest of us.
Why should that be a "disaster" for you, let alone the rest of us? Either you _need_ the new shiny interface, you loathe as cosmetic, and then youl will be happy they developed it and be glad to pay for it, so its no disaster, or you dont (as nobody else will need), and you can stay with XP and your current hardware for the years to come.
So how exactly will it be a "disaster" not willing to pay for an _absolutely immediate_ upgrade, when it comes out?
> E.) People switch to Apple, and never look back!
"People" suggests that there are actually wide masses "switching", which are, aehm, not. A few of the pecunious ones maybe, but even not all of them, probabbly just the few snobs among them who care about their "digital lifestyle".
"Switching" is also misleading, because to the casual user it remains unmentionend that for this "switching" to occur, you have to buy _entirely new_ hardware (just to try out this other OS), that is most likely expensiver than anything they might already have and need.
> German citizens have a right and a need to piracy?
They have a moral right to exchange information with each other, without a third party charging them for every word (or in this case, every download), as btw. anybody else, even YOU!
> That's funny, because in most of the developed world, piracy has never been a right, and no-one has ever needed it for > anything.
It has never been a legal right, but a moral right and habbit, so in practice, it's kind of irrelevant what the legal papers say, if they regulate something soooooo off the track with reality, as is the case here.
The result with this will be that everybody will keep on pursuing their normal information shairng habbits, and lose confidence and respect to the legislator, if he dares to punish them too harsh for something considerend normal, as is file sharing.
> Workers are owed compensation, and in both cases one is benefiting from the work of others without compensating them.
Done _work_ is owed compensation, the worker just for being a worker isn't. You should be compensated your work once, as everybody else, not for every time you click the copy button.
When I am not able to do my work once, and copy it for the next 150 years, why should I compensate somebody who really doesnt "work" anymore at all, and just sits there, and copies and sells what he has accomplished once upon a time?
There isn't anything immoral with copying at all. If the "artists" may do it, so does everybody else. The only thing immoral here is artificial, forced scarcity.
Re:How does it handle values outside the range?
on
More iTunes Math
·
· Score: 1
> I don't know if its true, but most people online tell me that GNUstep developers are a bit inflexible about > enhancements/patches to keep it more in sync with Apple's offerings.
I also have heard that the developers at Apple are even more inflexible about enhacements/patches to keep their systems more in sync with GNUstep's offerings.
No, they dont go after the ordinary filesharer here, but after release groups, professionel counterfeiters and so on. The only company who started suites on a large scale was a game developer, who practically "purged" the eMule network from his game, by suing some 10 oder 20 thousand filesharers who offered it. But on the other side, though he succeded, he "only" requested every defendant to pay the 30-40 Euros the game was initially sold for.
Well, then go lobby your senators or who ever is deciding this in the US, to "harmonize" their patent laws with the EU before the EU changes theirs.;-)
> To be fair, IBM seems to mostly use the threat of patent litigation to avoid patent litigation. Not that they're > altruistic or anything but in general they seem to be less assholish with their patents than Microsoft or Sun.
If they are quick on litigation or not doesnt matter if the patent in question is actually issued, what makes it impossible for smaller companies or even Free Software companies to implement the technology, if they are neither able to pay for the assumed patent licences, or even go to court against IBM & Co.
It suffices that something obvious has been patented, to make it practically unusable, regardles of which of the patent monsters actually patented it.
> However, even taking your arguement at face value, Firefox might have simplified the options menu but if you know what > you're doing you can go to the about:config menu and play with the more technical tweaks, which is really Linus' point. > GNOME doesn't just hide those advanced options, they completely remove them.
Righty right.
The handicapped Epiphany is in fact the browser GNOME people would like firefox to be, "simplified", as they call it, to almost nothing.
> Apple has nothing to do with this story, so I don't see why it's filed in the Apple category. Apple did not invent > podcasting; they were even late adopters of it.
Of course it has. The Apple fanboy who "invented" podcasting, named it so to show off his fetish for Apple brands. Since something is reckognized mostly on its name, and history tends to be forgotten, Apple now practically both "owns" podcasting, and will be portraited as heving invented it, since its their product which is in the name, and, as this werent enough, it's the only portable player that gets mentioned every single time "podcasting" makes a story.
> virtually anyone can take a midi file and using a program such as Garage Band or
Well, no, the autor forgotten to mention that you as a casual computer user first have to purchase a completely new computer system and a completely different OS which he would have to learn first, just to run garage band.
> but it doesn't mean it's somehow superior or intrinsically more demanding to run than any other OS out there.
He paid an premium price for a Mac and demands an premium experience. If this premium experience fails to appear, than it gets created without further ado through self-delusion, like any other crestfallen fanatic does this.
Do people actually have to be Mac users to give such stupid answers (like "Get a Mac.") on almost _every_ occasion, regardless of what the parent posting was about???
> Macs are good for art, so the artist clique are the ones that identify the systems as cool
Macs are supposed to be good for art, just because they are marketed as being good for art. Macs are no better for art than any other system.
> It's all image.
Even worse, it's just propaganda. A certain opinion being repeated (either by the marketing department, or the fanboys) until it is believed to be true, because "they said so."
Slashdot Mirror
OK, so I have to be the one to dissent to the usual mindless Apfel followers wet dreams:
> Mac os x is the best desktop operative system in the world.
No, Maccie, OS X actually isn't the best desktop operating system in the world.
> It's also the one who has more eyecandy than any other operative system.
And again, Maccie, it isn't even the one with the most eye candy, regardless of what your Apfel prospectuses tell you.
> You don't like those "useless" drop shadows and transparencies? Well, here comes a newflash for you: Max os x added them first than anyone else.
Apfel has indeed often be the first one to add useless stuff to their desktops, just for you fanboys to have something to orgasm on regularly.
> If you want something that someone else produces, it is not unreasonable to pay for it.
They dont actually "produce" it, because its already produced and waitig to be copied. The "artists" actually do nothing but copy it over and over, but try to demand payments for every single piece as if it were a physical product which has to be individually fabricated.
So it's kinda reasonable to pay for this product as long its new and "fresh", for the artist to be able to return his money and time investment, but after a certain time, it just becomes not more reasonable to support him for a work he has done and that has paid off years oder even worse, decades ago, and now just cashes in.
When this specific time is over, is up for everyone to decide for themselves, and then just to start to ignore the copyrights, when the legislator is so ivory-tower to come up with copyright laws that last so fscking long (in average loger than a lifetime, so the contemporary music you paid for once will (from your point of view) _never_ reach the public domain) so nobody is able to instinctively find them "reasonable" and has to be forced and threatened with fines and jail time to obey.
> Stealing, even from another thief, is still wrong.
Copying software is, no matter how often you repeat it, not stealing.
> I suspect most pirates will ignore the nag screens and..
And people copying software and not paying for it are not pirates.
> Exactly how does this sort of thing get modded informative?
Idiots get modded and valued up by other idiots. Thats how sites like MySpace work.
> I bet you all think she's a victim.
She _IS_ a victim. She may have done something not legal at this time, but she hasn't done anything wrong or something what would hurt anybody. Copying is something pretty natural, and I would bet that almost all of her colleagues do it also. Enforced prohibition has never worked, under any circumstances, and it wont work here. Nobody will stop engaging in a natural activity like copying data just because it's "illegal" (And only so, for somebody else to be able to make money on this "illegality".) She just happened to have a bad luck getting caught and prosecuted under an unfair, unnatural and unjust law.
Hat this happened some 1000 years ago, she kinda would be eligible for becomming a martyr.
> Great for the hardware manufacturers; a distaster for the rest of us.
Why should that be a "disaster" for you, let alone the rest of us? Either you _need_ the new shiny interface, you loathe as cosmetic, and then youl will be happy they developed it and be glad to pay for it, so its no disaster, or you dont (as nobody else will need), and you can stay with XP and your current hardware for the years to come.
So how exactly will it be a "disaster" not willing to pay for an _absolutely immediate_ upgrade, when it comes out?
> but what everyone wants to know is...
This actually isn't what really everyone wants to know. You maybe and a few others, but "everyone" is a way exaggregated.
> E.) People switch to Apple, and never look back!
"People" suggests that there are actually wide masses "switching", which are, aehm, not. A few of the pecunious ones maybe, but even not all of them, probabbly just the few snobs among them who care about their "digital lifestyle".
"Switching" is also misleading, because to the casual user it remains unmentionend that for this "switching" to occur, you have to buy _entirely new_ hardware (just to try out this other OS), that is most likely expensiver than anything they might already have and need.
So your E) is more than highly unprobbable.
> Now I understand how they managed to start two world wars. Yikes!
And how did the US manage to start another war approximately every ten years since the last world war?
> German citizens have a right and a need to piracy?
They have a moral right to exchange information with each other, without a third party charging them for every word (or in this case, every download), as btw. anybody else, even YOU!
> That's funny, because in most of the developed world, piracy has never been a right, and no-one has ever needed it for
> anything.
It has never been a legal right, but a moral right and habbit, so in practice, it's kind of irrelevant what the legal papers say, if they regulate something soooooo off the track with reality, as is the case here.
The result with this will be that everybody will keep on pursuing their normal information shairng habbits, and lose confidence and respect to the legislator, if he dares to punish them too harsh for something considerend normal, as is file sharing.
> Workers are owed compensation, and in both cases one is benefiting from the work of others without compensating them.
Done _work_ is owed compensation, the worker just for being a worker isn't. You should be compensated your work once, as everybody else, not for every time you click the copy button.
When I am not able to do my work once, and copy it for the next 150 years, why should I compensate somebody who really doesnt "work" anymore at all, and just sits there, and copies and sells what he has accomplished once upon a time?
There isn't anything immoral with copying at all. If the "artists" may do it, so does everybody else. The only thing immoral here is artificial, forced scarcity.
> I don't know if its true, but most people online tell me that GNUstep developers are a bit inflexible about
> enhancements/patches to keep it more in sync with Apple's offerings.
I also have heard that the developers at Apple are even more inflexible about enhacements/patches to keep their systems more in sync with GNUstep's offerings.
> Well... I'm an artist (musician primarily).
> It's only natural that as a musician, I'd want to get to know more about my instrument (the computer).
If the computer is the only instrument youre capable of playing, then you NO WAY can be a musician, not to mention being some "artist".
No, they dont go after the ordinary filesharer here, but after release groups, professionel counterfeiters and so on. The only company who started suites on a large scale was a game developer, who practically "purged" the eMule network from his game, by suing some 10 oder 20 thousand filesharers who offered it. But on the other side, though he succeded, he "only" requested every defendant to pay the 30-40 Euros the game was initially sold for.
Well, then go lobby your senators or who ever is deciding this in the US, to "harmonize" their patent laws with the EU before the EU changes theirs. ;-)
> To be fair, IBM seems to mostly use the threat of patent litigation to avoid patent litigation. Not that they're
> altruistic or anything but in general they seem to be less assholish with their patents than Microsoft or Sun.
If they are quick on litigation or not doesnt matter if the patent in question is actually issued, what makes it impossible for smaller companies or even Free Software companies to implement the technology, if they are neither able to pay for the assumed patent licences, or even go to court against IBM & Co.
It suffices that something obvious has been patented, to make it practically unusable, regardles of which of the patent monsters actually patented it.
> However, even taking your arguement at face value, Firefox might have simplified the options menu but if you know what
> you're doing you can go to the about:config menu and play with the more technical tweaks, which is really Linus' point.
> GNOME doesn't just hide those advanced options, they completely remove them.
Righty right.
The handicapped Epiphany is in fact the browser GNOME people would like firefox to be, "simplified", as they call it, to almost nothing.
> Apple has nothing to do with this story, so I don't see why it's filed in the Apple category. Apple did not invent
> podcasting; they were even late adopters of it.
Of course it has. The Apple fanboy who "invented" podcasting, named it so to show off his fetish for Apple brands. Since something is reckognized mostly on its name, and history tends to be forgotten, Apple now practically both "owns" podcasting, and will be portraited as heving invented it, since its their product which is in the name, and, as this werent enough, it's the only portable player that gets mentioned every single time "podcasting" makes a story.
How do you know they thought up the interface themselves and not ripped off (aka "improved") Creative early players?
> virtually anyone can take a midi file and using a program such as Garage Band or
Well, no, the autor forgotten to mention that you as a casual computer user first have to purchase a completely new computer system and a completely different OS which he would have to learn first, just to run garage band.
> and in the high-end desktop market, Apple is number one.
No, actually they are'nt. It's just you who wishes they were.
> but it doesn't mean it's somehow superior or intrinsically more demanding to run than any other OS out there.
He paid an premium price for a Mac and demands an premium experience. If this premium experience fails to appear, than it gets created without further ado through self-delusion, like any other crestfallen fanatic does this.
> They make their money off of selling an entire solution; hardware and software that work very well together.
What does for example Dell do different than selling "entire solutions", i.e. complete systems?
Read the fucking posting before you answer.
Do people actually have to be Mac users to give such stupid answers (like "Get a Mac.") on almost _every_ occasion, regardless of what the parent posting was about???
> Macs are good for art, so the artist clique are the ones that identify the systems as cool
Macs are supposed to be good for art, just because they are marketed as being good for art.
Macs are no better for art than any other system.
> It's all image.
Even worse, it's just propaganda. A certain opinion being repeated (either by the marketing department, or the fanboys) until it is believed to be true, because "they said so."