Indeed. As with any forum, the vast majority of slashdot users don't comment - they just read. There's no way of knowing what impact a well-thought-out opinion or useful discussion may have on the.
You assume that most people know or care what DRM is... they don't, not until it directly affects them. And even then, they're not going to be told "Well the DRM prevents you from transferring this stuff to your new phone". They'll instead hear "sorry, this is not compatible with your new phone".
And because their target audience seems to be people who are not aware that there isa non-microsoft choice (ie msn mobile users who will use whatever their phone comes with), competition doesn't help much.
Personally I will neverhire an ex-Microsoftie; they don't have morals or ethics that are worth a damn, or they wouldn't have worked there in the first place.
s'okay. Fortunately for the world, with an attitude like that, chances are high that you'll never be in a position to make that kind of decision.
Sorry, you're just wrong. Haven't you ever heard of User Mode Linux? There's plenty of tension there, and not just on the surface! Just ask any User trying to install a new distro for the first time.
Um, because there's no khtml package dude. THat's kind of the point... it can't be unbound from KDE because it's an integral part.
You won't be able to remove it with apt-get because there's no separate package that can be removed independently of any other packages (hint: apt-cache search kdelibs. It's hidden in that package if I recall correctly.) much like IE is an integral component of the Windows UI.
Fair enough, thanks for clarifying. I think that's something that a lot of *nix heads don't always think of when we talk about how the software is free. We hear "training and maintenance costs" and the automatic response is "Training and what costs?" because we already have the knowledge - so it seems redundant to us.
The flip side of this coin is that your message is essentially the same one Microsoft's marketing has been laying on thickly for the last several years. So my question now is: have you given any of these alternatives a try, or taken it as given that there would have to be a huge expense and training gap in making the attempt?
(I suspect you have - but always better to ask than assume... )
I had to wonder about that - they confiscated it back in OCTOBER and it took this long for charges? What were they doing with the pics during all that time?
So the only way for you to tell when I "steal" something from you is for you to spy on me and see what I have, rather than counting what you have. Call it "wrong" if you want, but you might want to consult a dictionary.
When did I say that? For that matter, when did I even talk about punishment, tracking down who is doing it, etc? When I said "my own moral code calls it stealing" that doesn't meant that I think we should be hunting down the bastards and throwing them in jail. It just means I think of them as thieves and will continue to call them such.
A lot of time and effort go into creating mathematics also. Yet, it is not copyrighted.
A lot of time and effort go into designing and building a house. Yet the bricklayers, plumbers, electricians, etc. don't keep receiving payments for a hundred years after their work has been completed.
Well spoken. Indeed, very few of us keep receiving payments for a hundred years after our work has been completed. Indeed, very few of us are around a hundred years after our work has been completed. The revenue from most of the copyrights of course goes to a few sociopathic corporations with perpetual life.
Agreed. The notion of copyright as it is today - extending far beyond even the lifetime of the original creator - is ridiculous.
Personally, I am sick of spammers attempting to add comment spam to sites that I run, signing up for bogus accounts, sending massive amounts of spam, continuously trying ssh connections
One thing you can help at least - move your public ssh port to a # in the range of 10000-30000. The number of login attempts on my servers have dropped from thousands a day to none since I did that a few years ago.
No, it isn't. Unless one were to physically "take" a physical thing, that thing has not been stolen. Get it? The thing is still in the possession of it's owner. Get it?
Semantics. If you want something, and it has a monetary price, but you do not pay that price and instead take it for free (or even take a copy of it for free), then what do you call it if not stealing?
At my wedding, the photographer took a ton of pictures, then wanted me to pay for the ones I selected even though they were in digital form. Was I paying for the bits, or was I paying for his time and skill? If I chose to break into his web site and make copies of the photos instead of paying, what is that if not stealing?
The artist (or his designate) is not charging you for 1s and 0s. I should think that is obvious. He is charging for the time, effort, energy, and skill that went into creating the product. If you choose to take the product of his effort but not pay for it, not to pay for that, what do you call it?
If it was done to you, would you still call it the same thing?
Yep, you forbidding me from freely sharing my knowledge with Bob is the worst kind of intellectual slavery.
Ah, yes. "Information wants to be free"? Note that I don't advocate forbidding sharing of any knowledge. I think software patents are crap too. Both of which are besides the point: music is a tangible product of a creative process. Just because you can make a copy of it without depriving the creator (or the persons designated by the creator) of his copy doesn't mean that you're not . If something is not worth paying for, what makes it worth taking without paying for? And by what right do you do that? (There, I avoided the nasty 'stealing' word that seems to touch so many raw nerves in this thread.)
Copying something is very different from taking something.
Playing semantics games doesn't make the point invalid. If what they were selling was the bits that the music is made of, I would agree. You obviously are not paying for those bits -- you're paying for the creator's work, time, and effort.
I get it. I really do. You feel that the artist does not have the right to charge for the work in the first place - that any intellectual creation (or mostly intellectual) cannot by definition be owned by anyone.
To an extent, I even agree. Anything that is/purely intellectual/ should not be 'ownable'; such only hurts society as a whole, and retards progress. But music is not purely intellectual. Even though there is no physical product, a lot of time and physical effort go into creating it. (Ever watched a band perform or record? Not a trivial activity.).
My own moral code calls it stealing - the semantics of whether something is physically lost are irrelevant to me. There are a minority who truly feel as you do, and I can't fault that though I also can't wholly agree with it.
And then there are a whole lot more who use variations on that theme as their excuse for not wanting to pay for something with real value.
(by the kneejerk reactions, I figure about 4 of the latter replied to my post, and about 2 of the former. )
If I want something that is not free, I pay for it. If I don't want it, I do not. If I want it, but do not think it is worth the price (OFTEN the case with modern music from RIAA companies), then I do without. You, I have no doubt, will continue to come up with your justifications to convince yourself that taking things (even copies of things) that you have not paid for, and that the creator reasonably expects compension for, is perfectly OK.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, ok, since you said so, I just did.
Aw, crap.
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
Well said.
I see what you did there.
Indeed. As with any forum, the vast majority of slashdot users don't comment - they just read. There's no way of knowing what impact a well-thought-out opinion or useful discussion may have on the.
d'oh
And because their target audience seems to be people who are not aware that there isa non-microsoft choice (ie msn mobile users who will use whatever their phone comes with), competition doesn't help much.
Personally I will neverhire an ex-Microsoftie; they don't have morals or ethics that are worth a damn, or they wouldn't have worked there in the first place.
s'okay. Fortunately for the world, with an attitude like that, chances are high that you'll never be in a position to make that kind of decision.
Sorry, you're just wrong. Haven't you ever heard of User Mode Linux? There's plenty of tension there, and not just on the surface! Just ask any User trying to install a new distro for the first time.
Um, because there's no khtml package dude. THat's kind of the point... it can't be unbound from KDE because it's an integral part.
You won't be able to remove it with apt-get because there's no separate package that can be removed independently of any other packages (hint: apt-cache search kdelibs. It's hidden in that package if I recall correctly.) much like IE is an integral component of the Windows UI.
Can you *imagine* what the MySpace game would be like?
I thought there was - don't they call it "Second Life"?
Fair enough, thanks for clarifying. I think that's something that a lot of *nix heads don't always think of when we talk about how the software is free. We hear "training and maintenance costs" and the automatic response is "Training and what costs?" because we already have the knowledge - so it seems redundant to us.
The flip side of this coin is that your message is essentially the same one Microsoft's marketing has been laying on thickly for the last several years. So my question now is: have you given any of these alternatives a try, or taken it as given that there would have to be a huge expense and training gap in making the attempt?
(I suspect you have - but always better to ask than assume... )
Ever tried removing KHTML from a KDE installation? ;)
Wait, what? In what way expensive?
Well, yes, it was on TV... Now what? ...
1) Obama president
n) OBAMA PLATES!
n+1) profit
Fixed that for you.
The actual definitions cease to matter when time comes for re-election.
I had to wonder about that - they confiscated it back in OCTOBER and it took this long for charges? What were they doing with the pics during all that time?
suddenoutbreakofcommonsense tag?
My bad, as subsequent post pointed out - NT4 DC, not Win2K.
So the only way for you to tell when I "steal" something from you is for you to spy on me and see what I have, rather than counting what you have. Call it "wrong" if you want, but you might want to consult a dictionary.
When did I say that? For that matter, when did I even talk about punishment, tracking down who is doing it, etc? When I said "my own moral code calls it stealing" that doesn't meant that I think we should be hunting down the bastards and throwing them in jail. It just means I think of them as thieves and will continue to call them such.
A lot of time and effort go into creating mathematics also. Yet, it is not copyrighted. A lot of time and effort go into designing and building a house. Yet the bricklayers, plumbers, electricians, etc. don't keep receiving payments for a hundred years after their work has been completed.
Well spoken. Indeed, very few of us keep receiving payments for a hundred years after our work has been completed. Indeed, very few of us are around a hundred years after our work has been completed. The revenue from most of the copyrights of course goes to a few sociopathic corporations with perpetual life.
Agreed. The notion of copyright as it is today - extending far beyond even the lifetime of the original creator - is ridiculous.
Personally, I am sick of spammers attempting to add comment spam to sites that I run, signing up for bogus accounts, sending massive amounts of spam, continuously trying ssh connections
One thing you can help at least - move your public ssh port to a # in the range of 10000-30000. The number of login attempts on my servers have dropped from thousands a day to none since I did that a few years ago.
Ahh, now that's just ridiculous...
Hah, time will tell. It'd be a fantastic insult, though perhaps the target wouldn't "get it" himself...
No, it isn't. Unless one were to physically "take" a physical thing, that thing has not been stolen. Get it? The thing is still in the possession of it's owner. Get it?
Semantics. If you want something, and it has a monetary price, but you do not pay that price and instead take it for free (or even take a copy of it for free), then what do you call it if not stealing?
At my wedding, the photographer took a ton of pictures, then wanted me to pay for the ones I selected even though they were in digital form. Was I paying for the bits, or was I paying for his time and skill? If I chose to break into his web site and make copies of the photos instead of paying, what is that if not stealing?
The artist (or his designate) is not charging you for 1s and 0s. I should think that is obvious. He is charging for the time, effort, energy, and skill that went into creating the product. If you choose to take the product of his effort but not pay for it, not to pay for that, what do you call it?
If it was done to you, would you still call it the same thing?
Yep, you forbidding me from freely sharing my knowledge with Bob is the worst kind of intellectual slavery.
Ah, yes. "Information wants to be free"? Note that I don't advocate forbidding sharing of any knowledge. I think software patents are crap too. Both of which are besides the point: music is a tangible product of a creative process. Just because you can make a copy of it without depriving the creator (or the persons designated by the creator) of his copy doesn't mean that you're not . If something is not worth paying for, what makes it worth taking without paying for? And by what right do you do that? (There, I avoided the nasty 'stealing' word that seems to touch so many raw nerves in this thread.)
Copying something is very different from taking something.
Playing semantics games doesn't make the point invalid. If what they were selling was the bits that the music is made of, I would agree. You obviously are not paying for those bits -- you're paying for the creator's work, time, and effort.
I get it. I really do. You feel that the artist does not have the right to charge for the work in the first place - that any intellectual creation (or mostly intellectual) cannot by definition be owned by anyone.
To an extent, I even agree. Anything that is /purely intellectual/ should not be 'ownable'; such only hurts society as a whole, and retards progress. But music is not purely intellectual. Even though there is no physical product, a lot of time and physical effort go into creating it. (Ever watched a band perform or record? Not a trivial activity.).
My own moral code calls it stealing - the semantics of whether something is physically lost are irrelevant to me. There are a minority who truly feel as you do, and I can't fault that though I also can't wholly agree with it.
And then there are a whole lot more who use variations on that theme as their excuse for not wanting to pay for something with real value. (by the kneejerk reactions, I figure about 4 of the latter replied to my post, and about 2 of the former. )
If I want something that is not free, I pay for it. If I don't want it, I do not. If I want it, but do not think it is worth the price (OFTEN the case with modern music from RIAA companies), then I do without. You, I have no doubt, will continue to come up with your justifications to convince yourself that taking things (even copies of things) that you have not paid for, and that the creator reasonably expects compension for, is perfectly OK.