On one hand, I agree that music "sharing" is wrong - on the other hand, if downloading a few 1 dollar songs off the internet is just wrong in a petty sort of way, then the practices of the RIAA are inhuman and despicable
100% agreed.
Stealing from the RIAA is wrong, but as far as I'm concerned, doing business with them is wrong as well.
Also agreed. And I think CC music, or other commercial paths (pay for download direct from web site is my favorite method) is a great way to do it.
But I can't stand the attitude that says, "I'm doing this to stick it to the RIAA" -- because it just doesn't sink in that sharing of RIAA-company owned music proves and supports the RIAA's case that "piracy" is the cause of their woes.
I think that the point the RIAA is trying to make is that by depriving them of the money they would have made from selling the CD to you, you're in essence stealing it.
This may be their point, but has nothing to do with mine. Frankly, I find the actions of the RIAA to be despicable, and I can only hope that eventually they'll get called out for them in a court of law - in a way that sticks.
I agree it's questionable as to whether it's legally stealing. But what about morally? That seems pretty clear-cut - taking someone else's work without paying for it, and without permission, is stealing.
Regardless if you're stealing from the garage band up the road, or a RIAA member - it remains stealing.
This isn't riaa brainwashing, it's the basic "right and wrong" thing that most folks are taught when growing up. I seem to be part of dwindling number of people who think that such actions are wrong. Who think that when I want a product, I don't have a right to just take it - even if the taking incurs no physical loss for anyone else.
Hopefully the government is able to flip their equity stake in the financial institutions for a profit after the problems stabilize and then refund the taxpayers (or at least pay down the debt so that the US won't experience prolonged high inflation rates
Hah, that's a laugh. no matter how much budget surplus there has been, the debt hasn't decreased since the 40s, IIRC (maybe briefly in the 60s, but I don't think so). I highly doubt that's going to change no matter what kind of taxes are collected, or what the government decides to do with its banks. There's always going to be a loud group screaming that there's something else more important to spend money on.
While I agree with your sentiment, I don't see the use of microblogs such as twitter. Regular blogs attract me as a possible source of information and well written information from someone more informed than a journalist at times.
All I see in microblogs is the internet version of that person calling home from the supermarket asking their insignificant other whether to get 1% or skim milk and other such nonsense.
Which isn't to say whether it has any real social value or not will make it fail as a business... it's just that I don't think it will really matter..
Kind of irrelevant if people are enjoying using it, isn't it? I don't see the sense, you don't see the sense... but there are millions who do...
So my choices are pay money and host a server or see a little AD to have some other company do all the work for me?
I think it's easier for me to have a little AD on the side of the page when I log into Twitter. Easier and free.
Or use adblock, and wait for twitter,facebook and Co. to go bankrupt when enough people join you... Then distributed, open alternatives will be the only option...
Reading the posts prior to yours, it seems like most people are saying that Ubuntu really should have fixed this or worked around it, and that there's no excuse.
But it's much easier to jump straight to the conclusion, isn't it? Facts do tend to get in the way...
So, because some Ubuntu users harassed the young lady in question, all Ubuntu users are pricks? That's the argument you seem to be implying
You seem to be missing the point. If this is the only exposure she and this TV station have had - then YES, the perception will be that all Ubuntu users are pricks.
When the majority of posts are in some way insulting, demeaning, or otherwise rude, it's a logical conclusion for someone to draw.
Erm... Troll? Maybe a certain moderator is using Windows 10, which never touches swap until it absolutely needs to. Me, I use Windows XP, which will begin using swap space almost immediately after I minimize a window -- even though physical RAM available is over 1.5GB or more.
References? I see a lot of people posting this, but nobody can ever substantiate why - at least not without referencing some really old applications (like... 16bit old). I've been doing it for years on different hardware configurations, and and my systems have been very stable. Not to mention a whole lot more responsive, since this eliminates Windows need to randomly swap things out to disk (even when there's plenty of physical memory available).
Periodically, Windows does say "You're running low on virtual memory". But nothing happens as a result - I close the bubble and keep working; no crashes, no lost data. Interestingly, it pops this message up when I have 1GB or more RAM free but almost never when I have less than 200MB.
As long as you track your 'commit charge' and don't go over the amount of physical memory you have, disabling swap will only improve things. All I can say is that it works for me, and I've never had an issue because of it -- in spite of the prevalent belief that it's a Bad Idea.
Well, that's rather the problem. The geeks among us do such tinkering as is necessary to make it work, and we don't really think about it. The amount of effort required is negligable, we don't even consider it tinkering. So we look at each other and say, "This couldn't be easier, look how simple! Anybody can run this OS!"
Here's a fine example of that mentality, in this same discussion. No matter how trivial such things are to us, it's not to the non-tinkerer. For people who don't want to ever even think about what's under the hood of their computers - nevermind actually/look/ at it - an OEM-installed Windows unfortunately remains the best way to go in most cases. (Or mac, these days.)
If you're not, very little that you encounter in your day-to-day life encounters tinkering in order to perform its basic functions - including Windows.
How is she to know this? Where can she go without an Internet connection to learn it?
Username
Who gives her this username? How is she supposed to know what it is?
Password
Again - who gives it to her? How does she know about it? The same comment for the remaining values, too. This person has no way of knowing any of these things. Even if she did have Internet access, the types of questions you see posted everywhere show that it's quite likely she would not know how to effectively search for the answers.
That's all there is to it.
Spoken like somebody in the small minority of PC users who are not incapacitated when they come across a situation they don't understand.
What you and I see as "simple" may as well be a course in particle physics for her and the millions of computer users like her.
Slashdot Mirror
On one hand, I agree that music "sharing" is wrong - on the other hand, if downloading a few 1 dollar songs off the internet is just wrong in a petty sort of way, then the practices of the RIAA are inhuman and despicable
100% agreed.
Stealing from the RIAA is wrong, but as far as I'm concerned, doing business with them is wrong as well.
Also agreed. And I think CC music, or other commercial paths (pay for download direct from web site is my favorite method) is a great way to do it.
But I can't stand the attitude that says, "I'm doing this to stick it to the RIAA" -- because it just doesn't sink in that sharing of RIAA-company owned music proves and supports the RIAA's case that "piracy" is the cause of their woes.
I think that the point the RIAA is trying to make is that by depriving them of the money they would have made from selling the CD to you, you're in essence stealing it.
This may be their point, but has nothing to do with mine. Frankly, I find the actions of the RIAA to be despicable, and I can only hope that eventually they'll get called out for them in a court of law - in a way that sticks.
Regardless if you're stealing from the garage band up the road, or a RIAA member - it remains stealing.
This isn't riaa brainwashing, it's the basic "right and wrong" thing that most folks are taught when growing up. I seem to be part of dwindling number of people who think that such actions are wrong. Who think that when I want a product, I don't have a right to just take it - even if the taking incurs no physical loss for anyone else.
Hopefully the government is able to flip their equity stake in the financial institutions for a profit after the problems stabilize and then refund the taxpayers (or at least pay down the debt so that the US won't experience prolonged high inflation rates
Hah, that's a laugh. no matter how much budget surplus there has been, the debt hasn't decreased since the 40s, IIRC (maybe briefly in the 60s, but I don't think so). I highly doubt that's going to change no matter what kind of taxes are collected, or what the government decides to do with its banks. There's always going to be a loud group screaming that there's something else more important to spend money on.
Or will we just continue to heap it onto the debt with promises of paying it off some nebulous day in the future?
I'm all for getting the smoke-belching older cars off the road, but have you seen what kind of (new or used) car you can get for $4,500?
Looks like more than enough to get a 1996 honda accord.
I thought Samba was stopped at compatibility as a domain controller (win 2000 style), and did not offer AD features?
While I agree with your sentiment, I don't see the use of microblogs such as twitter. Regular blogs attract me as a possible source of information and well written information from someone more informed than a journalist at times. All I see in microblogs is the internet version of that person calling home from the supermarket asking their insignificant other whether to get 1% or skim milk and other such nonsense. Which isn't to say whether it has any real social value or not will make it fail as a business... it's just that I don't think it will really matter..
Kind of irrelevant if people are enjoying using it, isn't it? I don't see the sense, you don't see the sense... but there are millions who do...
So my choices are pay money and host a server or see a little AD to have some other company do all the work for me? I think it's easier for me to have a little AD on the side of the page when I log into Twitter. Easier and free.
Or use adblock, and wait for twitter,facebook and Co. to go bankrupt when enough people join you... Then distributed, open alternatives will be the only option...
All we'll need then is someone to pay for it ;)
That's certainly one take on it. Alternatively, he could have just meant that we have less than 2% of the market ;)
Reading the posts prior to yours, it seems like most people are saying that Ubuntu really should have fixed this or worked around it, and that there's no excuse.
But it's much easier to jump straight to the conclusion, isn't it? Facts do tend to get in the way...
Letting the white house's computers run for another four years.
Ow.
I've always wondered if signs like that are intentional... or if people just never realized (until after the fact).
So, because some Ubuntu users harassed the young lady in question, all Ubuntu users are pricks? That's the argument you seem to be implying
You seem to be missing the point. If this is the only exposure she and this TV station have had - then YES, the perception will be that all Ubuntu users are pricks.
When the majority of posts are in some way insulting, demeaning, or otherwise rude, it's a logical conclusion for someone to draw.
I have alzheimer's you ins... um... hi. Have we met?
I am sure there are several, but I distinctly recall stopping in at a place with a sign that read "Eat Here! Get Gas!" on my way to Maine one year.
Erm... Troll? Maybe a certain moderator is using Windows 10, which never touches swap until it absolutely needs to. Me, I use Windows XP, which will begin using swap space almost immediately after I minimize a window -- even though physical RAM available is over 1.5GB or more.
surefire recipe for a crash and burn
References? I see a lot of people posting this, but nobody can ever substantiate why - at least not without referencing some really old applications (like... 16bit old). I've been doing it for years on different hardware configurations, and and my systems have been very stable. Not to mention a whole lot more responsive, since this eliminates Windows need to randomly swap things out to disk (even when there's plenty of physical memory available).
Periodically, Windows does say "You're running low on virtual memory". But nothing happens as a result - I close the bubble and keep working; no crashes, no lost data. Interestingly, it pops this message up when I have 1GB or more RAM free but almost never when I have less than 200MB.
As long as you track your 'commit charge' and don't go over the amount of physical memory you have, disabling swap will only improve things. All I can say is that it works for me, and I've never had an issue because of it -- in spite of the prevalent belief that it's a Bad Idea.
This is why you disable swap on Windows, it can't handle swap space with anything resembling intelligence.
Here's a fine example of that mentality, in this same discussion. No matter how trivial such things are to us, it's not to the non-tinkerer. For people who don't want to ever even think about what's under the hood of their computers - nevermind actually /look/ at it - an OEM-installed Windows unfortunately remains the best way to go in most cases. (Or mac, these days.)
Who'da thunk it?
If you're not, very little that you encounter in your day-to-day life encounters tinkering in order to perform its basic functions - including Windows.
Run gnome-ppp
How is she to know this? Where can she go without an Internet connection to learn it?
Username
Who gives her this username? How is she supposed to know what it is?
Password
Again - who gives it to her? How does she know about it? The same comment for the remaining values, too. This person has no way of knowing any of these things. Even if she did have Internet access, the types of questions you see posted everywhere show that it's quite likely she would not know how to effectively search for the answers.
That's all there is to it.
Spoken like somebody in the small minority of PC users who are not incapacitated when they come across a situation they don't understand.
What you and I see as "simple" may as well be a course in particle physics for her and the millions of computer users like her.
Me thinks we need English 2.0 to come out soon. English 1.0 is way too ambiguous.
what r u saying? thru it all it has ben here always. u just need to see it