Well, I've seen plenty of "halfway decent" photographers limiting themselves to a given aspect ratio for part of their artistic careers (though it's usually 1:1 or 5:4 instead of ~1.62:1) and if he's doing that, who are *we* (let alone Picasa) to decide otherwise, or to discriminate against him for that?
No offense meant, but your original comment struck me as close-minded as the old "OMG he's still using film? so pathetic!" comment you often hear from young wanna-bes.
Raw Therapee, raw photo processor, free. It does not, however, run on Mac OS X. Does not manage projects. And it does not work with anything but raw photos, so it will not allow for processing jpegs or tiffs
Huh? out-of-the-box it can't, but you just click on Preferences > File Browser, uncheck Show only RAW files, and there ya go. Can't understand why "doesn't run on MacOSX" would be a con in an article about *Linux* alternatives to Aperture either, but oh well.
Ohh, and about Lightroom, the older (v2.x) versions used to be free (as in $0) on Linux, plus they ran on non-SSE2 CPUs, so Linux users strapped for cash may want to search the 'net for them instead.
With the preamble over let me see if I can ask my question(s) clearly. Please bear with me. My first, and really only, is how is GPL really "free?"
It's "free" as in "more free than software without a license", which, unlike what you may think, isn't automatically in the Public Domain (the one true free "license"), but rather is bound by the default copyright regulations such as "no copying" and "no redistributing".
Yes, it doesn't give you *all* the possible freedoms, but that's a matter of balance. For example, in most countries you aren't allowed to keep slaves, and while that *is* a restriction on our freedoms, it is more fair in the opinion of most. Same with your example, it may be one less freedom they, and we as users, have, but in the opinion of the decision-makers (the developers, in this case) and the community behind them, we're better off without it.
Though of course, since it's easier to switch software licenses than it is to change the rules of an entire country, we have things like the BSD license which tilt the balance between justice and freedom even more in favor of the latter, but that again, is just a matter of balance.
Neither are hypocrites, it's just that they aren't anarchists, either.
If you succeed in making programming not profitable, then I just start violating GPL.
And if you succeed in preventing me from getting the source-code, then I just start violating your license, and putting cracked copies of your program up in TPB. And an author of GPL'ed code from the US or the UK has a much better chance of prosecuting you in Russia for copyright infringement than you have of prosecuting the TPB guys in Sweden.
Careful with what you wish for, or you may just get it, and between a programmer and a user, guess who stands to lose the most if copyright laws aren't respected.
Can you honestly tell me that would've happened if the market had remained fractured into three dozen different *nix fiefdoms?
Yeah, all the improvements you name are due to the industry's standardization on the x86 architecture, something that Microsoft took advantage of but didn't cause in any way. So, in that respect it would've been the exact same thing, though perhaps you would've gotten it for $50-100 less but with FreeBSD instead.
Why doesn't Microsoft come up with a good and successful product themselves for once?
They have, plenty of times. I've always said that in a completely fair market, Microsoft would be in the business of selling computer peripheals, not software. If Microsoft's OSes were as good as their keyboards, they'd be called "UNIX";)
Except that he screwed over plenty of other people who weren't "ruthless capitalists", namely, 99% of those who's ever owned a computer during the past 20 years, thanks to their monopolistic practices towards hardware manufacturers who certainly didn't take the cost of Windows licenses from their profit margins.
If you really wanted to keep your "anti-business" stance (as illogical as it may be), you should be praising IBM who's found a way to drain huge amounts of money from many large businesses, while leaving "mom & pop" stores, and your average computer user, alone.
And how, exactly, would things be better in your so-called anarchism? people would still be ignorant fucks with anarchism, and guess what, people would still be ignorant fucks under any other type of administration, so unless your brilliant solution is to play the hero and murder those greedy executives (good luck getting past his bodyguards, though), I can't see how you'd improve the situation.
You're essentially arguing that Unreal Tournament should be more like Half-Life 2. And the result of *THAT* was UT3's single-player campaign, which achieved a level of suckiness never before seen in the world of gaming.
So no, you're not the only one who finds these kinds of games to be boring, but that just means this game is not for you. Go and play a story- and character-driven RPG if you like (I'd recommend Baldur's Gate 2), but leave the hack-n-slash alone, 'kay?
IIRC, a misspelling of a prefix for very large amounts of something. It does kinda sorta have something to do with the actual business, I guess.
What's a Yahoo!?
Uhhh, an expression of happiness? alright, that's an even bigger stretch than Google.
What's a WinAmp?
I'd imagine "Windows Amplificator", a program that lets you plug your electric guitar into your PC and use it as an amp. Whaddya mean with "MP3" and "DivX"?
What's a Slashdot?
Beats me, but it does sound somewhat like "slash fiction", a genre of literature those who appreciate their sanity should avoid at all costs. Not good.
What's a Firefox?
A fox. On fire. *DUH!*. Ohh, the software? dunno, probably a game in which you light foxes on fire? sounds cool, sign me up!
What's an eBay?
An electronic bay, dummy, where electronic ships go to deliver their electronic goods. In other words, a router.
What's a NewEgg?
Now you're just being silly. "New" + "Egg", guess what it means. Obviously it's a website for people who raise chickens. I mean, *obviously*.
What's a Lightwave?
You failed Physics, didn't you? sorry, I can't make a good joke out of this, I honestly have never heard of it before and, proving your point, the name is not descriptive at all.
What's a Nero?
A roman emperor famous for burning a whole city. Also not good.
What's an Outlook Express?
A train with big windows, so you can look at the scenery while traveling, or perhaps the propietary software used to administrate trains by a company that provides said service.
What's a Visual Studio?
A graphic designer's name for his bedroom, so the software is probably one of those expensive crap for artsy guys.
What's an AutoCAD?
Well, "Auto" is probably from "Automobile" and "CAD" sounds a lot like "CAR", so maybe it's something to get better performance out of your car. You know, like Norton is for PCs.
Umm, no, us Ruby and Python fanboys are intelligent enough to recognize that our personal favorite languages won't ever be the dominant language in the industry. We just like to think that C++ will die a long, agonizing, and completely deserved death, and it's place will be filled by C from below and Java/C# from above, making the world a happier place.
Or maybe I'm just an anti-C++ fanboy at heart, dunno really.
The other major failure of TFA is that I can't find a car analogy anywhere.
Alright, then. The article is like a BMW that gets 30 miles per gallon of soda, which quickly accelerates to 88mph and then suddenly grows wings and flies off the horizon: it starts pretty weird, then it gets familiarly-weird, and then it gets into decididedly "WTF is this guy smoking!?"-territory, never to be seen again.
he question is simple: why are natural things like nudity, sex, and sexual intercourse considered obscene to begin with?
Because inmature people may be tempted to practice them before comprehending the full ramifications of such acts, and a world filled with 16-years-old parents who can't even take care of themselves, let alone a newborn, isn't something we want.
Yeah, hasn't really worked so far, but that *was* the intention.
In which world does "shallow" equal "non-existant"? seriously, go inform yourself, AC, and you'll see that the so-called Linus' law (which you incorrectly quoted on your first case) is simply a way to explain the reasoning behind the quote on your second case. And if you want to know the reasoning behind said law (a must if you plan on criticizing it), go read "the Cathedral and the Bazaar" by Eric Raymond.
Those very avenues aren't necessarily better. A lot of crap can still get through, and it does. If the major players are making oodles of cash, it's probably because they've found a way to market what a good portion of people might like.
Or they found a way to monopolize various distribution channels, ensuring that a good portion of people only know what they're selling.
Ever sit and think that maybe people aren't interested in classical music these days? Ever sit and think that people might enjoy pretty women singing with synthesized voices? Music changes over time.
Ever sit and think that maybe people aren't interested in classical music *because* it's not marketed at all? Ever sit and think that people may only buy albums by pretty women singing with synthetized voices, because a huge part of their media is focused on making them feel that if they don't, they're "weird" and "uncool"?
But wait, you were trying to imply earlier that major label music isn't worth as much as non-major label music.
I'm not. I'm only saying that the labels tend to market easier-to-produce bands and musicians because it's more easily replaceable, but it's perfectly possible that some of that *is* good. It's just not the most efficient method for getting good music.
I'm not saying your point in some form isn't valid. Sure, every artists might potentially have a larger share of the pie without the major labels. However, seeing how technology is, you can't be entirely sure things wouldn't be similar. You will still probably have your super-star musicians. Some good musicians will remain in obscurity. I don't exactly see how your scenario is infinitely better.
What would you prefer, as a music-listener: 5 artists making millions a year each, or 500 artists making a nice living, and another 2000 at least being able to pay for their food, all from the same customer base? my choice is obvious, and the only way to achieve it is to remove those who would monopolize distribution channels to eliminate the competition and decide what we must like.
But if demand was so high for the "superior" alternatives (as is continually argued), why would losing the business of the (alleged minority) of customers interested in the inferior Microsoft product matter ?
Because a high demand doesn't necessarily have to be "an overwhelming majority". 30% of your customers asking for a specific variation of your product is a high demand, and one you can't easily afford to ignore, but 70% of your customers asking for the regular version is one you simply *can't* ignore if you want to continue your business. The logical course is obviously selling *both* variations, but Microsoft basically removed that option altogether with their monopolistic practices.
In the timeframe under discussion (when IBM "handed them a monopoly") Microsoft didn't have 90% of the market. They didn't have any% of the market.
In the timeframe under discussion, DR-DOS didn't exist.
I hate to break it to you, but major labels are currently a necessity. An evil one, but they're there for a reason.
No, they aren't.
The fact is, a good portion of the population doesn't want to take the time to find out what is good by sifting through 1 million shitty bands just to find that one good one.
The vast majority of the population doesn't want to take the time to find out what is good by shifting through 1 million shitty websites either, but they don't have to. Blogs, websites like last.fm, or even good ol' fashioned word-of-mouth would be good enough if they didn't have to compete with the RIAA's million-dollar marketing machine.
The major labels do this for us. They help promote the music that they think we, as a whole, want to listen to. (I realize "good" is subjective here.)
No they don't, they drown us in advertising for music that they think it's cheaper and easier to produce. Just take a look at how much they advertise the various genres and see for yourself. Good classical composers are a statistical anomaly, and are barely mentioned if they're even signed at all. Good-looking 18-years-old with synthetizers are a dime a dozen, and you can't even read the fucking BBC without getting Britney and Amy pushed on your face.
Without either NiN or Radiohead having been famous, their model probably wouldn't have worked out to well for them in the first place. They probably wouldn't have become famous without a major label.
As famous as they are? no, maybe not. The internet wasn't as big around the time they got famous, so they couldn't have used it as well as they could now. But all in all, provided they didn't have to compete with the RIAA's marketing machine, I think they would've done just fine.
Only for vendors who also wanted to sell MS-DOS with the deep discounts offered by per-processor licensing.
This is the same circular logic that is used to justify why so few PCs are sold with Linux, and it makes no more sense here than it does there.
Well, you as a retailer would pretty much have three choices: either you sell MS-DOS (or Windows) with a deep discount, and give MS money even if the customer wanted DR-DOS (or Linux), you sell MS-DOS (or Windows) at it's normal price, and are left by many of your MS-using customers to your competitors who offer the same product for far less, or don't sell MS-DOS (or Windows) at all and lose *all* of your MS-using customers.
It wouldn't make sense if Microsoft didn't have 90% of the market, but as things stood (and stand), you as a retailer are pretty much dead if you decide to ignore them. Which is why Microsoft has been sued of abusing their monopoly so many times.
But, based on my understanding of several recent different but similar situations involving movies and music, we can all safely assume that those people would not have bought the game to begin with.
True.
We can also take comfort in knowing that the companies from whom the graphics were lifted probably keep the lion's share of the profit from game sales and the graphic artists make almost nothing, by comparison.
Buying a copy of a game off-the-shelf doesn't give you the right to use it's graphics for your own project, and a lost license for the game engine is, I imagine, a much bigger deal percentage-wise than a lost sale of the original game.
Also, if the guy at 'Limbo of the Lost' bought the game it is his to do with what he wishes because he didn't agree to any stupid 'don't lift graphics' clause and shrinkwrap licenses have never been proven in court anyway so no one has any legal standing to complain about anything. This includes if he wants to make a mashup of the game's graphics and his own cool gaming idea and call it 'Limbo of the Lost'.
True. In fact, plenty of people already do that but making videos instead of games. It's called YouTube.
And furthermore copyright law has been subverted by corporate interests and is just a shadow of what the found fathers wanted it to be. Copyright is OUR rights not theirs it makes sure WE get the copyrightable content but it has been changed around to give CORPORATIONS all the control. Do I want DRM on my hard drive so I can play a game but keep me from taking screenshots? No! I'll never install Vista. If this was available in WINE I would play it but it isn't. I don't even run NDISWRAPPER!
Also true, but making an unauthorized derivative work of a work less than 14 years old, and then using it for commercial purposes is the exact situation that copyright was meant to prevent when it was created. Plus there's that thing with calling it your own, original work when it isn't, which is an issue completely separate from copyright and it's ilk.
So, in conclusion, no. I don't think anyone has stolen anything. Information wants to be free.
Exactly, copyright infringement != theft for anyone with an IQ over 10.
The problem here, morally, is the fact that they ripped off recent stuff for commercial purposes, and then claimed it was an original work, and as such, they completely deserve the copyright infringement lawsuit that's soon to follow. But other than the fact that stupid lawmakers have expanded the definition for this crime to criminalize it too, this has nothing to do with downloading MP3s of the Beatles from the internet, so your parody, while fun, doesn't really have a point.
don't have dreadlocks but my hair is longer than many others like and my beard is unruly, actually my neighbor who moved in is making a bunch of noise about tying me down so he can cut my hair and beard.
Well, your personal appearance is just that, personal. But considering it inherently "cooler"...
For hobbies other than camping and hiking I love to cliff and scuba dive, hunt, rock climb and repel, and would like to hangglide. I would also love to learn to play an instrument, specifically the Nighteagle flute I own.
All perfectly reasonable hobbies, but I doubt you (or anyone else over 16) would describe them as "hardcore".
The problem, I feel, is not that such traits appear at all, but that (based on the GGP's post) they'd seem to be considered as "positive" traits inside the company, instead of the proper "who the fuck cares" attitude towards them that they should have. Hiring somebody just because he/she fits your particular definition of "cool" doesn't speak well neither of you nor of your company.
If I had a penny for each time a bike has almost hit me while trying to cross the street because "red lights are for cars, not bikes", I'd be fucking richer than Bill Gates.
So no, you don't just piss off drivers, and the sentences for shoving my fist up your face are much lower than for a driver to hit you with his car, so I'm that more likely to do it.
blue dreadlocked hair? they make you feel really "special"? "hip" people? "hardcore" hobbies, like playing in bands? good lord... I mean, honestly, I'm 21 and after reading your description I'm actually *scared* of Apple, so I can't imagine a 30-something experienced engineer thinking "wow, that sure sounds like a cool place to work for".
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I've seen plenty of "halfway decent" photographers limiting themselves to a given aspect ratio for part of their artistic careers (though it's usually 1:1 or 5:4 instead of ~1.62:1) and if he's doing that, who are *we* (let alone Picasa) to decide otherwise, or to discriminate against him for that?
No offense meant, but your original comment struck me as close-minded as the old "OMG he's still using film? so pathetic!" comment you often hear from young wanna-bes.
Ugh, you're obviously correct, my brain must've been on temporary vacation when I wrote that part. Thanks for the correction.
Raw Therapee, raw photo processor, free. It does not, however, run on Mac OS X. Does not manage projects. And it does not work with anything but raw photos, so it will not allow for processing jpegs or tiffs
Huh? out-of-the-box it can't, but you just click on Preferences > File Browser, uncheck Show only RAW files, and there ya go. Can't understand why "doesn't run on MacOSX" would be a con in an article about *Linux* alternatives to Aperture either, but oh well.
Ohh, and about Lightroom, the older (v2.x) versions used to be free (as in $0) on Linux, plus they ran on non-SSE2 CPUs, so Linux users strapped for cash may want to search the 'net for them instead.
With the preamble over let me see if I can ask my question(s) clearly. Please bear with me. My first, and really only, is how is GPL really "free?"
It's "free" as in "more free than software without a license", which, unlike what you may think, isn't automatically in the Public Domain (the one true free "license"), but rather is bound by the default copyright regulations such as "no copying" and "no redistributing".
Yes, it doesn't give you *all* the possible freedoms, but that's a matter of balance. For example, in most countries you aren't allowed to keep slaves, and while that *is* a restriction on our freedoms, it is more fair in the opinion of most. Same with your example, it may be one less freedom they, and we as users, have, but in the opinion of the decision-makers (the developers, in this case) and the community behind them, we're better off without it.
Though of course, since it's easier to switch software licenses than it is to change the rules of an entire country, we have things like the BSD license which tilt the balance between justice and freedom even more in favor of the latter, but that again, is just a matter of balance.
Neither are hypocrites, it's just that they aren't anarchists, either.
If you succeed in making programming not profitable, then I just start violating GPL.
And if you succeed in preventing me from getting the source-code, then I just start violating your license, and putting cracked copies of your program up in TPB. And an author of GPL'ed code from the US or the UK has a much better chance of prosecuting you in Russia for copyright infringement than you have of prosecuting the TPB guys in Sweden.
Careful with what you wish for, or you may just get it, and between a programmer and a user, guess who stands to lose the most if copyright laws aren't respected.
So to "think reasonably" means that all Germans are Nazis, or that all cotton (especially present day) is affiliated with slavery?
Not unless you also think that all of the reiserfs code was written by Reiser himself, or that Namesys had only one employee.
Can you honestly tell me that would've happened if the market had remained fractured into three dozen different *nix fiefdoms?
Yeah, all the improvements you name are due to the industry's standardization on the x86 architecture, something that Microsoft took advantage of but didn't cause in any way. So, in that respect it would've been the exact same thing, though perhaps you would've gotten it for $50-100 less but with FreeBSD instead.
Why doesn't Microsoft come up with a good and successful product themselves for once?
They have, plenty of times. I've always said that in a completely fair market, Microsoft would be in the business of selling computer peripheals, not software. If Microsoft's OSes were as good as their keyboards, they'd be called "UNIX" ;)
Except that he screwed over plenty of other people who weren't "ruthless capitalists", namely, 99% of those who's ever owned a computer during the past 20 years, thanks to their monopolistic practices towards hardware manufacturers who certainly didn't take the cost of Windows licenses from their profit margins.
If you really wanted to keep your "anti-business" stance (as illogical as it may be), you should be praising IBM who's found a way to drain huge amounts of money from many large businesses, while leaving "mom & pop" stores, and your average computer user, alone.
And how, exactly, would things be better in your so-called anarchism? people would still be ignorant fucks with anarchism, and guess what, people would still be ignorant fucks under any other type of administration, so unless your brilliant solution is to play the hero and murder those greedy executives (good luck getting past his bodyguards, though), I can't see how you'd improve the situation.
You're essentially arguing that Unreal Tournament should be more like Half-Life 2. And the result of *THAT* was UT3's single-player campaign, which achieved a level of suckiness never before seen in the world of gaming.
So no, you're not the only one who finds these kinds of games to be boring, but that just means this game is not for you. Go and play a story- and character-driven RPG if you like (I'd recommend Baldur's Gate 2), but leave the hack-n-slash alone, 'kay?
What's a Google?
IIRC, a misspelling of a prefix for very large amounts of something. It does kinda sorta have something to do with the actual business, I guess.
What's a Yahoo!?
Uhhh, an expression of happiness? alright, that's an even bigger stretch than Google.
What's a WinAmp?
I'd imagine "Windows Amplificator", a program that lets you plug your electric guitar into your PC and use it as an amp. Whaddya mean with "MP3" and "DivX"?
What's a Slashdot?
Beats me, but it does sound somewhat like "slash fiction", a genre of literature those who appreciate their sanity should avoid at all costs. Not good.
What's a Firefox?
A fox. On fire. *DUH!*. Ohh, the software? dunno, probably a game in which you light foxes on fire? sounds cool, sign me up!
What's an eBay?
An electronic bay, dummy, where electronic ships go to deliver their electronic goods. In other words, a router.
What's a NewEgg?
Now you're just being silly. "New" + "Egg", guess what it means. Obviously it's a website for people who raise chickens. I mean, *obviously*.
What's a Lightwave?
You failed Physics, didn't you? sorry, I can't make a good joke out of this, I honestly have never heard of it before and, proving your point, the name is not descriptive at all.
What's a Nero?
A roman emperor famous for burning a whole city. Also not good.
What's an Outlook Express?
A train with big windows, so you can look at the scenery while traveling, or perhaps the propietary software used to administrate trains by a company that provides said service.
What's a Visual Studio?
A graphic designer's name for his bedroom, so the software is probably one of those expensive crap for artsy guys.
What's an AutoCAD?
Well, "Auto" is probably from "Automobile" and "CAD" sounds a lot like "CAR", so maybe it's something to get better performance out of your car. You know, like Norton is for PCs.
Umm, no, us Ruby and Python fanboys are intelligent enough to recognize that our personal favorite languages won't ever be the dominant language in the industry. We just like to think that C++ will die a long, agonizing, and completely deserved death, and it's place will be filled by C from below and Java/C# from above, making the world a happier place.
Or maybe I'm just an anti-C++ fanboy at heart, dunno really.
Alright, then. The article is like a BMW that gets 30 miles per gallon of soda, which quickly accelerates to 88mph and then suddenly grows wings and flies off the horizon: it starts pretty weird, then it gets familiarly-weird, and then it gets into decididedly "WTF is this guy smoking!?"-territory, never to be seen again.
Because inmature people may be tempted to practice them before comprehending the full ramifications of such acts, and a world filled with 16-years-old parents who can't even take care of themselves, let alone a newborn, isn't something we want.
Yeah, hasn't really worked so far, but that *was* the intention.
In which world does "shallow" equal "non-existant"? seriously, go inform yourself, AC, and you'll see that the so-called Linus' law (which you incorrectly quoted on your first case) is simply a way to explain the reasoning behind the quote on your second case. And if you want to know the reasoning behind said law (a must if you plan on criticizing it), go read "the Cathedral and the Bazaar" by Eric Raymond.
No worse than the original.
Those very avenues aren't necessarily better. A lot of crap can still get through, and it does. If the major players are making oodles of cash, it's probably because they've found a way to market what a good portion of people might like.Or they found a way to monopolize various distribution channels, ensuring that a good portion of people only know what they're selling.
Ever sit and think that maybe people aren't interested in classical music these days? Ever sit and think that people might enjoy pretty women singing with synthesized voices? Music changes over time.Ever sit and think that maybe people aren't interested in classical music *because* it's not marketed at all? Ever sit and think that people may only buy albums by pretty women singing with synthetized voices, because a huge part of their media is focused on making them feel that if they don't, they're "weird" and "uncool"?
But wait, you were trying to imply earlier that major label music isn't worth as much as non-major label music.I'm not. I'm only saying that the labels tend to market easier-to-produce bands and musicians because it's more easily replaceable, but it's perfectly possible that some of that *is* good. It's just not the most efficient method for getting good music.
I'm not saying your point in some form isn't valid. Sure, every artists might potentially have a larger share of the pie without the major labels. However, seeing how technology is, you can't be entirely sure things wouldn't be similar. You will still probably have your super-star musicians. Some good musicians will remain in obscurity. I don't exactly see how your scenario is infinitely better.What would you prefer, as a music-listener: 5 artists making millions a year each, or 500 artists making a nice living, and another 2000 at least being able to pay for their food, all from the same customer base? my choice is obvious, and the only way to achieve it is to remove those who would monopolize distribution channels to eliminate the competition and decide what we must like.
Because a high demand doesn't necessarily have to be "an overwhelming majority". 30% of your customers asking for a specific variation of your product is a high demand, and one you can't easily afford to ignore, but 70% of your customers asking for the regular version is one you simply *can't* ignore if you want to continue your business. The logical course is obviously selling *both* variations, but Microsoft basically removed that option altogether with their monopolistic practices.
In the timeframe under discussion (when IBM "handed them a monopoly") Microsoft didn't have 90% of the market. They didn't have any% of the market.In the timeframe under discussion, DR-DOS didn't exist.
No, they aren't.
The fact is, a good portion of the population doesn't want to take the time to find out what is good by sifting through 1 million shitty bands just to find that one good one.The vast majority of the population doesn't want to take the time to find out what is good by shifting through 1 million shitty websites either, but they don't have to. Blogs, websites like last.fm, or even good ol' fashioned word-of-mouth would be good enough if they didn't have to compete with the RIAA's million-dollar marketing machine.
The major labels do this for us. They help promote the music that they think we, as a whole, want to listen to. (I realize "good" is subjective here.)No they don't, they drown us in advertising for music that they think it's cheaper and easier to produce. Just take a look at how much they advertise the various genres and see for yourself. Good classical composers are a statistical anomaly, and are barely mentioned if they're even signed at all. Good-looking 18-years-old with synthetizers are a dime a dozen, and you can't even read the fucking BBC without getting Britney and Amy pushed on your face.
Without either NiN or Radiohead having been famous, their model probably wouldn't have worked out to well for them in the first place. They probably wouldn't have become famous without a major label.As famous as they are? no, maybe not. The internet wasn't as big around the time they got famous, so they couldn't have used it as well as they could now. But all in all, provided they didn't have to compete with the RIAA's marketing machine, I think they would've done just fine.
So, in your opinion all technological advances are made by monopolists, and competition only serves to prevent further innovation?
Seriously, I've seen stupid arguments here in Slashdot, but this definitely takes the prize among them.
Well, you as a retailer would pretty much have three choices: either you sell MS-DOS (or Windows) with a deep discount, and give MS money even if the customer wanted DR-DOS (or Linux), you sell MS-DOS (or Windows) at it's normal price, and are left by many of your MS-using customers to your competitors who offer the same product for far less, or don't sell MS-DOS (or Windows) at all and lose *all* of your MS-using customers.
It wouldn't make sense if Microsoft didn't have 90% of the market, but as things stood (and stand), you as a retailer are pretty much dead if you decide to ignore them. Which is why Microsoft has been sued of abusing their monopoly so many times.
True.
We can also take comfort in knowing that the companies from whom the graphics were lifted probably keep the lion's share of the profit from game sales and the graphic artists make almost nothing, by comparison.Buying a copy of a game off-the-shelf doesn't give you the right to use it's graphics for your own project, and a lost license for the game engine is, I imagine, a much bigger deal percentage-wise than a lost sale of the original game.
Also, if the guy at 'Limbo of the Lost' bought the game it is his to do with what he wishes because he didn't agree to any stupid 'don't lift graphics' clause and shrinkwrap licenses have never been proven in court anyway so no one has any legal standing to complain about anything. This includes if he wants to make a mashup of the game's graphics and his own cool gaming idea and call it 'Limbo of the Lost'.True. In fact, plenty of people already do that but making videos instead of games. It's called YouTube.
And furthermore copyright law has been subverted by corporate interests and is just a shadow of what the found fathers wanted it to be. Copyright is OUR rights not theirs it makes sure WE get the copyrightable content but it has been changed around to give CORPORATIONS all the control. Do I want DRM on my hard drive so I can play a game but keep me from taking screenshots? No! I'll never install Vista. If this was available in WINE I would play it but it isn't. I don't even run NDISWRAPPER!Also true, but making an unauthorized derivative work of a work less than 14 years old, and then using it for commercial purposes is the exact situation that copyright was meant to prevent when it was created. Plus there's that thing with calling it your own, original work when it isn't, which is an issue completely separate from copyright and it's ilk.
So, in conclusion, no. I don't think anyone has stolen anything. Information wants to be free.Exactly, copyright infringement != theft for anyone with an IQ over 10.
The problem here, morally, is the fact that they ripped off recent stuff for commercial purposes, and then claimed it was an original work, and as such, they completely deserve the copyright infringement lawsuit that's soon to follow. But other than the fact that stupid lawmakers have expanded the definition for this crime to criminalize it too, this has nothing to do with downloading MP3s of the Beatles from the internet, so your parody, while fun, doesn't really have a point.
Well, your personal appearance is just that, personal. But considering it inherently "cooler"...
For hobbies other than camping and hiking I love to cliff and scuba dive, hunt, rock climb and repel, and would like to hangglide. I would also love to learn to play an instrument, specifically the Nighteagle flute I own.All perfectly reasonable hobbies, but I doubt you (or anyone else over 16) would describe them as "hardcore".
The problem, I feel, is not that such traits appear at all, but that (based on the GGP's post) they'd seem to be considered as "positive" traits inside the company, instead of the proper "who the fuck cares" attitude towards them that they should have. Hiring somebody just because he/she fits your particular definition of "cool" doesn't speak well neither of you nor of your company.
If I had a penny for each time a bike has almost hit me while trying to cross the street because "red lights are for cars, not bikes", I'd be fucking richer than Bill Gates.
So no, you don't just piss off drivers, and the sentences for shoving my fist up your face are much lower than for a driver to hit you with his car, so I'm that more likely to do it.
blue dreadlocked hair? they make you feel really "special"? "hip" people? "hardcore" hobbies, like playing in bands? good lord... I mean, honestly, I'm 21 and after reading your description I'm actually *scared* of Apple, so I can't imagine a 30-something experienced engineer thinking "wow, that sure sounds like a cool place to work for".