that's like saying there's more to a steer than savory, delicious beef - there's also tripe, lips and hooves. I mean, sure it's true, but [i]so what?[/i]
"We will all get more and more open, this is inevitable."
It is? Since when? I am far more protective of my privacy now than I was in '95. Just because a vocal group of jackasses thinks the world wants to view their dirty laundry doesn't mean we all think the same.
> "While Google generally seems to lag behind in Safari compatibility..."
everybody has been lagging behind in Safari compatibility because it's only been 4 months or so since Apple released a simple goddamn javascript debugger for it.
Yes, the market certainly bears out this assertion.
On a more serious note, due to the degree of eye-rolling induced by reading the quoted comment, I have dislocated my retinas and will be unavailable to respond to further comments for some time.
> Only applies to copyright, not the rest of them.
I guess I've been using 'IP' as a sort of umbrella term for copyright, trademarks, etc, which is probably leading to some confusion. I'm gonna have to sort out just exactly what these terms mean.
> we had artists and inventions for millenia before we had ip
sure, but we never had a medium in which ip can be so effectively distributed before.
> I have never seen any proof to show that ip causes increased scientific discovery. And I've seen quite a bit of anecdotal evidence and logic that says the exact opposite.
I think you're simply finding what you're looking for.
> No, my post was a mockery of the OP, in an attempt to show him the ridiculousness of his post
when I see a 'solution' to a problem that involves dismantling large chunks of what we have now, I view it with the same suspicion that I do when someone tells me that they have to rewrite an entire system from scratch. The idea is always seductively simple, but when put inot action devolves into the same morass of complexity that we have now. Because it's not like anyone deliberately starts out with the idea of making a ridiculously byzantine system.
I don't think the current patent/copyright system is all that great either, and would be happy with reform. But the idea that there should be no such thing as intellectual property is just not something I can align with.
> IP only encourages pharmaceutical research to create long term revenue streams... no cure for AIDS (or any other terminal disease)
I can't even start to fathom what the mind that thinks this is like. Genentech came up with a goddamn cure for some kind of cancer a while back for fucks sake. Not to mention, oh, I don't know, all the other goddamn extinct diseases like smallpox, polio and lord knows what else.
Now I think we can all agree that listening to an artists music on the radio would not be immoral, but what about if we record that show (commercials and all)? How about if we lend that recording to a friend? How about if we sell the recording at the cost to produce it? How about if we sell it at a profit? How about if we create a computer program that eliminates the comercials so we don't have to listen to them? How about if we lend this commercial free version of the recording to our friend? How about if we sell it for the cost to produce this recording and eliminate the comercials? How about if we sell this recording at a profit?
I said "Don't take people's IP without their permission." So my answer to all of those is "if you have the authors permission to do so."
Terrans should use firebats, or marines inside bunkers. Zerg should just use mass zerglings. And of course, any air unit, since zealots can't attack them.
Slashdot Mirror
> Today at the polls I tapped the square for "Jim Davis" and the square for "Charlie Crist" was checked off.
Maybe the power of Crist was compelling you?
> and thus would gladly change places with any of you. :D
... I mean, you know you can just move to a different state, right?
well, I don't really want to swap places with you, but
Hey, internet guy, you seem kind of angry - maybe you should take a few minutes and just relax for a while. You know, just kick back and mellow out.
> there's more to the guitar than power chords
that's like saying there's more to a steer than savory, delicious beef - there's also tripe, lips and hooves. I mean, sure it's true, but [i]so what?[/i]
Internet weirdos proclaim privacy dead, demand naked pictures be posted!
"It is inevitable," they claim, "let's just leave it at that."
the entire concept is retarded.
"We will all get more and more open, this is inevitable."
It is? Since when? I am far more protective of my privacy now than I was in '95. Just because a vocal group of jackasses thinks the world wants to view their dirty laundry doesn't mean we all think the same.
First I've heard of it. Same deal with the dojo developers and several other javascript toolkit vendors.
> "While Google generally seems to lag behind in Safari compatibility..."
everybody has been lagging behind in Safari compatibility because it's only been 4 months or so since Apple released a simple goddamn javascript debugger for it.
it's popularity also completely stagnated the game. I knew people who DIDN'T KNOW THERE WERE OTHER MAPS.
And spazball was so much better.
oh.
well, screw Forgent then.
There's not many of 'em.
jpeg compression is nontrivial. The guy(s) that came up with it should be able to make a living off their hard work.
I won't be paying for resolution I can't see.
About as long as it takes them to actually, you know, become an abusive monopoly that buries innovative companies and stifles progress worldwide.
I enjoy riding on bandwagons too, but some schmoe making idle accusations isn't really enough to get me up onto the wagon.
> Style---no, it isn't important to most people.
Yes, the market certainly bears out this assertion.
On a more serious note, due to the degree of eye-rolling induced by reading the quoted comment, I have dislocated my retinas and will be unavailable to respond to further comments for some time.
> Polish those pitchforks.
Stop that, you'll go blind!
no, I mean the mind that thinks those inane conspiracy theories even makes sense.
> Only applies to copyright, not the rest of them.
I guess I've been using 'IP' as a sort of umbrella term for copyright, trademarks, etc, which is probably leading to some confusion. I'm gonna have to sort out just exactly what these terms mean.
> we had artists and inventions for millenia before we had ip
sure, but we never had a medium in which ip can be so effectively distributed before.
> I have never seen any proof to show that ip causes increased scientific discovery. And I've seen quite a bit of anecdotal evidence and logic that says the exact opposite.
I think you're simply finding what you're looking for.
> Maybe corporations don't have public interests at heart?
that's a long way from saying they're deliberately witholding an AIDS cure.
> No, my post was a mockery of the OP, in an attempt to show him the ridiculousness of his post
when I see a 'solution' to a problem that involves dismantling large chunks of what we have now, I view it with the same suspicion that I do when someone tells me that they have to rewrite an entire system from scratch. The idea is always seductively simple, but when put inot action devolves into the same morass of complexity that we have now. Because it's not like anyone deliberately starts out with the idea of making a ridiculously byzantine system.
I don't think the current patent/copyright system is all that great either, and would be happy with reform. But the idea that there should be no such thing as intellectual property is just not something I can align with.
> IP only encourages pharmaceutical research to create long term revenue streams... no cure for AIDS (or any other terminal disease)
I can't even start to fathom what the mind that thinks this is like. Genentech came up with a goddamn cure for some kind of cancer a while back for fucks sake. Not to mention, oh, I don't know, all the other goddamn extinct diseases like smallpox, polio and lord knows what else.
> you might also note I wasn't modded at all. oh well
Slashdot: We take votes on the truth.
I said "Don't take people's IP without their permission." So my answer to all of those is "if you have the authors permission to do so."
Terrans should use firebats, or marines inside bunkers. Zerg should just use mass zerglings. And of course, any air unit, since zealots can't attack them.
Don't take people's IP without their permission. Class dismissed. You all can thank me for saving you 74 minutes of your lives.