Yet wine is still fairly common, in fact, I know there are a few things that do not run in Cedega, but run in wine. For a time it may have hurt... but now the tables have turned.
Not to say Transgaming didn't make their buck off of exploiting people's good nature, but taking advantage of open source projects in that way can only last so long. The very reason that open source has become a major competitor prevents such knockoffs and exploitation from lasting in the long term.
E-E-E only works well against companies and propritary software. Open source has evolved to counter such tactics as a whole. Not to say it is not important to keep an eye out for attempts (Novell and Microsoft is a good example), but any attempt to wrong open source usually comes back to bite people. Which is exactly why it is feared and hated; it is counter-monopolistic, and every business person's goal is to be the monopoly in their respective field(s).
The second video is a great example of why it is important to be armed, and why the sudden fear of guns is irrational. Here in the US, AK47s are illegal. Now, if someone passing, or the police themselves, may have happened to have something better than a hand gun, many lives would have been saved.
Thinking people who would commit murder are going to be stopped by laws on weapons is quite short sighted.
Exactly. Calling copyright infringement "theft" is identical to calling theft "copyright infringement". It is an insult to anyone who has had to deal with theft.
"You are publicly admitting to larceny and I hope you're nailed to the wall for it."
Copyright infringement, at best. I am getting tired of having to point this out to those who ether refuse to acknowledge the difference, or are simply too brainwashed to tell.
If it is not the case, then the person speaking does not matter. Those who never intended to buy it still never intend to buy it; that has not changed. What has changed is that a lot of people who would have, or at least may have, bought the game, now will not because of the DRM. Which means that the "moral" consequences are not much, if at all.
That, and there is the fact many of us do not agree that artificial scarcity is in any way moral to begin with.
I will not be buying nor pirating ether game. Simply playing it and taking about it goes to help the company peddling this intentionally defective software without regard to their customers, which I am not about to do.
Ah, yes, charge more for less. Because ISPs could not possible invest into new networks, like they were given money to by the government. That would be too expensive. How would they afford those mansions and luxury jets? Will someone please think of the ISP execs?
QoS primarily affects latency, not speed. There would not be a noticeable impact in speed of the average file transfer simply by putting a few MBs of texts at a higher priority. But this is assuming ISPs would play nice, and not throttle such data. As soon as they start doing so, and you can bet they will right off the bat, all bets are off.
Maybe granny should move to Japan if she wants to keep up with the times...
Why would they ever repeal it? There is absolutely no need to do so. Just make workarounds; keep limiting the number of things defined as "speech" and spew rhetoric about "freedom comes with responsibility," which essentially means you have freedom to agree.
There will never be a civil war because the average Amarican is too lazy and oblivious. Why revolt when you have American Idol and WoW?
Just who is this great faction that is going to rise up? California? Texas? Geeks? Anarchists?
Dream on. We're all fucked. My bet is, you'll never even realize it happened.
By that reasoning, we have always been at war. The Germans (pre-WWII), the Communists, China, North Korea...
No country has invaded us. No country is even remotely poised to invade us. A few rouges acting generally on their own accord (it was not espionage by any other country, that has been more or less proven) does not constitute a war. If it did, every country would be at war.
The most ironic part is how all the terrorists who took part in 9/11 were more or less American citizens. It was more equatable to an act of dissent than a hostile action by any other country. Does that mean we are at war with ourselves? Judging by your rhetoric and acceptance of these actions, which are echoed by the GOP-loving Bible-belt, I think we in fact/are/.
If we are at war with "terrorism", we may as well declare war upon people wearing blue hats. At least that one we could win. Terrorism is not only a non-physical entity, but not even a strict idea. The founders of the country you live in committed terrorism. As did those of just about every other country on the planet. It is also arguable that the fear-mongering the government does on a daily basis is more along the lines of terrorism than blowing up a building. Maybe we should send Bush to gitmo?
"If I make a product, I have the right to refuse to allow you to sell it at your store."
No, sorry, you do not. You have the right to refuse to sell the product to me - which to an extent prevents me from selling it. However, you have no legal or moral right to force me to not sell your product after I have legally purchased it from you, or someone you have authorized to sell it.
Once you put an item on the market, your control of it is gone. If you do not like that, do not sell it.
"The EULA is intended for individuals, and while they might strike parts of it down, the judge should side with Apple's right not to allow a 3rd party to manufacture a product containing Apples' products."
The right of first sale arguably trumps Apple's EULA. Quite a few states do not even allow EULAs to remove certain rights of the user/middle man.
A good way to deal with the "we left you our number" issue, if your phone line is capable of it, is to call the number twice and then bridge the 2 lines. It can be quite funny when they realize they just got a call from themselves - sadly they usually don't realize this is the case. By sadly, I mean it's sad for the whole human race.
I think the general understanding is that only officers are full time members of Starfleet (with some exceptions), and those brought in on a more temporary basis are the rare crewmen that serve some specific task. Which also explains why positions are so much more general than real navy positions (engineering vs. numerous engineering-related ratings). If you are an officer, you've been trained to be able to do to some extent anything in engineering.
This is of course not cannon, but works best of any possible explanations. The fact most enlisted members have very specific roles, like transporter chief, supports it a lot.
"Also: I modded my machine case myself. That makes it superior to something you bought whole from someone else, even if its planetary laser doesn't quite work yet. "
Until they just block all HTTP from "unauthorized servers", which is pretty much the basis of net non-neutrality in the first place.
What is coming is not something we can face from out basements. There is rarely a technical solution to a problem purposefully created by those who control you.
Good luck with that. As long as the masses can still get to their myspace, facebook and ebay, the majority of people won't care enough to make funding something of that scale possible. Perhaps isolated networks will pop up, build on things like wifi or in dense cities - but the internet as we know it will be dead.
Without Copyright law the GPL could not be enforcable. Any contribution made by any individual, whether they be the originator or otherwise, will be gobbled up by somebody bigger. Who loses? You do.
The GPL is not how those companies make money. Nether is the GPL intended to be a revision to copyright. Rather, the GPL is a way of producing sustainable "as good as not copyrighted" software, within the system we have. It's a workaround, not a goal in itself.
Care to substantiate that claim? Of course it was intended to help people make money as motivation for putting effort into such works. Why else would any individual spend years of their time working on something? The goal was to provide a means through which artists and scientists would capitalize on their inventions so that they would be enticed to invent in the first place, and then to invest into future inventions.
That is intended to be the means, not the goal. The goal was the encourage arts and sciences, the means was thoughts to be copyright, which would somehow pay every inventor and artist for their contribution. Copyright unfortunately was never so idyllic, and we are only now beginning to see all the side effects of it.
There are plenty of ways to motivate beyond control. Assuming there isn't is assuming that the only productive work is paid for, or even possibly that it is only that which is forced. Which there is plenty of proof against.
It's easy to claim that such effort is meaningless and worthless when you are nothing but a leech on society. Please, turn off your computer and start living in a shack because you owe your means of bitching about "Imaginary Property" to Intellectual Property and those who are capable of doing more with their lives than bitching about those who won't give away what they've done with their lives.
Actually, I owe almost the whole of science and technology up until about 400 years ago (much less in many parts of the world) to people who never even contemplated anything like patents or copyright. Both are a recent idea which was used to make businesses where there were none, and seem to have worked to great extents. Except for the fact that those outside the media cartels are hard pressed to ever become more than second rate, and not because of their skill.
There was once a time when people pursued art for art's sake. And we have to thank for that most timeless classical culture. Now we have art for cooperation's sake, and can barely remember the fads of 20 years ago.
All copyright, and to an extent patents, do is put a price on creativity. Which may sound good to some, but I am inclined to think that with how copyright has been abused recently, and how we got along fine without it for the longest time, that maybe, just maybe, it's not for the good of society as a whole.
Maybe you should turn your computer off and go live in a back alley, since there is no building today, nor item, or book, that has not been somehow influenced by that which was not protected by copyright when it was made.
Slashdot Mirror
Yet wine is still fairly common, in fact, I know there are a few things that do not run in Cedega, but run in wine. For a time it may have hurt... but now the tables have turned.
Not to say Transgaming didn't make their buck off of exploiting people's good nature, but taking advantage of open source projects in that way can only last so long. The very reason that open source has become a major competitor prevents such knockoffs and exploitation from lasting in the long term.
E-E-E only works well against companies and propritary software. Open source has evolved to counter such tactics as a whole. Not to say it is not important to keep an eye out for attempts (Novell and Microsoft is a good example), but any attempt to wrong open source usually comes back to bite people. Which is exactly why it is feared and hated; it is counter-monopolistic, and every business person's goal is to be the monopoly in their respective field(s).
The second video is a great example of why it is important to be armed, and why the sudden fear of guns is irrational. Here in the US, AK47s are illegal. Now, if someone passing, or the police themselves, may have happened to have something better than a hand gun, many lives would have been saved.
Thinking people who would commit murder are going to be stopped by laws on weapons is quite short sighted.
But how do we make sure someone does not simply steal someone else's? Theft is not much of a problem to one who would commit murder.
You can with a car, too. In fact, especially if you don't know how. Let's ban cars!
Exactly. Calling copyright infringement "theft" is identical to calling theft "copyright infringement". It is an insult to anyone who has had to deal with theft.
"You are publicly admitting to larceny and I hope you're nailed to the wall for it."
Copyright infringement, at best. I am getting tired of having to point this out to those who ether refuse to acknowledge the difference, or are simply too brainwashed to tell.
"When I was in Redmond for *gasp* an interview (I declined) they showed me a room where they are allowed to vent."
They let you in the board room? Wow.
If it is not the case, then the person speaking does not matter. Those who never intended to buy it still never intend to buy it; that has not changed. What has changed is that a lot of people who would have, or at least may have, bought the game, now will not because of the DRM. Which means that the "moral" consequences are not much, if at all.
That, and there is the fact many of us do not agree that artificial scarcity is in any way moral to begin with.
I will not be buying nor pirating ether game. Simply playing it and taking about it goes to help the company peddling this intentionally defective software without regard to their customers, which I am not about to do.
Ah, yes, charge more for less. Because ISPs could not possible invest into new networks, like they were given money to by the government. That would be too expensive. How would they afford those mansions and luxury jets? Will someone please think of the ISP execs?
QoS primarily affects latency, not speed. There would not be a noticeable impact in speed of the average file transfer simply by putting a few MBs of texts at a higher priority. But this is assuming ISPs would play nice, and not throttle such data. As soon as they start doing so, and you can bet they will right off the bat, all bets are off.
Maybe granny should move to Japan if she wants to keep up with the times...
Why would they ever repeal it? There is absolutely no need to do so. Just make workarounds; keep limiting the number of things defined as "speech" and spew rhetoric about "freedom comes with responsibility," which essentially means you have freedom to agree.
There will never be a civil war because the average Amarican is too lazy and oblivious. Why revolt when you have American Idol and WoW?
Just who is this great faction that is going to rise up? California? Texas? Geeks? Anarchists?
Dream on. We're all fucked. My bet is, you'll never even realize it happened.
Ah, like the many against China, Saudi Arabia and Russia. Yes, I am sure we'll jump right to cutting off all ties with them.
By that reasoning, we have always been at war. The Germans (pre-WWII), the Communists, China, North Korea... No country has invaded us. No country is even remotely poised to invade us. A few rouges acting generally on their own accord (it was not espionage by any other country, that has been more or less proven) does not constitute a war. If it did, every country would be at war. The most ironic part is how all the terrorists who took part in 9/11 were more or less American citizens. It was more equatable to an act of dissent than a hostile action by any other country. Does that mean we are at war with ourselves? Judging by your rhetoric and acceptance of these actions, which are echoed by the GOP-loving Bible-belt, I think we in fact /are/.
If we are at war with "terrorism", we may as well declare war upon people wearing blue hats. At least that one we could win. Terrorism is not only a non-physical entity, but not even a strict idea. The founders of the country you live in committed terrorism. As did those of just about every other country on the planet. It is also arguable that the fear-mongering the government does on a daily basis is more along the lines of terrorism than blowing up a building. Maybe we should send Bush to gitmo?
"If I make a product, I have the right to refuse to allow you to sell it at your store."
No, sorry, you do not. You have the right to refuse to sell the product to me - which to an extent prevents me from selling it. However, you have no legal or moral right to force me to not sell your product after I have legally purchased it from you, or someone you have authorized to sell it.
Once you put an item on the market, your control of it is gone. If you do not like that, do not sell it.
"The EULA is intended for individuals, and while they might strike parts of it down, the judge should side with Apple's right not to allow a 3rd party to manufacture a product containing Apples' products."
The right of first sale arguably trumps Apple's EULA. Quite a few states do not even allow EULAs to remove certain rights of the user/middle man.
Studies of shown real numbers aren't any more useful than the ones you make up!
A good way to deal with the "we left you our number" issue, if your phone line is capable of it, is to call the number twice and then bridge the 2 lines. It can be quite funny when they realize they just got a call from themselves - sadly they usually don't realize this is the case. By sadly, I mean it's sad for the whole human race.
After a few weeks of this, they gave up.
And the effectively infinite fusion/antimatter power would be the last half...
I think the general understanding is that only officers are full time members of Starfleet (with some exceptions), and those brought in on a more temporary basis are the rare crewmen that serve some specific task. Which also explains why positions are so much more general than real navy positions (engineering vs. numerous engineering-related ratings). If you are an officer, you've been trained to be able to do to some extent anything in engineering.
This is of course not cannon, but works best of any possible explanations. The fact most enlisted members have very specific roles, like transporter chief, supports it a lot.
111st Free County
# United States #
!! Belgium !!
Sadly, this is probably the future.
"Also: I modded my machine case myself. That makes it superior to something you bought whole from someone else, even if its planetary laser doesn't quite work yet. "
I don't believe you! It's a trap!
Until they just block all HTTP from "unauthorized servers", which is pretty much the basis of net non-neutrality in the first place.
What is coming is not something we can face from out basements. There is rarely a technical solution to a problem purposefully created by those who control you.
Good luck with that. As long as the masses can still get to their myspace, facebook and ebay, the majority of people won't care enough to make funding something of that scale possible. Perhaps isolated networks will pop up, build on things like wifi or in dense cities - but the internet as we know it will be dead.
Until they just indiscriminately block all packets they can't identify. ISP are already itching to do that.
P2P and freedom of speech in one blow, what could be better?
You, sir, must turn in your geek card. You missed the goatse first post!
The GPL is not how those companies make money. Nether is the GPL intended to be a revision to copyright. Rather, the GPL is a way of producing sustainable "as good as not copyrighted" software, within the system we have. It's a workaround, not a goal in itself.
That is intended to be the means, not the goal. The goal was the encourage arts and sciences, the means was thoughts to be copyright, which would somehow pay every inventor and artist for their contribution. Copyright unfortunately was never so idyllic, and we are only now beginning to see all the side effects of it.
There are plenty of ways to motivate beyond control. Assuming there isn't is assuming that the only productive work is paid for, or even possibly that it is only that which is forced. Which there is plenty of proof against.
Actually, I owe almost the whole of science and technology up until about 400 years ago (much less in many parts of the world) to people who never even contemplated anything like patents or copyright. Both are a recent idea which was used to make businesses where there were none, and seem to have worked to great extents. Except for the fact that those outside the media cartels are hard pressed to ever become more than second rate, and not because of their skill.
There was once a time when people pursued art for art's sake. And we have to thank for that most timeless classical culture. Now we have art for cooperation's sake, and can barely remember the fads of 20 years ago.
All copyright, and to an extent patents, do is put a price on creativity. Which may sound good to some, but I am inclined to think that with how copyright has been abused recently, and how we got along fine without it for the longest time, that maybe, just maybe, it's not for the good of society as a whole.
Maybe you should turn your computer off and go live in a back alley, since there is no building today, nor item, or book, that has not been somehow influenced by that which was not protected by copyright when it was made.