What is the difference between money and control? You take a nation, you divide up control of its productivity into a couple of trillion units, and you call those units 'pounds' or 'dollars' or 'euros'. The idea that the economy is something pure and abstract which can be separated from the grubby world of power and control is a fallacy spread by neoliberals, who want to convince you that corporations are somehow more ethical and accountable than governments.
Yes, because that disassembly would be done on my computer, evidence of my doing so could not be obtained from outside my house and my computer, and as such enforcing it would require the government to break down my door without any evidence of wrongdoing on my part. It is actually pretty straight forward if you bother to engage your brain rather than parroting some bit of truthiness you've picked up.
From what I understand it, like Cambridge, varies from college to college. There are understood internally some that are OK for riff-raff, and some that are not.
But where every single candidate for every single public office will have pictures of them sleeping in a puddle of their own puke after an ill-advised underage tequila session, will people by necessity stop holding public figures to absurd, archaic and hypocritical standards of personal behavior and start paying attention to how well they actually do their fucking jobs?
Pisspoor analogy. Driving at 90mph on a city street can be legislated against without invasion of privacy (its a *city* street and the speed limit is there to regulate a public space)
You are right of course. What they need is some kind of software tool that can automatically and quickly generate code optimized for any new hardware that comes out. Rather than code in the particular assembly language of the processor of the day they could write out their algorithms in some kind of abstract, human readable script, which the aforementioned tool would then convert to assembly language.
Why has nobody thought to create such a useful tool for these poor chaps??
More to the point, the prohibition on disassembly makes it impossible to independently verify their claim it was written in assembly language without violating their license, and that claim is central to the idea of this being an interesting research project.
What puzzles me (apart from the amusing bit about decompiling something that was never compiled) is the prohibition on disassembly. Given the pretty much trivial mapping between assembly mnemonics and the actual binary files they distribute, it seems a silly thing to prohibit.
That would be disassembly, which they already mentioned separately as being prohibited. Putting "Point one" and "Point two" in front of clearly incorrect statements doesn't improve anything.
Being verbose doesn't equate to being right. Writing stuff like '*facepalm*' doesn't equate to being right. Simply put, you made an asinine assertion, I put it down swiftly, and you went off on a pointless semantics safari to avoid the fact I just blew you out the fucking water with my first shot.
You tried to claim that lack of copyright would kill production dead, and everything after was an attempt to backtrack and bullshit and try and score some 'win'. You are a perfect example of the low level of discourse on the Internet.
Mining had to die, because 'the market' said so. Manufacturing, shipbuilding, all the other things had to go to. But when industries that the ruling classes have deep interests in, such as media or banking, start losing money - they must be saved to 'safeguard jobs' and 'protect creativity'.
Twas ever thus. The market promotes self-interest, and self-interest distorts the market for its own benefit. Capitalism always does this.
Basically, tldr because I'm at work and don't want to waste too much time on the likes of you. But I get the jist.
You are backtracking on your original statement (which I suppose started with the statement immediately after it, oh well...). You now admit Linux would exist without copyrights. You have gone from outright stating that the alternative to indefinite copyright was not having anything produced at all, to admitting that a vast OS would have been produced anyway in the absence of copyright. You are just made of fail.
Furthermore, you have quietly backed away from my comments about movies and music, presumably because you've nothing to say. Your initial statement is clearly ridiculous in light of thousands of years of human music predating copyright.
Yet you still act superior. You truly are too fucking dumb to understand how fucking dumb you are.
The funny thing is that I probably used to be exactly like you. I probably would have agreed with everything you said, and posted a similar flame of someone who disagreed.
You know nothing about me you patronising cocksucker. The old chestnut of 'when you get older you will understand' is just an excuse to avoid addressing somebodies arguments on their own merit.
Everybody in Britain is a socialist by default, because that faith is preached by the television and the schools. It has been for decades. That is why it is so hard to convince anyone to reassess their faith. And yet, apostates do exist. I am one of them.
Socialism (by which you mean, anything not pure capitalism) is a faith? But I suppose YOUR views are founded on pure logic and reason? Logic and reason that will, regardless of the evidence your are presented with, always vindicate capitalism? You really haven't taken a hard look at yourself have you?
If I can convince just one British person to start thinking about why people like Mandelson behave as they do, why the media lets them get away with it, and why the country is in such a mess, then I will have succeeded.
The fact you classify Mandelson as a socialist shows just how far gone your 'thinking' is. After 30 years of Thatcherism, your idiotic prescription is more Thatcherism, based on the premise that every bad politician must be a 'socialist'.
You clearly consider yourself an intellectual, privy to a great truth that the other 'sheep' just cannot see. There are some people who believe this, and is true. There are many more people who believe this, and are medicore minds wearing tinfoil helmets. Make an honest appraisal of the stats and work out which you are.
Of course, if you are a proponent of some of the ideologies that he opposes...
Here is the core of your post, and the problem you seem to have missed.
FourthAge, and you as someone who approves of his writing, use a massively broad label of 'soclialism' which includes everything that doesn't fit into the narrow ideology of the market, from environmentalism to Stalinism. With this handy little ideological stick, he can accuse anybody who doesn't think capitalism is the ultimate form of human organisation (which is an absurd suggestion, by the way) of wanting to murder Ukrainians.
This kind of us/them division is not measured, intelligent, and the level of links are research are irrelevant (cherry picking data and linking to other nutters is not at all hard). The linking together of the 'other' under a single name and then associating that name with evil is one of the techniques used by cults to enforce obedience.
Incidentally, I made no attempt to silence him. I simply responded to him. Try to make the distinction before you shoot your mouth off.
You first stated that 'the alternative' to works becoming public property is that works wouldn't be created at all. This is what I responded to, and as such your application of what my response to your second statement is an example of the very thing you accuse me of: a strawman.
As for Linux using copyright; very technically true, but missing the point and you damn well know it. Linux uses copyright to keep itself safe from commercial exploitation, which could not occur in an environment where it wasn't possible to make money distributing data.
After this display of straw-manning and dissembling, you then astonishingly claim to be more intelligent than me, clearly under the impression you've won the argument. A classic example of the Dunning-Kruger theory in action I think!
Its complicated. With a wide and varied population you can't identify a singular reason. Let me see if I can have a crack at enumerating a few though:
1. Boiling frogs. There was never an Enabling Act really, more a series of measures which have slowly made us one of the least free people in Europe. Ask any of my fellow Brits, I bet none of them can definitively name a date when the government anti-freedom agenda began.
2. Thatcherism. Old milk-snatcher mounted a long, brutal, and ultimately successful campaign to decimate the base of her political opponents. This has left any political organization that doesn't blindly follow the dictats of the City out in the wilderness with few members. Sometimes I don't think Americans appreciate how horrific it was; they just assume she was a clone of Reagan - but she was much worse.
3. Media lockdown. The BBC doesn't have a mandate to really rip the government a new one. The papers are owned by people with heavy financial interests in the government. Murdoch has a vast media empire (several newspapers, and the very popular Sky television network) which basically dictates policy. In one instance, the Murdoch-owned Sun ran a 'campaign' to get the then home secretary David Blunkett to make some token move against immigrants, which he ultimately acceded to in an interview with the Sun. Thing is, he had his interview with the Sun to announce this very initiative already arranged before their 'campaign' started.
4. Paranoia. Britain is a very fearful society, largely for reasons 1 and 2 above. The assumption that everyone is ruthless and out for themselves is a self-fulfilling prophecy, because believing everyone else is a greedy scheming fucker makes it easier to be one yourself.
5. Deference. The curse of British society. We are conditioned by centuries of culture to defer to those of higher social classes. Even icons of the left such as Bertrand Russel and Tony Benn come from aristocratic stock, and their aristocratic manner helped them become iconic. The concept of 'betters' is sold to ordinary people by the tacit suggestion that, whilst they have their betters, they are in turn better than others...
6. Scapegoating. British people don't look up for the source of problems, they look down. Its the chavs. Its the muslims. Its single mums. Aside from taking the heat away from power, it also helps sell deference by telling people that there are 'scum' out their that they are better than.
There will be more reasons. Frankly, I think my country is doomed.
Good for him. I sometimes suspect the dividing line between artists who say 'OMG no copyright no more music' and ones who say 'Whatever, filesharing will just bring more people out to shows' is their own perception of their ability as a live performer. The weaker ones who require a studio to make them sound tolerable are terrified of having to depend on their lackluster live performances for an income.
Its worth adding to that the fact that although 49% is not a majority is it a bigger proportion of the population, and of the voting population, than has carried a party to victory in any general election I can recall.
If they were to get 6% of the vote, they could lose that, and then have the other 2.3% made up by spoilt ballots saying "If fucking new labour get in again I will firebomb westminster". Would that count?
Most people simply ignore the motorway speed limit TBH. Its common to be bombing along at 90mph, alongside many other cars doing the same. This, to me, is enough reason for the law to be changed; problem is the government NEVER gets less intrusive. Nothing ever becomes legal, but more things become illegal. Parliament is a ratchet for authoritarianism.
They have eased off a bit. Now the adverts in cinemas run on the idea that the cinema 'experience' can't be replicated by pirated content. This has the advantage of being true, not appearing absurdly exaggerated, and not accusing the industry's own customers of being common criminals.
Slashdot Mirror
It is good to know, in these economically troubled times, that Microsoft is still employing people to troll Slashdot :)
What is the difference between money and control? You take a nation, you divide up control of its productivity into a couple of trillion units, and you call those units 'pounds' or 'dollars' or 'euros'. The idea that the economy is something pure and abstract which can be separated from the grubby world of power and control is a fallacy spread by neoliberals, who want to convince you that corporations are somehow more ethical and accountable than governments.
Yes, but the police need some indication your are doing it before they come for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause
Go educate yourself.
Yes, because that disassembly would be done on my computer, evidence of my doing so could not be obtained from outside my house and my computer, and as such enforcing it would require the government to break down my door without any evidence of wrongdoing on my part. It is actually pretty straight forward if you bother to engage your brain rather than parroting some bit of truthiness you've picked up.
From what I understand it, like Cambridge, varies from college to college. There are understood internally some that are OK for riff-raff, and some that are not.
But where every single candidate for every single public office will have pictures of them sleeping in a puddle of their own puke after an ill-advised underage tequila session, will people by necessity stop holding public figures to absurd, archaic and hypocritical standards of personal behavior and start paying attention to how well they actually do their fucking jobs?
Pisspoor analogy. Driving at 90mph on a city street can be legislated against without invasion of privacy (its a *city* street and the speed limit is there to regulate a public space)
Because it would be like banning you from remembering (not even speaking) dialogue you remember from a movie. Its inane.
You are right of course. What they need is some kind of software tool that can automatically and quickly generate code optimized for any new hardware that comes out. Rather than code in the particular assembly language of the processor of the day they could write out their algorithms in some kind of abstract, human readable script, which the aforementioned tool would then convert to assembly language.
Why has nobody thought to create such a useful tool for these poor chaps??
More to the point, the prohibition on disassembly makes it impossible to independently verify their claim it was written in assembly language without violating their license, and that claim is central to the idea of this being an interesting research project.
What puzzles me (apart from the amusing bit about decompiling something that was never compiled) is the prohibition on disassembly. Given the pretty much trivial mapping between assembly mnemonics and the actual binary files they distribute, it seems a silly thing to prohibit.
That would be disassembly, which they already mentioned separately as being prohibited. Putting "Point one" and "Point two" in front of clearly incorrect statements doesn't improve anything.
Are you sure they wrote the entire thing in assembly language?
Being verbose doesn't equate to being right. Writing stuff like '*facepalm*' doesn't equate to being right. Simply put, you made an asinine assertion, I put it down swiftly, and you went off on a pointless semantics safari to avoid the fact I just blew you out the fucking water with my first shot.
You tried to claim that lack of copyright would kill production dead, and everything after was an attempt to backtrack and bullshit and try and score some 'win'. You are a perfect example of the low level of discourse on the Internet.
Capitalism is socialism for the rich
Mining had to die, because 'the market' said so. Manufacturing, shipbuilding, all the other things had to go to. But when industries that the ruling classes have deep interests in, such as media or banking, start losing money - they must be saved to 'safeguard jobs' and 'protect creativity'.
Twas ever thus. The market promotes self-interest, and self-interest distorts the market for its own benefit. Capitalism always does this.
Basically, tldr because I'm at work and don't want to waste too much time on the likes of you. But I get the jist.
You are backtracking on your original statement (which I suppose started with the statement immediately after it, oh well...). You now admit Linux would exist without copyrights. You have gone from outright stating that the alternative to indefinite copyright was not having anything produced at all, to admitting that a vast OS would have been produced anyway in the absence of copyright. You are just made of fail.
Furthermore, you have quietly backed away from my comments about movies and music, presumably because you've nothing to say. Your initial statement is clearly ridiculous in light of thousands of years of human music predating copyright.
Yet you still act superior. You truly are too fucking dumb to understand how fucking dumb you are.
You know nothing about me you patronising cocksucker. The old chestnut of 'when you get older you will understand' is just an excuse to avoid addressing somebodies arguments on their own merit.
Socialism (by which you mean, anything not pure capitalism) is a faith? But I suppose YOUR views are founded on pure logic and reason? Logic and reason that will, regardless of the evidence your are presented with, always vindicate capitalism? You really haven't taken a hard look at yourself have you?
The fact you classify Mandelson as a socialist shows just how far gone your 'thinking' is. After 30 years of Thatcherism, your idiotic prescription is more Thatcherism, based on the premise that every bad politician must be a 'socialist'.
You clearly consider yourself an intellectual, privy to a great truth that the other 'sheep' just cannot see. There are some people who believe this, and is true. There are many more people who believe this, and are medicore minds wearing tinfoil helmets. Make an honest appraisal of the stats and work out which you are.
Here is the core of your post, and the problem you seem to have missed.
FourthAge, and you as someone who approves of his writing, use a massively broad label of 'soclialism' which includes everything that doesn't fit into the narrow ideology of the market, from environmentalism to Stalinism. With this handy little ideological stick, he can accuse anybody who doesn't think capitalism is the ultimate form of human organisation (which is an absurd suggestion, by the way) of wanting to murder Ukrainians.
This kind of us/them division is not measured, intelligent, and the level of links are research are irrelevant (cherry picking data and linking to other nutters is not at all hard). The linking together of the 'other' under a single name and then associating that name with evil is one of the techniques used by cults to enforce obedience.
Incidentally, I made no attempt to silence him. I simply responded to him. Try to make the distinction before you shoot your mouth off.
Have fun in your cult, asshole.
You first stated that 'the alternative' to works becoming public property is that works wouldn't be created at all. This is what I responded to, and as such your application of what my response to your second statement is an example of the very thing you accuse me of: a strawman.
As for Linux using copyright; very technically true, but missing the point and you damn well know it. Linux uses copyright to keep itself safe from commercial exploitation, which could not occur in an environment where it wasn't possible to make money distributing data.
After this display of straw-manning and dissembling, you then astonishingly claim to be more intelligent than me, clearly under the impression you've won the argument. A classic example of the Dunning-Kruger theory in action I think!
Its complicated. With a wide and varied population you can't identify a singular reason. Let me see if I can have a crack at enumerating a few though:
1. Boiling frogs. There was never an Enabling Act really, more a series of measures which have slowly made us one of the least free people in Europe. Ask any of my fellow Brits, I bet none of them can definitively name a date when the government anti-freedom agenda began.
2. Thatcherism. Old milk-snatcher mounted a long, brutal, and ultimately successful campaign to decimate the base of her political opponents. This has left any political organization that doesn't blindly follow the dictats of the City out in the wilderness with few members. Sometimes I don't think Americans appreciate how horrific it was; they just assume she was a clone of Reagan - but she was much worse.
3. Media lockdown. The BBC doesn't have a mandate to really rip the government a new one. The papers are owned by people with heavy financial interests in the government. Murdoch has a vast media empire (several newspapers, and the very popular Sky television network) which basically dictates policy. In one instance, the Murdoch-owned Sun ran a 'campaign' to get the then home secretary David Blunkett to make some token move against immigrants, which he ultimately acceded to in an interview with the Sun. Thing is, he had his interview with the Sun to announce this very initiative already arranged before their 'campaign' started.
4. Paranoia. Britain is a very fearful society, largely for reasons 1 and 2 above. The assumption that everyone is ruthless and out for themselves is a self-fulfilling prophecy, because believing everyone else is a greedy scheming fucker makes it easier to be one yourself.
5. Deference. The curse of British society. We are conditioned by centuries of culture to defer to those of higher social classes. Even icons of the left such as Bertrand Russel and Tony Benn come from aristocratic stock, and their aristocratic manner helped them become iconic. The concept of 'betters' is sold to ordinary people by the tacit suggestion that, whilst they have their betters, they are in turn better than others...
6. Scapegoating. British people don't look up for the source of problems, they look down. Its the chavs. Its the muslims. Its single mums. Aside from taking the heat away from power, it also helps sell deference by telling people that there are 'scum' out their that they are better than.
There will be more reasons. Frankly, I think my country is doomed.
Good for him. I sometimes suspect the dividing line between artists who say 'OMG no copyright no more music' and ones who say 'Whatever, filesharing will just bring more people out to shows' is their own perception of their ability as a live performer. The weaker ones who require a studio to make them sound tolerable are terrified of having to depend on their lackluster live performances for an income.
Its worth adding to that the fact that although 49% is not a majority is it a bigger proportion of the population, and of the voting population, than has carried a party to victory in any general election I can recall.
If they were to get 6% of the vote, they could lose that, and then have the other 2.3% made up by spoilt ballots saying "If fucking new labour get in again I will firebomb westminster". Would that count?
Most people simply ignore the motorway speed limit TBH. Its common to be bombing along at 90mph, alongside many other cars doing the same. This, to me, is enough reason for the law to be changed; problem is the government NEVER gets less intrusive. Nothing ever becomes legal, but more things become illegal. Parliament is a ratchet for authoritarianism.
They have eased off a bit. Now the adverts in cinemas run on the idea that the cinema 'experience' can't be replicated by pirated content. This has the advantage of being true, not appearing absurdly exaggerated, and not accusing the industry's own customers of being common criminals.