Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re: Mickey Mouse copyirght extenstions... (Score 1) 177

as long as he does not look too similar to Mickey Mouse

Therefore preventing the full artistic expression of countless artists who can do excellent stuff with Mickey Mouse itself. You agree with my argument event though pretending you don't. :-)

LOL, what a retarded argument. There's no royalties because that's menial work, not creative work.

And here you show you don't know the history of art. Back in the day things made sense, it worked like this: the artist, let's say, Da Vinci, was contracted to paint a certain scene by a rich patron. Such highly technical painting however wasn't considered fundamentally different from that of common house painter, except for the fact it was much, much more complex, and therefore deserving of a much, much higher pay. So, Da Vinci did his one time work of painting, and got paid once, and quite reasonably, for it.

The modern equivalent of how art was always made would then be this: Lady Gaga gets paid once several millions for that one music her rich patron (which can be one person or several persons joined together) wanted her to sing, and afterwards, if she wants to get paid again, she must do more work. As in every other profession ever. As for that music she was paid several millions? It's done, there's nothing else to it, except maybe in the fact the original recording, as a unique object, has a lot of value, pretty much like the original Da Vinci painting.

And what about copies of said music, as well as copies of Da Vinci painting? Those are so many extra works by copiers. Valued much less, because copying is easy. But still, work, and paid as such.

The modern system of copyright is an aberration. It gives a worker control over his finished and already paid for work, something that makes absolutely no sense, replaced a pretty reasonable system that worked well for several millennia. And the nonsense got so ingrained that, well, here we are, me talking with someone who really believes some instance of work deserve perpetual payment because "creativity", while "non-creativity" for some reason is a lower form of existence that doesn't deserve the same protection because elitism.

Me, I prefer non-elitism all the way up.

Comment Re: Mickey Mouse copyirght extenstions... (Score 1) 177

Copyrighted works, on the other hand, don't prevent anyone from creating their own works.

Yes, they do. A person may be a good creator of characters, of settings, of situations, and of dialogues, and having the four abilities, produce a full original novel. Another person might be good at three, two or one of the four, and therefore unable to exercise his creativity except by means of appropriating respectively one, two or three of those from another artist.

Case in point: fanfic. I read a lot of fanfic, some of which better than the original. And why is it better? Because while the original author was good at, say, two of the above four, he wasn't very good at the other two, while the fanfic author complements this weakness, the end result being a fully realized work of art that wouldn't exist otherwise.

Under your scenario however, the fanfic author is in the wrong "just because", no matter how much this harms other artists, and the cultural development of a society as a whole.

How about forcing these descendents to donate their parents' assets to the public domain, just like copyrighted works?

Your workaround to the question of glyphs show you yourself wouldn't accept the full implications of your conceptual framework. This here is another example, because you actually require this very thing from, among others, house painters. Do you pay monthly royalties to the artist who painted your living room? No? Why? Just because he did a minimalist, one-color private installation? Why is this relevant?

And how about the engineer who projected the road over which that person you photographed the other day stood? Did you get a license to make copies of his artistic project which you unconsciously appropriated in your own artistic endeavors?

The silliness you think you're seeing in the above examples is the exact same silliness those who oppose copyright see in the arguments of copyright defenders. And the arguments you use against these examples are also the arguments copyright opposers use. And any difference you'd pretend to find between these positions, thinking your own reasonable, and that of copyright opposers unreasonable, is an arbitrary line drawn in the sand with blurry edges, no more and no less.

Comment Re: Mickey Mouse copyirght extenstions... (Score 1) 177

Walt Disney isn't creating any new art since he died.

By the way, how much are you willing to pay the descendants of the inventors of the 200 or so glyphs of the extended Latin alphabet? You aren't an evil and greed consumer of texts who wants to avoid paying your due for every single usage of A, a, B, b, C, c... {, [, !, @... 7, 8 and 9, or are you?

Comment Re:IE all over again (Score 1) 367

Actually, yes, 8.x is better. It's noticeably faster than 7, and it allows one to use those few actually useful Metro apps (yes, there are a few ones). Fixing the annoyance of the lack of a Start menu is a matter of installing a small application, of which there are several choices available. In return, you get an OS that does everything else much better than 7 did.

I wouldn't go back to 7's slowness even if someone paid me to do it. Rather, I much prefer to pay $5 for Start8 (which I like more than Classic Shell) and get all of 8's benefits. Similarly, once I upgrade to Windows 10, if I don't like its new Start menu, I'll be upgrading to Start10 too. There's absolutely no benefit in sticking with 7 other that that one rare application you absolutely depend on that doesn't work in 8+. If you have one of those, well, keep 7. Otherwise, move up. There's no downside.

Comment Re:IE all over again (Score 1) 367

When you download Chrome, it has a check box (yes, in the download page), checked by default, by means of which you select whether you want your Chrome download to become your default browser when installed. Guess what? You didn't uncheck it when you downloaded Chrome. Whenever I download Chrome I uncheck it. And my Chrome never makes itself the default browser by merely updating itself. My default is and continues being Firefox.

Now, there's probably an option somewhere to disable the behavior you describe. If this bothers you, maybe googling it would be a good idea?

Comment Re:Ethics? (Score 3, Interesting) 190

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it assumes a linear progression in research, when by all measures it seems to be exponential.

From a certain perspective this might seem like the argument works against my point, because the earlier we do something would mean its result would be multiplied by orders of magnitude later on. However, that'd be a stochastic reasoning, because there's a point at which the result was achieved. Therefore, the distinction is between a linear delay vs. an exponential growth.

In other words, if we wait 50 years because we don't want to cause excessive suffering to animals, the trillions of human beings in our future light cone would most probably "feel" it as a delay of seconds, if that much.

IMHO then, reasoning from the perspective of extremely future benefits isn't useful. At most, only the near future is actually affected. And even that might be just a minor delay, since computation and simulated models are themselves advanced so much that in a few years they'll outpace anything doable by directly manipulating living beings.

Comment Re:Ethics? (Score 2, Informative) 190

The line the OP suggested isn't arbitrary, it's pretty objective. Beings with a nervous system and a brain suffer more than beings with just a nervous system, which in turn suffer more than being with mere nociception, which in turn suffer something, compared to being with none of those, who suffer nothing.

Not harming being who can feel excruciating pain would cause our scientific research to stop? No, it'd just advance at a slight slower speed.

So, why then do we harm them? For most people, because we can. And if "might makes right" is what most go with, all the power to them. When the ethics of might eventually bites them back, it's nothing but their own fault.

Comment Re:Your moderate christianity is a gateway (Score 1) 202

They aren't classifiable as Religion, though

Saying something like this is both absurd in light of 150 years of Comparative Religions research, and also extremely dangerous.

In the second half of the 19th century the Japanese government, seeing how Western (idiot) missionaries were all too happy to declare Shinto not a religion as a way to convince the Japanese people to convert to Christianity, adopted this "Shinto isn't a religion" definition to heart. As a result, when it came time to do the "turn into Fascism" that led to a brainwashed population, tons of war crimes and the disastrous Japanese campaign in WW2, they justified their manipulation and usage of Shinto for this purpose by arguing that, since Shinto wasn't a religion, imposing that all the population follow it didn't violate their constitutional right to freedom of religion. After all, any Japanese was still free to follow an "actual" religion, or to be an atheist, while forced to bow to the photo of the Emperor and being taught the marvels of suicide for the descendant of the Sun goddess, no contradiction there at all.

Definitions matter, and this attempt at trying to reduce the term "religion" to "faith-based belief system" is a double edged sword that cuts those who adopt it.

Comment Re:Your moderate christianity is a gateway (Score 1) 202

Because EVERY religion puts faith as the only proof required. The more unlikely the faith, the better it is, the more good you are.

Not true. This is mostly valid of semitic religions, which happened to spread over a huge chunk of the world, but several Eastern religions are belief-less.

For example, while there are some Buddhist sects that are belief-based, the older ones are all about experimenting, to the point Gautama told followers that if the techniques he was telling them didn't work, they should seek something that worked instead of losing time with it. In Japan, Shinto is so anti-doctrinal, anti-dogmatic, anti-theological and anti-moralistic, that it doesn't mind you not believing in anything at all and instead being a full-blown atheist who only takes part in its doctrine-less activities for cultural reasons.

As for other polytheisms, animisms etc., they also don't place that much importance in belief. Yes, they have it, but it isn't central. So much so, that when it comes to putting "belief" front and center, Christianity and Islam are really the exceptions to the rule.

Alas, the problem is that these minority of belief-based religions are the ones that are winning, so your argument has merit if we change the focus to saying that a religion becoming belief-based is a winning strategy on the long run. Why that's the case though, I have no idea. On the face of it, it doesn't seem to make sense, but maybe not making sense is actually the point...

Comment Re: Internet without evangelicals = Win (Score 1) 293

There is no passive resistance in making two wedding cakes.

Actually, there is. If an abusing couple insists on getting a cake or whatever from a fundamentalist Christian shop just because it's a fundamentalist Christian shop, and they know the owners wouldn't like to do it, and they're doing it precisely because they want to make the owners angry, then receiving two cakes at their wedding would send a very clear message to the couple as well as to the guests: "Here's your cake/whatever. We also feel you're being abusive, so here's another one to commemorate it. Have a nice wedding."

Even though I think it's pure assholery from service providers to be bigots, this would actually be an effective form of passive-aggressive resistance, done in all the right ways and, more importantly, in the spirit of the original.

Comment Re: Internet without evangelicals = Win (Score 3, Interesting) 293

participating in a gay wedding ceremony is very much against many people's reasonable interpretation of religious commandments.

Not, it's a blatant refusal to obey Jesus' extremely clear commandment:

"(...) whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. (...) Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; (...) And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?" (Matthew 5:39-47)

In other words, for the analogy-impaired, I'll rephrase the above:

"And whosoever shall compel thee to bake a cake, bake him twain."
"And whosoever shall compel thee to arrange them a bouquet, arrange them twain."
"And whosoever shall compel thee to take 100 photos, take 200."

And so on, and so forth.

Pretty clear, eh? Those refusing service to "sinners" aren't only breaking the law, and morals, and ethics, they are also themselves sinning against their God's will.

"Once they go up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department." -- Werner von Braun

Working...