Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Planned obsolescene is in common (Score 1) 398

Since when was free will, on any subject, completely unaffected by any external influence?

So you agree that it's not "implemented exclusively by the consumers", since those consumers can de influenced.

I think it's pretty funny that you pointedly exclude "those that don't", as though they aren't influenced by companies when they buy clothes.

Quite the opposite actually, I mentioned "those that don't choose to buy last year's fashion" as an example of people who might be influenced by companies. But after all, even those that choose to buy last year's fashion might choose that because they were influenced...

Comment Re:OBT is not breaking any laws (Score 1) 230

That I disagree with your opinion does not mean that do not understand your position.

True. But I never claimed that the proof of your inability to understand was your disagreement, did I?

Being that this is a debate over opinion, "I disagree" should be the end of the debate. Period.

By that logic, almost nothing could ever be discussed. Or in other words: I disagree.

But I must say that was a nice try to convince me of letting you say the last word. Which I might end up doing if your self-esteem requires it so badly, after all I'm not here to do harm.

Yet you HAVE been disputing it... if you weren't you would have shut up by now, because this is a debate over opinion, and "I disagree" should be the end of the debate. Yet you persist in debating.

But I am not debating or disputing your disagreement (originally I was, but you're too stubborn, so it's not worth my time). Where did you get such a ludicrous idea?

My statement of mental deficiency is applied appropriately to people who would necessarily lack the sufficient mental capacity to engage in interpolation and extrapolation.

This is my opinion. And since this is a debate over opinion, "I disagree" should be the end of the debate. Full Stop.

I believe I've sufficiently adressed all of that already.

No, you imply it by failing to understand my position: "I disagree with you, and you are not changing my mind." This being a debate over opinion, "I disagree with you" should be the end of the debate. End paragraph.

Once again, I'm not failing to understand your position. Where did you get such a ludicrous idea?

Asserting my opinion does not make me a troll, which requires a disingenuous representation of an position.

True. But I never claimed that it was "asserting your opinion" that made me think that you are a troll, did I?

I fully hold honestly and earnestly, that if someone really did need the explicit context, which you suggested, then they are mentally deficient.

As I said, there's no reason to insult anyone, take a chill pill and be a little more respectful of your audience (and notice that I said "audience" and not "me", by now it seems quite obvious that you can't treat me respectfully).

If it makes you happier to label me a troll, and construct your opinion of me with such language, then well... fine. Such is your perogative.

However, please consider your own position. You keep forcing your opinion on me under the claim that I do not understand you.

I understand you fine. I DISAGREE WITH YOU. This will not change.

That you keep pressing this issue shows either assholery, stupidity, or mental retardation.

Your opinion is rejected. I understand that you reject my opinion.


OK, make that two chill pills. Heck, better take a bucketload of them. Maybe then you'll calm down and notice that it's precisely things like this that make me think that you don't understand me and that you're a troll (on that topic, maybe I should remind you who was the first one of us to call the other a troll).
Me, forcing my opinion on you? Yeah, sure. I wonder what opinion exactly am I forcing on you...

Comment Re:Planned obsolescene is in common (Score 1) 398

There's nothing whatsoever preventing people from buying last year's fashion (or fashion from several years ago), and many people do.

And those that don't, they all choose to do so out of their own free will, completely unaffected by any external influence? Frankly, I doubt that, and therefore doubt that "this system is implemented exclusively by the consumers". Brands wouldn't spend as much as they do on advertising and marketing if didn't have an effect on at least some people.

Comment Re:OBT is not breaking any laws (Score 1) 230

Firstly, I'm going to apologize up front for descending yet again into offensive language again, but seriously, jesus fucking christ.

I mean, holy fucking shit, are you seriously this retarded that you need need me to spell everything out for you in such explicit terms?

First, there's no need to insult anyone, take a chill pill. Second, I'm not retarded, and your inability to understand is no reason to think I am.

Yes? Ok, then, let's get to it. I clarify here as explicitly as I possibly can be:

"You presented an initial critic about the presentation of my hypothetical situation. This opinion is that I should have been more explicit. Having evaluated your opinion, I do not find the criticism reasonable, and refuse to revise the presentation of my hypothetical situation in any way. The key reason for rebuking your criticism is that I have the opinion that any individual that is a part of my target audience will not need their hand to be held so explicitly during a hypothetical situation. I am not addressing idiots, retards, or any individuals of deficient mental capability."

Yet the criticism is reasonable (but you're entitled to disagree, and I won't dispute that), specially considering how it doesn't imply "explicitly holding the audience's hand". Also, the fact that you think that additional clarity in the presentation of your hypothesis immediately implies that you'd be treating the audience as "individuals of deficient mental capability"... Well, let's just say it's a little bit on the disrespectful side towards said audience.

I am finding it difficult to have a high opinion of your intelligence due to your constant need for such explicit explanations.

Now you're being silly for no reason, unless you're really unable to read, which I doubt since your replies are somewhat consistent with my comments. Let me ask you something: did I ever say that I needed such explicit explanations? In case you hand't noticed despite me stating it many times, it was merely a suggestion, not something I needed. Again, I refer you to my comments, as they show I've understood yours and therefore I don't need any explicit explanations other than the ones you gave on your original post.

Did that clarify the difference between "suggestion" and "necessity" to you?

You are not a computer, you are not dumb... you should be capable of extrapolating and interpolating. Please start doing so.

My apologies if you have a mental variation which makes you incapable of properly understanding without pedantically explicit detail.

Such apologies are not needed. It's me who should be apologizing to the rest of the slashdotters for continuously feeding the troll.

Comment Re:OBT is not breaking any laws (Score 1) 230

I will restate more clearly: I do not think it fundamentally necessary to explicitly state the information, as it was a given in the hypothetical situation.

I believe I've sufficiently adressed that topic in my previous posts. I suggest that you read them.

You do not seem able to understand my point either: my post proved the point I was trying to make.

On the contrary, I understand your point just fine, reading my posts (provided that you understand them, of course) will prove that to you just fine. What you don't seem to understand (apart from my point) is that not once have I said that your post (the original one about the plant, the guest and the subpoena, that is) didn't prove the point you were trying to make. And that's like the third time I state this, which makes me even more convinced that you have no intention whatsoever to understand or make any effor to understand.

Comment Re:Inevietable (Score 1) 230

I see, you are the type who marches, well dressed, sporting a fancy watch into a dark alley full of thugs twirling baseball bats with nails sticking out of them and declares "until they actually bash my brains out, I refuse to engage in gazing in crystal balls". Too bad your ilk finds itself floating in the river more often than not. One could think of it as natural selection of those who never grasped concepts like "pattern of behavior" or "probability of success".

No, it's just that certain assumptions are more likely to be correct. Yours is not, specially since it includes irreversible changes.

See above. The past pattern of behaviour of the mega-corps, their lobbyists, corrupt politicians, mass media etc indicates clearly that the efforts have extremely high probability of success and that the effort required to reverse these changes is beyond the docile citizenry and, at best, it would take many decades to succeed.

Great step forward you made here: you've at least admitted that, should the efforts succeed, their effects could eventually be reversed.

I am objecting to your use of terms like "crystal ball" when not only we have a massive pile of evidence describing the successes past but we also have a pile of evidence highlighting the operations under way. If one were to apply your standards to, say, the sunrise, you would be claiming that the Sun "might" be raising tomorrow and that I should not be making any "crystal ball" predictions as to the event because I am "taking for granted" that the event would occur. The probability of success of the efforts of the mega-corps in the area of perverting laws to their liking is at this point in time only slightly lower than that of the Sun raising tomorrow.

Refer to the first paragraph of this message.

Comment Re:Inevietable (Score 1) 230

What are you talking about? Efforts are presently underway to "homogenize" the copyright laws to the US standard (actually exceeding it) in all of the most industrialized countries, with the idea of overriding the wishes of local electorates via international treaty mechanisms. Or haven you heard about ACTA?!. There is no need for any "crystal balls" when we have the whole scheme spelled out in black and white by its own peddlers.

Irrelevant. Until those "efforts" crystallize into a real change in laws, what you're engaging in is nothing more than gazing into a crystal ball to make predictions. You're taking for granted that such efforts will succeed and that once they do, nothing can be done to revert the changes they cause.

Also, I see that telling you in advance that I wasn't implying that you're wrong, and that therefore trying to refute my words on the assumption that they meant that you're wrong, was futile.

Comment Re:Inevietable (Score 1) 230

Unfortunately for this argument, the dominant military and economic powers, all dominated by the "big content" and "big media" conglomerates, have a way of "encouraging" change in their "partners" in this regard. See also under: Sweden and Norway.

Unless you are planing to host in Iran, for Iranian public, your are basically just stalling for time pretty much everywhere else.

At this point, it seems you've resorted to looking at your crystal ball to mak predictions. Therefore I find any further discussion pointless, since you're no longer basing your argument solely in facts.

However, please note that I'm not exactly saying that you're wrong, so don't take my words that way and try to refute them based on that.

Comment Re:All content is copyrighted (Score 1) 288

There is all kind of free software that is copyrighted but free and legal to download. There are many works of music that are copyrighted but free and legal to download. Copyright means you own the rights to a work.

I know that. I was referring to the last sentence of your previous post, providing a reason why it's impossible to be considered guilty merely for using bit torrent: because there are legal uses of it.

Comment Re:OBT is not breaking any laws (Score 1) 230

I didn't think, and I still do not think that it was fundamentally necessary to my argument.

And yet it is, since it's te very cause for the subpoena. And you have repeatedly acted as if it were fundamentally necessary.

The only thing I was attempting to establish is that it is false to say that one cannot be legally harassed unless having done something illegal.

So what? I think I've already stated that the point of my comments was unrelated to that.

I do not think it necessary to provide a robust well-established counter-example to blanket statements.

"All odd integers are prime" Response: "No, 9."

I have not provided any proper rigorous examination as to why this is a valid counter-example. I merely need show that there is one.

Formal logic wise: if one makes a "for all" assertion, then one must provide a rigorous argument for that assertion.

However, if one makes a "there exists" assertion, then one must merely provide a single candidate.

In general human discussion, then the restrictions are a bit more relaxed... this isn't debate club. And so for a "for all", one should only need to present an argument for why it is likely, and for a "there exists", one should only need present a likely candidate.

You still haven't understood my point. Therefore, I recommend that you read my posts again, and keep doing so until you understand. I will not explain the same thing again, and I expect that your next reply, if it ever happens, comes after you have understood my point. Failure to comply with that requirement will only serve to convince me that you don't want to understand (notice how I'm avoiding the use of the word "troll", despite all the reasons you're giving me to use it).

Comment Re:OBT is not breaking any laws (Score 1) 230

I suspected that it were the correct spelling in Commonwealth English. This is why I didn't say it were wrong, but rather that it was simply kept without changing it.

However, since I am American, when I'm talking about a neighbor I spell it an entirely different way, and if I were to spell it in the same way as Commonwealth English, then it would be "wrong".

And your suspicion was correct: I was taught British English (or as I like to call it, English, because seriously, English English just sounds bad). Anyway, as correct as all of that might be, I fail to see its relevance.

You're making a lot of progress towards actually providing criticism in a polite and respectful way.

Well, dammit. I try to be disrespectful just once, and I achieve the opposite effect. I guess I just can't be anything other than a nice guy.

Now, I'm aware that I am a little mysandronist. Which is why, one should always consider the audience that one is speaking to.

I'm offended that the best suggestion you can give me is to suggest that I need to be more like a man... even if you only mean it figuratively. Fuck systemic sexism.

I wasn't suggesting that you need to be more like a man. "Man up" means "don't be a pussy", and... OK, forget about it, that's sexist too.

As for the audience... I'm actually speaking to an unknown being, about whom I know nothing. Now, that entity can make any number of claims about itself, but they are ultimately non-verifiable, or at least not easily verifiable by me. Therefore, I find it reasonable to assume that any assumptions (and excuse my being redundant) or details regarding the audience are largely irrelevant. For all I know, you could be an extremely well programmed AI, or a farmer from Kentucky with a beard that covers his bellybutton. Or just who you claim to be, who knows.

Stop for two seconds. (Imperative, because you're simply factually wrong.) Read the bolded part of my requote...

Now, if you cannot understand how that means that the neighbor knows that he was a guest, then you're a hopeless case.

I entirely understand your argument. I am actually reading your text.

It is my presumption that ALL parties to the hypothetical situation were aware of ALL facts that I presented to establish the hypothetical situation, unless specifically stated otherwise.

This is supported by me stating in the hypothetical what the people do not know.

Except that not even once did you present as fact that the neighbour knew that the one that damaged his plant was a guest of mine. It was merely implied, and the only point I raised was that it should have been presented as fact, seeing how important it is for your argument. So I don't think I'm the hopeless case here (and since I see it coming already, no that doesn't mean I think you're the hopeless case), nor the one that is "factually wrong" (and please note how, despite that, I didn't use the imperative).

Comment Re:Actually many other countries have three-strike (Score 1) 288

That's why he says that it "failed a constitutional challenge".

True. My mistake, it seems I missed that part.

The Conseil constitutionnel ruled that the HADOPI law in its first form was anticonstitutional in that only a judge, after a trial, could restrict freedom of speech.

Then the law was modified so that the HADOPI authority would need to send its data to a judge for an accelerated procedure (as with traffic violations).

The Conseil Constitutionnel ruled that the new version of the HADOPI law was constitutional last December, so you might want to update your sources.

Aye, Sir. Sources updated, since you have provided facts that contradict the information I previously had. Thank you.

Comment Re:How about this question ... (Score 1) 288

That's assuming that making a copy is infringement, which isn't always necessarily the case.

Before those goal posts go flying out of sight, remember that the original question was:

if every song comes out on youtube
and I can download it as an MP3
Am I pirating music if I can simply get it that way ?

And so yes, provided it's a copyrighted song, making a copy under those circumstances is infringement.

In which country? Certainly not in all of them.

As for derivative works... Is ripping a CD (even an individual song off of that CD) to mp3 files considered "making a derivative work"? I don't think so.

No, it's making a copy. Perhaps you were confused because I mentioned "making a derivative work" in my previous answer. If you rip the audio from a music video, you have not copied the music video. Instead, you have created a derivative work of the video comprising just the soundtrack.

When you rip a CD or a song from a CD, however, you are making a copy. You are also "format-shifting", which is allowable fair use under the Betamax doctrine. You can also be making an archival copy, which is also allowable fair use. These are all fine. They are distinct, however, from ripping audio from a video on YouTube.

Again, in which country? Normally, I'd assume Ireland, since it's the country related to the article, but the original question is unrelated to the article, and therefore such an assumption cannot be made so easily.

As for ripping not being a derivative work, we seem to agree on that. I was just mentioning it because I know a few instances of people trying to change laws so it's a derivative work, following the ridiculous logic that "ripping to a lossy format implies loss of information, and therefore it's no longer the same work so it can't be a copy".

As an aside, many have tried the song-vs-album argument in the past. Tenenbaum even tried this argument, saying that because he only copied individual songs, they were only a few minutes out of an hour-long album, so he was "sampling" at best. This, of course, failed. The album is a copyrighted compilation of copyrighted works. The individual songs are copyrighted works themselves.


Slashdot Top Deals

Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It makes sense, when you don't think about it.