My issue is not with his nostalgia, but with his perspective that his argument is unassailable because YOU ARE NOT A ROCK STAR.
And until somebody has actually written a check to record their own record and see everything that goes into it, they don't really understand...
Here is the translation:
* I am a person with property of X.
* You are a person who, for all intents and purposes, will never have property of X.
* My argument is based on X.
* Because you do not and cannot have X, your perspective of my argument is automatically invalid.
I understand Stallman's position, but when he uses lines like:
"To modify them is to misrepresent the authors"
..I see it as sort of shorthand for saying "people are stupid." It's saying people don't know enough to go an check original, authoritative sources before making assumptions.
Now, to an extent he is right, people in general love not having to take responsibility and one of the best ways they do that is to accept written words at face value. Just look at Fox news(or HufPo for you Conservatives).
So I get what he's saying -- but my "problem" with it (because, of course, I have to have one) is he's attacking the _wrong_problem_, the symptom instead of the disease. The symptom is people taking things out of context and using them; the actual illness here is people who accept those words without question.
It's important to consider that, in all likelihood, this "license" was granted for no money. Chances are that Microsoft is the one who asked Quanta to take the "license" in exchange for a discount on other products or services. Microsoft would do this so they could publicize it and then try to legitimize the licensing scheme.
"that if a court rules (as they have been) that Righthaven didn't have the copyrights in question when it sued"
..Isn't this a simple case of fraud then? They are claiming rights they don't have and trying to assert those rights on a third party, kind of like giving parking tickets to people parked in a lot you don't own.
If they haven't been taked to task (and court) for Fraud, the need to be.
So, I live in Utah, and the problems with this are obvious:
I used to commute to work on a motorbike and I would get 60MPG. Under this sort of standard I should be penalized to the point where my gas costs are the same as every else's because I am not paying my fair share.
By this standard, also, if I drive a gas-guzzling Maibastu Monstrosity and get 3MPG, I should be give a tax incentive to bring my gas prices DOWN so that I pay the same average as everyone else because at this point I am paying MORE than the median and more than mu fair share.
This is all, of course, lunacy.
If they really think that all road users should pay equally there is only one fair way of doing it:
A) drop the gas tax completely for everyone.
B) have a sliding scale as to the cost of yearly registration based on miles driven previously. More miles, more cost.
Now, I am not advocating that either, but to get the effect they want that is really the only fair way.
Had she been smart she would have let this go, played it up and then used to parlay herself into a gig as a phone company/cell service provider spokesperson. She missed a serious opportunity. I'm actually serious.
"This new Windows 7 phone is so great you forget everything else!"
"I'd rather fall in to a fountain than let go of my new Blackberry Torch. Now at AT&T!"
"With Verizon's superior network coverage, you won't be left 'all wet' like other providers!"
Mike, I have to take you to task for the opening lines -- You start out with:
"..website that freaks out and claims that ad blockers are "stealing" or somehow damaging websites. But it's quite a surprise to see a similar argument from a site like Ars Technica.."
..which implies that Ars is saying that. I read that article when it was posted and it goes out of it's way to say that it *doesn't* consider using ad-blockers as stealing they way you are insinuation it does. Whether or not it was your intention for the paragraph to be interpreted like is debatable, but it *is* being interpreted that way so you may do well to revise it.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by xunker.
My issue is not with his nostalgia, but with his perspective that his argument is unassailable because YOU ARE NOT A ROCK STAR.
Here is the translation:
* I am a person with property of X.
* You are a person who, for all intents and purposes, will never have property of X.
* My argument is based on X.
* Because you do not and cannot have X, your perspective of my argument is automatically invalid.
Get off my lawn, indeed.
I understand Stallman's position, but when he uses lines like:
"To modify them is to misrepresent the authors"
..I see it as sort of shorthand for saying "people are stupid." It's saying people don't know enough to go an check original, authoritative sources before making assumptions.
Now, to an extent he is right, people in general love not having to take responsibility and one of the best ways they do that is to accept written words at face value. Just look at Fox news(or HufPo for you Conservatives).
So I get what he's saying -- but my "problem" with it (because, of course, I have to have one) is he's attacking the _wrong_problem_, the symptom instead of the disease. The symptom is people taking things out of context and using them; the actual illness here is people who accept those words without question.
It's important to consider that, in all likelihood, this "license" was granted for no money. Chances are that Microsoft is the one who asked Quanta to take the "license" in exchange for a discount on other products or services. Microsoft would do this so they could publicize it and then try to legitimize the licensing scheme.
"that if a court rules (as they have been) that Righthaven didn't have the copyrights in question when it sued"
..Isn't this a simple case of fraud then? They are claiming rights they don't have and trying to assert those rights on a third party, kind of like giving parking tickets to people parked in a lot you don't own.
If they haven't been taked to task (and court) for Fraud, the need to be.
Re: Name of 3D Printing Machine is ?
Makerbot
So, I live in Utah, and the problems with this are obvious:
I used to commute to work on a motorbike and I would get 60MPG. Under this sort of standard I should be penalized to the point where my gas costs are the same as every else's because I am not paying my fair share.
By this standard, also, if I drive a gas-guzzling Maibastu Monstrosity and get 3MPG, I should be give a tax incentive to bring my gas prices DOWN so that I pay the same average as everyone else because at this point I am paying MORE than the median and more than mu fair share.
This is all, of course, lunacy.
If they really think that all road users should pay equally there is only one fair way of doing it:
A) drop the gas tax completely for everyone.
B) have a sliding scale as to the cost of yearly registration based on miles driven previously. More miles, more cost.
Now, I am not advocating that either, but to get the effect they want that is really the only fair way.
She's doing it wrong
Had she been smart she would have let this go, played it up and then used to parlay herself into a gig as a phone company/cell service provider spokesperson. She missed a serious opportunity. I'm actually serious.
"This new Windows 7 phone is so great you forget everything else!"
"I'd rather fall in to a fountain than let go of my new Blackberry Torch. Now at AT&T!"
"With Verizon's superior network coverage, you won't be left 'all wet' like other providers!"
BONUS ROUND:
"Yes. Angry Birds(TM) is REALLY THAT GOOD."
Mike, I have to take you to task for the opening lines -- You start out with:
"..website that freaks out and claims that ad blockers are "stealing" or somehow damaging websites. But it's quite a surprise to see a similar argument from a site like Ars Technica.."
..which implies that Ars is saying that. I read that article when it was posted and it goes out of it's way to say that it *doesn't* consider using ad-blockers as stealing they way you are insinuation it does. Whether or not it was your intention for the paragraph to be interpreted like is debatable, but it *is* being interpreted that way so you may do well to revise it.