Profile for cocodude

Contact	About me
Email: marc@indivisibilities.com ICQ: AOL: Yahoo:	Username: cocodude Realname: Marc Warne About me: Homepage: http://www.alpha-programming.co.uk/ Face/Logo: Comments posted: 20 (show all)

Recent comments

On Top RISC OS-aware school seeks new staff:

I can vouch for this school - it is a fantastic place to work, and all the teachers and pupils are very friendly! I worked there a couple of years ago as an IT technician over a summer between university years, and thoroughly enjoyed my experience there. It was just a shame that the university summer holidays weren't long enough! Cocodude cocodude on 31/1/07 7:26PM [ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On No plans to change USB 1.1 in A9home:

sa110: Regarding DVI to analogue dongles, it depends on the monitor you are using. If you are using one with a DVI-I (Integrated) digital input, a dongle will work. If it's DVI-D, it will only accept digital signals. The DVI pins actually have support for both analogue and digital signals, but if the monitor only listens to the digital ones, the dongle will not work because all it does is put the analogue VGA lines onto the analogue DVI lines. cocodude on 6/7/05 11:54AM [ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On Cocognut freely available finally:

arenaman: I don't believe they've stolen the design, but copied it. The mere act of "taking intellectual property" doesn't make sense to me. The main definition of take at [link] seems to primarily be "To get into one's possession by force, skill, or artifice" which I don't think really is the case here. I have never said that copying copyrighted content without permission is correct. My theory doesn't state that somebody could copy the latest ARM core design and use it. Your argument here is invalid because I never said such a thing. I also never said that intangible things can never be products. I am merely saying that I believe it would be copying as opposed to stealing where intangible products are concerned. Regarding my P2P software, yes, it was previously commercial. Of course I would have objections if there were 'cracked copies'* about. Once again, I have *never* said that the fact it wouldn't be stealing makes it right. I wouldn't be majorly annoyed if, for instance, someone who was broke, or otherwise couldn't afford it (due to sensible reasons), ended up with a copied version of it. <em>I think you know precisely what I meant.</em> We are on a public forum, so I believe you should make it much clearer as to what you were referring to. I disputed your point previously and you defended your original statement, so it really wasn't clear as to what you were referring to. I think we should stop this discussion on whether it is stealing or not. We both obviously have some decent arguments and should let others make up their minds. There is plenty of discussion on this topic on the web already. * - You can't 'crack' CocoGnut as there's no copy protection on it - I don't really believe much in copy protection as it seems to just treat legitimate purchasers as criminals. cocodude on 30/6/05 8:53AM [ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On Cocognut freely available finally:

arenaman: You're not *taking* something without permission, you're *copying* it. That's where the difference is. If I look at a piece of paper that you've drawn something on and take a photo of it, I haven't stolen your drawing. I've copied it without your permission. Of course taking something without permission is stealing - noone's arguing against that fact. I'm not saying it's right to copy music or software without permission. I just feel it's the music/movie industry's propaganda that tries to call these activities stealing. It's worth noting that a downloaded copy of something doesn't equal a lost sale. Would someone who has hundreds of films/songs on his computer really have bought all of them? I know my purchases of music had previously increased significantly bceause of me downloading a couple of songs and liking them so much I bought the album. I don't buy nor download much mainstream music nowadays because I disagree with the RIAA's actions. P2P networks were around long before they were used for the illegal distribution of copyright material. Please check your facts before making sweeping statements. I would count a network such as Fidonet as being P2P and that was long before the Internet as we know it. I urge everybody to read arguments on both sides of the P2P debate, both from the advocates and those who think it's wrong. There are good arguments from both sides and everyone should make up their own mind. I stand firmly on the pro-P2P side after reading what *both* sides have to say. Being pro-P2P doesn't mean advocating copyright infringement. cocodude on 29/6/05 10:13PM [ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On Cocognut freely available finally:

Revin Kevin: Not quite. Unless the photocoper manufacturer says, "Use this to copy books to your heart's content -- never pay for a book again!". It seems to be the advocacy of copyright infringement (possibly the lack of things stopping you infringing too, but this isn't made clear) that comes under this ruling. cocodude on 28/6/05 3:28PM [ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Search the archives

Today's featured article

RISC OS in schools today
RISC OS powered special school recognised
 45 comments, latest by harmsy on 21/02/05 4:58PM. Published: 12 Feb 2005

Random article

RISCOS Ltd.'s Paul Middleton defends Select Scheme

 15 comments, latest by on 24/8/01 11:38AM. Published: 22 May 2001

Useful links