No, the goal of copyright, at least in the English speaking part of the world, was, to quote the long title of the first modern copyright act,
An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned.
This is also reflected in the American Constitution, where the Arts & Sciences at the time meant education. The lengths of copyright was also much shorter, but long enough for creators to recoup their time. Meanwhile, right from the beginning, the Stationers or Publishers, were pushing for infinite copyright, claiming it was for the artists that they paid a pittance to for rights. They fought in the courts when the first copyrights ended and the courts ruled that copyright is not a common law right, so they bribed the legislatures to steal from the public domain. Most all that massive amount of copyrighted material that you mention is supposed to be in the public domain to advance learning and 14-28 years is plenty enough time for the artists and publishers to make their money.
Again, not relevant since CO2 is not pollution and the argument against CO2 is a totally different one than against real pollution. Nature loves and uses CO2 (do you even know how plants live???)
Do you feel the same way about shit, I mean fertilizer? Nature loves and uses shit (do you even know how plants live???) Probably was repeated back when the germ theory of disease was advanced and scientists wanted to spend money on wells far away from the cesspools. Surprised people still aren't bitching that the germ theory is not settled science as science always means being skeptical and not spending money on stupid stuff like keeping drinking water separate from healthy plant fertilizer.
If you're going to read Atlas Shrugged, you should also read a counter-point such as "The Grapes of Wrath", especially as it shows what actually happens with automation (tractors), capitalism and human nature.
Practically old extensions are already obliterated piecemeal by changes in Gecko. Older javascript language constructs get removed and old apis too. With 2.49 and then again with 2.50 a lot of them will break.
As far as i see it web extensions don't cut it yet and probably never will. They are also still a moving target and even gecko is slowly becoming a construction site with Servo and Quantum.
But SeaMonkey has imho not enough developers to retain the stuff. Porting web extensions need to be done in the future and even this will not be easy.
I would say enjoy it while it lasts and we will see what comes of it.
I've seen quite a few similar postings. Basically SeaMonkey (and Thunderbird) just don't have enough developers to do a lot of stuff including getting out regular releases, little well forking Gecko.
While people living in poverty have it easier then the States, there's still a certain amount of prejudice in the system. Poor people are less likely to have a family doctor, so reduced to hanging out at clinics to be seen by a Doctor who is likely to treat them worse as they're poor. Pharmaceuticals, while cheap by American standards, are expensive by first world standards and not likely to be covered by pharmacare etc unless person is disabled. The government doesn't cover things like dentists, optometrists so the poor are likely to have bad teeth and old glasses. On the other hand, middle class people are likely to have more covered in their benefits from work and the rich pay the same $70 a month as the person making $50k. Here in BC, $50k is basically poverty wage due to the expense of housing. There is a lot of variety between the Provinces as they're in charge of medical with the Federal government setting minimum standards and I've only experienced healthcare in BC.
The other question is "how does the *AA feel about libraries". My wife borrows a dozen or so DVDs every week or so, which doesn't seem much different then piracy. Library buys one copy and it gets shared, heavily in the case of new releases. I have the feeling that libraries wouldn't exist if the *AA had their way and we're lucky that they didn't have any power a hundred years ago. Publishers and the parent posters brother probably hate me for borrowing books as well.
Well if you think that the BC Liberal Party is left of center, it really makes me wonder what you consider right wing. To quote from the BC Liberals web site, https://www.bcliberals.com/
Who We Are
As BC Liberals, we’re proud of our diversity – and united by the free enterprise values shared by the majority of British Columbians. We’re focused on making BC even stronger, more prosperous, and more sustainable.
which given the traditional left, for the workers or regular people, right for the factory owners or rich, seems weird. The problem is that it is very hard to simplify things down to a 2 dimensional line when it comes to politics or actually human nature.
So basically the future is one where the banks and telecommunication companies skim all our money. I'm in Canada, the banks are expensive to deal with, as much of their income comes from user fees that are forever increasing. They also don't like giving out accounts to the poor. The telecoms are horribly expensive, especially for data, from $1 for 20MBs a day to $30 a GB (text messages are $0.15) are the prices that I see for a pay as you go costumer, and not much better with monthly billing. Similar to the banks, the cell companies raise their prices regularly and in lockstep. Then there is the matter of reception, fine if you live in town but I'm 70 kms out of the 3rd largest city in Canada and don't have reception. Most of Canada is much more rural. America isn't much different, cheaper cell, lots of rural areas, banks that don't like dealing with poor people and a population that won't even give up their penny that has no buying power.
You seem to be arguing that the tyranny of the minority is superiour to the minority of the majority, which I guess depends on whether you're in the majority or minority. Unluckily a few of your arguments are flawed. The BC Liberal Party, who have no relationship with the federal Liberal party and are actually a center to right wing party, gets much of its support from the rural population, whose individual votes are worth more then the urban voters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Overall in Canada, the electorate has been willing to throw out both sides, the PCs went from the biggest majority in history to 3 seats and the Liberals also got devastated after abusing their power. As well in Canada, 3rd parties can gain traction. Look at the Reform Party, a mostly rural party that eventually joined with what was left of the PCs and formed the Federal government for a decade. The main thing is to be able to change government at least once a decade as all governments seem to get complacent and corrupt after about 8-10 years of governing, a problem here in BC where government has been in power for way to long. Another problem with our Parliamentary system is the lack of checks on a majority government. This has worsened with the concentration of power in the PMO, which perhaps really started with Trudeau the elder and was taken to eleven by Harper. At one time the various Ministries actually had some autonomy. You're perfectly right about the costs of living in the biggest cities.
Are you questioning the credibility of our glorious everlasting Russian Allies who stood with us against the evil Germans and since have remained our best friends? Off to the reeducation camps for you.
Are you actually calling committing industrial espionage against allies protecting them? Anyways it looks like the Russians have made a great comeback in the cold war and now have their puppet in the Presidency along with the pro-Russian party in the other branches. I guess it's OK with you as long as it's the authoritarian Fascists instead of the authoritarian Commies. Me, I plain old don't like authoritarians and my freedom has been threatened more by the right, who would gladly throw me in jail for a joint, which has, in my life, been personified by the USA and their democracy of giving a choice between Pepsi and Coke, or, this crook or the other crook. As for Snowden, I'm not aware of any amendments to the US Constitution that override the 1st, which didn't come with any exceptions for Congress to pass laws to illegalize speech, not even for national security and being an amendment, overrides earlier parts of the Constitution.
WTF? Where are you getting this bullshit, unless you consider Trump, LePen as well as the nationalist Parti Quebecois (who are a coalition of right and left) as extreme left wing. Everything points to Alexandre Bissonnette being an extreme right winger, along with most of Canada's recent shooters such as Justin Bourque. You can do what I did and Google "politics of Quebec shooter" and read the results. Here's a couple, though you'll probably call them fake news. http://www.theglobeandmail.com... http://www.macleans.ca/news/ca...
One problem is that Saudi Arabian, Egyptian, etc citizens who are in Syria, Iraq etc fighting with ISIS are still free to enter the USA. Considering that based on prior performance, those are the countries that are most likely to do a terrorist attack on the US, it seems counter productive to ban already vetted people such as Syrian Christians in favour of groups that are radicalized (if they're fighting with ISIS, they're radicalized). Suspending issuing visas for that whole part of the world would seem a better move. At least it wouldn't fuck up green card holders and other residents, some of who are about to take their citizenship.
Basing the list on citizenship rather then residence seems poorly thought out. You have green card holders and other legitimate visa holders, who have been extremely vetted, some of whom are ready to become American citizens stopped at the border after going to a conference out of country vs Saudi Arabian citizens who have joined ISIS, been fighting in Syria etc for the last decade allowed in.
He hasn't been following through on his campaign promise to stop terrorists from coming in. Instead he has picked a list of countries that would be easiest to sell as doing something while continuing to let those most likely, based on prior performance, to be terrorists. If he was serious about terrorists, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan would be close to the top of the list and if this was about H1Bs, countries such as India would be on the list. He has done a good job of alienating some of his base such as the Christian Syrian community with his ill thought out travel ban.
Don't forget about the ones at the Mosque in Quebec. Lots of white terrorists around and they're becoming more bolder with the current political climate. Of course this ban isn't meant to keep out terrorists as no countries that traditionally produce terrorists are on the list, its meant to create terrorists and doing a good job.
Language has changed since the 18th century. Democracy includes representative democracy where the people vote in representatives to run things and republic just means the opposite of monarchy. Democracies include representative republics such as the USA and representative monarchies such as the UK or the Netherlands. Republics range from countries where the citizens have a say in the makeup of their governments through elections to countries where there is little difference from an absolute monarchy such as N. Korea. Presently, stating that your country is a republic rather then a democracy leads to wondering if you are talking about an authoritarian dictatorship which might have sham elections whereas stating that your country is a democracy implies that the people ultimately decide on the government through an election process.
Yes, if you follow the referenced link, it's an American study. Their numbers are probably fine (9% of healthcare spending basically) but it leaves open the question whether tobacco taxes cover the public cost of tobacco related diseases and ignores the fact that other countries have higher taxes on tobacco.
Depends on how you define taxes. Some define all taxes as theft, which is a crime, and others could define the local warlord as government needing to raise revenue. The point stands that going to Somalia is likely to cost, much as living in civilization costs.
Yes, it's a complex problem where it is really hard to say what the various costs are. BarbraHudson referenced one study that says one thing, down the page I saw other studies that say another thing. One thing for sure is that at some point the increasing tobacco taxes will bring in more money then the healthcare costs of smoking.
Interesting, but seems American biased, a country with high healthcare costs and low tobacco taxes. Down the page there are a few references to studies done with the NHS which show the opposite. Probably need a meta-study to compare the different studies and take in different health systems.
Aren't you Canadian, and aren't we talking about Australia? Anyways, using my parents again, my Dad died at 66 after retiring at 64 (job got outsourced to America), my Mom collects $2000 a month in pensions, which all go to her care, basically a wealth transfer from the federal government to the provincial one, so 15 extra years of collecting pensions.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the goal of copyright, at least in the English speaking part of the world, was, to quote the long title of the first modern copyright act,
This is also reflected in the American Constitution, where the Arts & Sciences at the time meant education.
The lengths of copyright was also much shorter, but long enough for creators to recoup their time.
Meanwhile, right from the beginning, the Stationers or Publishers, were pushing for infinite copyright, claiming it was for the artists that they paid a pittance to for rights. They fought in the courts when the first copyrights ended and the courts ruled that copyright is not a common law right, so they bribed the legislatures to steal from the public domain.
Most all that massive amount of copyrighted material that you mention is supposed to be in the public domain to advance learning and 14-28 years is plenty enough time for the artists and publishers to make their money.
I think it just goes into general revenue here in BC, and then they use the money to bribe the voters for votes
Again, not relevant since CO2 is not pollution and the argument against CO2 is a totally different one than against real pollution. Nature loves and uses CO2 (do you even know how plants live???)
Do you feel the same way about shit, I mean fertilizer? Nature loves and uses shit (do you even know how plants live???)
Probably was repeated back when the germ theory of disease was advanced and scientists wanted to spend money on wells far away from the cesspools. Surprised people still aren't bitching that the germ theory is not settled science as science always means being skeptical and not spending money on stupid stuff like keeping drinking water separate from healthy plant fertilizer.
Glad to hear it though I'd guess that you actually mean it was required reading in your State.
If you're going to read Atlas Shrugged, you should also read a counter-point such as "The Grapes of Wrath", especially as it shows what actually happens with automation (tractors), capitalism and human nature.
To quote someone on mozilla.dev.apps.seamonkey
I've seen quite a few similar postings. Basically SeaMonkey (and Thunderbird) just don't have enough developers to do a lot of stuff including getting out regular releases, little well forking Gecko.
My phones (Moto E) stock FM radio app also has a switch in the preferences whether audio uses the headphones or not.
While people living in poverty have it easier then the States, there's still a certain amount of prejudice in the system. Poor people are less likely to have a family doctor, so reduced to hanging out at clinics to be seen by a Doctor who is likely to treat them worse as they're poor. Pharmaceuticals, while cheap by American standards, are expensive by first world standards and not likely to be covered by pharmacare etc unless person is disabled. The government doesn't cover things like dentists, optometrists so the poor are likely to have bad teeth and old glasses.
On the other hand, middle class people are likely to have more covered in their benefits from work and the rich pay the same $70 a month as the person making $50k. Here in BC, $50k is basically poverty wage due to the expense of housing.
There is a lot of variety between the Provinces as they're in charge of medical with the Federal government setting minimum standards and I've only experienced healthcare in BC.
The other question is "how does the *AA feel about libraries". My wife borrows a dozen or so DVDs every week or so, which doesn't seem much different then piracy. Library buys one copy and it gets shared, heavily in the case of new releases. I have the feeling that libraries wouldn't exist if the *AA had their way and we're lucky that they didn't have any power a hundred years ago.
Publishers and the parent posters brother probably hate me for borrowing books as well.
Well if you think that the BC Liberal Party is left of center, it really makes me wonder what you consider right wing. To quote from the BC Liberals web site, https://www.bcliberals.com/
which given the traditional left, for the workers or regular people, right for the factory owners or rich, seems weird. The problem is that it is very hard to simplify things down to a 2 dimensional line when it comes to politics or actually human nature.
So basically the future is one where the banks and telecommunication companies skim all our money.
I'm in Canada, the banks are expensive to deal with, as much of their income comes from user fees that are forever increasing. They also don't like giving out accounts to the poor.
The telecoms are horribly expensive, especially for data, from $1 for 20MBs a day to $30 a GB (text messages are $0.15) are the prices that I see for a pay as you go costumer, and not much better with monthly billing. Similar to the banks, the cell companies raise their prices regularly and in lockstep.
Then there is the matter of reception, fine if you live in town but I'm 70 kms out of the 3rd largest city in Canada and don't have reception. Most of Canada is much more rural.
America isn't much different, cheaper cell, lots of rural areas, banks that don't like dealing with poor people and a population that won't even give up their penny that has no buying power.
You seem to be arguing that the tyranny of the minority is superiour to the minority of the majority, which I guess depends on whether you're in the majority or minority.
Unluckily a few of your arguments are flawed. The BC Liberal Party, who have no relationship with the federal Liberal party and are actually a center to right wing party, gets much of its support from the rural population, whose individual votes are worth more then the urban voters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Overall in Canada, the electorate has been willing to throw out both sides, the PCs went from the biggest majority in history to 3 seats and the Liberals also got devastated after abusing their power. As well in Canada, 3rd parties can gain traction. Look at the Reform Party, a mostly rural party that eventually joined with what was left of the PCs and formed the Federal government for a decade.
The main thing is to be able to change government at least once a decade as all governments seem to get complacent and corrupt after about 8-10 years of governing, a problem here in BC where government has been in power for way to long.
Another problem with our Parliamentary system is the lack of checks on a majority government. This has worsened with the concentration of power in the PMO, which perhaps really started with Trudeau the elder and was taken to eleven by Harper. At one time the various Ministries actually had some autonomy.
You're perfectly right about the costs of living in the biggest cities.
Are you questioning the credibility of our glorious everlasting Russian Allies who stood with us against the evil Germans and since have remained our best friends?
Off to the reeducation camps for you.
Are you actually calling committing industrial espionage against allies protecting them?
Anyways it looks like the Russians have made a great comeback in the cold war and now have their puppet in the Presidency along with the pro-Russian party in the other branches. I guess it's OK with you as long as it's the authoritarian Fascists instead of the authoritarian Commies.
Me, I plain old don't like authoritarians and my freedom has been threatened more by the right, who would gladly throw me in jail for a joint, which has, in my life, been personified by the USA and their democracy of giving a choice between Pepsi and Coke, or, this crook or the other crook.
As for Snowden, I'm not aware of any amendments to the US Constitution that override the 1st, which didn't come with any exceptions for Congress to pass laws to illegalize speech, not even for national security and being an amendment, overrides earlier parts of the Constitution.
WTF? Where are you getting this bullshit, unless you consider Trump, LePen as well as the nationalist Parti Quebecois (who are a coalition of right and left) as extreme left wing.
Everything points to Alexandre Bissonnette being an extreme right winger, along with most of Canada's recent shooters such as Justin Bourque.
You can do what I did and Google "politics of Quebec shooter" and read the results. Here's a couple, though you'll probably call them fake news.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com...
http://www.macleans.ca/news/ca...
One problem is that Saudi Arabian, Egyptian, etc citizens who are in Syria, Iraq etc fighting with ISIS are still free to enter the USA. Considering that based on prior performance, those are the countries that are most likely to do a terrorist attack on the US, it seems counter productive to ban already vetted people such as Syrian Christians in favour of groups that are radicalized (if they're fighting with ISIS, they're radicalized).
Suspending issuing visas for that whole part of the world would seem a better move. At least it wouldn't fuck up green card holders and other residents, some of who are about to take their citizenship.
Basing the list on citizenship rather then residence seems poorly thought out. You have green card holders and other legitimate visa holders, who have been extremely vetted, some of whom are ready to become American citizens stopped at the border after going to a conference out of country vs Saudi Arabian citizens who have joined ISIS, been fighting in Syria etc for the last decade allowed in.
He hasn't been following through on his campaign promise to stop terrorists from coming in. Instead he has picked a list of countries that would be easiest to sell as doing something while continuing to let those most likely, based on prior performance, to be terrorists.
If he was serious about terrorists, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan would be close to the top of the list and if this was about H1Bs, countries such as India would be on the list.
He has done a good job of alienating some of his base such as the Christian Syrian community with his ill thought out travel ban.
Don't forget about the ones at the Mosque in Quebec. Lots of white terrorists around and they're becoming more bolder with the current political climate. Of course this ban isn't meant to keep out terrorists as no countries that traditionally produce terrorists are on the list, its meant to create terrorists and doing a good job.
Language has changed since the 18th century. Democracy includes representative democracy where the people vote in representatives to run things and republic just means the opposite of monarchy.
Democracies include representative republics such as the USA and representative monarchies such as the UK or the Netherlands.
Republics range from countries where the citizens have a say in the makeup of their governments through elections to countries where there is little difference from an absolute monarchy such as N. Korea.
Presently, stating that your country is a republic rather then a democracy leads to wondering if you are talking about an authoritarian dictatorship which might have sham elections whereas stating that your country is a democracy implies that the people ultimately decide on the government through an election process.
Yes, if you follow the referenced link, it's an American study. Their numbers are probably fine (9% of healthcare spending basically) but it leaves open the question whether tobacco taxes cover the public cost of tobacco related diseases and ignores the fact that other countries have higher taxes on tobacco.
Depends on how you define taxes. Some define all taxes as theft, which is a crime, and others could define the local warlord as government needing to raise revenue. The point stands that going to Somalia is likely to cost, much as living in civilization costs.
Yes, it's a complex problem where it is really hard to say what the various costs are. BarbraHudson referenced one study that says one thing, down the page I saw other studies that say another thing.
One thing for sure is that at some point the increasing tobacco taxes will bring in more money then the healthcare costs of smoking.
Interesting, but seems American biased, a country with high healthcare costs and low tobacco taxes.
Down the page there are a few references to studies done with the NHS which show the opposite. Probably need a meta-study to compare the different studies and take in different health systems.
Aren't you Canadian, and aren't we talking about Australia? Anyways, using my parents again, my Dad died at 66 after retiring at 64 (job got outsourced to America), my Mom collects $2000 a month in pensions, which all go to her care, basically a wealth transfer from the federal government to the provincial one, so 15 extra years of collecting pensions.