From the director of "Troopers" (that star wars/ cops parody) "Like the end credits say: It is illegal to sell, purchase, or make any money off of this video whatsoever. It was made for our amusement and yours (and to showcase the under used talents of the participants) So don't even think about selling it! If you do I will hunt you down and kill you..."(emphasis mine) http://www.theforce.net/fanfilms/shortfilms/troops/director_index.aspI don't know about you, but I'd rather have two more of those over the three "masterpieces" that Lucas just crapped out.
http://www.antonwebern.com/ Sure, it's not the complete works, but there's a few for free (and who's to say, maybe when those copyrights run out, someone will do it for fun).
They Might Be Giants are no Boulez, but they are well respected in their filed, and they practically give their entire catalog away for free. (I bring them up because my favorite shirt of theirs says "Music self played is happiness self made.")
Also, I never said that the guy who makes the crosswords does it for free, he gets paid by the newspaper and I pay for the paper. Before sudoku became popular, I used to make them for fun. I also sculpt for fun. I'm not hugely talented, but I don't utterly suck (at least I don't think so). The stuff on YouTube sucks because there's so much of it. It's just too hard to find the good stuff through all the crap and just copyright infringed works on there. And you only have to wait as long as it takes you to do it. Get out there and have fun, make it yourself!
No, the correct answer is that neither of us have the moral right, and the only thing that would allow us to get away with the attempt is having enough people on our side.
What does the number of people on your side have to do with morals? The Nazi party was voted into power and had immoral policies - unless you contest that point too. But that is his point. Copyright is neither moral nor immoral. ShieldW0lf's point is that the current form of copyright is out of control. He was metaphorically trying to compare it to what white people did for centuries, go somewhere where people already were, shove your flag in the ground and call it yours. I like the metaphor, however it's like comparing copyright violation to car theft.
Even in the case of long out of copyright works from hundreds of years ago for string quartet (ie no conductors, minimal recording technology required), if the performances aren't to be protected then what's in it for the performers to go to the effort of recording it? You remind me of my grandfather. He's a brilliant man, but he's started slipping. Every morning during breakfast, I do the paper's crossword. And every morning, without fail, he will ask "How much do you get for completing that?" or "So you get $1000 for finishing, right?" No matter how many times I tell him I'm doing it just for fun, because, you know, I like to.
Did you even RTFSummary? I know this is/. where articles are never read (they have articles?) But seriously, Your post is like the 63rd post of someone not even having read the summary and done the slightest bit of cognitive activity. The ACLU is NOT trying to get rid of this service to catch criminals, they want there to be no database of innocent people. Is the ACLU trying to stop cops from running tags at all? NO! People's reaction to "ACLU" is alomst as irrational as to "GWB".
Is this another example of us basically having less and less privacy when we leave our homes? Yes? Are our movements being recorded more and more and is it getting annoying? Yes? But claim that the police recording license plates on the open highway is unconstitutional? Can't side with you. Basically your saying if we leave our home we should give up our right to privacy? Yes? Fuck no! It's our right! We want to keep it. You suggest complacently going along for no particular reason at all. It IS unconstitutional for police to keep track of innocent people forever.
Nintendo the most "innovative hardware" manufacturer? No, that award would go to Sega, or perhaps Sony.
Sega:
remember the Netlink?
The Nights controller?
The DC microphone
The DC web browser disk
The DC Ethenet gizmo
No, no, no, no, and no. Oh, these are Dream Cast things... (btw a web browser is software, even if it's on a disc)
Sony:
Dual analog, no not the dual shock I'm talking about the BIG dual analog flightstick
the dualshcok
the Yaroze?
The PS2 Linux kit?
USB and Firewire on the PS2
Linux on the PS3?
The eyetoy
Voice recognition in games that worked?
3) The Wii is exactly the same as everyone other Nintendo console but now it has a new controller. It's the Malibu Stacey with a new hat phenomenom. It's different enough to be "new" but not different enough to be scary.
3) The is exactly the same as everyone other console but now it has a new . It's the Malibu Stacey with a new hat phenomenom. It's different enough to be "new" but not different enough to be scary.
fixed that for you.
On a side note, what Nintendo system has NOT had a new controller?
Yeah, and a lot of people here use some no-name OS, Doors I think it's called? I dunno, anyway I asked once and they said it was made by some American company called macrosoft.
Adlof said it very well, but I have to add in that you've described a learned behavior. Maybe that kitten's mother hated dogs and passed it on. Maybe there was something else or similar. For ever cat that reacts the way you described, there are plenty of cats that don't. Have you never seen a kitten and puppy/dog play together? I have (I know it's anticdotal, but no more so than the parent's)
Bologna. Children fear heights from a very early age. Depending on temperament, they also fear strangers, from a very early age. These are not learned fears. They are innate. There was a show here in Japan where they were comparing toddlers to monkeys and doing various tests. One of the tests was "fear of hieght" They set up two platforms and a transparent bridge between the two. They then placed the toddlers on one and their favorite toy on the other. Every single child got the toy. They then followed it up with the parent standing behind the far post. They had half the parents smiled and clap when the kid reached the bridge and the child crawled on to their parent. The other half frowned and made worried faces and the kids stopped and wouldn't continue on despite being called by their parents. Fear of heights is learned. Every fear is learned from infancy on. "Innate" fears, I'm sorry, do not exist.
Huh? The record company isn't allowed to set pricing according to the law of supply and demand? Everybody else does it; you even do it when negotiating your salary.
The problem with that is they've obviously outpriced the demand (hence the rise in piracy). Instead of adjusting the price, they bitch and moan and sue sue sue.
Who said the artists he purchased signed with a label? Or even a label that demands the copyright in the contract? So in the end NONE of your argument is valid
This is old and you might not see it but I have some responses to your things
Blockbuster Video - never really the only source even in the 80's mom and pop stores abounded. The prices were mainly due to the outrageous prices that the MPAA charged for tapes.
Wendy's - Your first sentence seems that you think having mad-cow burgers would be a good thing. I would also like to call into question your definition of high quality. Wedny's, like all other fastfood places, make up the loses in other areas.
Target - now retail, how is this related to telecoms? It's a single place in a single location, now if there was a target or retail booth in everyhouse or a larger portion of houses, it might have ANY baring on the topic...
This post is not flamebait nor troll. It's called a debate. Let's debate it and have a discussion not a "The RIAA sucks" party. This person is not very correct, but let's use it as a chance to educate, not obliviate.
RalphSpoilsport kind of went overboard by calling it illegal, but not by far. The ability to declair war is left with Congress (Article 1 Section 8). I'd now like to reference this article http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/ira q.us/.
That article's headline is "WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions." Bush's actions were limited by that qualifier. Hussein was complying and had given up the WMD as required by the UN resolutions (primarily resolution 687 see:http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news /iraq/un/index.html). So far 500 munitions of degraded sarin has been found (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Natio n/archive/200606/NAT20060621e.html)(Personal, this doesn't seem like a stock pile). So technically, the war is illegal as it fails the qualifier that congress stipulated.
Wow, a lot of anger and resentment for a place that you don't seem to know much about. I have to agree with biggerboy, have you ever even been there? You obviously are just biggoted and haven't actually researched anything. Here, I'll do it for you.
First, we must define the "south". Not everyone here is American. Most people, when they hear "south" tend to think opposite of north. The "south" is generally the states that succeeded during the American Civil War (Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Kentuky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, Arkansas). Those states would be east of Texas (inclusive) and south of Viginia (inclusive). Now, let's look at this map of the election results of 2004. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2004_US_electio ns_purple_counties.png
Texas is the only state that falls in the "south" That has a very solid red (Republican) block. Alabama isn't the most purple of states either, but it's nothing compared to Utah or those middle states that aren't part of the "south".
Are you surprised, troll? The problem comes into the fact that, even though it's quite purple, the majority barely went to Republican canidates. The way the presidential election is done is that each state gets a number of electorial college votes based on population. As the system is now, those electorial college people just throw them with whoever gets the most votes from that state; winner takes all. If you want to get a more representative government and vote, that system should be amended. I've always been in favor of giving the electorial votes out by percentage rather than getting rid of it completely. That way, the states maintain their electorial college rights, but you also reduce voter alienation.
Is there a click-through notice of this, put in a place where every Itunes customer will see it? Usually, it's called the "Terms of Agreement", and most people only click through it (I usually do). Out of curiosity, I went and read the iTunes user agreement (http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/service.html). In the agreement, never once does it directly say that they're going to put your personal information in the file. However, section 9.e says:
Apple has the right, but not the obligation, to monitor any information and materials submitted or posted by you or otherwise available on the Service, to investigate any reported or apparent violation of this Agreement, and to take any action that Apple in its sole discretion deems appropriate, including, without limitation, under Section 14 below or under our Copyright Policy (http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/claimsofcopy right.html). Following the link the first point is "an electronic or physical signature of the person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the copyright interest;"
Personally, I think this is much ado about nothing. It's people that want to complain about Apple and they'll take any little thing they can and blow it out of proportion. Why are they wasting their breath on this when there' more important things, like killing DRM in the video files?
If an alien race is at all advanced, they would realize how retarded it is to worship "nature". If you believe that you are natural then anything you do is also natural by definition. If you believe you're supernatural, then you'd better commit suicide if you love "nature" so much. How did this AC get modded interesting? It's not interesting, it's just flawed. It's flawed beyod the point of ridiculousness. This AC might as well be calling dogs (things with four legs) tables (another thing with four legs).
How is it retarded to respect nature (only the AC said "worship")? We need nature to live.
If you believe that you are natural then anything you do is also natural by definition - This has to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on slashdot. What definition? Who's definition? I believe I'm natural. When I take a shit, that's nature. If I beat a rock into a pointy shape, that rock is no longer natural. Is it wrong to beat the rock into a pointy shape? Well, I don't think so, but that's what we need to decide.
If you believe you're supernatural, then you'd better commit suicide if you love "nature" so much. - Probably the second most retarted sentence ever. If you believe you're supernatural you're probably going to die pretty soon. No matter what you believe your body still needs some sort of intake. The Borg might be all advanced, but they're still half living organisms, they still have to eat and shit.
My logic is far from perfect, but it's a far cry better than that inane crap that AC typed out.
Because you said, "Star Wars" it made me think of this: which were the good Star Wars, A New Hope (crappy graphics) et al or Phantom Menace (only graphics) et al?
Slashdot Mirror
From the director of "Troopers" (that star wars/ cops parody) "Like the end credits say: It is illegal to sell, purchase, or make any money off of this video whatsoever. It was made for our amusement and yours (and to showcase the under used talents of the participants) So don't even think about selling it! If you do I will hunt you down and kill you..."(emphasis mine) http://www.theforce.net/fanfilms/shortfilms/troops/director_index.aspI don't know about you, but I'd rather have two more of those over the three "masterpieces" that Lucas just crapped out.
http://www.antonwebern.com/ Sure, it's not the complete works, but there's a few for free (and who's to say, maybe when those copyrights run out, someone will do it for fun).
They Might Be Giants are no Boulez, but they are well respected in their filed, and they practically give their entire catalog away for free. (I bring them up because my favorite shirt of theirs says "Music self played is happiness self made.")
Also, I never said that the guy who makes the crosswords does it for free, he gets paid by the newspaper and I pay for the paper. Before sudoku became popular, I used to make them for fun. I also sculpt for fun. I'm not hugely talented, but I don't utterly suck (at least I don't think so). The stuff on YouTube sucks because there's so much of it. It's just too hard to find the good stuff through all the crap and just copyright infringed works on there. And you only have to wait as long as it takes you to do it. Get out there and have fun, make it yourself!
What does the number of people on your side have to do with morals? The Nazi party was voted into power and had immoral policies - unless you contest that point too. But that is his point. Copyright is neither moral nor immoral. ShieldW0lf's point is that the current form of copyright is out of control. He was metaphorically trying to compare it to what white people did for centuries, go somewhere where people already were, shove your flag in the ground and call it yours. I like the metaphor, however it's like comparing copyright violation to car theft.
Even in the case of long out of copyright works from hundreds of years ago for string quartet (ie no conductors, minimal recording technology required), if the performances aren't to be protected then what's in it for the performers to go to the effort of recording it? You remind me of my grandfather. He's a brilliant man, but he's started slipping. Every morning during breakfast, I do the paper's crossword. And every morning, without fail, he will ask "How much do you get for completing that?" or "So you get $1000 for finishing, right?" No matter how many times I tell him I'm doing it just for fun, because, you know, I like to.
Not after the PARTIOT Act...
Stop lying, this is slashdot! You don't have a wife!
As I was reading your post I got a text from AT&T saying that they are "simplifying [my] paper bill, removing itemized detail".
Basically your saying if we leave our home we should give up our right to privacy? Yes? Fuck no! It's our right! We want to keep it. You suggest complacently going along for no particular reason at all. It IS unconstitutional for police to keep track of innocent people forever.
Sega:
remember the Netlink?
The Nights controller?
The DC microphone
The DC web browser disk
The DC Ethenet gizmo
No, no, no, no, and no. Oh, these are Dream Cast things... (btw a web browser is software, even if it's on a disc) Sony:
Dual analog, no not the dual shock I'm talking about the BIG dual analog flightstick
the dualshcok
the Yaroze?
The PS2 Linux kit?
USB and Firewire on the PS2
Linux on the PS3?
The eyetoy
Voice recognition in games that worked?
Half of your Sony list is software, not hardware.
fixed that for you.
On a side note, what Nintendo system has NOT had a new controller?
Yeah, and a lot of people here use some no-name OS, Doors I think it's called? I dunno, anyway I asked once and they said it was made by some American company called macrosoft.
Adlof said it very well, but I have to add in that you've described a learned behavior. Maybe that kitten's mother hated dogs and passed it on. Maybe there was something else or similar. For ever cat that reacts the way you described, there are plenty of cats that don't. Have you never seen a kitten and puppy/dog play together? I have (I know it's anticdotal, but no more so than the parent's)
Huh? The record company isn't allowed to set pricing according to the law of supply and demand? Everybody else does it; you even do it when negotiating your salary.
The problem with that is they've obviously outpriced the demand (hence the rise in piracy). Instead of adjusting the price, they bitch and moan and sue sue sue.Hey, just be happy hes using them. most of us americans cant be bothered to type them at all
Yeah, we should flip a coin; heads we get to shoot, tails it's litigation time!
Who said the artists he purchased signed with a label? Or even a label that demands the copyright in the contract? So in the end NONE of your argument is valid
Blockbuster Video - never really the only source even in the 80's mom and pop stores abounded. The prices were mainly due to the outrageous prices that the MPAA charged for tapes.
Wendy's - Your first sentence seems that you think having mad-cow burgers would be a good thing. I would also like to call into question your definition of high quality. Wedny's, like all other fastfood places, make up the loses in other areas.
Target - now retail, how is this related to telecoms? It's a single place in a single location, now if there was a target or retail booth in everyhouse or a larger portion of houses, it might have ANY baring on the topic...
This post is not flamebait nor troll. It's called a debate. Let's debate it and have a discussion not a "The RIAA sucks" party. This person is not very correct, but let's use it as a chance to educate, not obliviate.
Can you write me a program that will tell the difference between a person's name (ie Tom Waits) and a band name that's two words (ie Pink Flyod)?
Errr... yeah :p didn't catch that. Also Kentucky didn't seced.
That article's headline is "WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions." Bush's actions were limited by that qualifier. Hussein was complying and had given up the WMD as required by the UN resolutions (primarily resolution 687 see:http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news /iraq/un/index.html). So far 500 munitions of degraded sarin has been found (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Natio n/archive/200606/NAT20060621e.html)(Personal, this doesn't seem like a stock pile). So technically, the war is illegal as it fails the qualifier that congress stipulated.
Most people feel that Congress wouldn't even have passed that resolution had Bush et al not been fabricating the intelegence (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3 87374.ece)
First, we must define the "south". Not everyone here is American. Most people, when they hear "south" tend to think opposite of north. The "south" is generally the states that succeeded during the American Civil War (Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Kentuky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, Arkansas). Those states would be east of Texas (inclusive) and south of Viginia (inclusive). Now, let's look at this map of the election results of 2004. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2004_US_electio ns_purple_counties.png
Texas is the only state that falls in the "south" That has a very solid red (Republican) block. Alabama isn't the most purple of states either, but it's nothing compared to Utah or those middle states that aren't part of the "south".
Are you surprised, troll? The problem comes into the fact that, even though it's quite purple, the majority barely went to Republican canidates. The way the presidential election is done is that each state gets a number of electorial college votes based on population. As the system is now, those electorial college people just throw them with whoever gets the most votes from that state; winner takes all. If you want to get a more representative government and vote, that system should be amended. I've always been in favor of giving the electorial votes out by percentage rather than getting rid of it completely. That way, the states maintain their electorial college rights, but you also reduce voter alienation.
Personally, I think this is much ado about nothing. It's people that want to complain about Apple and they'll take any little thing they can and blow it out of proportion. Why are they wasting their breath on this when there' more important things, like killing DRM in the video files?
If you believe that you are natural then anything you do is also natural by definition - This has to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on slashdot. What definition? Who's definition? I believe I'm natural. When I take a shit, that's nature. If I beat a rock into a pointy shape, that rock is no longer natural. Is it wrong to beat the rock into a pointy shape? Well, I don't think so, but that's what we need to decide.
If you believe you're supernatural, then you'd better commit suicide if you love "nature" so much. - Probably the second most retarted sentence ever. If you believe you're supernatural you're probably going to die pretty soon. No matter what you believe your body still needs some sort of intake. The Borg might be all advanced, but they're still half living organisms, they still have to eat and shit.My logic is far from perfect, but it's a far cry better than that inane crap that AC typed out.
Because you said, "Star Wars" it made me think of this: which were the good Star Wars, A New Hope (crappy graphics) et al or Phantom Menace (only graphics) et al?
Sweet a Jar jar spin-off series!