Sure you will make a difference. The worse you make the job, the kigher paid they will have to be. The higher paid they are, the less companies can afford of them.
It's simple supply and demand. Make the job really unwanted, and there will be less people doing it for more money.
Logically, the best thing to do is to lead them on, then after they catch on tell them you were, in fact, wasting their time and they're horrible people and you hope they die.
Making the company pay them for wasting time is a the best thing you can do, annoying them is of secondary importance.
This costs the company a lot of money, and makes someone who's doing a job that results in bothering hundreds of people slightly less happy about it.
Warning: Really evil plan
If you're really evil, you can delibrately make them upset with you, then complain to their supervisor and try to get them fired. If you got them to swear, you've got them fired.;)
How about a law that requires the post office to stop delivering direct marketing if you ask?
Wait, we already have have that. Well, I bet you feel stupid now. Go down the post office tomorrow morning and opt-out. Once you continue getting direct mail, then you can complain.
People keep saying all the characters are dead, but neither Zaphod, Fenchurch, nor the Guide Mark II are dead. And while Marvin is technically dead, we know he's still hanging around quite a few places waiting to loop backwards in time yet again.
You're a little dense, aren't you? No one's 'signing their soul away', they're trying to stop their works, which haven't been considered wore for hires, from being spontaniously reclassifed as word for hire.
And I don't know why you keep saying I did this, except to try to make this a personal attack on me. I don't have any record company contracts at all.
Erm, are you actually reading what he said, or just making up what you're replying to?
He didn't mention the word 'creative' in the post you replied to and he made no claim that music is somehow special. His only mention of the word at all is in his first post, where he call on creative people to band with him. It's not some sort of 'I'm an artist and thus I'm special' arguement that you are making it out to be.
He pointed out the financial reality that the artist pays for the work, the artist decides on the work is, they don't get any money if the work flops, etc, none of which are true in any other industry's 'work for hire'.
If that was how programmers worked, your company would loan you money to buy time at Kinkos you can program during, you would write whatever program you yourself wanted, then your company would sell it for you, and get you a percentage of it, after you've paid off all the money you own them. If it doesn't make any money, you don't get any money. No matter how fair you may think that is, it clearly doesn't have anything to do with the current 'work for hire' situtation in programming, where the company supplies your work enviroment, you do what it says, and you get paid the same regardless of how well the product does.
Of course it does. If a hundred people tell me that their parents witnessed a grand event--like, oh, the assassination of John F. Kennedy--that's evidence that the event happened.
Yes, but that's not relevant. There's a few different records of a creation story, in different cultures. That isn't the same as having eyewitnesses. They don't propose to be the same event, they have different versions of the story, etc. Eyewitness accounts only work when it's the same event.
If, instead of hundreds of people watching the JFK assassination (ignoring all videos and whatnot), we had six newspapers, at random times in the US's history, publishing 'President assassinated', all at different times, with different dead presidents and different stories about how/why/where, we could rightfully conclude they were insane.
As a side note, if you're going to start believing stories, a much more documented one is the myths of the greek gods. We have all sort of evidence of them, including some proported first person tales.
Whereas, by defination, no one has a first party recounting of the creation of the world, as they weren't around there. The creation story in the bible isn't even attributed to any certain writer at all.
Re:Not based on faith, rather on *trust* and doubt
on
God's Debris
·
· Score: 1
You do realize that there are records of 'multiple personality disorder', aka, disassociative disorder, around long before psychology was invented, right?
They were just called 'demon possessed'.
You can take issue with the treatment if you want, but psychology didn't invent the symtoms.
The evidence is that so many normally seperate cultures have a creation myth where a great and powerful being creates the world. There are also a number of historical beings preaching very similar messages ("this world is not all that there is." "Be cool." "You will be judged after this life.")
That's simply evidence that a creation story is one of the oldest stories in existence, or evidence that all human cultures come up with a creation story. It doesn't have any bearing at all on whether or not said story is actually true.
In other words, it's useful in a psychological and historical fact, in that in history you can use the different creation stories to trace the roots of people and in psychology to attempt to show that, in all cultures, people will attempt to explain their world by using similiar metaphors. But it doesn't prove anything about the creation of the world.
(As a side note, it wouldn't prove anything about the creation of the universe anyway, as even if a story would be true, it, by defination, has to be second hand information, as no creation story claims people were around during creation, and thus the 'gods' could be lying to them. And provably are, given the conflicting versions 'they' are telling.)
Re:A crutch for the weak-minded?
on
God's Debris
·
· Score: 1
I always though the reason he invoked God is to have God as the one rolling the dice in quantum theory, and thus disprove it by making it rely on an external power. In other words, he doesn't believe God exists, and he believes quantum theory needs God to function, to supply 'randomness'.
That's just how I've always read it, at least.
Re:Not based on faith, rather on *trust* and doubt
on
God's Debris
·
· Score: 1
The truth is, for physical and reproducable phenomina I give Scientists a lot of credit and trust. But for history and human nature, I find that they're often lacking.
Religion has not come up with silly ideas such as, oh, Multiple Personality Disorder. (Exorcisms, which seem to be just as bad, actually can have a profound psycological effect on someone who believes in the ceremony and that they are poesssed.)
Of course, that's only true if you call psychology a 'science'.
And, of course, 'multiple personality disorder', or at least the symtoms, actually does exist. It's just been reclassified as a subset of disassociative disorder. I don't know why you don't appearly believe in it.
There is more than "one whit of evidence" that we were created. In fact, we have as much evidence that we were created as we do that, say, Ceaser ruled Rome. This evidence is often dismissed, but it's still evidence.
What's the evidence we were created?
And don't try to pass the bible off as 'evidence', the bible is the *theory*. It states what it thinks happens, you can't use it to prove that what it states did happen. Evidence is external to the theory, you can't use a theory to prove itself.
Just because personally hasn't tested everything about science doesn't mean you have to take it on faith.
You can take it on faith, that's the easist way. But the point of science is that you don't have to take it on faith, you can test it.
That's a pretty big difference. Lack of testing in science is just you personally being lazy and trusting. Plenty of people have tested all this stuff, and you see no need to do it personally.
Whereas in religion, you can't test anything, and, in Christianity at least, are told not to test God.
So you're claiming, if it was legal, people would still visit the organizations run by criminals? Instead of AOL Casino?
No, wait, that's completely illogical, it's been shown over and over if there is a legal and an illegal option that are completely identical, people will normally choose the legal ones. Just check out how many illegal brothels exist where prostitution is legal. And, of course, with legit businesses, no money is funneled into illegal operations. (Well, no more money then could be funneled out of Coca-cola instead.) (And, with prostitution, no prostitutes are delibrately addicted to drugs/abused, but that doesn't apply to gambling. Though you're more assured of actually making money, because the machines will be legit.)
But you're obviously a complete moron if you haven't realized this, so I don't know why I'm bother to reply. While people can debate about the morality of victimless crimes, saying 'money gets funneled into criminal hands' is so insanely obviously a side effect of them simply being illegal I suspect you're a troll. If casinos weren't illegal, they wouldn't be run by illegal oragnizations. The mafia doesn't run doughnut shops, and terrorist don't waltz into the country and open casinos in Vegas.
Check here. Specifically, look at 'Hate Speech on Campus', where they state their disapproval of prohibiting certain types of speech on campus. Also check out Rosenberger Et Al. V. Rector And Visitors Of University Of Virginia et al, in which they argued that the University of Virgina could not prohibit student funds going toward printing of a student journal adovating Christians to live like Christians, simply because it was religious.
The ACLU has consistently argued that religious activities on campus are the same as other activities on campus, and have to be allowed equal access under the same rules. (Conversely, they argue they don't get any special rights, either.) They also have said, over and over, that certain types of speech cannot be disallowed because people simply don't like, stretching all the way back to the infamous time they defended the rights of neo-Nazis to march though a predominately Jewish area., which oddly enough I cannot find a link about. They caught a lot of flak for that one.
Now, the ACLU don't do gun control issues, for whatever reasons. But it's not like they support it, either. Nothing stops people from giving to the NRA and the ACLU.
Wrong wrong wrong. You have bought a copy of the music. Period, no exceptions. You own a copy of the copyrighted work. It's exactly the same as owning anything else.
Due to the material on your copy being copyrighted, you cannot do certain things with regard to copying the music, just like you cannot discharge firearms near a road. That doesn't make you not 'own' the firearm or the bullets.
The government sets restrictions on how we can use certain things. That doesn't make us not own those things, it makes certain uses prohibited. As an extreme example, you can't legally use anything to kill someone, yet I own many knifes that can do just that.
A driver's license is a legal 'license', aka, a permit for you to do X. And, yes, you can sell them to other people, though that would be damned stupid on their part, as it's a permit for you to do something and not really that useful to them. Most people don't want to prove other people can drive.
Legal permits are completely different then private license. A private 'license' is simply a contract, some can be resold and some can't. For example, the implied contract at an all you can eat places cannot be resold, whereas a car lease can. Many apartment leases can, but some cannot.
And, no, you don't have the 'right' to get software CDs replaced, I don't know where you got that from, though you logically should be able to if you're licensing the right to use it. But the software industry wants to use copyright law to deny use rights we'd have under any sane licence, and the licenses to deny us the rights we have under copyright law.
And with video and music, you have, legally, purchased a copy of a copyrighted work. You can do anything the hell you want to them Under copyright law, you can only make copies of said work in certain circumstances with permission of the copyright owners (And in a few cases, playing the work consists of 'copying', but only for large audiences/charging admission/broadcasting over the airwaves.), but anything else you do is 100% legal, including reselling all or part of the work, leaned it to someone, etc...
Erm, no, you're noting buying any 'rights' when you buy music, and I'm getting sick of hearing people say that. You've been completely brainwashed by content providers.
You'e buying something that you can do pretty much anything with. There is no license on music. The important thing to remember is that, under copyright law, you can't make a copy of it under certain circumstances. This is a law, not a license, and it applies to everyone in existence (in the US) and all property that falls under copyright law.
It's like you buy a Ford that says you can't use non-Ford parts in it, and comparing that to not being able to drive backwards down a one way street. One of them is a law, that we as society have decided is a good idea, and the other is just Ford trying to make extra money.
You mean this:
Sec. 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. - Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an
essential step in the utilization of the computer program in
conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other
manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes
only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that
continued possession of the computer program should cease to be
rightful.
That's at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html
It's perfectly legal to copy computer programs into memory to use them without a license. I have no idea how the court possible ruled copying things into memory was a violation of copyright law, escpecially give it goes on to say:
(c) Machine Maintenance or Repair. - Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner or lessee of a machine to make or authorize the making of a copy of a computer program if such copy is made solely by virtue of the activation of a machine that lawfully contains an authorized copy of the computer program, for purposes only of maintenance or repair of that machine, if -
(1) such new copy is used in no other manner and is destroyed
immediately after the maintenance or repair is completed; and
(2) with respect to any computer program or part thereof that
is not necessary for that machine to be activated, such program
or part thereof is not accessed or used other than to make such
new copy by virtue of the activation of the machine.
This seems to apply also. I don't understand this case ruling, unless this law was passed after it.
Yeah, shooting someone who just blew up your silo and then heads towards you while you're pointing a weapon at them sure is 'xenophobic', isn't it? All farmers should let people blow up their stuff and then attack them.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean, you download it...though your Carnivored ISP?
It's simple supply and demand. Make the job really unwanted, and there will be less people doing it for more money.
Logically, the best thing to do is to lead them on, then after they catch on tell them you were, in fact, wasting their time and they're horrible people and you hope they die.
Making the company pay them for wasting time is a the best thing you can do, annoying them is of secondary importance.
This costs the company a lot of money, and makes someone who's doing a job that results in bothering hundreds of people slightly less happy about it.
Warning: Really evil plan
If you're really evil, you can delibrately make them upset with you, then complain to their supervisor and try to get them fired. If you got them to swear, you've got them fired. ;)
Wait, we already have have that. Well, I bet you feel stupid now. Go down the post office tomorrow morning and opt-out. Once you continue getting direct mail, then you can complain.
People keep saying all the characters are dead, but neither Zaphod, Fenchurch, nor the Guide Mark II are dead. And while Marvin is technically dead, we know he's still hanging around quite a few places waiting to loop backwards in time yet again.
And I don't know why you keep saying I did this, except to try to make this a personal attack on me. I don't have any record company contracts at all.
He didn't mention the word 'creative' in the post you replied to and he made no claim that music is somehow special. His only mention of the word at all is in his first post, where he call on creative people to band with him. It's not some sort of 'I'm an artist and thus I'm special' arguement that you are making it out to be.
He pointed out the financial reality that the artist pays for the work, the artist decides on the work is, they don't get any money if the work flops, etc, none of which are true in any other industry's 'work for hire'.
If that was how programmers worked, your company would loan you money to buy time at Kinkos you can program during, you would write whatever program you yourself wanted, then your company would sell it for you, and get you a percentage of it, after you've paid off all the money you own them. If it doesn't make any money, you don't get any money. No matter how fair you may think that is, it clearly doesn't have anything to do with the current 'work for hire' situtation in programming, where the company supplies your work enviroment, you do what it says, and you get paid the same regardless of how well the product does.
So, in your universe, I can hire people by giving them a loan and making them pay it back?
That's certainly an interesting concept of 'hiring' someone.
Artists do not get paid for producing a work. They get a loan, which is then taken out of their royalty payments.
It's no more a work for hire then a home improvement loan is work for hire by the bank.
Nothing at all. Especially if you get a minor to agree to the 'contract' at the start.
Read this, a 1 and 2.
Yes, but that's not relevant. There's a few different records of a creation story, in different cultures. That isn't the same as having eyewitnesses. They don't propose to be the same event, they have different versions of the story, etc. Eyewitness accounts only work when it's the same event.
If, instead of hundreds of people watching the JFK assassination (ignoring all videos and whatnot), we had six newspapers, at random times in the US's history, publishing 'President assassinated', all at different times, with different dead presidents and different stories about how/why/where, we could rightfully conclude they were insane.
As a side note, if you're going to start believing stories, a much more documented one is the myths of the greek gods. We have all sort of evidence of them, including some proported first person tales.
Whereas, by defination, no one has a first party recounting of the creation of the world, as they weren't around there. The creation story in the bible isn't even attributed to any certain writer at all.
They were just called 'demon possessed'.
You can take issue with the treatment if you want, but psychology didn't invent the symtoms.
That's simply evidence that a creation story is one of the oldest stories in existence, or evidence that all human cultures come up with a creation story. It doesn't have any bearing at all on whether or not said story is actually true.
In other words, it's useful in a psychological and historical fact, in that in history you can use the different creation stories to trace the roots of people and in psychology to attempt to show that, in all cultures, people will attempt to explain their world by using similiar metaphors. But it doesn't prove anything about the creation of the world.
(As a side note, it wouldn't prove anything about the creation of the universe anyway, as even if a story would be true, it, by defination, has to be second hand information, as no creation story claims people were around during creation, and thus the 'gods' could be lying to them. And provably are, given the conflicting versions 'they' are telling.)
That's just how I've always read it, at least.
Religion has not come up with silly ideas such as, oh, Multiple Personality Disorder. (Exorcisms, which seem to be just as bad, actually can have a profound psycological effect on someone who believes in the ceremony and that they are poesssed.)
Of course, that's only true if you call psychology a 'science'.
And, of course, 'multiple personality disorder', or at least the symtoms, actually does exist. It's just been reclassified as a subset of disassociative disorder. I don't know why you don't appearly believe in it.
What's the evidence we were created?
And don't try to pass the bible off as 'evidence', the bible is the *theory*. It states what it thinks happens, you can't use it to prove that what it states did happen. Evidence is external to the theory, you can't use a theory to prove itself.
You can take it on faith, that's the easist way. But the point of science is that you don't have to take it on faith, you can test it.
That's a pretty big difference. Lack of testing in science is just you personally being lazy and trusting. Plenty of people have tested all this stuff, and you see no need to do it personally.
Whereas in religion, you can't test anything, and, in Christianity at least, are told not to test God.
Um, the States have to vote to approve constitutional amendments.
No, wait, that's completely illogical, it's been shown over and over if there is a legal and an illegal option that are completely identical, people will normally choose the legal ones. Just check out how many illegal brothels exist where prostitution is legal. And, of course, with legit businesses, no money is funneled into illegal operations. (Well, no more money then could be funneled out of Coca-cola instead.) (And, with prostitution, no prostitutes are delibrately addicted to drugs/abused, but that doesn't apply to gambling. Though you're more assured of actually making money, because the machines will be legit.)
But you're obviously a complete moron if you haven't realized this, so I don't know why I'm bother to reply. While people can debate about the morality of victimless crimes, saying 'money gets funneled into criminal hands' is so insanely obviously a side effect of them simply being illegal I suspect you're a troll. If casinos weren't illegal, they wouldn't be run by illegal oragnizations. The mafia doesn't run doughnut shops, and terrorist don't waltz into the country and open casinos in Vegas.
The ACLU has consistently argued that religious activities on campus are the same as other activities on campus, and have to be allowed equal access under the same rules. (Conversely, they argue they don't get any special rights, either.) They also have said, over and over, that certain types of speech cannot be disallowed because people simply don't like, stretching all the way back to the infamous time they defended the rights of neo-Nazis to march though a predominately Jewish area., which oddly enough I cannot find a link about. They caught a lot of flak for that one.
Now, the ACLU don't do gun control issues, for whatever reasons. But it's not like they support it, either. Nothing stops people from giving to the NRA and the ACLU.
Due to the material on your copy being copyrighted, you cannot do certain things with regard to copying the music, just like you cannot discharge firearms near a road. That doesn't make you not 'own' the firearm or the bullets.
The government sets restrictions on how we can use certain things. That doesn't make us not own those things, it makes certain uses prohibited. As an extreme example, you can't legally use anything to kill someone, yet I own many knifes that can do just that.
A driver's license is a legal 'license', aka, a permit for you to do X. And, yes, you can sell them to other people, though that would be damned stupid on their part, as it's a permit for you to do something and not really that useful to them. Most people don't want to prove other people can drive.
Legal permits are completely different then private license. A private 'license' is simply a contract, some can be resold and some can't. For example, the implied contract at an all you can eat places cannot be resold, whereas a car lease can. Many apartment leases can, but some cannot.
And, no, you don't have the 'right' to get software CDs replaced, I don't know where you got that from, though you logically should be able to if you're licensing the right to use it. But the software industry wants to use copyright law to deny use rights we'd have under any sane licence, and the licenses to deny us the rights we have under copyright law.
And with video and music, you have, legally, purchased a copy of a copyrighted work. You can do anything the hell you want to them Under copyright law, you can only make copies of said work in certain circumstances with permission of the copyright owners (And in a few cases, playing the work consists of 'copying', but only for large audiences/charging admission/broadcasting over the airwaves.), but anything else you do is 100% legal, including reselling all or part of the work, leaned it to someone, etc...
You'e buying something that you can do pretty much anything with. There is no license on music. The important thing to remember is that, under copyright law, you can't make a copy of it under certain circumstances. This is a law, not a license, and it applies to everyone in existence (in the US) and all property that falls under copyright law.
It's like you buy a Ford that says you can't use non-Ford parts in it, and comparing that to not being able to drive backwards down a one way street. One of them is a law, that we as society have decided is a good idea, and the other is just Ford trying to make extra money.
You mean this:
Sec. 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. - Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an
essential step in the utilization of the computer program in
conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other
manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes
only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that
continued possession of the computer program should cease to be
rightful.
That's at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html
It's perfectly legal to copy computer programs into memory to use them without a license. I have no idea how the court possible ruled copying things into memory was a violation of copyright law, escpecially give it goes on to say:
(c) Machine Maintenance or Repair. - Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner or lessee of a machine to make or authorize the making of a copy of a computer program if such copy is made solely by virtue of the activation of a machine that lawfully contains an authorized copy of the computer program, for purposes only of maintenance or repair of that machine, if -
(1) such new copy is used in no other manner and is destroyed
immediately after the maintenance or repair is completed; and
(2) with respect to any computer program or part thereof that
is not necessary for that machine to be activated, such program
or part thereof is not accessed or used other than to make such
new copy by virtue of the activation of the machine.
This seems to apply also. I don't understand this case ruling, unless this law was passed after it.
Erm...these weren't 'the early days', this was the first day. They don't have any reason to hate us yet, we returned one of their people.
Did you even watch the show?