I love getting my news from Freshly Shorn Balls. In this age of no media credibility (Newsweek, NYT, I'm looking at you), Freshly Shorn Balls are clearly the answer.:)
Well, music, or literature, or even software created by a single person or small group has limited initial costs. I was thinking of movies, video games, and other media that require large groups of people to produce and production costs that go into the tens of millions. Without any copyright laws, I don't see how those types of entertainment could be produced and recoup their costs.
I dislike our current copyright system as much as the next slashdotter, but I like big budget sci fi movies and video games too.
What about the costs of making the *first*, original copy? That one isn't free, and if you give every subsequent copy away how do you recoup those initial costs?
I'm not surprised that particular argument doesn't get used much.
IMHO, copyright in and of itself isn't the problem, the absurdly extended *duration* of copyright is.
Your link just reinforced my point that the Cubans imprisoned by Castro were imprisoned for no good reason. Amnesty International despises the US, for them to actually say something bad about Cuba means that Cuba must really have done something wrong or they'd have ignored it.
I note you snipped the part where I mentioned I was replying to someone who was saying Cuba was a bastion of stability, so you could claim that I'm as off-topic as you have been. It's typical of your style of argument thoughout the thread.
I never said word one about the US until you stuck your nose in. I was completely on topic in my reply to the original poster, and you are the one clouding the issue with your lists of US "crimes".
If you take the word leftist as a dismissive insult, that's your issue. If the shoe fits, and all that. It's not as though you're NOT a leftist. Chomsky makes sense to you, because he's telling you what you want to hear, and reinforcing what you already think you know. If you want to know more about how Chomsky lies and exaggerates, googling "chomsky lies" would be a good start. His denial of Khmer Rouge atrocities would be one example, but I'm not here to debate Chomsky with you.
When in this thread did I claim to be smart, and why are you implying that I think I'm smarter than Chomsky? Supposedly he's a genius, at linguistics anyway, I just don't agree with his politics. A lot of extremely smart people have very deluded politics. You attacking me by claiming I said things I never said is also typical of your style of argument in this thread.
You also note in a positive manner that I haven't insulted you personally, and then immediately imply that I soon will. Are you used to that kind of treatment? If you draw so many personal insults toward yourself, I'd suggest looking in the mirror for the problem. I don't need to personally insult you, because it's clear to anyone reading this thread which one of us is arguing with intellectual honesty and which one of us is just spouting the standard talking points of his chosen political worldview.
The problem with your general attitude that the US is responsible for everything wrong with the world is that it just isn't productive. Do we want to spend our time pointing fingers at who is to blame, or do we want to improve the state of the world? The attitude you have is that the US is responsible for everything bad in the world, and the US has done evil in the past, and therefore nothing the US ever does could be positive. It's just as clouded and biased and black and white of a worldview as those who think the US can do no wrong.
The topic of this article is Cuba. The OP posted some uninformed puffery about Cuba's stability. I pointed out that Castro maintains this stability by imprisoning librarians.
You show up, and rattle off a list of US "crimes", having absolutely NOTHING to do with the discussion. This is why it's impossible to talk to leftists about human rights. No matter what wrongness is being perpetrated in the world, you simply must bring the topic back to the US, your root of all evil.
(Note: Some twat made became my foe, or made me a foe, or something, because of this discussion! Hello twat! Don't bother replying, unless you can somehow undo the -6 mod my foes automatically get.)
I don't much blame them. You haven't made any kind of argument beyond rattling off boring rehashed Chomsky-esque propaganda, Nazi references and all. You're off topic and it's pointless to argue with you.
You've more than hinted at that straw man argument. Out of one side of your mouth you're telling me you don't make that argument, and then you continue making it.
Just answer one question for me. What does anything you've posted in this thread have to do with Cuba imprisoning librarians for distributing books? Can't you just agree that Castro is wrong for doing that without tacking on a "but the US is worse"?
Well, that's a good thing.. Oh no, wait.. I sense a "but" coming. This is how people who dislike the US argue about injustice in the world. "I'm no fan of the 9/11 hijackers, BUT..", followed by a litany of US crimes, real and imagined.
Dude : The discussion we're having right now is about Cuba's human rights record. Bringing your anti-US bias into the discussion is completely off-topic and has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Castro's Cuba violates people's basic human rights on an ongoing basis.
..the US supports (funds, trains, arms, provides intelligence to) many dictatorships. Pakistan, for instance, or Saudi Arabia. Are these dictatorships `flat out wrong`? Shouldn't the US be helping to promote democracy there?
Absolutely, the US should be doing more to promote democracy there. I agree with you 100%.
However, that has absolutely nothing to do with Cuba imprisoning librarians. Your logic is that the US does bad things, and Cuba opposes the US, therefore what Cuba does is justifiable no matter how heinous it is. Nowhere in my post did I claim the US was a perfect beacon of freedom, I just dispute that Cuba is one.
So Castro is right to imprison librarians for distributing banned books and communicating with human rights groups because the US tried to assassinate him 40 years ago? Don't cloud the issue.
Whatever the US has done or not done in the past, it doesn't change the fact that Castro is an oppressive dictator who has absolute power over the entire population of Cuba. It's flat out wrong, and if you can't see that you're wearing blinders.
So everyone that Castro has imprisoned was plotting to overthrow him? Are you kidding?
Amnesty International reports they were accused of such "crimes" as publishing articles, talking with international human rights groups, organizing unions, distributing literature, and receiving material support for these activities from the US. Amnesty comments, "Despite the Cuban government's claims that such acts threatened national security and therefore warranted prosecution, the above activities constitute legitimate exercise of freedoms of expression, assembly, and association." Amnesty adopted the 75 dissidents as prisoners of conscience.
Amnesty International is hardly an American lapdog of an organization. Just because you don't like the USA, don't delude yourself into thinking that any enemy of the USA is righteous and noble.
If you look at the article, the patent is on treating an email address as an object. This means that the patent office has opened the door to any "treat X as an object" patent. Essentially, they have just killed OO programming.
Luckily, it won't damage the porn industry, they have plenty of prior art on record for treating women like objects. But that scared me for a minute..
Of course he is. Most of the rest of the civilized world doesn't care at all about people trapped in oppressive regimes. In fact, they'll stonewall you in the UN if you try to do anything about an oppresive regime, and don't mention the word genocide, they've never heard of it.
Re:Would this ever happen without the licence fee?
on
BBC Launches APIs
·
· Score: 1
No one likes commercials, and I can believe you're happy to pay for them to go away. But can't you understand that FORCING everyone to pay for commercials to go away might not be the right thing to do? It's one thing to decide that for yourself, and it's quite another to forcibly decide it for EVERYONE.
And what's wrong with capitalism? Do you think the computer you're typing on would exist without it? Almost every technological advancement in history has been driven by capitalism.
Thanks for fulfilling my expectations though. I was wondering how much further we could get in this discussion before you spouted some nonsense about the US being corrupt and/or evil. You've been making so little sense in this argument I knew it was only a matter of time.
Forget the government, it won't even get that far. The environmentalist luddites that freak out over nuclear power will go absolutely NUTS over a nuclear battery that people carry around with them..
Re:Would this ever happen without the licence fee?
on
BBC Launches APIs
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Companies advertise on TV to sell more products. The more products they sell, the less they have to make per product due to economies of scale. I could argue that products being advertised on TV actually effectively lower prices overall.
But you want to say they're slightly higher, and you compare this to a government imposed tax that no one has a choice not to pay because you personally feel that the tax is a good deal for you, since you happen to like what the government does with the money they take from other people by force?
This is like talking to a wall. I guess it's an example of that quote I see on somebody's/. sometimes.. A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on Paul's support.
Re:Would this ever happen without the licence fee?
on
BBC Launches APIs
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Meh.. Am I forced to buy the products advertised on the TV shows I watch? Do they come to my house and charge me with a crime if I don't?
Saying the TV license is a pretty good deal implies that you have a choice whether to pay it or not. It's fundamentally anti-freedom to be FORCED, by LAW to pay for programming that you don't even watch just because you own a TV.
No one else sees this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills...:) If Microsoft was a government controlled entity and every computer owner had to pay a license fee to fund Windows development, the slashbots would be losing their friggin' MINDS.
Quite frankly, I'd rather have them arguing - when OSS developers disagree it often highlights issues that people should really be thinking about.
Mod up.. the competition between projects and groups is what keeps pushing up the quality of open source software. If some occasional infighting is the price of progress, I say bring it on.
Re:Would this ever happen without the licence fee?
on
BBC Launches APIs
·
· Score: 2, Informative
But at least the commercial broadcasters don't steal money from people who don't watch their shows in order to make them. If you don't like it, you don't have to watch. If you're British and you don't like the BBC you don't have to watch that either - but you DO have to pay for it.
Re:Would this ever happen without the licence fee?
on
BBC Launches APIs
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
Yeah, I think all broadcasters should fund their programming at gunpoint. Otherwise they might have to try to make a profit by selling advertising on shows people want to watch. How unfortunate that would be.
Slashdot Mirror
I love getting my news from Freshly Shorn Balls. In this age of no media credibility (Newsweek, NYT, I'm looking at you), Freshly Shorn Balls are clearly the answer. :)
Well, music, or literature, or even software created by a single person or small group has limited initial costs. I was thinking of movies, video games, and other media that require large groups of people to produce and production costs that go into the tens of millions. Without any copyright laws, I don't see how those types of entertainment could be produced and recoup their costs.
I dislike our current copyright system as much as the next slashdotter, but I like big budget sci fi movies and video games too.
What about the costs of making the *first*, original copy? That one isn't free, and if you give every subsequent copy away how do you recoup those initial costs?
I'm not surprised that particular argument doesn't get used much.
IMHO, copyright in and of itself isn't the problem, the absurdly extended *duration* of copyright is.
Your link just reinforced my point that the Cubans imprisoned by Castro were imprisoned for no good reason. Amnesty International despises the US, for them to actually say something bad about Cuba means that Cuba must really have done something wrong or they'd have ignored it.
I note you snipped the part where I mentioned I was replying to someone who was saying Cuba was a bastion of stability, so you could claim that I'm as off-topic as you have been. It's typical of your style of argument thoughout the thread.
I never said word one about the US until you stuck your nose in. I was completely on topic in my reply to the original poster, and you are the one clouding the issue with your lists of US "crimes".
If you take the word leftist as a dismissive insult, that's your issue. If the shoe fits, and all that. It's not as though you're NOT a leftist. Chomsky makes sense to you, because he's telling you what you want to hear, and reinforcing what you already think you know. If you want to know more about how Chomsky lies and exaggerates, googling "chomsky lies" would be a good start. His denial of Khmer Rouge atrocities would be one example, but I'm not here to debate Chomsky with you.
When in this thread did I claim to be smart, and why are you implying that I think I'm smarter than Chomsky? Supposedly he's a genius, at linguistics anyway, I just don't agree with his politics. A lot of extremely smart people have very deluded politics. You attacking me by claiming I said things I never said is also typical of your style of argument in this thread.
You also note in a positive manner that I haven't insulted you personally, and then immediately imply that I soon will. Are you used to that kind of treatment? If you draw so many personal insults toward yourself, I'd suggest looking in the mirror for the problem. I don't need to personally insult you, because it's clear to anyone reading this thread which one of us is arguing with intellectual honesty and which one of us is just spouting the standard talking points of his chosen political worldview.
The problem with your general attitude that the US is responsible for everything wrong with the world is that it just isn't productive. Do we want to spend our time pointing fingers at who is to blame, or do we want to improve the state of the world? The attitude you have is that the US is responsible for everything bad in the world, and the US has done evil in the past, and therefore nothing the US ever does could be positive. It's just as clouded and biased and black and white of a worldview as those who think the US can do no wrong.
The topic of this article is Cuba. The OP posted some uninformed puffery about Cuba's stability. I pointed out that Castro maintains this stability by imprisoning librarians.
You show up, and rattle off a list of US "crimes", having absolutely NOTHING to do with the discussion. This is why it's impossible to talk to leftists about human rights. No matter what wrongness is being perpetrated in the world, you simply must bring the topic back to the US, your root of all evil.
(Note: Some twat made became my foe, or made me a foe, or something, because of this discussion! Hello twat! Don't bother replying, unless you can somehow undo the -6 mod my foes automatically get.)
I don't much blame them. You haven't made any kind of argument beyond rattling off boring rehashed Chomsky-esque propaganda, Nazi references and all. You're off topic and it's pointless to argue with you.
I rank it with Empire. Not better, but equal.
:)
Blasphemy.
I'd say it's not as good as Empire or ANH, but it's better than Jedi. That's really all I was hoping for.
You've more than hinted at that straw man argument. Out of one side of your mouth you're telling me you don't make that argument, and then you continue making it.
Just answer one question for me. What does anything you've posted in this thread have to do with Cuba imprisoning librarians for distributing books? Can't you just agree that Castro is wrong for doing that without tacking on a "but the US is worse"?
I'm not the one going off on tangents here.
I am no way a cuba fanboy of any kind..
Well, that's a good thing.. Oh no, wait.. I sense a "but" coming. This is how people who dislike the US argue about injustice in the world. "I'm no fan of the 9/11 hijackers, BUT..", followed by a litany of US crimes, real and imagined.
Dude : The discussion we're having right now is about Cuba's human rights record. Bringing your anti-US bias into the discussion is completely off-topic and has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Castro's Cuba violates people's basic human rights on an ongoing basis.
..the US supports (funds, trains, arms, provides intelligence to) many dictatorships. Pakistan, for instance, or Saudi Arabia. Are these dictatorships `flat out wrong`? Shouldn't the US be helping to promote democracy there?
Absolutely, the US should be doing more to promote democracy there. I agree with you 100%.
However, that has absolutely nothing to do with Cuba imprisoning librarians. Your logic is that the US does bad things, and Cuba opposes the US, therefore what Cuba does is justifiable no matter how heinous it is. Nowhere in my post did I claim the US was a perfect beacon of freedom, I just dispute that Cuba is one.
So Castro is right to imprison librarians for distributing banned books and communicating with human rights groups because the US tried to assassinate him 40 years ago? Don't cloud the issue.
Whatever the US has done or not done in the past, it doesn't change the fact that Castro is an oppressive dictator who has absolute power over the entire population of Cuba. It's flat out wrong, and if you can't see that you're wearing blinders.
Amnesty International is hardly an American lapdog of an organization. Just because you don't like the USA, don't delude yourself into thinking that any enemy of the USA is righteous and noble.
Yep, that "stability", it's a wonderful thing. Especially when it's maintained by imprisoning librarians.
But oh, I forgot, this is slashdot, where the US is a horrible fascist dicatorship and Cuba is a magical wonderland of sharing and human kindness.
Weeeeow weeeeeow weeeeeow...
:D
I do..
Funny, I heard it was supposed to be called Indiana Jones and the Lost Colostomy Bag.
I can't wait for the scene where he fills the bag with just enough shit to weigh the same as a golden idol resting on a booby trap.
"Squeeze out one more Indy, that idol looks heavy."
At least you know that scene will be less labored and awkward than any of Anakin and Padme's love scenes..
If you look at the article, the patent is on treating an email address as an object. This means that the patent office has opened the door to any "treat X as an object" patent. Essentially, they have just killed OO programming.
Luckily, it won't damage the porn industry, they have plenty of prior art on record for treating women like objects. But that scared me for a minute..
Just because they're paranoid, doesn't mean that there isn't someone out to get them.
Sounds like you're in the US, correct?
Of course he is. Most of the rest of the civilized world doesn't care at all about people trapped in oppressive regimes. In fact, they'll stonewall you in the UN if you try to do anything about an oppresive regime, and don't mention the word genocide, they've never heard of it.
No one likes commercials, and I can believe you're happy to pay for them to go away. But can't you understand that FORCING everyone to pay for commercials to go away might not be the right thing to do? It's one thing to decide that for yourself, and it's quite another to forcibly decide it for EVERYONE.
And what's wrong with capitalism? Do you think the computer you're typing on would exist without it? Almost every technological advancement in history has been driven by capitalism.
Thanks for fulfilling my expectations though. I was wondering how much further we could get in this discussion before you spouted some nonsense about the US being corrupt and/or evil. You've been making so little sense in this argument I knew it was only a matter of time.
Forget the government, it won't even get that far. The environmentalist luddites that freak out over nuclear power will go absolutely NUTS over a nuclear battery that people carry around with them..
Companies advertise on TV to sell more products. The more products they sell, the less they have to make per product due to economies of scale. I could argue that products being advertised on TV actually effectively lower prices overall.
/. sometimes.. A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on Paul's support.
But you want to say they're slightly higher, and you compare this to a government imposed tax that no one has a choice not to pay because you personally feel that the tax is a good deal for you, since you happen to like what the government does with the money they take from other people by force?
This is like talking to a wall. I guess it's an example of that quote I see on somebody's
Meh.. Am I forced to buy the products advertised on the TV shows I watch? Do they come to my house and charge me with a crime if I don't?
:) If Microsoft was a government controlled entity and every computer owner had to pay a license fee to fund Windows development, the slashbots would be losing their friggin' MINDS.
Saying the TV license is a pretty good deal implies that you have a choice whether to pay it or not. It's fundamentally anti-freedom to be FORCED, by LAW to pay for programming that you don't even watch just because you own a TV.
No one else sees this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills...
Quite frankly, I'd rather have them arguing - when OSS developers disagree it often highlights issues that people should really be thinking about.
Mod up.. the competition between projects and groups is what keeps pushing up the quality of open source software. If some occasional infighting is the price of progress, I say bring it on.
But at least the commercial broadcasters don't steal money from people who don't watch their shows in order to make them. If you don't like it, you don't have to watch. If you're British and you don't like the BBC you don't have to watch that either - but you DO have to pay for it.
Yeah, I think all broadcasters should fund their programming at gunpoint. Otherwise they might have to try to make a profit by selling advertising on shows people want to watch. How unfortunate that would be.