Okay, it's like this. The only way you get to ban gambling is if you believe that gambling is morally a bad thing, or if you believe that gambling could damage public order. By allowing some types of gambling, you agree that gambling is not morally a bad thing, and that it is not a danger to order either. Hence, you can't ban gambling, in any form.
Unless, of course, you'd like to argue that betting on horse races is moral while gambling in general is immoral, or that the latter would somehow cause order to break down. However, I don't think any sane person would accept that. I wouldn't.
You'll have to excuse me if my comment makes no sense because copyright confuses me.
If they're allowed to ignore copyright, couldn't they just relicense it so that it's freely downloadable? Or they could make a small difference and copyright that, couldn't they? And then they could license that however they wanted, I suppose. Or do they mean something else by 'ignore copyright'?
I don't know if things have changed lots all of a sudden but for Konqueror to work with the normal Gmail interface, you had to force the loading of that interface or spoof the User Agent, and then the chat utility on the left would expand into more than a quarter of the inbox list display. It was not perfect.
Ugh! I should've previewed. Forgot my line-break tags. Here's what it should've looked like (in case you have an allergy for long paragraphs):
But couldn't one argue that the in the absence of Apple's model of researching how to build an iPod, the iPod itself wouldn't exist?
Let's assume that your view on patents, copyright and trademarks are the mainstream view and that laws against your view do not exist. Suppose I see a market for a product and decide to design one. Designing a product is not child's play, so this may take some time, during which I cannot actually earn on the product. After my product is designed, I decide to sell it. Now another person sees my product, makes an identical duplicate and sells that instead. He has cut out that designing period, the time when no money can be made, so he can sell lower than I can because: 1. I need money to live during that designing period, and I must be able to make back that money spent during the designing period or designing the product won't be worthwhile, while he doesn't need to worry about where that period. or 2. I need to pay my researchers for the designing period, whereas he gets their work for free, effectively.
In such a world, tell me why I would bother designing a product (being person 1) when making identical copies of another product (being person 2) would guarantee me more profit?
But couldn't one argue that the in the absence of Apple's model of researching how to build an iPod, the iPod itself wouldn't exist?
Let's assume that your view on patents, copyright and trademarks are the mainstream view and that laws against your view do not exist. Suppose I see a market for a product and decide to design one. Designing a product is not child's play, so this may take some time, during which I cannot actually earn on the product. After my product is designed, I decide to sell it. Now another person sees my product, makes an identical duplicate and sells that instead. He has cut out that designing period, the time when no money can be made, so he can sell lower than I can because:
1. I need money to live during that designing period, and I must be able to make back that money spent during the designing period or designing the product won't be worthwhile, while he doesn't need to worry about where that period.
or
2. I need to pay my researchers for the designing period, whereas he gets their work for free, effectively.
In such a world, tell me why I would bother designing a product (being person 1) when making identical copies of another product (being person 2) would guarantee me more profit?
I've heard people call George Soros socialist, so I'm not surprised that they tried to call Hillary Clinton that. For some people, it's a McCarthyesque thing, a fear of the 'evil commies'.
I agree. I live in India and use my turn signals all the time, but it pissed me off all the time when people will refuse to use the turn signals and then suddenly swerve into my lane. If it's a safe section of the road I'll block their way, and allow them to collide (my car is a ten-year old second hand vehicle. I couldn't care less about it so long as it's road safe and considering in-city traffic usually moves at 30-40 km/h any damage is minimal). Naturally, I do not do this to the taxis (unfortunately, the worst offenders) because it doesn't matter to the taxi drivers, it's not their car.
But then, people drive on the wrong side of the road frequently here, so there's worse things to worry about.
You know what really bothers me? They won't use the damn turn signals, but they'll use the hazard lights to say, "I'm going straight!". It's pretty funny, when you go to the big mechanics stores, they'll give you a box and to fill up space there'll be some 'driving tips' on the box and the other day I saw, "Don't use the hazard signal to indicate that you are going straight." Cracked me up.
It's the same here in India except there are no locked phones that I can recall. Everything is unlocked and you just go buy a phone you want and stick a SIM you want in it. You can even buy two SIMs and switch between them (this actually makes sense if you have one of those long-validity plans on both, and one is on a long-distance plan) whenever you have to make a call. At one time, you were permitted a certain number of messages per day (usually 100) for free for one rupee (around 2 eurocents) and that was standard across most networks. Times have changed though.
My spending is average. So I pay Rs. 331 (170 rupees worth of talk time and valid for 30 days) + Rs. 69 (20 paise/minute to same provider, 49 paise/minute to others) for about 14 hours of talk time which is adequate for me (I'm in college). Total: Rs. 400, 8 euros.
Slashdot doesn't accept '', the euro sign? Weird.
I have the same thing. There was this advertisement for a particular brand of candy on the TV back when I used to watch it, and it had all these kids, and it was horribly annoying. I felt like puking every time I heard it and now I can't even buy that damn thing, so I don't know how it tastes, it just has a negative feeling in my head. UGH! Just thinking of it...
OP's post about wasteful healthcare spending driving the economy was a broken window fallacy. The broken window parable was first used to describe this fallacy, hence the name. The parable is not the fallacy, and vice versa.
Woah, careful with the quick-posting or you end up giving misinformation. The first reply to that post talking about the comment is a snipURL link to whatever that crap is. I know, I was stupid enough to disregard the warning. Shit, horrible.
I'm sure a hardcore fan of the CC suite would be able to explain the differences between the CC-BY license, the CC-BY-SA license, and the CC-SA license. All three allow commercial re-usage (unlike the CC-SA-NC license... or is that the CC-BY-SA-NC... or simply CC-NC?) And these aren't the only Creative Commons licenses that are released by this group.
I'm no expert, but doesn't the Creative Commons actually have all the licences written in two different forms? One is legalese and the other is a simple English explanation of what it means. In any case, BY = Attribution; SA = Share Alike, you must use the same licence; NC = Non-commercial, self evident. Now the thing is, you can put these together in 4 ways (?) BY, BY-SA, BY-NC, BY-NC-SA. That's for these kind of licences. You can also release it to the Public Domain and other stuff and you can add No Derivatives. It's quite straightforward.
And no offence meant, but I think any professional journalist should be able to understand this. I don't work with licences or code, and I'm not a lawyer and it takes mere seconds to check this. I would assume that someone who is getting paid should put a little more effort than that. Anyway, here's an example: BY-NC-SA 3.0
Considering the other Slashdot article talking about how those techs copy whatever they find interesting, this may not be the smartest thing for a DoD man to do. Unless, of course, he was actually supervising the whole thing.
I remember those days. Here in India, we'd just gotten internet and had to use HyperTerminal to access the Internet. The first thing we did was get an email account...at Hotmail.
Slashdot Mirror
Jesus, I had no clue! You learn a new thing every day.
Okay, it's like this. The only way you get to ban gambling is if you believe that gambling is morally a bad thing, or if you believe that gambling could damage public order. By allowing some types of gambling, you agree that gambling is not morally a bad thing, and that it is not a danger to order either. Hence, you can't ban gambling, in any form.
Unless, of course, you'd like to argue that betting on horse races is moral while gambling in general is immoral, or that the latter would somehow cause order to break down. However, I don't think any sane person would accept that. I wouldn't.
You'll have to excuse me if my comment makes no sense because copyright confuses me.
If they're allowed to ignore copyright, couldn't they just relicense it so that it's freely downloadable? Or they could make a small difference and copyright that, couldn't they? And then they could license that however they wanted, I suppose. Or do they mean something else by 'ignore copyright'?
I didn't know about this either, but a commenter below posted this link: http://www.sennoma.net/main/archives/2007/12/if_it_wont_sink_in_maybe_we_ca.php .
It claims that Open Access Journals charge less than other journals, so that presumably means that authors are charged for the publishing.
I don't know if things have changed lots all of a sudden but for Konqueror to work with the normal Gmail interface, you had to force the loading of that interface or spoof the User Agent, and then the chat utility on the left would expand into more than a quarter of the inbox list display. It was not perfect.
Ugh! I should've previewed. Forgot my line-break tags. Here's what it should've looked like (in case you have an allergy for long paragraphs):
But couldn't one argue that the in the absence of Apple's model of researching how to build an iPod, the iPod itself wouldn't exist?
Let's assume that your view on patents, copyright and trademarks are the mainstream view and that laws against your view do not exist. Suppose I see a market for a product and decide to design one. Designing a product is not child's play, so this may take some time, during which I cannot actually earn on the product. After my product is designed, I decide to sell it. Now another person sees my product, makes an identical duplicate and sells that instead. He has cut out that designing period, the time when no money can be made, so he can sell lower than I can because:
1. I need money to live during that designing period, and I must be able to make back that money spent during the designing period or designing the product won't be worthwhile, while he doesn't need to worry about where that period.
or
2. I need to pay my researchers for the designing period, whereas he gets their work for free, effectively.
In such a world, tell me why I would bother designing a product (being person 1) when making identical copies of another product (being person 2) would guarantee me more profit?
But couldn't one argue that the in the absence of Apple's model of researching how to build an iPod, the iPod itself wouldn't exist? Let's assume that your view on patents, copyright and trademarks are the mainstream view and that laws against your view do not exist. Suppose I see a market for a product and decide to design one. Designing a product is not child's play, so this may take some time, during which I cannot actually earn on the product. After my product is designed, I decide to sell it. Now another person sees my product, makes an identical duplicate and sells that instead. He has cut out that designing period, the time when no money can be made, so he can sell lower than I can because: 1. I need money to live during that designing period, and I must be able to make back that money spent during the designing period or designing the product won't be worthwhile, while he doesn't need to worry about where that period. or 2. I need to pay my researchers for the designing period, whereas he gets their work for free, effectively. In such a world, tell me why I would bother designing a product (being person 1) when making identical copies of another product (being person 2) would guarantee me more profit?
I've heard people call George Soros socialist, so I'm not surprised that they tried to call Hillary Clinton that. For some people, it's a McCarthyesque thing, a fear of the 'evil commies'.
Oh it's a movie! I thought it was an Intel Processor architecture. And then I realised that was Clovertown. I guess I don't qualify for Slashdot.
I agree. I live in India and use my turn signals all the time, but it pissed me off all the time when people will refuse to use the turn signals and then suddenly swerve into my lane. If it's a safe section of the road I'll block their way, and allow them to collide (my car is a ten-year old second hand vehicle. I couldn't care less about it so long as it's road safe and considering in-city traffic usually moves at 30-40 km/h any damage is minimal). Naturally, I do not do this to the taxis (unfortunately, the worst offenders) because it doesn't matter to the taxi drivers, it's not their car.
But then, people drive on the wrong side of the road frequently here, so there's worse things to worry about.
You know what really bothers me? They won't use the damn turn signals, but they'll use the hazard lights to say, "I'm going straight!". It's pretty funny, when you go to the big mechanics stores, they'll give you a box and to fill up space there'll be some 'driving tips' on the box and the other day I saw, "Don't use the hazard signal to indicate that you are going straight." Cracked me up.
I remember someone on Planet Debian mentioning it, it's really sad.
It's the same here in India except there are no locked phones that I can recall. Everything is unlocked and you just go buy a phone you want and stick a SIM you want in it. You can even buy two SIMs and switch between them (this actually makes sense if you have one of those long-validity plans on both, and one is on a long-distance plan) whenever you have to make a call. At one time, you were permitted a certain number of messages per day (usually 100) for free for one rupee (around 2 eurocents) and that was standard across most networks. Times have changed though.
My spending is average. So I pay Rs. 331 (170 rupees worth of talk time and valid for 30 days) + Rs. 69 (20 paise/minute to same provider, 49 paise/minute to others) for about 14 hours of talk time which is adequate for me (I'm in college). Total: Rs. 400, 8 euros. Slashdot doesn't accept '', the euro sign? Weird.
I have the same thing. There was this advertisement for a particular brand of candy on the TV back when I used to watch it, and it had all these kids, and it was horribly annoying. I felt like puking every time I heard it and now I can't even buy that damn thing, so I don't know how it tastes, it just has a negative feeling in my head. UGH! Just thinking of it...
AFAIK, that minimal X is the BulletproofX that Ubuntu was going to have.
OP's post about wasteful healthcare spending driving the economy was a broken window fallacy. The broken window parable was first used to describe this fallacy, hence the name. The parable is not the fallacy, and vice versa.
Reminds me of that whole sousveillance thing that was hot about a year ago. Though of course, the intent is different. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance
The user IDs make this little thread so funny.
Woah, careful with the quick-posting or you end up giving misinformation. The first reply to that post talking about the comment is a snipURL link to whatever that crap is. I know, I was stupid enough to disregard the warning. Shit, horrible.
I'm no expert, but doesn't the Creative Commons actually have all the licences written in two different forms? One is legalese and the other is a simple English explanation of what it means. In any case, BY = Attribution; SA = Share Alike, you must use the same licence; NC = Non-commercial, self evident. Now the thing is, you can put these together in 4 ways (?) BY, BY-SA, BY-NC, BY-NC-SA. That's for these kind of licences. You can also release it to the Public Domain and other stuff and you can add No Derivatives. It's quite straightforward.
And no offence meant, but I think any professional journalist should be able to understand this. I don't work with licences or code, and I'm not a lawyer and it takes mere seconds to check this. I would assume that someone who is getting paid should put a little more effort than that. Anyway, here's an example: BY-NC-SA 3.0
Considering the other Slashdot article talking about how those techs copy whatever they find interesting, this may not be the smartest thing for a DoD man to do. Unless, of course, he was actually supervising the whole thing.
Ah yes, Russell's teapot. Doesn't the Flying Spaghetti Monster and all that use a similar idea to have fun?
ooh, I know the answer to this. It's because he loved those people so much he wanted them to join him in heaven!
Agreed. In fact, the poster child Linux was mostly written by people paid to write for it.
Forgive my ignorance, but what the hell is e-communism?
I remember those days. Here in India, we'd just gotten internet and had to use HyperTerminal to access the Internet. The first thing we did was get an email account...at Hotmail.