I've poured a whole gallon of orange juice on my iPhone and it still won't turn on. I've got to run to the store to get more- I think I'll try grapefruit this time. I wish they would warn me about this when I bought the phone- juice is way too expensive these days.
In that case make two teams- one tries to add bloat and the other tries to slim the site down. They still get their perpetual work while we *might* get a stable site.
If it is all about money, and the public is a large supply of that cash flow, then yes the public can decide. The business in question might not appreciate it, but if enough people boycott a company for moral reasons the company has to seriously consider its actions as to whether they will take more damage than they benefit from some action. EA loosened their DRM for Spore after significant public outrage over the 3 install limit and other restrictions - sure it wasn't what most people were hoping for, but it is a recent demonstration that companies have to listen to the public.
At best it can be said that no one can be so sure. If the media doesn't talk to these rural masses it would imply any generalizations about them made in this article have little evidence to back them up. All I know is there are a large number of protesters we know of, the vote count had no independent oversight, the vote was approved exceptionally quickly (of concern is when it was approved, not when it was counted), and now that there are a lot of people unaccounted for. That sounds like a tossup to me.
The Supreme Leader called the result final before Mousavi could use those proper channels. Sure, after Khameni suggested a recount those channels might be open, but once the establishment shows it does not care about the correct process, it is not the best move for the side with less power to hope the rules will suddenly be followed again. If Amadinejad won I'm all for him staying in office (despite disliking him), but there is enough evidence to doubt the validity of the count.
Yes, the stated mission of the protest - that Mousavi should be put in as president - assumes his victory. If-statements don't make for strong mission statements so I think it is acceptable. Now if they don't show signs of accepting Amadinejad after a fair vote count is made (the first one had no independent oversight), I will agree with you and hope the protesters quietly let things move on.
Dream Theater had some leeway on what they could do with their music- their album A Change of Seasons had a 23 minute song. For the following album the label wanted to force them to write more mainstream, and even had someone 'help' write some of the songs; Dream Theater wanted to write an epic 2-disc album, but no they had to conform to the label. The result was Falling into Infinity, the worst-selling and most hated Dream Theater album. After that, they had no trouble doing what they wanted (as far as I know), including the next album being that 2-disc set they were looking to do.
Moral of the story: the label may have an influence, but in the end fans decide what goes and what doesn't.
Most music I listen to was made 10+ years ago, most of my favorite movies are 10+ years old; I'm all for 7 years copyright, but less starts to get to the point of people saying "I want it NOW", when that impulse is exactly what should compel people to buy it, not demand a free copy.
I completely agree that 99% of DRM breaks products and harms consumer experience (yes I like how Steam works, no I don't want to get into that debate right now). I am curious though: would you be so opposed to it if copyright was reasonable and lasted 7 years? You would then have the option of buying the flawed product to start using it now, or waiting for copyright to expire and get it for cheap/free then. Of course, if consumers are given that choice, DRM would have to be much more palatable since it has to compete with the prospect of a free non-DRM version.
Not that I like to legitimize DRM, but to me the problem with it is that there is no reasonable legal alternative.
It would not be all that hard to get away with murder (people do so all the time), but thank god most people never do so. Just because it isn't easily enforcable doesn't mean it is okay to do it. Yes, it an extreme analogy, but at the very least I think a better explanation of your argument is warrented
People release their works under copyright with the understanding that you can obtain a copy through means the artists approves, but you cannot distribute copies. The artist is not expecting that you will pay them, but that you will not get a copy without paying them. Your analogies make sense if the artist gave you a CD, then asked for money. The artist has a right to demand how his product can be distributed. If you don't like it you just don't buy his product. Sure, copying a CD deprives no one of anything. Someone breaking into your house but stealing nothing and damaging nothing deprives you of nothing, but I expect you would argue there is a violation of principle somewhere.
I agree with the principle that artistic works made available to the public (whether free or for sale) should become part of public domain due to their value as an influential work from which new material can be made, but I also agree with the idea of copyright (the limited kind). Yes, artistic works can be made in the absence of copyright, but I see no reason why you need to have things NOW as opposed to seven years from now. I don't think it is a stretch to assume more works would be created with limited copyright than with none; as for movies amateur works are well behind professional ones so that is one area where copyright is sure to have a major benefit to quality. While waiting for those seven years to be up there are plenty of movies and songs and video games made before 2002 that you can enjoy. Copyright is broken as is with the effective indefinite term, but that just means it needs to be fixed, not abolished altoghether. The only reason I have problems with DRM, unskippable ads and songs restricted to one format on one device is that there is little reason to believe they will be legally available in a more palatable form due to the indefinite copyright terms.
I just have a problem when they tell me they cap it at 250 GB but when I get there they don't stop me and I just use as much as I want. "Limited" should mean "limited". It's almost like they want me to be happy, those sick bastards.
Can you please post what we can do in order to help the Iranians throw over their dictatorship?
The point is not to overthrow a dictatorship, but simply make sure everyone is being heard there. What the Iranian people decide to do should have no bearing on what we do, given their sovereignty should be respected.
The West thinks in binary terms: free/not-free. [...] All while we are increasingly banning our own freedoms here in the West
We like our romanticized idea of freedoms. Our governments are slowly taking away freedom, so we would have a harder time justifying major rebellion. Too many people are complacent and vote our power-hungry politicians back into office. But in non-free states, we see an opportunity for people to unite to create a fresh start, to realize that romanticized ideal that our governments have tarnished. Sure, things aren't as simple as "the government dictates everything" or "do anything you want", but the closer you get to that stark contrast, the easier it is to get people to act together. No one here is trying to decide things for the Iranians, but to give them tools to better decide things for themselves; we are not forcing western ideals on anybody.
I know idealism has little to do with reality, but if you want to talk about how corrupt or controlling governments are you need to establish a baseline, so why not let that be freedom? Given that a proper government should always work to improve things, it makes sense for the ideal model to be something we cannot quite achieve.
Just because I say every government should work for freedom doesn't mean I think governments should minimize control in all cases. In the extreme example, communism might maximize freedom if less control meant people become abused by the upper class and become virtual slaves. Communism may minimize freedom if the people can generate a higher standard of living through their own economic choices. People simply need to have the ability to speak up about the current government and have the means to change it if there is a better way to establish fredom for the people.
First of all, if they are seriously considering a commercial venture here, it implies there are enough well-off people to be served that it could be a viable business. Second, this will simply generate business, which means more cashflow, leading to more economic growth witin these countries. Not to mention poverty is commonly tied to low education and the internet is a powerful educational tool when used properly.
This could give a whole new meaning to "the internet is down". Of course when signing up you have to be wary when they advertise "high"-speed internet. I guess it should work fine though, given the cheap overhead. I just wish it wasn't only planned for parts of Africa, as it sounds like it will be above and beyond what we've got here in America.
I don't know what problems there are with religious freedom in Iran, but I am aware there are Christians in their parliament. I wouldn't claim that it is a free country, but I just don't think people should assume you have to be Muslim to live in Iran. That said, I'm sure someone more informed could do a better job explaining.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll respond to your comment once you provide a list of your corporate sponsors.
How much juice does one of these things consume??
I've poured a whole gallon of orange juice on my iPhone and it still won't turn on. I've got to run to the store to get more- I think I'll try grapefruit this time. I wish they would warn me about this when I bought the phone- juice is way too expensive these days.
In that case make two teams- one tries to add bloat and the other tries to slim the site down. They still get their perpetual work while we *might* get a stable site.
Haven't you noticed those prominently-placed text ads for Intel and AMD - the ones tagged as stories?
You deserve a +5 troll.
If it is all about money, and the public is a large supply of that cash flow, then yes the public can decide. The business in question might not appreciate it, but if enough people boycott a company for moral reasons the company has to seriously consider its actions as to whether they will take more damage than they benefit from some action. EA loosened their DRM for Spore after significant public outrage over the 3 install limit and other restrictions - sure it wasn't what most people were hoping for, but it is a recent demonstration that companies have to listen to the public.
At best it can be said that no one can be so sure. If the media doesn't talk to these rural masses it would imply any generalizations about them made in this article have little evidence to back them up. All I know is there are a large number of protesters we know of, the vote count had no independent oversight, the vote was approved exceptionally quickly (of concern is when it was approved, not when it was counted), and now that there are a lot of people unaccounted for. That sounds like a tossup to me.
The Supreme Leader called the result final before Mousavi could use those proper channels. Sure, after Khameni suggested a recount those channels might be open, but once the establishment shows it does not care about the correct process, it is not the best move for the side with less power to hope the rules will suddenly be followed again. If Amadinejad won I'm all for him staying in office (despite disliking him), but there is enough evidence to doubt the validity of the count.
Yes, the stated mission of the protest - that Mousavi should be put in as president - assumes his victory. If-statements don't make for strong mission statements so I think it is acceptable. Now if they don't show signs of accepting Amadinejad after a fair vote count is made (the first one had no independent oversight), I will agree with you and hope the protesters quietly let things move on.
Will they just text you the ads?
Disclaimer: I am a Dream Theater fan.
Dream Theater had some leeway on what they could do with their music- their album A Change of Seasons had a 23 minute song. For the following album the label wanted to force them to write more mainstream, and even had someone 'help' write some of the songs; Dream Theater wanted to write an epic 2-disc album, but no they had to conform to the label. The result was Falling into Infinity, the worst-selling and most hated Dream Theater album. After that, they had no trouble doing what they wanted (as far as I know), including the next album being that 2-disc set they were looking to do.
Moral of the story: the label may have an influence, but in the end fans decide what goes and what doesn't.
Most music I listen to was made 10+ years ago, most of my favorite movies are 10+ years old; I'm all for 7 years copyright, but less starts to get to the point of people saying "I want it NOW", when that impulse is exactly what should compel people to buy it, not demand a free copy.
I completely agree that 99% of DRM breaks products and harms consumer experience (yes I like how Steam works, no I don't want to get into that debate right now). I am curious though: would you be so opposed to it if copyright was reasonable and lasted 7 years? You would then have the option of buying the flawed product to start using it now, or waiting for copyright to expire and get it for cheap/free then. Of course, if consumers are given that choice, DRM would have to be much more palatable since it has to compete with the prospect of a free non-DRM version.
Not that I like to legitimize DRM, but to me the problem with it is that there is no reasonable legal alternative.
It would not be all that hard to get away with murder (people do so all the time), but thank god most people never do so. Just because it isn't easily enforcable doesn't mean it is okay to do it. Yes, it an extreme analogy, but at the very least I think a better explanation of your argument is warrented
People release their works under copyright with the understanding that you can obtain a copy through means the artists approves, but you cannot distribute copies. The artist is not expecting that you will pay them, but that you will not get a copy without paying them. Your analogies make sense if the artist gave you a CD, then asked for money. The artist has a right to demand how his product can be distributed. If you don't like it you just don't buy his product. Sure, copying a CD deprives no one of anything. Someone breaking into your house but stealing nothing and damaging nothing deprives you of nothing, but I expect you would argue there is a violation of principle somewhere.
I agree with the principle that artistic works made available to the public (whether free or for sale) should become part of public domain due to their value as an influential work from which new material can be made, but I also agree with the idea of copyright (the limited kind). Yes, artistic works can be made in the absence of copyright, but I see no reason why you need to have things NOW as opposed to seven years from now. I don't think it is a stretch to assume more works would be created with limited copyright than with none; as for movies amateur works are well behind professional ones so that is one area where copyright is sure to have a major benefit to quality. While waiting for those seven years to be up there are plenty of movies and songs and video games made before 2002 that you can enjoy. Copyright is broken as is with the effective indefinite term, but that just means it needs to be fixed, not abolished altoghether. The only reason I have problems with DRM, unskippable ads and songs restricted to one format on one device is that there is little reason to believe they will be legally available in a more palatable form due to the indefinite copyright terms.
Luckily we have the Iranians to demonstrate for us how a democracy should work.
Down with the pedophiles! They take away our rights!
I just have a problem when they tell me they cap it at 250 GB but when I get there they don't stop me and I just use as much as I want. "Limited" should mean "limited". It's almost like they want me to be happy, those sick bastards.
Citation goes to Mark Twain I believe.
the way homeopathic medicines are made involves taking a substance and then repeatedly diluting it with [...] sugar
So cocaine is a homeopathic medicine?
Can you please post what we can do in order to help the Iranians throw over their dictatorship?
The point is not to overthrow a dictatorship, but simply make sure everyone is being heard there. What the Iranian people decide to do should have no bearing on what we do, given their sovereignty should be respected.
The West thinks in binary terms: free/not-free. [...] All while we are increasingly banning our own freedoms here in the West
We like our romanticized idea of freedoms. Our governments are slowly taking away freedom, so we would have a harder time justifying major rebellion. Too many people are complacent and vote our power-hungry politicians back into office. But in non-free states, we see an opportunity for people to unite to create a fresh start, to realize that romanticized ideal that our governments have tarnished. Sure, things aren't as simple as "the government dictates everything" or "do anything you want", but the closer you get to that stark contrast, the easier it is to get people to act together. No one here is trying to decide things for the Iranians, but to give them tools to better decide things for themselves; we are not forcing western ideals on anybody.
I know idealism has little to do with reality, but if you want to talk about how corrupt or controlling governments are you need to establish a baseline, so why not let that be freedom? Given that a proper government should always work to improve things, it makes sense for the ideal model to be something we cannot quite achieve.
Just because I say every government should work for freedom doesn't mean I think governments should minimize control in all cases. In the extreme example, communism might maximize freedom if less control meant people become abused by the upper class and become virtual slaves. Communism may minimize freedom if the people can generate a higher standard of living through their own economic choices. People simply need to have the ability to speak up about the current government and have the means to change it if there is a better way to establish fredom for the people.
First of all, if they are seriously considering a commercial venture here, it implies there are enough well-off people to be served that it could be a viable business. Second, this will simply generate business, which means more cashflow, leading to more economic growth witin these countries. Not to mention poverty is commonly tied to low education and the internet is a powerful educational tool when used properly.
So what happens then when these untethered balloons are floating up into the jet stream and a Airbus or 747 doesn't pick it up on radar
causing an explosion and bringing down 400 souls to their death
Looks like you've answered your own question there. I just hope I'm not on that plane.
This could give a whole new meaning to "the internet is down". Of course when signing up you have to be wary when they advertise "high"-speed internet. I guess it should work fine though, given the cheap overhead. I just wish it wasn't only planned for parts of Africa, as it sounds like it will be above and beyond what we've got here in America.
But if I stole thousands of Britney Spears CDs from WalMart and destroyed them, shouldn't I get a Congressional Medal or something?
I don't know what problems there are with religious freedom in Iran, but I am aware there are Christians in their parliament. I wouldn't claim that it is a free country, but I just don't think people should assume you have to be Muslim to live in Iran. That said, I'm sure someone more informed could do a better job explaining.