I know. My point is that teams are usually (some shade of red) vs. (some shade of blue). Given that there are many types of colorblindness, these colors are distinguishable to the majority of colorblind men. My point is that, they do in fact take color-blindness into account.
About 10% of the male population is colorblind. That still doesn't prevent half the video games that come out using purple/pink/red/cyan/dark blue/light blue as the major team colors.
Most colorblind men cannot tell the difference between red and green, but can in the yellow/blue axis. Hence, most team colors use varying levels on the (red or green) vs. blue axis. Red simply results in the best colors (no teal, no gray) on that axis vs. yellow or green.
So, dealing with the most common colorblindness is built in.
But MP3s on Amazon or iTunes are in unlimited supply so according to supply and demand the price for them (regardless of demand) should approach $0.
There isn't an infinite supply, there is a neglible (although still existant) marginal cost. There is still a high (hundreds of millions for a movie) fixed cost.
But, sans differentiation, it's true that you can get free movies. I suggest going to www.youtube.com They have millions of free movies. Most are horrible, so using differentiation, movie studios get you to pay a few bucks for their content.
.. to the point that those who have been around a while shudder every time they see or hear about any "perks". This may work in some places, but in general engineers and IT people are not morons.... we can see a trojan horse when it is placed in the break room.
If I can only afford to give you coffee, and not a raise, you're going to bitch about getting the coffee? There's a little thing that can try to ease the pain. No one claims its as good as getting a raise, its simply a gesture that's affordable because the raise is not.
Both your statements are wrong. My pizza analogy asks why feelings on copyright law cannot be extended to physical objects using the poster's and your reasoning. It's a natural extension, andn you failed to address it. Therefore, you have, by conceding the point, conceded that I may eat your pizza over your objection if I feel you have already eaten your fill.
The original poster made it clear that he thought it was in the artist's brest interest. that's why i said what I did. You responded with a not terribly well articulated and boring "copyright is bad", so I simply use my pizza analogy to respond to you.
insisting i argue a different point with you, and then acting snippy/superior about it is poor techniue.
(Sorry about the capitalization/lack of some letters; my keyboard refuses to accept certain combinations.)
The RIAAs strategy seems to rely on people confusing downloading with uploading; the mere fact that I am downloading a song does not prove any intent by me to redistribute said content
To the best of my knowledge, all the lawsuits have been focused on distributors, not downloaders. So, far from them relying on people confusing the two, they have solely gone after the uploaders.
But traditionally, "small pieces" has been considered fair use.
Typically, using a small subsection is a necessary, but not sufficent, condition for fair use. Fair use turns on the motivation (commentary, satire, etc.) Since the purpose is to allow the entire file to be recreated, I doubt any reasonable fair use argument could be made.
It's analogous to arresting somebody for grand theft because they are the 100,000th person to steal a penny from the penny jar -- they haven't stolen $1[0,]000, they've only stolen $0.01!
It's more like going after a bank theif who steals a penny/dollar at a time. Even if they just moved one bill at a time, they may have stolen $10,000. and if the gang was so large their share is only $1, do we forgive the crime?
Factor in that distributing can lead to many downloads (especially if there is some concept of downstream culpability, and those people all distribute) and one MP3 can easily be downloaded many hundreds or thousands of times, and actual damages can reach those amounts.
Factor in punitive damages, which can be many times higher than actual damages, and the "correct" damages far exceed 99 cents.
the identical twins couldn't agree (from the cases where both of them said they have a g-spot) where that spot actually is, supporting the notion that it doesn't exist in the first place.
Thus also proving that fingerprints don't exist. This methodology is suspect at best.
And just who do you think determines that the system of copyright is available to those artists in the first place?
Irrelevent. The question posed was not "should the law be changed" but "should you break the law". To say that "I don't believe in copyright, therefore no-one should have it" is akin to me saying "I don't believe in personal property, so I'll just help myself to your pizza".
But wait: you say in one case the other person is harmed (has less pizza) and in the other case it's FREE to make a copy. To which I state a) that's true on a marginal cost basis, but not when it comes to recuppign the fixed costs, and b) what if I, in addition to thinking that personal property doesn't exist, also think you are fat. It's in your best interest that I eat the food instead of you, since you, Fatty McLardbutt, cannot control yourself.
I read that portion of TFA and what he conveniently doesn't mention is that lesser-known artists get some benefit from the increased exposure by having their songs available to millions.
How gracious of you to make that decision on those artists behalf, as opposed to allowing them to determine how they want their music distributed.
We block sites by content group, not individually. We didn't "fix" anything by blocking anything intentionally.
Of course you did. There was some problem (employees are looking up hitmen online and killing their bosses). You fixed it by blocking all applicable websites (it has the work "hitman" in it). Unfortunately, your conglomerate needed someone to clean the port-a-potty (a "shitman" in your part of the world). That site is blocked. You certainly intentionally blocked it. You just didn't specifically block it. And your imprecise fix to an earlier problem is causing new problems.
But if you talk down to IT or treat them like shit I promise you IT will make your job as painful as they possibly can. It's called human nature.
That's the attitude of a five-year-old. I expect better of adults, and insist upon better in the workplace. You may lose your cool, that is human nature, but I would expect a sheepish apology or mea culpa in that case.
The role of IT isn't to control information, and that's a ridiculous straw man argument. We're trying to make sure users (1) don't access any malicious content and (2) don't waste time on fark.com all day
You do realize that point (2) is trying to control information, right? It may be that some of IT's role is to control information, but to say that you don't while claiming that is half your reason for existing is, at best, cognitive dissonence.
Sometimes there's collateral damage. If you've got a better system I'm all ears.
I don't have to prove that the concept is poor to prove your implementation is. In every case, there will be sites that need to be black/white listed, and your mechanisms for doing so are subject to judgement without having to attack the idea of a black/white list system. In this case, you are defending a system of employees pleading with IT about making a site accessable. Why not simply automatically unblock the site, and then review it later?
And the entire concept that IT departments don't make money is very 1995 of you. If you don't think IT makes you money, try working without them and see how much lost revenue you have without a functioning IT system.
That IT doesn't make money is an accounting truism. Neither does a CEO (well, depending on the company). IT is an overhead cost. It can be important, but where do you bring dollars in the door? Some IT departments bring in blue dollars, but that's it. (Exceptions made, of course, for IT consultant groups.)
The notion of using airplanes, and civilian airliners at that, as flying bombs was also not a possibility that was in the popular consciousness, not even as a plot element in an action movie.
Tom Clancy did it at the end of "Debt of Honor"/beginning of "Executive Orders". He even had the plane (a civilian airliner) be flown into Congress during a joint session (taking out the President and a high percentage of Congressmen). In "Debt of Honor" he showed it being executed, and in "Executive Orders" he had the characters constantly talk about how it was impossible for air-traffic control to detect it and the inability to use hand-held missiles (that the Secret Service theoretically carries) to do enough damage to force the plane down.
Say what you will about the quality of Tom Clancey's writing, but his technical details seem to be fairly accurate and the popularity of his work is without question.
Think of the impact Hurricane Katrina had while killing fewer than 2000, compared to the Asian tsunami that killed 250,000 five years ago.
The tsunami was pretty well covered, I would say better covered than Katrina. The aftermath was covered worse, because the governments dealt with the tsunami quickly and well, and the US government failed mightily in dealing with Katrina. "Cleanup going better than expected; aid efficently delivered" just makes bad copy.
so you can't even bring a handbag and a shopping bag, or a handbag and a piece of luggage aboard the plane (it does seem to unfairly target women).
I don't see why. Two bags is two bags. Why should women get two?>
I understand they want to carry their purse everywhere. I want to carry my laptop bag (as opposed to my carryon) as well. They can do what I do: I just put my laptop bag in my carryon for the flight.
It's an ideal -- peaceful people living in harmony with nature -- that doesn't hold up to close scrutiny.
Assuming nature on other planets is the same as nature on earth. If the entire planet is alive, then different rules would apply. No where in the movie did it say "destroying trees is bad". It said "assuming something on an alien planet that looks like a tree can be treated like a tree" is bad. If the premise of the movie is that there really is an intelligent, inverventionist planetary intelligence, you should respect that. While it is a somewhat green message, they eliminated all metaphors by making it movie-true.
For instance, what do they do if one of their buddies is born with a genetic disease like Polycystic Kidney Disease or needs some other benefit of modern medicine.
It only "needs" medicine to prevent death. If you don't particularly care about death, or view it as acceptable, then you don't "need" the medicine.
Also, in the real world packs of wolves and bears don't just leave you alone.
True. They didn't leave them alone in the movie either. They just were easily avoided.
I had to laugh when I saw how many times the Navi were incorrectly drawing a bow. I'm no expert, but I do know the correct technique.
A world with floating islands, a different alien physique, and you're going to assume that they draw a bow the same way that a human would have to? And they may have different desires as far as power/distance/accuracy/silence tradeoffs go.
I hope that the post was saterical, and the mods who modded it insightful were being so as well. I certainly agree that the US Government is right to prioritize US citizens' lives over non-citizens' lives. However, a Goldman Sach's senior partner is probably worth less than a single Oklahoman... we have a surplus of Goldman Sach's partners. After all, net worth is probably the least interesting way to determine value. Even heredity has the benefit of prioritizing an entire family surviving and another dying, as opposed to two families being broken in half (although the "better" outcome is certainly debatable in that case).
Frankly, I have no plans to see this movie -- I never had even the slightest interest in it. In fact, I just generally don't like any movie like this. Not my thing.
Well, the plot/character development/dialogue isn't really worth the cost of admission. But it was interesting to see what a huge pudget could do with producing a 3D I-Max. Anyone who thinks Hollywood is going to die because of the lower cost of video production needs to see this movie. It's a better future- 2D Hollywood will be replaced by 3D. Now if they can only figure out how I don't have to keep my head perfectly virtical the whole time.
But yes, it was Dances with Wolves in space. No, the blue things aren't at all reminicent of the Smurfs in the movie. Even the blue is off.
So legally entering and exiting these countries makes her dangerous?
Syria, the UAE and Qatar? Going to countries that are at war with Israel? I'd say that's suspecious.
The Arabic stickers were on the keyboard, which, along with the Arabic phrasebook, would seem to indicate that she was learning the language. I don't know about you, but my guess would be that most people planning to collaborate with Palestinian terrorists would be at least fluent enough in said language not need a phrase book.
Wow, a couple of leaps. First of all, the Arabic stickers had been on her keyboard for a while (they were "faded"). Second, it's not relevent. The only person who implied the Arabic stickers were relevent was her. In her blog. When she is trying to attract attention to her work.
All the details that everyone says are "insufficent" is her guessing. Probably badly. After all, she's 21, much smarter than those "18 year old guards" she referes to. Clearly, world-wise.
She had the following on herself -hand drawn map of downtown Jerusalem
Geography students in Israel better start wearing kevlar soon.
It was a map of one-street and a major bus terminal. Damning, hardly. Suspecious, maybe in conjunction with other things.
-Arabic stickers on laptop -
If you're one of the 530 million people speaking Arabic, here's some news - knowing a language could be a crime.
You mean like every Israeli? Because the schools all require Hebrew/Arabic and English. After all, Israel has a lot of Arab citizens.
-passport stamps from Arab countries -
What's wrong with visiting an arab country? or do you believe in enclosing a race to their own land and prevent them from outside contact? Similar logic to that of a certain country, I must say.
Arab countries, maybe nothing. Israel has good relations with Egypt and Jordan. But there were also stamps from Syria, with whom Israel is at war. And if it sounds like similar logic, it's because Syria will not let an American with an Israeli passport stamp into their country at all.
...Education is not synonymous to English or Hebrew.
Right, in Israel it is also in Arabic. Do you know what all the Arabic publications said? I don't, but I'm sure the border patrol did.
They didn't clear the area, and there's no reason to believe they brought in a robot, given that they shot it in earshot of the rest of the travellers.
Announcing that they were firing bullets of the loudspeaker aside, there is no evidence that anyone heard the bullets fired.
Nope, the British were adamant that Jewish mass emigration to Palestine shouldn't happen because it would end in violence between Palestinians and Jews.
The same British who outlawed Jewish people buying land from Palestinians (the peaceful solution)? Who cared so much about lives that they turned ships of Jews back to Nazi Germany? Who try to get native populations to get along; such as when they ruled over the Indian subcontinent by butchering pigs in the Islamic areas and cows in the Hindu ones, setting themselves up as the only force that could keep the peace between the two groups from killing each other. Who systematically and dilberately created the Israeli-Arab and Indian-Pakistani divide for their own benefit?
Jewish terrorists frequently attached the British authorities in Palestine
They targeted military positions, and even would call in warnings before bad things happened.
When an exhausted Britain pulled out of Palestine, having been bankrupted by World War II,
A misleading statement. Post-WWII, Britain pulled out of the whole middle east, such as Iraq and Saudi Arabi, in addition to Israel. You imply a causal link between the Israeli resistence and the British withdrawal.
the Jewish terrorists became militias that massacred and expelled Palestinians.
Citation please? The Jewish resistence groups did become militia, but they hardly massacred or expelled Palestinians. In suspect cases (when Palestinian men dressed up and hid among women, for instance), the Red Cross was invited in to observe and record what happened.
This is despite the fact that it was founded on racially motivated genocide against Palestinians
This is a crock. Palestinians who didn't fight against the creation of the state of Israel are full citizens with voting rights, representation in the Kennesset, etc. Furthermore, in a more macabe disproof, given the efficacy of the Israeli fighting forces in the War of Independence and the 6-days war, if the goal had been elimination, it would have already occured.
Slashdot Mirror
I know. My point is that teams are usually (some shade of red) vs. (some shade of blue). Given that there are many types of colorblindness, these colors are distinguishable to the majority of colorblind men. My point is that, they do in fact take color-blindness into account.
Most colorblind men cannot tell the difference between red and green, but can in the yellow/blue axis. Hence, most team colors use varying levels on the (red or green) vs. blue axis. Red simply results in the best colors (no teal, no gray) on that axis vs. yellow or green.
So, dealing with the most common colorblindness is built in.
There isn't an infinite supply, there is a neglible (although still existant) marginal cost. There is still a high (hundreds of millions for a movie) fixed cost.
But, sans differentiation, it's true that you can get free movies. I suggest going to www.youtube.com They have millions of free movies. Most are horrible, so using differentiation, movie studios get you to pay a few bucks for their content.
If I can only afford to give you coffee, and not a raise, you're going to bitch about getting the coffee? There's a little thing that can try to ease the pain. No one claims its as good as getting a raise, its simply a gesture that's affordable because the raise is not.
Both your statements are wrong. My pizza analogy asks why feelings on copyright law cannot be extended to physical objects using the poster's and your reasoning. It's a natural extension, andn you failed to address it. Therefore, you have, by conceding the point, conceded that I may eat your pizza over your objection if I feel you have already eaten your fill. The original poster made it clear that he thought it was in the artist's brest interest. that's why i said what I did. You responded with a not terribly well articulated and boring "copyright is bad", so I simply use my pizza analogy to respond to you. insisting i argue a different point with you, and then acting snippy/superior about it is poor techniue. (Sorry about the capitalization/lack of some letters; my keyboard refuses to accept certain combinations.)
To the best of my knowledge, all the lawsuits have been focused on distributors, not downloaders. So, far from them relying on people confusing the two, they have solely gone after the uploaders.
Typically, using a small subsection is a necessary, but not sufficent, condition for fair use. Fair use turns on the motivation (commentary, satire, etc.) Since the purpose is to allow the entire file to be recreated, I doubt any reasonable fair use argument could be made.
It's more like going after a bank theif who steals a penny/dollar at a time. Even if they just moved one bill at a time, they may have stolen $10,000. and if the gang was so large their share is only $1, do we forgive the crime?
In that case, I have an answer:
Society as a whole, not you and your personal feelings.
Please read what I wrote about pizza, and explain the difference.
That's the actual damages per download.
Factor in that distributing can lead to many downloads (especially if there is some concept of downstream culpability, and those people all distribute) and one MP3 can easily be downloaded many hundreds or thousands of times, and actual damages can reach those amounts.
Factor in punitive damages, which can be many times higher than actual damages, and the "correct" damages far exceed 99 cents.
Thus also proving that fingerprints don't exist. This methodology is suspect at best.
Irrelevent. The question posed was not "should the law be changed" but "should you break the law". To say that "I don't believe in copyright, therefore no-one should have it" is akin to me saying "I don't believe in personal property, so I'll just help myself to your pizza".
But wait: you say in one case the other person is harmed (has less pizza) and in the other case it's FREE to make a copy. To which I state a) that's true on a marginal cost basis, but not when it comes to recuppign the fixed costs, and b) what if I, in addition to thinking that personal property doesn't exist, also think you are fat. It's in your best interest that I eat the food instead of you, since you, Fatty McLardbutt, cannot control yourself.
How gracious of you to make that decision on those artists behalf, as opposed to allowing them to determine how they want their music distributed.
Of course you did. There was some problem (employees are looking up hitmen online and killing their bosses). You fixed it by blocking all applicable websites (it has the work "hitman" in it). Unfortunately, your conglomerate needed someone to clean the port-a-potty (a "shitman" in your part of the world). That site is blocked. You certainly intentionally blocked it. You just didn't specifically block it. And your imprecise fix to an earlier problem is causing new problems.
That's the attitude of a five-year-old. I expect better of adults, and insist upon better in the workplace. You may lose your cool, that is human nature, but I would expect a sheepish apology or mea culpa in that case.
You do realize that point (2) is trying to control information, right? It may be that some of IT's role is to control information, but to say that you don't while claiming that is half your reason for existing is, at best, cognitive dissonence.
I don't have to prove that the concept is poor to prove your implementation is. In every case, there will be sites that need to be black/white listed, and your mechanisms for doing so are subject to judgement without having to attack the idea of a black/white list system. In this case, you are defending a system of employees pleading with IT about making a site accessable. Why not simply automatically unblock the site, and then review it later?
That IT doesn't make money is an accounting truism. Neither does a CEO (well, depending on the company). IT is an overhead cost. It can be important, but where do you bring dollars in the door? Some IT departments bring in blue dollars, but that's it. (Exceptions made, of course, for IT consultant groups.)
Tom Clancy did it at the end of "Debt of Honor"/beginning of "Executive Orders". He even had the plane (a civilian airliner) be flown into Congress during a joint session (taking out the President and a high percentage of Congressmen). In "Debt of Honor" he showed it being executed, and in "Executive Orders" he had the characters constantly talk about how it was impossible for air-traffic control to detect it and the inability to use hand-held missiles (that the Secret Service theoretically carries) to do enough damage to force the plane down.
Say what you will about the quality of Tom Clancey's writing, but his technical details seem to be fairly accurate and the popularity of his work is without question.
The tsunami was pretty well covered, I would say better covered than Katrina. The aftermath was covered worse, because the governments dealt with the tsunami quickly and well, and the US government failed mightily in dealing with Katrina. "Cleanup going better than expected; aid efficently delivered" just makes bad copy.
I don't see why. Two bags is two bags. Why should women get two?>
I understand they want to carry their purse everywhere. I want to carry my laptop bag (as opposed to my carryon) as well. They can do what I do: I just put my laptop bag in my carryon for the flight.
Assuming nature on other planets is the same as nature on earth. If the entire planet is alive, then different rules would apply. No where in the movie did it say "destroying trees is bad". It said "assuming something on an alien planet that looks like a tree can be treated like a tree" is bad. If the premise of the movie is that there really is an intelligent, inverventionist planetary intelligence, you should respect that. While it is a somewhat green message, they eliminated all metaphors by making it movie-true.
It only "needs" medicine to prevent death. If you don't particularly care about death, or view it as acceptable, then you don't "need" the medicine.
True. They didn't leave them alone in the movie either. They just were easily avoided.
A world with floating islands, a different alien physique, and you're going to assume that they draw a bow the same way that a human would have to? And they may have different desires as far as power/distance/accuracy/silence tradeoffs go.
I hope that the post was saterical, and the mods who modded it insightful were being so as well. I certainly agree that the US Government is right to prioritize US citizens' lives over non-citizens' lives. However, a Goldman Sach's senior partner is probably worth less than a single Oklahoman... we have a surplus of Goldman Sach's partners. After all, net worth is probably the least interesting way to determine value. Even heredity has the benefit of prioritizing an entire family surviving and another dying, as opposed to two families being broken in half (although the "better" outcome is certainly debatable in that case).
Well, the plot/character development/dialogue isn't really worth the cost of admission. But it was interesting to see what a huge pudget could do with producing a 3D I-Max. Anyone who thinks Hollywood is going to die because of the lower cost of video production needs to see this movie. It's a better future- 2D Hollywood will be replaced by 3D. Now if they can only figure out how I don't have to keep my head perfectly virtical the whole time.
But yes, it was Dances with Wolves in space. No, the blue things aren't at all reminicent of the Smurfs in the movie. Even the blue is off.
Excellent. A reproducable process for performing mircales. I'm so gonna start bringing back the dead in 18 years.
Really? I was stuck in an airport recently and saw an attwifi SSID. Could I have logged in?
Their protection time is 17 years + time spent waiting on a decision. I'd rather all medicine got approved 16.9 years before it was submitted.
Syria, the UAE and Qatar? Going to countries that are at war with Israel? I'd say that's suspecious.
Wow, a couple of leaps. First of all, the Arabic stickers had been on her keyboard for a while (they were "faded"). Second, it's not relevent. The only person who implied the Arabic stickers were relevent was her. In her blog. When she is trying to attract attention to her work.
All the details that everyone says are "insufficent" is her guessing. Probably badly. After all, she's 21, much smarter than those "18 year old guards" she referes to. Clearly, world-wise.
It was a map of one-street and a major bus terminal. Damning, hardly. Suspecious, maybe in conjunction with other things.
You mean like every Israeli? Because the schools all require Hebrew/Arabic and English. After all, Israel has a lot of Arab citizens.
Arab countries, maybe nothing. Israel has good relations with Egypt and Jordan. But there were also stamps from Syria, with whom Israel is at war. And if it sounds like similar logic, it's because Syria will not let an American with an Israeli passport stamp into their country at all.
Right, in Israel it is also in Arabic. Do you know what all the Arabic publications said? I don't, but I'm sure the border patrol did.
Announcing that they were firing bullets of the loudspeaker aside, there is no evidence that anyone heard the bullets fired.
The same British who outlawed Jewish people buying land from Palestinians (the peaceful solution)? Who cared so much about lives that they turned ships of Jews back to Nazi Germany? Who try to get native populations to get along; such as when they ruled over the Indian subcontinent by butchering pigs in the Islamic areas and cows in the Hindu ones, setting themselves up as the only force that could keep the peace between the two groups from killing each other. Who systematically and dilberately created the Israeli-Arab and Indian-Pakistani divide for their own benefit?
They targeted military positions, and even would call in warnings before bad things happened.
A misleading statement. Post-WWII, Britain pulled out of the whole middle east, such as Iraq and Saudi Arabi, in addition to Israel. You imply a causal link between the Israeli resistence and the British withdrawal.
Citation please? The Jewish resistence groups did become militia, but they hardly massacred or expelled Palestinians. In suspect cases (when Palestinian men dressed up and hid among women, for instance), the Red Cross was invited in to observe and record what happened.
This is a crock. Palestinians who didn't fight against the creation of the state of Israel are full citizens with voting rights, representation in the Kennesset, etc. Furthermore, in a more macabe disproof, given the efficacy of the Israeli fighting forces in the War of Independence and the 6-days war, if the goal had been elimination, it would have already occured.