Whether or not unauthorized copying of material is right or wrong is one thing. To what extent citizens' rights can be limited to protect the livelihoods of media professionals is a separate issue. Certainly some supporters of the Pirate party, as well as others here, would like to see copyright abolished altogether, but a much more pressing issue is the way basic rights are being ignored to protect financial interests. Hence the rise of the Pirate party.
Even if it the stats are true, is it so surprising that streaming would be more popular? First of all, there are several free services there that let you stream quite a bit of music, and secondly, the digital stores that do exist remain pretty clunky and either have DRM up the ass or very limited catalogues - or both.
You're thinking of old-style radio stations, with a pre-planned stream of content. There are also streaming services that basically act like a music player on your computer - you pick the songs you want to hear, but they're streamed from the Internet instead of your hard drive.
Yea, because without them there wouldn't be any economic problems at all. The way I'm leaning is, you can try to mitigate the worst effects of market fluctuations, but you're not going to get rid of the boom-crash-boom cycle without doing something pretty fundamental about human psychology.
It doesn't take a computer to predict what happens. You get a boom, people spend money, they overspend, you get a crash. Repeat. The details vary, but the basic pattern seems pretty clear.
It's a tightrope they shouldn't try to walk. If you provide ratings, you become responsible for the ratings, and some errors are always bound to happen. Everyone ends up disappointed - the customers who'd prefer to choose for themselves what they can install on their device, the customers who want to be able to rely on the ratings, and the company who controls the device and marketplace, since they end up with a nightmare on their hands.
So just when does it become one's duty to put personal risk aside and perform such a public service? I think that's a line that can't be drawn without considering the benefits of the act and the consequences for the individual in question. If no such consideration is made, then you're saying a person should risk even death for what may be completely trivial issues. It is not a black and white matter.
Simple, either you host it cause you feel that the document is important enough. Or you don't.
Important enough for what? Important enough to justify the risk. What you call a simple choice isn't. To make that decision, the OP has to know what the possible consequences of their actions are, and the chances they will have to face them, and weigh that against the importance of the information in question. To know the risk, they have to weigh their options for publishing, the chances of adverse consequences being linked to the amount of personal exposure involved in going public. A person might perform an act that has a chance of landing them in jail, but might decline to do so if it were certain they would be imprisoned for it.
What seems to you like a case of "not having the balls" seems to me like someone weighing their options and trying to make a rational decision.
I think the point was that by appearing to be gender biased, Dell risks alienating customers instead of gaining them, even if their assumptions about the type of product women want are correct. People are sensitive about being stereotyped, whether the stereotypes have any truth to them or not.
That should be easy. Rate posts based on the presence of keywords. "GNAA", "Frosty piss"(and variants) etc. get a post flagged as troll, presence of "M$" and "correlation is not causation" get flagged "insightful".
It depends. If it is a gene you yourself designed, then it is a reasonable target for a patent (or, more likely, copyright)
Combine that idea with artificial, hereditary traits (designer kids etc.), and you have people who need permission from their friendly gene provider to reproduce. Bring on the GIAA lawsuits! Can't have people passing on copyrighted genetic material without authorization!
In that case, as I read this, ACTA will be in conflict with the legislation just passed, at least assuming the telecom package, in whatever form it finally gets passed, still contains some version of amendment 46.
Of course they can be tried in Italy, if there's a law in Italy saying they can be tried. Whether they'll be there for the trial is another matter, but if convicted while absent, I guess these people would do well to avoid traveling to Italy.
By offering low wages, government agencies thin down the pool of potential workers they can draw from. Of course they have a responsibility to spend wisely, and certainly personnel costs will add up to impressive sums, but this is military and intelligence we're talking about. The US government spends quite a lot on equipment. Personnel and hardware are both assets (although one would hope the human assets are considered less expendable than the material ones), why is it OK to spend significant portions of a country's GDP on one type of asset in order to increase security and then skimp on another type of asset?
What a conundrum for mods... Your first paragraph is informative, the second misinformation.
I don't know where that 30 seconds rule comes from, but AFAIK it has no basis in law. It seems more like an ad-hoc common sense rule someone came up with and ran with. Now, perhaps applying that rule will tend to protect you from lawsuits, but if so, it is not because 30 seconds is the limit of fair use, but because in general, it's not worth the hassle to sue you for copyright infringement -real or not- on such a small scale.
Either that, or just another case of got-to-do-somethingitis. Either way, makes no sense in terms of public health to me. I mean, what, do Egyptian pigs travel much? Seems more likely that the pigs there would catch this strain of the flu from humans than the other way around.
Don't know what this should be modded, but I think "insightful" would be pretty a pretty close match. If all the blame truly lies on whoever originally leaked the photos, then posting that link above (assuming it actually contains photos of the incident in question) would be perfectly all right. I don't think many people would take a view quite that extreme. The family receiving this abuse is well justified in feeling wronged by their harrassers. Whether anything can be done about it is a different matter, but just because you're protected by law or practicality doesn't make being an asshat OK.
QFT. Socialism as it relates to the issue at hand would require the companies that have monopolies to be owned by the people, which in a centrally led system would end up meaning state ownership of the companies. The wisdom of that can still be debated, but just throwing pork at privately owned companies is pretty far from socialism, and calling it that is a sign either of confusion or dishonesty.
If we have districts full of Americans that are stupid enough to elect a convicted felon or a deceased candidate, we surely have some that will elect a disbarred lawyer.
Don't be such a bigot. What, just because you're batshit insane, made some bad choices in your life or happen to be dead, you should be barred from a career in politics?
Slashdot Mirror
Whether or not unauthorized copying of material is right or wrong is one thing. To what extent citizens' rights can be limited to protect the livelihoods of media professionals is a separate issue. Certainly some supporters of the Pirate party, as well as others here, would like to see copyright abolished altogether, but a much more pressing issue is the way basic rights are being ignored to protect financial interests. Hence the rise of the Pirate party.
What won't work? The VM? The firewalling? Either?
Even if it the stats are true, is it so surprising that streaming would be more popular? First of all, there are several free services there that let you stream quite a bit of music, and secondly, the digital stores that do exist remain pretty clunky and either have DRM up the ass or very limited catalogues - or both.
You're thinking of old-style radio stations, with a pre-planned stream of content. There are also streaming services that basically act like a music player on your computer - you pick the songs you want to hear, but they're streamed from the Internet instead of your hard drive.
Yea, because without them there wouldn't be any economic problems at all. The way I'm leaning is, you can try to mitigate the worst effects of market fluctuations, but you're not going to get rid of the boom-crash-boom cycle without doing something pretty fundamental about human psychology.
It doesn't take a computer to predict what happens. You get a boom, people spend money, they overspend, you get a crash. Repeat. The details vary, but the basic pattern seems pretty clear.
It's a tightrope they shouldn't try to walk. If you provide ratings, you become responsible for the ratings, and some errors are always bound to happen. Everyone ends up disappointed - the customers who'd prefer to choose for themselves what they can install on their device, the customers who want to be able to rely on the ratings, and the company who controls the device and marketplace, since they end up with a nightmare on their hands.
Performing rights, not performers' rights.
Fake moustaches? Having seen a few Turkish TV shows, I'd say they have no need of those.
Hail Eris.
Please refrain from calling a top 10 list an "article".
So just when does it become one's duty to put personal risk aside and perform such a public service? I think that's a line that can't be drawn without considering the benefits of the act and the consequences for the individual in question. If no such consideration is made, then you're saying a person should risk even death for what may be completely trivial issues. It is not a black and white matter.
Simple, either you host it cause you feel that the document is important enough. Or you don't.
Important enough for what? Important enough to justify the risk. What you call a simple choice isn't. To make that decision, the OP has to know what the possible consequences of their actions are, and the chances they will have to face them, and weigh that against the importance of the information in question. To know the risk, they have to weigh their options for publishing, the chances of adverse consequences being linked to the amount of personal exposure involved in going public. A person might perform an act that has a chance of landing them in jail, but might decline to do so if it were certain they would be imprisoned for it.
What seems to you like a case of "not having the balls" seems to me like someone weighing their options and trying to make a rational decision.
I think the point was that by appearing to be gender biased, Dell risks alienating customers instead of gaining them, even if their assumptions about the type of product women want are correct. People are sensitive about being stereotyped, whether the stereotypes have any truth to them or not.
That should be easy. Rate posts based on the presence of keywords. "GNAA", "Frosty piss"(and variants) etc. get a post flagged as troll, presence of "M$" and "correlation is not causation" get flagged "insightful".
It depends. If it is a gene you yourself designed, then it is a reasonable target for a patent (or, more likely, copyright)
Combine that idea with artificial, hereditary traits (designer kids etc.), and you have people who need permission from their friendly gene provider to reproduce. Bring on the GIAA lawsuits! Can't have people passing on copyrighted genetic material without authorization!
In that case, as I read this, ACTA will be in conflict with the legislation just passed, at least assuming the telecom package, in whatever form it finally gets passed, still contains some version of amendment 46.
Of course they can be tried in Italy, if there's a law in Italy saying they can be tried. Whether they'll be there for the trial is another matter, but if convicted while absent, I guess these people would do well to avoid traveling to Italy.
By offering low wages, government agencies thin down the pool of potential workers they can draw from. Of course they have a responsibility to spend wisely, and certainly personnel costs will add up to impressive sums, but this is military and intelligence we're talking about. The US government spends quite a lot on equipment. Personnel and hardware are both assets (although one would hope the human assets are considered less expendable than the material ones), why is it OK to spend significant portions of a country's GDP on one type of asset in order to increase security and then skimp on another type of asset?
The RIAA / MPAA will make sure that when they go to court, they have a defendant who will not garner public sympathy.
Since when have they done that?
What a conundrum for mods... Your first paragraph is informative, the second misinformation.
I don't know where that 30 seconds rule comes from, but AFAIK it has no basis in law. It seems more like an ad-hoc common sense rule someone came up with and ran with. Now, perhaps applying that rule will tend to protect you from lawsuits, but if so, it is not because 30 seconds is the limit of fair use, but because in general, it's not worth the hassle to sue you for copyright infringement -real or not- on such a small scale.
Either that, or just another case of got-to-do-somethingitis. Either way, makes no sense in terms of public health to me. I mean, what, do Egyptian pigs travel much? Seems more likely that the pigs there would catch this strain of the flu from humans than the other way around.
Don't know what this should be modded, but I think "insightful" would be pretty a pretty close match. If all the blame truly lies on whoever originally leaked the photos, then posting that link above (assuming it actually contains photos of the incident in question) would be perfectly all right. I don't think many people would take a view quite that extreme. The family receiving this abuse is well justified in feeling wronged by their harrassers. Whether anything can be done about it is a different matter, but just because you're protected by law or practicality doesn't make being an asshat OK.
QFT. Socialism as it relates to the issue at hand would require the companies that have monopolies to be owned by the people, which in a centrally led system would end up meaning state ownership of the companies. The wisdom of that can still be debated, but just throwing pork at privately owned companies is pretty far from socialism, and calling it that is a sign either of confusion or dishonesty.
If we have districts full of Americans that are stupid enough to elect a convicted felon or a deceased candidate, we surely have some that will elect a disbarred lawyer.
Don't be such a bigot. What, just because you're batshit insane, made some bad choices in your life or happen to be dead, you should be barred from a career in politics?