It is a lot more fun asking. When you have "radical" opinions, though, it is good to ask questions that allow other people to give their own opinion about your beliefs. Then, you have posits against that, which can be proven or disproven. (There is a sad lack of actual discussion on/. these days.)
Concrete rules are the best:) It just sucks when they're stupid.
Do you think it is so much about being "worthy?" In my pinion that is a decent argument, for certain people, but it seems like they always leave a rational part out (like money). I was just thinking tonight that it is more of a question about when something, at least in part, becomes public domain. The Super Bowl only exists in the minds of the (American) public; you couldn't start a new football league and expect it to be so sonorous with the people, even if the NFL was nuked from space.
As a footnote, I would say that Mickey Mouse exists more in the minds of the People than in the ledger books of Disney. I would really enjoy it if someone could engage in a discussion about the human aspects of copyright (don't mean to put you on the spot, honkycat lol).
That's interesting, although I would point out that it is probably a larger proportion of the population than that, unless they considered the age of potential viewers (babies don't count, maybe even invalids don't count). Anyway, of course I meant nearly everyone watched it in the US, even if I was wrong. It may be because I have lived in one college town or the other my whole life, and it certainly seems like nearly everyone watches the game. I would argue that the statement was more hyperbolical than vacuous, considering the context of my post. Honestly, it never occurred to me that anyone outside the US would watch the Super Bowl, either!
Incidentally, we had a smoking ban in public places go into effect in my town a couple years ago. The relevant part to this discussion is that certain businesses, such as clubs that require membership or invitation, are considered private, and thus do not have to honor the ban. I'm not sure how this would change across city, county, or state borders, but in my neck of the woods this worked as a definition of a non-public establishment.
Now that I think of though, IP laws is probably vastly different...
Depending whether you think movies with multi-million dollar production are good or a load of steaming shit really colors one's perspective on this question. Not that I don't see the difference between public and private viewing of video; it's just that I think the distinction matters far less to those who don't have an artificially strong control over their market. And for something like the Super Bowl, which nearly everyone watches, it's absurd to have laws that prohibit you setting up a screen bigger than 55" in a public bar without compensating the NFL (or whoever). How are they losing money, or control over their IP, between me watching a 54" screen in a bar, or a 55" screen? That inch means nothing to them, and it is only greed that would motivate them to attempt to rain this practice in.
Thanks for the anecdote. I prefer to listen to the vast, continuing historical record showing those who are in power (the wealthy) taking advantage of those "beneath" them. Even if one is a nice person (I don't disbelieve you), one may not be able to escape the institutionalized privileges one enjoys - privileges that were most likely inherited from that history of exploitation. Obviously, anyone who thinks about it is going to give credit where credit is due - there are certainly anecdotes about nice, rich people. On the other hand, the problem has less to do with individual wealthy people or families, and more to do with the place of the wealthy in the society.
Hell, I thought the new MacMini was a great deal at $550 with educational discount... add to that a $180 22" display and you have a very capable, affordable system.
The only subdivision I have ever lived in had these covenants, and yes it was why you had a street of 15 or 20 condominiums that looked exactly identical. IIRC, the covenant forbade such things as planting gardens or bushes, although you were allowed to have one specific genus of tree in a designated place in your lawn and you were allowed to have one specific type of bush near the front windows. Actually, scratch that. It wasn't an allowance, it was a requirement. You also had to paint your property one specific color of ugly, wholesale brown. I mean, it was a very ugly color. I can almost understand being a cheapskate in this regard - manufacture some houses and sell them as cheaply and quickly as possible, but I can't understand what sick individual decided all the houses on that street should perpetually remain that one shade of ugly brown.
Other than that, I think we also had more severe restrictions on parties, parking, yard sales, "trash," lawn care, lighting, etc. than were required by city ordinance. It was a disgusting, soulless place, and it saddens me every time I see a new development in my city.
They exist and are pretty common, unfortunately. I really hate them; you'll find them a lot in gated communities and subdivisions. Live and let live I say.
Actually, the above poster is correct. You are confusing English definitions with legal definitions:
the term "harassment" means a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person; and
serves no legitimate purpose. United States Code Title 18 Subsection 1514(c)
You caught what I was talking about, but missed my point. Desktops will become tools for those who need them - coders, gamers, graphic designers, etc. No one else is going to want or need them. Granted, I'm just brain storming here, but I am sure that given the sum of human creativity, we will come up with something more efficient than keyboards for these other tasks that don't involve typing. It's already happening with email, IM, SMS, etc. You don't need a full keyboard for that. And what you do need a keyboard for is a rather limited set of computing applications. Personally, I don't see the problem with dictating longer letters - it's worked in the past. But, there any number of other ways - digital pens/tablets, portable keyboards, scanning devices, etc. that could in the near future prove to be reliable replacements.
In 10 or 20 years from now, people are going to look back aand laugh at use for spending the 70's through the 2030's spending so much time sitting in front of a computer terminal. The terminal/desktop and its beloved windowing systems and keyboard/mouse are going to become necessary for fewer and fewer computing applications as UIs evolve.
How about dictation, or handwriting recognition (say writing a letter and scanning it with the watch). Or how about your watch serves a number of functions that don't rely on typing, including serving as your data uplink. Your other devices would interface with your watch to send and receive data. You could write your letter on another device you carry, such as tablet PC or iPod, which would then use your watch to send the email.
The future looks pretty cool if you think outside the box a little. It's very easy to start thinking that windowing systems and cell phones are the pinnacle of UIs, but they are not, and do not particularly integrate well with normal human life.
That's erm... sort of a good point, but come one. Think outside the box a little.
The desktop computer is on its way out for everyone but typists and coders. When your wristwatch automatically interfaces with any number of large screens at your office or home, not to mention printers and fax machines, who is going to be worrying about the size of their watch display? We have the technology to do that now... and that's just one of many possible evolutions of UI. The possibilities are quite astounding.
mmm, no other government that i can recall has paid for the murder of generals, helped depose democratically elected presidents or generally tried to produce a civil war
If you believe that, you don't know much history. Look to the history of almost any country and you will find assassination attempts, attempts to destabilize perceived enemies, abuse of power, corruption, murder, theft, etc.
the idea that the US is more democratic or "free" than other countries is total bullshit.
Well, for starters we aren't a direct democracy, nor is democracy synonymous with freedom. Furthermore, the citizens of the US are more free than in many other countries, in terms of personal liberties. We are certainly more free than the Chinese or than those in many African countries, for example.
until some 40 years ago, you had second class citizens based on the color of their skin, not to mention the fact that you had the largest and most recent slavery based economy in the world.
Racism was not limited to the US, and it did not end 40 years ago. It hasn't ended today and can be seen in other countries, for example: in China the racism towards to Tibetans, or in Europe, racism against Moroccans and Muslims. The US ended slavery about 50 years after France - big whoop. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism#National_abolition_dates That makes some countries slightly "more moral" than the US, but many "less moral," such as: Brazil, Korea, China, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Morocco, etc. http://tibet.dharmakara.net/ictracism.html
you all behave as if you were some kind of promised land of political freedom
We don't all behave that way, nor do all people in the world demonize the US as you do. But if you want to believe that China is somehow more free, and morally superior to America, I can't stop you. To deny that there is no spectrum of morality that the nations fall into is ignorant at best. Almost every nation and government has a horrible past.
So... I can't tell if I have safe search on when "reading" Chinese, so if I might rely on you to tell me whether it is still censored? (It is isn't it?)
That is a very ignorant thing to say. The US government isn't and hasn't ever been perfect, but it is closer to "good" in the moral spectrum than China is, or many other countries' governments for that matter. Almost all governments are horrible, or have done horrible things in the past. Such is human nature, I suppose. All I'm saying is some turds smell better than other turds; still, they both smell like shit.
Slashdot Mirror
9 minutes? This seemed like hours...
It is a lot more fun asking. When you have "radical" opinions, though, it is good to ask questions that allow other people to give their own opinion about your beliefs. Then, you have posits against that, which can be proven or disproven. (There is a sad lack of actual discussion on /. these days.)
Concrete rules are the best :) It just sucks when they're stupid.
Do you think it is so much about being "worthy?" In my pinion that is a decent argument, for certain people, but it seems like they always leave a rational part out (like money). I was just thinking tonight that it is more of a question about when something, at least in part, becomes public domain. The Super Bowl only exists in the minds of the (American) public; you couldn't start a new football league and expect it to be so sonorous with the people, even if the NFL was nuked from space.
As a footnote, I would say that Mickey Mouse exists more in the minds of the People than in the ledger books of Disney. I would really enjoy it if someone could engage in a discussion about the human aspects of copyright (don't mean to put you on the spot, honkycat lol).
The funny thing is I don't police other people. It's uh... a preemptive counter strike ;)
That's interesting, although I would point out that it is probably a larger proportion of the population than that, unless they considered the age of potential viewers (babies don't count, maybe even invalids don't count). Anyway, of course I meant nearly everyone watched it in the US, even if I was wrong. It may be because I have lived in one college town or the other my whole life, and it certainly seems like nearly everyone watches the game. I would argue that the statement was more hyperbolical than vacuous, considering the context of my post. Honestly, it never occurred to me that anyone outside the US would watch the Super Bowl, either!
Incidentally, we had a smoking ban in public places go into effect in my town a couple years ago. The relevant part to this discussion is that certain businesses, such as clubs that require membership or invitation, are considered private, and thus do not have to honor the ban. I'm not sure how this would change across city, county, or state borders, but in my neck of the woods this worked as a definition of a non-public establishment.
Now that I think of though, IP laws is probably vastly different...
Or reign it in even...
Depending whether you think movies with multi-million dollar production are good or a load of steaming shit really colors one's perspective on this question. Not that I don't see the difference between public and private viewing of video; it's just that I think the distinction matters far less to those who don't have an artificially strong control over their market. And for something like the Super Bowl, which nearly everyone watches, it's absurd to have laws that prohibit you setting up a screen bigger than 55" in a public bar without compensating the NFL (or whoever). How are they losing money, or control over their IP, between me watching a 54" screen in a bar, or a 55" screen? That inch means nothing to them, and it is only greed that would motivate them to attempt to rain this practice in.
Thanks for the anecdote. I prefer to listen to the vast, continuing historical record showing those who are in power (the wealthy) taking advantage of those "beneath" them. Even if one is a nice person (I don't disbelieve you), one may not be able to escape the institutionalized privileges one enjoys - privileges that were most likely inherited from that history of exploitation. Obviously, anyone who thinks about it is going to give credit where credit is due - there are certainly anecdotes about nice, rich people. On the other hand, the problem has less to do with individual wealthy people or families, and more to do with the place of the wealthy in the society.
Lately when anyone uses some like that, something like G**gle, I immediately fill in the blanks as "giggle." I get a small laugh out of it...
Hell, I thought the new MacMini was a great deal at $550 with educational discount... add to that a $180 22" display and you have a very capable, affordable system.
It's clever how you imply that you would like to stab him while "inviting" him into society.
The only subdivision I have ever lived in had these covenants, and yes it was why you had a street of 15 or 20 condominiums that looked exactly identical. IIRC, the covenant forbade such things as planting gardens or bushes, although you were allowed to have one specific genus of tree in a designated place in your lawn and you were allowed to have one specific type of bush near the front windows. Actually, scratch that. It wasn't an allowance, it was a requirement. You also had to paint your property one specific color of ugly, wholesale brown. I mean, it was a very ugly color. I can almost understand being a cheapskate in this regard - manufacture some houses and sell them as cheaply and quickly as possible, but I can't understand what sick individual decided all the houses on that street should perpetually remain that one shade of ugly brown.
Other than that, I think we also had more severe restrictions on parties, parking, yard sales, "trash," lawn care, lighting, etc. than were required by city ordinance. It was a disgusting, soulless place, and it saddens me every time I see a new development in my city.
They exist and are pretty common, unfortunately. I really hate them; you'll find them a lot in gated communities and subdivisions. Live and let live I say.
I can only imagine next year it could include P2P users and eventually anyone doing something abnormal like running tor
To put it lightly... if you really believe that you need to get out of the basement more :)
the term "harassment" means a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person; and serves no legitimate purpose. United States Code Title 18 Subsection 1514(c)
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001514----000-.html
You caught what I was talking about, but missed my point. Desktops will become tools for those who need them - coders, gamers, graphic designers, etc. No one else is going to want or need them. Granted, I'm just brain storming here, but I am sure that given the sum of human creativity, we will come up with something more efficient than keyboards for these other tasks that don't involve typing. It's already happening with email, IM, SMS, etc. You don't need a full keyboard for that. And what you do need a keyboard for is a rather limited set of computing applications. Personally, I don't see the problem with dictating longer letters - it's worked in the past. But, there any number of other ways - digital pens/tablets, portable keyboards, scanning devices, etc. that could in the near future prove to be reliable replacements.
In 10 or 20 years from now, people are going to look back aand laugh at use for spending the 70's through the 2030's spending so much time sitting in front of a computer terminal. The terminal/desktop and its beloved windowing systems and keyboard/mouse are going to become necessary for fewer and fewer computing applications as UIs evolve.
The 1/2 pound battery is there to increase the effectiveness of your jog! As for the rest, well, err... it was the Chinese!!
How about dictation, or handwriting recognition (say writing a letter and scanning it with the watch). Or how about your watch serves a number of functions that don't rely on typing, including serving as your data uplink. Your other devices would interface with your watch to send and receive data. You could write your letter on another device you carry, such as tablet PC or iPod, which would then use your watch to send the email.
The future looks pretty cool if you think outside the box a little. It's very easy to start thinking that windowing systems and cell phones are the pinnacle of UIs, but they are not, and do not particularly integrate well with normal human life.
That's erm... sort of a good point, but come one. Think outside the box a little.
The desktop computer is on its way out for everyone but typists and coders. When your wristwatch automatically interfaces with any number of large screens at your office or home, not to mention printers and fax machines, who is going to be worrying about the size of their watch display? We have the technology to do that now... and that's just one of many possible evolutions of UI. The possibilities are quite astounding.
mmm, no other government that i can recall has paid for the murder of generals, helped depose democratically elected presidents or generally tried to produce a civil war
If you believe that, you don't know much history. Look to the history of almost any country and you will find assassination attempts, attempts to destabilize perceived enemies, abuse of power, corruption, murder, theft, etc.
the idea that the US is more democratic or "free" than other countries is total bullshit.
Well, for starters we aren't a direct democracy, nor is democracy synonymous with freedom. Furthermore, the citizens of the US are more free than in many other countries, in terms of personal liberties. We are certainly more free than the Chinese or than those in many African countries, for example.
until some 40 years ago, you had second class citizens based on the color of their skin, not to mention the fact that you had the largest and most recent slavery based economy in the world.
Racism was not limited to the US, and it did not end 40 years ago. It hasn't ended today and can be seen in other countries, for example: in China the racism towards to Tibetans, or in Europe, racism against Moroccans and Muslims. The US ended slavery about 50 years after France - big whoop. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism#National_abolition_dates That makes some countries slightly "more moral" than the US, but many "less moral," such as: Brazil, Korea, China, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Morocco, etc. http://tibet.dharmakara.net/ictracism.html
you all behave as if you were some kind of promised land of political freedom
We don't all behave that way, nor do all people in the world demonize the US as you do. But if you want to believe that China is somehow more free, and morally superior to America, I can't stop you. To deny that there is no spectrum of morality that the nations fall into is ignorant at best. Almost every nation and government has a horrible past.
So... I can't tell if I have safe search on when "reading" Chinese, so if I might rely on you to tell me whether it is still censored? (It is isn't it?)
That is a very ignorant thing to say. The US government isn't and hasn't ever been perfect, but it is closer to "good" in the moral spectrum than China is, or many other countries' governments for that matter. Almost all governments are horrible, or have done horrible things in the past. Such is human nature, I suppose. All I'm saying is some turds smell better than other turds; still, they both smell like shit.
Hahahahahahaha.
Plus, wouldn't it be better to search using Chinese instead of English??