Complaining because they charged you for bringing a larger bag than they allow is kind of a reach, they obviously have to limit how much people carry on board, and the limits are pretty generous-- I believe 40lbs for carry on and 50 for checked. Additionally, the first bag is free, so they dont charge you a dime for your first 90lbs.
Ive never heard of a fuel surcharge, so possibly you should change your airline-- United has always done OK by me. Theyve bumped me from a flight once or twice, but more than made up for it with free tickets and a better, more direct secondary flight.
Airlines are pretty darn explicit in exactly what you will get-- prior to flying on my 777 2 weeks ago I was able to find out exactly what amenities would be available pretty easily. And every time Ive shopped for a ticket, I remember seeing exactly how many inches of legroom I would get.
I think airline seating is, actually, one of the MOST explicit areas when it comes to "what am I getting", Im really not sure where your complaint comes from. And if you want to know the exact conditions of the seat on a specific plane, you can always check www.seatguru.com....
Having just flown on a Boeing 777, I would suggest that you are overly cynical. The flight was enjoyable even given my freakishly long legs and the realities of economy seating. Per-seat tv screens, a large selection of free music and movies, and a very spacious cabin that did not feel cramped (even as my legs complained).
I would guess due to your cynicism that you mostly fly short hops, and in that case the 787 really isnt for you anyways. And as regards the plane color, would you prefer that they charge you more for a ticket and have a colorful plane, or that they have cheaper tickets and a plane color that you dont notice anyways when youre inside of it?
No, right now, it isn't. As you just said, "you can rent, or do without in many cases, or sit next to someone else who did get it". The fees for the class do NOT include a book.
Not what I said. To clarify so that you cannot misinterpret, getting to class, pencils, notebooks, bookbags, textbooks, etc are all part of the cost of attending class. If you find that you need one of them and cannot afford one, that is unfortunate, but it is, again, a part of the cost of going to a college class. Its not some separate thing, and Im not sure why youre trying to treat it as such.
Wait, you want someone to list the companies that noone will ever have heard of because they failed? If we have heard of them, they would have been big enough to overcome such an obstacle.
No, it is not, and making this a censorship thing (though you COULD have argued censorship as regards the child porn blocking, I suppose) is so disingenuous that Im frankly surprised you had the guts to try to make it one.
Really, you should be ashamed to have such an astonishing non sequitur associated with your UID.
To clarify, I was not calling you a freeloader; I was poking fun at the idea of "civil resistance" when the entire point of civil resistance is to suffer by unjust laws in such a way that the injustice of them becomes widely known. The current situation and sentiment expressed on slashdot so often is more akin to "cover my ass and download as much as I can in secret", which HARDLY falls into the category of "Rosa Parks style civil resistance".
Encouraging people to simply ignore the laws when that is creating a bigger problem (namely, tons of laws that are neither enforced nor respected, and scores of people who are desensitized to ignoring laws on a regular basis) does not fall into the category of "noble" in my eyes.
My assumptions were based on your defense of "ignoring those laws". I have so rarely seen the idea of actual civil resistance as regards content mentioned, that I think it is fair to assume if you do not explicitly advocate it you are not implying it.
Imagine a UNI system that wasn't so money oriented that it didn't force people to buy books they didn't want by charging them upfront in the fees to take the class.
Im at Uni right now, and while the costs of text books really are heinous (as are the per-semester customizations that make resale value 0), you dont really HAVE to buy all of the books-- you can rent, or do without in many cases, or sit next to someone else who did get it.
Regardless, the cost of the book is part of the cost of taking the class. While it is a huge irritation to me what path they are going down, Im not really sure this qualifies as a major issue faced by students today.
Users who prefer a highly customizeable, performant browser in line with FOSS principles, but who are so fickle that they cant be bothered to choose their own search engine?
Come on, I dont use Bing, but its not AWFUL, and it takes all of 3 seconds to switch to google or whatever else you might want. Mozilla needs money, this gets them money, and the cost to users is negligible.
It also probably doesnt provide financial support to mozilla, which they need far more than you need to be saved from the effort of setting your own search engine.
Unless of course those 3 clicks are worth millions of dollars to you, in which case Im sure you could convince Mozilla to switch engines by providing said financial incentive.
They have no business interests in legal investigation and enforcement and the court has no business privatising these roles and demanding BT perform them.
They absolutely do when the courts say so, unless they have a reasonable chance of winning an appeal. It is genuinely unwise to tell the courts to go screw themselves, you would be astonished at the hurt they can lay down.
Second, BT did not break any laws, so there seems no reason for them being in front of a judge in the first place.
The court seems to disagree, and their opinion (or any higher court which weighs in) is what matters.
You might argue that the judge saw it differently, and maybe so, but he was wrong.
The truth of that statement is arguable, but is irrelevant. I can argue all day long (and I do, haha) about how "wrong" the supreme court is in the US frequently, or historically, but they are by definition "right" as far as our society is concerned when they issue a ruling-- unless society collectively disagrees so violently that we start to impeach the justices.
The courts, legislative bodies, and executive arms of government in democratic societies are supposed to be representative of the collective will of society, which is why it is so important that people vote wisely. If they do not, their will will be misrepresented.
I note, however, that you completely ignored my reasoning and focused instead on why the judge needs to legislate from the bench. It might occur to you, if you would read my words and grasp my reasoning, that I believe there to be worse things than copyright law-- among them, judges legislating from the bench, and systemic disrespect for law. Both of those are far more toxic to a society than complaints about information being free and oppression because you cant download a song.
You are so focused on these first-world complaints youre willing to sacrifice the pillars that hold society up all together, in other words.
Its an analogy, and all analogies have limitations-- especially when you compare digital and analog spaces. Your specific issue with my analogy seems more tied to your views on the digital economy, than my reasoning-- and while your disagreement is noted, it doesnt affect the legitimacy of the analogy.
So long as the law includes copyright, and things like it, yes.
Bad news for you: Copyright has been included in the law since the founding of the country. There has been no major movement to remove it (AFAIK) in the 200+ year history of this country.
So if you disagree with it, thats great, but the entire point of goverment and laws is that they sometimes tell us we cannot do certain things because collectively we have agreed that they are good for society. You are able to ignore those laws, but the entire point of the courts is to then issue some form of remedy and punitive measure to ensure that as a whole society's laws are followed.
Crying "injustice" is great and all, but I am not aware of this being something that even a significant minority of the country would agree with you on.
I want a society where no one respects unjust laws.
Minor, piddling detail: who decides which laws they want to follow? You see, myself, I tend to think that copyright isnt entirely bad (shorter terms would be better); but most people seem to ignore copyright even on very recent works (last 6 months).
Im not trying to build a strawman here, but it really sounds like youre arguing for functional anarchy where everyone follows what they see as best.
If youre trying to make this a "fight unjust laws" thing, perhaps doing more than simply taking the content in anonymous silence would be in order? You know, like demonstrating, or intentionally pirating un-anonymously to make a stand?
When I see posts on slashdot advocating taking content and using privacy guards, or simply ignoring copyright laws-- but not taking any political action that might be personally inconvenient-- I dont think "freedom fighter", I think "freeloader".
To clarify my analogy, the cars are the bits on the internet. ISP provides access to them (selling them for all intents and purposes), and some of them are illegal. It is in their interest, profit-wise, to do so as long as customers desire it, so it is necessary for the courts to dis-incentivize it.
Theyre selling access, and some of what theyre selling access too (internet) is illegal (copyrighted binaries, media). I think the analogy lines up nicely. The courts are saying that if they want to continue selling access, they need to make sure they arent providing access to illegal goods.
So courts should essentially legislate from the bench, then-- declare that they will no longer enforce the properly passed laws on copyright because "its too hard"?
Common sense is for a judge to declare whether someone is breaking the law, and issue an enforceable remedy. Are you disputing that?
So you want a society where noone respects the law? Thats utterly brilliant, I hope Im around when someone steals your bike and the police says "son, bicycles want to be free. Row Row, fight the power."
The entire comparison was a bad one from the start. Aside from the lack of any radiation deaths in Fukushima (2 workers MAY have a slightly elevated risk of cancer), this was a massive natural disaster which started the nuclear issue. Were there any explosions at natural gas plants that killed anyone? What about coal plants?
Chernobyl on the other hand was an incredibly unsafe reactor design, all of its safety mechanisms disabled, and it still nearly aborted (was overridden). It was basically as if someone said "lets see how we can make a worst-case nuclear disaster".
Comparing the two makes a little more sense if you add some perspective: were there any deaths from non-nuclear power sources? How many people died at Fukushima, vs how many died from the tsunami?
Really, the coverage of Fukushima has made me incredibly cynical about basically every media source. You cant simply have a natural disaster anymore, no, you have to have an ANGLE and POLITICIZE it. It has to be about "greedy corporations" vs "heavy-handed, inept government regulation". Good grief.
Im sure this will be lost amidst the sea of noise, but this does not appear to actually have been peer reviewed yet-- just "up for peer review". Seems like a sensible response would for everyone to shut their mouths until someone with expertise could actually vet this-- who's to say its actually on the level?
This type of argument is a veiled request that the judge turn off his higher reasoning faculties, and make a black and white decision.
But when a site is known to be infringing willfully (which IS a factor in law), and its entire popularity is based on that, and it markets itself as that, its an entirely different animal than Google-- which DOES take steps to proactively comply with copyright laws.
There is a world of difference, and the only way you can argue otherwise is by turning your bias up to maximum and ignoring all common sense.
Slashdot Mirror
Complaining because they charged you for bringing a larger bag than they allow is kind of a reach, they obviously have to limit how much people carry on board, and the limits are pretty generous-- I believe 40lbs for carry on and 50 for checked. Additionally, the first bag is free, so they dont charge you a dime for your first 90lbs.
Ive never heard of a fuel surcharge, so possibly you should change your airline-- United has always done OK by me. Theyve bumped me from a flight once or twice, but more than made up for it with free tickets and a better, more direct secondary flight.
Airlines are pretty darn explicit in exactly what you will get-- prior to flying on my 777 2 weeks ago I was able to find out exactly what amenities would be available pretty easily. And every time Ive shopped for a ticket, I remember seeing exactly how many inches of legroom I would get.
I think airline seating is, actually, one of the MOST explicit areas when it comes to "what am I getting", Im really not sure where your complaint comes from. And if you want to know the exact conditions of the seat on a specific plane, you can always check www.seatguru.com....
Having just flown on a Boeing 777, I would suggest that you are overly cynical. The flight was enjoyable even given my freakishly long legs and the realities of economy seating. Per-seat tv screens, a large selection of free music and movies, and a very spacious cabin that did not feel cramped (even as my legs complained).
I would guess due to your cynicism that you mostly fly short hops, and in that case the 787 really isnt for you anyways. And as regards the plane color, would you prefer that they charge you more for a ticket and have a colorful plane, or that they have cheaper tickets and a plane color that you dont notice anyways when youre inside of it?
No, right now, it isn't. As you just said, "you can rent, or do without in many cases, or sit next to someone else who did get it". The fees for the class do NOT include a book.
Not what I said. To clarify so that you cannot misinterpret, getting to class, pencils, notebooks, bookbags, textbooks, etc are all part of the cost of attending class. If you find that you need one of them and cannot afford one, that is unfortunate, but it is, again, a part of the cost of going to a college class. Its not some separate thing, and Im not sure why youre trying to treat it as such.
Wait, you want someone to list the companies that noone will ever have heard of because they failed? If we have heard of them, they would have been big enough to overcome such an obstacle.
Its a fancy way of saying "Either you posted to the wrong article, Or you posted off topic, Or your post is utterly irrelevant and boneheaded."
No, it is not, and making this a censorship thing (though you COULD have argued censorship as regards the child porn blocking, I suppose) is so disingenuous that Im frankly surprised you had the guts to try to make it one.
Really, you should be ashamed to have such an astonishing non sequitur associated with your UID.
To clarify, I was not calling you a freeloader; I was poking fun at the idea of "civil resistance" when the entire point of civil resistance is to suffer by unjust laws in such a way that the injustice of them becomes widely known. The current situation and sentiment expressed on slashdot so often is more akin to "cover my ass and download as much as I can in secret", which HARDLY falls into the category of "Rosa Parks style civil resistance".
Encouraging people to simply ignore the laws when that is creating a bigger problem (namely, tons of laws that are neither enforced nor respected, and scores of people who are desensitized to ignoring laws on a regular basis) does not fall into the category of "noble" in my eyes.
My assumptions were based on your defense of "ignoring those laws". I have so rarely seen the idea of actual civil resistance as regards content mentioned, that I think it is fair to assume if you do not explicitly advocate it you are not implying it.
Imagine a UNI system that wasn't so money oriented that it didn't force people to buy books they didn't want by charging them upfront in the fees to take the class.
Im at Uni right now, and while the costs of text books really are heinous (as are the per-semester customizations that make resale value 0), you dont really HAVE to buy all of the books-- you can rent, or do without in many cases, or sit next to someone else who did get it.
Regardless, the cost of the book is part of the cost of taking the class. While it is a huge irritation to me what path they are going down, Im not really sure this qualifies as a major issue faced by students today.
Users who prefer a highly customizeable, performant browser in line with FOSS principles, but who are so fickle that they cant be bothered to choose their own search engine?
Come on, I dont use Bing, but its not AWFUL, and it takes all of 3 seconds to switch to google or whatever else you might want. Mozilla needs money, this gets them money, and the cost to users is negligible.
It also probably doesnt provide financial support to mozilla, which they need far more than you need to be saved from the effort of setting your own search engine.
Unless of course those 3 clicks are worth millions of dollars to you, in which case Im sure you could convince Mozilla to switch engines by providing said financial incentive.
Im not equating them. Quoted parent explicitly said that ANY copyright was unacceptable.
Correct, I assume most in this discussion are from the US or familiar with its laws, as implied by the slashdot rules / FAQ.
They have no business interests in legal investigation and enforcement and the court has no business privatising these roles and demanding BT perform them.
They absolutely do when the courts say so, unless they have a reasonable chance of winning an appeal. It is genuinely unwise to tell the courts to go screw themselves, you would be astonished at the hurt they can lay down.
Second, BT did not break any laws, so there seems no reason for them being in front of a judge in the first place.
The court seems to disagree, and their opinion (or any higher court which weighs in) is what matters.
You might argue that the judge saw it differently, and maybe so, but he was wrong.
The truth of that statement is arguable, but is irrelevant. I can argue all day long (and I do, haha) about how "wrong" the supreme court is in the US frequently, or historically, but they are by definition "right" as far as our society is concerned when they issue a ruling-- unless society collectively disagrees so violently that we start to impeach the justices.
The courts, legislative bodies, and executive arms of government in democratic societies are supposed to be representative of the collective will of society, which is why it is so important that people vote wisely. If they do not, their will will be misrepresented.
Hah, I knew I would get called that, eventually.
I note, however, that you completely ignored my reasoning and focused instead on why the judge needs to legislate from the bench. It might occur to you, if you would read my words and grasp my reasoning, that I believe there to be worse things than copyright law-- among them, judges legislating from the bench, and systemic disrespect for law. Both of those are far more toxic to a society than complaints about information being free and oppression because you cant download a song.
You are so focused on these first-world complaints youre willing to sacrifice the pillars that hold society up all together, in other words.
Its an analogy, and all analogies have limitations-- especially when you compare digital and analog spaces. Your specific issue with my analogy seems more tied to your views on the digital economy, than my reasoning-- and while your disagreement is noted, it doesnt affect the legitimacy of the analogy.
So long as the law includes copyright, and things like it, yes.
Bad news for you: Copyright has been included in the law since the founding of the country. There has been no major movement to remove it (AFAIK) in the 200+ year history of this country.
So if you disagree with it, thats great, but the entire point of goverment and laws is that they sometimes tell us we cannot do certain things because collectively we have agreed that they are good for society. You are able to ignore those laws, but the entire point of the courts is to then issue some form of remedy and punitive measure to ensure that as a whole society's laws are followed.
Crying "injustice" is great and all, but I am not aware of this being something that even a significant minority of the country would agree with you on.
I want a society where no one respects unjust laws.
Minor, piddling detail: who decides which laws they want to follow? You see, myself, I tend to think that copyright isnt entirely bad (shorter terms would be better); but most people seem to ignore copyright even on very recent works (last 6 months).
Im not trying to build a strawman here, but it really sounds like youre arguing for functional anarchy where everyone follows what they see as best.
If youre trying to make this a "fight unjust laws" thing, perhaps doing more than simply taking the content in anonymous silence would be in order? You know, like demonstrating, or intentionally pirating un-anonymously to make a stand?
When I see posts on slashdot advocating taking content and using privacy guards, or simply ignoring copyright laws-- but not taking any political action that might be personally inconvenient-- I dont think "freedom fighter", I think "freeloader".
To clarify my analogy, the cars are the bits on the internet. ISP provides access to them (selling them for all intents and purposes), and some of them are illegal. It is in their interest, profit-wise, to do so as long as customers desire it, so it is necessary for the courts to dis-incentivize it.
Theyre selling access, and some of what theyre selling access too (internet) is illegal (copyrighted binaries, media). I think the analogy lines up nicely. The courts are saying that if they want to continue selling access, they need to make sure they arent providing access to illegal goods.
So courts should essentially legislate from the bench, then-- declare that they will no longer enforce the properly passed laws on copyright because "its too hard"?
Common sense is for a judge to declare whether someone is breaking the law, and issue an enforceable remedy. Are you disputing that?
So you want a society where noone respects the law? Thats utterly brilliant, I hope Im around when someone steals your bike and the police says "son, bicycles want to be free. Row Row, fight the power."
The entire comparison was a bad one from the start. Aside from the lack of any radiation deaths in Fukushima (2 workers MAY have a slightly elevated risk of cancer), this was a massive natural disaster which started the nuclear issue. Were there any explosions at natural gas plants that killed anyone? What about coal plants?
Chernobyl on the other hand was an incredibly unsafe reactor design, all of its safety mechanisms disabled, and it still nearly aborted (was overridden). It was basically as if someone said "lets see how we can make a worst-case nuclear disaster".
Comparing the two makes a little more sense if you add some perspective: were there any deaths from non-nuclear power sources? How many people died at Fukushima, vs how many died from the tsunami?
Really, the coverage of Fukushima has made me incredibly cynical about basically every media source. You cant simply have a natural disaster anymore, no, you have to have an ANGLE and POLITICIZE it. It has to be about "greedy corporations" vs "heavy-handed, inept government regulation". Good grief.
Im sure this will be lost amidst the sea of noise, but this does not appear to actually have been peer reviewed yet-- just "up for peer review". Seems like a sensible response would for everyone to shut their mouths until someone with expertise could actually vet this-- who's to say its actually on the level?
This type of argument is a veiled request that the judge turn off his higher reasoning faculties, and make a black and white decision.
But when a site is known to be infringing willfully (which IS a factor in law), and its entire popularity is based on that, and it markets itself as that, its an entirely different animal than Google-- which DOES take steps to proactively comply with copyright laws.
There is a world of difference, and the only way you can argue otherwise is by turning your bias up to maximum and ignoring all common sense.