I suspect that RIAA knows that you will never pay and doesn't care. Their interest in this thing is to get huge judgments that will scare the shit out of the most normal people who do not in fact want to go bankrupt because of downloading a few songs.
Can't wait to meet those Some! They seem to appear in every propaganda story about copyright on/.
I've even heard of academics who had to redo pretty much the identical experiment
Really?! Where did you hear of them? Overheard conversation on a bus? National Enquirer letters to the editor? Can't wait to find out!
That's bad for everyone.
Wow, thanks! I finally get it now!
From TFA: admittedly, I'm already a strong believer in the harm done by copyright in many instances
Impartial source too! This story really makes me excited! Let's overthrow those evil copyright laws right now. Rise up comrades, you've nothing to lose but your chains!!!
Cause it seems a bit unfair to impose ridiculously stiff penalties, including suspension of license, on clubs for serving underage persons, but then deny them any tools that might confirm someone's age, apart from looking at the date on an easily faked driver's license. Let the parents, not bartenders, be responsible for their childrens behavior.
I try hard to convince people to stop using Internet Exploder
Why? I was the same way towards IE cause I was used to it being piece of crap, but the latest version is not so bad and if people like it better let them use it. The main reasons I use Firefox are the few add-ons that I really couldn't live without (which is why it's particularly annoying that some of them break with each new release) but if they don't need them what's the big deal.
Once you go down the crazy road, who's to say where to stop. I bet they will not only regulate the size of icons, but the order in which the browsers are presented will have to be random. Then you have the question of which versions of which browsers will have to be included in which release of Windows, and which ones will be left out and why etc.
I agree completely except for "If no one is selling a product for 5 years, you should be able to distribute it for preservation.".
There is a reason why many software products stop being offered for sale: the company that owns the copyright wants you to buy their latest product, not a 5 year old one.
To take games as an example, say the game is sold for 2 years and then it's off the market for 5. Some people might actually prefer a 7 year old game for free to a brand new one for $60. So, you'll end up with game companies still "selling" their old games for more than the latest ones, or other such tricks to work around the issue. I think if the game is truly abandoned because the copyright owner for whatever reason really doesn't care about it, and nobody else has the right to distribute it, there is a case for it to be "saved" somehow but I think it's too simplistic to just say that after 5 years it's a fair game for anybody to distribute.
Given that around 7% of all the world's shipping goes by the horn of Africa to get through the Suez canal, I don't think they need to bait any ships to come to them.
He was replying to a post that suggested that Africans don't need high speed internet, because they don't have electricity yet in their "villages". He never said that majority of Africans live in cities, just that not ALL Africans live in villages.
Yep, here in the good ol' USA we have a chaotic mess of different units for the same thing depending on the application, and we like it that way! You foreigners can keep your simple standardized units. You and your cubic meters.... How hard can it be to remember that the unit for volume is cup, pint, ounce, cubic inch, cubic foot, cubic yard, cubic mile, quart, gallon, bushel, barrel and hogshead, all of which can effortlessly be converted into one another as long as you are comfortable with long fractions and irrational numbers!
I guess nobody in power to stop these things never takes into account that one nuclear accident could render a majority of the US inhabitable.
I think the keyword here is could. I can imagine many disasters that could cause enormous damage too, but the question is how likely they are to happen. What is more likely, a meteor strike, or an accident in a nuclear power station of such a magnitude as to render US uninhabitable? I don't know, but lets say they are comparable. If so, we should be willing to spend as much money on protection against meteors as we are on not using nuclear power, including, arguably, the cost of our military operations in the middle east, the increased danger of terrorism (potentially nuclear too) etc. Either way it's a cost/benefit analysis and you have to look at both sides of the equation.
VentureBeat notes that Apple exerts immense pressure on its business partners [to] help it maintain secrecy.The implication being that this somehow caused his death? Here are some thoughts for the unfortunate gentleman in question.
1. Consider the value of a human life, starting with your own, and compare it to the value of the secrecy of some cellphone prototype
2. Consider your other options. Your bosses were mean to you: sue them, find another job, learn to live with it. Are any of these better than jumping out of the fucking window?
3. Consider the safety and mental wellbeing of the people who might be minding their own business and walking their children to school as your dumb skull slams into the pavement in front of them. If you've got to kill yourself, please don't get other people involved.
4. In short, get a life. Well, too late now...
Given the influence that the Catholic Church (Come on, you cannot be serious with that stuff about other religions. Do you know anything about Ireland?) has in educating children in Ireland I think it can reasonably be said that it indirectly has a hand in this law, even though it may not have been involved directly. It seems like a bit of a stretch, but only if you ignore the extraordinary power of childhood indoctrination. I know religiously brought up people, who consider themselves atheists and yet will feel extremely uneasy, almost fearful, about saying anything bad about God or religion. That's how deep it's been beaten into their brain at the time when it was still developing and very susceptible to molding however the adults in charge wanted.
You are confusing belief with certainty. Let me fix your sentence for you: If they were religious they would have faith that God exists. Neither of them are certain, one of them have faith, the other doesn't.
I think you are confused as to what atheism means. Atheism does NOT require any proof. Please read that again: Atheism does NOT require any proof. I, as an atheist, do not believe that a god (as in any supernatural being) exists in the same way as you do NOT believe that there is a silver tea pot in the orbit around Jupiter, even though you have no proof of it either. If we required a positive proof in order to disbelieve some proposition, we would be forced to believe any crazy idea that anybody came up with since it is impossible to prove the negative. Pink unicorns on Venus? Prove they don't exist! Flying Spaghetti Monster? Prove he doesn't exist! etc etc. That's what atheism means: the lack of belief in a certain proposition (that god exists), not an absolute certainty (which is impossible, but then that applies to pink unicorns as well) that that proposition is false.
Most agnostics I know actually believe that it is likely that God or the Creator exists. What they are not sure of is the nature of God and God's relationship (if any) with Man. Is God good, bad, or indifferent?
They are not agnostics though, they are religious.
I agree, but I think a lot of "agnostics" could be defined as atheists who are confused about the meaning of the words atheist and agnostic. Looking up the main dictionaries isn't much help since the meanings are equally confused there. If you take the definitions to mean the following (from Oxford dictionary. Webster's are completely different):
atheism:
- noun the belief that God does not exist.
agnosticism:
- noun the belief that nothing can be known concerning the existence of God.
then I think fewer people will define themselves as agnostics. But from my experience the most common understanding of those words is that an atheist is someone who "knows for sure" that there is no god, and an agnostic is someone who is not so sure, and in that case majority of us non-believers would call ourselves agnostics.
I'm not a gamer so maybe I'm missing something here, but why couldn't game consoles support the regular keyboard and mouse in addition to the controller? It sure would make porting PC games to consoles easier, or the player could be given both options. Seems like the best of both worlds, no?
No, by the fact that there is a rising Pirate Party in a few countries. I don't dispute that it is currently very disorganized and ill-defined, but it exists.
So does the Monster Raving Loony Party and it's equally far away from the political mainstream. What's your point?
It is by the fact that more and more people are obtaining copyrighted content from the internet illegally.
That's not really clear. It's getting less and less easy technically to copy things due to better copyright protection technology, and the more aggressive legal action. Technically skilled people will probably always find a way to copy content but most people are not technically skilled.
It is by the fact that more and more people think that this is okay.
I am not sure of that. Was there a poll done?
The main point the GP was trying to make is that he predicted that in the future it would become extremely easy to copy something; so easy, in fact, that anybody could do it.
Sorry but that doesn't make sense at all. Please read the quote again. The gentlemen in question (the quoted one) had no way of knowing that 160 years later it will become easy to copy something. What he was predicting was a complete disaster in the immediate future following the adoption of the copyright laws, and he was 100% wrong in his predictions.
Only works until the first second of meeting that person in real life and all illusions are instantly shattered. Or maybe you can have virtual relationship, virtual marriage, virtual children...
Slashdot Mirror
I suspect that RIAA knows that you will never pay and doesn't care. Their interest in this thing is to get huge judgments that will scare the shit out of the most normal people who do not in fact want to go bankrupt because of downloading a few songs.
There is nothing stopping you now from sharing your music with others.
Some are claiming
/.
Can't wait to meet those Some! They seem to appear in every propaganda story about copyright on
I've even heard of academics who had to redo pretty much the identical experiment
Really?! Where did you hear of them? Overheard conversation on a bus? National Enquirer letters to the editor? Can't wait to find out!
That's bad for everyone.
Wow, thanks! I finally get it now!
From TFA: admittedly, I'm already a strong believer in the harm done by copyright in many instances
Impartial source too! This story really makes me excited! Let's overthrow those evil copyright laws right now. Rise up comrades, you've nothing to lose but your chains!!!
Cause it seems a bit unfair to impose ridiculously stiff penalties, including suspension of license, on clubs for serving underage persons, but then deny them any tools that might confirm someone's age, apart from looking at the date on an easily faked driver's license. Let the parents, not bartenders, be responsible for their childrens behavior.
I try hard to convince people to stop using Internet Exploder
Why? I was the same way towards IE cause I was used to it being piece of crap, but the latest version is not so bad and if people like it better let them use it. The main reasons I use Firefox are the few add-ons that I really couldn't live without (which is why it's particularly annoying that some of them break with each new release) but if they don't need them what's the big deal.
Once you go down the crazy road, who's to say where to stop. I bet they will not only regulate the size of icons, but the order in which the browsers are presented will have to be random. Then you have the question of which versions of which browsers will have to be included in which release of Windows, and which ones will be left out and why etc.
I agree completely except for "If no one is selling a product for 5 years, you should be able to distribute it for preservation.".
There is a reason why many software products stop being offered for sale: the company that owns the copyright wants you to buy their latest product, not a 5 year old one.
To take games as an example, say the game is sold for 2 years and then it's off the market for 5. Some people might actually prefer a 7 year old game for free to a brand new one for $60. So, you'll end up with game companies still "selling" their old games for more than the latest ones, or other such tricks to work around the issue. I think if the game is truly abandoned because the copyright owner for whatever reason really doesn't care about it, and nobody else has the right to distribute it, there is a case for it to be "saved" somehow but I think it's too simplistic to just say that after 5 years it's a fair game for anybody to distribute.
If access to source code is truly a right...
It is not.
Given that around 7% of all the world's shipping goes by the horn of Africa to get through the Suez canal, I don't think they need to bait any ships to come to them.
What is your point, specifically?
He was replying to a post that suggested that Africans don't need high speed internet, because they don't have electricity yet in their "villages". He never said that majority of Africans live in cities, just that not ALL Africans live in villages.
Yep, here in the good ol' USA we have a chaotic mess of different units for the same thing depending on the application, and we like it that way! You foreigners can keep your simple standardized units. You and your cubic meters.... How hard can it be to remember that the unit for volume is cup, pint, ounce, cubic inch, cubic foot, cubic yard, cubic mile, quart, gallon, bushel, barrel and hogshead, all of which can effortlessly be converted into one another as long as you are comfortable with long fractions and irrational numbers!
That's easy, they'll install wipers on them.
What kind of an idiot would mod this Flamebait? +5 Hilarious!
I guess nobody in power to stop these things never takes into account that one nuclear accident could render a majority of the US inhabitable.
I think the keyword here is could. I can imagine many disasters that could cause enormous damage too, but the question is how likely they are to happen. What is more likely, a meteor strike, or an accident in a nuclear power station of such a magnitude as to render US uninhabitable? I don't know, but lets say they are comparable. If so, we should be willing to spend as much money on protection against meteors as we are on not using nuclear power, including, arguably, the cost of our military operations in the middle east, the increased danger of terrorism (potentially nuclear too) etc. Either way it's a cost/benefit analysis and you have to look at both sides of the equation.
Why not? Believe it or not people are able to sue when they are harmed by somebody, even in China.
VentureBeat notes that Apple exerts immense pressure on its business partners [to] help it maintain secrecy.The implication being that this somehow caused his death? Here are some thoughts for the unfortunate gentleman in question. 1. Consider the value of a human life, starting with your own, and compare it to the value of the secrecy of some cellphone prototype 2. Consider your other options. Your bosses were mean to you: sue them, find another job, learn to live with it. Are any of these better than jumping out of the fucking window? 3. Consider the safety and mental wellbeing of the people who might be minding their own business and walking their children to school as your dumb skull slams into the pavement in front of them. If you've got to kill yourself, please don't get other people involved. 4. In short, get a life. Well, too late now...
Given the influence that the Catholic Church (Come on, you cannot be serious with that stuff about other religions. Do you know anything about Ireland?) has in educating children in Ireland I think it can reasonably be said that it indirectly has a hand in this law, even though it may not have been involved directly. It seems like a bit of a stretch, but only if you ignore the extraordinary power of childhood indoctrination. I know religiously brought up people, who consider themselves atheists and yet will feel extremely uneasy, almost fearful, about saying anything bad about God or religion. That's how deep it's been beaten into their brain at the time when it was still developing and very susceptible to molding however the adults in charge wanted.
You go with what the majority wants, whether you in your US mentality think its right or not.
In civilized countries (for once a very appropriate term) majority doesn't get to tyrannize the minority. That's what having rule of law is all about.
Stop being such a self absorbed twit and realize you're point of view isn't the only one that exists.
Says a self absorbed twit who supports the law which puts people in jail for expressing their point of view.
You are confusing belief with certainty. Let me fix your sentence for you: If they were religious they would have faith that God exists. Neither of them are certain, one of them have faith, the other doesn't.
I think you are confused as to what atheism means. Atheism does NOT require any proof. Please read that again: Atheism does NOT require any proof. I, as an atheist, do not believe that a god (as in any supernatural being) exists in the same way as you do NOT believe that there is a silver tea pot in the orbit around Jupiter, even though you have no proof of it either. If we required a positive proof in order to disbelieve some proposition, we would be forced to believe any crazy idea that anybody came up with since it is impossible to prove the negative. Pink unicorns on Venus? Prove they don't exist! Flying Spaghetti Monster? Prove he doesn't exist! etc etc. That's what atheism means: the lack of belief in a certain proposition (that god exists), not an absolute certainty (which is impossible, but then that applies to pink unicorns as well) that that proposition is false.
Most agnostics I know actually believe that it is likely that God or the Creator exists. What they are not sure of is the nature of God and God's relationship (if any) with Man. Is God good, bad, or indifferent?
They are not agnostics though, they are religious.
I agree, but I think a lot of "agnostics" could be defined as atheists who are confused about the meaning of the words atheist and agnostic. Looking up the main dictionaries isn't much help since the meanings are equally confused there. If you take the definitions to mean the following (from Oxford dictionary. Webster's are completely different):
atheism:
- noun the belief that God does not exist.
agnosticism:
- noun the belief that nothing can be known concerning the existence of God.
then I think fewer people will define themselves as agnostics. But from my experience the most common understanding of those words is that an atheist is someone who "knows for sure" that there is no god, and an agnostic is someone who is not so sure, and in that case majority of us non-believers would call ourselves agnostics.
I'm not a gamer so maybe I'm missing something here, but why couldn't game consoles support the regular keyboard and mouse in addition to the controller? It sure would make porting PC games to consoles easier, or the player could be given both options. Seems like the best of both worlds, no?
No, by the fact that there is a rising Pirate Party in a few countries. I don't dispute that it is currently very disorganized and ill-defined, but it exists.
So does the Monster Raving Loony Party and it's equally far away from the political mainstream. What's your point?
It is by the fact that more and more people are obtaining copyrighted content from the internet illegally.
That's not really clear. It's getting less and less easy technically to copy things due to better copyright protection technology, and the more aggressive legal action. Technically skilled people will probably always find a way to copy content but most people are not technically skilled.
It is by the fact that more and more people think that this is okay.
I am not sure of that. Was there a poll done?
The main point the GP was trying to make is that he predicted that in the future it would become extremely easy to copy something; so easy, in fact, that anybody could do it.
Sorry but that doesn't make sense at all. Please read the quote again. The gentlemen in question (the quoted one) had no way of knowing that 160 years later it will become easy to copy something. What he was predicting was a complete disaster in the immediate future following the adoption of the copyright laws, and he was 100% wrong in his predictions.
Only works until the first second of meeting that person in real life and all illusions are instantly shattered. Or maybe you can have virtual relationship, virtual marriage, virtual children...