Uhh... because it belongs to him maybe? I understand you are trying to make a point via a sort-of Socratic method, but it's not working. I can't figure out what, exactly, you are trying to argue for.
> Once one person buys his creation its a sale, Eminem cannot conntrol what the purchaser does with it
Correct, sort of. Eminem has no say what you do with the physical CD, but he DOES "have a say" (doesn't mean it's enforceable) in what happens to the music itself. You can give away, sell a CD, but you aren't allowed to give away or sell the music on that CD without the CD itself changing hands.
You seem to be lumping the Music purchaser and the Album purchaser in the same group with the same "rights" and that is just not the case. You get what you pay for, and the RIAA pays way more than $20 for a song (Tho the artist doesn't actually see that money).
> Eminem no longer owns it.
So, then, it's a huge racket where the RIAA sells one legitimate copy of every album it makes, and the 2nd through 5,000,000th person to buy any given album is being cheated -- they are being sold something that belongs to the first person who bought a copy! It doesn't work that way.
> Why do these rules apply when the RIAA purchases Eminems music, but it doesnt apply to the public domain when we purchase eminems music?
Because we aren't paying for the music, we are paying for the right to listen to that song. When the RIAA pays for music, they pay for the rights to the song itself. The right to distribute it, primarily, which includes the right to make money from sales of the song. (one specification, though, is that the song can be rerecorded by someone else and then they can make money from it).
Well, if they didn't know that already, they probably shouldn't be a nurse (yet). If it is something rare or complicated, the attending doctor should be either doing or instructing on the procedure.
But still, you are right, there probably is some information that would be useful to have immediately for each patient. After I read your post I thought of having prescription info, allergies, etc on there as backup information. When it comes to health care, data redundancy is invaluable.
> it is the power of the transmitter that would be at issue.
Okay, then, I'll restate the question:)
How much radio interference would the transmitter distribute through the Hospital? I think that distinction makes it more likely to interfere with equipment, as it would be centralized, yet put out more total power(/interference).
> it doesn't tend to work that way in the real world.
Actually, it DOES happen that way. People just let themselves think that there is no alternate options. This isn't to say it is EASY to break free of a company and live comfortably, but that isn't the question at hand.
> Most people, most women even, are against abortions being legal
What? If Most (implying significantly >%50) people were against abortion it wouldn't be a touchy subject. There is probably about a 30-40-35 split in opinion (pro - unsure - against), which is why we have no definitive rulings against it.
> So, you are saying that a hospital wouldn't want to use identifiers in the tags that relate to certain conditions, such as say, resistant tuberculosis or sars?
Even under HIPAA, the hospitals would be able to put that information onto an RFID, although they would be required to NOT put any data on it that can identify the patient -- ie, they can put the disease/problem on the tag, but not the patient's Name, address, phone, etc. They CAN put the Patient ID# or Admission ID# on there without a problem.
Two questions, though: Other than quarantine (which is a dubious use), what is the use of having the tags in a hospital?
How much power can these RFIDs put out? Enough (in large numbers, of course) to disrupt hospital equipment? I SERIOUSLY doubt it, but I don't know enough about RFIDs to answer honestly.
> now all their commercial products might have NSA backdoors in them
So you assume that because a vendor sells their software to the government that there must be some shady dealings going on? Wow, talk about whacked-out conspiracists...
> You consider the possession of property to be absolutely critical to your happiness?
Me, personally? Possession of food, shelter, etc. is required, but I'm sure that's not what you mean. Critical? No, but it makes it many times easier to be happy when surrounding yourself with things to occupy yourself with, whether it be physically, mentally, creatively, whatever.
> That's a fairly sad reflection on our society.
No, it's not sad, it's not happy, it is a statement of my views which, while they may not be entirely accurate, reflect what I observe. What else would drive Capitalism, but greed? And that is why it is so successful, because people are greedy. And I don't even claim that as being bad either. Once our basic necessities are taken care of, we strive to make ourselves more comfortable by acquiring more things. They don't really give us reason to be more comfortable, but surrounding ourselves with objects that others do not have helps give us personality.
If we all owned exactly the same things, there would be no value in any of them, and would have nothing to strive for, except possibly "physical excellence." Unfortunately, that would not make me happy, although it may for some.
Of course, this all is my opinion just as your statement about society is your opinion. All we really have to go on in life is what we take in with our senses.
> so why cant artists sell the rights to the public domain when we buy their CDs?
Because if we are buying their CDs, it is likely that they have already sold the rights (at least, the distribution rights) to the RIAA or some other company. If they retain the rights to their songs even after being "distributed," then they DO have the right to release it into public domain.
> Say a million of us buy Eminems CD, shouldnt his work be public domain? his art isnt worth much more than that.
I don't think the number of people buying an album should decide Public Domain or private. And as for the value of his art... well, that depends. His work is very valuable to himself, but of no value to me. If he puts more value (or price) on it than I do, then I don't buy it. (well, actually, if I liked it I would download it, but I don't because I don't)
However, it's Eminem's decision how the things he creates should be used. And it's my decision whether or not to follow that decision, the laws, or supposed morality (none of which I do, usually).
Hmmm, I don't know how to react to that one... I don't think seminary is quite the right word for it, but yes, many would thrive in that atmosphere. I probably would be better off there, but then there's %0 chance of finding someone, as opposed to the %0.00005 chance I have now.
> we should not let articles like these reduce that pressure
That's the kind of attitude that keeps progress at bay. We SHOULD let people do what they want, so we can prove without a doubt that it's bad and get people to actually SEE the dangers (instead of just reading about it in the news) so they can be better informed.
Also, that train of thought could be applied to other areas. We shouldn't let bleeding-heart assholes take away our ability to make a living by stealing our property (our slaves maybe?). We need to keep the stigma associated with blacks so that they don't get cocky and think they are real people with rights. We should not let the Northerners reduce that pressure, or else the economic system of the South will collapse!
Obviously I don't believe this, but...
Something isn't bad just because you say it's bad. Something isn't bad just because a small percentage of society thinks it's bad.
> I don't think I've worked with a single person on a job simular basis who wasn't at least a casual gamer since I've been in the tech field.
I would agree with that, except that it is the YOUNG people in tech who are the gamers. All of the people over 30 in tech that I have worked with are totally non-gamers. I, OTOH, am under 30 (25) and haven't played a video game for more than 1 hour (maybe once a week, usually less) in years.
I've never been into games, I find them to be a waste of my time(*) -- mostly because I suck at the "good" ones. Except for Mario Sunshine (with which I have about 45 minutes of experience), I have found 3-D controlling to be absolutely horrible. Real 3-D games (especially FPSes) are impossible to control steadily without spending massive amounts of time training yourself.
I especially don't play online games because of the assholes who think repeatedly killing people makes these things fun. How am I supposed to get better at something when I constantly get killed and no one helps? I never understood that.
(*) I would like to point out that just because I think it's a waste of my time does not mean it's a waste of everyone else's time; don't get mad.
They shouldn't, really! Artistic works should be owned by the person that created them, unless they opt to sell the rights to someone else. Which is, unfortunately, what songwriters are doing because they either think they are getting a good deal, or they think there is no other option.
You're the one who brought up the car thing, saying that car companies own the cars. We seem to be arguing the same side.
From recording industry contracts, but mostly anecdotal evidence -- about how most bands owe money to the RIAA after making their first album (which I think is only a small part of the equation, but makes a point).
> So if its wrong to treat cars like this, why treat music like this?
Music SHOULDN'T be treated like that...? Did you miss what I was replying to or something? I'm confused. You stated that Car companies own the cars, so I said they didn't. ???
> No your car is owned by your car company, you are paying for the right to drive in it.
What? That's absolutely stupid and a horrible lie. Do you actually believe this? Did you think for even a quarter of a second? Pontiac cannot come and take my Grand Am away from me for ANY REASON at all, except if I had a loan directly with them and I defaulted (which, %99.999 of the time, is not the case). While you have a loan, a Bank owns your car, but that's because they loaned you the money.
That's not true! When I talk out of my ass I stay at 1. When I say something useful, It gets -2. If you say something the General public agrees with and already knows, then you get either +1 insightful, or -1 flamebait, depending on the PC/OS/political/etc choice of the moderator. But since my views aren't popular I don't get to moderate any more! Not that I care, actually, it's just more work to do (although I'd do it anyway, 'cuz it made me feel warm, fuzzy, & special the one time I did it 4 years ago).
Slashdot Mirror
> When I played, I felt an urge to yank my neighbor out of his car and go on a pedestrian squashing rampage.
Hey, I feel like that every day. Doesn't mean I'm no lousy, stinkin', GAMER!!!
> You can't purchase a handgun until you are 21,
I may be incorrect, but I believe that is up to each state to decide age of purchase for firearms. If it isn't, it should be.
Oh, and in case any of you didn't notice, yeah, that's flamebait.
> should we stop people from reading the Bible?
:(
Well, ideally they would quit reading it on their own, realizing it's hogwash, but, alas, we can't take away things like that
Q. What do you call a plane full of Anonymous Cowards crashing into an Anonymous Coward convention?
A. DAMN! You're still here, I'll have to try again.
> Whys its eminems decision
Uhh... because it belongs to him maybe? I understand you are trying to make a point via a sort-of Socratic method, but it's not working. I can't figure out what, exactly, you are trying to argue for.
> Once one person buys his creation its a sale, Eminem cannot conntrol what the purchaser does with it
Correct, sort of. Eminem has no say what you do with the physical CD, but he DOES "have a say" (doesn't mean it's enforceable) in what happens to the music itself. You can give away, sell a CD, but you aren't allowed to give away or sell the music on that CD without the CD itself changing hands.
You seem to be lumping the Music purchaser and the Album purchaser in the same group with the same "rights" and that is just not the case. You get what you pay for, and the RIAA pays way more than $20 for a song (Tho the artist doesn't actually see that money).
> Eminem no longer owns it.
So, then, it's a huge racket where the RIAA sells one legitimate copy of every album it makes, and the 2nd through 5,000,000th person to buy any given album is being cheated -- they are being sold something that belongs to the first person who bought a copy! It doesn't work that way.
> Why do these rules apply when the RIAA purchases Eminems music, but it doesnt apply to the public domain when we purchase eminems music?
Because we aren't paying for the music, we are paying for the right to listen to that song. When the RIAA pays for music, they pay for the rights to the song itself. The right to distribute it, primarily, which includes the right to make money from sales of the song. (one specification, though, is that the song can be rerecorded by someone else and then they can make money from it).
> So when you buy an Mp3, what are you buying?
The right to listen to that song how you choose.
> know hygiene routines and treatment procedures
Well, if they didn't know that already, they probably shouldn't be a nurse (yet). If it is something rare or complicated, the attending doctor should be either doing or instructing on the procedure.
But still, you are right, there probably is some information that would be useful to have immediately for each patient. After I read your post I thought of having prescription info, allergies, etc on there as backup information. When it comes to health care, data redundancy is invaluable.
> it is the power of the transmitter that would be at issue.
:)
Okay, then, I'll restate the question
How much radio interference would the transmitter distribute through the Hospital? I think that distinction makes it more likely to interfere with equipment, as it would be centralized, yet put out more total power(/interference).
> it doesn't tend to work that way in the real world.
Actually, it DOES happen that way. People just let themselves think that there is no alternate options. This isn't to say it is EASY to break free of a company and live comfortably, but that isn't the question at hand.
> Most people, most women even, are against abortions being legal
What? If Most (implying significantly >%50) people were against abortion it wouldn't be a touchy subject. There is probably about a 30-40-35 split in opinion (pro - unsure - against), which is why we have no definitive rulings against it.
> So, you are saying that a hospital wouldn't want to use identifiers in the tags that relate to certain conditions, such as say, resistant tuberculosis or sars?
Even under HIPAA, the hospitals would be able to put that information onto an RFID, although they would be required to NOT put any data on it that can identify the patient -- ie, they can put the disease/problem on the tag, but not the patient's Name, address, phone, etc. They CAN put the Patient ID# or Admission ID# on there without a problem.
Two questions, though:
Other than quarantine (which is a dubious use), what is the use of having the tags in a hospital?
How much power can these RFIDs put out? Enough (in large numbers, of course) to disrupt hospital equipment? I SERIOUSLY doubt it, but I don't know enough about RFIDs to answer honestly.
> now all their commercial products might have NSA backdoors in them
So you assume that because a vendor sells their software to the government that there must be some shady dealings going on? Wow, talk about whacked-out conspiracists...
> You consider the possession of property to be absolutely critical to your happiness?
Me, personally? Possession of food, shelter, etc. is required, but I'm sure that's not what you mean. Critical? No, but it makes it many times easier to be happy when surrounding yourself with things to occupy yourself with, whether it be physically, mentally, creatively, whatever.
> That's a fairly sad reflection on our society.
No, it's not sad, it's not happy, it is a statement of my views which, while they may not be entirely accurate, reflect what I observe. What else would drive Capitalism, but greed? And that is why it is so successful, because people are greedy. And I don't even claim that as being bad either. Once our basic necessities are taken care of, we strive to make ourselves more comfortable by acquiring more things. They don't really give us reason to be more comfortable, but surrounding ourselves with objects that others do not have helps give us personality.
If we all owned exactly the same things, there would be no value in any of them, and would have nothing to strive for, except possibly "physical excellence." Unfortunately, that would not make me happy, although it may for some.
Of course, this all is my opinion just as your statement about society is your opinion. All we really have to go on in life is what we take in with our senses.
> so why cant artists sell the rights to the public domain when we buy their CDs?
Because if we are buying their CDs, it is likely that they have already sold the rights (at least, the distribution rights) to the RIAA or some other company. If they retain the rights to their songs even after being "distributed," then they DO have the right to release it into public domain.
> Say a million of us buy Eminems CD, shouldnt his work be public domain? his art isnt worth much more than that.
I don't think the number of people buying an album should decide Public Domain or private. And as for the value of his art... well, that depends. His work is very valuable to himself, but of no value to me. If he puts more value (or price) on it than I do, then I don't buy it. (well, actually, if I liked it I would download it, but I don't because I don't)
However, it's Eminem's decision how the things he creates should be used. And it's my decision whether or not to follow that decision, the laws, or supposed morality (none of which I do, usually).
Hmmm, I don't know how to react to that one... I don't think seminary is quite the right word for it, but yes, many would thrive in that atmosphere. I probably would be better off there, but then there's %0 chance of finding someone, as opposed to the %0.00005 chance I have now.
> we should not let articles like these reduce that pressure
That's the kind of attitude that keeps progress at bay. We SHOULD let people do what they want, so we can prove without a doubt that it's bad and get people to actually SEE the dangers (instead of just reading about it in the news) so they can be better informed.
Also, that train of thought could be applied to other areas. We shouldn't let bleeding-heart assholes take away our ability to make a living by stealing our property (our slaves maybe?). We need to keep the stigma associated with blacks so that they don't get cocky and think they are real people with rights. We should not let the Northerners reduce that pressure, or else the economic system of the South will collapse!
Obviously I don't believe this, but...
Something isn't bad just because you say it's bad.
Something isn't bad just because a small percentage of society thinks it's bad.
> I don't think I've worked with a single person on a job simular basis who wasn't at least a casual gamer since I've been in the tech field.
I would agree with that, except that it is the YOUNG people in tech who are the gamers. All of the people over 30 in tech that I have worked with are totally non-gamers. I, OTOH, am under 30 (25) and haven't played a video game for more than 1 hour (maybe once a week, usually less) in years.
I've never been into games, I find them to be a waste of my time(*) -- mostly because I suck at the "good" ones. Except for Mario Sunshine (with which I have about 45 minutes of experience), I have found 3-D controlling to be absolutely horrible. Real 3-D games (especially FPSes) are impossible to control steadily without spending massive amounts of time training yourself.
I especially don't play online games because of the assholes who think repeatedly killing people makes these things fun. How am I supposed to get better at something when I constantly get killed and no one helps? I never understood that.
(*) I would like to point out that just because I think it's a waste of my time does not mean it's a waste of everyone else's time; don't get mad.
> So why should music companies own the music?
They shouldn't, really! Artistic works should be owned by the person that created them, unless they opt to sell the rights to someone else. Which is, unfortunately, what songwriters are doing because they either think they are getting a good deal, or they think there is no other option.
You're the one who brought up the car thing, saying that car companies own the cars. We seem to be arguing the same side.
> Where do you people get your information?
From recording industry contracts, but mostly anecdotal evidence -- about how most bands owe money to the RIAA after making their first album (which I think is only a small part of the equation, but makes a point).
(Junk Culture?)
> So if its wrong to treat cars like this, why treat music like this?
Music SHOULDN'T be treated like that...? Did you miss what I was replying to or something? I'm confused. You stated that Car companies own the cars, so I said they didn't. ???
> No your car is owned by your car company, you are paying for the right to drive in it.
What? That's absolutely stupid and a horrible lie. Do you actually believe this? Did you think for even a quarter of a second? Pontiac cannot come and take my Grand Am away from me for ANY REASON at all, except if I had a loan directly with them and I defaulted (which, %99.999 of the time, is not the case). While you have a loan, a Bank owns your car, but that's because they loaned you the money.
> Data CDRs aren't the same for this purpose as Audio CDRs even though both do the same thing
OT, but is the ONLY difference between the two the "RIAA tax" price difference? Or is there some actual reason to use Audio CDRs?
> Talking out of your ass == +5 Insightful
That's not true! When I talk out of my ass I stay at 1. When I say something useful, It gets -2. If you say something the General public agrees with and already knows, then you get either +1 insightful, or -1 flamebait, depending on the PC/OS/political/etc choice of the moderator. But since my views aren't popular I don't get to moderate any more! Not that I care, actually, it's just more work to do (although I'd do it anyway, 'cuz it made me feel warm, fuzzy, & special the one time I did it 4 years ago).
> Just wait till IP6 with multicast and they you can have real anonimity
Maybe that's why it's moving so slowly. Is it possible the RIAA have bought legislation to slow down the Evil Internet?