The US, and other countries have had quite a bit to say (and do) about coups in countries where their interests are at stake...
The US's hands are certainly not clean. The installation of the Shah in Iran, for instance, was a mistake that came back to bite them for the last 35 years.
Stop acting like its something only russia does, and stop acting like it's a binary issue
Castigating Russia for this does not imply that only Russia has done this sort of thing. However, when it happens, it deserves to be called out.
Oh sorry, that's "fighting terrorism" and the occurrence of valuable natural resources in those areas is just a massive coincidence
What Coren22 said. And are you implying that the trillions of dollars the US has spent in that region will somehow be offset by... by what? We suck out the oil and we'll get how much in return? Those numbers were never going to add up.
And if we -were- going to spend that much money to extract oil from hostile nations, that we'd actually be good at getting the oil for ourselves.
The "we're there for the oil" argument has never made sense.
The notion that prosperity for the rich leads to prosperity for everyone is no straw man - it's a well known part of right wing policy.
The Republicans have never believed that prosperity for the rich would lead to prosperity for the poor. They never claimed that anything would trickle down to the peons. They hate the poor and want them to die. To die. That is the way of their kind.
If there is no poor, there can be no rich. Not exactly what they'd want.
As for the Talibans, sorry, but Bin Laden was harbored by Pakistan, not Afghanistan, as events eventually proved.
He was harbored by both. In the ten years before he was caught, he had a lot of time to move around. He was in Tora Bora when the US invaded Afghanistan, but managed to evade capture, at which point intelligence agencies lost track of him.
But Pakistan has nukes, so you were afraid to bomb it, right?
You may have missed the part where once the US tracked down Bin Laden, they invaded without telling the Pakistani government. Caused a bit of a stir.
They were both exceptional. Woz an exceptional engineer, Jobs an exceptional sleazebag.
Yes well, that was between Steve and Steve. Woz understood why Jobs did it: he was flat broke, living in a tool shed, and was desperate for money. Woz said he would have given Steve the money if Steve had just told him about it, but when you're desperate, you don't necessarily make the best decisions. They came clean a decade later.
He's still alive btw, because he didn't get so rich as to become weird about cancer treatments.
Steve Jobs's weirdness certainly preceded his wealth. He was born and raised in a counter-cultural environment, and it's really only when he got rich that he attained any sort of mainstream respectability. In the pre-Apple days, he lived at a Hindu Kainchi ashram in India, lived the LSD life, lived on an farm commune in Oregon, became a Zen Buddhist, and lived in a converted tool shed in his parents' backyard while planning on taking up monastic residence in Japan. I suppose with that sort of background, the "alternative medicine" approach to cancer should come as little surprise.
Copyright law will never be respected because it's completely incompatible with humanity's evolved desire to share information.
Eh, is it really? Patent law holds us back in that way, but copyright? Most of the copyrighted 'information' being illegally shared has little cultural value (even as a curiosity) and if it went away tomorrow, society would change only little and usually for the better.
Is this the old "Everything everyone else really likes is shit, I have much better taste" argument?
The best product is meaningless if you don't have someone like Jobs shoving it down people's throats to get them to buy.
Really? Is that really the case? Are you happy with a smaller product that does what you want and it does it well, and you're content with that... or do you HAVE to own the thing that everyone else is using? That you, as a consumer, need to jump to the largest market share?
I'm totally fine not chasing the current fad. If being the dominant market leader is the only sign of success, then we only have room for a few businesses in each sector.
The majority of content on YOUTUBE comes from people uploading their cat videos. Youtube actually doesn't make anything.
Those people uploading their cat videos should probably pay Youtube then to not inject the ads. Oh, they don't want to pay to host on Youtube? Then they get ads.
As soon as they piss off enough users their site disappears. There are plenty of better sites out there, so they better be careful.
I've yet to hear of a better video hosting site than Youtube. I've certainly never seen one. Not that it can't happen, but video hosting isn't cheap. Who pays? Who pays for the servers? Who pays for the bandwidth?
Lots of people seem to be implying "it should just be free and have no ads." Well.... why? Who pays the bills? Hint: The person paying the bills decides how he gets remunerated.
Possibly the bit where most of the websites in the world stop working
Maybe, but that's not really the web browser's fault. I mean, if you want the ability to disable Javascript, it seems a bit reasonable that javascript-reliant web sites wouldn't work right.
If 99% or more of web browsers have javascript support, it also seems pretty reasonable that web sites would use it.
the collaborators would write an equity sharing agreement to be filed as part of the copyright/patent, specifying what percentage equity of the IP each person would share. The lifetime limit would apply to each share individually, which would mean that a novel with three co-authors would not go fully public domain until the last co-author died. [...] A topic to be debated is what happens between the death of the first and last collaborator.
I like "partial public domain." "One of the three authors of this song has died. You may copy every third note."
My reform would be to eliminate the fungibility of intellectual property. Copyright would be a personal right of the creator of work, held by that person alone and expiring with the creator.
Which is great until you get to works that have multiple creators. What about a movie where hundreds of people put in hours to create it? Do we choose whomever lives the longest? Or just the director? Or producer?
Even a perpetual requirement for registration would help. Just keeping the public notified of potential rights would be an improvement over the current situation.
I'd also like a "no retroactive copyright" clause to prevent things that fell into the public domain from being removed from it later.
The problem with homeopathic 'remedies' that the person may delay getting real treatment under the presumption that they were already receiving treatment.
Hey, Harry Potter went a boarding school, and Hogwarts was awesome. A bunch of kids died, but the other benefits were fantastic. He didn't want to go back home either.
I'm not sure why this is modded as Troll. There are all sorts of science-denying sort of beliefs that correlate to different ends of the political spectrum. "Climate change is a hoax! The science is a lie! Those fossils are only 6000 years old and/or come from the devil!" tends to come from the conservative side. "Wi-Fi signals are harmful! Vaccines cause autism! GMOs are evil and unsafe and should be banned!" tend to come from the politically liberal. Sometimes you'll have an outlier, like Michelle Bachmann's... unwise wading into the vaccine/autism debate, but the tendency is there.
What? You have laws in the US about your house having to be painted? Is it a crime to have weeds on your lawn too?
It depends. Does it damage "property values" in the neighborhood? There's a lot of meddling that can be done about someone else's private property if you can prove their private property affects your and your neighbors home prices. I've never heard of a -city- that enforces this, though. Usually that's a homeowner association sort of nastiness.
Slashdot Mirror
The US, and other countries have had quite a bit to say (and do) about coups in countries where their interests are at stake...
The US's hands are certainly not clean. The installation of the Shah in Iran, for instance, was a mistake that came back to bite them for the last 35 years.
Stop acting like its something only russia does, and stop acting like it's a binary issue
Castigating Russia for this does not imply that only Russia has done this sort of thing. However, when it happens, it deserves to be called out.
The whole Israel thing is a far more believable story than the oil that the left likes to say the US is after, which somehow it never claims.
Ooh, hyperbole, never seen that before on the internet.
Except it wasn't really hyperbole. Whether Ukraine wanted stronger trade ties with the west or not, in no way did it justify the Russian invasion.
Oh sorry, that's "fighting terrorism" and the occurrence of valuable natural resources in those areas is just a massive coincidence
What Coren22 said. And are you implying that the trillions of dollars the US has spent in that region will somehow be offset by... by what? We suck out the oil and we'll get how much in return? Those numbers were never going to add up.
And if we -were- going to spend that much money to extract oil from hostile nations, that we'd actually be good at getting the oil for ourselves.
The "we're there for the oil" argument has never made sense.
The Republicans have never believed that prosperity for the rich would lead to prosperity for the poor. They never claimed that anything would trickle down to the peons. They hate the poor and want them to die. To die. That is the way of their kind.
If there is no poor, there can be no rich. Not exactly what they'd want.
Eeeh. That's the sort of thing that would really spur me to be completely ambidextrous.
As for the Talibans, sorry, but Bin Laden was harbored by Pakistan, not Afghanistan, as events eventually proved.
He was harbored by both. In the ten years before he was caught, he had a lot of time to move around. He was in Tora Bora when the US invaded Afghanistan, but managed to evade capture, at which point intelligence agencies lost track of him.
But Pakistan has nukes, so you were afraid to bomb it, right?
You may have missed the part where once the US tracked down Bin Laden, they invaded without telling the Pakistani government. Caused a bit of a stir.
They were both exceptional. Woz an exceptional engineer, Jobs an exceptional sleazebag.
Yes well, that was between Steve and Steve. Woz understood why Jobs did it: he was flat broke, living in a tool shed, and was desperate for money. Woz said he would have given Steve the money if Steve had just told him about it, but when you're desperate, you don't necessarily make the best decisions. They came clean a decade later.
He's still alive btw, because he didn't get so rich as to become weird about cancer treatments.
Steve Jobs's weirdness certainly preceded his wealth. He was born and raised in a counter-cultural environment, and it's really only when he got rich that he attained any sort of mainstream respectability. In the pre-Apple days, he lived at a Hindu Kainchi ashram in India, lived the LSD life, lived on an farm commune in Oregon, became a Zen Buddhist, and lived in a converted tool shed in his parents' backyard while planning on taking up monastic residence in Japan. I suppose with that sort of background, the "alternative medicine" approach to cancer should come as little surprise.
Copyright law will never be respected because it's completely incompatible with humanity's evolved desire to share information.
Eh, is it really? Patent law holds us back in that way, but copyright? Most of the copyrighted 'information' being illegally shared has little cultural value (even as a curiosity) and if it went away tomorrow, society would change only little and usually for the better.
Is this the old "Everything everyone else really likes is shit, I have much better taste" argument?
That was generally before the excesses of "the Gilded Age" and the worker-centric backlash in the following decades.
The best product is meaningless if you don't have someone like Jobs shoving it down people's throats to get them to buy.
Really? Is that really the case? Are you happy with a smaller product that does what you want and it does it well, and you're content with that... or do you HAVE to own the thing that everyone else is using? That you, as a consumer, need to jump to the largest market share?
I'm totally fine not chasing the current fad. If being the dominant market leader is the only sign of success, then we only have room for a few businesses in each sector.
The majority of content on YOUTUBE comes from people uploading their cat videos. Youtube actually doesn't make anything.
Those people uploading their cat videos should probably pay Youtube then to not inject the ads. Oh, they don't want to pay to host on Youtube? Then they get ads.
As soon as they piss off enough users their site disappears. There are plenty of better sites out there, so they better be careful.
I've yet to hear of a better video hosting site than Youtube. I've certainly never seen one. Not that it can't happen, but video hosting isn't cheap. Who pays? Who pays for the servers? Who pays for the bandwidth?
Lots of people seem to be implying "it should just be free and have no ads." Well.... why? Who pays the bills? Hint: The person paying the bills decides how he gets remunerated.
EULAs cannot supersede your rights.
You don't have a "right" to use Chrome.
B) is entirely incorrect. There's no implicit EULA; when you install Chrome, their EULA is quite explicitly agreed to. The analogy falls flat.
Possibly the bit where most of the websites in the world stop working
Maybe, but that's not really the web browser's fault. I mean, if you want the ability to disable Javascript, it seems a bit reasonable that javascript-reliant web sites wouldn't work right.
If 99% or more of web browsers have javascript support, it also seems pretty reasonable that web sites would use it.
I thought "Indiana Jones" was archaeology on steroids.
the collaborators would write an equity sharing agreement to be filed as part of the copyright/patent, specifying what percentage equity of the IP each person would share. The lifetime limit would apply to each share individually, which would mean that a novel with three co-authors would not go fully public domain until the last co-author died. [...] A topic to be debated is what happens between the death of the first and last collaborator.
I like "partial public domain." "One of the three authors of this song has died. You may copy every third note."
The Supreme Court of the United States in Dastar v. Fox ruled that a trademark cannot be used as an ersatz copyright
Have they not also ruled that the Congressional scheme of passing copyright extensions every 20 years is absolutely fine?
The Mickey Trilogy will not expire in 2024 before Congress will just extend copyright again, as it always does.
My reform would be to eliminate the fungibility of intellectual property. Copyright would be a personal right of the creator of work, held by that person alone and expiring with the creator.
Which is great until you get to works that have multiple creators. What about a movie where hundreds of people put in hours to create it? Do we choose whomever lives the longest? Or just the director? Or producer?
Even a perpetual requirement for registration would help. Just keeping the public notified of potential rights would be an improvement over the current situation.
I'd also like a "no retroactive copyright" clause to prevent things that fell into the public domain from being removed from it later.
The problem with homeopathic 'remedies' that the person may delay getting real treatment under the presumption that they were already receiving treatment.
Hey, Harry Potter went a boarding school, and Hogwarts was awesome. A bunch of kids died, but the other benefits were fantastic.
He didn't want to go back home either.
I'm not sure why this is modded as Troll. There are all sorts of science-denying sort of beliefs that correlate to different ends of the political spectrum. "Climate change is a hoax! The science is a lie! Those fossils are only 6000 years old and/or come from the devil!" tends to come from the conservative side. "Wi-Fi signals are harmful! Vaccines cause autism! GMOs are evil and unsafe and should be banned!" tend to come from the politically liberal. Sometimes you'll have an outlier, like Michelle Bachmann's... unwise wading into the vaccine/autism debate, but the tendency is there.
What? You have laws in the US about your house having to be painted? Is it a crime to have weeds on your lawn too?
It depends. Does it damage "property values" in the neighborhood? There's a lot of meddling that can be done about someone else's private property if you can prove their private property affects your and your neighbors home prices. I've never heard of a -city- that enforces this, though. Usually that's a homeowner association sort of nastiness.