That's just more nonsense. Humans are as resilient as pretty much any creature on the planet, except perhaps cockroaches, especially where climate is concerned.
Humans are not entirely self-reliant though. We rely on plants and animals for so many of our needs -- food and air being the most important ones. Sure, technically people can live in inhospitable environments, but I fear for civilization if a much larger percentage of the world population is forced to do so.
Not likely. China is now quite wealthy, they just chose not to control their pollution, because nobody has forced them to do so. Threaten to ban Chinese imports if they aren't produced "green", and they'll straighten up real fast.
Unfortunately since manufacturing in this country is nearly non-existant now and we import so much from China, a ban on Chinese imports would hurt the US far more than it would China and they know it. Our politicians also know it and know that Americans wouldn't be willing to enforce environmental standards for China if it meant nearly every good in our country went up in price. The global climate would have to change in far more catastrophic ways before there will be that type of support.
With the reliance on cheap imports, we've let the Chinese buy US. They don't need to invade for us to let them do as they please, since they weild enormous economic power here.
Weave a little like a drunk driver (other posters on this thread already mentioned this one)
I'm... going to assume this was meant in jest. Judging from the other options it sounded like this was meant to be humorous. But in case someone takes it seriously, I was listening to a talk show this morning where the host was interviewing an officer from the CHP, and he mentioned that the CHP is actively encouraging people to dial 911 on the cell phone to report anyone showing symptoms of driving under the influence. So weaving a bit may discourage that tailgater, who can then call the cops and get you pulled over.
Seriously, wasn't this settled during the Betamax case? If I recall correctly, the movie industry tried the same argument there -- i.e. video cassette recorders encourage copying of intellectual property. The Supreme Court there ruled that videocassette recorders were legal because of the many legal uses they had, and the fact that they could be used for illegal purposes did not diminish this.
How is that situation different from this one?
That assumes that once a matter is decided by the Supreme Court that the content industry accepted the loss, saw how they were wrong, and promised not to do it again.
The problem is, the MPAA felt the Betamax decision was horrible, still feels they were justified, and is still actively trying to overturn that decision. So even if this situation may be similar, they will still fight it with every ounce of strength.
Or you can alert management to the cell phone offender that's bothering you so much.
Great. So we get this nice loud scene in the movie theater, probably several times a showing. And of course, this will happen EACH and EVERY showtime, because you are seriously underestimating the amount of dicks with cell phones in theaters now. It is at the point where the only way to have movie screenings without multiple disruptions to prevent the disruptions from occuring in the first place.
Last I remember, most MMO's it's against the ToS to trade for real money, so doesn't this law go against the ToS?
It depends. First of all, Sony encourages the buying and selling of assets, one of their more boneheaded moves.
Second, illegal activities are taxable. Al Capone wasn't convicted of violating prohibition laws, he was convicted for not reporting taxes on his illegal-to-sell liquor.
Jailing them and selling off their assets will still go only a short ways towards generating the revenue to clean up a large/expensive disaster.
I look at the massive losses in the Enron debacle, and even if they bled every executive dry, all those people who lost their savings wouldn't get it back.
This is the same man who states in a/. discussion that the RIAA is an international company (false, and a good clue is that one of the As stands for America:))
To be honest there is some truth to that statement. Granted, the RIAA by itself an American organization, but it is not a company in itself. It's a grouping of companies, some of which are quite international.
Whereas I can find West Life and Britney Spears CDs in every used record store in existence - so presumably these guys must be the height of excellence for you?
They sold what the teeny-boppers with income in that valuable advertising age bracket wanted.
Er... Excuse me, Sir, but they aren't inferior:-) They don't even need to get money to live, like you and me. So, I wouldn't say they are *inferior* than us.
I should have clarified this. I'm not saying necessarily that they, as a people are inferior or that every aspect of their lives is inferior, but that any value system that allows for killing and eating people is inferior. Now if by cannibalism we're talking about eating people after they've died for other reasons (natural death, accident, etc), well, it might -squick- me, but I wouldn't say it's immoral. In our western tales of cannibalism though we've sortof married the idea of murdering people and eating them with our romanticised versions of pop culture, so I suppose it pays to be totally clear on what we're talking about. Specifically, I would say murdering a person for food consumption is an immortal action regardless of the society it takes place in.
Let me give you another example (based on your sibling comment), a bit less radical: do you think nudity is immoral?
Nope.
It is a public outrage in almost every spot on Earth, and it is immoral for a good number of people (kindly ask your mother/grandmother). But is it for you? It is certainly not to me. So, am I savage/uncivilized?
Nope! You are not! (at least, for that reason) See? This is easy.;)
You do not define what the term 'hacker' means. Hackers do not define what the term means. Society as a whole defines what words actually mean. If society decides that 'hacker' refers not only to someone who tinkers, someone who solves problems in unconventional ways but that the term also refers to the destructive cracker, then yes, that is what the term 'hacker' means. Give it up and fight a fight that is worthwhile and not already lost.
Remember, we're not talking about one of the many business contracts between Russia and the US but rather conditions to their application to the World Trade Organization. The World Trade Association! This is so absurd I can't possibly believe this.
If you wonder why the US Government is interested in protecting the foreign interests of the RIAA and MPAA, keep in mind that just about the only commercial product the United States successfully exports anymore is entertainment. Everything else (including the things we use) are made in other countries.
No, it is still immoral to be a cannibal. They may not consider it to be so, but that's why we call them "savages" and "uncivilized," because their view of immorality is inferior. It's quite unpopular these days to make morality judgements against others since it can so easily come back to bite you in the ass.
Voting the guy back in is an explicit approval of his policies
Not always. Many of the Americans who vote him in are just plain scared. They have the "terrorism boogeyman" hung over their heads by those in power far outweighing the actual threat. They don't like Bush really, but their first, primary goal is the safety of Americans and prevention of terrorist attacks, whatever the cost.
9/11 was the best thing that could have happened to Bush. He'd have been a weak one-term president otherwise.
One wonders if it should have even happened at all? Did they not catch the fact that there were tons of people all getting the beat stick at one time?
There weren't "tons of people" though. The number of Linux users make up a very small percentage of the total number of WoW users. According to both Blizzard and Transgaming, only a small percentage of the actual Cedega users were banned. Most cedega users like myself and like Blizzard's in-house testers and four of my co-workers weren't flagged by the Warden bug (though one of my co-workers was). How many people were banned in this last sweep? Tens of thousands? Blizzard likes to store up the bans and apply them all at once, supposedly for PR purposes. The percentage of banned users who used cedega was pretty small.
Sometimes certain bugs just don't show up in testing because they are so rare that they only become apparent when the program is applied to millions of people. I'm more annoyed at the various users Blue posters (Tseric specifically) who were unwilling entertain the notion that any of those cedega users had done nothing wrong. They had a little too much faith in the system.
I believe the law already tells the difference between created crime and intercepted crime. The cases where police create the crime are called entrapment and law enforcement officials have to be pretty careful that they're not entrapping someone.
So for example if an FBI agent enters a chat room and announces that he is a 13-year old girl and then some guy chats "her" up and solicits her for sex.. that's not police-created crime. That's something you can and should bust the perv for. However, if said agent says he's a 13-year old girl and then starts soliciting the guys in the room for sex... then that is entrapment.
The notion is somewhat subjective and I don't know where the line is drawn where crossing it makes something entrapment, but the general notion is that if someone seeks something and happens to solicit a conveniently-placed agent instead of a real juvenile, it's not entrapment.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh come on man, your hyperbole does not serve the arguement well. I'm no fan of advertising, but no one pays attention to arguements like that.
Because, you know, it's absolutely impossible for someone to have a valid opinion that contradicts your own.
At first I thought you were going a lot further and making references to the Number of the Beast!
Humans are not entirely self-reliant though. We rely on plants and animals for so many of our needs -- food and air being the most important ones. Sure, technically people can live in inhospitable environments, but I fear for civilization if a much larger percentage of the world population is forced to do so.
Unfortunately since manufacturing in this country is nearly non-existant now and we import so much from China, a ban on Chinese imports would hurt the US far more than it would China and they know it. Our politicians also know it and know that Americans wouldn't be willing to enforce environmental standards for China if it meant nearly every good in our country went up in price. The global climate would have to change in far more catastrophic ways before there will be that type of support.
With the reliance on cheap imports, we've let the Chinese buy US. They don't need to invade for us to let them do as they please, since they weild enormous economic power here.
Hmm, maybe the people of the world should simply stop trying to subsidize people trying to live in the sand. It doesn't seem to work.
I'm... going to assume this was meant in jest. Judging from the other options it sounded like this was meant to be humorous. But in case someone takes it seriously, I was listening to a talk show this morning where the host was interviewing an officer from the CHP, and he mentioned that the CHP is actively encouraging people to dial 911 on the cell phone to report anyone showing symptoms of driving under the influence. So weaving a bit may discourage that tailgater, who can then call the cops and get you pulled over.
How is that situation different from this one?
That assumes that once a matter is decided by the Supreme Court that the content industry accepted the loss, saw how they were wrong, and promised not to do it again.
The problem is, the MPAA felt the Betamax decision was horrible, still feels they were justified, and is still actively trying to overturn that decision. So even if this situation may be similar, they will still fight it with every ounce of strength.
I think what you're describing could be more accurately called "wisdom" rather than "intelligence."
Great. So we get this nice loud scene in the movie theater, probably several times a showing. And of course, this will happen EACH and EVERY showtime, because you are seriously underestimating the amount of dicks with cell phones in theaters now. It is at the point where the only way to have movie screenings without multiple disruptions to prevent the disruptions from occuring in the first place.
It depends. First of all, Sony encourages the buying and selling of assets, one of their more boneheaded moves.
Second, illegal activities are taxable. Al Capone wasn't convicted of violating prohibition laws, he was convicted for not reporting taxes on his illegal-to-sell liquor.
Hey, when I get killed in a battleground I rez 30 seconds later at full health and mana! I wish I could do that in real life...
I look at the massive losses in the Enron debacle, and even if they bled every executive dry, all those people who lost their savings wouldn't get it back.
To be honest there is some truth to that statement. Granted, the RIAA by itself an American organization, but it is not a company in itself. It's a grouping of companies, some of which are quite international.
They sold what the teeny-boppers with income in that valuable advertising age bracket wanted.
I should have clarified this. I'm not saying necessarily that they, as a people are inferior or that every aspect of their lives is inferior, but that any value system that allows for killing and eating people is inferior. Now if by cannibalism we're talking about eating people after they've died for other reasons (natural death, accident, etc), well, it might -squick- me, but I wouldn't say it's immoral. In our western tales of cannibalism though we've sortof married the idea of murdering people and eating them with our romanticised versions of pop culture, so I suppose it pays to be totally clear on what we're talking about. Specifically, I would say murdering a person for food consumption is an immortal action regardless of the society it takes place in.
Let me give you another example (based on your sibling comment), a bit less radical: do you think nudity is immoral?
Nope.
It is a public outrage in almost every spot on Earth, and it is immoral for a good number of people (kindly ask your mother/grandmother). But is it for you? It is certainly not to me. So, am I savage/uncivilized?
Nope! You are not! (at least, for that reason) See? This is easy. ;)
You do not define what the term 'hacker' means. Hackers do not define what the term means. Society as a whole defines what words actually mean. If society decides that 'hacker' refers not only to someone who tinkers, someone who solves problems in unconventional ways but that the term also refers to the destructive cracker, then yes, that is what the term 'hacker' means. Give it up and fight a fight that is worthwhile and not already lost.
If you wonder why the US Government is interested in protecting the foreign interests of the RIAA and MPAA, keep in mind that just about the only commercial product the United States successfully exports anymore is entertainment. Everything else (including the things we use) are made in other countries.
I'll give you a quick hint, nothing is for free, including the mediums you just mentioned.
No, it is still immoral to be a cannibal. They may not consider it to be so, but that's why we call them "savages" and "uncivilized," because their view of immorality is inferior. It's quite unpopular these days to make morality judgements against others since it can so easily come back to bite you in the ass.
Not always. Many of the Americans who vote him in are just plain scared. They have the "terrorism boogeyman" hung over their heads by those in power far outweighing the actual threat. They don't like Bush really, but their first, primary goal is the safety of Americans and prevention of terrorist attacks, whatever the cost.
9/11 was the best thing that could have happened to Bush. He'd have been a weak one-term president otherwise.
The Cylons.
There weren't "tons of people" though. The number of Linux users make up a very small percentage of the total number of WoW users. According to both Blizzard and Transgaming, only a small percentage of the actual Cedega users were banned. Most cedega users like myself and like Blizzard's in-house testers and four of my co-workers weren't flagged by the Warden bug (though one of my co-workers was). How many people were banned in this last sweep? Tens of thousands? Blizzard likes to store up the bans and apply them all at once, supposedly for PR purposes. The percentage of banned users who used cedega was pretty small.
Sometimes certain bugs just don't show up in testing because they are so rare that they only become apparent when the program is applied to millions of people. I'm more annoyed at the various users Blue posters (Tseric specifically) who were unwilling entertain the notion that any of those cedega users had done nothing wrong. They had a little too much faith in the system.
According to the terms of service, he cheated.
The slashdot headline was very misleading, since WINE had nothing to do with his banning.
I believe the law already tells the difference between created crime and intercepted crime. The cases where police create the crime are called entrapment and law enforcement officials have to be pretty careful that they're not entrapping someone.
So for example if an FBI agent enters a chat room and announces that he is a 13-year old girl and then some guy chats "her" up and solicits her for sex.. that's not police-created crime. That's something you can and should bust the perv for. However, if said agent says he's a 13-year old girl and then starts soliciting the guys in the room for sex... then that is entrapment.
The notion is somewhat subjective and I don't know where the line is drawn where crossing it makes something entrapment, but the general notion is that if someone seeks something and happens to solicit a conveniently-placed agent instead of a real juvenile, it's not entrapment.