who think it should be legalized, I have two words for you: gateway drug. Yes, maybe not for you, but for a lot of others. And when those others switch to the hard stuff (narcotics, etc.)...
Perhaps the "others" wouldn't switch to the "hard stuff" if they didn't have to buy their pot from narcotics dealers. start shooting up neighborhoods and filling up the emergency rooms and mortuaries faster, you can tell everybody you didn't know it would be such a problem.
Our hospital ER gets filled up nearly every weekend with overdoses both legal (etoh, benzo, opiate, aceteminophen, and ASA), and illegal (cocaine, meth, and opiates), yet I've never seen anyone admitted let alone die from a marijuana overdose. Just because alcohol and tobacco are already legal doesn't mean all drugs should be.
Nor does it mean that it shouldn't be. As for the pain-killing aspects, you seriously think there's no alternative medications for that?
Actually, a legal form of THC does exist and is used for nausea and to increase appetites in cancer and AIDS patients.
Quote from the site:
"A pharmaceutical product, Marinol, is widely available through prescription. It comes in the form of a pill and is also being studied by researchers for suitability via other delivery methods, such as an inhaler or patch. The active ingredient of Marinol is synthetic THC, which has been found to relieve the nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy for cancer patients and to assist with loss of appetite with AIDS patients.
Unlike smoked marijuana--which contains more than 400 different chemicals, including most of the hazardous chemicals found in tobacco smoke-Marinol has been studied and approved by the medical community and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the nation's watchdog over unsafe and harmful food and drug products. Since the passage of the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act, any drug that is marketed in the United States must undergo rigorous scientific testing. The approval process mandated by this act ensures that claims of safety and therapeutic value are supported by clinical evidence and keeps unsafe, ineffective and dangerous drugs off the market."
There are no FDA-approved medications that are smoked. For one thing, smoking is generally a poor way to deliver medicine. It is difficult to administer safe, regulated dosages of medicines in smoked form. Secondly, the harmful chemicals and carcinogens that are byproducts of smoking create entirely new health problems. There are four times the level of tar in a marijuana cigarette, for example, than in a tobacco cigarette."
You could infer from the above that the anti-smoking crowd has done more to stop the legalization of pot than anybody else.
What will it be tomorrow? Pirates bit-shifting files so they claim that they're not trading the real data, then continuing to watch as sites are taken down?
When a "pirate" bit-shifts a copyrighted work that has been digitalized into a number, he creates a new number. You aren't seriously saying that the *AAs own every number and every process that can convert one number to another that a copyrighted work can be represented as, are you? It's bad enough that sharing a guess at the number of molecules in the universe can violate some portion of a protected digital file.
Congratulations. That has to be one of the most moronic things I have read on/. in quite a while. Anything ever created that is digitized "resembles big numbers" so no one should ever be able to copyright anything on the off chance that it might resemble your favorite 500,000 digit number?
Whether it is one or a 500,000,000,001, a number is a number is a number.
I'm replying to myself to clarify what I am saying. When you digitize a mp3 a big number "just happens", the same as when you multiply five times three fifteen "just happens".
Not really. These big numbers don't just "happen" to "resemble" songs, they are entirely based on the original works.
I'd say you have it backwards. Numbers do in fact just happen while original works resemble big numbers when digitized. In other words, copyrighting digitized works in effect deprives the human race of the use of the number that it resembles.
For something as ethereal as bits on a platter, it hardly seems worth it to pay USD1.00 for a song.
That really is the big story here, isn't it. Ox07 is a just a number. 0x08 is another. String the two together and you get just a bigger number, 0x0708. In reality what you are actually paying for when buy digital music is the "right" to use big numbers that happen to resemble songs when processed by certain programs.
I courted Mike Rosoft's sister Minnie for a while. She sure was pretty to look at but turned all shades of blue anytime I suggested trying something new.
Had to dump her in the end though because she was simply the most vain and jealous woman I'd ever met...always wanted to monopolize everything.
There are really no new "rights" - as all rights derive from the right of the individual. Intellectual property rights are a form of "property rights", which is the right of the individual to the fruits of their intellectual labor. (Which of course, an individual is free to give away).
This is the phrase "Intellectual property rights" converted to a hexadecimal number:
Everybody knows that digits can not be copyrighted, and digital files are just that...files that contain digits. Laws such as the DMCA and its clones are in fact restrictions on math because they outlaw both numbers that resemble copyrighted content and operations upon them.
...land of the free indeed. such idea's come from idiot pencil pushers with no technical savy.
Well, it seems we don't have a monopoly on idiot pencil pushers. Quote from the article:
"France, the United Kingdom, Ireland and Sweden jointly submitted their data retention proposal to the European Parliament in April 2004. Such mandatory logging was necessary, they argued, "for the purpose of prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of crime or criminal offenses including terrorism.""
You don't make any sense. The main point is: given the choice of Linux or OSX, nobody in their right mind would subject themselves to and flavor of Linux on a desktop PC.
That depends on why a particular person uses Linux in the first place, don't you think? I dumped Windows years ago because I was fed up with proprietary software lock-in and draconian EULAs. Of course I have to be a little careful about the hardware I buy, but for the most part anything I need is available from a variety of manufacturers and supported by Linux. I'd have to be out of my mind to give up that type of freedom.
As well as providing for an OS "lock" on hardware, the implementation of such chips will also allow for stronger security as well as enabling one of the features that Hollywood has been demanding before Internet distribution of movies will be allowed by the studios.
You mean they haven't been allowing it already? Rut roh!!!
I expect to see something similar.. a copyright string in the PC BIOS. Were Dell, Gateway, whatever to write this string in their BIOS, Apple would have no end to the possible lawsuits it would open up.
What protection would they have from users being that it is still legal it most of the world for people to do what they will with their own hardware?
That's easy - porn sites go in.xxx. They are generally distinguished by an attempt to make money off porn, so self identifying works fine.
No, it's not easy. First you have to define what is pornographic. There are some people think a woman's uncovered face is obscene while others see her totally nude body as a work of art. To me, people making love is the most beautiful thing in the universe, but seeing someone's life being taken from them is downright disgusting.
Personally, I'd like to see a law that makes it illegal for adult context to appear on a URL unless is has a special extension, something like ".xxx". Then it'd be easy for concerned parents (and wives!) to configure the browser to block anything from that extension.
Since something that is considered obscene in one jurisdiction may be viewed as normal or even art in another who decides what content must go into this ".xxx" domain? A far better answer for those who want to be censored would be for them to create ".censored" domains to play in.
The musical note 'A' can be represented by the number 0x41. The color red by the number 0xFF0000. When governments pass laws restricting the sharing of digital content they are in fact outlawing the sharing of numbers. Am I the only one who sees the absurdity in this?
...Copyright law is just fine the way it is, no need to shorten the terms. Even if we went back to 14 years plus 14 year extension this would still be a violation. This fight over copyright hasn't been about the terms of copyright, it's always been about the specific right of distribution granted to intellectual property owners. People want to be distributors without being granted a license and this is wrong under any reasonable copyright law.
Quit trying to peg everyone wanting copyright reform in the same hole. Some may just want to distribute, some may just want free. Others might simply want to be able to build on previous works the same as Disney built on previous works. Personally, I just want to go back to required registration and renewal which would make an easily searchable database of possible.
I'd consider a $200 donation towards development of a Free 3D card well worth the investment.
Or, instead of donations they could make it an actual investment opportunity. Since I know I'm going to buy one of these cards when they come to market and pretty sure others will too, I'd be willing to speculate a $1000 or two. Open hardware could just be where real money can be made on open source.
Technically speaking, its all true - FOSS is a (somewhat loose) form of communism...
The GPL is capitalism in it's purist form, which is barter. If I wish to distribute your code in my program you get to distribute my code in yours. There is nothing communistic about that at all.
Slashdot Mirror
It was moderated a troll because if the OP was a "techie" he would know that sharing copyrighted material is not illegal.
who think it should be legalized, I have two words for you: gateway drug. Yes, maybe not for you, but for a lot of others. And when those others switch to the hard stuff (narcotics, etc.)...
Perhaps the "others" wouldn't switch to the "hard stuff" if they didn't have to buy their pot from narcotics dealers.
start shooting up neighborhoods and filling up the emergency rooms and mortuaries faster, you can tell everybody you didn't know it would be such a problem.
Our hospital ER gets filled up nearly every weekend with overdoses both legal (etoh, benzo, opiate, aceteminophen, and ASA), and illegal (cocaine, meth, and opiates), yet I've never seen anyone admitted let alone die from a marijuana overdose.
Just because alcohol and tobacco are already legal doesn't mean all drugs should be.
Nor does it mean that it shouldn't be.
As for the pain-killing aspects, you seriously think there's no alternative medications for that?
Actually, a legal form of THC does exist and is used for nausea and to increase appetites in cancer and AIDS patients.
Quote from the site:
"A pharmaceutical product, Marinol, is widely available through prescription. It comes in the form of a pill and is also being studied by researchers for suitability via other delivery methods, such as an inhaler or patch. The active ingredient of Marinol is synthetic THC, which has been found to relieve the nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy for cancer patients and to assist with loss of appetite with AIDS patients.
Unlike smoked marijuana--which contains more than 400 different chemicals, including most of the hazardous chemicals found in tobacco smoke-Marinol has been studied and approved by the medical community and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the nation's watchdog over unsafe and harmful food and drug products. Since the passage of the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act, any drug that is marketed in the United States must undergo rigorous scientific testing. The approval process mandated by this act ensures that claims of safety and therapeutic value are supported by clinical evidence and keeps unsafe, ineffective and dangerous drugs off the market."
There are no FDA-approved medications that are smoked. For one thing, smoking is generally a poor way to deliver medicine. It is difficult to administer safe, regulated dosages of medicines in smoked form. Secondly, the harmful chemicals and carcinogens that are byproducts of smoking create entirely new health problems. There are four times the level of tar in a marijuana cigarette, for example, than in a tobacco cigarette."
You could infer from the above that the anti-smoking crowd has done more to stop the legalization of pot than anybody else.
What will it be tomorrow? Pirates bit-shifting files so they claim that they're not trading the real data, then continuing to watch as sites are taken down?
When a "pirate" bit-shifts a copyrighted work that has been digitalized into a number, he creates a new number. You aren't seriously saying that the *AAs own every number and every process that can convert one number to another that a copyrighted work can be represented as, are you? It's bad enough that sharing a guess at the number of molecules in the universe can violate some portion of a protected digital file.
Congratulations. That has to be one of the most moronic things I have read on /. in quite a while. Anything ever created that is digitized "resembles big numbers" so no one should ever be able to copyright anything on the off chance that it might resemble your favorite 500,000 digit number?
Whether it is one or a 500,000,000,001, a number is a number is a number.
The important bit in both cases is not the digits or atoms, it's the order they're arranged in, that's what you're paying for.
You are still missing the point. A number is not an arrangment of anything, it just is.
I'm replying to myself to clarify what I am saying. When you digitize a mp3 a big number "just happens", the same as when you multiply five times three fifteen "just happens".
Not really. These big numbers don't just "happen" to "resemble" songs, they are entirely based on the original works.
I'd say you have it backwards. Numbers do in fact just happen while original works resemble big numbers when digitized. In other words, copyrighting digitized works in effect deprives the human race of the use of the number that it resembles.
For something as ethereal as bits on a platter, it hardly seems worth it to pay USD1.00 for a song.
That really is the big story here, isn't it. Ox07 is a just a number. 0x08 is another. String the two together and you get just a bigger number, 0x0708. In reality what you are actually paying for when buy digital music is the "right" to use big numbers that happen to resemble songs when processed by certain programs.
I courted Mike Rosoft's sister Minnie for a while. She sure was pretty to look at but turned all shades of blue anytime I suggested trying something new.
Had to dump her in the end though because she was simply the most vain and jealous woman I'd ever met...always wanted to monopolize everything.
There are really no new "rights" - as all rights derive from the right of the individual. Intellectual property rights are a form of "property rights", which is the right of the individual to the fruits of their intellectual labor. (Which of course, an individual is free to give away).
This is the phrase "Intellectual property rights" converted to a hexadecimal number:
496e74656c6c65637475616c 70726f7065727479 726967687473
Everybody knows that digits can not be copyrighted, and digital files are just that...files that contain digits. Laws such as the DMCA and its clones are in fact restrictions on math because they outlaw both numbers that resemble copyrighted content and operations upon them.
...land of the free indeed. such idea's come from idiot pencil pushers with no technical savy.
Well, it seems we don't have a monopoly on idiot pencil pushers. Quote from the article:
"France, the United Kingdom, Ireland and Sweden jointly submitted their data retention proposal to the European Parliament in April 2004. Such mandatory logging was necessary, they argued, "for the purpose of prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of crime or criminal offenses including terrorism.""
Those who dare to replace some security with freedom do not deserve security at all.
.....
(I think George Washington said that...)
Nice way to twist the phrase, maybe now some will get the point of original. To those who replied above and didn't all I can say is
WHOOOOSH!!!!
That's why wget is your friend.
You don't make any sense. The main point is: given the choice of Linux or OSX, nobody in their right mind would subject themselves to and flavor of Linux on a desktop PC.
That depends on why a particular person uses Linux in the first place, don't you think? I dumped Windows years ago because I was fed up with proprietary software lock-in and draconian EULAs. Of course I have to be a little careful about the hardware I buy, but for the most part anything I need is available from a variety of manufacturers and supported by Linux. I'd have to be out of my mind to give up that type of freedom.
As well as providing for an OS "lock" on hardware, the implementation of such chips will also allow for stronger security as well as enabling one of the features that Hollywood has been demanding before Internet distribution of movies will be allowed by the studios.
You mean they haven't been allowing it already? Rut roh!!!
I expect to see something similar.. a copyright string in the PC BIOS. Were Dell, Gateway, whatever to write this string in their BIOS, Apple would have no end to the possible lawsuits it would open up.
What protection would they have from users being that it is still legal it most of the world for people to do what they will with their own hardware?
That's easy - porn sites go in .xxx. They are generally distinguished by an attempt to make money off porn, so self identifying works fine.
No, it's not easy. First you have to define what is pornographic. There are some people think a woman's uncovered face is obscene while others see her totally nude body as a work of art. To me, people making love is the most beautiful thing in the universe, but seeing someone's life being taken from them is downright disgusting.
Personally, I'd like to see a law that makes it illegal for adult context to appear on a URL unless is has a special extension, something like ".xxx". Then it'd be easy for concerned parents (and wives!) to configure the browser to block anything from that extension.
Since something that is considered obscene in one jurisdiction may be viewed as normal or even art in another who decides what content must go into this ".xxx" domain? A far better answer for those who want to be censored would be for them to create ".censored" domains to play in.
The musical note 'A' can be represented by the number 0x41. The color red by the number 0xFF0000. When governments pass laws restricting the sharing of digital content they are in fact outlawing the sharing of numbers. Am I the only one who sees the absurdity in this?
...Copyright law is just fine the way it is, no need to shorten the terms. Even if we went back to 14 years plus 14 year extension this would still be a violation. This fight over copyright hasn't been about the terms of copyright, it's always been about the specific right of distribution granted to intellectual property owners. People want to be distributors without being granted a license and this is wrong under any reasonable copyright law.
Quit trying to peg everyone wanting copyright reform in the same hole. Some may just want to distribute, some may just want free. Others might simply want to be able to build on previous works the same as Disney built on previous works. Personally, I just want to go back to required registration and renewal which would make an easily searchable database of possible.
...they never let a liberal get a word in edgewise without pulling out some strawman argument then hanging up on them.
I've come to believe they screen out rational liberals because those they do let on end up foaming at the mouth worse than the hosts.
I'd consider a $200 donation towards development of a Free 3D card well worth the investment.
Or, instead of donations they could make it an actual investment opportunity. Since I know I'm going to buy one of these cards when they come to market and pretty sure others will too, I'd be willing to speculate a $1000 or two. Open hardware could just be where real money can be made on open source.
Technically speaking, its all true - FOSS is a (somewhat loose) form of communism...
The GPL is capitalism in it's purist form, which is barter. If I wish to distribute your code in my program you get to distribute my code in yours. There is nothing communistic about that at all.
Sometimes people's inability to put things into perspective and understand there is a world outside the good old US of A makes me despair.
How will restricting literature from being translated to English expand the views of those who are taught no other language?
To do what, exactly? Learn about lunix or optimize your system? It doesn't really do either, since the system is mostly the kernel!
Portage's main strength is customizing package builds to suit the user's needs, not optimization.