15 years, minimum security, approximately 80000 per year, 12 million.
Your math is a bit off, it's 1.2 million. Still though, you bring up an interesting point. The best way for those who feel that copyright infringement should not be punished by jail time is to hit "the man" back where is hurts him the most...his pocket.
Be creative and think of possibilities here. If everyone who sincerely believes that it is their right to ignore copyright law stood up and proudly shouted "look at me, I'm going to share whatever I damn well please" then no one could be imprisoned because it would be impossible to afford to do so.
It shouldn't have fallen on Russia, Europe, or even China to be the "space rescuers", it should have been the US. It is really sad how far America has backslid in space exploration since the '80s.
There is no reason that the United States should be the only one safeguading the sky, its our world. Then you really don't understand the universal hatred and fear that the US has earned in the world.
The difference is that land, resources and ideals don't necessarily lead to mass murder. They can but not always. History has shown that religion demands genocide and has no other possible outcome. I believe that was the point of the grandparent post.
Then the grandparent is viewing history through a narrowly focused lense. Sure there have always been people willing to kill for one sky pyxie or another, but genocide is caused by one people wanting the land and resources that another people control.
But religion is more effective than most at persuading other people to kill for you. One nasty guy who wants to grab land is not too much trouble. One nasty religious leader who wants to grab land is much more of a problem.
Was WW1 about religion? WW2? Did Napolean fight to spread theocracy? No, all the historical recent wars have been about land grabs, resources, and power, yet still millions of people managed to find reason enough to kill each other.
Obviously you have no idea about User Interface Design. When you are dealing with a set of users (web surfers) that are not familiar with a given field of expertise (IT, Computers) the last thing you want to do is to burden them with too many choices and seetings. A reminder of this is the mythical clock on VCRs (always blinking in 00:00). You want to offer only the important settings and keep as much as possible under the hood with sensible defaults. Firefox improves on Mozilla on this regard but I think it could do even better.
Well, for as long as a person is a "newbie" anyway. But after a person masters an application he often wants more built-in functionality. Personally I see Firefox as a stripped down coupe while Mozilla is the luxary sedan with all the bells and whistles right at my fingertips.
This whole Firefox vs Moz thing is quite ridiculous. I and many others use the suite simply because we like the suite. Integrating email, browsing, and editing are just as logical as integrating editing, debugging, and profiling. Where did this push to force people to accept some singular view of how things ought to be come from anyway?
So are the incredibly wealthy. Think about it. They are taxed *far* more than they take advantage of.
One of the major causes of revolution is having a huge disparity between the living conditions of the poor and those with money. Simply put, the wealthy are taxed higher in order to protect their wealth.
The reason people are indignant is that they've seen it before and there is nothing the common man can do to fight it. In the USA, despite all the outrage online RIAA and MPAA still get whatever bills and lawsuits they need into action; there was a huge grassroots effort to stop, then overturn the DMCA and it still exists;
Where'd did you ever get that the idea there was a "huge" grassroots movement? Nobody has been canvassing my neighborhood to sign petitions nor have I seen any million person anti-DMCA marches on Washington. Sure it's a common topic on some internet sites but it's rarely mentioned in the mainstream media.
But I've been thinking lately -- is this going to change the Internet dramatically? How many web sites rely on advertising revenue, and won't get it anymore when everybody is filtering banners?
Personally I never bothered to block ads and even looked forward to those that might have been helpful in finding things I was looking for until the advent of the "shock the monkey" variety that interfered with my ability to actually read a web page. It's the advertisers themselves who are to blame for making their ads so obnoxious that surfing the web became a chore without blocking them.
And? My country has been dealing with "terrorism" for nearly century (or more, depending how you count). At no point did we react as fucking stupidly as the yanks.
Now that is curious. Why doesn't following a path has allowed a problem to continue for nearly a century sound even "stupider" to you?
I may be expressing my ignorance to current well run open source projects but actually, what does prevent a coder agent from putting in or keeping on security exploits?
He'll get caught when someone who does understand the code reads it.
Now it's my turn. What prevents someone from putting a security exploit in closed source code?
I don't understand why people want a browser that has a POP and NEWS client built in? If I want to use POP I use my POP client (not outhouse). If I want to use NNTP I use a NEWS client.
The same as I consider editing, compiling, and debugging as one integrated development task I see browsing, reading email, instant messaging, and news reading as one integrated web communications task, that is why I'm sticking with Mozilla as long as I can. It's just plain convenient not to have to launch five applications to do related chores.
IIRC, the international treaty that we are currently "harmonized" with, forbids having a registration requirement. I think the reasoning that the copyright is automatic is so that you don't have to re-register in every country to be able to be protected.
Yes that was Congress' reasoning, but that still does not make it Constitutional to place US citizens at risk to lose their liberty or property without some mechanism to determine whether or not a work is protected.
People are just as much a part of the system you are administering as the software and hardware, and all three have "glitches" in them that you will have to deal with on a daily basis. Do everyone who depends on you a favor and take a break from reality for a while until you get your head screwed back on right, because frankly your attitude makes you useless to the users.
I would not want have to worry about registering my work every time it came up. And it allows me to pass some benifits of my work to my heirs.
Without copyright registration just how is the average person supposed to know that your work is protected? Your heirs would be in much better position to benefit from your labor if there is no question as to its status.
...there may still be at least one more logical argument for overturning current copyright law on a Constitutional basis that I did not see in the linked documents and that would be the lack of requirement of registration and mandatory inclusion in a searchable database of protected works. The current system makes it impossible for the average citizen to determine whether or not a work is in the public domain which places him at risk of unknowingly violating the law.
The Open CD is an excellent choice for giving to Windows users (however, they need to update to Firefox/Thunderbird instead of Mozilla for the next version).
Better would be to include Firefox/Thunderbird in addition to, not instead of, the fantastically integrated Mozilla suite. Why deny them the opportunity to do all their common net tasks with one convenient application? I know I certainly appreciate not having to launch a seperate program just to read my mail.
Customizing packages for a specific system is overrated
So much for open source then, eh? Or in your mind do you see the free software world has a monolithic heirarchy where developers always know what is best for users? You are in a nutshell saying "so what if some people don't want package X when they install Y, others do, so they all get it like it or not."
That's a big problem with Linux. Drivers! Linus loves to change the driver ABI. So you have to recompile drivers for each version. Or sometimes rewrite them. Linus does that because it forces drivers to be made available in source form, so they can be recompiled, but hardware vendors hate that, because it exposes information about the product they'd rather keep secret.
If Solaris has a stable ABI, it may over time attract more driver support. Even if the rate of driver development is slower, all the old drivers will keep working, unlike Linux drivers.
So you think people who flocked to Linux to use open source software will leave it simply so they can use old closed source drivers? Somehow I find that doubtful.
And you know, it doesn't even make sense for hardware manufacturers. Why wouldn't they want to concentrate on selling new hardware instead of worrying about supporting their old stuff? It seems to me it would be much more profitable for them in the long run if OSS developers took over driver maintenance for them.
'm glad Ballmer has been so proactive in helping China figure out what to do with software patents. It looks like Europe is leaning toward at least minimizing -- if not eliminating -- software patents. When China turns its attention to the subject, Ballmer's little speech should give them some food for thought on which direction they should go.
Really, it only makes sense for the rest of the world to reject software patents. Not doing so would be just plain stupid. US companies have been cornering the market in the silly things for years and other countries recognizing them as valid would be like signing their own technological death warrents. Far better would be to keep your programmers free to write software as American coders are strangled to death by our own government.
If you haven't noticed, you're still the only one talking about particular candidates. I'm talking about an election. True, but the case for one being stolen is much weaker than four years ago. If we have a valid, fully auditable election and George W Bush wins, then so be it.
But if I have to hear these goons ramble on about democracy for the rest of my life, I at least want to hold them to holding real, bonafide elections.
Unless you can personally manage to stand over every box or machine and examine every voters ID you will never get a election you will be satisfied with. Everybody put you and I can be bought, and I have my doubts about you.
Besides, fuck middle-America. What'd they ever do for me? Mine your coal? Pump your oil? Grow your food? Manufacture your clothes? Deliver your goods? Unless you live on a self-sufficient commune you are as dependent on rural America as everyone else.
This is a really tired argument. In a popular vote, everyone's vote actually counts. There's absolutely nothing special about Minnesota that should give its people more voting power than I get in North Carolina.
Other than the fact one has more people than the other you are right. Perhaps states should each got just one vote each when the elect the leader of their union? Possibly, but that would ignore population altogether. No, the EC is the best compromise. Equal say for being a state, bonus say for more citizens.
Slashdot Mirror
15 years, minimum security, approximately 80000 per year, 12 million.
Your math is a bit off, it's 1.2 million. Still though, you bring up an interesting point. The best way for those who feel that copyright infringement should not be punished by jail time is to hit "the man" back where is hurts him the most...his pocket.
Be creative and think of possibilities here. If everyone who sincerely believes that it is their right to ignore copyright law stood up and proudly shouted "look at me, I'm going to share whatever I damn well please" then no one could be imprisoned because it would be impossible to afford to do so.
It shouldn't have fallen on Russia, Europe, or even China to be the "space rescuers", it should have been the US. It is really sad how far America has backslid in space exploration since the '80s.
And yet, everyone will expect mr Bush to help out if it falls on France.
No, not at all. Bush has set himself up to be the savior of Christianity, not humanity.
There is no reason that the United States should be the only one safeguading the sky, its our world.
Then you really don't understand the universal hatred and fear that the US has earned in the world.
The difference is that land, resources and ideals don't necessarily lead to mass murder. They can but not always. History has shown that religion demands genocide and has no other possible outcome. I believe that was the point of the grandparent post.
Then the grandparent is viewing history through a narrowly focused lense. Sure there have always been people willing to kill for one sky pyxie or another, but genocide is caused by one people wanting the land and resources that another people control.
But religion is more effective than most at persuading other people to kill for you. One nasty guy who wants to grab land is not too much trouble. One nasty religious leader who wants to grab land is much more of a problem.
Was WW1 about religion? WW2? Did Napolean fight to spread theocracy? No, all the historical recent wars have been about land grabs, resources, and power, yet still millions of people managed to find reason enough to kill each other.
Because, as someone above said, then you start believing in religion, and then you start killing people.
Whether it be for land, resources, or ideals, people have always found excuses to kill each other. Religion is just the current reason of the day.
Obviously you have no idea about User Interface Design. When you are dealing with a set of users (web surfers) that are not familiar with a given field of expertise (IT, Computers) the last thing you want to do is to burden them with too many choices and seetings. A reminder of this is the mythical clock on VCRs (always blinking in 00:00). You want to offer only the important settings and keep as much as possible under the hood with sensible defaults. Firefox improves on Mozilla on this regard but I think it could do even better.
Well, for as long as a person is a "newbie" anyway. But after a person masters an application he often wants more built-in functionality. Personally I see Firefox as a stripped down coupe while Mozilla is the luxary sedan with all the bells and whistles right at my fingertips.
This whole Firefox vs Moz thing is quite ridiculous. I and many others use the suite simply because we like the suite. Integrating email, browsing, and editing are just as logical as integrating editing, debugging, and profiling. Where did this push to force people to accept some singular view of how things ought to be come from anyway?
So are the incredibly wealthy. Think about it. They are taxed *far* more than they take advantage of.
One of the major causes of revolution is having a huge disparity between the living conditions of the poor and those with money. Simply put, the wealthy are taxed higher in order to protect their wealth.
The reason people are indignant is that they've seen it before and there is nothing the common man can do to fight it. In the USA, despite all the outrage online RIAA and MPAA still get whatever bills and lawsuits they need into action; there was a huge grassroots effort to stop, then overturn the DMCA and it still exists;
Where'd did you ever get that the idea there was a "huge" grassroots movement? Nobody has been canvassing my neighborhood to sign petitions nor have I seen any million person anti-DMCA marches on Washington. Sure it's a common topic on some internet sites but it's rarely mentioned in the mainstream media.
But I've been thinking lately -- is this going to change the Internet dramatically? How many web sites rely on advertising revenue, and won't get it anymore when everybody is filtering banners?
Personally I never bothered to block ads and even looked forward to those that might have been helpful in finding things I was looking for until the advent of the "shock the monkey" variety that interfered with my ability to actually read a web page. It's the advertisers themselves who are to blame for making their ads so obnoxious that surfing the web became a chore without blocking them.
And? My country has been dealing with "terrorism" for nearly century (or more, depending how you count). At no point did we react as fucking stupidly as the yanks.
Now that is curious. Why doesn't following a path has allowed a problem to continue for nearly a century sound even "stupider" to you?
I may be expressing my ignorance to current well run open source projects but actually, what does prevent a coder agent from putting in or keeping on security exploits?
He'll get caught when someone who does understand the code reads it.
Now it's my turn. What prevents someone from putting a security exploit in closed source code?
I don't understand why people want a browser that has a POP and NEWS client built in? If I want to use
POP I use my POP client (not outhouse). If I want to use NNTP I use a NEWS client.
The same as I consider editing, compiling, and debugging as one integrated development task I see browsing, reading email, instant messaging, and news reading as one integrated web communications task, that is why I'm sticking with Mozilla as long as I can. It's just plain convenient not to have to launch five applications to do related chores.
IIRC, the international treaty that we are currently "harmonized" with, forbids having a registration requirement. I think the reasoning that the copyright is automatic is so that you don't have to re-register in every country to be able to be protected.
Yes that was Congress' reasoning, but that still does not make it Constitutional to place US citizens at risk to lose their liberty or property without some mechanism to determine whether or not a work is protected.
People are just as much a part of the system you are administering as the software and hardware, and all three have "glitches" in them that you will have to deal with on a daily basis. Do everyone who depends on you a favor and take a break from reality for a while until you get your head screwed back on right, because frankly your attitude makes you useless to the users.
I would not want have to worry about registering my work every time it came up. And it allows me to pass some benifits of my work to my heirs.
Without copyright registration just how is the average person supposed to know that your work is protected? Your heirs would be in much better position to benefit from your labor if there is no question as to its status.
...there may still be at least one more logical argument for overturning current copyright law on a Constitutional basis that I did not see in the linked documents and that would be the lack of requirement of registration and mandatory inclusion in a searchable database of protected works. The current system makes it impossible for the average citizen to determine whether or not a work is in the public domain which places him at risk of unknowingly violating the law.
The Open CD is an excellent choice for giving to Windows users (however, they need to update to Firefox/Thunderbird instead of Mozilla for the next version).
Better would be to include Firefox/Thunderbird in addition to, not instead of, the fantastically integrated Mozilla suite. Why deny them the opportunity to do all their common net tasks with one convenient application? I know I certainly appreciate not having to launch a seperate program just to read my mail.
Customizing packages for a specific system is overrated
So much for open source then, eh? Or in your mind do you see the free software world has a monolithic heirarchy where developers always know what is best for users? You are in a nutshell saying "so what if some people don't want package X when they install Y, others do, so they all get it like it or not."
That's a big problem with Linux. Drivers! Linus loves to change the driver ABI. So you have to recompile drivers for each version. Or sometimes rewrite them. Linus does that because it forces drivers to be made available in source form, so they can be recompiled, but hardware vendors hate that, because it exposes information about the product they'd rather keep secret.
If Solaris has a stable ABI, it may over time attract more driver support. Even if the rate of driver development is slower, all the old drivers will keep working, unlike Linux drivers.
So you think people who flocked to Linux to use open source software will leave it simply so they can use old closed source drivers? Somehow I find that doubtful.
And you know, it doesn't even make sense for hardware manufacturers. Why wouldn't they want to concentrate on selling new hardware instead of worrying about supporting their old stuff? It seems to me it would be much more profitable for them in the long run if OSS developers took over driver maintenance for them.
'm glad Ballmer has been so proactive in helping China figure out what to do with software patents. It looks like Europe is leaning toward at least minimizing -- if not eliminating -- software patents. When China turns its attention to the subject, Ballmer's little speech should give them some food for thought on which direction they should go.
Really, it only makes sense for the rest of the world to reject software patents. Not doing so would be just plain stupid. US companies have been cornering the market in the silly things for years and other countries recognizing them as valid would be like signing their own technological death warrents. Far better would be to keep your programmers free to write software as American coders are strangled to death by our own government.
If you haven't noticed, you're still the only one talking about particular candidates. I'm talking about an election.
True, but the case for one being stolen is much weaker than four years ago.
If we have a valid, fully auditable election and George W Bush wins, then so be it.
But if I have to hear these goons ramble on about democracy for the rest of my life, I at least want to hold them to holding real, bonafide elections.
Unless you can personally manage to stand over every box or machine and examine every voters ID you will never get a election you will be satisfied with. Everybody put you and I can be bought, and I have my doubts about you.
Besides, fuck middle-America. What'd they ever do for me?
Mine your coal? Pump your oil? Grow your food? Manufacture your clothes? Deliver your goods? Unless you live on a self-sufficient commune you are as dependent on rural America as everyone else.
This is a really tired argument. In a popular vote, everyone's vote actually counts. There's absolutely nothing special about Minnesota that should give its people more voting power than I get in North Carolina.
Other than the fact one has more people than the other you are right. Perhaps states should each got just one vote each when the elect the leader of their union? Possibly, but that would ignore population altogether. No, the EC is the best compromise. Equal say for being a state, bonus say for more citizens.