Your analogy is not right because for a burglar, the act of stealing is the crime and he is acquitted of one of his thefts. OTOH, if thepiratebay wins then the actions they are taking are ruled as 'not thieving' (i.e. they are legal) which means they can do it as they please afterwards (or until the US companies bully Sweden and the EU into changing their laws:P).
I don't live in the USA so I can't know exactly what it's like but as far as I can see it, banning drugs anywhere doesn't solve much. It only makes the drugs harder (more expensive and dangerous) to get and gives the dealers a lot of power over the users. As a result you get a lot of crime because of users that need money and dealers that fight over territory or against the authorities.
Of course, I don't see how this would apply to banning DRM, people wouldn't notice it's gone, they would probably use a lot of the now obsolete programs/methods out of inertia or ignorance.
Oh, forgot to say that yeah, I know I'll burn a lot of karma with that.
I'm just saying this because I noticed that when a flamer says that he usually doesn't get burned.
Now, by saying that I probably canceled the effect
Maybe if I acknowledge the karma burning caused by acknowledging the canceling of the karma burning I won't get modded down?
I dunno on which one to stop now...
???
Profit (?)
Yes, but the fact that it's notable that a black person has become president for the first time still means something. It will sound misogynistic but women are really different from men. You can't deny that. So, a woman becoming president is really something, the same as it was when a queen would rule a kingdom instead of a king. OTOH people opposing racism say that the color shouldn't matter. If that's true, why make a big deal out of the fact that Obama is black? Why treat it like a great accomplishment? It makes it sound like it is harder for blacks to be presidents. And if that's true then racism is still there and it still influences enough people.
I dunno how it's in other countries but in my country, Romania, there is an obvious trend of shifting responsibility towards the government and away from the population. And I see many stories about people from all over the world asking authorities to stop children from being able to see or do things they shouldn't. I also see many stories about kids or grown ups doing retarded things and accusing some third party that should be unrelated to that matter. All the stupid rules (at every level, from laws to school rules) exist because of some idiot jackass that couldn't face up to his/her own mistake and defended him/herself with something like "I didn't know that was wrong to do" <- that's OK for a 3 year old but not for anyone else.
Now, I dunno why you think my comment was warm and fuzzy... If what I say is true then we have a big problem that can only be solved if the majority of people take action and realize that they live in real world not some fantasy where ignorance is bliss and whatever they do wrong is justifiable. As for vapid, I have a vague idea what it means but I'm too lazy to search it and respond to it:D.
Yes, it's time parents take responsibility for their kids and the kids take (some) responsibility for their actions. You can't expect the government to solve all your the problems. Or if you want that, don't expect any freedom or right to make a fuss about the government being unfair when they do this or that.
Well yes, we do destroy our own world and other species. That's how nature created us. If this way of life is not good then in time we will suffer the consequences and become extinct ourselves. Nature will go on and maybe create a new species capable of intelligence that doesn't destroy itself. Maybe that species will be able to take action when it realizes what's it doing to the environment as opposed to the humans. Or maybe humans will adapt to the new conditions and stop destroying the environment. I wish I could live long enough to see which of those scenarios will happen (although I'm not sure I wanna get caught in the anarchy part before the change, maybe I can pull a Fry and travel 1000 years in the future).
As opposed to Britain and Spain and Portugal that made India and South America flourish? They're still in a lot of shit and the only thing the 'colonizing' has done is slow them by making them fight for the freedom that was taken from them. Much like how communism set back Eastern Europe and a lot of other countries by something like 50years (but I'm not sure that's actually a bad thing, though).
Yeah, right, they're ashamed... They do just what any other totalitarian style of government does: censor anything/anyone that can put an end to their reign.
What I don't get is this: are there really people out there that end up on a site, don't like what they see/read and think "someone should ban these guys!"? I mean I end up on some eye-soring sites but it's not like I can't just close the damn tab/window. I think most of those "OMG that site should be banned" guys are just trying to make excuses for not taking care of their children right or visiting sites they shouldn't visit (at work or not), and so on. The people that don't want censoring should be as loud as those idiots otherwise we will never stop censoring.
Yes, in theory, the permission(security on the whole) system of NTFS + XP/Vista is better. It's more customizable and has a complete GUI interface. Still, it doesn't work nearly as well as is could. Many things aren't put in the right default permissions which makes a lot of stuff fail when not having admin privileges (I know I stopped using a limited user account when winamp didn't work well).
Also, a more complex problem is that Windows users don't know about all that stuff and can't be bothered to learn something they think it doesn't help. Yes, now with the rapid expansion of Ubuntu and other distros too there are quite a few computer illiterates using Linux. It will be fun to see if Linux will still manage when(if) it will become the main OS and all the malware is directed to it.
I guess we could say that the real problem would be that malware/viruses/trojans get created in the first place but then we would wind up in philosophical territory and many of you have probably stopped reading my post already.
They had to choose one in the end anyway and at this point I think a simple coin toss (with like 15 faces) would have been as good a judgement as any other. I know OSS gives you the possibility to make anything work with anything but sometimes sticking with one solution will help a lot: only one type of IT support needed, people have to adjust to only one system, etc.
If you (only) plan to make money on your idea then it's not going to last a long time. It might seem naive to think so but it's usually a good thing to like what you're doing. Not only for the motivation and better skills at doing that thing but because if you like it, it might mean it's a good idea and you will be more enthusiastic when selling it.
Yeah, Microsoft and other huge corporations are far away from simple start-up enthusiasm but they don't need it now. Now they rely on aggressive business methods (where I see a mafia-like pleasure in gaining market share by any means necessary, again, liking what they do) and the actual programming (or whatever work) of normal people who probably like their jobs.
Well it would work better like this: when the power plant stops giving electricity (sun sets, wind stops, etc.) first use the power from near stations that still have the power source and let the batteries kick in later. You wouldn't need to move the power that far away IMHO (maybe a timezone maximum).
Yes but having a grid means having solar power working in different time zones therefore 24/7 power production. With batteries helping out too you can get a pretty homogeneous power output. Still, solar power is not efficient enough economically and environmentally. Nuclear power might be a good temporary solution (50-100years) but unless we start using more efficient power plants (USA uses mostly 1% of the maximum possible output of Uranium) like France (yeah, France) nuclear fuel will last a lot less.
Yes but that's how language evolves, it is possible that in a hundred years people will wonder why it's called racism to hate eggs or something like that:P. The few people interested in linguistics will know (and probably be just as against it as now) while the others will just use the word that the group has silently agreed on. Language rules don't tell the people how to talk, the people when talking, define (consciously or not) the rules of that language.
Seriously, what's with that comment? Democracy seems to me a bad hypocritical joke. Do we really need to pick on each race/ethnic/religious group at a time and "free" them after years and years of degrading them and destroying their rights (if they had them in the first place)? Why do people hate others so easily? Is it the media, the propaganda, what? Just get over it, there are a lot people out there which are different than you but guess what, they mean you no harm. What the fuck is wrong with you people?
Disclaimer: I'm not perfect by any standards and I'm not prejudice proof (I'm pretty sure I have some really 'good' ones) but outright hate against a minority, a nation, a race, or a religion is disturbing and infuriating.
Slashdot Mirror
Your analogy is not right because for a burglar, the act of stealing is the crime and he is acquitted of one of his thefts. OTOH, if thepiratebay wins then the actions they are taking are ruled as 'not thieving' (i.e. they are legal) which means they can do it as they please afterwards (or until the US companies bully Sweden and the EU into changing their laws :P).
"Worked out pretty well against weed in 1937"
I don't live in the USA so I can't know exactly what it's like but as far as I can see it, banning drugs anywhere doesn't solve much. It only makes the drugs harder (more expensive and dangerous) to get and gives the dealers a lot of power over the users. As a result you get a lot of crime because of users that need money and dealers that fight over territory or against the authorities.
Of course, I don't see how this would apply to banning DRM, people wouldn't notice it's gone, they would probably use a lot of the now obsolete programs/methods out of inertia or ignorance.
Hey! I am not hairless! It's just not in the right places...
Oh, forgot to say that yeah, I know I'll burn a lot of karma with that.
I'm just saying this because I noticed that when a flamer says that he usually doesn't get burned.
Now, by saying that I probably canceled the effect
Maybe if I acknowledge the karma burning caused by acknowledging the canceling of the karma burning I won't get modded down?
I dunno on which one to stop now...
???
Profit (?)
Yes, but the fact that it's notable that a black person has become president for the first time still means something. It will sound misogynistic but women are really different from men. You can't deny that. So, a woman becoming president is really something, the same as it was when a queen would rule a kingdom instead of a king. OTOH people opposing racism say that the color shouldn't matter. If that's true, why make a big deal out of the fact that Obama is black? Why treat it like a great accomplishment? It makes it sound like it is harder for blacks to be presidents. And if that's true then racism is still there and it still influences enough people.
Wasn't it just a joke? Certainly seemed like that to me.
I dunno how it's in other countries but in my country, Romania, there is an obvious trend of shifting responsibility towards the government and away from the population. And I see many stories about people from all over the world asking authorities to stop children from being able to see or do things they shouldn't. I also see many stories about kids or grown ups doing retarded things and accusing some third party that should be unrelated to that matter. All the stupid rules (at every level, from laws to school rules) exist because of some idiot jackass that couldn't face up to his/her own mistake and defended him/herself with something like "I didn't know that was wrong to do" <- that's OK for a 3 year old but not for anyone else.
:D.
Now, I dunno why you think my comment was warm and fuzzy... If what I say is true then we have a big problem that can only be solved if the majority of people take action and realize that they live in real world not some fantasy where ignorance is bliss and whatever they do wrong is justifiable. As for vapid, I have a vague idea what it means but I'm too lazy to search it and respond to it
Yes, it's time parents take responsibility for their kids and the kids take (some) responsibility for their actions. You can't expect the government to solve all your the problems. Or if you want that, don't expect any freedom or right to make a fuss about the government being unfair when they do this or that.
Well yes, we do destroy our own world and other species. That's how nature created us. If this way of life is not good then in time we will suffer the consequences and become extinct ourselves. Nature will go on and maybe create a new species capable of intelligence that doesn't destroy itself. Maybe that species will be able to take action when it realizes what's it doing to the environment as opposed to the humans. Or maybe humans will adapt to the new conditions and stop destroying the environment. I wish I could live long enough to see which of those scenarios will happen (although I'm not sure I wanna get caught in the anarchy part before the change, maybe I can pull a Fry and travel 1000 years in the future).
"I take it the devout christian states in the US have less severe sentences than the evil athiest states?"
I hope that was sarcasm...
Yeah, I wouldn't really mod this as troll, more like off-topic...
As opposed to Britain and Spain and Portugal that made India and South America flourish? They're still in a lot of shit and the only thing the 'colonizing' has done is slow them by making them fight for the freedom that was taken from them. Much like how communism set back Eastern Europe and a lot of other countries by something like 50years (but I'm not sure that's actually a bad thing, though).
Yeah, right, they're ashamed... They do just what any other totalitarian style of government does: censor anything/anyone that can put an end to their reign.
What I don't get is this: are there really people out there that end up on a site, don't like what they see/read and think "someone should ban these guys!"? I mean I end up on some eye-soring sites but it's not like I can't just close the damn tab/window. I think most of those "OMG that site should be banned" guys are just trying to make excuses for not taking care of their children right or visiting sites they shouldn't visit (at work or not), and so on. The people that don't want censoring should be as loud as those idiots otherwise we will never stop censoring.
I don't get it...
Yes, in theory, the permission(security on the whole) system of NTFS + XP/Vista is better. It's more customizable and has a complete GUI interface. Still, it doesn't work nearly as well as is could. Many things aren't put in the right default permissions which makes a lot of stuff fail when not having admin privileges (I know I stopped using a limited user account when winamp didn't work well).
Also, a more complex problem is that Windows users don't know about all that stuff and can't be bothered to learn something they think it doesn't help. Yes, now with the rapid expansion of Ubuntu and other distros too there are quite a few computer illiterates using Linux. It will be fun to see if Linux will still manage when(if) it will become the main OS and all the malware is directed to it.
I guess we could say that the real problem would be that malware/viruses/trojans get created in the first place but then we would wind up in philosophical territory and many of you have probably stopped reading my post already.
They had to choose one in the end anyway and at this point I think a simple coin toss (with like 15 faces) would have been as good a judgement as any other. I know OSS gives you the possibility to make anything work with anything but sometimes sticking with one solution will help a lot: only one type of IT support needed, people have to adjust to only one system, etc.
If you (only) plan to make money on your idea then it's not going to last a long time. It might seem naive to think so but it's usually a good thing to like what you're doing. Not only for the motivation and better skills at doing that thing but because if you like it, it might mean it's a good idea and you will be more enthusiastic when selling it.
Yeah, Microsoft and other huge corporations are far away from simple start-up enthusiasm but they don't need it now. Now they rely on aggressive business methods (where I see a mafia-like pleasure in gaining market share by any means necessary, again, liking what they do) and the actual programming (or whatever work) of normal people who probably like their jobs.
Well it would work better like this: when the power plant stops giving electricity (sun sets, wind stops, etc.) first use the power from near stations that still have the power source and let the batteries kick in later. You wouldn't need to move the power that far away IMHO (maybe a timezone maximum).
Oh come on... you don't need power plants in all timezones, just enough such that there is enough light shining on your power grid as whole.
Yes but having a grid means having solar power working in different time zones therefore 24/7 power production. With batteries helping out too you can get a pretty homogeneous power output. Still, solar power is not efficient enough economically and environmentally. Nuclear power might be a good temporary solution (50-100years) but unless we start using more efficient power plants (USA uses mostly 1% of the maximum possible output of Uranium) like France (yeah, France) nuclear fuel will last a lot less.
well no shit sherlock
Yes but that's how language evolves, it is possible that in a hundred years people will wonder why it's called racism to hate eggs or something like that :P. The few people interested in linguistics will know (and probably be just as against it as now) while the others will just use the word that the group has silently agreed on. Language rules don't tell the people how to talk, the people when talking, define (consciously or not) the rules of that language.
Seriously, what's with that comment? Democracy seems to me a bad hypocritical joke. Do we really need to pick on each race/ethnic/religious group at a time and "free" them after years and years of degrading them and destroying their rights (if they had them in the first place)? Why do people hate others so easily? Is it the media, the propaganda, what? Just get over it, there are a lot people out there which are different than you but guess what, they mean you no harm. What the fuck is wrong with you people?
Disclaimer: I'm not perfect by any standards and I'm not prejudice proof (I'm pretty sure I have some really 'good' ones) but outright hate against a minority, a nation, a race, or a religion is disturbing and infuriating.
It's just semantics. Nowadays, racism started to mean any kind of hate/intolerance against a group of people sharing a common homeland, religion, etc.