Do they know who you called and when, or who called you and when?
Do they care about who I called when? Probably not, and they probably don't care about who's calling you either. Honestly, do you think they even have the resources (much less the interest) to monitor every phone conversation that goes on in America? I'm not saying that there isn't potential for abuse, but I, for one, also do not believe that the FBI is just the enforcement arm of a huge government conspiracy out to get us all. Maybe you could settle down just a little bit and take a joke.
If they don't need those SGI machines after they switch over to Linux, I'd be willing to make a small sacrifice and let them use my home address as dumping ground...
What's even better than SPAM is the high-quality "Run-cheon mit'" (Luncheon meat). The bad romanization doesn't do the name justice, but that stuff was beyond interesting. That's why I always stayed away from imitation American foods in Korea. I much preferred good Korean stuff to bad American stuff -- except Duen Jang Chi Gae (again, sorry for the bad romanization). I never could get a taste for that stuff.
I did realize it was a joke. I think, though, that before you make a joke at the expense of an entire culture that is proud, ancient and sensitive, you would do well to know that it has at least the smallest kernel of truth (for example, if you had made a joke about the disks getting copied all over the country, it would have been funny). Also, yes, I did the exact same thing by lumping you with the 31337 skr1p7 k1dd33z that live in their mothers' basements, when in fact I know nothing about you, and yes, I did it on purpose, and yes, I wrote my comment right off the cuff because I was irritated, and yes, the word "moron" was calculated to incite anger, so my comment should be properly be modded as flamebait. Still, though, I think the joke was about as fair and as funny as making a joke about how dispassionate Linux users are about their OS of choice.
Have you ever been to Korea, you moron? Those people are absolute technophiles. They love all of the newest little electronic gadgets. They're not always the highest quality little gadgets, but everybody has them. Koreans are not aborigonees living in a wasteland. They live in big, crowded cities like most of us, except they're usually bigger (the Seoul/Inchon area alone has something obscene like 14 million people) and they have lots more concrete (if you had ever been to Korea, you would know what I am talking about). You need to leave your momma's basement a little more often.
What really cracks me up is that your original post is currently rated "+5 Informative," while your second post, which retracts the parent and states that you were misinformed is currently rated "+1 Redundant." Perhaps./ should mandate a reading comprehension test before awarding mod points.
The reason they are different than Blockbuster is that Blockbuster is paying a premium price for those videos so that they can rent out (I'm not sure if it's a flat price up front or a per-use royalty, but they are definitely paying extra). This is the same reason that you cannot buy a bunch of videos yourself and legally rent them out. Right or wrong, that is the way the law is written, so until they have royalty contracts in place with the distributors, they are breaking (U.S.) law. If you do not like the law, write lots of letters to your congress persons and encourage all of your friends to do the same (NOTE: if you are not over 18, don't bother. You will be ignored. If you are over 18, you will probably be ignored anyway, but at least you did your duty as a Citizen).
By your argument, if people stop respecting your right to your physical property, it is no longer yours. If a majority of people decide they want to walk into your home and take your car, your stereo and your computer, they are justified in doing so. If they are unwilling to pay for those things, and would prefer to procure them by taking yours, then for all practical purposes, you don't own those things.
The flaw in your reasoning is that, for the most part, people are relying on others to provide a service they are unable to provide for themselves. For example, if you are unable to produce music yourself, you pay someone else to produce it by purchasing a recording of it or attending a concert. If you do not have the time or the technical ability to independently write a full-featured suite of office software, you pay someone else to do it. Those services have intrinsic value, and in most cases, those with the skill to perform those services have invested time and money into developing those skills to the point that they are marketable (there are, of course some obvious exceptions, such as teeny-bopper music icons whose merit lies more in their mammary glands than in their voices). These people have the reasonable expectation of being able to recover that investment by selling services to those who are unable to provide those services for themselves. The fact that intellectual property is easy to reproduce in a digital age does not automatically eliminate its value. The Framers of the constitution understood this and included specific language to protect, for a limited time, a creator's exclusive rights to a work, in order to encourage the creation of useful arts and science. So please, argue that prices are inflated if you believe they are, or argue that content distributors inhibit fair use rights, or argue that the artists are getting screwed as much as the consumers, so the current distribution method doesn't fit the spirit of those Constitutional protections. Those kinds of arguments make sense. Saying "your right to property ends when I stop respecting that right," does not.
As for Windu, he will probably be killed of in a down and dirty backstabbing (maybe even physically by Palpatine himself), or die last in a glorious "last stand of the Jedi" against Palpatines clone troopers. Personally I would like the former better, but I don't think Lucas can resist the "last stand" cliche.
Actually, I got ahold of a bootleg copy of the script for EP III on the internet, and found this interesting little piece of dialog just before Mace Windu's death:
Boba Fet: Hello, my name is Boba Fet. You killed my father. Prepare to die.
Yoda tells Luke that he trained Vader, that Vader was his student when so far that doesn't seem to be the case.
Maybe he's using the term "trained" as an indirect relation, since Dooku was Yoda's Padwan, Qui Gon Jinn was Dooku's Padwan, Obi-Wan was Jinn's Padwan, and Anakin is Obi-Wan's Padwan. That would make Yoda Anakin's Great-Great GrandJediMaster or something like that.
And from what I've heard, Clear Channel can be a rough company to work for
My brother-in-law worked for Clear Channel, not as a DJ, but as a SysAdmin. He was setting up UNIX servers for them. When they hired him, they gave him this great spiel about his career path with Clear Channel and how great it was going to be working for them and that he was going to get hooked up with a great benefits package after 90 days and all this BS. After a couple of months, the boss called him in and basically said, "good job setting up those servers. We're in good shape now. Nice knowing you," and sent him packing. Plus, he said the boss was just some dirty old man who did nothing but surf porn sites all day.
This is totally offtopic, but this one is starting to appear a lot, so I just wanted to point it out.
From Merriam-Webster OnLine:
Main Entry: 1 shear
Pronunciation: 'shir
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): sheared; sheared or shorn/'shOrn, 'shorn/; shearing
Etymology: Middle English sheren, from Old English scieran; akin to Old Norse skera to cut, Latin curtus shortened, Greek keirein to cut, shear, Sanskrit krnAti he injures
Date: before 12th century
transitive senses
1 a : to cut off the hair from b : to cut or clip (as hair or wool) from someone or something; also : to cut something from c chiefly Scottish : to reap with a sickle d : to cut or trim with shears or a similar instrument
2 : to cut with something sharp
3 : to deprive of something as if by cutting
4 a : to subject to a shear force b : to cause (as a rock mass) to move along the plane of contact
intransitive senses
1 : to cut through something with or as if with a sharp instrument
2 chiefly Scottish : to reap crops with a sickle
3 : to become divided under the action of a shear (the bolt may shear off)
Main Entry: 3 sheer
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English schere freed from guilt, probably alteration of skere, from Old Norse skærr pure; akin to Old English scInan to shine
Date: circa 1568
1 obsolete : BRIGHT, SHINING
2 : of very thin or transparent texture : DIAPHANOUS
3 a : UNQUALIFIED, UTTER (sheer folly) (sheer ignorance) b : being free from an adulterant : PURE, UNMIXED c : viewed or acting in dissociation from all else
4 : marked by great and continuous steepness
synonym see STEEP
- sheerly adverb
- sheerness noun
Let me start by questioning whether you or anyone else can be entirely sure of the intentions of the original writers of the Bill of Rights
Certainly none of us were there with them. The best we can do is research the political climate of the time, read what was said in other literature of the time, and draw our best conclusions as to what was meant. Courts have been doing this for a couple of hundred years, and my position is the conclusion I have come to based on the same.
we rely on the Supreme Court to interpret and determine exactly what was meant.
Historically, the Justices of the Supreme Court have mostly held to one of two general philosophies regarding the free speech clause. The first is that speech is speech, and that there should be absolutely no limitation on what a person is allowed to say (with a very few exceptions, such as threatening the life of the President or other such extremes). This protection, however, does not extend to other forms of expression. The second is that speech can be more broadly taken to extend to other forms of expression, but because this interpretation is much more broad, the interpretation of what constitutes "abridging" this right is also taken to be more open-ended. Hence, the use of "community standards" to determine what is obscene. Please tell me which of these interpretations supports freedom of pornography. Generally, something that has little or no positive effect and is considered offensive by many people can safely be deemed obscene. Like I said before, if pornography is so terribly important to you, I'm sure you will find a way to get all that you need, but the last thing parents need is laws protecting easy access to pornography. You will no doubt find it, easy or not, but I would rather my children not find it when they are not looking for it. And finally, feel free to continue expressing your opinions on the subject, because that truly is what free speech is about.
>>or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press
I'm going to get flamed here and modded into negative karma by 13-year olds, but what the heck, it's just Slashdot, so here goes my rant.
I am sick of seeing the "free speech" clause paraded about as a broad license for all forms of pornography. As someone already noted, speech is just what it implies -- the use of language to express an idea. Regardless of the debate on whether porn is "art," speech and art are not synonymous. You can argue that art is expressing an idea, but that is not what the clause is intended to protect. The clause is intended to protect people from prosecution for verbalizing unpopular ideas. It was intended to allow diversity in political opinion, not to give Hugh Heffner wannabes free reign over the internet. So, in short, because of the first ammendment, you are totally free to argue as much as you want that pornography should be freely available to everybody and that it is a God-given right. You could even argue that the government should subsidize it and then give you money to go get a hooker when you feel the need to satiate your burning lusts. You can say whatever you want to. I will not agree with you, but I will staunchly defend your right to hold that opinion and express it through any combination of words you choose. But that does not mean it is an assault on all that is sacred and holy when congress tries to pass a law that will help keep trash away from children. If it is so terribly important to you, and you feel that your children should have free and unfettered access to it, I'm sure you will find a way to provide it yourself. As for me, I would prefer that my daughter not accodentally stumble into goatse.cx while looking for information about animals.
I don't even think it's unethical. The license was written specifically to be non-exclusive. Microsoft was not bending or breaking the intent of the license when they included the code. They were using as it was intended to be used. It's not any different than what Mac did with OSX. I'm no Microsoft apologist, but at least let's attack them for what they do that's actually wrong. I personally think the whole world could benefit greatly if M$ would take a cue from Mac and just go ahead and put BSD Unix under their crap OS. At least then, when I am forced to use M$ (which is often), it would actually work right some of the time.
>>It's all so clear now!
As well it should be. Microsoft determines what is and isn't acceptable, and therefore, Microsoft, by definition, is always right. It's all so easy when you're making the rules. It's almost like some Greek god running amok. Lots of power and no responsibility.
I like the Microsoft == Drugs analogy. Unfortunately, some of us don't have a lot of choice. When we work contracts that specify "documents shall be delivered in Microsoft Word version xxx format..." I don't have much choice but to use Word in Windows. Even worse, our corporate IT folks are migrating from GroupWise to Exchange and Outlook. Why? I don't know, maybe they felt left out when our servers didn't get hammered by all the Outlook virii. However, I have stubbornly managed to hold on to my Linux partition that default boots into runlevel 3 for when I want to actually get something useful done. Corporate IT says they don't support it, which is just as well with me. I don't want those guys messing with my system.
I think you overestimate the insightfulness of your comment. If I've seen anything from recent history, it is that Microsoft can basically do whatever they want, however stupid it is, and it doesn't make a dent in their market share. Microsoft could be caught depositing huge sums of money in Osama Bin Laden's personal bank account and they'd manage to put just the right spin on it and somehow blame it on the GPL and still maintain their ridiculous market share. I really don't think this one incident has shot down their antitrust case because they've done about a million things that are worse that don't seem to have affected them like they should have. If Microsoft ever comes down, it will not be the result of one bad decision. It will be the culmination of lots of little bad decisions like sending the BSA storm troopers to shut down Mom and Pop businesses to set an example (they're here in town now).
Besides, isn't it kind of an unwritten rule of./ ettiquette (that's an oxymoron) that you can only call moderators "crack-smoking" whatevers over moderation of somebody else's comment? If you do it over your own comments, you sound self-absorbed and hypersensitive. After all, it's just karma. It's not like it attracts women or gets you promotions at work. Now, if we could use the stuff to buy hardware goodies, well then a whoring I will go...
Slashdot Mirror
If they don't need those SGI machines after they switch over to Linux, I'd be willing to make a small sacrifice and let them use my home address as dumping ground...
What's even better than SPAM is the high-quality "Run-cheon mit'" (Luncheon meat). The bad romanization doesn't do the name justice, but that stuff was beyond interesting. That's why I always stayed away from imitation American foods in Korea. I much preferred good Korean stuff to bad American stuff -- except Duen Jang Chi Gae (again, sorry for the bad romanization). I never could get a taste for that stuff.
I didn't say they were particularly good at technology, just that they really like it.
I did realize it was a joke. I think, though, that before you make a joke at the expense of an entire culture that is proud, ancient and sensitive, you would do well to know that it has at least the smallest kernel of truth (for example, if you had made a joke about the disks getting copied all over the country, it would have been funny). Also, yes, I did the exact same thing by lumping you with the 31337 skr1p7 k1dd33z that live in their mothers' basements, when in fact I know nothing about you, and yes, I did it on purpose, and yes, I wrote my comment right off the cuff because I was irritated, and yes, the word "moron" was calculated to incite anger, so my comment should be properly be modded as flamebait. Still, though, I think the joke was about as fair and as funny as making a joke about how dispassionate Linux users are about their OS of choice.
Have you ever been to Korea, you moron? Those people are absolute technophiles. They love all of the newest little electronic gadgets. They're not always the highest quality little gadgets, but everybody has them. Koreans are not aborigonees living in a wasteland. They live in big, crowded cities like most of us, except they're usually bigger (the Seoul/Inchon area alone has something obscene like 14 million people) and they have lots more concrete (if you had ever been to Korea, you would know what I am talking about). You need to leave your momma's basement a little more often.
What really cracks me up is that your original post is currently rated "+5 Informative," while your second post, which retracts the parent and states that you were misinformed is currently rated "+1 Redundant." Perhaps ./ should mandate a reading comprehension test before awarding mod points.
Yeah, word is they code-named it "Lynx."
I have nothing useful to contribute to this discussion
Just curious, do you know why it's different for DVD's?
The reason they are different than Blockbuster is that Blockbuster is paying a premium price for those videos so that they can rent out (I'm not sure if it's a flat price up front or a per-use royalty, but they are definitely paying extra). This is the same reason that you cannot buy a bunch of videos yourself and legally rent them out. Right or wrong, that is the way the law is written, so until they have royalty contracts in place with the distributors, they are breaking (U.S.) law. If you do not like the law, write lots of letters to your congress persons and encourage all of your friends to do the same (NOTE: if you are not over 18, don't bother. You will be ignored. If you are over 18, you will probably be ignored anyway, but at least you did your duty as a Citizen).
The flaw in your reasoning is that, for the most part, people are relying on others to provide a service they are unable to provide for themselves. For example, if you are unable to produce music yourself, you pay someone else to produce it by purchasing a recording of it or attending a concert. If you do not have the time or the technical ability to independently write a full-featured suite of office software, you pay someone else to do it. Those services have intrinsic value, and in most cases, those with the skill to perform those services have invested time and money into developing those skills to the point that they are marketable (there are, of course some obvious exceptions, such as teeny-bopper music icons whose merit lies more in their mammary glands than in their voices). These people have the reasonable expectation of being able to recover that investment by selling services to those who are unable to provide those services for themselves. The fact that intellectual property is easy to reproduce in a digital age does not automatically eliminate its value. The Framers of the constitution understood this and included specific language to protect, for a limited time, a creator's exclusive rights to a work, in order to encourage the creation of useful arts and science. So please, argue that prices are inflated if you believe they are, or argue that content distributors inhibit fair use rights, or argue that the artists are getting screwed as much as the consumers, so the current distribution method doesn't fit the spirit of those Constitutional protections. Those kinds of arguments make sense. Saying "your right to property ends when I stop respecting that right," does not.
Actually, I got ahold of a bootleg copy of the script for EP III on the internet, and found this interesting little piece of dialog just before Mace Windu's death:
Boba Fet: Hello, my name is Boba Fet. You killed my father. Prepare to die.
Mace Windu: STOP SAYING THAT!!!
Maybe he's using the term "trained" as an indirect relation, since Dooku was Yoda's Padwan, Qui Gon Jinn was Dooku's Padwan, Obi-Wan was Jinn's Padwan, and Anakin is Obi-Wan's Padwan. That would make Yoda Anakin's Great-Great GrandJediMaster or something like that.
My brother-in-law worked for Clear Channel, not as a DJ, but as a SysAdmin. He was setting up UNIX servers for them. When they hired him, they gave him this great spiel about his career path with Clear Channel and how great it was going to be working for them and that he was going to get hooked up with a great benefits package after 90 days and all this BS. After a couple of months, the boss called him in and basically said, "good job setting up those servers. We're in good shape now. Nice knowing you," and sent him packing. Plus, he said the boss was just some dirty old man who did nothing but surf porn sites all day.
I'm a Texan, which is a form of American superior to all others, so you need not feel too bad.
From Merriam-Webster OnLine: Main Entry: 1 shear Pronunciation: 'shir Function: verb Inflected Form(s): sheared; sheared or shorn /'shOrn, 'shorn/; shearing
Etymology: Middle English sheren, from Old English scieran; akin to Old Norse skera to cut, Latin curtus shortened, Greek keirein to cut, shear, Sanskrit krnAti he injures
Date: before 12th century
transitive senses
1 a : to cut off the hair from b : to cut or clip (as hair or wool) from someone or something; also : to cut something from c chiefly Scottish : to reap with a sickle d : to cut or trim with shears or a similar instrument
2 : to cut with something sharp
3 : to deprive of something as if by cutting
4 a : to subject to a shear force b : to cause (as a rock mass) to move along the plane of contact
intransitive senses
1 : to cut through something with or as if with a sharp instrument
2 chiefly Scottish : to reap crops with a sickle
3 : to become divided under the action of a shear (the bolt may shear off)
Main Entry: 3 sheer Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English schere freed from guilt, probably alteration of skere, from Old Norse skærr pure; akin to Old English scInan to shine Date: circa 1568 1 obsolete : BRIGHT, SHINING 2 : of very thin or transparent texture : DIAPHANOUS 3 a : UNQUALIFIED, UTTER (sheer folly) (sheer ignorance) b : being free from an adulterant : PURE, UNMIXED c : viewed or acting in dissociation from all else 4 : marked by great and continuous steepness synonym see STEEP - sheerly adverb - sheerness noun
Hence, it would be the sheer coolness factor :-)
Certainly none of us were there with them. The best we can do is research the political climate of the time, read what was said in other literature of the time, and draw our best conclusions as to what was meant. Courts have been doing this for a couple of hundred years, and my position is the conclusion I have come to based on the same.
Historically, the Justices of the Supreme Court have mostly held to one of two general philosophies regarding the free speech clause. The first is that speech is speech, and that there should be absolutely no limitation on what a person is allowed to say (with a very few exceptions, such as threatening the life of the President or other such extremes). This protection, however, does not extend to other forms of expression. The second is that speech can be more broadly taken to extend to other forms of expression, but because this interpretation is much more broad, the interpretation of what constitutes "abridging" this right is also taken to be more open-ended. Hence, the use of "community standards" to determine what is obscene. Please tell me which of these interpretations supports freedom of pornography. Generally, something that has little or no positive effect and is considered offensive by many people can safely be deemed obscene. Like I said before, if pornography is so terribly important to you, I'm sure you will find a way to get all that you need, but the last thing parents need is laws protecting easy access to pornography. You will no doubt find it, easy or not, but I would rather my children not find it when they are not looking for it. And finally, feel free to continue expressing your opinions on the subject, because that truly is what free speech is about.
I'm going to get flamed here and modded into negative karma by 13-year olds, but what the heck, it's just Slashdot, so here goes my rant.
I am sick of seeing the "free speech" clause paraded about as a broad license for all forms of pornography. As someone already noted, speech is just what it implies -- the use of language to express an idea. Regardless of the debate on whether porn is "art," speech and art are not synonymous. You can argue that art is expressing an idea, but that is not what the clause is intended to protect. The clause is intended to protect people from prosecution for verbalizing unpopular ideas. It was intended to allow diversity in political opinion, not to give Hugh Heffner wannabes free reign over the internet. So, in short, because of the first ammendment, you are totally free to argue as much as you want that pornography should be freely available to everybody and that it is a God-given right. You could even argue that the government should subsidize it and then give you money to go get a hooker when you feel the need to satiate your burning lusts. You can say whatever you want to. I will not agree with you, but I will staunchly defend your right to hold that opinion and express it through any combination of words you choose. But that does not mean it is an assault on all that is sacred and holy when congress tries to pass a law that will help keep trash away from children. If it is so terribly important to you, and you feel that your children should have free and unfettered access to it, I'm sure you will find a way to provide it yourself. As for me, I would prefer that my daughter not accodentally stumble into goatse.cx while looking for information about animals.
I don't even think it's unethical. The license was written specifically to be non-exclusive. Microsoft was not bending or breaking the intent of the license when they included the code. They were using as it was intended to be used. It's not any different than what Mac did with OSX. I'm no Microsoft apologist, but at least let's attack them for what they do that's actually wrong. I personally think the whole world could benefit greatly if M$ would take a cue from Mac and just go ahead and put BSD Unix under their crap OS. At least then, when I am forced to use M$ (which is often), it would actually work right some of the time.
>>It's all so clear now! As well it should be. Microsoft determines what is and isn't acceptable, and therefore, Microsoft, by definition, is always right. It's all so easy when you're making the rules. It's almost like some Greek god running amok. Lots of power and no responsibility.
I like the Microsoft == Drugs analogy. Unfortunately, some of us don't have a lot of choice. When we work contracts that specify "documents shall be delivered in Microsoft Word version xxx format..." I don't have much choice but to use Word in Windows. Even worse, our corporate IT folks are migrating from GroupWise to Exchange and Outlook. Why? I don't know, maybe they felt left out when our servers didn't get hammered by all the Outlook virii. However, I have stubbornly managed to hold on to my Linux partition that default boots into runlevel 3 for when I want to actually get something useful done. Corporate IT says they don't support it, which is just as well with me. I don't want those guys messing with my system.
Besides, isn't it kind of an unwritten rule of ./ ettiquette (that's an oxymoron) that you can only call moderators "crack-smoking" whatevers over moderation of somebody else's comment? If you do it over your own comments, you sound self-absorbed and hypersensitive. After all, it's just karma. It's not like it attracts women or gets you promotions at work. Now, if we could use the stuff to buy hardware goodies, well then a whoring I will go...