Artificial restrictions on what you're doing with your audio/video/computing equipment don't benefit authors either. They don't benefit anyone and only assholes want them.
No, there's no actual societal harm in reproduction of work without permission. Thus enforcing this is empty waste of court's time, which should be spent on prosecuting murderers, rapist, robbers and other real criminals.
"(H)ate of the meritocracy? Really? You actually believe that we live in a meritocracy? Are you blind, or wilfully self-deluded, or are you simply trolling? Donald Trump has a lot of wealth and power, and a good chance of becoming POTUS. Do you really think it was "merit" that got him there? Wake up.
Presidents are merely public performers. They don't actual administration work, merely affirm decisions researched and arrived to by larger teams of administrators. Due to complexity of modern society it'll be absolutely necessary at least for some of those administrators(namely those who do actual work rather than perform for suckers) to be chosen via meritocracy. In practice it's impossible to avoid meritocracy, but it's possible to achieve different balances of meritocracy vs imitation of useful activity.
Every large gathering of people will have some drama queens, campuses or otherwise. The problem here with the way they're dealt with. It seems campus authorities are too lazy to investigate such situations fairly and thoroughly and allow drama queens to invent whatever they wish.
Actually calorie IS outdated. Scientific community moved to SI units like joule. The fact that calories instead of joules are used to measure energy stored in food shows that no genuinely new research was done in that area since nineteenth century.
You seem to be using bogus definition of toy language. Which features and library bindings language has can't serve as objective definition because there are no requirements everyone would agree on. Only actual use in production systems can make a language non-toy.
Word "God" simply doesn't have a consistent meaning, there's nothing to prove or disprove. The very fact that people would treat its existence or lack of it as actual epidemiological problem proves that there is still too many fools among Humanity..
You have absolutely misunderstood me. I cited existence of anti-trust laws as evidence of the fact that everyone, including government, knows about artificial nature of money and property. I don't need to make any suggestions because other people already working on limiting it. It just takes time, and often regulatory organs can be affected by regulatory capture. Suggestions like removing corruption are of course theoretically sound, but who will do that? People who get paid for doing the opposite? The only way is to stop bitching and go work there yourself.. But the very existence of such organs proves artificial nature of money and fallibility of markets.
Can you provide me an example of argument that you in your altered state of consciousness would accept as one? I still honestly really don't understand what you expected. I just shared my understanding of the situation, that's it. And you were like Peter Griffin asking "And?" long after it was appropriate.
I just explained to you how things work and how it relates to subjective nature of property and money. Yet you expect some suggestions from me. Why? It's just like if I described structure of solar system to you. Would you in that case expect suggestions of improvement from me? Like adding new planets? Or removing some?
What law I would want to change is irrelevant. It never was relevant. The only thing relevant is that laws change to deal with market failure. An example here would be introduction of american anti-trust laws, or activity of regulatory organizations like FCC. But in the end the decisions are made by concrete people and there are always consequences from each decision. Those decisions must be made based on understanding how exactly market works, not magic belief it'll fix everything.
You're not making any sense. I've already fully explained my position, there's nothing to add. I just said a bunch of truisms, I have no idea what you're so riled up about.
You're incorrect. No parroting was involved here. You just chose to answer to me like to some commie-mutant-traitor, yet there was nothing along those lines in what I wrote. There's nothing non-obvious about money being abstract construct without direct relation to material things, and that's the only thing I stated. In order for market forces to work there must be astronomic number of participants, and even then market failures are always possible. Money are a mechanism, and each mechanism can be exploited and subverted to work against its purpose. So fetishization of market and money might prevent one from perceiving an existing market failure and responding to it by modifying laws accordingly. This makes sense since property itself is creation of law and is enforced by state, thus only state in practice can decide what property is and what isn't and how exactly it should be enforced.
You didn't read what I wrote, right? Money is merely a mechanism, I object to its fetishization and you totally failed to show that there's something wrong with such point of view with those irrelevant rants. It seems to me you argued with someone else or you're just touched in the head..
You misunderstood. It was't about inequality, but rather about irrationality. The very idea that 1000 to 1 difference in income is somehow related to 1000 to 1 difference in talent or societal utility is irrational. The very idea that having more income is automatically good is irrational. Money are subjective and as long as a person has all his living needs fulfilled it shouldn't matter. Some nerds collect postal stamps, some nerds collect money, and for some reason collecting money became religiously mandated which leads to inefficiency. Why money collecting nerds should be valued more than other nerds?
The problem is that money became object of fetish, a religious concept. Ultimately it's just an abstraction meant to facilitate trade. And if everyone go for making money rather than getting the work done then money as abstraction breaks down. It no longer performs its original purpose and results in various inefficiencies. If a manager's salary is 1000 times more than that of average productive worker then this manager is no longer a contributor to common goal, but rather a fetishized person akin to a religious figure or an aristocrat.
You didn't investigate it? It sounds very damning. If you really cared about her you'd definitely investigate it. It's easy to find postings on the web, but community isn't made by postings, it's made by its members. And members should pay attention to each other for community to even exist in the first place.
It seems they're spooked alright so they made wrong claim. They have no standing whatsoever to claim copyright infringement, because a fan film isn't a derivative work of Paramount "owned" work. Notion of "derivative work" is reserved for translations, rearrangements, adaptations and other such works, and not original films merely using some characters from StarTrek lore. I'd say they can easily claim trademark infringement though.
Slashdot Mirror
Easier said than done. They'd sooner find another programmer than forfeit a Christmas release.
Incorrect. The point is that court's main objective is to repair harm done and there's no harm in this case.
Artificial restrictions on what you're doing with your audio/video/computing equipment don't benefit authors either. They don't benefit anyone and only assholes want them.
No, there's no actual societal harm in reproduction of work without permission. Thus enforcing this is empty waste of court's time, which should be spent on prosecuting murderers, rapist, robbers and other real criminals.
A judge can make determination of bad faith, but there's not enough judge time to handle all notices.
"(H)ate of the meritocracy? Really? You actually believe that we live in a meritocracy? Are you blind, or wilfully self-deluded, or are you simply trolling? Donald Trump has a lot of wealth and power, and a good chance of becoming POTUS. Do you really think it was "merit" that got him there? Wake up.
Presidents are merely public performers. They don't actual administration work, merely affirm decisions researched and arrived to by larger teams of administrators. Due to complexity of modern society it'll be absolutely necessary at least for some of those administrators(namely those who do actual work rather than perform for suckers) to be chosen via meritocracy. In practice it's impossible to avoid meritocracy, but it's possible to achieve different balances of meritocracy vs imitation of useful activity.
Every large gathering of people will have some drama queens, campuses or otherwise. The problem here with the way they're dealt with. It seems campus authorities are too lazy to investigate such situations fairly and thoroughly and allow drama queens to invent whatever they wish.
Actually calorie IS outdated. Scientific community moved to SI units like joule. The fact that calories instead of joules are used to measure energy stored in food shows that no genuinely new research was done in that area since nineteenth century.
Only Syria. Crimea seceded on its own due to people there looking for greener pastures and no real war happened there..
You seem to be using bogus definition of toy language. Which features and library bindings language has can't serve as objective definition because there are no requirements everyone would agree on. Only actual use in production systems can make a language non-toy.
To me Wolfram Language seems exactly as much of a toy as Scratch, so he's basically pushing two contradictory points in name of product placement.
Word "God" simply doesn't have a consistent meaning, there's nothing to prove or disprove. The very fact that people would treat its existence or lack of it as actual epidemiological problem proves that there is still too many fools among Humanity..
You have absolutely misunderstood me. I cited existence of anti-trust laws as evidence of the fact that everyone, including government, knows about artificial nature of money and property. I don't need to make any suggestions because other people already working on limiting it. It just takes time, and often regulatory organs can be affected by regulatory capture. Suggestions like removing corruption are of course theoretically sound, but who will do that? People who get paid for doing the opposite? The only way is to stop bitching and go work there yourself.. But the very existence of such organs proves artificial nature of money and fallibility of markets.
Can you provide me an example of argument that you in your altered state of consciousness would accept as one? I still honestly really don't understand what you expected. I just shared my understanding of the situation, that's it. And you were like Peter Griffin asking "And?" long after it was appropriate.
I just explained to you how things work and how it relates to subjective nature of property and money. Yet you expect some suggestions from me. Why? It's just like if I described structure of solar system to you. Would you in that case expect suggestions of improvement from me? Like adding new planets? Or removing some?
What law I would want to change is irrelevant. It never was relevant. The only thing relevant is that laws change to deal with market failure. An example here would be introduction of american anti-trust laws, or activity of regulatory organizations like FCC. But in the end the decisions are made by concrete people and there are always consequences from each decision. Those decisions must be made based on understanding how exactly market works, not magic belief it'll fix everything.
You're not making any sense. I've already fully explained my position, there's nothing to add. I just said a bunch of truisms, I have no idea what you're so riled up about.
You're incorrect. No parroting was involved here. You just chose to answer to me like to some commie-mutant-traitor, yet there was nothing along those lines in what I wrote. There's nothing non-obvious about money being abstract construct without direct relation to material things, and that's the only thing I stated. In order for market forces to work there must be astronomic number of participants, and even then market failures are always possible. Money are a mechanism, and each mechanism can be exploited and subverted to work against its purpose. So fetishization of market and money might prevent one from perceiving an existing market failure and responding to it by modifying laws accordingly. This makes sense since property itself is creation of law and is enforced by state, thus only state in practice can decide what property is and what isn't and how exactly it should be enforced.
You didn't read what I wrote, right? Money is merely a mechanism, I object to its fetishization and you totally failed to show that there's something wrong with such point of view with those irrelevant rants. It seems to me you argued with someone else or you're just touched in the head..
You misunderstood. It was't about inequality, but rather about irrationality. The very idea that 1000 to 1 difference in income is somehow related to 1000 to 1 difference in talent or societal utility is irrational. The very idea that having more income is automatically good is irrational. Money are subjective and as long as a person has all his living needs fulfilled it shouldn't matter. Some nerds collect postal stamps, some nerds collect money, and for some reason collecting money became religiously mandated which leads to inefficiency. Why money collecting nerds should be valued more than other nerds?
The problem is that money became object of fetish, a religious concept. Ultimately it's just an abstraction meant to facilitate trade. And if everyone go for making money rather than getting the work done then money as abstraction breaks down. It no longer performs its original purpose and results in various inefficiencies. If a manager's salary is 1000 times more than that of average productive worker then this manager is no longer a contributor to common goal, but rather a fetishized person akin to a religious figure or an aristocrat.
liberty-safety tradeoff doesn't even exist. Warrantless surveillance makes things less safe and not more.
You didn't investigate it? It sounds very damning. If you really cared about her you'd definitely investigate it. It's easy to find postings on the web, but community isn't made by postings, it's made by its members. And members should pay attention to each other for community to even exist in the first place.
It seems they're spooked alright so they made wrong claim. They have no standing whatsoever to claim copyright infringement, because a fan film isn't a derivative work of Paramount "owned" work. Notion of "derivative work" is reserved for translations, rearrangements, adaptations and other such works, and not original films merely using some characters from StarTrek lore. I'd say they can easily claim trademark infringement though.
What a bullshit demagoguery. Boring template phrases from propaganda pamphlets like 'too much tears'. I'm so disappointed..