> But because of people like yourself--who are too lazy to figure this out for yourself
Ok, did I miss a declaration of a douchbag contest? Did I accidentally click on youtube instead of facebook? Get over yourself and participate in the conversation like an adult, all I did was ask some questions I'm not out on the street marching against your views.
Interesting information, a bit overshadowed by unnecessary dickishness.
> Solar accounts for 0.17% of our electric production in this country, tripling it won't make any difference.
Is this counting only energy company production or people/companies reducing their consumption from the grid by augmenting it with solar? If so, how?
> The sooner environmentalists get off the solar kick and focus on reality, the sooner we can replace fossil fuels with something else. (Which in this case is nuclear, since it is the only option left)
I don't want useless add on application/browser extension/etc being installed when I chose to download something. No matter how much vetting and transparency, this is simply wrong.
Those look an awful lot like a bunch of links to local news station stories to me. The point of that subreddit is to bring those local news stories in one place because defensive gun use never makes national media.
But there was ONE link to freep.com, is that the only one you looked at then decided you had done enough research?
I think it is less "cool factor" and more "RIM devices are at best 5 years behind the tech curve in almost every way imaginable". Seriously, if you want security above usability and productivity, you need a mainframe with dumb terminals and motorola flip phones.
Intellectual Property is a legally meaningless term which encompasses copyrights, patents, trademark law, and trade secret law. If you object to the words themselves being used as a term to group these items together, you are free to try to introduce a new phrase into common usage, but until then I don't know of another phrase which has the same meaning and I don't really feel like typing out "copyright, trademark, patent, and trade secret law" every time I want to refer to them as a group.
> Millenarian exhortations of the revolution to come are millenarian. But yes, I'm sure the people will rise up and violently defend the rights of a Hong Kong server farm operator to sell you other people's movies, as long as they lies they're told are sufficient to the purpose.
Who said anything about violent? You seem to be doing some weird projection or something here. I'm talking about reversing the trend of adjusting laws constantly to benefit media conglomerates. It serves no purpose for society and and it is getting insane. 17+17 years for copyright is fine, this "forever" crap is partially what is leading to the universal lack of respect for copyrights.
Intent is what needs to be proven, and all we have so far are accusations (most of which involve how much money was made rather than how and with what intent). I'm reserving judgement on this until facts come out but it certainly sounds ANY network community involving user contributed content would fall under the same axe.
I'm not convinced the way we are handling copyright these days is beneficial to society at all, I suspect a backlash is coming.
How was their adherence to DMCA a sham? They adhered to it.
> you can only claim safe harbor from DMCA if and only if you do not profit from the sharing. The fact that they were able to profit from infringing content, despite abiding by the letter of the DMCA, indicates the fundamental weakness of the DMCA enforcement provisions.
Please tell me how this is in any way different from youtube?
> They made money, shitloads of money, literally a small studio's annual profit worth of money, off of other people's stuff, period.
Please tell me how this is in any way different from youtube?
Now you are getting it. The media conglomerates have long been going after the ability to take down websites regardless of copyright content (they took down megaupload's youtube video despite not having any copyright claim on it, they have that agreement with google and want it elsewhere).
> Hollywood have been waging a war on copyright infringement, not technology.
Hollywood has been waging an ill advised war on any technology that could have copyright infringement implications (which is a decent percentage). Remember the VCR? I was going to be to the movie industry what the boston strangler was to woman. (remember how destructive VCRs were to Hollywood? It barely survived) This is simply a continuation of the kind of ignorant resistance to technology that would actually be beneficial to the large media conglomerates if they were capable of adapting and innovating instead of just chucking money at Congress to keep extending copyright.
> Google's beef with SOPA is that they don't want to constantly police their own search results and be held responsible for user generated content.
I'm sure it also had something to do with the other myriad of technically unrealistic provisions around DNS and such, but yes.
> If there was a way to magically get rid of copyright infringement violations without putting extra burden on Google or other Internet start ups, then both Hollywood and Google would support it. There is some common ground on the issue, and compromises can be made to make sure both industries can thrive.
So when do we see that start happening instead of the constant bribery of elected officials to enact draconian laws they don't understand, extend copyright to save a stupid mouse from entering public domain, and manipulating international treaties to stack copyright law and technology regulations in their favor?
Destroying Hollywood to save Google is just as stupid as destroying Google to save Hollywood.
Both industries can coexists together just like they do right now. There is no need to be so cynical.
Have you been paying attention at all? Hollywood has been waging an all out war on technology for decades. This cynicism isn't unfounded, it is in response to Hollywood spending billions in congressional bribes to get laws passed to stop nearly every form of media related technology since they ran across the country to escape the IP laws around Edison's video camera.
They are not co-existing at all, one industry is actively and aggressively attempting to destroy (or gain full control over) another. And given that choice, I would rather lose the industry that in the grand scheme of things is useless.
Slashdot Mirror
Errrr, "youtube instead of slashot" rather.
> But because of people like yourself--who are too lazy to figure this out for yourself
Ok, did I miss a declaration of a douchbag contest? Did I accidentally click on youtube instead of facebook? Get over yourself and participate in the conversation like an adult, all I did was ask some questions I'm not out on the street marching against your views.
Interesting information, a bit overshadowed by unnecessary dickishness.
German might disagree, they are at 5% now and projecting to be at 25% by 2050.
Solar will never have a chance to become 20% of our power generation unless people try, you have kind of a chicken and egg problem there.
We now turn to Admiral Ackbar who I believe has a comment on this development....
> Solar accounts for 0.17% of our electric production in this country, tripling it won't make any difference.
Is this counting only energy company production or people/companies reducing their consumption from the grid by augmenting it with solar? If so, how?
> The sooner environmentalists get off the solar kick and focus on reality, the sooner we can replace fossil fuels with something else. (Which in this case is nuclear, since it is the only option left)
There can be only one?
I don't want useless add on application/browser extension/etc being installed when I chose to download something. No matter how much vetting and transparency, this is simply wrong.
Of course, but I'm talking more about overall project structuring, not line by line minutia.
Go decompile some oracle fusion middleware java code sometime. I assure you that what you find will not inspire confidence.
I've been here for over a decade and I STILL have yet to see Natalie Portman naked and petrified, despite all the hype.
Also, I miss OOG The Caveman.
I agree with that. Once the police don't feel the need to carry guns I'll feel safe not having one.
Your link is to a reddit run by gun nuts that links to various right-wing news agencies. How did it get modded "insightful"?
Well, let's take a look at these right-wing news agencies from the current front page of dgu.
myfox8.com, 9news.com, wbir.com, abc57.com, wsbt.com, abclocal.go.com, live5news.com, salisburypost.com, newyork.cbslocal.com, wsoctv.com.
Those look an awful lot like a bunch of links to local news station stories to me. The point of that subreddit is to bring those local news stories in one place because defensive gun use never makes national media.
But there was ONE link to freep.com, is that the only one you looked at then decided you had done enough research?
I think it is less "cool factor" and more "RIM devices are at best 5 years behind the tech curve in almost every way imaginable". Seriously, if you want security above usability and productivity, you need a mainframe with dumb terminals and motorola flip phones.
> Your mistake is in believing I benefit from government services. I don't.
This is delusion on a level I was not even aware existed.
This site jumped the shark when it was renamed Slashdot from Dips and Chips :P
Intellectual Property is a legally meaningless term which encompasses copyrights, patents, trademark law, and trade secret law. If you object to the words themselves being used as a term to group these items together, you are free to try to introduce a new phrase into common usage, but until then I don't know of another phrase which has the same meaning and I don't really feel like typing out "copyright, trademark, patent, and trade secret law" every time I want to refer to them as a group.
> Millenarian exhortations of the revolution to come are millenarian. But yes, I'm sure the people will rise up and violently defend the rights of a Hong Kong server farm operator to sell you other people's movies, as long as they lies they're told are sufficient to the purpose.
Who said anything about violent? You seem to be doing some weird projection or something here. I'm talking about reversing the trend of adjusting laws constantly to benefit media conglomerates. It serves no purpose for society and and it is getting insane. 17+17 years for copyright is fine, this "forever" crap is partially what is leading to the universal lack of respect for copyrights.
Intent is what needs to be proven, and all we have so far are accusations (most of which involve how much money was made rather than how and with what intent). I'm reserving judgement on this until facts come out but it certainly sounds ANY network community involving user contributed content would fall under the same axe.
I'm not convinced the way we are handling copyright these days is beneficial to society at all, I suspect a backlash is coming.
How was their adherence to DMCA a sham? They adhered to it.
> you can only claim safe harbor from DMCA if and only if you do not profit from the sharing. The fact that they were able to profit from infringing content, despite abiding by the letter of the DMCA, indicates the fundamental weakness of the DMCA enforcement provisions.
Please tell me how this is in any way different from youtube?
> They made money, shitloads of money, literally a small studio's annual profit worth of money, off of other people's stuff, period.
Please tell me how this is in any way different from youtube?
Now you are getting it. The media conglomerates have long been going after the ability to take down websites regardless of copyright content (they took down megaupload's youtube video despite not having any copyright claim on it, they have that agreement with google and want it elsewhere).
You are talking about popular music, sure. But because it isn't on MTV doesn't mean it isn't happening.
> most lively and active period in music was in between 1700-1850.
I don't disagree with most of your post, but where I come from we call THAT an opinion.
> Hollywood have been waging a war on copyright infringement, not technology.
Hollywood has been waging an ill advised war on any technology that could have copyright infringement implications (which is a decent percentage). Remember the VCR? I was going to be to the movie industry what the boston strangler was to woman. (remember how destructive VCRs were to Hollywood? It barely survived)
This is simply a continuation of the kind of ignorant resistance to technology that would actually be beneficial to the large media conglomerates if they were capable of adapting and innovating instead of just chucking money at Congress to keep extending copyright.
> Google's beef with SOPA is that they don't want to constantly police their own search results and be held responsible for user generated content.
I'm sure it also had something to do with the other myriad of technically unrealistic provisions around DNS and such, but yes.
> If there was a way to magically get rid of copyright infringement violations without putting extra burden on Google or other Internet start ups, then both Hollywood and Google would support it. There is some common ground on the issue, and compromises can be made to make sure both industries can thrive.
So when do we see that start happening instead of the constant bribery of elected officials to enact draconian laws they don't understand, extend copyright to save a stupid mouse from entering public domain, and manipulating international treaties to stack copyright law and technology regulations in their favor?
Megaupload (like Youtube) also responded to any DMCA takedown notices and was used by plenty of legitimate services as well. Bad example.
Destroying Hollywood to save Google is just as stupid as destroying Google to save Hollywood.
Both industries can coexists together just like they do right now. There is no need to be so cynical.
Have you been paying attention at all? Hollywood has been waging an all out war on technology for decades. This cynicism isn't unfounded, it is in response to Hollywood spending billions in congressional bribes to get laws passed to stop nearly every form of media related technology since they ran across the country to escape the IP laws around Edison's video camera.
They are not co-existing at all, one industry is actively and aggressively attempting to destroy (or gain full control over) another. And given that choice, I would rather lose the industry that in the grand scheme of things is useless.
> But if you copy an artist's work without compensating the artist, you have stolen from them, it is theft of service.
Not everyone (artists included) agree with this, it isn't a safe "given" to use in this discussion.