This would be like claiming I could videotape me watching last night's "The Office" finale, upload it, and claim that Reveille Productions can't sue me for copyright infringement.
No, this is like you uploading the video, then Reveille Productions claiming that they own your video.
On the other hand we have Monsanto who spent millions of dollars creating genetically modified seeds that are resistant to their herbicides. There needs to be a way for them to make a profit from that investment.
The issues; If there is no patent protection the seed manufacturer would have to make all their investment back in one year as any subsequent seeds can be saved and re-sold by farmers. Where is the incentive to invest in the technology if there is no way to benefit from it?
The logical fallacy here is that selling the seeds is the only way they profit from this. The true fact is that they created the seeds to sell Roundup, which previously could not be used by farmers without killing the crops. They discovered that because of how fucked-up patent law is, they could also force the farmers to re-buy the seeds from them every year, in addition to buying the Roundup.
This is not an issue of Monsanto not getting their money out of the research - the yearly sale of Roundup in vast quantities to the farmers does that. It's an issue of Monsanto using a broken patent system to double-dip into farmers' pockets after locking them into the seeds.
made them liable should anyone they sell the seeds to use them as seeds.
Umm... they shouldn't have been allowed to use seeds as seeds? Other new developments: General Motors patents using cars as cars - pay up now or they'll sue?
The car analogy is: you buy a used (not stolen) Toyota, pull it apart to make molds of the bodywork and parts etc, and then start manufacturing and selling Toyotas.
No, the car analogy is that the Toyota you bought starts making copies of itself. Unsure what else to do, you eat them (?). Then, Toyota (the company, not the car) comes to your house and rapes you for violating their patents on eating cars.
Obviously not an expert but Demonoid was dead for so long who is still seeding these old files?
Most torrents seed across multiple trackers and sites nowadays. Even if one site goes down, the same torrent may exist on dozens of other sites, and list the trackers for each of them.
Sorry, this is a ridiculous idea - quality literature should indeed be mandatory for educational curriculum, but specifically highlighting a particular genre is arrogant.
I don't know... sci-fi is a valid literary genre that is traditionally under-represented in K-12 English courses. It is also a genre that supposedly leads more of its readers into science/math fields (which according to TFA the state is lacking in). This legislation makes a small change in legislative mandate to the school curriculum (that the legislature already makes mandates about) in order to balance things better and advance areas they're currently lacking in.
Actually, I'd say this is the correct level of curriculum decision by legislators: Guidelines are being decided, but the actual curriculum (i.e. what books are actually read) are left up to the teachers/schools. Considering how broad "sci-fi" is as a writing field, and how arbitrary the reading choices are in pre-college English classes anyway, this is hardly forcing a massive shift in what is being taught.
jms = J. Michael Straczynski, creator of Babylon 5, plus a bunch of really crappy spinoffs.
The problem with the spinoffs is not that they were worse than the original B5. Go back and watch the original B5 pilot movie and first season - they're actually worse than the spinoffs. JMS just seems to take a little while to get a story going - watch the last 2 or 3 episodes of Crusade where plot was actually happening - you could see it getting better, and starting to get into the old B5 quality. Unfortunately, the show was axed before we even got to the end of S1 (which is typically where JMS's series get good - Jeremiah was mediocre until the end of S1, for example).
Meh, who wants to keep checking the anti-virus reviews all the time and constantly switching, tossing money out here and there?
Who is so goddamn lazy that they can't check AV reviews every year or two? Also, it doesn't cost you any extra money to switch if you just do it once every year or two when you license runs out (for paid software), or to check the reviews every 6-12 months if you're using the free ones.
"Will a criminal ignore this" is NEVER a good test of a law, because NO law would EVER pass that test.
That's not the whole story here, and you know it.
For 90% of these comments I've read it has been. No arguing the good/bad points of the proposed law, the entire respondent post has been, "making a new law isn't going to help because killers don't care if it's illegal."
The test is not just "will a criminal ignore this law", but "is there already a law that is being broken that is being ignored?"
The problem with that line of thinking is that passing a new law is often the best way to fix an old, ineffectual, law. (It should, however, replace the old law instead of just adding a new law if that is the intent.)
The only test of whether a new law should pass is "will this do more harm than good", with "harm" being defined as false-positives, extra regulation, time wasting, side-effects, court costs, bureaucracy, etc., and "good" being "something the public actually wants".
Well, to deal with the last part first, as you already point out, NO law will stop a criminal who is already breaking the law in other ways, so none of these gun control laws will do "what the people want".
That all depends on what the law intends to do. The example I've heard of making it a legal requirement to have a gun safe, and all guns locked up when there's a violent felon or a mentally ill person living there or who has regular access would "do what people want". i.e. make it harder for said dangerous people to gain access to said weapons.
In other words, every "harm" you list is true, and every "good" you list is non-existent. Thanks for making my point for me.
I listed no "harm", nor did I list any "good", so WTF are you talking about?
Additionally, you're making broad assumptions on what I believe. So, to make it a bit easier, here is what I think about gun laws: Your example of large clips? I couldn't care less. Depending on the person, I'd probably be willing to let just about anything below an anti-aircraft missile be owned by responsible, sane members of the public. I am for gun registration (as we know who owns cars, we should know who owns guns), as well as requiring licenses/permits to operate guns (as we license everyone who drives a car), as well as extending said licenses to other classes of dangerous weapons like crossbows and trebuchets. I think that the gun licenses should have categories like drivers licenses, specifying what you can or cannot own - rifles/shotguns/six-shooters are not as dangerous as semi-automatic or automatic weapons, which are less dangerous than hand grenades and RPGs, etc. etc. Just as you are looked at more strenuously before they let you drive a semi vs. a car, different classes of guns should have different levels of background check requirements. I think gun owners should be responsible for not just knowing how to use guns safely, but for storing them safely and keeping them away from those who should not have access to them. (I can be arrested for giving alcohol to a 14 year old, but if I hand him an UZI that's OK?) If you have dangerous people living in your home, you should either not be allowed to keep guns there, or you should be required to keep them locked up at all times. I don't think any of those requirements are unreasonable.
I'm not required to check to see if the buyer of my car has a license.
Which is why I used the word similar instead of same.
Also, you couldn't pass a gun safety test without the weapon, or one similar, that you intend to purchase. Part of the safety requirements would have to include how to safely load, unload, and put the weapon in a 'safe' mode. Go to a gun show some time and look at a variety of weapons. Ask the dealer to show you the variety of safeties on different pistols. It's a cheap $10 education.
So, in other words, acquiring gun safety knowledge is easier, faster, and cheaper than learning how to drive a car. Thank you for proving my point.
How do you propose that a mother with a safe not tell her son the combination in the event of her unexpected fatal car accident?
By not telling him if he's not allowed access to the guns? If she considers it dangerous enough that she is locking the guns away from him, why would she ever give him the combination?
Options available for after her death: (1) Another relative; (2) a copy of the combination written into her will, or in the possession of her lawyer; (3) in a safe deposit box at the bank; (4) a locksmith.
The vast majority of gun owners already follow the laws. It's the people who have no intention of obeying the law that steal guns from other people who are obeying the law and then go out and kill others.
I'm sick of this unbelievably shitty argument being used. That's like saying that people use stolen cars to commit crimes, so why bother having drivers licenses or registering cars? All the bank robbers use stolen cars so what's the point in having license plates on anything!?
"Will a criminal ignore this" is NEVER a good test of a law, because NO law would EVER pass that test.
The only test of whether a new law should pass is "will this do more harm than good", with "harm" being defined as false-positives, extra regulation, time wasting, side-effects, court costs, bureaucracy, etc., and "good" being "something the public actually wants".
The problem with background checks for private sales isn't the background check. It that now some government agency can tell you whether or not you can sell your personal property, and you get to pay for the privilege. Likely you would have to sell through an FFL holder and pay a transaction fee. Those fees tend to run in the $20-30 range. The end effect is that it devalues your property by the amount of that new regulatory fee and a third party is inserted into the sale.
Option B: Make there be a "Gun Ownership License" similar to a driver's license (a state issued license tied to an individual, not the gun, verifying the background check and a gun safety test were passed). Private sales require verifying the other party's license, and submitting a form to the government with the gun's serial number. This would make it similar in complexity to sell your gun as it is to sell a car.
I do the same. Unfortunately, Windows will attempt to install them by default whenever you shut down the computer - you have to choose a special "shut down without installing" option while there are any critical updates waiting for install.
SMTP only requires AUTH when you're sending out of their domain. You can always connect to the receiving server and give it mail claiming to be from whoever you want.
The idea is that the two particles form, and one is closer to the black hole than the other. One of them barely falls in, while the other barely makes it out. No difference in how gravity effects them, just a difference in initial positions.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, for once an article needs a whatdidpossiblygowrong tag instead of a whatcouldpossiblygowrong one.
I'd opt for a whatcouldpossiblygrowwrong tag.
Did you really think Congress would move that quickly, even for Monsanto's money? Ha! They're not nearly that competent.
They are, however, that corrupt.
This would be like claiming I could videotape me watching last night's "The Office" finale, upload it, and claim that Reveille Productions can't sue me for copyright infringement.
No, this is like you uploading the video, then Reveille Productions claiming that they own your video.
On the other hand we have Monsanto who spent millions of dollars creating genetically modified seeds that are resistant to their herbicides. There needs to be a way for them to make a profit from that investment.
The issues; If there is no patent protection the seed manufacturer would have to make all their investment back in one year as any subsequent seeds can be saved and re-sold by farmers. Where is the incentive to invest in the technology if there is no way to benefit from it?
The logical fallacy here is that selling the seeds is the only way they profit from this. The true fact is that they created the seeds to sell Roundup, which previously could not be used by farmers without killing the crops. They discovered that because of how fucked-up patent law is, they could also force the farmers to re-buy the seeds from them every year, in addition to buying the Roundup.
This is not an issue of Monsanto not getting their money out of the research - the yearly sale of Roundup in vast quantities to the farmers does that. It's an issue of Monsanto using a broken patent system to double-dip into farmers' pockets after locking them into the seeds.
made them liable should anyone they sell the seeds to use them as seeds.
Umm... they shouldn't have been allowed to use seeds as seeds? Other new developments: General Motors patents using cars as cars - pay up now or they'll sue?
The car analogy is: you buy a used (not stolen) Toyota, pull it apart to make molds of the bodywork and parts etc, and then start manufacturing and selling Toyotas.
No, the car analogy is that the Toyota you bought starts making copies of itself. Unsure what else to do, you eat them (?). Then, Toyota (the company, not the car) comes to your house and rapes you for violating their patents on eating cars.
Obviously not an expert but Demonoid was dead for so long who is still seeding these old files?
Most torrents seed across multiple trackers and sites nowadays. Even if one site goes down, the same torrent may exist on dozens of other sites, and list the trackers for each of them.
WTF is Demonoid resurrection?
It's the fourth installment in the Demonoid series, coming after Demonoids and Demonoid^3.
I've seen this news elsewhere and Slashdot was the first place to call it a science experiment
Obligatory XKCD link.
Sorry, this is a ridiculous idea - quality literature should indeed be mandatory for educational curriculum, but specifically highlighting a particular genre is arrogant.
I don't know ... sci-fi is a valid literary genre that is traditionally under-represented in K-12 English courses. It is also a genre that supposedly leads more of its readers into science/math fields (which according to TFA the state is lacking in). This legislation makes a small change in legislative mandate to the school curriculum (that the legislature already makes mandates about) in order to balance things better and advance areas they're currently lacking in.
Actually, I'd say this is the correct level of curriculum decision by legislators: Guidelines are being decided, but the actual curriculum (i.e. what books are actually read) are left up to the teachers/schools. Considering how broad "sci-fi" is as a writing field, and how arbitrary the reading choices are in pre-college English classes anyway, this is hardly forcing a massive shift in what is being taught.
jms = J. Michael Straczynski, creator of Babylon 5, plus a bunch of really crappy spinoffs.
The problem with the spinoffs is not that they were worse than the original B5. Go back and watch the original B5 pilot movie and first season - they're actually worse than the spinoffs. JMS just seems to take a little while to get a story going - watch the last 2 or 3 episodes of Crusade where plot was actually happening - you could see it getting better, and starting to get into the old B5 quality. Unfortunately, the show was axed before we even got to the end of S1 (which is typically where JMS's series get good - Jeremiah was mediocre until the end of S1, for example).
Meh, who wants to keep checking the anti-virus reviews all the time and constantly switching, tossing money out here and there?
Who is so goddamn lazy that they can't check AV reviews every year or two? Also, it doesn't cost you any extra money to switch if you just do it once every year or two when you license runs out (for paid software), or to check the reviews every 6-12 months if you're using the free ones.
At least MSE doesn't go wiping system-essential files. Like almost every other AV product has done once or twice in its life.
MSE doesn't go wiping files for software made by its own company - which almost no other other AV company has ever done, either.
FTFY.
"Will a criminal ignore this" is NEVER a good test of a law, because NO law would EVER pass that test.
That's not the whole story here, and you know it.
For 90% of these comments I've read it has been. No arguing the good/bad points of the proposed law, the entire respondent post has been, "making a new law isn't going to help because killers don't care if it's illegal."
The test is not just "will a criminal ignore this law", but "is there already a law that is being broken that is being ignored?"
The problem with that line of thinking is that passing a new law is often the best way to fix an old, ineffectual, law. (It should, however, replace the old law instead of just adding a new law if that is the intent.)
The only test of whether a new law should pass is "will this do more harm than good", with "harm" being defined as false-positives, extra regulation, time wasting, side-effects, court costs, bureaucracy, etc., and "good" being "something the public actually wants".
Well, to deal with the last part first, as you already point out, NO law will stop a criminal who is already breaking the law in other ways, so none of these gun control laws will do "what the people want".
That all depends on what the law intends to do. The example I've heard of making it a legal requirement to have a gun safe, and all guns locked up when there's a violent felon or a mentally ill person living there or who has regular access would "do what people want". i.e. make it harder for said dangerous people to gain access to said weapons.
In other words, every "harm" you list is true, and every "good" you list is non-existent. Thanks for making my point for me.
I listed no "harm", nor did I list any "good", so WTF are you talking about?
Additionally, you're making broad assumptions on what I believe. So, to make it a bit easier, here is what I think about gun laws: Your example of large clips? I couldn't care less. Depending on the person, I'd probably be willing to let just about anything below an anti-aircraft missile be owned by responsible, sane members of the public. I am for gun registration (as we know who owns cars, we should know who owns guns), as well as requiring licenses/permits to operate guns (as we license everyone who drives a car), as well as extending said licenses to other classes of dangerous weapons like crossbows and trebuchets. I think that the gun licenses should have categories like drivers licenses, specifying what you can or cannot own - rifles/shotguns/six-shooters are not as dangerous as semi-automatic or automatic weapons, which are less dangerous than hand grenades and RPGs, etc. etc. Just as you are looked at more strenuously before they let you drive a semi vs. a car, different classes of guns should have different levels of background check requirements. I think gun owners should be responsible for not just knowing how to use guns safely, but for storing them safely and keeping them away from those who should not have access to them. (I can be arrested for giving alcohol to a 14 year old, but if I hand him an UZI that's OK?) If you have dangerous people living in your home, you should either not be allowed to keep guns there, or you should be required to keep them locked up at all times. I don't think any of those requirements are unreasonable.
I'm not required to check to see if the buyer of my car has a license.
Which is why I used the word similar instead of same.
Also, you couldn't pass a gun safety test without the weapon, or one similar, that you intend to purchase. Part of the safety requirements would have to include how to safely load, unload, and put the weapon in a 'safe' mode. Go to a gun show some time and look at a variety of weapons. Ask the dealer to show you the variety of safeties on different pistols. It's a cheap $10 education.
So, in other words, acquiring gun safety knowledge is easier, faster, and cheaper than learning how to drive a car. Thank you for proving my point.
How do you propose that a mother with a safe not tell her son the combination in the event of her unexpected fatal car accident?
By not telling him if he's not allowed access to the guns? If she considers it dangerous enough that she is locking the guns away from him, why would she ever give him the combination?
Options available for after her death: (1) Another relative; (2) a copy of the combination written into her will, or in the possession of her lawyer; (3) in a safe deposit box at the bank; (4) a locksmith.
The vast majority of gun owners already follow the laws. It's the people who have no intention of obeying the law that steal guns from other people who are obeying the law and then go out and kill others.
I'm sick of this unbelievably shitty argument being used. That's like saying that people use stolen cars to commit crimes, so why bother having drivers licenses or registering cars? All the bank robbers use stolen cars so what's the point in having license plates on anything!?
"Will a criminal ignore this" is NEVER a good test of a law, because NO law would EVER pass that test.
The only test of whether a new law should pass is "will this do more harm than good", with "harm" being defined as false-positives, extra regulation, time wasting, side-effects, court costs, bureaucracy, etc., and "good" being "something the public actually wants".
The problem with background checks for private sales isn't the background check. It that now some government agency can tell you whether or not you can sell your personal property, and you get to pay for the privilege. Likely you would have to sell through an FFL holder and pay a transaction fee. Those fees tend to run in the $20-30 range. The end effect is that it devalues your property by the amount of that new regulatory fee and a third party is inserted into the sale.
Option B: Make there be a "Gun Ownership License" similar to a driver's license (a state issued license tied to an individual, not the gun, verifying the background check and a gun safety test were passed). Private sales require verifying the other party's license, and submitting a form to the government with the gun's serial number. This would make it similar in complexity to sell your gun as it is to sell a car.
I do the same. Unfortunately, Windows will attempt to install them by default whenever you shut down the computer - you have to choose a special "shut down without installing" option while there are any critical updates waiting for install.
SMTP only requires AUTH when you're sending out of their domain. You can always connect to the receiving server and give it mail claiming to be from whoever you want.
Also to prevent others from pretending to be you, again not the server admins as that would be trivial.
It's trivial for anyone to pretend to be anyone else in email. Servers never verify sender information.
The idea is that the two particles form, and one is closer to the black hole than the other. One of them barely falls in, while the other barely makes it out. No difference in how gravity effects them, just a difference in initial positions.
Reading simple documents on a tablet and submitting responses was a problem?
When you're high? Yes.
Maybe, maybe not ... but the safest place for a ship to be is generally not sailing towards a hurricane.