>>>one of the most respected and most responsible news agencies in the world is the BBC, a government funded news company.
I have no respect for it. It's pro-big-government (and pro-EU) biased. Just read this website for an hour, and you'll see for yourself: http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/
I draw the line at the Constitution, which is an enumeration of what powers the U.S. Congress can do, or not do (amendment 10). I can not lay my hand on a single line that gives Congress the power to regulate what plants or how much corn/potatoes I can grow in my own backyard. Nor can I fine anyplace that gives them the power to FINE me because I choose not to buy healthcare insurance, or a hybrid car, or a solar panel roof.
The Constitution is the line, and the United States crossed it.
>>>The original poster's statement was incorrect...
No it wasn't. Reread: "In the USA, life + 70 literally means that, at best, anything created in your lifetime will not become public domain until you are 70." In other words if Lady Gaga released a new CD today, and a baby was born today, and Gaga died in a horrible accident later tonight, her CD would not become public domain until the baby was a 70-year-old man. That's best case.
Worst case is Gaga might live to be 120, then 70 years on top of that, means today's released CD would not be public domain until around the year 2180.
The original 1790 Copyright Act was saner. 14 years with possibility of renewal, for 28 years max. That's reasonable length of time for a monopoly, and it gives the artist plenty of opportunity to recoup his labor costs via sale of the book/song.
>>>If you don't like it, go rape some tall and skinny women into pregnancy, and ensure the children survive to perpetuate the cycle.
C'mon we're geeks No need for such crudities:
- Donate sperm to a bunch of banks (this should be easy for us) - Hack the computer and replace your specs with some hot-looking guy's specs - Unsuspecting women pick the man of their dreams, and instead get your sperm. - Eighteen years later these women will be wondering why their kids look like Bill Gates instead of Tom Cruise - ??? - Profit (genetically speaking)
(shrug). Some women like Lily Allen have 4 nipples... but I'm not aware of any that have 4 boobs. It appears the trend is for the same number as now (2) but with larger sizes, with the typical American woman already one cup larger than the 1970s. I consider this bad. Yes it makes logical sense that more food == bigger body parts, but I personally find larger breasts unattractive.
If women are maturing earlier, then maybe the age of aduthood should be lowered from 18 to 17 (or 17 downto 16 in Denmark).
Also I'm not convinced that thinner == less capable of carrying children. I would think the exact-opposite since the thin women I've known had "easy" pregnancies with quick labor, while the heavier women had more difficult, painful times.
I completely and totally disagree with that cartoon. If you're a grumpy bastard then yes you'll scare off women, but there's nothing wrong with observing trends like "less intelligent people have tons of babies". It demonstrates higher reasoning, which demonstrates superior survival skills, and gets you hot women like Mrs. Obama who appreciate smart men.
BTW I think the Chinese have the right idea.
One child per couple may be anti-freedom, but living on an overpopulated planet is not fun either. We are quite literally soiling our own nest, and living in our own filth (air is polluted; water has toxic chemicals; and fossil energy is running out). I think by 2050 we'll experience a radical population decline - probably through starvation. Better to limit growth at birth, rather than through death.
MS BASIC may have been removed from IBM PCs in 1983, but it was still the standard for Commodores, Apple IIgs (until 1992), and Amigas (until 1991). A lot of us wrote our first games or demos using it.
the fact that you still haven't learned how to use quote tags
You mean like that? I know how to use them just fine, but I've always preferred the old Usenet methodology. Typing >>> is a heck of a lot faster than typing 14-letter tags. .
>>>your ill-informed ramblings.
That's nice. You were still wrong when you said, "You've been able to do this for every version of the PDF specification since version 1.0." Adobe had the patents until 2008. That means it was closed. No one could legally publish a PDF Creator program prior to that year, as Microsoft and other companies discovered when they got sued.
>>>you are wrong. You can, as I said in the original post, download the PDF specification and implement it without paying a royalty and you've been able to do this for every version of the PDF specification since version 1.0 [1993] >>>
Guess what? You are wrong too. (Surprised? You shouldn't be; nobody's perfect; not me nor you.) PDF did not become an open standard until version 1.7 [2008] according to wikipedia. That was only a year ago.
Which is why, as others pointed out, various companies had been sued for infringing upon Adobe's PDF patents. I had to *buy* Adobe Acrobat because at that time (2004) there was no other program available to create PDFs. It was parented and restricted.
>>>it is well known that reality has a liberal bias.
Well upon this we can agree. Leaders love to control the humans beneath them. This dates all the way back to when Julius Caesar killed the Roman Democratic Republic, and made himself king for life. He claimed he was doing it for the good of the people, and he may have been telling the truth, but it's still tyranny. "Reality has a liberal bias" because in reality some damn fool (or fools) is always trying to set himself up as masters over all of us.
I prefer to keep the "individuals are sovereign" and "government should be small" philosophy that we fought so hard to create, not a rebirth of monarchy. I don't want either Gordon Brown or Barak Obama as my king, even if they are democratically chosen. I don't want any kings at all.
And if you refuse to pay the TV tax: The BBC will use the force of government to compel you. BBC is in collusion with the government.
Retired engineer John Kelly was one of several thousand who have refused to pay in protest at what they regard as bias in coverage of issues such as the European Union. He and nearly all the other 'refuseniks', including former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky, have so far escaped court - despite tens of thousands of prosecutions each year.
He has now received a summons which he believes has been prompted by a flurry of publicity about high-profile figures, including Noel Edmonds and journalist Charles Moore, who is also threatening to rebel. Mr Kelly, who has been ordered to appear at Exeter magistrates' court later this month, said: 'Why are they picking on me now, after all this time? I think the BBC wants to crackdown on some of us to discourage more people from refusing to pay." Kelly and others accuse the BBC of being pro-EU slanted.
Yes I've seen that. It was condensed down to a 1-minute snippet in a two-hour-long puff piece about why the UN's International Criminal Court is a good thing for humanity. It other words pushing forward a pro-"big government is fantastic!" viewpoint which is typical of PBS.
Yeah except Beck used the same "ask questions" paradigm even when he worked for CNN. It's not a fox thing. Beck was like that even when he was on other stations.
And you know, is it really so terrible to want to know why Anita Dunn is saying Mao Tse-tung is her favorite philosopher who she regularly turns too? That's like saying I really admire how Adolf organized the deathcamps. (frowns). Why Van Jones accuses whites of dumping our pollution in black neighborhoods? Why Congresman Frank told reporters that the "government option" is only step one, and that in the 2010s he and others will be pushing for a complete government monopoly for healthcare (i.e. like the UK and Canada). No more private insurance. No more choice.
I don't agree with Beck's "the world is ending" viewpoint, but at least he's showing me things that MSNBC or CNN never show me. (I guess DNC-NBC is too busy showing black men carrying rifles, and claiming they are actually white racists. i.e. Propaganda.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MHcCNWVeW4
I can't even smoke a weed (it's illegal), or grow some corn or potatoes (it's strictly rationed) in my own backyard without the U.S. government interfering with me. We have ENOUGH government and need less not more.
News Corp is just one TV channel (FOX news), and also not sucking money out of my wallet (since it's a private corporation).
In contrast NPR is sucking money out of my wallet, in order to push a pro-"let big government control all" agenda, and I'm sick of it. NPR needs to be cut off from receiving taxpayer dollars, and stand on its own two feet (via donations, or commercials, or both).
>>>You already have I-81. You want ANOTHER routing?
I-81 isn't anywhere near D.C. or Baltimore (it's mostly a mountain/rural interstate), and thus doesn't do anything to offload traffic from I-95. In contrast my I-85 idea would continue northward through Richmond, Washington, Baltimore, and Philadelphia, thus providing an alternate route for truckers following the Northeast Megalopolis route, thereby relieving the I-95 congestion.
As for 301, that's not a bad idea either. Extend I-97 southward towards Dulles and you've created a near-direct Baltimore-to-Richmond connection. So let's do both.
Since when? As far as I know, he never developed anything, instead relying on others to do the work and then leveraging that work towards profitability (example: DOS).
Right... and then he interviewed some guy who reassured Mr. Garfield (and the listeners) that he had no reason to be skeptical. That government funding would be just grand, so stop worrying. The manipulation is obvious.
>>>you want to stifle information and entertainment across the nation just because you don't like it
Also it's ridiculous to act as if TV is at fault for lack-of-space for wireless internet. Since the TV band was shrunk from 81 channels to 49 channels*, it's only using 6*49== 1/4 gigahertz of bandwidth. That still leaves a hell of a lot of space (~500 gigahertz) for other things like cellphones and wireless internet.
I notice you didn't answer my question. When was the last time either NPR or PBS presented a pro-libertarian view, or interviewed somebody who thinks government needs to be smaller? They don't do that, because they believe government should be the same size as the former Moscow-Soviet government. And they will continue shoving their pro-expansive government view down our throats.
I don't mind if someone like DNC-NBC wants to be liberal biased. I'm not funding them. But a taxpayer-funded organization that is heavily pro-government needs to be cutoff from the government boobie. Let them be supported via donations or commercials or both (as religious stations are).
Isn't public domain great? If the MAFIAA and Disney had their way, His Girl Friday and all the other movies on that sight would still be under copyright until ~2040.
Slashdot Mirror
>>>one of the most respected and most responsible news agencies in the world is the BBC, a government funded news company.
I have no respect for it. It's pro-big-government (and pro-EU) biased. Just read this website for an hour, and you'll see for yourself: http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/
Or this criticism of the BBC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC
Or this official report from the BBC itself: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1942948.ece
I draw the line at the Constitution, which is an enumeration of what powers the U.S. Congress can do, or not do (amendment 10). I can not lay my hand on a single line that gives Congress the power to regulate what plants or how much corn/potatoes I can grow in my own backyard. Nor can I fine anyplace that gives them the power to FINE me because I choose not to buy healthcare insurance, or a hybrid car, or a solar panel roof.
The Constitution is the line, and the United States crossed it.
Has anyone considered that teens might be hearing this music LEGALLY via the internet radio stations and youtube.com and other streaming sites?
>>>The original poster's statement was incorrect...
No it wasn't. Reread: "In the USA, life + 70 literally means that, at best, anything created in your lifetime will not become public domain until you are 70." In other words if Lady Gaga released a new CD today, and a baby was born today, and Gaga died in a horrible accident later tonight, her CD would not become public domain until the baby was a 70-year-old man. That's best case.
Worst case is Gaga might live to be 120, then 70 years on top of that, means today's released CD would not be public domain until around the year 2180.
The original 1790 Copyright Act was saner. 14 years with possibility of renewal, for 28 years max. That's reasonable length of time for a monopoly, and it gives the artist plenty of opportunity to recoup his labor costs via sale of the book/song.
>>>If you don't like it, go rape some tall and skinny women into pregnancy, and ensure the children survive to perpetuate the cycle.
C'mon we're geeks No need for such crudities:
- Donate sperm to a bunch of banks (this should be easy for us)
- Hack the computer and replace your specs with some hot-looking guy's specs
- Unsuspecting women pick the man of their dreams, and instead get your sperm.
- Eighteen years later these women will be wondering why their kids look like Bill Gates instead of Tom Cruise
- ???
- Profit (genetically speaking)
What the heck?
(shrug). Some women like Lily Allen have 4 nipples... but I'm not aware of any that have 4 boobs. It appears the trend is for the same number as now (2) but with larger sizes, with the typical American woman already one cup larger than the 1970s. I consider this bad. Yes it makes logical sense that more food == bigger body parts, but I personally find larger breasts unattractive.
If women are maturing earlier, then maybe the age of aduthood should be lowered from 18 to 17 (or 17 downto 16 in Denmark).
Also I'm not convinced that thinner == less capable of carrying children. I would think the exact-opposite since the thin women I've known had "easy" pregnancies with quick labor, while the heavier women had more difficult, painful times.
I completely and totally disagree with that cartoon. If you're a grumpy bastard then yes you'll scare off women, but there's nothing wrong with observing trends like "less intelligent people have tons of babies". It demonstrates higher reasoning, which demonstrates superior survival skills, and gets you hot women like Mrs. Obama who appreciate smart men.
BTW I think the Chinese have the right idea.
One child per couple may be anti-freedom, but living on an overpopulated planet is not fun either. We are quite literally soiling our own nest, and living in our own filth (air is polluted; water has toxic chemicals; and fossil energy is running out). I think by 2050 we'll experience a radical population decline - probably through starvation. Better to limit growth at birth, rather than through death.
(stops eating)
Alright. We gotta lick this problem right now. (puts milk back in fridge). Just think of all the money we'll save if we only eat half as much.
Heavier.
And people say we americans are falling behind. We're just 500 years ahead and all the rest of ye are catching up. ;-)#
MS BASIC may have been removed from IBM PCs in 1983, but it was still the standard for Commodores, Apple IIgs (until 1992), and Amigas (until 1991). A lot of us wrote our first games or demos using it.
the fact that you still haven't learned how to use quote tags
You mean like that? I know how to use them just fine, but I've always preferred the old Usenet methodology. Typing >>> is a heck of a lot faster than typing 14-letter tags.
.
>>>your ill-informed ramblings.
That's nice. You were still wrong when you said, "You've been able to do this for every version of the PDF specification since version 1.0." Adobe had the patents until 2008. That means it was closed. No one could legally publish a PDF Creator program prior to that year, as Microsoft and other companies discovered when they got sued.
>>>you are wrong. You can, as I said in the original post, download the PDF specification and implement it without paying a royalty and you've been able to do this for every version of the PDF specification since version 1.0 [1993]
>>>
Guess what? You are wrong too. (Surprised? You shouldn't be; nobody's perfect; not me nor you.) PDF did not become an open standard until version 1.7 [2008] according to wikipedia. That was only a year ago.
Which is why, as others pointed out, various companies had been sued for infringing upon Adobe's PDF patents. I had to *buy* Adobe Acrobat because at that time (2004) there was no other program available to create PDFs. It was parented and restricted.
>>>it is well known that reality has a liberal bias.
Well upon this we can agree. Leaders love to control the humans beneath them. This dates all the way back to when Julius Caesar killed the Roman Democratic Republic, and made himself king for life. He claimed he was doing it for the good of the people, and he may have been telling the truth, but it's still tyranny. "Reality has a liberal bias" because in reality some damn fool (or fools) is always trying to set himself up as masters over all of us.
I prefer to keep the "individuals are sovereign" and "government should be small" philosophy that we fought so hard to create, not a rebirth of monarchy. I don't want either Gordon Brown or Barak Obama as my king, even if they are democratically chosen. I don't want any kings at all.
You need to see this: Biased BBC - http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ PBS is pretty much the same but on a smaller scale.
And if you refuse to pay the TV tax:
The BBC will use the force of government to compel you.
BBC is in collusion with the government.
Retired engineer John Kelly was one of several thousand who have refused to pay in protest at what they regard as bias in coverage of issues such as the European Union. He and nearly all the other 'refuseniks', including former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky, have so far escaped court - despite tens of thousands of prosecutions each year.
He has now received a summons which he believes has been prompted by a flurry of publicity about high-profile figures, including Noel Edmonds and journalist Charles Moore, who is also threatening to rebel. Mr Kelly, who has been ordered to appear at Exeter magistrates' court later this month, said: 'Why are they picking on me now, after all this time? I think the BBC wants to crackdown on some of us to discourage more people from refusing to pay." Kelly and others accuse the BBC of being pro-EU slanted.
Yes I've seen that. It was condensed down to a 1-minute snippet in a two-hour-long puff piece about why the UN's International Criminal Court is a good thing for humanity. It other words pushing forward a pro-"big government is fantastic!" viewpoint which is typical of PBS.
Yeah except Beck used the same "ask questions" paradigm even when he worked for CNN. It's not a fox thing. Beck was like that even when he was on other stations.
And you know, is it really so terrible to want to know why Anita Dunn is saying Mao Tse-tung is her favorite philosopher who she regularly turns too? That's like saying I really admire how Adolf organized the deathcamps. (frowns). Why Van Jones accuses whites of dumping our pollution in black neighborhoods? Why Congresman Frank told reporters that the "government option" is only step one, and that in the 2010s he and others will be pushing for a complete government monopoly for healthcare (i.e. like the UK and Canada). No more private insurance. No more choice.
I don't agree with Beck's "the world is ending" viewpoint, but at least he's showing me things that MSNBC or CNN never show me. (I guess DNC-NBC is too busy showing black men carrying rifles, and claiming they are actually white racists. i.e. Propaganda.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MHcCNWVeW4
I can't even smoke a weed (it's illegal), or grow some corn or potatoes (it's strictly rationed) in my own backyard without the U.S. government interfering with me. We have ENOUGH government and need less not more.
News Corp is just one TV channel (FOX news), and also not sucking money out of my wallet (since it's a private corporation).
In contrast NPR is sucking money out of my wallet, in order to push a pro-"let big government control all" agenda, and I'm sick of it. NPR needs to be cut off from receiving taxpayer dollars, and stand on its own two feet (via donations, or commercials, or both).
>>>You already have I-81. You want ANOTHER routing?
I-81 isn't anywhere near D.C. or Baltimore (it's mostly a mountain/rural interstate), and thus doesn't do anything to offload traffic from I-95. In contrast my I-85 idea would continue northward through Richmond, Washington, Baltimore, and Philadelphia, thus providing an alternate route for truckers following the Northeast Megalopolis route, thereby relieving the I-95 congestion.
As for 301, that's not a bad idea either. Extend I-97 southward towards Dulles and you've created a near-direct Baltimore-to-Richmond connection. So let's do both.
Since when? As far as I know, he never developed anything, instead relying on others to do the work and then leveraging that work towards profitability (example: DOS).
Right... and then he interviewed some guy who reassured Mr. Garfield (and the listeners) that he had no reason to be skeptical. That government funding would be just grand, so stop worrying. The manipulation is obvious.
>>>you want to stifle information and entertainment across the nation just because you don't like it
Also it's ridiculous to act as if TV is at fault for lack-of-space for wireless internet. Since the TV band was shrunk from 81 channels to 49 channels*, it's only using 6*49== 1/4 gigahertz of bandwidth. That still leaves a hell of a lot of space (~500 gigahertz) for other things like cellphones and wireless internet.
Spectrum MAP: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fast-company/3683064554/sizes/o/
*
* channels 1 and 34 are not used for television
I notice you didn't answer my question. When was the last time either NPR or PBS presented a pro-libertarian view, or interviewed somebody who thinks government needs to be smaller? They don't do that, because they believe government should be the same size as the former Moscow-Soviet government. And they will continue shoving their pro-expansive government view down our throats.
It is blatantly obvious. NPR admits a liberal bias - "NPR's own official ombudsman, Jeffrey Dvorkin, admitted a liberal bias in NPR's talk programming." - http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=cD0&q=NPR+liberal+bias&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
I don't mind if someone like DNC-NBC wants to be liberal biased. I'm not funding them. But a taxpayer-funded organization that is heavily pro-government needs to be cutoff from the government boobie. Let them be supported via donations or commercials or both (as religious stations are).
>>>Download it at the Internet Archive: http://www.archive.org/details/his_girl_friday
Isn't public domain great? If the MAFIAA and Disney had their way, His Girl Friday and all the other movies on that sight would still be under copyright until ~2040.