This is just bullshit from people who aren't doing a damn thing except following the herd to slaughter while marching meekly to their deaths, self-righteously proclaiming their outrage louder than the next.
I did a damn thing. On November 2nd. Problem was, 59 million other Americans did the opposite thing.
Ballot, Soap, Ammo.
Ballot was futile. Soap gets me heckled by the likes of you. I'm not too exited about the next box on the list. . .
...Before that, I remember a similar incident involving a religious crazy who wanted to use Wikipedia to manufacture some credibility for his cult......... talking about the GW Bush page?
maybe some genes are "backed up" by partial copies or hashes or something, stored elsewhere on the chromosome? Or maybe there's a "backup" function in mitochondrial DNA that we don't yet know about? (just wildly speculating)
PS. It also leaves a gaping hole in theory about how plants inherit genetics - and frankly, the way Monsanto's spewing engineered plant genes in to the biosphere, this kind of scares me a little bit.
In fact, my ideal solution would be the Celestial Jukebox: have all the world's music available at 5 cents per play per track, and just stream me what I want to listen to when I want to listen to it. I wouldn't need to "own" anything.
I'd say less than a tenth of that price.
Maybe a nickel a track for a copy I can play unlimited number of times on my computer. Maybe 20 cents for the right to burn it to a CD for my car or living room, with either DRM or tacit agreement not to transfer it to someone else.
MAYBE a dollar with the right to sell the used track to someone else.
Current iTMS is 99 cents for my 20-cent model. But the DRM is flawed such that if I lose my computer due to hardware replacement, fire, software error, etc. I lose authorization to play. So really, the iTMS DRM makes the value, as a product, worth quite a bit less than my 20-cent model. More like a nickel, with that encumberance.
I think it's perfectly appropriate to allow two people to enter into a contract of predefined terms. That's a crucial right.
About the only terms that should not be permissible are those which are illegal, for instance, if a person agrees to be killed, or entered into bondage (slavery).
Whether you define DRM as equivalent to "slavery" is your business, but even the most ardent libertarians would have a hard time doing so in a court of law.
Personally, if I have a choice between purchasing a CD with free copying rights for say, $100,000, or purchasing the right to listen to each song on the CD one time only, with the agreement that I will destroy the CD and never copy the songs, (and never hum them to myself, or try to recall them in my own memory - try to prove breach of THAT agreement in court -) for say, a nickel, then maybe that's a fair deal.
Who's to say that I, as a consumer, don't have the right to enter into such an agreement?
Nobody has the right to tell me I can't enter into such an agreement.
Now, where I have a problem, is that the RIAA, as an organization that's effectively an illegal cartel, can arbitrarily set the value on my right to copy a song from a CD to my computer, or my right to let my wife burn a copy of the CD and listen to it in her car - that's market manipulation on a level that I find simply unacceptable, and incompatible with my values as a proponent of Capitalism.
I agree that it's a bit much to ask, for me to expect to have the right to buy a CD for $20, and share it with 5,000,000 of my closest friends via Napster, but where do we draw the line? These rights should be very clearly spelled out and delineated in the legistlation. And RIAA jackass lobbyists should not be within 100 miles of Washington DC when our representatives do this. I'm perfectly agreeable to such a plan.
But we should let the FREE MARKET place a value on copying rights of purchased IP. Not an illegal Cartel.
The use of DRM as an enforcement tool is pretty much a red herring, as far as I'm concerned. As long as it's not rammed down our throats, and as long as individual copying rights aren't dictated to consumers by the RIAA.
Yes, but even the 40gig iPod isn't really "enough" when you're storing AIFFs. My comment was about pushing the storage envelope more. Not just the abiility to play AIFF format.
So the question is; what's Steve Jobs' plan to capitalize on this?
Will Apple push the iPod platform's technolgy forward? (for example, stay on the forefront; push the storage envelope to allow users to store music in more audiophile freindly formats like AIFF? increase battery life? Keep the RIAA out of the pricing equation?)
Will Apple do anything to make sure this hard-won marketshare will stay on the Macintosh? (for example, do something to attract more third party software to the platform, make pricing more attractive, etc)
I think that the reason we're seeing logical dissonance here, is that the words "Conservative" and "Liberal" have been so bent out of shape by the framing in public debate over the past 20 years, that they no longer share any relevant meaning.
A social conservative might be of the "god hates fags" ilk. But a fiscal conservative should not give a damn. In fact, a pure, pragmatic, fiscal conservative would promote the state getting out of the marriage business entirely, and make it a "civil union", and not discriminate based on gender, and of course, the "perks" and tax breaks would go away. (Ironically, this would also be the best course for social conservatives to pursue, because the reason why most of them HATE the idea of gay marriage, is because they feel threatened by gay's "mocking" their straight lifestyle. If the state did away with marriages, and made them purely a religious institution, then Gays would have all the rights the state could possibly have the ability to grant (within the limits set by the first amendment) - but the Churches would prevent them from getting "Married" - so both sides "win". But Social Conservatives aren't about pragmatism.
Don't let my republican-bashing fool you. I'm well aware of complicity by democrats as well. I never forgave Clinton for signing the DMCA.
Me? I voted with my dollars. I don't have cable/satellite, nor do I buy music CDs. I haven't totally unplugged from popular culture, but I'm far from a "model customer".
Orrin Hatch declaring RIAA operatives as the judge, jury and executioner allowed to destroy anyone's computer they want makes him a terrorist in my book
Agreed.
And a barbarian.
And a naughty boy. In need of a spanking.
And all of his freinds and associates as well.
Not to mention, his entire political party. Including their compliant media operatives at various AM talkradio stations around the country. They're all terrorists and traitors.
Re:Bush, Steroids and smokescreens
on
Juiced
·
· Score: 1
Steroid use by pro players IS a big deal.... But only to people who engage in illegal sports gambling. They probably don't give a crap if players are on steroids. But when everybody else finds out players are on steroids, then there's a problem. . .
Re:Bush, Steroids and smokescreens
on
Juiced
·
· Score: 1
There's some confusion over the specific technical terminology. What people are referring to as a "Security Clearance" in the Guckertgate story, is really a NOC. (no objection clearance). A NOC is a step far below that of what it takes to get an actual security clearance to view classified information. It's just a background check, and it makes sure that the guy isn't a felon, or engaged in known criminal activities, etc.
The fact that this stooge couldn't get a NOC should be pretty scary. Just about anybody can get a NOC.
They asked for a "zero tolerance" policy for baseball because steroids are illegal,
don't make me laugh. they don't SERIOUSLY want a zero-tolerance policy. They want schmoes like you and I to believe there is one. So they can continue to make BILLIONS on this major American industry (Illegal Sports Gambling is a $400 Billion a year industry http://www.house.gov/berkley/legis/otr/statements/ 2001/fs_2001_0426b.html).
Re:Our Fearless Leaders at Work
on
Juiced
·
· Score: 1
Congress is full of power-brokers and special interest groups. These people are not going away, and term limits will simply push them into the back rooms.
That's a defeatist attitude. They sure as hell would go away if we'd just execute the bastards....and this would ensure that the people who actually hold power are not elected, and totally unaccountable.
This isn't the case today? George Bush isn't really Karl Rove's puppet? Please. The reason why nobody can make any sense out of this congressional investigation of steroid use in baseball is because nobody wants to admit the cold hard facts that the REAL issue here is the impact on ILLEGAL SPORTS GAMBLING. You and I don't care about the $50 we lost to our best friend on some game back in 1996. But to the schmoes sitting behind the microphones on that panel, the revelation (to the public at large) that there's rampant steroid abuse in pro sports, is going to cause them some severe pain.
The moment a Government steps in, and asks for a tax, or builds a road for workers to drive to work, or grants a patent or copyright, or even gives a Limited Liability or other Charter, there is no more "Free Market".
The government has intervened.
Sometimes government intervention is equally favorable. Sometimes it's favorable to some, and not to others.
Your phrase "The US Tends to be so Free Market that corps step on the little guy" has it wrong. When the government favors a corporation, it's intervening in the Free Market just as much as when the government favors consumers or workers (the little guy). The US is FAR from Free Market. "Free Market" is used as a slogan for times when certain politicians want to paint other politicians as bad, or times when they want to enact legislation that favors a corporation, etc. That's really the only place "Free Market" actually comes into play in any real way in our economy.
And FYI: with regard to your remark about Europe and unemployment figures, it's mostly because most Eurpean countries calculate unemployment in a more honest fashion than we do here in the US. If the US computed unemployment in the same way (include workers who have dropped off the roles because they've found part-time work, or have given up looking), it would be closer to 9.5%. Neither here nor there with regard to which is a "correct" way of calculating a true unemployment figure. I'm ambivalent on that. I *do* oppose though, people who use this standard Rush Limbaugh line to discredit European government, when they're comparing apples to oranges.
I still run dos batch files I wrote on a DOS 5.0 system, I run them on my Windows XP Workstation. Some commands have changed in syntax, that's expected. But by-and-large, this is support that's remained unchanged for almost two decades. It's not the chosen development platform anymore - but in some cases, in some overly-managed environments, it's the ONLY way to accomplish some things. It's handy.
I'm sure there are a lot of old cobol programmers that got some work in 1999 using skills they thought were obsolete in 1985.
I've had it since about age 20. It was the cause of my drop-out from art school.
You might say that I now use computers BECAUSE of my tremors. It's about the only interface with the world that I have where I have enough control to be productive.
Although, if you have an occasional accidental window closure, I'd say yours are worse than mine. Yeah, it is rather embarrassing, when people notice, they think I'm on drugs or something. I don't think that this IBM gadget will help me, though I think it would be cook to apply the same technique to something like a drawing tablet. I think that would even allow me to get back into art. I used to love to draw, before the tremors. But after I noticed their onset, drawing became a frustrating, aggravating, and painful experience. Ironically, I look at Charles M Schultz's work over the years, and you can see that in the 1980's, he developed some quite severe tremors, but he still had enough control to make it work. Even in his pen-and-ink medium (about the least-forgiving when it comes to tremors). But he was a truly talented artist.
Wow. This is just about the best thread I've seen on slashdot in about 7 years. I miss this stuff. Back when people teased me for my 4-digit ID. *snif*
Then, of course, you don't mind paying more to cover the cost of a direct download only connection. Right?
. . . sure, as long as there's a choice for either direct download, or cooperative download, and the cooperative download has a REAL benefit to me. I think that what the parent poster is concerned about is that the content companies will try to find a way (either through legal crowbars, or market dominance) to compel customers to provide this bandwidth, without any visible benefit to them. (ie. they'll still want to charge $5/song (remember, that was what the RIAA was suggesting back in "let's kill napster" days?), when Apple has proven that the actual market value is 99 cents).
If content providers want to profit off of content distributed via bittorrent, then they'll have to work out a way of compensating users for their cpu, network bandwidth, and drive space.
I'm not going to pay to view content, and then have the person I paid profit further off of using MY cycles to distribute it to someone else.
Buy your own goddamned server. Or give me CONCRETE benefits for providing my hardware for your distribution use.
Slashdot Mirror
Just wire the solar cells to power light-beams, and the photons from the light-beams can provide extra thrust.
This is just bullshit from people who aren't doing a damn thing except following the herd to slaughter while marching meekly to their deaths, self-righteously proclaiming their outrage louder than the next.
I did a damn thing. On November 2nd. Problem was, 59 million other Americans did the opposite thing.
Ballot, Soap, Ammo.
Ballot was futile.
Soap gets me heckled by the likes of you.
I'm not too exited about the next box on the list. . .
...Before that, I remember a similar incident involving a religious crazy who wanted to use Wikipedia to manufacture some credibility for his cult...... ... talking about the GW Bush page?
maybe some genes are "backed up" by partial copies or hashes or something, stored elsewhere on the chromosome? Or maybe there's a "backup" function in mitochondrial DNA that we don't yet know about? (just wildly speculating)
PS. It also leaves a gaping hole in theory about how plants inherit genetics - and frankly, the way Monsanto's spewing engineered plant genes in to the biosphere, this kind of scares me a little bit.
In fact, my ideal solution would be the Celestial Jukebox: have all the world's music available at 5 cents per play per track, and just stream me what I want to listen to when I want to listen to it. I wouldn't need to "own" anything.
I'd say less than a tenth of that price.
Maybe a nickel a track for a copy I can play unlimited number of times on my computer. Maybe 20 cents for the right to burn it to a CD for my car or living room, with either DRM or tacit agreement not to transfer it to someone else.
MAYBE a dollar with the right to sell the used track to someone else.
Current iTMS is 99 cents for my 20-cent model. But the DRM is flawed such that if I lose my computer due to hardware replacement, fire, software error, etc. I lose authorization to play. So really, the iTMS DRM makes the value, as a product, worth quite a bit less than my 20-cent model. More like a nickel, with that encumberance.
I think it's perfectly appropriate to allow two people to enter into a contract of predefined terms.
That's a crucial right.
About the only terms that should not be permissible are those which are illegal, for instance, if a person agrees to be killed, or entered into bondage (slavery).
Whether you define DRM as equivalent to "slavery" is your business, but even the most ardent libertarians would have a hard time doing so in a court of law.
Personally, if I have a choice between purchasing a CD with free copying rights for say, $100,000, or purchasing the right to listen to each song on the CD one time only, with the agreement that I will destroy the CD and never copy the songs, (and never hum them to myself, or try to recall them in my own memory - try to prove breach of THAT agreement in court -) for say, a nickel, then maybe that's a fair deal.
Who's to say that I, as a consumer, don't have the right to enter into such an agreement?
Nobody has the right to tell me I can't enter into such an agreement.
Now, where I have a problem, is that the RIAA, as an organization that's effectively an illegal cartel, can arbitrarily set the value on my right to copy a song from a CD to my computer, or my right to let my wife burn a copy of the CD and listen to it in her car - that's market manipulation on a level that I find simply unacceptable, and incompatible with my values as a proponent of Capitalism.
I agree that it's a bit much to ask, for me to expect to have the right to buy a CD for $20, and share it with 5,000,000 of my closest friends via Napster, but where do we draw the line? These rights should be very clearly spelled out and delineated in the legistlation. And RIAA jackass lobbyists should not be within 100 miles of Washington DC when our representatives do this. I'm perfectly agreeable to such a plan.
But we should let the FREE MARKET place a value on copying rights of purchased IP. Not an illegal Cartel.
The use of DRM as an enforcement tool is pretty much a red herring, as far as I'm concerned. As long as it's not rammed down our throats, and as long as individual copying rights aren't dictated to consumers by the RIAA.
All iPods but the Shuffle play AIFFs.
Yes, but even the 40gig iPod isn't really "enough" when you're storing AIFFs. My comment was about pushing the storage envelope more. Not just the abiility to play AIFF format.
. . . best .sig evar!
So the question is; what's Steve Jobs' plan to capitalize on this?
Will Apple push the iPod platform's technolgy forward?
(for example, stay on the forefront; push the storage envelope to allow users to store music in more audiophile freindly formats like AIFF? increase battery life? Keep the RIAA out of the pricing equation?)
Will Apple do anything to make sure this hard-won marketshare will stay on the Macintosh?
(for example, do something to attract more third party software to the platform, make pricing more attractive, etc)
Or will Apple rest on it's laurels?
I think that the reason we're seeing logical dissonance here, is that the words "Conservative" and "Liberal" have been so bent out of shape by the framing in public debate over the past 20 years, that they no longer share any relevant meaning.
A social conservative might be of the "god hates fags" ilk. But a fiscal conservative should not give a damn. In fact, a pure, pragmatic, fiscal conservative would promote the state getting out of the marriage business entirely, and make it a "civil union", and not discriminate based on gender, and of course, the "perks" and tax breaks would go away. (Ironically, this would also be the best course for social conservatives to pursue, because the reason why most of them HATE the idea of gay marriage, is because they feel threatened by gay's "mocking" their straight lifestyle. If the state did away with marriages, and made them purely a religious institution, then Gays would have all the rights the state could possibly have the ability to grant (within the limits set by the first amendment) - but the Churches would prevent them from getting "Married" - so both sides "win".
But Social Conservatives aren't about pragmatism.
MAZER: Ender, I promised I'd never leave you, and I don't mean to!
Don't let my republican-bashing fool you. I'm well aware of complicity by democrats as well. I never forgave Clinton for signing the DMCA.
Me? I voted with my dollars. I don't have cable/satellite, nor do I buy music CDs. I haven't totally unplugged from popular culture, but I'm far from a "model customer".
Orrin Hatch declaring RIAA operatives as the judge, jury and executioner allowed to destroy anyone's computer they want makes him a terrorist in my book
Agreed.
And a barbarian.
And a naughty boy. In need of a spanking.
And all of his freinds and associates as well.
Not to mention, his entire political party. Including their compliant media operatives at various AM talkradio stations around the country. They're all terrorists and traitors.
Steroid use by pro players IS a big deal.... But only to people who engage in illegal sports gambling. They probably don't give a crap if players are on steroids. But when everybody else finds out players are on steroids, then there's a problem. . .
There's some confusion over the specific technical terminology. What people are referring to as a "Security Clearance" in the Guckertgate story, is really a NOC. (no objection clearance). A NOC is a step far below that of what it takes to get an actual security clearance to view classified information. It's just a background check, and it makes sure that the guy isn't a felon, or engaged in known criminal activities, etc.
The fact that this stooge couldn't get a NOC should be pretty scary. Just about anybody can get a NOC.
They asked for a "zero tolerance" policy for baseball because steroids are illegal,
/ 2001/fs_2001_0426b.html).
don't make me laugh. they don't SERIOUSLY want a zero-tolerance policy. They want schmoes like you and I to believe there is one. So they can continue to make BILLIONS on this major American industry (Illegal Sports Gambling is a $400 Billion a year industry http://www.house.gov/berkley/legis/otr/statements
Congress is full of power-brokers and special interest groups. These people are not going away, and term limits will simply push them into the back rooms.
...and this would ensure that the people who actually hold power are not elected, and totally unaccountable.
That's a defeatist attitude. They sure as hell would go away if we'd just execute the bastards.
This isn't the case today? George Bush isn't really Karl Rove's puppet? Please. The reason why nobody can make any sense out of this congressional investigation of steroid use in baseball is because nobody wants to admit the cold hard facts that the REAL issue here is the impact on ILLEGAL SPORTS GAMBLING. You and I don't care about the $50 we lost to our best friend on some game back in 1996. But to the schmoes sitting behind the microphones on that panel, the revelation (to the public at large) that there's rampant steroid abuse in pro sports, is going to cause them some severe pain.
The moment a Government steps in, and asks for a tax, or builds a road for workers to drive to work, or grants a patent or copyright, or even gives a Limited Liability or other Charter, there is no more "Free Market".
The government has intervened.
Sometimes government intervention is equally favorable. Sometimes it's favorable to some, and not to others.
Your phrase "The US Tends to be so Free Market that corps step on the little guy" has it wrong. When the government favors a corporation, it's intervening in the Free Market just as much as when the government favors consumers or workers (the little guy). The US is FAR from Free Market. "Free Market" is used as a slogan for times when certain politicians want to paint other politicians as bad, or times when they want to enact legislation that favors a corporation, etc. That's really the only place "Free Market" actually comes into play in any real way in our economy.
And FYI: with regard to your remark about Europe and unemployment figures, it's mostly because most Eurpean countries calculate unemployment in a more honest fashion than we do here in the US. If the US computed unemployment in the same way (include workers who have dropped off the roles because they've found part-time work, or have given up looking), it would be closer to 9.5%. Neither here nor there with regard to which is a "correct" way of calculating a true unemployment figure. I'm ambivalent on that. I *do* oppose though, people who use this standard Rush Limbaugh line to discredit European government, when they're comparing apples to oranges.
I dunno.
I still run dos batch files I wrote on a DOS 5.0 system, I run them on my Windows XP Workstation. Some commands have changed in syntax, that's expected. But by-and-large, this is support that's remained unchanged for almost two decades. It's not the chosen development platform anymore - but in some cases, in some overly-managed environments, it's the ONLY way to accomplish some things. It's handy.
I'm sure there are a lot of old cobol programmers that got some work in 1999 using skills they thought were obsolete in 1985.
...The icy moon's atmosphere may be created by ...gases escaping from ... the interior...
That could describe a lot of people I know.
I've had it since about age 20. It was the cause of my drop-out from art school.
You might say that I now use computers BECAUSE of my tremors. It's about the only interface with the world that I have where I have enough control to be productive.
Although, if you have an occasional accidental window closure, I'd say yours are worse than mine. Yeah, it is rather embarrassing, when people notice, they think I'm on drugs or something. I don't think that this IBM gadget will help me, though I think it would be cook to apply the same technique to something like a drawing tablet. I think that would even allow me to get back into art. I used to love to draw, before the tremors. But after I noticed their onset, drawing became a frustrating, aggravating, and painful experience. Ironically, I look at Charles M Schultz's work over the years, and you can see that in the 1980's, he developed some quite severe tremors, but he still had enough control to make it work. Even in his pen-and-ink medium (about the least-forgiving when it comes to tremors). But he was a truly talented artist.
Wow. This is just about the best thread I've seen on slashdot in about 7 years. I miss this stuff. Back when people teased me for my 4-digit ID. *snif*
Then, of course, you don't mind paying more to cover the cost of a direct download only connection. Right?
. . . sure, as long as there's a choice for either direct download, or cooperative download, and the cooperative download has a REAL benefit to me. I think that what the parent poster is concerned about is that the content companies will try to find a way (either through legal crowbars, or market dominance) to compel customers to provide this bandwidth, without any visible benefit to them. (ie. they'll still want to charge $5/song (remember, that was what the RIAA was suggesting back in "let's kill napster" days?), when Apple has proven that the actual market value is 99 cents).
If content providers want to profit off of content distributed via bittorrent, then they'll have to work out a way of compensating users for their cpu, network bandwidth, and drive space.
I'm not going to pay to view content, and then have the person I paid profit further off of using MY cycles to distribute it to someone else.
Buy your own goddamned server.
Or give me CONCRETE benefits for providing my hardware for your distribution use.