If you had been doing this for many years before the DMCA, and all these laws, you might stand a chance.
I think it's pretty clear that people have been decoding/copying/sharing data for many years before the DMCA. As a matter of fact, that's why they passed it.
I don't agree with everyone else that the reason is that tapes lose quality from cds. I think it's because in fiften years, tape recorders will be gone and cd to tape will no longe be happening (in significant numbers), while digital copying will have continued to grow.
They are trying to stop digital copying now, before it becomes something everyone does. And they'll fail.
If they did a story on/., and stated that everybody here is an obscene freak who gets his kicks by posting pictures of his anus on the internet, would you consider that to be "outstanding journalism"?
I support any military action that my country may take to retalliate for the horror that has been inflicted upon it.
Your.sig would be more meaningful if you specified what country you are from (although allowing any government a blanket license to participate in "any military action" is pretty scary).
Re:Ch1War on Drugs Ch2War on smart computer people
on
The End of Innovation?
·
· Score: 1
What a great movie. And according to Salon it's being made into a musical.
Re:Ch1War on Drugs Ch2War on smart computer people
on
The End of Innovation?
·
· Score: 1
I don't have any with me, but many times I have seen stats that show that if you change the amount of thc in herb, people change the amount they smoke. Also, most people's personal experience confirms this.
People don't say "i want to smoke one bowl" they say that that want to get a certain amount of effect. Once they are as high as they want to be, they stop. The only effect of decreasing the potency is to cause people to smoke more, which is probably not what you want.
I honestly don't see why the "natural" level of thc is what we must be going for. We can use breeding to get seedless grapes, why not good weed?
they're all at the Taco Bell snarfing down things that now keep this old fart up all night.
Is the pun intentional?
Re:Ch1War on Drugs Ch2War on smart computer people
on
The End of Innovation?
·
· Score: 1
pot was sold in Seven Elevens with 1/10 the THC at five times the price to people 21 or over
If it cost five times as much and was a tenth as strong, you would be paying 50 times as much to the same high. I think people would stick to using their dealers.
Also, if you were going to make drugs legal, the idea is to make them less harmful than when they are illegal. You don't do that by forcing people to smoke ten times as much (and damage their lungs).
I agree that people who claim napster was intended for legal uses are very deluded or are intentionally deceiving others. But still, it worth mentioning that people who make getaway cars (the car companies), don't get shut down for vicarious bank robbing.
I just did look it up and his usage is perfectly correct. He would have been wrong 2350 year ago when Aristotle was writing, but since then usage has changed. That's what language does. It evolves and changes. Deal with it.
I wanted to use mod points in this topic, but I feel obligated to give my opinion on this instead:
C/C++/Java How To Program -- Deital & Deital
In my experience, these books are hated, and for good reason. I was a teaching fellow for a class where we used the Java book, and there wasn't a single student who found it good or even usable. Most of them went out and bought another java book (java in a nutshell for many of them) and were much happier.
While I'm here, I'll recommend (as others have) getting one of Sedgewick's algorithms books and Stevens' Unix Network Programming. Also, if no one has suggested it yet (I haven't seen it), I think that Graham's ANSI Common Lisp is another essential programming book.
Finally, I highly recommend Eckel's Thinking in Java and Thinking in C++. Btw, for any who wants to check it out, Thinking in C++ is available free here.
Huh? The questions he's talking about aren't about right or wrong they're about what the law is. And lawyers are, almost by definition, people who are paid to know what the law is and go to school for many years to learn this. I don't see anything "wrong" with that. I think maybe there is something "wrong" when people who aren't lawyers assume that they cna just guess what the law probably is and that'll be right.
Does anyone know if Lucas sued to stop the use of the term "Star Wars" to refer to the missile defense program? Even if it wasn't an official name, he could have tried to stop newspapers from calling it that in the same way Rollerblade writes tons of letters (or used to) to publications asking them to please use the phrase "in-line skates". Well, did he?
If the entire internet shut down for a minute or two no real harm would come but the message would be sent loud and clear.
I don't think any message would be sent. I just think a lot of people would say "hey, why isn't this working? oh, there it goes" in unison and no one would notice that anything had happened.
Microsoft has succeeded in making their own screwed up naming conventions the "standard" of computers everywhere.
Yes. So what? That's the way naming, and words in general, work. When everyone is used to calling something by one name and you call it by another they have no idea what you're talking about. Shocking.
I understand your point, but I believe that the reason there are so few negative reviews is that they generally only review books that are worthwile.
I am grateful for that. I find it much more useful for someone to say "hey, check out this book, it's great" about a book he loves then pointing out to me a book that was lousy.
you can (and will, if the demand for the song is high enough) populate the planet with it.
Agreed. But for many songs, the demand is not high enough. There have been many times I was looking online for an obscure song, and it took me a while to find it. When I did, only one person had a copy of it. Now if that one person hadn't had it, I very well might have bought the cd. And maybe with copy protection, that one copy wouldn't have been out there.
It seems you are making the same point as everyone else: saying that some piracy will still happen, and then explaining how/why. I agree with this, but again, I think it will be reduced especially because I think that legal action will be taken against anyone who makes an mp3 ripper that does "error correction" and allows ripping of copy protected cds. After all, why would they bother introducing this copy protection if they didn't intend to do everything possible to stop people from getting around it?
So let me ask directly: do you really feel that when all cd's are are copy-protected like this, piracy will not be reduced at all? That no one anywhere will be prevented by ignorance or laziness or fear (of using an "illegal" mp3 ripper) from getting mp3s he otherwise would have gotten? Because that's what I'm hearing, and I don't buy it.
Slashdot Mirror
They are trying to stop digital copying now, before it becomes something everyone does. And they'll fail.
I assume you don't want an honest anwer to that?
Your
What a great movie. And according to Salon it's being made into a musical.
People don't say "i want to smoke one bowl" they say that that want to get a certain amount of effect. Once they are as high as they want to be, they stop. The only effect of decreasing the potency is to cause people to smoke more, which is probably not what you want.
I honestly don't see why the "natural" level of thc is what we must be going for. We can use breeding to get seedless grapes, why not good weed?
I disagree. Since he holds the copyright, the fact that he was working for a company should be irrelevant.
Also, if you were going to make drugs legal, the idea is to make them less harmful than when they are illegal. You don't do that by forcing people to smoke ten times as much (and damage their lungs).
I agree that people who claim napster was intended for legal uses are very deluded or are intentionally deceiving others. But still, it worth mentioning that people who make getaway cars (the car companies), don't get shut down for vicarious bank robbing.
I just did look it up and his usage is perfectly correct. He would have been wrong 2350 year ago when Aristotle was writing, but since then usage has changed. That's what language does. It evolves and changes. Deal with it.
You find it offensive? Relax, the use of the mascot is giving linux free advertising.
--
While I'm here, I'll recommend (as others have) getting one of Sedgewick's algorithms books and Stevens' Unix Network Programming. Also, if no one has suggested it yet (I haven't seen it), I think that Graham's ANSI Common Lisp is another essential programming book.
Finally, I highly recommend Eckel's Thinking in Java and Thinking in C++. Btw, for any who wants to check it out, Thinking in C++ is available free here.
--
Huh? The questions he's talking about aren't about right or wrong they're about what the law is. And lawyers are, almost by definition, people who are paid to know what the law is and go to school for many years to learn this. I don't see anything "wrong" with that. I think maybe there is something "wrong" when people who aren't lawyers assume that they cna just guess what the law probably is and that'll be right.
--
--
Does anyone know if Lucas sued to stop the use of the term "Star Wars" to refer to the missile defense program? Even if it wasn't an official name, he could have tried to stop newspapers from calling it that in the same way Rollerblade writes tons of letters (or used to) to publications asking them to please use the phrase "in-line skates". Well, did he?
--
That's untrue. If I wanted to bring out the "Mickey Mouse" line of toilet cleaners, I can assure you I would be sued and lose.
--
--
So what should they use?
--
Really? Does he play an Indian?
--
--
I am grateful for that. I find it much more useful for someone to say "hey, check out this book, it's great" about a book he loves then pointing out to me a book that was lousy.
--
--
It seems you are making the same point as everyone else: saying that some piracy will still happen, and then explaining how/why. I agree with this, but again, I think it will be reduced especially because I think that legal action will be taken against anyone who makes an mp3 ripper that does "error correction" and allows ripping of copy protected cds. After all, why would they bother introducing this copy protection if they didn't intend to do everything possible to stop people from getting around it?
So let me ask directly: do you really feel that when all cd's are are copy-protected like this, piracy will not be reduced at all? That no one anywhere will be prevented by ignorance or laziness or fear (of using an "illegal" mp3 ripper) from getting mp3s he otherwise would have gotten? Because that's what I'm hearing, and I don't buy it.
--