Neither party cares much about copyright, because outside of Slashdot, not many people care. On literally every other issue, it's the Democrats who have tried (meekly) to defend individual rights.
No. The best you can say about the Democrats is that they have given lip service to defending individual rights. Every time they have the chance to affect policy though, they choose the authoritarian policy.
Neither D nor R give a shit about individual rights.
Long is a selling point for me. If it's not 80 hours long, why bother? A game that you want to play for 80 hours is a better game than a game that you only want to play for 20 hours, by definition. A game that you want to play for 80 hours but can't, because there's only 20 hours worth of content is worse than a game that actually has 80 hours of compelling content, for obvious reasons. I just don't see a reason to prefer short games, if a game is too long you can always stop playing it.
We don't need copyright to protect our software freedoms if those freedoms are enshrined in law. That should be the ultimate goal. It's as wrong to deprive someone of full use of their software as it is to deprive them of full use of their physical property. Copyright is stealing.
Because the H1 was actually a HumVee, and the H2 was a converted pick-up truck. Guess that doesn't really matter though, when all any HumVee owner cares about is ostentatious status displays.
Does ReDigi bear any responsibility to ensure that the copies they sell are legally made? It would be trivial for me to make as many copies as I want and sell them on ReDigi. Even if the ReDigi transaction is atomic, that doesn't stop me from reproducing my own MP3s. Does ReDigi attempt to prevent this, or are they claiming they're not responsible if I violate copyright?
This will likely get modded as flamebait and/or I'll be told I'm some sort of communist against free speech, but the simple fact is that if they were able to prove in a court of law that this person was actively looking for this information - you don't go actively looking for such information, and keep a shopping list of the sorts of things that you could use to commit such an act at hand unless you're either working in a particularly specialised field or actually looking to commit some sort of atrocity.
Yes, you are some sort of communist against free speech. You just criminalized curiosity. You are more dangerous than any terrorist. Terrorists can only kill people. Censorship kills ideas.
Who cares if you save time if you're doing more work? The time I spend in a check out line is entirely mine to think about whatever I want. When I use the self-checkout I actually have to pay attention. It might get me out the door quicker, but there's a net loss in leisurely brain activity.
Presumably his point was that he wanted to build factories in the US, but regulations and unnecessary costs prevented him. I don't know what regulations those were, but certainly not all regulations are good.
The problem isn't the regulation. It's that corporations are allowed to skirt the regulations by exporting jobs. Listen to this episode of This American Life, and ask yourself if you really want to bring Chinese style industrialism to the US.
Like Daisey says at the end, if we're going to export the jobs, the right thing to do is export the employee protections with them.
Everything in this world is dangerous. Once you give the government the power to censor dangerous information, they'll use that to censor whatever they want under the pretense of keeping you safe. In particular, information coming from opposition parties will be deemed dangerous to the government, stifling political progress, and allowing criminals in government to hide their crimes. This leads to a net decrease in safety across society.
How much of the Wikileaks data would we have if Manning had used the chain of command? When the chain of command is corrupt, how do you blow the whistle through the chain of command?
Gitmo wasn't his fault - it was every congressperson who didn't want terrorists in their local jails that stopped that.
Bullshit. He had plenty of time in his first two years to push that through Congress. He apparently didn't think it was very important.
You have legitimate beef with Obama about this, but I don't think he would get reelected if he hadn't signed it, and that is a bigger issue.
Right, the big issue here is that both parties are using fear to get reelected. The fact that you can't make honest arguments and expect to get elected is the big issue. Far bigger than whether a democrat or republican holds office in 2013.
Anybody who thinks the Bush presidency was anything but a complete disaster for everybody except big business
Bush was a complete disaster for everybody except big business (and Africans with aids btw). But so is Obama.
And electing him again will allow him the political freedom to push what he wants to push because he won't be forced into following the demands of his financial backers because he won't be able to get a third term.
Elections are when the people exert the tiny bit of influence they have. If Obama doesn't have to face another election, he doesn't have to keep the people happy and he can do whatever his corporate masters want. What reason is there to believe that anything else would happen, besides wishful thinking?
I'd urge everyone to read this article that drives a stake in the "job creators and lower taxes' lie
For a guy with "a double major in math and physics", he doesn't know much about presenting and interpreting data. Where's the r-squared value for those linear regression curves? There's also no reason to believe the relationship he's found is causative. If governments cut taxes in anticipation of a recession, you'd see the same sort of curves on the last chart.
I'm no "supply sider" by a long shot. But weak data doesn't help anyone.
Of course Godwins law applies. All Godwin's law states is that as a the length of a discussion (originally USENET) increases, the probability of a Hitler or Nazi reference approaches 1. Discussions of totalitarianism just shift that curve to the left.
Slashdot Mirror
Twitter is contributing by helping them to censor. The right thing to do is simply not do business in those countries where censorship is required.
Neither party cares much about copyright, because outside of Slashdot, not many people care. On literally every other issue, it's the Democrats who have tried (meekly) to defend individual rights.
No. The best you can say about the Democrats is that they have given lip service to defending individual rights. Every time they have the chance to affect policy though, they choose the authoritarian policy.
Neither D nor R give a shit about individual rights.
Long is a selling point for me. If it's not 80 hours long, why bother? A game that you want to play for 80 hours is a better game than a game that you only want to play for 20 hours, by definition. A game that you want to play for 80 hours but can't, because there's only 20 hours worth of content is worse than a game that actually has 80 hours of compelling content, for obvious reasons. I just don't see a reason to prefer short games, if a game is too long you can always stop playing it.
Check out Retrogamer, and compare it to the American equivalent. Wait, what American equivalent?
We don't need copyright to protect our software freedoms if those freedoms are enshrined in law. That should be the ultimate goal. It's as wrong to deprive someone of full use of their software as it is to deprive them of full use of their physical property. Copyright is stealing.
He might be kind of a dick.
Because the H1 was actually a HumVee, and the H2 was a converted pick-up truck. Guess that doesn't really matter though, when all any HumVee owner cares about is ostentatious status displays.
That sounds awfully familiar somehow.
Great. Now how do they do that?
Intent to do what exactly?
The Earth precesses once ever 26000 years. In 13000 years north will be pointed towards Vega.
Is it even possible to have strong protections for artists without the occasional incidence of stormtroopers kicking down grandma's door?
No, this is impossible. You can have copyright or you can have general purpose computers, but you can't have both.
Does ReDigi bear any responsibility to ensure that the copies they sell are legally made? It would be trivial for me to make as many copies as I want and sell them on ReDigi. Even if the ReDigi transaction is atomic, that doesn't stop me from reproducing my own MP3s. Does ReDigi attempt to prevent this, or are they claiming they're not responsible if I violate copyright?
This will likely get modded as flamebait and/or I'll be told I'm some sort of communist against free speech, but the simple fact is that if they were able to prove in a court of law that this person was actively looking for this information - you don't go actively looking for such information, and keep a shopping list of the sorts of things that you could use to commit such an act at hand unless you're either working in a particularly specialised field or actually looking to commit some sort of atrocity.
Yes, you are some sort of communist against free speech. You just criminalized curiosity. You are more dangerous than any terrorist. Terrorists can only kill people. Censorship kills ideas.
That's not clear intent, that's wishful thinking. Where and when did he intend to bomb? If there's no plan, there's no intent.
Who cares if you save time if you're doing more work? The time I spend in a check out line is entirely mine to think about whatever I want. When I use the self-checkout I actually have to pay attention. It might get me out the door quicker, but there's a net loss in leisurely brain activity.
Presumably his point was that he wanted to build factories in the US, but regulations and unnecessary costs prevented him. I don't know what regulations those were, but certainly not all regulations are good.
The problem isn't the regulation. It's that corporations are allowed to skirt the regulations by exporting jobs. Listen to this episode of This American Life, and ask yourself if you really want to bring Chinese style industrialism to the US.
Like Daisey says at the end, if we're going to export the jobs, the right thing to do is export the employee protections with them.
On top of that, we're talking about American jobs, so who cares what the Chinese are doing?
Because Chinese people are human beings too, and just as deserving of gainful employment as Americans.
Everything in this world is dangerous. Once you give the government the power to censor dangerous information, they'll use that to censor whatever they want under the pretense of keeping you safe. In particular, information coming from opposition parties will be deemed dangerous to the government, stifling political progress, and allowing criminals in government to hide their crimes. This leads to a net decrease in safety across society.
Bombs+weapons+expressed desire to use them = probably a bad guy.
Just like every president in memory.
This is such a fantasy, we might as well base our economy on Unicorn horns.
How much of the Wikileaks data would we have if Manning had used the chain of command? When the chain of command is corrupt, how do you blow the whistle through the chain of command?
Gitmo wasn't his fault - it was every congressperson who didn't want terrorists in their local jails that stopped that.
Bullshit. He had plenty of time in his first two years to push that through Congress. He apparently didn't think it was very important.
You have legitimate beef with Obama about this, but I don't think he would get reelected if he hadn't signed it, and that is a bigger issue.
Right, the big issue here is that both parties are using fear to get reelected. The fact that you can't make honest arguments and expect to get elected is the big issue. Far bigger than whether a democrat or republican holds office in 2013.
Anybody who thinks the Bush presidency was anything but a complete disaster for everybody except big business
Bush was a complete disaster for everybody except big business (and Africans with aids btw). But so is Obama.
And electing him again will allow him the political freedom to push what he wants to push because he won't be forced into following the demands of his financial backers because he won't be able to get a third term.
Elections are when the people exert the tiny bit of influence they have. If Obama doesn't have to face another election, he doesn't have to keep the people happy and he can do whatever his corporate masters want. What reason is there to believe that anything else would happen, besides wishful thinking?
I'd urge everyone to read this article that drives a stake in the "job creators and lower taxes' lie
For a guy with "a double major in math and physics", he doesn't know much about presenting and interpreting data. Where's the r-squared value for those linear regression curves? There's also no reason to believe the relationship he's found is causative. If governments cut taxes in anticipation of a recession, you'd see the same sort of curves on the last chart.
I'm no "supply sider" by a long shot. But weak data doesn't help anyone.
Of course Godwins law applies. All Godwin's law states is that as a the length of a discussion (originally USENET) increases, the probability of a Hitler or Nazi reference approaches 1. Discussions of totalitarianism just shift that curve to the left.