Totally wrong. If you have the disc how do you think you can mux in fan subs? The people using these are torrenters, not those that just bought a disc. Yes, there are ways to rip, transcode and remux, but be honest, we all know these subs are for pirated videos.
step 1) insert movie into your PC's optical drive step 2) open movie in your preferred media player step 3) add subtitles from disk step 4) watch your movie with subtitles.
A producer, or creator or author or whatever you want to call him, has a fundamental right to profit off his created work (his "goods and services") the same as any other. Merely supporting that right is not the same as supporting the MPAA, nor is it BS.
Sure he does, like anyone else. Problem with copyright is that it tries to give the creators right to also profit of every copy or derivative work others make. This is not right. Imagine if bread bakers had a right to prevent others from making copies of their bread. It's bullshit! Artifical limits to copying and spreading of information/culture are bad and should be abolished. New methods of supporting creators which don't limit distribution must be introduced.
What have you ever published, that you think you deserve to deny professional writers and musicians a chance to make a decent living? Don't tell me about sysadmin perl scripts.
I'm not denying creators anything, they are free to charge whatever price they like for their product. It's their fault (and bad legislation fault) that they charge much less for their products then they are worth and try to make up for it by restricting others to make copies of their work.
So you have it backwards. Pirates aren't restricting anyone. It's copyright and its proponents who are greatly restricting usefullness of modern communication technologies and create artifical barriers to accessing important information and culture.
Always remember that without copyright, almost all knowledge and culture could be available to anyone on the planet with connection to the internet.
(note that i'm not against some kind of government support for creators of IP property but such support must not interfere with the freedom to distribute (copies of) IP).
I also recently switched back from google-chrome to firefox. In my case, there were two reasons: - google-chrome memory consumption was enormous. It also grow over time and with the number of opened tabs so i had to restart my browser periodicaly otherwise it slowed to crawl before long. - google-chrome is horrible at solving user-reported bugs. Developers usualy don't even ackowledge them or comment on them. For example this bug is 2 years old, affect great number of users, is easy to fix but it's still unconfirmed.
Have you tried searching for a WHOIS record lately? Well over 90% of the records I have searched for in the past 2-3 years have been intentionally obfuscated by various systems as it is.
This is IMO fail of various national registrars. For example our.cz domain registrar NIC.CZ forbids anonymized domains and would take such domain out of the registry if it finds out about it. As a result, whois database for.cz domain is pleasure to use.
The biggest difference is that they recommend having a single step process instead of the current two-step process of first looking up the registrar and then using that registrar's WHOIS system.
What two-step process are you talking about? There is only one step for me to get information from current whois database:
$ whois slashdot.org
that is all, no second step is necessary.
The ICANN proposal sounds very bad for me for several reasons: - current system is fine, no reason to change it - centralisation is bad. What if the U.S. controled central authority started to filter entries it doesn't like from the database? What if the central authority refuses to accept certain new entries into the database? - users would need to register and pay fee to access (certain info in) whois database
Regardless, the summary is clearly wrong, because there has been no breakthrough that lets information travel faster than light. If there were, we probably wouldn't be talking about transistors, we'd be talking about that breakthrough.
Samsung should have put in a Thunderbolt port and sold adapters.
I'm glad they haven't done it. Thunderbolt cables are ten times more expnesive then hdmi/displayports/usb alternatives. Lot of consumers would not buy devices which needs thunderbolt cables unless they are significantly cheaper then today.
I think I have a hundred dollars at home, but the rest is electronic.
Where do you think is your electronic cash stored? It's on computers located in big datacenters protected from unauthorised remote or physical access by large teams of security experts. How much do you think all of this costs? I don't realy know but i'd say it's hell lot of more then the current price of bitcoin network. Even if bitcoin grows to the size of current fiat economy the basic network operation would be cheaper than the costs of traditional fiat money security.
Wow your post is so full of personal attacks, logical falacies and nonsense that i can't even bother to discuss it point by point. I just wanted to let you know that you are wrong, that many people (including me) care about bitcoin properties sethotterstad described and that i'm currently out of modpoints so i can't downvote you.
Yes, vote for third party candidates when the Rs and Ds aren't very good. This doesn't solve much, because good third party candidates frequently don't run at all, knowing they can't win. What we really need is a different voting system that doesn't have as many problems. While I like Condorcet systems, Approval voting is a much easier sell.
Yes, voting system is one of the biggest issues. Often the winner doesn't represent the opinion of majority at all. For example, if you have a vote between 5 candidates, one of them extremist with 1/4 population supporting him, other four candidates with very similar programs, 3/4 of votes distributed evenly between them, the extremist would win despite majority of citizens supporting completely different politics.
Also in current system, you are afraid to vote for minor parties becaouse it can help the worse of the two big parties to win.
Those problems could be solved by using better voting system.
I'd like some variant of Schulze method being adopted. For example LiquidFeedback preferential voting looks very nice. Unfortunately the change of the voting system would be very difficult because it had to be passed by current ruling parties and would be harmfull to them.
Do you really think that would make any difference?
Yes. It would certainly make more change then voting for one of the two big parties. Unless you want violent revolution, voting is the only way change can happen.
Well, we did have 8 years of President Bush as a result of a third party candidate bleeding votes away from Gore...
You will never get any real change if you continue to vote for one of the two evils. Don't be blind, there is no significiant difference between the policies of republicans and democrats. Both parties are in bed with big corporations and their interests.
Actually, failure to vote for third parties is the primary reason they're able to get away with stuff like this
This needs to be emphasized more. From various pre-election discusions from US it seems like people aren't often even aware of third parties they can vote for.
Well Mt. could be interpreted as short version of "Mount".
About the magic stuff - they originally intended to build Magic The Gathering Online eXchange and registered mtgox domain for it but it never actually happened as they learned about bitcoin later and decided to build bitcoin exchange instead. No magic card was ever traded on MtGox. Some people like "myowntrueself" are trying to twist the facts and use their domain name to paint them as not professional exchange completely ignoring the reality that MtGox is the oldest and biggest and so far most reliable exchange out there.
there is no difference from the point of view of individual who loses his rights how exactly that is done, whether it is done by a king or via democratic elections. Democracy leads to totalitarian outcomes just as well...
Of course, every kind of social order leads to some limitations of individual freedoms. But there is great difference if this order is dictated by some kind of privileged class (king or tyrant) or by democratic majority. In the first case, the system is biased towards the ruling class. In the later, it should be beneficial to the majority of people.
If you think that democracy leads to totalitarian outcome, what kind of alternative do you propose? What possible social order could exist, which would not limit personal freedom of anyone? Who will decide if for example shooting someone or poluting environment is considered part of the freedom or not? How would disputes be solved?
Also it's important to note that pure democracy is indeed bad because it leads to suppresion of rights for minorities. That is the problem constitutional democracy fixes. In the constitution basic human rights should be guaranteed for everyone regardless of the opinion of the majority.
So elaborate please, you think that using government violence to take property (income or savings, I am not talking about taxing transactions here) from people in order to spend on things that you personally approve of is not theft, but you don't consider yourself to be part of the mob? How does that work exactly?
Those are not things i personally approve of, those are things society as whole approves of in democratic processes.
Concerning your question. You wrote earlier:
It's very hard to find people who would not BE the mob, supporting the theft and redistribution model that the government maintains
From that i deducted that by "mob" you mean people who are getting more money and benefits from the system then they return. In that sense i'm not part of the mob as i have good paying job and pay more taxes then i get back in the form of benefits.
Of course if you rephrase your statement like you did (that everyone who agrees with those policies is part of the mob) than it's clearly impossible for anyone who agrees with government benefits and redistribution of wealth to not be "part of the mob". But that your point becomes moot.
Slashdot Mirror
Because allowing creators and owners of things to profit frm them is EVIL and a BAD THING.
PROFIT IS EVIL!
Profit is not evil. Trying to control how others are allowed to make copies or derivatives of your work is evil.
Totally wrong. If you have the disc how do you think you can mux in fan subs? The people using these are torrenters, not those that just bought a disc. Yes, there are ways to rip, transcode and remux, but be honest, we all know these subs are for pirated videos.
step 1) insert movie into your PC's optical drive
step 2) open movie in your preferred media player
step 3) add subtitles from disk
step 4) watch your movie with subtitles.
A producer, or creator or author or whatever you want to call him, has a fundamental right to profit off his created work (his "goods and services") the same as any other. Merely supporting that right is not the same as supporting the MPAA, nor is it BS.
Sure he does, like anyone else. Problem with copyright is that it tries to give the creators right to also profit of every copy or derivative work others make. This is not right. Imagine if bread bakers had a right to prevent others from making copies of their bread. It's bullshit! Artifical limits to copying and spreading of information/culture are bad and should be abolished. New methods of supporting creators which don't limit distribution must be introduced.
What have you ever published, that you think you deserve to deny professional writers and musicians a chance to make a decent living? Don't tell me about sysadmin perl scripts.
I'm not denying creators anything, they are free to charge whatever price they like for their product. It's their fault (and bad legislation fault) that they charge much less for their products then they are worth and try to make up for it by restricting others to make copies of their work.
So you have it backwards. Pirates aren't restricting anyone. It's copyright and its proponents who are greatly restricting usefullness of modern communication technologies and create artifical barriers to accessing important information and culture.
Always remember that without copyright, almost all knowledge and culture could be available to anyone on the planet with connection to the internet.
(note that i'm not against some kind of government support for creators of IP property but such support must not interfere with the freedom to distribute (copies of) IP).
I also recently switched back from google-chrome to firefox. In my case, there were two reasons:
- google-chrome memory consumption was enormous. It also grow over time and with the number of opened tabs so i had to restart my browser periodicaly otherwise it slowed to crawl before long.
- google-chrome is horrible at solving user-reported bugs. Developers usualy don't even ackowledge them or comment on them. For example this bug is 2 years old, affect great number of users, is easy to fix but it's still unconfirmed.
Sure. How do I buy bitcoins without using Visa or MasterCard (or Paypal)?
Send money via wire transfer from your bank account to exchange and just buy them.
Dunno about USA but people from EU can do this cheaply using SEPA payments from their bank.
Corporations do not write or rewrite law, politicians do. Politicians sell the service of lawmaking to corporations.
Clearly you dont care.
It seems to me like majority of US voters who continue to vote for republicans or democrats don't care.
Too bad that majority of people base their voting decision on election campaign paid by the corporations and lobbyists. In this sense, GP is right.
Then again, AMD's Linux drivers actually work, while nVidia's do not.
Wow realy? Which AMD card and driver provide accelerated 3d and accelerated video playback under linux with performace comparable to windows?
Have you tried searching for a WHOIS record lately? Well over 90% of the records I have searched for in the past 2-3 years have been intentionally obfuscated by various systems as it is.
This is IMO fail of various national registrars. For example our .cz domain registrar NIC.CZ forbids anonymized domains and would take such domain out of the registry if it finds out about it. As a result, whois database for .cz domain is pleasure to use.
The biggest difference is that they recommend having a single step process instead of the current two-step process of first looking up the registrar and then using that registrar's WHOIS system.
What two-step process are you talking about? There is only one step for me to get information from current whois database:
$ whois slashdot.org
that is all, no second step is necessary.
The ICANN proposal sounds very bad for me for several reasons:
- current system is fine, no reason to change it
- centralisation is bad. What if the U.S. controled central authority started to filter entries it doesn't like from the database? What if the central authority refuses to accept certain new entries into the database?
- users would need to register and pay fee to access (certain info in) whois database
Regardless, the summary is clearly wrong, because there has been no breakthrough that lets information travel faster than light. If there were, we probably wouldn't be talking about transistors, we'd be talking about that breakthrough.
I guess you are the wrong one here. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#Faster_light_.28Casimir_vacuum_and_quantum_tunnelling.29
Samsung should have put in a Thunderbolt port and sold adapters.
I'm glad they haven't done it. Thunderbolt cables are ten times more expnesive then hdmi/displayports/usb alternatives. Lot of consumers would not buy devices which needs thunderbolt cables unless they are significantly cheaper then today.
I think I have a hundred dollars at home, but the rest is electronic.
Where do you think is your electronic cash stored? It's on computers located in big datacenters protected from unauthorised remote or physical access by large teams of security experts. How much do you think all of this costs? I don't realy know but i'd say it's hell lot of more then the current price of bitcoin network. Even if bitcoin grows to the size of current fiat economy the basic network operation would be cheaper than the costs of traditional fiat money security.
Wow your post is so full of personal attacks, logical falacies and nonsense that i can't even bother to discuss it point by point. I just wanted to let you know that you are wrong, that many people (including me) care about bitcoin properties sethotterstad described and that i'm currently out of modpoints so i can't downvote you.
You don't know the meaning of the word "entrap", you stupid fuck.
And you obviously lack few slaps from your parents which would tech you good manners.
Its not the parties doing it, on either side.
This is wrong. It's both parties doing it and stupid voters not caring and voting for them again and again.
Manning (and Wikileaks) dumped a huge pile of classified information on the internet with little regard to the consequences of their actions.
Manning passed the data to wikileaks and wikileaks initially passed it to journalists from The Guardian, The New York Times and Der Spiegel.
Real (and innocent) people had their lives hurt (and probably ended) by Manning's leaks.
This is just your speculations or do you have some evidence of this?
Yes, vote for third party candidates when the Rs and Ds aren't very good. This doesn't solve much, because good third party candidates frequently don't run at all, knowing they can't win. What we really need is a different voting system that doesn't have as many problems. While I like Condorcet systems, Approval voting is a much easier sell.
Yes, voting system is one of the biggest issues. Often the winner doesn't represent the opinion of majority at all. For example, if you have a vote between 5 candidates, one of them extremist with 1/4 population supporting him, other four candidates with very similar programs, 3/4 of votes distributed evenly between them, the extremist would win despite majority of citizens supporting completely different politics.
Also in current system, you are afraid to vote for minor parties becaouse it can help the worse of the two big parties to win.
Those problems could be solved by using better voting system.
I'd like some variant of Schulze method being adopted. For example LiquidFeedback preferential voting looks very nice. Unfortunately the change of the voting system would be very difficult because it had to be passed by current ruling parties and would be harmfull to them.
Actually, failure to vote for third parties is the primary reason they're able to get away with stuff like this.
What third party?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States
Do you really think that would make any difference?
Yes. It would certainly make more change then voting for one of the two big parties. Unless you want violent revolution, voting is the only way change can happen.
Well, we did have 8 years of President Bush as a result of a third party candidate bleeding votes away from Gore...
You will never get any real change if you continue to vote for one of the two evils. Don't be blind, there is no significiant difference between the policies of republicans and democrats. Both parties are in bed with big corporations and their interests.
Actually, failure to vote for third parties is the primary reason they're able to get away with stuff like this
This needs to be emphasized more. From various pre-election discusions from US it seems like people aren't often even aware of third parties they can vote for.
Well Mt. could be interpreted as short version of "Mount".
About the magic stuff - they originally intended to build Magic The Gathering Online eXchange and registered mtgox domain for it but it never actually happened as they learned about bitcoin later and decided to build bitcoin exchange instead. No magic card was ever traded on MtGox. Some people like "myowntrueself" are trying to twist the facts and use their domain name to paint them as not professional exchange completely ignoring the reality that MtGox is the oldest and biggest and so far most reliable exchange out there.
Not 'Mount Gox'. Theres no such place.
Its Magic the Gathering Online exchange not Mt. Gox.
Dunno if you are mentally impaired or just blind but they label themself Mt.Gox right on the front page of their website mtgox.com
there is no difference from the point of view of individual who loses his rights how exactly that is done, whether it is done by a king or via democratic elections. Democracy leads to totalitarian outcomes just as well...
Of course, every kind of social order leads to some limitations of individual freedoms. But there is great difference if this order is dictated by some kind of privileged class (king or tyrant) or by democratic majority. In the first case, the system is biased towards the ruling class. In the later, it should be beneficial to the majority of people.
If you think that democracy leads to totalitarian outcome, what kind of alternative do you propose? What possible social order could exist, which would not limit personal freedom of anyone? Who will decide if for example shooting someone or poluting environment is considered part of the freedom or not? How would disputes be solved?
Also it's important to note that pure democracy is indeed bad because it leads to suppresion of rights for minorities. That is the problem constitutional democracy fixes. In the constitution basic human rights should be guaranteed for everyone regardless of the opinion of the majority.
So elaborate please, you think that using government violence to take property (income or savings, I am not talking about taxing transactions here) from people in order to spend on things that you personally approve of is not theft, but you don't consider yourself to be part of the mob? How does that work exactly?
Those are not things i personally approve of, those are things society as whole approves of in democratic processes.
Concerning your question. You wrote earlier:
It's very hard to find people who would not BE the mob, supporting the theft and redistribution model that the government maintains
From that i deducted that by "mob" you mean people who are getting more money and benefits from the system then they return. In that sense i'm not part of the mob as i have good paying job and pay more taxes then i get back in the form of benefits.
Of course if you rephrase your statement like you did (that everyone who agrees with those policies is part of the mob) than it's clearly impossible for anyone who agrees with government benefits and redistribution of wealth to not be "part of the mob". But that your point becomes moot.