The IFPI then demanded that Powell remove its name from his site, even though CCS had just finished a
consulting contract with the organization in November.
Powell was bewildered by the IFPI's request and has thus far refused to comply.
So Powell makes his living getting material off the net, but refuses to do exactly that for a former client!
After all the effort, I doubt the majority of militia men would just want to be left alone. There would necessarily be a whole hierarchy whose members will want to capitalize on their new found windfall. They will say, "Hey, I risked everything. Now, pay your tax, and while you're at it, I'm changing the way water is distributed in this valley. If you don't like it, I'm going to kill your wife and me and five buddies are going to rape your daughter. In the meantime, grow more poppies because we fund our operations by selling the big H to metropolitan cities around the world. Hold on, we're going to rape your daughter anyway."
That's how the majority of revolutionaries operate.
Civil unrest is an ugly thing. Let's hope we never have to face it. I put my trust in preventative measures in the form of prosperity and equal access to justice. Stockpiling of weapons by weekend militia men is a recipe for violence and injustice and does little to nothing in the way of preserving our rights.
This is what is happening Down Under... They gave up their guns, and now the government is taking away their other liberties.
Please reinstall your propaganda filter. It's having trouble with NRA spin.
I think you mean well, but you've regurgitated mere dogma. It's interesting how you've made some pretty questionable premises and then jumped to some amazing conclusions.
Lastly, any victorious militia will want a say in the new government. I sincerely doubt militia members will understand or be remotely interested in restoring your rights to the level you are accustomed. Think of all the conflicts about the globe now and in the past, particularly the ones that drag on. It's always the civilians that suffer most. They are brutalized by both government and revolutionary forces.
Torvald wasn't offered a lucrative position with transmeta because of his anonymity. Linux is the product of many people's efforts, including testers, the folks at GNU, and volunteer developers. Without them, Torvald would be just another Finn.
No one claimed any of the Linux companies were of the most influential corporations. Furthermore, there have been many posted articles on the bleak out look for many Linux companies.
Hemos, you seem to think that Rambus stay's in business by charging frivolous lawsuits against other memory manufacturers. Fortunately, that is far from the truth.
Sorry, it is very close to the truth. No one wants Rambus's flagship product, RDRAM, because of high manufacturing costs. RDRAM is a great idea, but you just can't get the necessary yields from the silicon wafers to make the manufacture of RDRAM profitable.
With this SNAFU, Rambus has had to resort to pretty dubious claims of patent infringment. With this latest revelation that Rambus lied by witholding information (and that is lying), then to anyone who believes that corporations should be held to ethical behaviour, these lawsuits do indeed appear if not frivolous, then lacking merit.
Hey, I'm sorry Rambus's RDRAM went south, but it's not the industry's responsibility to cushion the fall.
I know how much you slashdoters hate Big Corporations
It not so much that the corporations are big (and Rambus is currently still small fry) that bothers me, it's that when they stick their collective head of their arse, they claim they're in a rose garden.
Take this scenario: The software confuses you with some violent criminal. The police think you're dangerous and knock you senseless and lock you up. Realizing they're mistake, they harass you with the goals of finding dirt on you or, failing that, intimidating you so that you don't kick up a fuss.
Ask anyone whose name happens to coincide with a known criminal. Once the feds are on you, they don't like to let up.
Hear, hear, I couldn't agree more. The way some recruiters and managers speak, you'd think the fundamentals changed for every language.
Learning and using Perl hasn't taught me anything about fermenting grapes, but it sure has improved my Unix and C/C++ skills. Likewise, I've never professionally used Miranda, but knowledge of functional programming is an important component of my Programming repertoire.
Thanks for the post. (you're not by any chance hiring in Phoenix, are you?)
Does it bother you that you're being exposed to other political ideologies? Would you rather just hear a whole bunch of people agreeing with you?
I think the poster was complaining of the knee-jerk grab for political dogma reflected in many of the posts here. Personally, I haven't read much in these posts that can be described as an insightful, well-balanced perspective from a particular ideology.
Deregulation of electrical power supply in California is perhaps leading to higher electrical bills in the long run.
Secondly, corporations abuse power. They help their friends and burn their enemies, with the consumer left as the meat in the sandwich. Bureaucracy is bureaucracy, private or public.
As an American who lived in your beautiful country for ten years (and who now has dual citizenship), let me extend apologies for the less than gracious comments of some/.'ers. I would like to believe most would rephrase their comments with some reflection.
(And to preempt any fatuous comments suggesting I return there, believe me, given half a chance, I would. Without hesitation. Not that the there's anything wrong living in the US, it's just that Australia is a great place to live. Perhaps even the greatest place to live. Oooops! I didn't mean to go all maudlin...)
I agree, Americans often miss the forest for the trees regarding issues such as free speech and gun control. We really get hung up on particular, often extreme, scenarios, and end up putting the cart before the horse.
American squeamishness at nudity and sexual behaviour is really quite bizarre. I find it telling that we don't tolerate a bit of slap and tickle, but find graphic enactments of brutality, even to the point of glorfication, acceptable, or at least more acceptable than depictions of sexuality.
It may be that there is no way to censure violence, or at least depictions of violence that don't reveal it's real consequences. But in it's psyche, America seems more comfortable with violence than sex. I find it disturbing.
Also, notice how quickly some posters will try to shout you down if you come out in favor of criminalizing hate speech. Is this censorship?
Perhaps not, but isn't it true that the most tenuous positions are often defended with the shrillest hyperbole?
They are referring to the sinking of Greenpeace's Rainbow Warrior by French intelligence. I think it occurred while the Rainbow Warrior was docked at a New Zealand port. A photographer was killed in the explosion.
In the end, the event actually worked to Greenpeace's favour as they received international attention and empathy. The Rainbow Warrior was replaced almost immediately through donations and the French were left with egg on their face.
You can't ban hate speech and give up free speech, as the people that define hate speech have the power to silence anyone they don't like...
This is a real danger.
However, France and other countries, including Australia I believe, address the issue of hate speech with legislation, with some laws taking a more extreme position than others. And I stand by the principle that we are obligated to consider the rights of all groups and individuals when we determine how to implement ideals such as freedom of speech, which I do in fact embrace.
At this point I'd like to say the exchange of ideas in this forum, which I value greatly, is more interesting when participants address the issues and not resort to character assasinations.
That's not a translation of what I said, that's an interpretation of history.
Regarding memorabilia, no one is rallying around Napoleonic gear in order to push dubious political agendas as happens with the Nazi stuff.
As far as freedom of speech, you are quite incorrect: I'm all for giving up hate speech, not free speech. The distinction isn't always clear, but we as homo sapiens are extremely good and fine distinctions.
Move to France? No, not France. I'd move to Australia tomorrow if I could. But it'd be a favor (or should I say favour) to me, not the likes of you.
Criminals shouldn't be allowed to profit from their crimes by selling their stories or artefacts of their exploits. I believe some US states prohibit people convicted of felonies from making money from this way. So, the concept is not unheard of in the US.
Furthermore, purchasing memorabilia is more of a behavior than a right. Education, self expression, nourishement and shelter, these are rights. The French have, quite rightly IMHO (or not so HO), have decided that the rights of survivors, memories of victums, and contemporary minorities out weigh those of Nazi enthusiasts (to put it kindly).
I'm all for banning hate speech, in the interest of the constitutional rights of minorities and sensibly minded denizens.
You've made some interesting points and I feel compelled to reply.
The point about child labor was to demonstrate that business has a history of doing the wrong thing. It matters not that conditions have changed such that child labor is no longer profitable or a necessity for families. (The only reason children were available to work was because the rural economy was undergoing change. Factory owners took advantage of and probably encouraged this.) They could hire children cheaper than adults, and did so, despite the ugliness.
This is where I think we fundamentally disagree. Whether business sometimes needs to be coerced into taking safety measures. I say the market is insufficient.
Employers demonstrate time and time again that they are willing to compromise worker safety for profit. For professionals, it is true that employers will favour them with good working environments. But this is not universal.
Many people don't have a choice of jobs, or the choice is equivalent to the proverbial choice between a "rock and a hard place." This is true of people who use computers! Not everyone who sits in front of a computer all day is a IT professional. Many if not most are laborers. When AT&T phones you to offer their latest package, are you talking to a programmer? No, it's some unskilled laborer sitting at a monitor.
But many of your points, and those of many other/.'ers, assume OSHA and ergonomics refer soley to desks and computers. Simply untrue. They apply to assembly line, etc.
Like you point out, there are many societal and economic forces at play. Workplace safety now includes ergonomics precisely because of our shift away from industry to information. Should we ignore ergonomic issues? I say no, we should be proactive and prevent workplace injuries.
Lasty, I take the position that non-compliance will cost more, in the long run.
Slashdot Mirror
I love the irony of the Den/IFPI fiasco:
So Powell makes his living getting material off the net, but refuses to do exactly that for a former client!
After all the effort, I doubt the majority of militia men would just want to be left alone. There would necessarily be a whole hierarchy whose members will want to capitalize on their new found windfall. They will say, "Hey, I risked everything. Now, pay your tax, and while you're at it, I'm changing the way water is distributed in this valley. If you don't like it, I'm going to kill your wife and me and five buddies are going to rape your daughter. In the meantime, grow more poppies because we fund our operations by selling the big H to metropolitan cities around the world. Hold on, we're going to rape your daughter anyway."
That's how the majority of revolutionaries operate.
Civil unrest is an ugly thing. Let's hope we never have to face it. I put my trust in preventative measures in the form of prosperity and equal access to justice. Stockpiling of weapons by weekend militia men is a recipe for violence and injustice and does little to nothing in the way of preserving our rights.
Most of whom were compensated with cash and perhaps stock, thus fulfilling Gates' obligation.
Please reinstall your propaganda filter. It's having trouble with NRA spin.
I think you mean well, but you've regurgitated mere dogma. It's interesting how you've made some pretty questionable premises and then jumped to some amazing conclusions.
Lastly, any victorious militia will want a say in the new government. I sincerely doubt militia members will understand or be remotely interested in restoring your rights to the level you are accustomed. Think of all the conflicts about the globe now and in the past, particularly the ones that drag on. It's always the civilians that suffer most. They are brutalized by both government and revolutionary forces.
Bull shit.
Torvald wasn't offered a lucrative position with transmeta because of his anonymity. Linux is the product of many people's efforts, including testers, the folks at GNU, and volunteer developers. Without them, Torvald would be just another Finn.
No one claimed any of the Linux companies were of the most influential corporations. Furthermore, there have been many posted articles on the bleak out look for many Linux companies.
Sorry, it is very close to the truth. No one wants Rambus's flagship product, RDRAM, because of high manufacturing costs. RDRAM is a great idea, but you just can't get the necessary yields from the silicon wafers to make the manufacture of RDRAM profitable.
With this SNAFU, Rambus has had to resort to pretty dubious claims of patent infringment. With this latest revelation that Rambus lied by witholding information (and that is lying), then to anyone who believes that corporations should be held to ethical behaviour, these lawsuits do indeed appear if not frivolous, then lacking merit.
Hey, I'm sorry Rambus's RDRAM went south, but it's not the industry's responsibility to cushion the fall.
It not so much that the corporations are big (and Rambus is currently still small fry) that bothers me, it's that when they stick their collective head of their arse, they claim they're in a rose garden.
It's abusive if you're wrongly accused.
Take this scenario: The software confuses you with some violent criminal. The police think you're dangerous and knock you senseless and lock you up. Realizing they're mistake, they harass you with the goals of finding dirt on you or, failing that, intimidating you so that you don't kick up a fuss.
Ask anyone whose name happens to coincide with a known criminal. Once the feds are on you, they don't like to let up.
...and you may never be obsolete!
Hear, hear, I couldn't agree more. The way some recruiters and managers speak, you'd think the fundamentals changed for every language.
Learning and using Perl hasn't taught me anything about fermenting grapes, but it sure has improved my Unix and C/C++ skills. Likewise, I've never professionally used Miranda, but knowledge of functional programming is an important component of my Programming repertoire.
Thanks for the post. (you're not by any chance hiring in Phoenix, are you?)
I think the poster was complaining of the knee-jerk grab for political dogma reflected in many of the posts here. Personally, I haven't read much in these posts that can be described as an insightful, well-balanced perspective from a particular ideology.
Deregulation of electrical power supply in California is perhaps leading to higher electrical bills in the long run.
Secondly, corporations abuse power. They help their friends and burn their enemies, with the consumer left as the meat in the sandwich. Bureaucracy is bureaucracy, private or public.
Give it a rest. Don't be such a heavy. This is a forum for information exchange. We can't all be experts in every branch of comp sci.
BTW you missed on the interpretation of developer: the author wasn't referring to software developers, but chip developers/manufacturers.
So take your own advice and someone please mod this inappropriate rant down.
As an American who lived in your beautiful country for ten years (and who now has dual citizenship), let me extend apologies for the less than gracious comments of some /.'ers. I would like to believe most would rephrase their comments with some reflection.
(And to preempt any fatuous comments suggesting I return there, believe me, given half a chance, I would. Without hesitation. Not that the there's anything wrong living in the US, it's just that Australia is a great place to live. Perhaps even the greatest place to live. Oooops! I didn't mean to go all maudlin...)
Have you ever lived outside of America?
I agree, Americans often miss the forest for the trees regarding issues such as free speech and gun control. We really get hung up on particular, often extreme, scenarios, and end up putting the cart before the horse.
American squeamishness at nudity and sexual behaviour is really quite bizarre. I find it telling that we don't tolerate a bit of slap and tickle, but find graphic enactments of brutality, even to the point of glorfication, acceptable, or at least more acceptable than depictions of sexuality.
It may be that there is no way to censure violence, or at least depictions of violence that don't reveal it's real consequences. But in it's psyche, America seems more comfortable with violence than sex. I find it disturbing.
Also, notice how quickly some posters will try to shout you down if you come out in favor of criminalizing hate speech. Is this censorship?
Perhaps not, but isn't it true that the most tenuous positions are often defended with the shrillest hyperbole?
Thanks for the post.
They are referring to the sinking of Greenpeace's Rainbow Warrior by French intelligence. I think it occurred while the Rainbow Warrior was docked at a New Zealand port. A photographer was killed in the explosion.
In the end, the event actually worked to Greenpeace's favour as they received international attention and empathy. The Rainbow Warrior was replaced almost immediately through donations and the French were left with egg on their face.
New Zealand, as you can imagine, was not amused.
Good points. In particular,
This is a real danger.
However, France and other countries, including Australia I believe, address the issue of hate speech with legislation, with some laws taking a more extreme position than others. And I stand by the principle that we are obligated to consider the rights of all groups and individuals when we determine how to implement ideals such as freedom of speech, which I do in fact embrace.
At this point I'd like to say the exchange of ideas in this forum, which I value greatly, is more interesting when participants address the issues and not resort to character assasinations.
While you are an extremely intelligent, gregarious individual with varied interests and a penchant for dialogue.
That's not a translation of what I said, that's an interpretation of history.
Regarding memorabilia, no one is rallying around Napoleonic gear in order to push dubious political agendas as happens with the Nazi stuff.
As far as freedom of speech, you are quite incorrect: I'm all for giving up hate speech, not free speech. The distinction isn't always clear, but we as homo sapiens are extremely good and fine distinctions.
Move to France? No, not France. I'd move to Australia tomorrow if I could. But it'd be a favor (or should I say favour) to me, not the likes of you.
...you didn't put your snide comments aside after all...
Right... and political donations, they're speech too.
I think not, especially when these donations drown my speech or the speech of political parties I favor or think should have a voice.
We regulate commerce up, down and sideways. The idea that trade is speech or political donations are speech is merely propaganda.
Criminals shouldn't be allowed to profit from their crimes by selling their stories or artefacts of their exploits. I believe some US states prohibit people convicted of felonies from making money from this way. So, the concept is not unheard of in the US.
Furthermore, purchasing memorabilia is more of a behavior than a right. Education, self expression, nourishement and shelter, these are rights. The French have, quite rightly IMHO (or not so HO), have decided that the rights of survivors, memories of victums, and contemporary minorities out weigh those of Nazi enthusiasts (to put it kindly).
I'm all for banning hate speech, in the interest of the constitutional rights of minorities and sensibly minded denizens.
You've made some interesting points and I feel compelled to reply.
The point about child labor was to demonstrate that business has a history of doing the wrong thing. It matters not that conditions have changed such that child labor is no longer profitable or a necessity for families. (The only reason children were available to work was because the rural economy was undergoing change. Factory owners took advantage of and probably encouraged this.) They could hire children cheaper than adults, and did so, despite the ugliness.
This is where I think we fundamentally disagree. Whether business sometimes needs to be coerced into taking safety measures. I say the market is insufficient.
Employers demonstrate time and time again that they are willing to compromise worker safety for profit. For professionals, it is true that employers will favour them with good working environments. But this is not universal.
Many people don't have a choice of jobs, or the choice is equivalent to the proverbial choice between a "rock and a hard place." This is true of people who use computers! Not everyone who sits in front of a computer all day is a IT professional. Many if not most are laborers. When AT&T phones you to offer their latest package, are you talking to a programmer? No, it's some unskilled laborer sitting at a monitor.
But many of your points, and those of many other /.'ers, assume OSHA and ergonomics refer soley to desks and computers. Simply untrue. They apply to assembly line, etc.
Like you point out, there are many societal and economic forces at play. Workplace safety now includes ergonomics precisely because of our shift away from industry to information. Should we ignore ergonomic issues? I say no, we should be proactive and prevent workplace injuries.
Lasty, I take the position that non-compliance will cost more, in the long run.
And where did the money come from to pay the contracts?