Perhaps you should also wake the fuck up and realize that this whole mideast strategy IS NOT ABOUT WMD IN IRAQ. It's about forcibly killing Panislamic radicalism over the next several decades, perhaps in a generation, without letting it run its natural course over the next 2 to 3 centuries.
There are a thousand comments here so I'm sure mine will get lost but let me point out that the above comment is ASININE. The US strategy in Iraq has made the forces of panislamic radicalism infinitely stronger and ensured they will survive and prosper for decades to come. A CIA officer who worked on bin Laden for years (the book is Imperial Hubris) calls the war in Iraq a "Christmas present" to al Qaeda that they wished for but never really expected to get. It's become pretty clear that some of the "intelligence" linking al Qaeda to Iraq (and despite what you say, the US govt did and continues to maintain that there were significant ties between the two) came from an al Qaeda agent who later admitted to lying under interrogation, most likely in order to draw the US into war with Iraq. Another al Qaeda agent gave an interview in which he said that the reelection of George Bush is something al Qaeda wants because his Iraq policy and his stupidity has proved useful to al Qaeda. The war in Iraq has turned many people into suicide bombers who were never even especially Islamist. It has been a lightning rod for Islamists around the globe, proof that the US is at war with Islam itself (Iraq is the second holiest place in Islam, and we launched an unprovoked attack on it; what more proof do they need?). There were no Iraqi suicide bombers prior to the war! It has also proliferated the number of targets -- US servicemen and women -- for al Qaeda and similar groups to easily attack. And it has turned people to extreme forms of shariah -- like in Fallujah -- in a country where it is anathema! Banning alcohol, for example, in a nation where the greatest poets and statesmen have always glorified drinking. Making women wear the veil in a country where they used to go to university. The US Army War College pointed this out in a study at the end of 2003 and the DoD's response was to say they wouldn't read the study if it contradicted their policy. It is time for policies to change. Anyone serious about fighting the threat of Islamic militancy needs to recognize this (and gratefully, many are, though perhaps not on slashdot).
Sounds like he hasn't spent any time in Japan in the summer either, which isn't America, which is easily as hot and muggy as NOLA, and which is full of vending machines serving ICE COLD drinks. Restaurants put ice in the drinks there too. Not as much as here, but still.
(yeah yeah yeah, insert "...in Japan" joke here)
Re:I'm going to wait...believe it or not.
on
Star Wars on DVD
·
· Score: 1
I find your lack of faith disturbing.
They changed it? you mean
on
Star Wars on DVD
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
this will just turn more people away from windows in general. Spend $50 on an OS and you can only run 3 programs? That sounds like hell. Anybody using this will get so frustrated they will either buy a mac, run linux, or pirate the real windows.
Sorry, but UNIX is not just "eye candy." And, in fact, XP is filled with eye candy; I would say even more so than OS X! XP may be stable--I don't know, I only use it when I have to, but I teach in labs with both kinds of machines, and the XP users have way more inexplicable problems... but that hardly proves much, since neither me nor the students are XP-xperts--but stability is not the only reason OS X users prefer it to XP. Eye candy is nice but what really makes OS X shine is the integration of the eye candy with the full suite of unix tools;
I think the point was that before you turn in the bottles for your refund, you get to drink the beer. With your solution, you have to dump out the beer to get the refund.
The following is a quote from the Campbell v. Acuff-Rose case (again, Supreme Court precedent):
"A parody that more loosely targets an original than the parody presented here may still be sufficiently aimed at an original work to come within our analysis of parody. if a parody whose wide dissemination in the market runs the risk of serving as a substitute for the original..., it is more incumbent on one claiming fair use to the original. By contrast, when there is little or no risk of market substitution, whether because of the large extent of transformation of the earlier work, the new work's minimal distribution in the market, the extent to which it borrows from the original, or other factors, taking parodic aim at an original is a less critical factor in the analysis, and looser forms of parody may be found to be fair use..."
In other words, the Supreme Court does not at all indicate that just because "parody" is protected, somehow "satire" is not. In the above, the issue is the risk of market substitution -- if people start watching jib jab instead of listening to Guthrie, they might have a case. Frankly, I think this really renders the federal decision in the Seuss case especially problematic.
Bottom line: the purpose of letting copyright holder's sue when others use their works is to protect the copyright holder's right to reap the fruits of their labor. It is not to give the copyright holder veto power over messages they don't like.
A couple things are important here. First, the Dr. Seuss case is not a Supreme Court case. I think it is possible that any precedent from that case would be overturned at the Supreme Court but that really depends on what arguments the justices want to listen to. Nevertheless, it is the common law now, at least in the 9th.
Second, the federal court made it clear in that case that "parody" and "satire" were not two discrete categories that did not overlap. Someone else quoted the decision itself -- the essence is that it is possible to make fun of the work as well as make fun of something outside the work (in this case, the election). In the jib jab case I think it's obvious the artist is doing both. Also, the very rationale for the distinction -- that the artist must actually have some reason to use this particular work to make his or her point rather than just picking it at random -- is clearly met in the jibjab case. The artist is making a comment about what is said in the lyrics when he or she changes them. I think bloggers have turned this into a more ironclad distinction than the decision merits.
Also, a lot of slashdotters and apparently bloggers seem to think that the reason for the distinction is to protect an artist's right to make fun of another artist's work. It is not. The reason is to protect an artist's right to make a point. Insofar as the work in question is an essential part of that point, it is protected speech.
Look at the 2LiveCrew case (which is Supreme Court precedent) -- the band didn't make a song making fun of Roy Orbison; they made a song making fun of a pretty woman. To make this point it was essential to use the lyrics of the song. Where Orbison had created a certain notion of the pretty woman, the 2livecrew created a different notion, and the contrast between the new song and the old song was very much part of their point. One can easily say the same about this land is your land.
Finally I would add that I think this whole distinction is specious. The First Amendment does not protect your right to make a point in the most effective way possible; it protects your right to make a point. In this particular case the point being made is core political speech, which would give it even more protection. There is a first amendment defense in copyright cases quite apart from the definition of fair use and I think this would be a strong use of one.
Yeah, it sucks to have billions of dollars and own the majority of the content that people pump into their brains every day. I mean, how do these people sleep at night?
Oh yeah, I forgot. Very comfortably, on a large pile of money. With many beautiful ladies.
Slashdot Mirror
There are a thousand comments here so I'm sure mine will get lost but let me point out that the above comment is ASININE. The US strategy in Iraq has made the forces of panislamic radicalism infinitely stronger and ensured they will survive and prosper for decades to come. A CIA officer who worked on bin Laden for years (the book is Imperial Hubris) calls the war in Iraq a "Christmas present" to al Qaeda that they wished for but never really expected to get. It's become pretty clear that some of the "intelligence" linking al Qaeda to Iraq (and despite what you say, the US govt did and continues to maintain that there were significant ties between the two) came from an al Qaeda agent who later admitted to lying under interrogation, most likely in order to draw the US into war with Iraq. Another al Qaeda agent gave an interview in which he said that the reelection of George Bush is something al Qaeda wants because his Iraq policy and his stupidity has proved useful to al Qaeda. The war in Iraq has turned many people into suicide bombers who were never even especially Islamist. It has been a lightning rod for Islamists around the globe, proof that the US is at war with Islam itself (Iraq is the second holiest place in Islam, and we launched an unprovoked attack on it; what more proof do they need?). There were no Iraqi suicide bombers prior to the war! It has also proliferated the number of targets -- US servicemen and women -- for al Qaeda and similar groups to easily attack. And it has turned people to extreme forms of shariah -- like in Fallujah -- in a country where it is anathema! Banning alcohol, for example, in a nation where the greatest poets and statesmen have always glorified drinking. Making women wear the veil in a country where they used to go to university. The US Army War College pointed this out in a study at the end of 2003 and the DoD's response was to say they wouldn't read the study if it contradicted their policy. It is time for policies to change. Anyone serious about fighting the threat of Islamic militancy needs to recognize this (and gratefully, many are, though perhaps not on slashdot).
Sounds like he hasn't spent any time in Japan in the summer either, which isn't America, which is easily as hot and muggy as NOLA, and which is full of vending machines serving ICE COLD drinks. Restaurants put ice in the drinks there too. Not as much as here, but still.
(yeah yeah yeah, insert "...in Japan" joke here)
I find your lack of faith disturbing.
"These aren't the DVDs you're looking for."
it's because only Americans are stupid enough to pay money for frozen water?
(yes I'm joking, and American.)
(no I didn't make that up myself).
You mean people who celebrate X-mas?
So you're saying one of those boulders is Ork?
Cool!
You already said you had Windows 98 on the drive.
this will just turn more people away from windows in general. Spend $50 on an OS and you can only run 3 programs? That sounds like hell. Anybody using this will get so frustrated they will either buy a mac, run linux, or pirate the real windows.
you misspelled "Steve Ballmer."
Sorry, but UNIX is not just "eye candy." And, in fact, XP is filled with eye candy; I would say even more so than OS X! XP may be stable--I don't know, I only use it when I have to, but I teach in labs with both kinds of machines, and the XP users have way more inexplicable problems... but that hardly proves much, since neither me nor the students are XP-xperts--but stability is not the only reason OS X users prefer it to XP. Eye candy is nice but what really makes OS X shine is the integration of the eye candy with the full suite of unix tools;
Hi! How are you?
I send you this file in order to have your advice.
See you later. Thanks
...in Japan.
I think the point was that before you turn in the bottles for your refund, you get to drink the beer. With your solution, you have to dump out the beer to get the refund.
"A parody that more loosely targets an original than the parody presented here may still be sufficiently aimed at an original work to come within our analysis of parody. if a parody whose wide dissemination in the market runs the risk of serving as a substitute for the original..., it is more incumbent on one claiming fair use to the original. By contrast, when there is little or no risk of market substitution, whether because of the large extent of transformation of the earlier work, the new work's minimal distribution in the market, the extent to which it borrows from the original, or other factors, taking parodic aim at an original is a less critical factor in the analysis, and looser forms of parody may be found to be fair use..."
In other words, the Supreme Court does not at all indicate that just because "parody" is protected, somehow "satire" is not. In the above, the issue is the risk of market substitution -- if people start watching jib jab instead of listening to Guthrie, they might have a case. Frankly, I think this really renders the federal decision in the Seuss case especially problematic.
Bottom line: the purpose of letting copyright holder's sue when others use their works is to protect the copyright holder's right to reap the fruits of their labor. It is not to give the copyright holder veto power over messages they don't like.
Second, the federal court made it clear in that case that "parody" and "satire" were not two discrete categories that did not overlap. Someone else quoted the decision itself -- the essence is that it is possible to make fun of the work as well as make fun of something outside the work (in this case, the election). In the jib jab case I think it's obvious the artist is doing both. Also, the very rationale for the distinction -- that the artist must actually have some reason to use this particular work to make his or her point rather than just picking it at random -- is clearly met in the jibjab case. The artist is making a comment about what is said in the lyrics when he or she changes them. I think bloggers have turned this into a more ironclad distinction than the decision merits.
Also, a lot of slashdotters and apparently bloggers seem to think that the reason for the distinction is to protect an artist's right to make fun of another artist's work. It is not. The reason is to protect an artist's right to make a point. Insofar as the work in question is an essential part of that point, it is protected speech.
Look at the 2LiveCrew case (which is Supreme Court precedent) -- the band didn't make a song making fun of Roy Orbison; they made a song making fun of a pretty woman. To make this point it was essential to use the lyrics of the song. Where Orbison had created a certain notion of the pretty woman, the 2livecrew created a different notion, and the contrast between the new song and the old song was very much part of their point. One can easily say the same about this land is your land.
Finally I would add that I think this whole distinction is specious. The First Amendment does not protect your right to make a point in the most effective way possible; it protects your right to make a point. In this particular case the point being made is core political speech, which would give it even more protection. There is a first amendment defense in copyright cases quite apart from the definition of fair use and I think this would be a strong use of one.
Microsoft patented the Apple?
Somebody needs to switch to decaf.
I want to know how many cubits we're talking about here!
That was on topic! You didn't think *BSD killed itself, did you?
Yeah, it sucks to have billions of dollars and own the majority of the content that people pump into their brains every day. I mean, how do these people sleep at night?
Oh yeah, I forgot. Very comfortably, on a large pile of money. With many beautiful ladies.
sure, go ahead, ruin all the fun with your fancy physics.