It's pretty damn sad that people base their religion on a book written 2k years ago. I mean seriously, get over it. It was certainly a scheme by somebody to gain a lot of power. Look at the mind control that millions of people are still subject to today! *All* religions are nothing but fictional stories, but so what? Just don't take any of them seriously.
My philosophy is this: I don't believe in anything.
Normally when you buy something you can then modify it in whatever manner you wish. Cut it up, add to it, etc. You can't modify a copyrighted work and redistribute it, but you can certainly modify it and then not distribute it.
So, basically what the MPAA is saying is: Here - you can buy this, but you can't modify it (i.e. move the bits around, reorder them, add to them, remove some of them, whatever). You have restricted use of this data that you are paying for.
Well, isn't it reasonable that we, as consumers, should only agree to pay a minimal amount for this limited use of the product? Aren't we, in effect, only leasing it? It must still belong to someone else, if that other entity can decide what I do with it.
I won't pay more than a couple of bucks for data representing some piece of entertainment if I can only use in a limited fashion, so I hope DVD prices will be coming down significantly in the near future, or I'll be forced by the MPAA to steal. They can only blame themselves.
Hey, don't start blaming Nader voters. I voted for Nader, because he was the person that I chose to elect. Bush would make a really lousy president, but that is the fault of the morons that actually voted for him. Personally, I think Gore would make a lousy president also.
Don't give the election up to Bush, either. Gore won the popular vote. The last time I checked, we still live in a democracy. If anybody tries to give the Presidency to someone that didn't get a majority vote, I'm going to throw a fit.
Would someone who worships a car be deranged?
How about worshipping another person?
How about worshipping an abstract idea that somebody wrote about in a book?
Personally, I think it's crazy to worship anything. I take in what I percieve to the best of my ability and assume it to be correct, until I percieve otherwise. What else can I do? I certainly can't judge people who percieve things differently, unless they're having a negative effect on myself.
This reminds me of one of my favorite quotes, "The first step toward worshipping satan is believing in him." People should keep this in mind when throwing the term around. Do you belive in the supernatural?
It is currently a form of free expression, according to the interpretation of the courts. As you said, though, limits are legal for deterring political corruption, which is why we need them!
In my opinion, all political campaigns should be 100% publicly funded. Candidates should prove their grassroots support on a local level, and then on consecutively higher levels, in order to qualify for a campaign. I'm all for a blank ticket, too, where you don't choose between candidates on the ballot, you write down who you want. Along with eliminating the winner-take-all electoral college, these changes would make me feel a lot more involved in our democracy.
Money==speech is an assumption, and a bad one. Naturally, having more money allows you to get your message to (or bribe) more people. However, just because something naturally works out does not make it good. Having a gun gets you free stuff at the circle K, but it's not right. What is this, anarchy? We need to impose artificial rules so that money!=speech.
I'm sure Nader would agree that banning soft money does not mean banning free speech!
You shouldn't be afraid of big government, you should be afraid of big corporations. They're running the government, anyway.
Don't think that you have to choose beween Gore and Bush, either. That's like saying you have to choose between Win 98 or Win 98SE. If you want to change things, if you want to put the people back in control of our country, if you want better education, then VOTE FOR NADER, DAMMIT!
I am from the US, and I'm pretty sure that a bunch of armed rednecks couldn't defend our country from squat. That's why we have the army. I don't think we have much of a chance of overthrowing our government by force, either, if that's what you think an armed militia is for. (Citizens with rifles vs. F-16 = one sided battle). If you want to change things, you have to vote the corporate-funded Republicratic pigs out of office, and elect someone like Ralph.
Personally, the first time some bastard uses a gun to kill an innocent person... okay, didn't have to wait long for that one... I feel that I am justified in voting to not allow anyone to have a gun. Too bad. If you really need to kill someone, you should be pissed enough to use your own two hands.
As for the second amendment, I don't care what it says. If it's wrong, we can amend it.
This isn't funny! It's ridiculous! Everybody knows that flapping your arms will get you nowhere... the real trick is to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
Musicians don't have to be penniless to be great artists - what they need to do is cut out the middleman. Why should they sign with a label and get a fraction of what the recording industry makes off of cd sales? Why not just distribute their music elecronically for 10 cents a track and make just as much money? Sure, piracy would run rampant, but i'm sure that people would pay to download their favorite bands' newest albums, because they like and support the band.
The added benefit of this is that it brings the musicians closer to their fans. Small time bands have been doing this for a while, and they have a very strong (if miniscule) following. If metallica distributed their music exclusively via mp3 (and wav's for people who want to burn a cd - 2 cents extra), this distribution method would become popular and eventually, as more bands did this, it would be mainstream. We have bands that play music, and people who like the music and want to listen to it and support the band. What the hell do we need the RIAA for?
It would be ridiculous to do that much in hardware. Nobody is going to want to go out and buy a special drive, speakers, card, or whatever so they can listen to music.
If things do get that bad, then somebody will just write an emulator. If somebody can write an emulator for the N64, then somebody can write an emulator for a fancy-shmancy hardware riaa-format player. Even if it's a total hack, all it takes is for one person to use an emulator to rip the data into an mp3. No d to a to d, either.
The point is, the recording industry needs to realize that heavy-handed tactics will get them nowhere. Music is data, and data flows too easily to control. They need to just go ahead and distribute (at a reasonable price) the music in whatever format customers want, and rely on the fact that people will buy mp3's the same way they buy cd's (which are just as copyable, if a bit time consuming).
Exactly. This is pointless as far as prevention goes... it's just a big sign saying "Hey, don't copy this."
Really, it's not going to stop somebody who legally has the decryption key(s) from ripping the audio into an mp3 and distributing it. As far as hardware, audio players that play only proprietary formats can easily be replaced by software based players that can play anything.
And so on. Mars is a much more desirable place to explore, utilize, colonize, etc. We have the tech to explore Mars, we have reasons to explore Mars, but what we need is more public support. Do you see any Presidential candidates talking about manned space exploration? Nope. People need to start asking their reps what they're going to do to support manned space exploration.
You dumbass. Why don't you calm down and use your brain. The goal is to get humans on Mars, and if you've got some intelligent ideas then discuss them - don't start screaming about how others ideas are stupid.
The research station is not SUPPOSED to be a complete simulation of Mars. It's a study of certain issues that humans will have to deal on a Mars mission while doing real field work. This isn't four people sitting in a sealed container in a basement for 6 months, this involves scientists doing WORK in a situation similar to what they would be in on Mars.
What kind of transportation will they need? How much personal space? How much lab space? What kinds of tools? These are all problems that can be studied in a Mars analog environment.
As for the Dis. channel, it's very important to get dumbass slackers off their asses and interested in exploring our local environment (i.e. our solar system). We're approaching a new century of human civilization, and we ought to start moving forward.
I don't think you realize how difficult it is to deflect or destroy a large asteroid. You pretty much have to get to work about ten years before impact. The real solution to protecting human civilization from being wiped out by an impact is to get off of this tiny rock and become a presence in the rest of the solar system. How can we be safe when we haven't even explored 1% of our local environment? As for the scientific accuracy of armageddon, I can only assume that you're being sarcastic.
Slashdot Mirror
It's pretty damn sad that people base their religion on a book written 2k years ago. I mean seriously, get over it. It was certainly a scheme by somebody to gain a lot of power. Look at the mind control that millions of people are still subject to today! *All* religions are nothing but fictional stories, but so what? Just don't take any of them seriously.
My philosophy is this: I don't believe in anything.
It's not as hard as it sounds.
Normally when you buy something you can then modify it in whatever manner you wish. Cut it up, add to it, etc. You can't modify a copyrighted work and redistribute it, but you can certainly modify it and then not distribute it.
So, basically what the MPAA is saying is: Here - you can buy this, but you can't modify it (i.e. move the bits around, reorder them, add to them, remove some of them, whatever). You have restricted use of this data that you are paying for.
Well, isn't it reasonable that we, as consumers, should only agree to pay a minimal amount for this limited use of the product? Aren't we, in effect, only leasing it? It must still belong to someone else, if that other entity can decide what I do with it.
I won't pay more than a couple of bucks for data representing some piece of entertainment if I can only use in a limited fashion, so I hope DVD prices will be coming down significantly in the near future, or I'll be forced by the MPAA to steal. They can only blame themselves.
Hey, don't start blaming Nader voters. I voted for Nader, because he was the person that I chose to elect. Bush would make a really lousy president, but that is the fault of the morons that actually voted for him. Personally, I think Gore would make a lousy president also.
Don't give the election up to Bush, either. Gore won the popular vote. The last time I checked, we still live in a democracy. If anybody tries to give the Presidency to someone that didn't get a majority vote, I'm going to throw a fit.
Would someone who worships a car be deranged?
How about worshipping another person?
How about worshipping an abstract idea that somebody wrote about in a book?
Personally, I think it's crazy to worship anything. I take in what I percieve to the best of my ability and assume it to be correct, until I percieve otherwise. What else can I do? I certainly can't judge people who percieve things differently, unless they're having a negative effect on myself.
This reminds me of one of my favorite quotes, "The first step toward worshipping satan is believing in him." People should keep this in mind when throwing the term around. Do you belive in the supernatural?
It is currently a form of free expression, according to the interpretation of the courts. As you said, though, limits are legal for deterring political corruption, which is why we need them!
In my opinion, all political campaigns should be 100% publicly funded. Candidates should prove their grassroots support on a local level, and then on consecutively higher levels, in order to qualify for a campaign. I'm all for a blank ticket, too, where you don't choose between candidates on the ballot, you write down who you want. Along with eliminating the winner-take-all electoral college, these changes would make me feel a lot more involved in our democracy.
Money==speech is an assumption, and a bad one. Naturally, having more money allows you to get your message to (or bribe) more people. However, just because something naturally works out does not make it good. Having a gun gets you free stuff at the circle K, but it's not right. What is this, anarchy? We need to impose artificial rules so that money!=speech.
I'm sure Nader would agree that banning soft money does not mean banning free speech!
You shouldn't be afraid of big government, you should be afraid of big corporations. They're running the government, anyway.
Don't think that you have to choose beween Gore and Bush, either. That's like saying you have to choose between Win 98 or Win 98SE. If you want to change things, if you want to put the people back in control of our country, if you want better education, then VOTE FOR NADER, DAMMIT!
I am from the US, and I'm pretty sure that a bunch of armed rednecks couldn't defend our country from squat. That's why we have the army. I don't think we have much of a chance of overthrowing our government by force, either, if that's what you think an armed militia is for. (Citizens with rifles vs. F-16 = one sided battle). If you want to change things, you have to vote the corporate-funded Republicratic pigs out of office, and elect someone like Ralph.
Personally, the first time some bastard uses a gun to kill an innocent person... okay, didn't have to wait long for that one... I feel that I am justified in voting to not allow anyone to have a gun. Too bad. If you really need to kill someone, you should be pissed enough to use your own two hands.
As for the second amendment, I don't care what it says. If it's wrong, we can amend it.
A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil! Demand change!
So vote for Ralph Nader
Are you kidding? The faster we get off of this rock and get all of our eggs out of one basket, the better off we'll be.
The added benefit of this is that it brings the musicians closer to their fans. Small time bands have been doing this for a while, and they have a very strong (if miniscule) following. If metallica distributed their music exclusively via mp3 (and wav's for people who want to burn a cd - 2 cents extra), this distribution method would become popular and eventually, as more bands did this, it would be mainstream. We have bands that play music, and people who like the music and want to listen to it and support the band. What the hell do we need the RIAA for?
If things do get that bad, then somebody will just write an emulator. If somebody can write an emulator for the N64, then somebody can write an emulator for a fancy-shmancy hardware riaa-format player. Even if it's a total hack, all it takes is for one person to use an emulator to rip the data into an mp3. No d to a to d, either.
The point is, the recording industry needs to realize that heavy-handed tactics will get them nowhere. Music is data, and data flows too easily to control. They need to just go ahead and distribute (at a reasonable price) the music in whatever format customers want, and rely on the fact that people will buy mp3's the same way they buy cd's (which are just as copyable, if a bit time consuming).
Really, it's not going to stop somebody who legally has the decryption key(s) from ripping the audio into an mp3 and distributing it. As far as hardware, audio players that play only proprietary formats can easily be replaced by software based players that can play anything.
fewer resources
no atmosphere
less gravity
And so on. Mars is a much more desirable place to explore, utilize, colonize, etc. We have the tech to explore Mars, we have reasons to explore Mars, but what we need is more public support. Do you see any Presidential candidates talking about manned space exploration? Nope. People need to start asking their reps what they're going to do to support manned space exploration.
The research station is not SUPPOSED to be a complete simulation of Mars. It's a study of certain issues that humans will have to deal on a Mars mission while doing real field work. This isn't four people sitting in a sealed container in a basement for 6 months, this involves scientists doing WORK in a situation similar to what they would be in on Mars.
What kind of transportation will they need? How much personal space? How much lab space? What kinds of tools? These are all problems that can be studied in a Mars analog environment.
As for the Dis. channel, it's very important to get dumbass slackers off their asses and interested in exploring our local environment (i.e. our solar system). We're approaching a new century of human civilization, and we ought to start moving forward.
I don't think you realize how difficult it is to deflect or destroy a large asteroid. You pretty much have to get to work about ten years before impact. The real solution to protecting human civilization from being wiped out by an impact is to get off of this tiny rock and become a presence in the rest of the solar system. How can we be safe when we haven't even explored 1% of our local environment? As for the scientific accuracy of armageddon, I can only assume that you're being sarcastic.