If ISPs weren't so cap-happy and Big Content so paranoid, a combination of predictions (or subscriptions or whatever Netflix uses, I don't have the service myself), allocated hard drive space, and background downloading would be a great way to cut costs to both Netflix and ISPs. However, Comcast and AT&T will complain about more efficient usage of service in a manner that doesn't cost them money and Disney will worry about DRM being cracked, so we probably won't see that solution in which practically everyone wins.
Having different views on government involvement in industrial regulations and personal regulations isn't a paradox. You can argue that it's inconsistent, and there are occasional conflicts, but those inconsistencies are quite common. To perform an extreme simplification of US political parties: Democrats want to regulate business and free individuals. Republicans want to free businesses and regulate individuals. You appear to want to free everyone. Stallman would more or less fit in the democrat stance.
Even if you hold that Stallman's position as totally flawed, his position is clearly less destructive to free markets than corporations writing laws like this one, so he is the 'lesser evil', and your whining is misplaced.
Many leases have terms that prohibit subleases, but landlords generally have responsibilities to tenants, more tenants mean a greater risk of damage, and in extremes, there may be concerns over fire safety regulations.
But hey, netflix account sharing means more clogging of the tubes, so it's pretty much even.
Stallman is generally a big fan of personal liberties, which are an essential part of free as in freedom markets. I think he may be a proponent of certain industrial regulation, but the multinationals are generally bigger opponents of free market capitalism than he is. You can see that right here, as the conglomerates are pushing a law that is against free market capitalism for those who take the term seriously.
It seems to cover Rhapsody as well, as well as the 2 people in Tennessee that use Zune Pass. He doesn't see, however, that this makes legal services that compete with illegal alternatives less competitive.
Your comment doesn't address the point. The genes of domesticated plants differ greatly from the genes of their pre-domestication ancestors, probably to a greater extent than anything that's been done so far by Monsanto and others. Our action has modified them, so calling them 'genetically modified' would be accurate if we are going just by the meanings of those two individual words. What they aren't is DIRECTLY genetically modified.
Monsanto is all kinds of evil, but that doesn't mean the entirety of GM is evil. DuPont was run by massive douchebags as well, but does that mean that research into polymers wasn't worthwhile?
Strictly speaking, artificial selection has modified the genetics of the crops. The difference is that the genes of what we refer to as GMO are being manipulated more directly.
A lot of the time, consumers want laptops. While they may prefer a matte screen, the limited options may mean that their best choice has a glossy screen
The only way to make it unstable would be to buy and sell large amounts of bitcoins, likely to an extent that governments own MOST bitcoins. I suspect such attempts would fail, and would in practice only give bitcoin more legitimacy
This is actually a trademark thing, not a copyright one, but since this is the name of an actual organization, I would think they couldn't get strong protection here, if any.
Most of the RIAA lawsuits have been net losses, so their actions have if anything cost artists money and appear to have done very little to stop downloading, and musicians generally don't make money past their advance off of records anyway.
[quote]You'd think that one of the largest and most talented software development companies based in a region of earth with some of the best, brightest and most educated software engineers with access to the best tools of the trade in the solar system could get such a minor piece of code right...[/quote]
outside of largest, that description doesn't really apply to Adobe.
To unearth is to remove from the earth. One that unearths would be an unearther.
To unarchive is to remove from an archive. One that unarchives would be an unarchiver.
Slashdot Mirror
The dichotomy I was speaking of was more about the underlying philosophies that they sell, not so much what they do in practice.
If ISPs weren't so cap-happy and Big Content so paranoid, a combination of predictions (or subscriptions or whatever Netflix uses, I don't have the service myself), allocated hard drive space, and background downloading would be a great way to cut costs to both Netflix and ISPs. However, Comcast and AT&T will complain about more efficient usage of service in a manner that doesn't cost them money and Disney will worry about DRM being cracked, so we probably won't see that solution in which practically everyone wins.
Having different views on government involvement in industrial regulations and personal regulations isn't a paradox. You can argue that it's inconsistent, and there are occasional conflicts, but those inconsistencies are quite common. To perform an extreme simplification of US political parties: Democrats want to regulate business and free individuals. Republicans want to free businesses and regulate individuals. You appear to want to free everyone. Stallman would more or less fit in the democrat stance.
Even if you hold that Stallman's position as totally flawed, his position is clearly less destructive to free markets than corporations writing laws like this one, so he is the 'lesser evil', and your whining is misplaced.
Many leases have terms that prohibit subleases, but landlords generally have responsibilities to tenants, more tenants mean a greater risk of damage, and in extremes, there may be concerns over fire safety regulations. But hey, netflix account sharing means more clogging of the tubes, so it's pretty much even.
Stallman is generally a big fan of personal liberties, which are an essential part of free as in freedom markets. I think he may be a proponent of certain industrial regulation, but the multinationals are generally bigger opponents of free market capitalism than he is. You can see that right here, as the conglomerates are pushing a law that is against free market capitalism for those who take the term seriously.
It seems to cover Rhapsody as well, as well as the 2 people in Tennessee that use Zune Pass. He doesn't see, however, that this makes legal services that compete with illegal alternatives less competitive.
I really wish that nobody would have taught the evil overlords how to read. They just keep 'stealing' ideas from dystopian authors.
Not granting patents for GMO would eliminate most if not all of the concern here.
Your comment doesn't address the point. The genes of domesticated plants differ greatly from the genes of their pre-domestication ancestors, probably to a greater extent than anything that's been done so far by Monsanto and others. Our action has modified them, so calling them 'genetically modified' would be accurate if we are going just by the meanings of those two individual words. What they aren't is DIRECTLY genetically modified.
Monsanto is all kinds of evil, but that doesn't mean the entirety of GM is evil. DuPont was run by massive douchebags as well, but does that mean that research into polymers wasn't worthwhile?
Then the answer is to stop that practice, not to stop GMO.
Strictly speaking, artificial selection has modified the genetics of the crops. The difference is that the genes of what we refer to as GMO are being manipulated more directly.
One, vegetables on a farm are not 'natural' anyway. Two, just because Monsanto are assholes doesn't mean that GMO crops themselves are bad.
Then don't let them patent it.
A lot of the time, consumers want laptops. While they may prefer a matte screen, the limited options may mean that their best choice has a glossy screen
I really wish Big Content would get some kind of a clue. Stopping a legit method does not stop other methods from working
The only way to make it unstable would be to buy and sell large amounts of bitcoins, likely to an extent that governments own MOST bitcoins. I suspect such attempts would fail, and would in practice only give bitcoin more legitimacy
Obviously, because "four legs good, two legs better"
You guys do know that the Walt Disney Company encompasses far more than just things labeled Disney, and not all of those endeavors are G-rated, right?
This is actually a trademark thing, not a copyright one, but since this is the name of an actual organization, I would think they couldn't get strong protection here, if any.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/riaa-music-download-illegal-mp3,10864.html
Most of the RIAA lawsuits have been net losses, so their actions have if anything cost artists money and appear to have done very little to stop downloading, and musicians generally don't make money past their advance off of records anyway.
[quote]You'd think that one of the largest and most talented software development companies based in a region of earth with some of the best, brightest and most educated software engineers with access to the best tools of the trade in the solar system could get such a minor piece of code right...[/quote] outside of largest, that description doesn't really apply to Adobe.
It helps solve the lack of flying cars. I don't care if it has to be fueled by puppies and orphans. I want a flying car.
To unearth is to remove from the earth. One that unearths would be an unearther. To unarchive is to remove from an archive. One that unarchives would be an unarchiver.