A letter to Harriet Tubman and the organizers of the Underground Railroad:
The Abolitionist proponents of depliticizing the movement and making it open to freedom is failling. Everyone is coming off as a hippie communist looking to take stuff from others.
This is beyond bizarre. Southern farmers run a group of expensive plantations and has told you to ignore their slavery. You CAN'T even claim racism, there ARE free blacks.
They have made every effort to produce cotton and other useful products.
The fact that you would prefer they not enslave blacks doesn't give you a right to steal their slaves and lead them to freedom in Canada.
However, by showing that we won't respect the law nor attempts at technical limitations, you discredit all of us. For those of us trying to win adoption for Abolition, stuff like this is a huge step back.
We're not sure if this is legal, but we think we might have finally found a loophole.
Congratulations, you have violated ehd spirit of the law but not the letter. That doesn't make you a moral person.
And immoral behavior is not acceptable because the victim is a plantation owner.
If a supermarket says, "Snapple: $7.99 a case (one per customer)", why do they have that little clause at the end? Because they LOSE MONEY on the deal. The only reason they can offer the coupon is because people come in and often buy other stuff. So if you just buy the Snapple, are you stealing?
Since when did it become the right of a broadcaster or provider of any other kind of content to require me to watch their commercials? I don't remember signing any license agreement.
As people have said, what if i watch the commercials but don't run out and buy the products? Am i stealing? After all, i'm leeching off the guy down the block who zips out and buys the Jif peanut butter he saw being advertised. Without people like him, there could be no content, after all!
So, um, if it's the right of content producers to force viewers to do stuff that gets them money, and anyone who doesn't do that is stealing, i have this to say:
Send me $10!
There. I rely on people like you to send me ten bucks -- without which, i would not be able to continue publishing content on Slashdot. If you don't like it, don't read my comments. But if you read my comments without sending me money, you're no more than a common criminal.
And anyone who skips over my comments either manually or through technology is like a Tivo user skipping commercials. In other words, uh, a criminal. It seems.
All this means that our government is much less scary. We can trust it to set up CCTV systems and not use them to spy, but only to deter criminals.
Neat! I've got this great new technology that scans internet traffic, but don't worry, it won't be used to spy, just to deter criminals. Like people who trade MP3s, or DeCSS, or sell items from 1940s-Germany.
And i've got this new device to put in cars - it calls the cops when you go above the speed limit. But don't worry, only criminals have any reason to be afraid.
And we're going to institute a new program in bars, to make sure nobody under 21 is drinking. If they are, the authorities are notified immediately. But don't worry, non-criminals like ourselves have nothing to fear.
During Super Bowl XXXIII, Buy.com unveils history's least elegant TV commercial: It involves a man who's... who's.... You'd better head to the newsstand to see the photos of this one.
I wish i could remember where i heard this, and i'm paraphrasing, but i think it really sums things up: ".NET is Microsoft's initiative to rewrite the Internet the way they wanted it to be all along"
It would simply mean that older works would increase in cost - the copyright costs passed down to the consumer.
...until the price got unreasonable, at which point the consumer would stop paying, at which point keeping the copyright would become unprofitable, at which point the work would enter the public domain.
Many of disneys works are still profitable after 20 years. The only reason they wouldn't be is because your new rules would force them into unprofitablility. That just isn'r right.
How would the new rules force anything into unprofitability? The Bible or the works of Bach are still profitable after hundreds of years. Sounds perfectly all right to me that they're now in the public domain.
No, because i cannot legally set up a server with B-Sides and CD singles today. Under this plan, i could legally create a gigantic database (a la Project Gutenberg) full of songs whose copyrights have expired.
Slashdot Mirror
The Abolitionist proponents of depliticizing the movement and making it open to freedom is failling. Everyone is coming off as a hippie communist looking to take stuff from others.
This is beyond bizarre. Southern farmers run a group of expensive plantations and has told you to ignore their slavery. You CAN'T even claim racism, there ARE free blacks.
They have made every effort to produce cotton and other useful products.
The fact that you would prefer they not enslave blacks doesn't give you a right to steal their slaves and lead them to freedom in Canada.
However, by showing that we won't respect the law nor attempts at technical limitations, you discredit all of us. For those of us trying to win adoption for Abolition, stuff like this is a huge step back.
We're not sure if this is legal, but we think we might have finally found a loophole.
Congratulations, you have violated ehd spirit of the law but not the letter. That doesn't make you a moral person.
And immoral behavior is not acceptable because the victim is a plantation owner.
--
--
If a supermarket says, "Snapple: $7.99 a case (one per customer)", why do they have that little clause at the end? Because they LOSE MONEY on the deal. The only reason they can offer the coupon is because people come in and often buy other stuff. So if you just buy the Snapple, are you stealing?
--
As people have said, what if i watch the commercials but don't run out and buy the products? Am i stealing? After all, i'm leeching off the guy down the block who zips out and buys the Jif peanut butter he saw being advertised. Without people like him, there could be no content, after all!
So, um, if it's the right of content producers to force viewers to do stuff that gets them money, and anyone who doesn't do that is stealing, i have this to say:
Send me $10!
There. I rely on people like you to send me ten bucks -- without which, i would not be able to continue publishing content on Slashdot. If you don't like it, don't read my comments. But if you read my comments without sending me money, you're no more than a common criminal.
And anyone who skips over my comments either manually or through technology is like a Tivo user skipping commercials. In other words, uh, a criminal. It seems.
--
--
Neat! I've got this great new technology that scans internet traffic, but don't worry, it won't be used to spy, just to deter criminals. Like people who trade MP3s, or DeCSS, or sell items from 1940s-Germany.
And i've got this new device to put in cars - it calls the cops when you go above the speed limit. But don't worry, only criminals have any reason to be afraid.
And we're going to institute a new program in bars, to make sure nobody under 21 is drinking. If they are, the authorities are notified immediately. But don't worry, non-criminals like ourselves have nothing to fear.
--
Still, the meter needs some work.
--
19. Can I have your CGI scripts? Can I license your code?
No, and no.
--
That's a pretty image, but it doesn't really make sense since every object in the universe has an infinitely large magnetic field.
--
Anyone know what they're talking about?
--
--
Very interested in a hint.
--
Thus, if you see 2 hats of the same colour, the probability that your hat is the same color is 1/6
I (correctly) pointed out that the probability was actually 1/2. That's what the previous few posts have been in reference to.
--
000
001
010
011
100
101
110
111
Let's give the people names:
ABC
DEF
GHI
JKL
MNO
PQR
STU
VWX
Now, we're only talking people who see two hats of the same color. That leaves
ABC
F
H
J
M
Q
U
VWX
There are 12 people here. Six of them are wearing a hat that's the same color as the ones they see. Six are not.
1/2.
QED
--
No, it's 1/2.
--
--
--
--
There are so many things wrong with this sentence, i don't know where to begin.
--
Yes.
(Score: 5, Insightful)
--
--
...until the price got unreasonable, at which point the consumer would stop paying, at which point keeping the copyright would become unprofitable, at which point the work would enter the public domain.
--
How would the new rules force anything into unprofitability? The Bible or the works of Bach are still profitable after hundreds of years. Sounds perfectly all right to me that they're now in the public domain.
--
--
--