Good point. But remember that there at rapists and child molesters in literally every neighborhood. Don't let your guard down just because you don't know who it is.
Agreed about the companies controlling voting. Ballots should be publicly counted in a verifiable manner.
Noted that you showed some evidence. My only response is that I only heard of that particular paper because it received some media attention. I didn't read it but I will also note that it wasn't enough to convince, say, the people who narrowly lost the election, and would have a lot of incentive to look into it if it were valid. Furthermore, statistics and probability aren't exactly evidence in the normal sense. But I don't discount it because I haven't read it.
Are you saying they wouldn't have to provide the source code because by merely renting the unit instead of selling it they aren't "distributing" the code? That's an interesting interpretation of "distribute". Can anyone who knows comment on the legal definition of "distribute"? It seems to me that if I have something, and give it to you, even if I only loaned it to you I have distributed it to you; but this certainly wouldn't be the first time a word means different things to lawyers and non-lawyers.
You're right about the 'ownership' thing. I always wonder about that when I see a commercial saying "Own %MOVIE% on DVD today!" They say "own" but they mean "not own". I don't have that trouble though because I don't buy DVDs.
Okay, so like I said, you don't have any evidence? You can base your beliefs on whatever you want, but me, I'm a man of science, I like evidence.
("begs the question" doesn't mean that.)
The explanation for the exit poll discrepancy is that exit polls are not representative and can be rather inaccurate. That doesn't mean election fraud didn't happen; that also doesn't mean that space aliens didn't land and erase everyone's memory of how fluoride and immunizations caused a super-race of lizards to metamorph into a shadow government of corporate-controlled neo-cons.
Yes yes good point, but the overall direction of American marijuana policy has been decidedly opposite of the goals of NORML. I would be saddened to see that happen with copyright, and also surprised if it doesn't.
I wager that copyright reform will be just about as successful as NORML has been. NORML was founded in 1970, before the war on drugs was even declared.
I shudder to think what will happen with the National Organization for the Reform of Copyright Laws.
That is exactly the post I was going to write when I read the original comment. Mine would have been -1 Redundant; yours is +4 Insightful. And just to reiterate the true statement of your thesis, I will repeat it:
Nothing, at all, will become public domain ever again.
I sincerely want to ask the question, when is it okay to revolt? They clearly do not listen to the will of the people and logic and are seemingly entrenched in lobbyist's goals and not the American people's. They are constantly chipping away at our rights and freedoms and making the world a worse place on a daily basis.
Do you have evidence of widespread endemic election fraud? If not, on what do you base the suggestion that our elected representatives don't listen to the will of the people? If a legislator takes a certain action, and is then re-elected, do you disagree that that is a democratic/popular approval of the action?
My legislators very very often do things I disapprove of, and when they do I stop voting for them. There may be a problem where most of the electorate fails to follow thru on their disapproval (in fact, I agree that there *is* that problem), but that's a problem with the electorate, not the elected.
So what I'm saying is, it's time to slap your neighbors upside the head. They're the nincompoops, not your legislators (well, okay, maybe the legislators, too).
That's not -1 Troll, that's +4 Insightful and +1 Funny, if -1 Off Topic.
If the crowd doesn't impose minimum standards for communication, we'll have a terrible decadence of our language. And by "terrible decadence" I mean "further terrible decadence". The guy made an obvious and boneheaded error which is laughably clear at even one glance, not a difficult or subtle mistake.
In my experience the quality of a piece of source code can be accurately estimated by the quality of the compiled program. I've never seen great, stable, robust, usable software that had crappy hacked code, and I've never seen a shitty, buggy, useless program that had beautiful, clean, well-designed code.
Without knowing in any way for certain, my guess is that the Windows source code is a horrible mess, and thus is not worth OLPC's consideration.
No, dude, it is certainly you who are wrong, for all the reasons I already said. Your points are invalid and incorrect; my points are valid and correct. You have not not addressed my claims because you can not. I addressed and razed your claims. You have lost the argument because you are wrong.
Moderators, please, I must insist that the parent post is not insightful, it is ignorant. Corporations are not people, they are merely treated in a similar fashion under the law in some circumstances (and not other circumstances).
The factual basis of the post is wrong:
the accused don't have the right to a trial by a jury of their peers (not in America, anyway);
corporations are not treated as persons (in all circumstances);
corporations don't have the same rights as humans.
At most, the post is Interesting (but wrong); at least, the post is Troll. The only redeeming part of the post is the opinion sentence at the end, which notes the overworked justice system and the dumb nature of the lawsuit in question -- which is not insightful because it is not new; again, it is at most interesting. Overall, it is Overrated.
(And this post, being a follow up to another in the same thread, is Redundant.)
Saying a corporation is a person is wrong and is a straw man. Corporations aren't people. They can't vote, they don't have human rights. However, they do *exist* and they need to have treatment under the law. A convenient way to treat them under the law is to allow them to function as a person would, in many circumstances -- though, of course, not all circumstances. It would be patently absurd to have a corporation sit on a jury, so obviously we don't treat corporations as people for the purposes of jury duty. On the other hand, corporations can own property, so for the purposes of establishing property rights, it is both convenient and equitable to allow the corporation to assert its property rights in the same way an individual does.
You are committing a couple logical fallacies; most clearly, the fallacy of the excluded middle. Corporations are not people, but also are not totally legally un-person-like. They are in fact between those two things (legally).
Something that is supposed is not factual, or is possibly not true. Something that is apparent is factual, or is probably factual, in that it appears to be factual.
It's "Apparent", as in "obvious". Something that is apparently true is obviously true (though possibly untrue, if appearances deceive). On the other hand, if you merely suppose something to be true, then you are much more likely to be wrong, in that you don't have evidence, you just have a supposition.
More to the point -- dude this is Slashdot. I've been here for ten years and Slashdot has never reported hard news. It does that more now than it ever has before. Back in the day it was a veritable rag.
Americans don't have the explicit right to a jury of their peers, merely to a jury. The "jury of your peers" language is from the Magna Carta, so it is in a way implied by common law tradition, but that phrase doesn't appear in the American constitution.
Everyone on Slashdot makes the mistake of assuming that damages are supposed to equal actual monetary losses. They aren't. They are supposed to be prohibitive, which is something like ACTUAL_COSTS * PROBABILITY_OF_GETTING_CAUGHT. It's that second factor which jacks up the award in the end.
Let's say she actually caused one dollar of losses (a very very low assumption) and the chances of getting caught are one in a million (also a very very low assumption), then statutory damages might be a million dollars or so. This lady was only told to pay one fifth of that price. Some would say she's getting a bargain.
The kind that accurately, legitimately, and democratically represents the will and opinion of the majority of the electorate....an incredibly ignorant and thoughtless electorate.
If we lived in a monarchy we could blame the king, but we live in a democracy, so blame your neighbors. Half of them *re*-elected this administration. (Not me, though; I'm a blamer not a blamee.)
I can almost imagine them having fallen into the trap of "open source = public domain, therefore we can do whatever we want"; except that MPAA deals with copyright infringement all the time, so they _should_ know better.
Dude, yeah, they know better, they just don't give a flying fuck.
Just like the rest of us.
None of us give a fuck because, more or less, copyright infringement is a minor thing. Not altogether okay, but for things like swapping songs with friends or handing out copies of Linux, it is seriously small beans.
Yeah, but imagine if the developers won -- they'd suddenly have to deal with payment in the form of fifty thousand copies of Gigli. I shudder at the thought.
(Or even more poetic, fifty thousand copies of some movie that's in the public domain.)
Currently this article is tagged 'tobadsosadms'. Personally, I like the snarky comments people leave in the form of tags, but this one is bad in many ways. Most important, and I hope you all thought the same thing when you saw it, it's not even intelligible English. "To bad so sad"? To what? To infinity and beyond? To be or not to be? What is the tagger talking about? Did he mean "Too"? Seriously, once you're past first grade, the difference between To and Too should be abundantly clear. For the sake of the tagger's brain, I really hope it was a mistake and not a misunderstanding.
Slashdot Mirror
Good point. But remember that there at rapists and child molesters in literally every neighborhood. Don't let your guard down just because you don't know who it is.
Yah. I heard about a guy who got on the list lifelong because he mooned his friend. Or, something like that. I dunno, might have just been a myth.
i suggest the tag defectivebydesign.
Agreed about the companies controlling voting. Ballots should be publicly counted in a verifiable manner.
Noted that you showed some evidence. My only response is that I only heard of that particular paper because it received some media attention. I didn't read it but I will also note that it wasn't enough to convince, say, the people who narrowly lost the election, and would have a lot of incentive to look into it if it were valid. Furthermore, statistics and probability aren't exactly evidence in the normal sense. But I don't discount it because I haven't read it.
Are you saying they wouldn't have to provide the source code because by merely renting the unit instead of selling it they aren't "distributing" the code? That's an interesting interpretation of "distribute". Can anyone who knows comment on the legal definition of "distribute"? It seems to me that if I have something, and give it to you, even if I only loaned it to you I have distributed it to you; but this certainly wouldn't be the first time a word means different things to lawyers and non-lawyers.
You're right about the 'ownership' thing. I always wonder about that when I see a commercial saying "Own %MOVIE% on DVD today!" They say "own" but they mean "not own". I don't have that trouble though because I don't buy DVDs.
Okay, so like I said, you don't have any evidence? You can base your beliefs on whatever you want, but me, I'm a man of science, I like evidence.
("begs the question" doesn't mean that.)
The explanation for the exit poll discrepancy is that exit polls are not representative and can be rather inaccurate. That doesn't mean election fraud didn't happen; that also doesn't mean that space aliens didn't land and erase everyone's memory of how fluoride and immunizations caused a super-race of lizards to metamorph into a shadow government of corporate-controlled neo-cons.
I end this by again asking for some evidence.
Yes yes good point, but the overall direction of American marijuana policy has been decidedly opposite of the goals of NORML. I would be saddened to see that happen with copyright, and also surprised if it doesn't.
I wager that copyright reform will be just about as successful as NORML has been. NORML was founded in 1970, before the war on drugs was even declared.
I shudder to think what will happen with the National Organization for the Reform of Copyright Laws.
That is exactly the post I was going to write when I read the original comment. Mine would have been -1 Redundant; yours is +4 Insightful. And just to reiterate the true statement of your thesis, I will repeat it:
Nothing, at all, will become public domain ever again.
I sincerely want to ask the question, when is it okay to revolt? They clearly do not listen to the will of the people and logic and are seemingly entrenched in lobbyist's goals and not the American people's. They are constantly chipping away at our rights and freedoms and making the world a worse place on a daily basis.
Do you have evidence of widespread endemic election fraud? If not, on what do you base the suggestion that our elected representatives don't listen to the will of the people? If a legislator takes a certain action, and is then re-elected, do you disagree that that is a democratic/popular approval of the action?
My legislators very very often do things I disapprove of, and when they do I stop voting for them. There may be a problem where most of the electorate fails to follow thru on their disapproval (in fact, I agree that there *is* that problem), but that's a problem with the electorate, not the elected.
So what I'm saying is, it's time to slap your neighbors upside the head. They're the nincompoops, not your legislators (well, okay, maybe the legislators, too).
That's not -1 Troll, that's +4 Insightful and +1 Funny, if -1 Off Topic.
If the crowd doesn't impose minimum standards for communication, we'll have a terrible decadence of our language. And by "terrible decadence" I mean "further terrible decadence". The guy made an obvious and boneheaded error which is laughably clear at even one glance, not a difficult or subtle mistake.
In my experience the quality of a piece of source code can be accurately estimated by the quality of the compiled program. I've never seen great, stable, robust, usable software that had crappy hacked code, and I've never seen a shitty, buggy, useless program that had beautiful, clean, well-designed code.
Without knowing in any way for certain, my guess is that the Windows source code is a horrible mess, and thus is not worth OLPC's consideration.
No, dude, it is certainly you who are wrong, for all the reasons I already said. Your points are invalid and incorrect; my points are valid and correct. You have not not addressed my claims because you can not. I addressed and razed your claims. You have lost the argument because you are wrong.
The factual basis of the post is wrong:
At most, the post is Interesting (but wrong); at least, the post is Troll. The only redeeming part of the post is the opinion sentence at the end, which notes the overworked justice system and the dumb nature of the lawsuit in question -- which is not insightful because it is not new; again, it is at most interesting. Overall, it is Overrated.
(And this post, being a follow up to another in the same thread, is Redundant.)
Saying a corporation is a person is wrong and is a straw man. Corporations aren't people. They can't vote, they don't have human rights. However, they do *exist* and they need to have treatment under the law. A convenient way to treat them under the law is to allow them to function as a person would, in many circumstances -- though, of course, not all circumstances. It would be patently absurd to have a corporation sit on a jury, so obviously we don't treat corporations as people for the purposes of jury duty. On the other hand, corporations can own property, so for the purposes of establishing property rights, it is both convenient and equitable to allow the corporation to assert its property rights in the same way an individual does.
You are committing a couple logical fallacies; most clearly, the fallacy of the excluded middle. Corporations are not people, but also are not totally legally un-person-like. They are in fact between those two things (legally).
don't forget Jobs *is* a big media mogul, too.
Something that is supposed is not factual, or is possibly not true. Something that is apparent is factual, or is probably factual, in that it appears to be factual.
It's "Apparent", as in "obvious". Something that is apparently true is obviously true (though possibly untrue, if appearances deceive). On the other hand, if you merely suppose something to be true, then you are much more likely to be wrong, in that you don't have evidence, you just have a supposition.
More to the point -- dude this is Slashdot. I've been here for ten years and Slashdot has never reported hard news. It does that more now than it ever has before. Back in the day it was a veritable rag.
Americans don't have the explicit right to a jury of their peers, merely to a jury. The "jury of your peers" language is from the Magna Carta, so it is in a way implied by common law tradition, but that phrase doesn't appear in the American constitution.
a lot of people are aggrieved at the electoral college, but not me. i understand its benefits and appreciate it.
Everyone on Slashdot makes the mistake of assuming that damages are supposed to equal actual monetary losses. They aren't. They are supposed to be prohibitive, which is something like ACTUAL_COSTS * PROBABILITY_OF_GETTING_CAUGHT. It's that second factor which jacks up the award in the end.
Let's say she actually caused one dollar of losses (a very very low assumption) and the chances of getting caught are one in a million (also a very very low assumption), then statutory damages might be a million dollars or so. This lady was only told to pay one fifth of that price. Some would say she's getting a bargain.
The kind that accurately, legitimately, and democratically represents the will and opinion of the majority of the electorate. ...an incredibly ignorant and thoughtless electorate.
If we lived in a monarchy we could blame the king, but we live in a democracy, so blame your neighbors. Half of them *re*-elected this administration. (Not me, though; I'm a blamer not a blamee.)
I can almost imagine them having fallen into the trap of "open source = public domain, therefore we can do whatever we want"; except that MPAA deals with copyright infringement all the time, so they _should_ know better.
Dude, yeah, they know better, they just don't give a flying fuck.
Just like the rest of us.
None of us give a fuck because, more or less, copyright infringement is a minor thing. Not altogether okay, but for things like swapping songs with friends or handing out copies of Linux, it is seriously small beans.
Yeah, but imagine if the developers won -- they'd suddenly have to deal with payment in the form of fifty thousand copies of Gigli. I shudder at the thought.
(Or even more poetic, fifty thousand copies of some movie that's in the public domain.)
Why not sue them and make things bullet-proof and at the same time strengthen the GPL in court, rather than sorting things out vigilantism-style?
Time. Money. Energy. Want.
Some people are rabble rousers; others, rabble. The world needs both. Maybe the dude would let you do the suing on his behalf.
Currently this article is tagged 'tobadsosadms'. Personally, I like the snarky comments people leave in the form of tags, but this one is bad in many ways. Most important, and I hope you all thought the same thing when you saw it, it's not even intelligible English. "To bad so sad"? To what? To infinity and beyond? To be or not to be? What is the tagger talking about? Did he mean "Too"? Seriously, once you're past first grade, the difference between To and Too should be abundantly clear. For the sake of the tagger's brain, I really hope it was a mistake and not a misunderstanding.