A nice attractive looking tablet which can accept third-party operating systems definitely appeals to me. It's too bad this one is from Microsoft, and therefore I can not trust it. Same with that Dell tablet we heard about yesterday. If HP announces something similar, it will be a trifecta.
If you compare "bible" with "quran", you can see that there are about 10x the results for "bible". What does that indicate, are there 10x more Christians, or readers of the bible?
No, obviously it indicates that the Christians chose the one and true God.
If you aren't aware of groups that have problems with legal immigrants, you aren't well informed. Look a little harder. And I also disagree that "most" or even "many" of people who oppose "illegal" immigration favor loosening immigration requirements. I actually have never heard of such a person, although you could claim to be the first.
I may disagree with a foreign country's immigration policy. I might really, very strongly, in the most heartfelt way disagree with a foreign country's immigration policy. I might think they're a bunch of jackasses for having such a policy. None of that gives me the right to break their laws.
This is meaningless. "The right to break their law"? What does that even mean? Look, human beings break bad laws. We do it all the time. In fact I proffer that frequency of violation of a law is a decent indication of how good or bad that law is. Driving faster than the posted limit, smoking weed, living peacefully and contributing to society in a place where the people in power don't like you -- these are occasions when millions and millions and millions of people break bad laws every day.
I might have a modicum of sympathy for the anti-immigration folks if our immigration laws weren't a travesty. But they are, so obviously those laws are broken. Duh. Any person who demands strict adherence to a law which can not be strictly followed is pushing a cover for some kind of ulterior motive, which is apparently too unsavory to push directly.
He apologized to his wife for looking at porn? Whoa. That is an obviously dysfunctional marital sexual relationship. For his sake, I hope it was the whole situation he was apologizing for, not the porn specifically.
Sorry for the confusion, what I meant was that in a free market, politicians would sell their scarce product (laws) to the highest-paying consumer. Some people would call that corruption, but a "free market" ideologue would have to admit that it is exactly what a free market would encourage, so long as it were done openly.
And that is why I say that free markets are bad, while regulated markets are good: I favor the market regulation which prohibits politicians from selling laws (of course, they do it anyway, but at least there is some notion of pretending it isn't a direct-pay-for-law situation). What I was saying was not about copyright.
So remember: markets are good, free markets are bad.
the First Sale Doctrine is just that, a doctrine - not a federally protected right.
Well, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_sale_doctrine, "The first-sale doctrine is a limitation on copyright that was recognized by the Supreme Court... and subsequently codified in the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C." So, I'm not a lawyer or anything, but I think that means it's a federally protected right, although the "protection" might not be very protective.
Yes I have an honest question. I understand that the first sale doctrine doesn't apply to licenses of works, and that is how the court interpreted this situation; but then how would that be different than putting the same restriction on every book, which is the analogy being made in this discusion? Why isn't every book and CD marked thus: this copyrighted work is licensed to you, not sold. You do not have the right to sell, lend, give, or otherwise transfer this work to any third party? What is preventing that?
we need to stop allowing powerful corporate lobbyists paying politicians to write laws in their favour (which is absolutely not respecting market forces).
Well to be honest, that absolutely is respecting market forces, to a T. And that is a great example of how "the market" is good in some situations and very misplaced in others.
You know, as much as I hate to agree with FLOSSies on...well pretty much anything, I have to say RMS is looking spot on with his right to read story. The most basic fundamental rights we have enjoyed for centuries are being taken away by a bunch of weasel lawyers and corrupt officials. Sadly there ain't a damned thing we can do about it either, unless someone here has a couple of billion lying around to buy some politicians with?
Really? Doing marches, protesting and that stuff won't work?
You do realize the one thing the government is afraid of is it's people taking to the streets to voice their unapproval?
It's true: governments will respond to gigantic throngs of penniless people angrily protesting nearby. But to recognize that is not to deny the even more abundant truth that governments will respond to miniscule numbers of rich assholes quietly greasing palms. The ratio of rich fucks versus poor saps that it takes to move government is, what, something like 1-to-100,000-. I absolutely believe that 3,000 of the richest and best connected people in the USA could outweigh every single last one of the rest of us on a policy issue such as copyright reform. So, what I'm saying is, good luck getting your protest participation to the 99.999% level, and if you can't, then I'd rely on big money to get the way you want.
ll of the items you mention are very expensive to produce, requiring considerable industrial infrastructure, highly-skilled labor and exotic materials.
And time. And expertise. Those are the things affected by containment policies, which aren't perfect, nor need to be, to be worthwhile.
Hawaii is foreign to you? Perhaps you were just chiding.
Anyway, you make a good point, I erred by saying 'foreign-born' instead of 'foreign', which is what I meant. Thank you for helping me be clear.
And I also phrased it as an employment issue, which is also what I meant, but I left out another good point, which is that some foreign students are government agents; and both of those are risks being mitigated by the policy. Again, you and I might agree on the conjecture that the policy has more negative external outcomes than positive intended outcomes.
Nukes are an okay example, even though there has been some proliferation amongst our enemies. I would point to things that are even harder to make, like long-range missiles, top-end fighter jets, high-power laser weapons, satellite technology, stealth technology, that sort of stuff.
All of those things have been successfully contained due to a policy of non-export. That's just what I can name, not really knowing very well. I imagine the list is a lot longer to those who are informed.
Slashdot Mirror
A nice attractive looking tablet which can accept third-party operating systems definitely appeals to me. It's too bad this one is from Microsoft, and therefore I can not trust it. Same with that Dell tablet we heard about yesterday. If HP announces something similar, it will be a trifecta.
It's true, you were modded improperly. The correct mod was "-1, Flamebait", not "-1, Troll".
Good one. You made me laugh.
If you compare "bible" with "quran", you can see that there are about 10x the results for "bible". What does that indicate, are there 10x more Christians, or readers of the bible?
No, obviously it indicates that the Christians chose the one and true God.
(this is a Funny not a Flamebait)
Without attempting to establish equality, let's just say both of those are essential.
If you aren't aware of groups that have problems with legal immigrants, you aren't well informed. Look a little harder. And I also disagree that "most" or even "many" of people who oppose "illegal" immigration favor loosening immigration requirements. I actually have never heard of such a person, although you could claim to be the first.
I may disagree with a foreign country's immigration policy. I might really, very strongly, in the most heartfelt way disagree with a foreign country's immigration policy. I might think they're a bunch of jackasses for having such a policy. None of that gives me the right to break their laws.
This is meaningless. "The right to break their law"? What does that even mean? Look, human beings break bad laws. We do it all the time. In fact I proffer that frequency of violation of a law is a decent indication of how good or bad that law is. Driving faster than the posted limit, smoking weed, living peacefully and contributing to society in a place where the people in power don't like you -- these are occasions when millions and millions and millions of people break bad laws every day.
I might have a modicum of sympathy for the anti-immigration folks if our immigration laws weren't a travesty. But they are, so obviously those laws are broken. Duh. Any person who demands strict adherence to a law which can not be strictly followed is pushing a cover for some kind of ulterior motive, which is apparently too unsavory to push directly.
You nailed it. This discussion is over. Last person to leave, please turn out the lights.
Your post is classic flamebait, right down to the "yes, really".
Irrefutable? Sheesh, I'd even settle for a reasonable indication, but there isn't even that.
Right exactly! That's what I mean about "the whole situation", not the porn specifically. Golly I hope that's the case.
Well, it was both of those things wasn't it?
He apologized to his wife for looking at porn? Whoa. That is an obviously dysfunctional marital sexual relationship. For his sake, I hope it was the whole situation he was apologizing for, not the porn specifically.
Sorry for the confusion, what I meant was that in a free market, politicians would sell their scarce product (laws) to the highest-paying consumer. Some people would call that corruption, but a "free market" ideologue would have to admit that it is exactly what a free market would encourage, so long as it were done openly.
And that is why I say that free markets are bad, while regulated markets are good: I favor the market regulation which prohibits politicians from selling laws (of course, they do it anyway, but at least there is some notion of pretending it isn't a direct-pay-for-law situation). What I was saying was not about copyright.
So remember: markets are good, free markets are bad.
I do without it on my Fingerworks keyboard. Yes tactile feedback is important, but sometimes other features can overcome it.
Does anyone have one of those Librettos? That's the first time I've seen it, and I can't quite tell if it's incredibly awesome, or puny and lame.
Yeah, depends on what the "service" is I suppose.
the First Sale Doctrine is just that, a doctrine - not a federally protected right.
Well, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_sale_doctrine, "The first-sale doctrine is a limitation on copyright that was recognized by the Supreme Court ... and subsequently codified in the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C." So, I'm not a lawyer or anything, but I think that means it's a federally protected right, although the "protection" might not be very protective.
Yes I have an honest question. I understand that the first sale doctrine doesn't apply to licenses of works, and that is how the court interpreted this situation; but then how would that be different than putting the same restriction on every book, which is the analogy being made in this discusion? Why isn't every book and CD marked thus: this copyrighted work is licensed to you, not sold. You do not have the right to sell, lend, give, or otherwise transfer this work to any third party? What is preventing that?
we need to stop allowing powerful corporate lobbyists paying politicians to write laws in their favour (which is absolutely not respecting market forces).
Well to be honest, that absolutely is respecting market forces, to a T. And that is a great example of how "the market" is good in some situations and very misplaced in others.
You know, as much as I hate to agree with FLOSSies on...well pretty much anything, I have to say RMS is looking spot on with his right to read story. The most basic fundamental rights we have enjoyed for centuries are being taken away by a bunch of weasel lawyers and corrupt officials. Sadly there ain't a damned thing we can do about it either, unless someone here has a couple of billion lying around to buy some politicians with?
Really? Doing marches, protesting and that stuff won't work?
You do realize the one thing the government is afraid of is it's people taking to the streets to voice their unapproval?
It's true: governments will respond to gigantic throngs of penniless people angrily protesting nearby. But to recognize that is not to deny the even more abundant truth that governments will respond to miniscule numbers of rich assholes quietly greasing palms. The ratio of rich fucks versus poor saps that it takes to move government is, what, something like 1-to-100,000-. I absolutely believe that 3,000 of the richest and best connected people in the USA could outweigh every single last one of the rest of us on a policy issue such as copyright reform. So, what I'm saying is, good luck getting your protest participation to the 99.999% level, and if you can't, then I'd rely on big money to get the way you want.
ll of the items you mention are very expensive to produce, requiring considerable industrial infrastructure, highly-skilled labor and exotic materials.
And time. And expertise. Those are the things affected by containment policies, which aren't perfect, nor need to be, to be worthwhile.
Hmmm. Think a little harder. I came up with a half-dozen in the minute I thought about it (in another nearby post).
But, I don't actually think export restrictions will be very effective in this case. But in other cases, definitely yes.
Hawaii is foreign to you? Perhaps you were just chiding.
Anyway, you make a good point, I erred by saying 'foreign-born' instead of 'foreign', which is what I meant. Thank you for helping me be clear.
And I also phrased it as an employment issue, which is also what I meant, but I left out another good point, which is that some foreign students are government agents; and both of those are risks being mitigated by the policy. Again, you and I might agree on the conjecture that the policy has more negative external outcomes than positive intended outcomes.
Nukes are an okay example, even though there has been some proliferation amongst our enemies. I would point to things that are even harder to make, like long-range missiles, top-end fighter jets, high-power laser weapons, satellite technology, stealth technology, that sort of stuff.
All of those things have been successfully contained due to a policy of non-export. That's just what I can name, not really knowing very well. I imagine the list is a lot longer to those who are informed.