I had this happen to me and my siblings in my mom's sunbird. Some guy was walking behind the car at the time and managed to stop it before it moved very much. It was the last time I remember any of us playing "Driver" in the car.
The distinction I see in this case is that the case before was like someone borrows my pencil to write something I don't like and I take my pencil back, where this one is more like I am writing something someone else doesn't like with my pencil and they steal my pencil in order to prevent my ability to communicate with that medium.
Or to use your example it would be like the neo-nazi preventing people from going into the store because the owner didn't support neo-nazism
I take issue with this one as I don't feel Anonymous had the right for the prevention of the communication medium whereas the other case the provider did.
I might be the only person to think this, but I think it would be really fun to write an AI for something like that so instead of just a holographic dance movie, she would be able to react to the crowds and do things like point to members of the audience or make gestures to get the audience more into it if they aren't already.
Out of curiosity which side of the argument were you on a few weeks ago when the host of the church website where they planned the Quran burning stopped providing the church service? The side that felt the host did nothing wrong or the side that thought the host was limiting free speech?
Just saying that there is an argument here about Anonymous limiting free speech and to me it sounds like the same argument that went on a few weeks ago except that the host actually had an agreement with the church beforehand (the church broke) and nobody has an agreement with Anonymous.
So does a music composer that doesn't perform due to stage fright have a right to make profit from music he writes if he creates new music every year?
The comparison is valid. They shouldn't get paid forever for something they did 20 years ago, but they shouldn't have to use an alternate medium (stage performance) to make money from the original endeavor (create music). I don't think the music composer not performing is a justification for piracy.
To take it a step further, if car designer for BMW designs a great car should Ford be allowed to piece for piece copy the car's design and make the car or would you prefer that Ford would have to innovate or develop something on their own without profiting from the work of someone else? If not then who should be rewarded damages for Ford stealing the car design, the designer or BMW? Does your company make money from your designs after you make them?
Ford was never elected was he? The original vice president was replaced and he was appointed the new vice president and when Nixon stepped down after watergate he took over as president without ever having been elected.
http://www.nndb.com/people/400/000022334/
I think a $1500 fee would be reasonable in this situation. What is particularly evil (yes I feel the fire department acted evil) is that they refused any kind of payment. I'm sure if they said "We're going to have to charge you $1500" the guy would have accepted. But now his life is basically gone. For what? An example? Seriously? How fucking evil can they be? God forbid they teach kids in school there to call 911 in case of an emergency. "My mommy fell and the house is on fire please come save her!" "I'm sorry child, she didn't pay the rescue fee. She has to die."
Just to throw this out there... even if your app was $1.00 and it was the perfect application for its purpose I don't think you'd see piracy rates of 5%. I would be absolutely shocked to see piracy rates under 25 - 35% for anything.
That's not how I read it. In my reading Assange sounds very angry. I read it like an authoritarian dictator demanding to get exactly what he wants. I'd actually hate to work for that kind of person. I don't like to be dictated to as much as worked with. And if I was straight up accused of a breach I would start looking for a new job just on principle. I'm obviously not trusted there.
I also think it is quite bad style to completely ignore the original topic of conversation "Agreements about Iraq" and change topics to accusing the guy. Do you really feel that would be the type of person you want to work for?
Example:
You: "Excuse me, I need to know what kind of plans we have regarding the new guest site redesign. When will I be getting mocks et cetera?"
Your boss: "Our site was hacked last week. Did you tell someone our passwords?"
Just to be clear, I do not believe that this church should be silenced. I just feel that I should not be required to repeat their message if I control an advertisement network.
It would be a different story if I was the only ad company in town and the only legal way of broadcasting a message. But since I'm not... why should I have to support something I'm opposed to.
As to this argument does that mean all board games rip off chess? I disagree that all first person shooter games are EXACTLY like Castle Wolfenstein so much that they all rip it off. They did get inspiration from it, but the concept has been used in drastically different ways so that it isn't even the same game anymore. (Distinct lack of health packs for example)
Imagine what gaming landscape would be like if there was only one RPG because all games other than that one are just clones. One first person shooter because all other games are just clones. One platformer, One board game, One card game etc. I less think the games that followed are clones but are more innovations on a theme.
So what you're saying is that while you don't care that they do the activity of burning the book you're going to formulate a negative opinion about the person because of it. That doesn't sound like you don't care. You'd prefer if they agree with the book and are disappointed when they don't. Now imagine you have a very strong emotional tie to On the Origin of Species; you might consider why some people get very agitated about the burning of their symbol of choice.
Personally I think any burning is a useless demonstration. All it shows is that you are very prejudiced and have no care for anyone who follows the belief. It doesn't convince people that your side is right. It just shows hatred which is never a good message.
That's a good point, but in my opinion publishing false information is worse than not publishing information. I do question traditional media, and think the punishment when they publish false information should worse than it is now since false information can destroy someone's life even if later found to be false.
I do think that the NYTimes had an obligation to reveal the information about warrentless wiretapping and there should be some kind of backlash since they withheld it but I don't think it warrants them going out of business.
Is Wikileaks verifying its sources and ensuring it doesn't publish false information? Not saying it is not; I honestly don't know. But I don't think it is currently held liable if it doesn't.
Maybe I'm confused, but what does running C# on a mobile phone have to do with developing for XNA which is Xbox exclusive anyway? I also don't think it is nessecarily Microsoft saying no C# on iPhone; just like Sun/Oracle didn't say no Java on iPhone.
I'd personally like to know what generation of parents didn't try to teach responsibility to their children and then the children thought they knew better.
Actually in this case I don't know that a child who would think "It won't matter that I got drunk when I was 15 when I apply to a job after college" doesn't know a better way for society to be.
Slashdot Mirror
I had this happen to me and my siblings in my mom's sunbird. Some guy was walking behind the car at the time and managed to stop it before it moved very much. It was the last time I remember any of us playing "Driver" in the car.
I agree with you.
The distinction I see in this case is that the case before was like someone borrows my pencil to write something I don't like and I take my pencil back, where this one is more like I am writing something someone else doesn't like with my pencil and they steal my pencil in order to prevent my ability to communicate with that medium.
Or to use your example it would be like the neo-nazi preventing people from going into the store because the owner didn't support neo-nazism
I take issue with this one as I don't feel Anonymous had the right for the prevention of the communication medium whereas the other case the provider did.
I might be the only person to think this, but I think it would be really fun to write an AI for something like that so instead of just a holographic dance movie, she would be able to react to the crowds and do things like point to members of the audience or make gestures to get the audience more into it if they aren't already.
Out of curiosity which side of the argument were you on a few weeks ago when the host of the church website where they planned the Quran burning stopped providing the church service? The side that felt the host did nothing wrong or the side that thought the host was limiting free speech?
Just saying that there is an argument here about Anonymous limiting free speech and to me it sounds like the same argument that went on a few weeks ago except that the host actually had an agreement with the church beforehand (the church broke) and nobody has an agreement with Anonymous.
So does a music composer that doesn't perform due to stage fright have a right to make profit from music he writes if he creates new music every year?
The comparison is valid. They shouldn't get paid forever for something they did 20 years ago, but they shouldn't have to use an alternate medium (stage performance) to make money from the original endeavor (create music). I don't think the music composer not performing is a justification for piracy.
To take it a step further, if car designer for BMW designs a great car should Ford be allowed to piece for piece copy the car's design and make the car or would you prefer that Ford would have to innovate or develop something on their own without profiting from the work of someone else? If not then who should be rewarded damages for Ford stealing the car design, the designer or BMW? Does your company make money from your designs after you make them?
Ford was never elected was he? The original vice president was replaced and he was appointed the new vice president and when Nixon stepped down after watergate he took over as president without ever having been elected. http://www.nndb.com/people/400/000022334/
I think a $1500 fee would be reasonable in this situation. What is particularly evil (yes I feel the fire department acted evil) is that they refused any kind of payment. I'm sure if they said "We're going to have to charge you $1500" the guy would have accepted. But now his life is basically gone. For what? An example? Seriously? How fucking evil can they be? God forbid they teach kids in school there to call 911 in case of an emergency. "My mommy fell and the house is on fire please come save her!" "I'm sorry child, she didn't pay the rescue fee. She has to die."
Just to throw this out there... even if your app was $1.00 and it was the perfect application for its purpose I don't think you'd see piracy rates of 5%. I would be absolutely shocked to see piracy rates under 25 - 35% for anything.
That's not how I read it. In my reading Assange sounds very angry. I read it like an authoritarian dictator demanding to get exactly what he wants. I'd actually hate to work for that kind of person. I don't like to be dictated to as much as worked with. And if I was straight up accused of a breach I would start looking for a new job just on principle. I'm obviously not trusted there.
I also think it is quite bad style to completely ignore the original topic of conversation "Agreements about Iraq" and change topics to accusing the guy. Do you really feel that would be the type of person you want to work for?
Example:
You: "Excuse me, I need to know what kind of plans we have regarding the new guest site redesign. When will I be getting mocks et cetera?"
Your boss: "Our site was hacked last week. Did you tell someone our passwords?"
The real work of mass robot invasion has not been put through all the trials yet. So they want to hold off on the video demo.
Just to be clear, I do not believe that this church should be silenced. I just feel that I should not be required to repeat their message if I control an advertisement network. It would be a different story if I was the only ad company in town and the only legal way of broadcasting a message. But since I'm not... why should I have to support something I'm opposed to.
As to this argument does that mean all board games rip off chess? I disagree that all first person shooter games are EXACTLY like Castle Wolfenstein so much that they all rip it off. They did get inspiration from it, but the concept has been used in drastically different ways so that it isn't even the same game anymore. (Distinct lack of health packs for example) Imagine what gaming landscape would be like if there was only one RPG because all games other than that one are just clones. One first person shooter because all other games are just clones. One platformer, One board game, One card game etc. I less think the games that followed are clones but are more innovations on a theme.
Life was not always on the internet.
So what you're saying is that while you don't care that they do the activity of burning the book you're going to formulate a negative opinion about the person because of it. That doesn't sound like you don't care. You'd prefer if they agree with the book and are disappointed when they don't. Now imagine you have a very strong emotional tie to On the Origin of Species; you might consider why some people get very agitated about the burning of their symbol of choice. Personally I think any burning is a useless demonstration. All it shows is that you are very prejudiced and have no care for anyone who follows the belief. It doesn't convince people that your side is right. It just shows hatred which is never a good message.
So you're arguing they are morally obliged to broadcast a message they fully disagree with and find repugnant?
That's a good point, but in my opinion publishing false information is worse than not publishing information. I do question traditional media, and think the punishment when they publish false information should worse than it is now since false information can destroy someone's life even if later found to be false. I do think that the NYTimes had an obligation to reveal the information about warrentless wiretapping and there should be some kind of backlash since they withheld it but I don't think it warrants them going out of business.
Is Wikileaks verifying its sources and ensuring it doesn't publish false information? Not saying it is not; I honestly don't know. But I don't think it is currently held liable if it doesn't.
THAT must be why there are farmers paid to not plant crops.
What if Joe has an IQ smaller than his shoe size?
Its dealing with Sony but it is a bit off topic. That would be like me complaining about how expensive Sony TVs are.
Maybe I'm confused, but what does running C# on a mobile phone have to do with developing for XNA which is Xbox exclusive anyway? I also don't think it is nessecarily Microsoft saying no C# on iPhone; just like Sun/Oracle didn't say no Java on iPhone.
I'd personally like to know what generation of parents didn't try to teach responsibility to their children and then the children thought they knew better. Actually in this case I don't know that a child who would think "It won't matter that I got drunk when I was 15 when I apply to a job after college" doesn't know a better way for society to be.