Have you ever watched video responses? After a few seconds, I feel pity for the person making it, because it's always poorly done and could have been done much better with a few well-written paragraphs.
And remember, they take money through taxes AND counterfeiting (expansion of the monetary base). The latter is the one you never see directly, but it takes money from every dollar out there, like those crackers who take one cent from every account in a bank.
I think you missed the point. Copyright gives legal backing to the idea of intellectual property. My point was that if one argues that intellectual property is a real thing and should be treated like physical property, then one must admit that new intellectual property is made mostly of previous intellectual property, with slight alterations, and thus the owner of the resulting work is largely the public, which they are all based on (here I'm ignoring the physical property also used during creation, as it's not the central point). The example with real physical property was just to establish the principle in tangible terms, before going off into the intangible realm.
If one objects that when one creates an intellectual work based on past works (as they all are), one isn't taking anything from past works and thus one owns the new work, one is trying to have it both ways; one wants to treat intellectual works as property and claim theft when others make mere copies of it, and yet claim that doing the same to public works is not theft and doesn't take anything.
If people really want to argue that intellectual works are property, then they should be required to pay large sums of money for all the public works theirs are based on, if they want to own the resulting work.
Above I refer to the way that public works are drawn on in all intellectual works. By this I mean that new things are never entirely novel; they are mostly a composite of previous things, with (perhaps) a few novel aspects. In this way, it mirrors the example where someone makes an object out of my property, and then wants to claim ownership of the result.
The problem isn't capitalism, as you say; it's copyright. Copyright is a violation of physical property laws, and has no place in a free market. Some claim that copyright is a natural extension of physical property, but it's not as it lacks scarcity, the fundamental thing that capitalism addresses.
If I sometimes saw more than one * appear, I'd immediately delete everything and try again, thinking the keyboard keys were bouncing. Bad feedback is worse than none at all. If visual feedback had to be shown without giving anything away, you could require passwords to be a fixed length.
If I own some raw material and craft an object out of it, I own that object. I own it not because I created the object, but because I owned the raw material it was made from. If someone else takes some of my raw material without my permission and crafts an object, I still own the resulting object, for the same reason: the act of creation using my material doesn't change ownership.
If we accept the premise that intellectual works are property like any other, then we must recognize that virtually all works are made primarily of intellectual property owned by the public ("public domain"), and are thus still owned by the public. To claim ownership, as opposed to mere authorship, is outright fraud.
Instead of bullets, the password could appear in one of those CAPTCHA fonts; anybody shoulder-surfing would have to stare at it for 10 minutes to decipher it.
I agree with this ruling, and I think we need to start mass prosecution of Hollywood movie makers for murdering popular actors by depicting them getting killed in their movies. Oh and we need to make it illegal for taking pictures, since those steal a person's soul.
In other words, if we simply plugged our device in to the power grid to satisfy its energy needs, for every roughly 1,000 kilograms [of carbon dioxide] we collected we would re-emit 200, so 800 we can chalk up as having been successful.
And emit lots of other crap, depending on the power generation technology. Couldn't the thing just have a big solar panel array near it?
Steve Jobs was more productive than most of us, and he used a small part of the wealth created for himself. I'm fucking broke but I'm not angry at the guy, because I've recently taken the time to educate myself about how money works. A good place to start is Economics in One Lesson.
My parents got me one when I was 7 or 8 and I am still pissed off about that. I soooo love my mom for deciding to cut part of my dick off as well -- circumcision is child abuse and mutilation (sorry, just had to get that in there as well).
Until this form of abuse is well-known and has stopped, I think one has an obligation to talk about it. Now you've got me curious as to whether one is exempt from Social Security theft if one lacks a number... not that I lack one, unfortunately.
it's great, because parents can let their kids go to the park without the need to be supervised
You have hit on the real reason, to make the world as safe as a padded playground that has no equipment, and a limit of one child at a time (to avoid them running into each other). It's good these parents can now free up their time for more important things.
Lots of newspapers put movies on their websites. I admit I was kind of annoyed by it at first too, but after a while you just deal with it, and get your information where you can.
Don't put up with it! Demand that they put movies in their newspapers too.
I imagine this is why many people have HD-DVD players, because they also have good DVD upscalers. I wish I had gotten an HD-DVD player when they were on clearance, even though I only watch DVDs...
So the gist of this story is that the submitter doesn't understand finance? A Palm Pre [...] costs a boat load and is subsidised by the carrier, but you need a contract to pay back the cost of the phone. In effect you are getting a $400 - $800 loan [...]
So the gist of your post is that you don't read the story? In particular, this part:
I offered several other options, including [...] placing the maximum deposit that Sprint requires from people with poor credit ($500) [...]
But what bothers me is that they KEEP IT ON RECORD. Sprint asks you to confirm the last four digits of your SSN when you call customer service. This allows them to profile you, potentially sell it (legal or not), and more likely have it STOLEN and then sold/used for nefarious purposes.
Honestly, if you don't like it, nobody's forcing you to buy a zune or kindle.
That's the point of these, to make others aware of all the "features" of it, so that they can make an informed choice. Or are you against people making others aware, and complaining about NOT BEING TOLD of these limitations when they made the purchase?
Slashdot Mirror
Have you ever watched video responses? After a few seconds, I feel pity for the person making it, because it's always poorly done and could have been done much better with a few well-written paragraphs.
If you're suggesting that having property at all is theft, you're begging the question.
And remember, they take money through taxes AND counterfeiting (expansion of the monetary base). The latter is the one you never see directly, but it takes money from every dollar out there, like those crackers who take one cent from every account in a bank.
If one objects that when one creates an intellectual work based on past works (as they all are), one isn't taking anything from past works and thus one owns the new work, one is trying to have it both ways; one wants to treat intellectual works as property and claim theft when others make mere copies of it, and yet claim that doing the same to public works is not theft and doesn't take anything.
If people really want to argue that intellectual works are property, then they should be required to pay large sums of money for all the public works theirs are based on, if they want to own the resulting work.
Above I refer to the way that public works are drawn on in all intellectual works. By this I mean that new things are never entirely novel; they are mostly a composite of previous things, with (perhaps) a few novel aspects. In this way, it mirrors the example where someone makes an object out of my property, and then wants to claim ownership of the result.
#6: Stick around a few years and watch the economy tank.
The problem isn't capitalism, as you say; it's copyright. Copyright is a violation of physical property laws, and has no place in a free market. Some claim that copyright is a natural extension of physical property, but it's not as it lacks scarcity, the fundamental thing that capitalism addresses.
If I sometimes saw more than one * appear, I'd immediately delete everything and try again, thinking the keyboard keys were bouncing. Bad feedback is worse than none at all. If visual feedback had to be shown without giving anything away, you could require passwords to be a fixed length.
If I own some raw material and craft an object out of it, I own that object. I own it not because I created the object, but because I owned the raw material it was made from. If someone else takes some of my raw material without my permission and crafts an object, I still own the resulting object, for the same reason: the act of creation using my material doesn't change ownership.
If we accept the premise that intellectual works are property like any other, then we must recognize that virtually all works are made primarily of intellectual property owned by the public ("public domain"), and are thus still owned by the public. To claim ownership, as opposed to mere authorship, is outright fraud.
Instead of bullets, the password could appear in one of those CAPTCHA fonts; anybody shoulder-surfing would have to stare at it for 10 minutes to decipher it.
Children are the projection screen for adults' psychological issues (especially parents). Their actual makeup is mostly unknown, due to this.
I agree with this ruling, and I think we need to start mass prosecution of Hollywood movie makers for murdering popular actors by depicting them getting killed in their movies. Oh and we need to make it illegal for taking pictures, since those steal a person's soul.
That's amazing that even where water must be pumped by children on a merry-go-round, there is a big billboard with an advertisement. Sickening.
So they were hosting only 425 tracks. I would have figured they'd had many more than that.
And emit lots of other crap, depending on the power generation technology. Couldn't the thing just have a big solar panel array near it?
Steve Jobs was more productive than most of us, and he used a small part of the wealth created for himself. I'm fucking broke but I'm not angry at the guy, because I've recently taken the time to educate myself about how money works. A good place to start is Economics in One Lesson.
What about all the electric poles to carry the wires to these things everywhere?
We already have a climate, so I don't think these could create one.
I don't think the guy was wearing a costume when he tried to buy the phone.
Until this form of abuse is well-known and has stopped, I think one has an obligation to talk about it. Now you've got me curious as to whether one is exempt from Social Security theft if one lacks a number... not that I lack one, unfortunately.
You have hit on the real reason, to make the world as safe as a padded playground that has no equipment, and a limit of one child at a time (to avoid them running into each other). It's good these parents can now free up their time for more important things.
Don't put up with it! Demand that they put movies in their newspapers too.
I imagine this is why many people have HD-DVD players, because they also have good DVD upscalers. I wish I had gotten an HD-DVD player when they were on clearance, even though I only watch DVDs...
So the gist of your post is that you don't read the story? In particular, this part:
And what's infuriating is that the last four digits are the most important; the first 5 are determined based on time and place of birth.
That's the point of these, to make others aware of all the "features" of it, so that they can make an informed choice. Or are you against people making others aware, and complaining about NOT BEING TOLD of these limitations when they made the purchase?