We can't let it be swept out of sight if we want a rational, complete conversation on the topic. There is a human cost here, and too many people want to ignore it.
Agreed. But it has nothing to do with porn and, as you've already pointed out, everything to do with money and the semi-underground nature of the industry. The simple fact is that if you stigmatize the industry, all you do is push it *further* underground, which is precisely the opposite of what you should be trying to do if your goal is to protect those who participate in the industry.
Look, it's simple: porn exists, has always existed, and always will exist. So you have a choice. You can stigmatize it and push it underground, or you can work to increase societal acceptance and bring it out into the light of day. I prefer the latter approach. Then, if a women is victimized, she can feel free to go to law enforcement and demand justice. Meanwhile, the state can work to regulate the industry more effectively so that these sorts of things don't happen in the first place.
As an aside, I also hold the same beliefs regarding the sex and drug trades. Here, like the more extreme forms of pornography, you have free actors participating in victimless crimes, activities that are driven underground thanks to a society that stigmatizes those that choose to participate. And because they're driven underground, they can no longer be effectively policed and regulated. So, once again, there's two choices: stronger laws and stronger law enforcement, thus pushing these activities further and further underground, or a move toward normalization. I favour the latter, as I believe it would result in reduced crime and better protection for those involved.
a) the patents on VFAT actually exist, while the patents on C#, at this point, don't seem to actually exist (I've yet to see either a patent or a filing covering C#, the language, or the.NET framework, and not a single Mono opponent I've come across has been able to cite one),
b) given that, they can't exist because you can't retroactively patent a published invention, and
c) thus the only possibility is MS deliberately submarining their filings, which would disallow them from filing their patents overseas and would shorten the protection time, which makes it incredibly unlikely that such patents actually exist.
Actually, patents expire 20 years from the filing date. This means that (A) they only last 20 years (with some possible term extension of a few years) and (B) "submarine" patents are basically a thing of the past.
Not only that, but if you wish to file the patent internationally, the filing must also be published with 18 months of the filing date. So if you wish to submarine your filing (and live with the decreased protection time once the patent is issued), you lose the ability to file the patent overseas.
While I would defend the obscenity of this pornography on first amendment grounds, I would not want to defend it too aggressively while more worthy candidates might exist.
Huh? So now something has to be "worthy" in order for you to defend it as protected speech? Please... if you don't protect the worst kinds of speech (so long as said speech doesn't infringe on the rights of others (eg, libel)), your first amendment isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
No, she was ruined by her own stupidity. Throughout your little anecdote, there's one thing you neglected to point out: she was a free actor who made her own choices. Were they *stupid* choices? Hell yes. But they were her choices to make. Now she gets to live with the consequences.
The actual reasoning the anti-drug side use for their position against free needle programs is that any form of support a dangerous activity is tantamount to implicit acceptance... This kind of mixed message does more harm than good, since it provides justification for drug abusers to continue using as opposed to doing everything they can to avoid the activity.
Exactly. They use the same reasoning to push abstinence-only sex education while fighting any attempts to teach proper condom use.
Of course, we know how well that works, what with the sky-high-and-rising teen pregnancy rates, so maybe we should just agree to ignore them on the drug issue, too, eh?
Everybody's a little different, but I found that I actually needed less sleep, slept more soundly, and felt more refreshed in the morning, when I exercised regularly, particularly when I did so shortly before bedtime.
Err, actually, for many (most?) people, exercising "shortly before bedtime" is a great route to insomnia. Adrenaline is not exactly the best sleep aid.
Wind? when do you need energy to run the air conditioner? When it is hot and still.
Yes, because we, as a race, have no idea how to store energy so it can be released later...
Hydro? but that hurts the fishes; Tear out the dams!
Uh, that's not even an argument. At best it's a strawman.
Other renewable? Show me one ONE ton of steel smelted by "Green" fuel.
Given renewables are still being developed, what would you expect? That'd be like someone objecting to the invention of the car by crying "show me just ONE load of freight hauled by an internal combustion engine!".
Now, that's not to say nuclear shouldn't be part of any healthy, long-term energy plan. It will almost certainly need to be. Which is why the US federal government is looking at building more plants. But you haven't cited a single, reasonable argument for why solar, wind, or other renewables can't also make a substantial contribution.
It's not so much a constitution in practice. It is more like a set of recommendations.
Oh BS. The notwithstanding clause has been used a mere handful of times, primarily in Quebec vis a vis their language laws, and the sunset clause ensures that any such uses of the clause will come up for scrutiny come the next election (there's a reason 5 years was selected as the sunset timeline). This is evidenced by the fact that, as far as I'm aware, no law currently on the books anywhere in Canada invokes the notwithstanding clause. It's a political landmine, and any government thinking of invoking it would have to think *very* hard before even considering it... and they'd have to reconsider it over and over if they wanted to keep the law in question on the books.
Is it an ugly wart on an otherwise excellent document? Absolutely. Is it really that big of a deal? Hardly. Certainly the LGBT community must be quite happy with the document, given our courts have used it as a the basis for declaring illegal any attempts to define marriage as strictly between a man and a woman, something our neighbours to the south can't lay claim to, despite their supposed stellar history of freedom under their beloved constitution.
Uhh, says the law. Violating copyright law involves the act of *distributing* unauthorized copies, not receiving them. Which would be why cops won't arrest you for buying a bootleg DVD from a street vendor, but they will arrest the street vendor.
Similarly, at least in Canada, downloading copyrighted material is legal, while uploading it is not.
So the GGP was wrong, then? Explorer is not, in fact, "just an extension of IE"? Then maybe go complain to him. My comments aren't targeted specifically at IE/Explorer, but rather at the entire idea of combining web browsing with other actitivies (I'm looking at you, Konqueror).
Some of those grinds are less enjoyable than others so people would rather buy their way past it.
I'm pretty sure that was my entire point. No, really, I get that some people like to impress their friends, or are simply genuinely lazy. But if people are buying their way past certain parts of your game because they're "less enjoyable", then you have, in fact, done something wrong. After all, games are, by their very definition, supposed to be enjoyable.
We pay the Chinese to do the grunt work so that we can focus on having fun.
Which just illustrates why these games are b0rked. If people are willing to pay to avoid an integral part of the game, maybe you've done something wrong.
Yeah, it's almost like you have this "operating system," and it's designed to open files and stuff. And it's almost like the company that makes that operating system is, you know, a software company. And it's almost like they've realized that a browser-type app is the right front-end metaphor for most of the information that typical users of their operating system will want to see.
It is? Really? Personally, I want my browser for rendering HTML and Javascript, and for providing an interface for entering and submitting data. Meanwhile, I want a file browser for examining my filesystem so I can copy, move, delete, or rename them, or open them with a specified application. And I want a control panel for altering the various settings in my operating system.
The only thing that connects those highly disparate tasks is that they all happen to involve opening a window and using the mouse/keyboard.
Or maybe you believe Explorer should also incorporate functionality for rendering PDFs, opening and editing Word documents, and so forth?
If Lenovo was going to fix _one thing_ I wish they would move the placement of the forward and backward navigation keys from near the arrow keys.
Except, of course, that if you're browsing the web via a keyboard, it makes a whole ton of sense to have the arrow keys and the forward/back keys right beside each other.
Well, assuming you buy into the idea that said keys make any sense in the first place. If you're using the arrow keys, does it really kill a person to use Alt to go forward/back? Honestly...
OOC, isn't there some way to just disable those keys? I've never looked into it, but it strikes me as a change you should be able to make...
I can't use a laptop keyboard to near my regular level of productivity.
Then you've never used a Lenovo/Thinkpad keyboard. My typing rate (around 600 cpm/120 wpm) is identical on a my T61 as it is on a full-sized PC keyboard because a) the Lenovo layout absolutely rocks, b) the key action is perfect, and c) the frame beneath the keyboard is rock solid, so you don't get any unpleasant flexing.
TBH, when I was choosing a laptop as a desktop replacement, I ended up with a Lenore/Thinkpad primarily because of the superb keyboard.
My bad, there's actually more to it than that. Not only is expiration calculated based on the filing date, but all applications are now published within 18 months of filing (and.NET has been around much longer than 18 months). Of course, you can choose to keep your application secret, but if you do so, you can no longer apply for patents abroad.
So, unless Microsoft was willing to obviate their right to file their patents abroad, there's simply no reason to believe any such submarine patents actually exist.
Yeah, except the rules in the US have changed, so now patents expire X years after filing, not X years after publication. This would be why you don't see submarine patents anymore.
No, Richard Stallman was always very concerned with NOT violating patents
And that's a good idea. Luckily, as far as I can tell, there aren't any patents filed against.NET (if there were, I'm sure someone in this debate would've posted links... in this case, I'd say absence of evidence is evidence of absence), and given large portions of.NET are now published as standards, there *can't be*.
Slashdot Mirror
We can't let it be swept out of sight if we want a rational, complete conversation on the topic. There is a human cost here, and too many people want to ignore it.
Agreed. But it has nothing to do with porn and, as you've already pointed out, everything to do with money and the semi-underground nature of the industry. The simple fact is that if you stigmatize the industry, all you do is push it *further* underground, which is precisely the opposite of what you should be trying to do if your goal is to protect those who participate in the industry.
Look, it's simple: porn exists, has always existed, and always will exist. So you have a choice. You can stigmatize it and push it underground, or you can work to increase societal acceptance and bring it out into the light of day. I prefer the latter approach. Then, if a women is victimized, she can feel free to go to law enforcement and demand justice. Meanwhile, the state can work to regulate the industry more effectively so that these sorts of things don't happen in the first place.
As an aside, I also hold the same beliefs regarding the sex and drug trades. Here, like the more extreme forms of pornography, you have free actors participating in victimless crimes, activities that are driven underground thanks to a society that stigmatizes those that choose to participate. And because they're driven underground, they can no longer be effectively policed and regulated. So, once again, there's two choices: stronger laws and stronger law enforcement, thus pushing these activities further and further underground, or a move toward normalization. I favour the latter, as I believe it would result in reduced crime and better protection for those involved.
Step 4. 15 years later ( 20 years), sue their pants off
That doesn't work anymore. If they did that in the US, their patents would've expired, as they expire 20 years after the filing date.
why the f*** would we trust them with C# ??
Maybe because:
a) the patents on VFAT actually exist, while the patents on C#, at this point, don't seem to actually exist (I've yet to see either a patent or a filing covering C#, the language, or the .NET framework, and not a single Mono opponent I've come across has been able to cite one),
b) given that, they can't exist because you can't retroactively patent a published invention, and
c) thus the only possibility is MS deliberately submarining their filings, which would disallow them from filing their patents overseas and would shorten the protection time, which makes it incredibly unlikely that such patents actually exist.
Actually, patents expire 20 years from the filing date. This means that (A) they only last 20 years (with some possible term extension of a few years) and (B) "submarine" patents are basically a thing of the past.
Not only that, but if you wish to file the patent internationally, the filing must also be published with 18 months of the filing date. So if you wish to submarine your filing (and live with the decreased protection time once the patent is issued), you lose the ability to file the patent overseas.
While I would defend the obscenity of this pornography on first amendment grounds, I would not want to defend it too aggressively while more worthy candidates might exist.
Huh? So now something has to be "worthy" in order for you to defend it as protected speech? Please... if you don't protect the worst kinds of speech (so long as said speech doesn't infringe on the rights of others (eg, libel)), your first amendment isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
Top shelf pussy, just ruined by porn.
No, she was ruined by her own stupidity. Throughout your little anecdote, there's one thing you neglected to point out: she was a free actor who made her own choices. Were they *stupid* choices? Hell yes. But they were her choices to make. Now she gets to live with the consequences.
The actual reasoning the anti-drug side use for their position against free needle programs is that any form of support a dangerous activity is tantamount to implicit acceptance ... This kind of mixed message does more harm than good, since it provides justification for drug abusers to continue using as opposed to doing everything they can to avoid the activity.
Exactly. They use the same reasoning to push abstinence-only sex education while fighting any attempts to teach proper condom use.
Of course, we know how well that works, what with the sky-high-and-rising teen pregnancy rates, so maybe we should just agree to ignore them on the drug issue, too, eh?
Don't knock your rudimentary instincts, they got our species to where it is today.
Right. That's why I fight anyone who looks at my wife funny, and kill them if they persist.
Rudimentary instincts are just that. Rudimentary. They shouldn't be used to drive a public policy debate.
Everybody's a little different, but I found that I actually needed less sleep, slept more soundly, and felt more refreshed in the morning, when I exercised regularly, particularly when I did so shortly before bedtime.
Err, actually, for many (most?) people, exercising "shortly before bedtime" is a great route to insomnia. Adrenaline is not exactly the best sleep aid.
And your body can build muscle to make it easier, but all the muscle in the world does not lessen the amount of work it takes to lift that weight.
Because your body can magically change the math that specifies how many joules of energy it requires to move my body from point A to point B?
Methinks you're a little confused...
A single twinkie is going to destroy my cardiovascular health? Wow. Apparently they're worse than I thought...
That's one way to put it. Another is that free markets work around damage.
Correcting market failures isn't damage. Go look up the term "negative externality". Educate yourself.
Wind? when do you need energy to run the air conditioner? When it is hot and still.
Yes, because we, as a race, have no idea how to store energy so it can be released later...
Hydro? but that hurts the fishes; Tear out the dams!
Uh, that's not even an argument. At best it's a strawman.
Other renewable? Show me one ONE ton of steel smelted by "Green" fuel.
Given renewables are still being developed, what would you expect? That'd be like someone objecting to the invention of the car by crying "show me just ONE load of freight hauled by an internal combustion engine!".
Now, that's not to say nuclear shouldn't be part of any healthy, long-term energy plan. It will almost certainly need to be. Which is why the US federal government is looking at building more plants. But you haven't cited a single, reasonable argument for why solar, wind, or other renewables can't also make a substantial contribution.
It's not so much a constitution in practice. It is more like a set of recommendations.
Oh BS. The notwithstanding clause has been used a mere handful of times, primarily in Quebec vis a vis their language laws, and the sunset clause ensures that any such uses of the clause will come up for scrutiny come the next election (there's a reason 5 years was selected as the sunset timeline). This is evidenced by the fact that, as far as I'm aware, no law currently on the books anywhere in Canada invokes the notwithstanding clause. It's a political landmine, and any government thinking of invoking it would have to think *very* hard before even considering it... and they'd have to reconsider it over and over if they wanted to keep the law in question on the books.
Is it an ugly wart on an otherwise excellent document? Absolutely. Is it really that big of a deal? Hardly. Certainly the LGBT community must be quite happy with the document, given our courts have used it as a the basis for declaring illegal any attempts to define marriage as strictly between a man and a woman, something our neighbours to the south can't lay claim to, despite their supposed stellar history of freedom under their beloved constitution.
Says who?
Uhh, says the law. Violating copyright law involves the act of *distributing* unauthorized copies, not receiving them. Which would be why cops won't arrest you for buying a bootleg DVD from a street vendor, but they will arrest the street vendor.
Similarly, at least in Canada, downloading copyrighted material is legal, while uploading it is not.
So the GGP was wrong, then? Explorer is not, in fact, "just an extension of IE"? Then maybe go complain to him. My comments aren't targeted specifically at IE/Explorer, but rather at the entire idea of combining web browsing with other actitivies (I'm looking at you, Konqueror).
Some of those grinds are less enjoyable than others so people would rather buy their way past it.
I'm pretty sure that was my entire point. No, really, I get that some people like to impress their friends, or are simply genuinely lazy. But if people are buying their way past certain parts of your game because they're "less enjoyable", then you have, in fact, done something wrong. After all, games are, by their very definition, supposed to be enjoyable.
We pay the Chinese to do the grunt work so that we can focus on having fun.
Which just illustrates why these games are b0rked. If people are willing to pay to avoid an integral part of the game, maybe you've done something wrong.
Yeah, it's almost like you have this "operating system," and it's designed to open files and stuff. And it's almost like the company that makes that operating system is, you know, a software company. And it's almost like they've realized that a browser-type app is the right front-end metaphor for most of the information that typical users of their operating system will want to see.
It is? Really? Personally, I want my browser for rendering HTML and Javascript, and for providing an interface for entering and submitting data. Meanwhile, I want a file browser for examining my filesystem so I can copy, move, delete, or rename them, or open them with a specified application. And I want a control panel for altering the various settings in my operating system.
The only thing that connects those highly disparate tasks is that they all happen to involve opening a window and using the mouse/keyboard.
Or maybe you believe Explorer should also incorporate functionality for rendering PDFs, opening and editing Word documents, and so forth?
Great. Cite them.
If Lenovo was going to fix _one thing_ I wish they would move the placement of the forward and backward navigation keys from near the arrow keys.
Except, of course, that if you're browsing the web via a keyboard, it makes a whole ton of sense to have the arrow keys and the forward/back keys right beside each other.
Well, assuming you buy into the idea that said keys make any sense in the first place. If you're using the arrow keys, does it really kill a person to use Alt to go forward/back? Honestly...
OOC, isn't there some way to just disable those keys? I've never looked into it, but it strikes me as a change you should be able to make...
I can't use a laptop keyboard to near my regular level of productivity.
Then you've never used a Lenovo/Thinkpad keyboard. My typing rate (around 600 cpm/120 wpm) is identical on a my T61 as it is on a full-sized PC keyboard because a) the Lenovo layout absolutely rocks, b) the key action is perfect, and c) the frame beneath the keyboard is rock solid, so you don't get any unpleasant flexing.
TBH, when I was choosing a laptop as a desktop replacement, I ended up with a Lenore/Thinkpad primarily because of the superb keyboard.
My bad, there's actually more to it than that. Not only is expiration calculated based on the filing date, but all applications are now published within 18 months of filing (and .NET has been around much longer than 18 months). Of course, you can choose to keep your application secret, but if you do so, you can no longer apply for patents abroad.
So, unless Microsoft was willing to obviate their right to file their patents abroad, there's simply no reason to believe any such submarine patents actually exist.
Submarine patents for one.
Yeah, except the rules in the US have changed, so now patents expire X years after filing, not X years after publication. This would be why you don't see submarine patents anymore.
Nice try, though.
No, Richard Stallman was always very concerned with NOT violating patents
And that's a good idea. Luckily, as far as I can tell, there aren't any patents filed against .NET (if there were, I'm sure someone in this debate would've posted links... in this case, I'd say absence of evidence is evidence of absence), and given large portions of .NET are now published as standards, there *can't be*.