When have you ever signed a contract when buying a copyrighted work that told you how you can use it?
Four letters: EULA.
I've never had to sign a contract when buying music, but that's just because I was content to get the standard license, and they were content to sell me that.
Let me put it to you this way. I am the real owner of music, how exactly do i dictate the terms - whatever terms i want - under which it is used?
You make people sign a contract stating the terms you want to give them, obviously. Such as the contract that Amazon is claiming they didn't need, which the RIAA is claiming they did need, to stream the music.
Absent a signed contract, you're assumed to get the standard license described in copyright law, but if you don't think that (copyright law) has been (and still is, by legal precedence of court cases) heavily influenced by the music/film industries you're misleading yourself. So either way, it's the terms that the copyright holder has dictated to the fullest extent that the law has permitted them to.
Schizophrenics are the last people who would be able to figure that out, just like chronically depressed people would be the last to figure out that chronically depressed people shouldn't consume lots of a substance which acts as a depressant (alcohol).
If a government wants its people to have to jump through hoops and/or remain in poverty and starvation, there's still nothing in your plan that would prevent them from stockpiling the food and being stingy about distributing it.
Only if you already know that the zero is precise. In general, trailing zeros are not considered significant figures unless they're after the decimal point.
60% sounds precise? It sounds very imprecise to me. It's a single digit of precision on a scale from 0 to 100, and even then I wouldn't be surprised if their margin of error was as much as 10% in either direction.
In what way does a copyright owner dictate the terms under which the music can be played?
Try playing that CD or movie that you bought in front of a large enough audience, and you'll soon find out. If they find out they'll be coming after you because you don't have a license to "publicly" perform their work.
The statement is bullshit because the real owner does not dictate the terms under which you can play it.
Sure they do. They've spent millions to have their say, and if they have a problem with the way you're using it, they'll spend millions more trying to make sure that people can't do it. And the limitations that have been imposed, by law, were only because people thought their original terms were slightly too unreasonable.
So... you own nothing but a license to play it under the terms that its real owner dictates, to the extent that they're permitted by law. But it's ridiculously unnecessary for me to have to say that they aren't allowed to break the law...
No, you didn't - you replied to me. Go check the comment tree again.
You're the one who changed the subject. I was never talking about the "agreement with regard to usage when [you buy] tracks online". That is not what I was talking about.
The rocket will be left to fall back into the ocean/atmosphere, while it has enough cargo capacity (2X that of the space shuttle to LEO) to launch something that could, conceivably, go to Mars and back.
As opposed to the Shuttle, which doesn't drop anything into the ocean/atmosphere?
Every space-going vehicle I can think of drops its empty fuel tanks and/or entire spent rocket stages, so I don't know why anyone would interpret the summary to mean that this was something significantly different.
Pepsi is 150 and Mt. Dew 170. Some people call any soft drink a "coke" (small letter c). Overall, I don't think it's a distinction that makes much difference unless we're being overly pedantic.
Water chlorination comes in two basic types: free chlorine, and total chlorine (e.g. chloramines). Free chlorine you taste. Total chlorine you don't taste. Denver uses chloramines.
The actual amount of chlorine in the water isn't going to be significantly different; all public water suppliers chlorinate between 2 and 4 parts per million.
As a matter of fact; they should ban filters on cigarettes. Why should smokers get a filter when the rest of us don't?
You get two filters. The second filter is the smoker's lungs.
(Assuming the smoker actually filters most of the cigarette's smoke through his or her lungs, but if they didn't there would be little point in smoking. Letting the cigarette burn itself out on the ashtray isn't exactly its designed use.)
Yeah, taxing the obese more highly makes almost as much sense as not forcing me to help pay for the costs of their bad decisions in the first place... no actually, I think it's twice as stupid.
The big brands refused to use this labelling scheme, and successfully campaigned for it not to become law.
They're ultimately in the business of selling the products that people want, and sometimes no amount of warnings will change that. The giant paragraph that's required by law in the US on a pack of cigarettes, for instance, is pretty much a waste of ink, in my opinion.
(The 30g serving is also unreasonably small. That's about a handful.)
Fact of the matter is that you shouldn't be eating much more of it anyway. It's not good for you in that quantity. It's probably just not good for you in any quantity, but small quantities of it aren't killing anyone. It's just like the chips. If your breakfast also included, say, an egg, toast, fruit, and some juice, the small serving of cereal would be reasonable.
Do you honestly think there are more people out there eating MARSHMELLOWS on a regular basis than measuring out sugar via teaspoons into a popular morning beverage every day (hint for the stupid: coffee)?
Well, no; that's sort of the point I wanted to emphasize though: you really shouldn't be doing it regularly.
Realistically while a marshmellow might have a lot of sugar in it, it's not "pure sugar", and usually contains other things such and gelatin and is simply not a valid measuring stick as a "type of sugar".
What isn't pure sugar is mostly pure starch, and the two aren't much different nutritionally. The tiny bit of protein isn't very significant in the nutritional breakdown of marshmallows (<2% by weight).
The main reason I like marshmallows as an analogy is that they're basically sugar and air in close to the same proportions as a coke is sugar and water. A can of coke is about the equivalent of a cup of marshmallows. And everyone knows that they're not really good for you and very few people would eat them by the bag, certainly not on a daily basis.
A small handful. I agree - a typical bag of chips from the vending machine would be 2 or 3. I don't know what size of bag would indicate that it contained 6 servings... usually it is more like 2 or 3. And in a reasonable meal you might expect to have a couple of servings of whatever you're eating, but habitually eating a few servings of the least healthy part as a between-meals snack would be bad for obvious reasons.
The Atkins diet discourages grains, whole or otherwise, and allows a lot of meat protein and fat. The Atkins diet has been demonstrated effective in randomized, controlled trials published in JAMA.
Just because you're losing weight doesn't mean you're eating a healthy diet. Consuming inordinately large amounts of protein and fat is not good for your kidneys and liver.
That depends on what form of sugar you're using. I like marshmallows as a better analogy, because we all know they're nothing but sugar and unhealthy. And nobody eats sugar by the teaspoon, so that's not a very understandable analogy. We've all probably eaten enough marshmallows to give us a general perspective for eating them. They're a rare treat, not an everyday snack.
1 cup of miniature marshmallows contains about 159 calories, so drinking a coke is approximately like eating marshmallows, except with water instead of air. I'd hope that even somebody who wouldn't think twice about drinking a 32 oz. fountain drink would still know that eating a whole bag of marshmallows wouldn't be healthy.
The reason the serving sizes seem unreasonable is because they're listed in the way they're supposed to be consumed. A handful of chips on the side of a well-rounded meal is a "serving". Eating the whole bag is not. If there is any complaint to be made, it is that you can't buy a well-rounded meal from a vending machine. But if you could, who would? Companies aren't stupid. They sell what people want.
Slashdot Mirror
When have you ever signed a contract when buying a copyrighted work that told you how you can use it?
Four letters: EULA.
I've never had to sign a contract when buying music, but that's just because I was content to get the standard license, and they were content to sell me that.
Let me put it to you this way. I am the real owner of music, how exactly do i dictate the terms - whatever terms i want - under which it is used?
You make people sign a contract stating the terms you want to give them, obviously. Such as the contract that Amazon is claiming they didn't need, which the RIAA is claiming they did need, to stream the music.
Absent a signed contract, you're assumed to get the standard license described in copyright law, but if you don't think that (copyright law) has been (and still is, by legal precedence of court cases) heavily influenced by the music/film industries you're misleading yourself. So either way, it's the terms that the copyright holder has dictated to the fullest extent that the law has permitted them to.
Well, sure. Depressed people may be depressed but they're not crazy.
Speaking of pedantry, your post had a loosing/losing mismatch.
Schizophrenics are the last people who would be able to figure that out, just like chronically depressed people would be the last to figure out that chronically depressed people shouldn't consume lots of a substance which acts as a depressant (alcohol).
All I want to know is, can you light one of them on fire?
If a government wants its people to have to jump through hoops and/or remain in poverty and starvation, there's still nothing in your plan that would prevent them from stockpiling the food and being stingy about distributing it.
Only if you already know that the zero is precise. In general, trailing zeros are not considered significant figures unless they're after the decimal point.
60% sounds precise? It sounds very imprecise to me. It's a single digit of precision on a scale from 0 to 100, and even then I wouldn't be surprised if their margin of error was as much as 10% in either direction.
I've had carobhydrates, but I prefer cacaohydrates.
In what way does a copyright owner dictate the terms under which the music can be played?
Try playing that CD or movie that you bought in front of a large enough audience, and you'll soon find out. If they find out they'll be coming after you because you don't have a license to "publicly" perform their work.
The statement is bullshit because the real owner does not dictate the terms under which you can play it.
Sure they do. They've spent millions to have their say, and if they have a problem with the way you're using it, they'll spend millions more trying to make sure that people can't do it. And the limitations that have been imposed, by law, were only because people thought their original terms were slightly too unreasonable.
So... you own nothing but a license to play it under the terms that its real owner dictates, to the extent that they're permitted by law. But it's ridiculously unnecessary for me to have to say that they aren't allowed to break the law...
No, you didn't - you replied to me. Go check the comment tree again.
You're the one who changed the subject. I was never talking about the "agreement with regard to usage when [you buy] tracks online". That is not what I was talking about.
I was replying to someone who suggested that Amazon could allow streaming "one's own" music.
The rocket will be left to fall back into the ocean/atmosphere, while it has enough cargo capacity (2X that of the space shuttle to LEO) to launch something that could, conceivably, go to Mars and back.
As opposed to the Shuttle, which doesn't drop anything into the ocean/atmosphere?
Every space-going vehicle I can think of drops its empty fuel tanks and/or entire spent rocket stages, so I don't know why anyone would interpret the summary to mean that this was something significantly different.
beans, potatoes, meat, maybe peas if he felt like having a vegetable.
Wait - what are beans and potatoes, then?
Pepsi is 150 and Mt. Dew 170. Some people call any soft drink a "coke" (small letter c). Overall, I don't think it's a distinction that makes much difference unless we're being overly pedantic.
Water chlorination comes in two basic types: free chlorine, and total chlorine (e.g. chloramines). Free chlorine you taste. Total chlorine you don't taste. Denver uses chloramines.
The actual amount of chlorine in the water isn't going to be significantly different; all public water suppliers chlorinate between 2 and 4 parts per million.
As a matter of fact; they should ban filters on cigarettes. Why should smokers get a filter when the rest of us don't?
You get two filters. The second filter is the smoker's lungs.
(Assuming the smoker actually filters most of the cigarette's smoke through his or her lungs, but if they didn't there would be little point in smoking. Letting the cigarette burn itself out on the ashtray isn't exactly its designed use.)
Yeah, taxing the obese more highly makes almost as much sense as not forcing me to help pay for the costs of their bad decisions in the first place... no actually, I think it's twice as stupid.
The big brands refused to use this labelling scheme, and successfully campaigned for it not to become law.
They're ultimately in the business of selling the products that people want, and sometimes no amount of warnings will change that. The giant paragraph that's required by law in the US on a pack of cigarettes, for instance, is pretty much a waste of ink, in my opinion.
(The 30g serving is also unreasonably small. That's about a handful.)
Fact of the matter is that you shouldn't be eating much more of it anyway. It's not good for you in that quantity. It's probably just not good for you in any quantity, but small quantities of it aren't killing anyone. It's just like the chips. If your breakfast also included, say, an egg, toast, fruit, and some juice, the small serving of cereal would be reasonable.
Do you honestly think there are more people out there eating MARSHMELLOWS on a regular basis than measuring out sugar via teaspoons into a popular morning beverage every day (hint for the stupid: coffee)?
Well, no; that's sort of the point I wanted to emphasize though: you really shouldn't be doing it regularly.
Realistically while a marshmellow might have a lot of sugar in it, it's not "pure sugar", and usually contains other things such and gelatin and is simply not a valid measuring stick as a "type of sugar".
What isn't pure sugar is mostly pure starch, and the two aren't much different nutritionally. The tiny bit of protein isn't very significant in the nutritional breakdown of marshmallows (<2% by weight).
The main reason I like marshmallows as an analogy is that they're basically sugar and air in close to the same proportions as a coke is sugar and water. A can of coke is about the equivalent of a cup of marshmallows. And everyone knows that they're not really good for you and very few people would eat them by the bag, certainly not on a daily basis.
A small handful. I agree - a typical bag of chips from the vending machine would be 2 or 3. I don't know what size of bag would indicate that it contained 6 servings... usually it is more like 2 or 3. And in a reasonable meal you might expect to have a couple of servings of whatever you're eating, but habitually eating a few servings of the least healthy part as a between-meals snack would be bad for obvious reasons.
Not true.
The Atkins diet discourages grains, whole or otherwise, and allows a lot of meat protein and fat. The Atkins diet has been demonstrated effective in randomized, controlled trials published in JAMA.
Just because you're losing weight doesn't mean you're eating a healthy diet. Consuming inordinately large amounts of protein and fat is not good for your kidneys and liver.
That depends on what form of sugar you're using. I like marshmallows as a better analogy, because we all know they're nothing but sugar and unhealthy. And nobody eats sugar by the teaspoon, so that's not a very understandable analogy. We've all probably eaten enough marshmallows to give us a general perspective for eating them. They're a rare treat, not an everyday snack.
1 cup of miniature marshmallows contains about 159 calories, so drinking a coke is approximately like eating marshmallows, except with water instead of air. I'd hope that even somebody who wouldn't think twice about drinking a 32 oz. fountain drink would still know that eating a whole bag of marshmallows wouldn't be healthy.
The reason the serving sizes seem unreasonable is because they're listed in the way they're supposed to be consumed. A handful of chips on the side of a well-rounded meal is a "serving". Eating the whole bag is not. If there is any complaint to be made, it is that you can't buy a well-rounded meal from a vending machine. But if you could, who would? Companies aren't stupid. They sell what people want.
See also: http://maycome.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/chocolate-frosted-sugar-bombs-calvin-hobbes-3.gif