I don't either. The last two places I worked at didn't even offer desk phones. They paid for the mobile carrier. We used Skype, IM, GoToMeeting. The only "phone" was in the conference room.
If you want less pollution you want fewer people. If you want a richer nation (with more pollution and more environmental degradation) then you want more educated immigrants. Either way we should look to Canada and have an immigration policy where we set standards for those who want to become citizens.
Any proposed solution will lead straight to Godwin's Law, sooner rather than later.
This is the first step. 20 years ago this was science fiction. 20 years from now we will look at today's 3D printers the same way we look at 9600 baud modems.
Now we need to achieve the holy grail - a screen that can expand, in much the same way one expands a browser window or photoshop/visio box by pulling it in the corner to keep the same proportion and from the side to elongate.
Then your phone can expand to tablet size (or larger) when you need it.
The day when AI teaching programs will be the norm is coming very soon. These online schools are just a precursor to what's around the corner. As for "cheap" tech support - there will always be something new. 100 years ago 75% of the people worked on farms now less than 2%. In the 50s and 60s there were huge secretarial pools. Now those are gone. Future technological change will bring new jobs. Morse code came and went. Horse buggies came and went. New skills will always be needed.
Now - there may be a time ( the singualarity and all that) when things may be really different (3d printing, photovoltaic cells providing unlimited cheap energy, nutritious, tasteful, lab grown food). But that's something we can't predict today.
So, does the land the palestinians live on belong to Jordan (it did before 1967). Or did the palestinians defeat jordan in a civil war and become it's own country. (one could say that).
The Palestinians have Gaza all to themselves, that's a start. They can start a government, schools, an economy all w/o Israel.
The argument for the SDI included dealing with rogue missiles sent either by mistake or by a country like N Korea. That SDI isn't perfect yet doesn't mean that the research on defensive weapons is foolish.
The libertarian in me wants to limit government, especially the police power of the state, as much as possible.
I would legalize drugs, prostitution, gambling but I would not legalize plagiarism. Now, you hit an interesting gray area - that plagiarism can be prosecutable only if copyright infringement or actionable fraud can be proved.
Remember: Authors don't create copyright; ultimately, the public does.
Exactly. Copyright is created by society in order to protect the creators of intellectual property.
I've long (over 15 years) been in favor of digital libraries. I'm appalled that academic research is not available to people not associated with a university. I am not defending the idiocy that exists under the name of intellectual property. Just as I'm in favor of the first amendment's right to free speech and assembly does not mean I support the actions of Nazis and KKK.
We cannot have people taking other people's work, copying it and selling it. If that happens then why would they produce the work in the first place. Imagine you spent 10 years of your life creating X, you publish your work, other people like it, they copy what you've done, sell it to others (they make a profit for their effort in copying your work and selling your work) and YOU make nothing.
You've spent hours, days, years sweating out your work. But you get nothing (or very little) for your work because others think they can simply take it.
Again - I'm not defending big media, idiotic bills such as ACTA or SOPA but I am defending the creator, the artist, the musician, the writer, the game developer - anybody who creates intellectual property from those who think they can take what someone else created simply because they want it.
Well, when you say you want a moon base - it means other people need to design and build it and then give it to you. When you, or I, or anyone else creates something nobody gave it to us. We're just asking that others don't take it as their own.
Would you say that plagiarism is protected by freedom of speech?
Here I thought copyright, patent and trademark law existed to protect intellectual property. Now -- I am NOT defending all the stupidity and abuses done in the name of intellectual property. I am however defending the idea that what people create is theirs and cannot be copied at whim by others. Can you pass someone else's work as your own (plagiarism) and not expect to get called on it?
No. Because that music, movie, book was created by someone else. It is not yours.
Sharing what? Music because you don't feel like paying for it? Now I am really sympathetic as big media has been retarded in the way they've doing business. They're charging ridiculous prices and are wondering why people are upset and are stealing their product.
Taking some else's property without their consent is stealing. Now -- sharing music is, without a doubt, a gray area. And once again big media is shooting themselves in the foot (or is it head) with their stupidity. Still -- sharing is not a public good. It's a public taking of other people's things.
I'm sympathetic to file sharing. BUT, just because big media is stupid as sin, doesn't mean that copyright should be abolished or that file sharing is just.
Is it just to copy movies or music and sell them on the street without asking the creators first and without giving the creators anything for their idea, time and effort?
I'm objecting to your sig: that intellectual property is wrong but agree wholeheartedly that big media is dumb as sh*t and have very little sympathy for them.
Well - that part is covered by freedom of press. And technically much of what we call freedom of speech is intertwined with freedom of the press.
I'm defending the originators right to their work; that others can't take it or sell it at their whim.
Free speech is your right to say what you want without being persecuted by the government. You are given nothing. Free speech limits the police power of the government.
Free speech does not grant you the right to copy someone elses work (music, poetry, books, music, software) and sell it or distribute it at your whim.
I agree completely about being given temporary control. The US constitution states: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
There are too many people who think that copyright protection is wrong. I'm defending the concept of individual property rights. I'm not defending the actions of big media, nor am I defending the idiotic actions of law makers.
No. I'm not defending the idiotic decisions by German courts, nor am I defending SOPA, ACTA or other ridiculous bills.
Unfortunately there are people who think that intellectual property is nonsense; that there should be no copyright laws. The post on the 4th A was written too quickly. It should have said that the 4th A *SHOULD* apply to papers and effects such as emails.
I'm a big privacy fan and am appalled by the direction our society is going. For example that Facebook owns the content written there in. Facebook should have no more say about the posts than does the manufacturer of my laptop have in what I'm writing right now.
No. I'm not obligated to paint, write, code or anything else. But, if I do, and if I choose to sell my work and not give it away -- what gives you the right to take it.
Now - I am not defending big media. They have made many stupid decisions (including backing SOPA, ACTA). Nor am I saying that what the kid did deserved a jail sentence. When I was a kid (dating myself here) we taped songs off the radio onto cassettes, copied them and traded them with our friends. The kid in the lawsuit did much what I did.
Nonetheless - we are talking about a broader issue here - intellectual property. There needs to be fair use but you should still have a reasonable control over your intellectual property for a period of time. For instance Martin Luther King's family has abused copyright laws. King's speeches should now be part of the public domain - especially since MLK did not produce the film (AFAIK).
Excellent reply. Here in NY its a bloated bureaucracy that ought to be trimmed but in Alaska and in other remote areas it is needed and works very well. I too have lived in Alaska (south-east) and other remote area.
the article didn't say anything about the USPS paying property taxes.
Expanding this conversation to roads will unnecessarily complicate the conversation. Let's keep on topic. Here are more relevant questions.
Is there any reason for the government to run the post office.? (Yes. The constitution provides for it.)
Why are you so invested in having the government run the post office?
What makes you think that big top-down government agencies are the way to go?
If the USPS is self-sufficient why MUST it be a government service? Do you actually think that government agencies are better?
MAFIAA? Me. Because I believe that what I create is my own?
I think big media is stupid and has created a ton of problems for itself because it doesn't change it's business model and because it backing these stupid laws (SOPA, ACTA).
I'm a big supporter of eff.org. I don't use Facebook because of privacy issues. But all this doesn't mean that you can take someone else's property.
When the last Harry Potter book came out - do you think it would have been legitimate for you to copy the book, print it and sell it and keep all the profit for yourself?
You mean to say that no government monies - at all go to the USPS? That they receive no breaks of any kind by any federal, state or local government agency.
Are you saying that this would be the first time that the USPS has ever received any government assistance?
Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
Slashdot Mirror
I don't either. The last two places I worked at didn't even offer desk phones. They paid for the mobile carrier. We used Skype, IM, GoToMeeting. The only "phone" was in the conference room.
If you want less pollution you want fewer people. If you want a richer nation (with more pollution and more environmental degradation) then you want more educated immigrants. Either way we should look to Canada and have an immigration policy where we set standards for those who want to become citizens.
Any proposed solution will lead straight to Godwin's Law, sooner rather than later.
This is the first step. 20 years ago this was science fiction. 20 years from now we will look at today's 3D printers the same way we look at 9600 baud modems.
:- )
The singularity is coming.
Now we need to achieve the holy grail - a screen that can expand, in much the same way one expands a browser window or photoshop/visio box by pulling it in the corner to keep the same proportion and from the side to elongate. Then your phone can expand to tablet size (or larger) when you need it.
The day when AI teaching programs will be the norm is coming very soon. These online schools are just a precursor to what's around the corner. As for "cheap" tech support - there will always be something new. 100 years ago 75% of the people worked on farms now less than 2%. In the 50s and 60s there were huge secretarial pools. Now those are gone. Future technological change will bring new jobs. Morse code came and went. Horse buggies came and went. New skills will always be needed. Now - there may be a time ( the singualarity and all that) when things may be really different (3d printing, photovoltaic cells providing unlimited cheap energy, nutritious, tasteful, lab grown food). But that's something we can't predict today.
Israel and Palestinians should ignore each other and live their own lives. No bombs. No trade (unless mutually agreed upon).. No nothing.
So, does the land the palestinians live on belong to Jordan (it did before 1967). Or did the palestinians defeat jordan in a civil war and become it's own country. (one could say that). The Palestinians have Gaza all to themselves, that's a start. They can start a government, schools, an economy all w/o Israel.
The argument for the SDI included dealing with rogue missiles sent either by mistake or by a country like N Korea. That SDI isn't perfect yet doesn't mean that the research on defensive weapons is foolish.
I thought he was a laissez-faire republican trying to limit government intervention.
Remember: Authors don't create copyright; ultimately, the public does.
Exactly. Copyright is created by society in order to protect the creators of intellectual property.
I've long (over 15 years) been in favor of digital libraries. I'm appalled that academic research is not available to people not associated with a university. I am not defending the idiocy that exists under the name of intellectual property. Just as I'm in favor of the first amendment's right to free speech and assembly does not mean I support the actions of Nazis and KKK.
We cannot have people taking other people's work, copying it and selling it. If that happens then why would they produce the work in the first place. Imagine you spent 10 years of your life creating X, you publish your work, other people like it, they copy what you've done, sell it to others (they make a profit for their effort in copying your work and selling your work) and YOU make nothing.
You've spent hours, days, years sweating out your work. But you get nothing (or very little) for your work because others think they can simply take it.
Again - I'm not defending big media, idiotic bills such as ACTA or SOPA but I am defending the creator, the artist, the musician, the writer, the game developer - anybody who creates intellectual property from those who think they can take what someone else created simply because they want it.
Well, when you say you want a moon base - it means other people need to design and build it and then give it to you. When you, or I, or anyone else creates something nobody gave it to us. We're just asking that others don't take it as their own.
Would you say that plagiarism is protected by freedom of speech?
Here I thought copyright, patent and trademark law existed to protect intellectual property. Now -- I am NOT defending all the stupidity and abuses done in the name of intellectual property. I am however defending the idea that what people create is theirs and cannot be copied at whim by others. Can you pass someone else's work as your own (plagiarism) and not expect to get called on it? No. Because that music, movie, book was created by someone else. It is not yours.
Sharing what? Music because you don't feel like paying for it? Now I am really sympathetic as big media has been retarded in the way they've doing business. They're charging ridiculous prices and are wondering why people are upset and are stealing their product.
Taking some else's property without their consent is stealing. Now -- sharing music is, without a doubt, a gray area. And once again big media is shooting themselves in the foot (or is it head) with their stupidity. Still -- sharing is not a public good. It's a public taking of other people's things. I'm sympathetic to file sharing. BUT, just because big media is stupid as sin, doesn't mean that copyright should be abolished or that file sharing is just. Is it just to copy movies or music and sell them on the street without asking the creators first and without giving the creators anything for their idea, time and effort? I'm objecting to your sig: that intellectual property is wrong but agree wholeheartedly that big media is dumb as sh*t and have very little sympathy for them.
Well - that part is covered by freedom of press. And technically much of what we call freedom of speech is intertwined with freedom of the press. I'm defending the originators right to their work; that others can't take it or sell it at their whim.
Free speech is your right to say what you want without being persecuted by the government. You are given nothing. Free speech limits the police power of the government.
Free speech does not grant you the right to copy someone elses work (music, poetry, books, music, software) and sell it or distribute it at your whim.
I agree completely about being given temporary control. The US constitution states: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" There are too many people who think that copyright protection is wrong. I'm defending the concept of individual property rights. I'm not defending the actions of big media, nor am I defending the idiotic actions of law makers.
No. I'm not defending the idiotic decisions by German courts, nor am I defending SOPA, ACTA or other ridiculous bills.
Unfortunately there are people who think that intellectual property is nonsense; that there should be no copyright laws. The post on the 4th A was written too quickly. It should have said that the 4th A *SHOULD* apply to papers and effects such as emails. I'm a big privacy fan and am appalled by the direction our society is going. For example that Facebook owns the content written there in. Facebook should have no more say about the posts than does the manufacturer of my laptop have in what I'm writing right now.
No. I'm not obligated to paint, write, code or anything else. But, if I do, and if I choose to sell my work and not give it away -- what gives you the right to take it. Now - I am not defending big media. They have made many stupid decisions (including backing SOPA, ACTA). Nor am I saying that what the kid did deserved a jail sentence. When I was a kid (dating myself here) we taped songs off the radio onto cassettes, copied them and traded them with our friends. The kid in the lawsuit did much what I did. Nonetheless - we are talking about a broader issue here - intellectual property. There needs to be fair use but you should still have a reasonable control over your intellectual property for a period of time. For instance Martin Luther King's family has abused copyright laws. King's speeches should now be part of the public domain - especially since MLK did not produce the film (AFAIK).
Excellent reply. Here in NY its a bloated bureaucracy that ought to be trimmed but in Alaska and in other remote areas it is needed and works very well. I too have lived in Alaska (south-east) and other remote area.
Expanding this conversation to roads will unnecessarily complicate the conversation. Let's keep on topic. Here are more relevant questions. Is there any reason for the government to run the post office.? (Yes. The constitution provides for it.)
Why are you so invested in having the government run the post office? What makes you think that big top-down government agencies are the way to go? If the USPS is self-sufficient why MUST it be a government service? Do you actually think that government agencies are better?
MAFIAA? Me. Because I believe that what I create is my own?
I think big media is stupid and has created a ton of problems for itself because it doesn't change it's business model and because it backing these stupid laws (SOPA, ACTA).
I'm a big supporter of eff.org. I don't use Facebook because of privacy issues. But all this doesn't mean that you can take someone else's property.
When the last Harry Potter book came out - do you think it would have been legitimate for you to copy the book, print it and sell it and keep all the profit for yourself?
You're correct it doesn't.
I should have said the 4th A *SHOULD* apply to email and posts hosted elsewhere.
You mean to say that no government monies - at all go to the USPS? That they receive no breaks of any kind by any federal, state or local government agency.
Are you saying that this would be the first time that the USPS has ever received any government assistance?
Is that what you're saying?
How is creative property contrary to law?
Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"