Re:Think a little more carefully
on
Reverse Graffiti
·
· Score: 1
Should people or companies be allowed to clean public areas of their own volition with no special permissions? Yes or no.
Only if they do it an a manner that doesn't offend the owner.
If people ARE allowed to go out and clean because they want to, or because someone pays them to (which is how it currently is) then you don't really have a right to tell them how.
Yes, I do! It's my property (well, it was the council's proprty, but I'm arguing for the POV of the council). If they're going to "clean" it, then they can damn well do the whole thing. Otherwise, I'd rather they didn't bother.
If I go to clean a wall of grafitti, but get tired halfway through and leave the other half, that's fine.
No it's not. It looks worse than it did before, but your intentions were good, so I'll forgive you.
He's partically cleaning a wall to make it in to an ad. That's fine.
That's NOT fine. He is adding something - Information! And he's advertising on MY property
If this offends you so much, YOU are welcome to go clean the rest of it. Much as he could partially clean it, you may partially or completely clean it.
But my completely cleaning it is as much work as it would have been before, except you've made it neccesary.
It's an interesting thought experiment I'll agree. Not quite sure whether it's the same situation. For example, would your views change if it's the victim of a crime you're helping, or a child, or - in the opposite direction - if it's a violent criminal?
But hey, I agree with you. It's the mother's choice.
The point is that some people believe it to be the same crime as killing a live human being. Would you permit the murder of a child if he had been forced upon the mother in a violent act?
You may think it's a totally different situation, and I'll probably agree with you, but there are some people who don't.
As for what the mother is supposed to do - You'll have to ask people with string anti abortion views about that one.
Speaking as a troll, I think that the only way this great nation can be free of all the evil communists and terrorists is by electeing GWB as world leader.
Michael Moore does make some good points, but he also fails to check his facts, and if often so innacurate that his honesty becomes questionable, and misses the point a number of times.
For example, he claims that the US government gave permission only to Bin Ladens family out of the US after the September 11th attacks. Further checking of facts will reveal that it was the Saudi government that arranged for all of its citizens to return home should they so desire. And while flights were limited at the time, there were a number permitted for important reasons.
Then there's the complaints that certain politicians want to outlaw abortions "even in cases of rape". That's because some people consider it murder! Now, whether you agree with them or not in this respect, I don't think you can criticise them for not wanting to kill a child because his father was a rapist.
Then there's his "Cold hard statistics". He talks about how the richest 1 percent saw their wages go up by 147%, whereas the poorest 20 percent are earning $100 less (adjusted for inflation). Those are two totally different statistics!
And my final complaint - He seems totally unable to comprehend how any black person could possibly be oopposed to Affermative Action.
Just look at how many people the steam engine put out of work! Nobody worked in mills after they were mechanised. Well, apart from all the people who tended the machines of course.
Strange really. The industrial revolution seemed to lead to more employment. Not less.
Must be a totally different situation though. It's a well known fact that the world only has a certain finite number of jobs (which is apparently the same argument used against immigration), and if you create a new piece of technology, then exactly the same work is done by fewer people. As opposed to production increasing.
I suspect outsourcing will only be a short term problem as well. Standards of living in India are going to improve over the next decade, which means that they'll have a high demand for imported consumer goods. Anyone who exploits that market will make a killing.
As we all know, The weather forcast was developed by the military. It gives a tactical edge if we know in advance which direction the wind is blowing, how far our troops are going to be able to see. The reason it is shared is that this information is also useful for civilians.
But what happens if this country finds itself at war again!? All our enemies need to do is log onto their enemy's web site, and download the weather forecast. This gives them more resources to fighht against us.
By keeping the forecast in a proprietry format, we can control who can and cannot read the data. We can keep it out of the hands of our enemies. Wanting to make it available for free would be an act of treason.
So Joe Shmoe robs 6 liquer stores, makes off with $6000, and gets a several years in prison.
Because the alternative is that he goes around robbing more liquer stores, making every liquer store owner in the area fear for their lives, and runs the risk of him actually killing one of them.
Jeff Skilling bankrupts a large company while netting several million dollars for himself, and several thousand people have lost their life savings.
My god! We'll have to get that guy off the street! He may go around bankrupting more companies! Eventually we'll lose every company in the country if he isn't kept in check.
Fortunately we have prison! This works so well, because simply by locking the guy up for long enough, the people who have lost money suddenly get it back.
Quite frankly, I don't see any logic even in making the penalty proportional to the harm done. there are 4 reasons for prison - Retribution, Prevention, Reformation and detterent. You seem to be hung up on the first of these. Why? It doesn't do anyone any good.
If Amazon wins, then it could mean that Amazon will have better supplies of their stocks, and that will be terrible because..
erm... I mean, if Toys R Us wins, then it could mean that Amazon will keep running out of stuff, and thre will be no option for the toy buying public but to go to one of the many other online retailers
But I think it's a bit of an unfair criticism. Do we consider the movie companies to be tightfisted because they want to make as much money as possible? If not, why should we think people are tightfisted because they want to see it for as little as possible?
If you get caught, you lose the money, and probably get shunned by everyone you ever knew. You'd be doing a couple of years at $0 each. And the Hollywood view of prison isn't that much like real life.
Exactly. So punishing white collar criminals isn't going to be a lot of good is it, except as a deterrent. And quite frankly, I'd say a couple of years in jail is enough of a risk to deter most people who may otherwise consider committing such a crime.
Copies of hit movies frequently show up on the Internet while they're still in theaters, allowing skinflint fans to see new releases like "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" without coughing up the price of a ticket.
There are other reasons. In some countries, it hasn't even been released yet! And when it is released it's going to be dubbed. I don't think it's too tightfisted to not want to buy an airline ticket to another country just to see the film in the correct language.
And why is this suddenly a problem? You've been able to get pirate videos since the 1980's. Exactly the same thing - recorded on a camcorder. The only difference is that the distribution method has changed. Changed to one that doesn't actually make the copiers any money!
Here in America (by which I mean the USA and Canada), punishment rarely fits the crime. If you steal a billion dollars from investors, you'll be asked to retire and pay a fine. Steal a hundred dollars from a liquour store, and you'll get twenty years in jail.
Ah yes, but most people who steal from liquor stores have commited many other crimes, and are likely to commit a lot more, whereas white collar criminals tend to only commit one crime.
If it can be proven that animated gifs were used in web pages before Acacia filed for its patents.
Hmmm.... Unlikely. The patent was filed 2 years before the web was invented.
Of course, the whole point of GIF compression was for downloading, so if the patent is too general, this may invalidate it. You would need to prove that there was prior art though. This would imply that you would need to get sued first. You would also probably need to hire legal representation, since the legal system is kinda biased towards lawyers.
Sorry. That was just a gripe about the legal system.
Slashdot Mirror
Should people or companies be allowed to clean public areas of their own volition with no special permissions? Yes or no.
Only if they do it an a manner that doesn't offend the owner.
If people ARE allowed to go out and clean because they want to, or because someone pays them to (which is how it currently is) then you don't really have a right to tell them how.
Yes, I do! It's my property (well, it was the council's proprty, but I'm arguing for the POV of the council). If they're going to "clean" it, then they can damn well do the whole thing. Otherwise, I'd rather they didn't bother.
If I go to clean a wall of grafitti, but get tired halfway through and leave the other half, that's fine.
No it's not. It looks worse than it did before, but your intentions were good, so I'll forgive you.
He's partically cleaning a wall to make it in to an ad. That's fine.
That's NOT fine. He is adding something - Information! And he's advertising on MY property
If this offends you so much, YOU are welcome to go clean the rest of it. Much as he could partially clean it, you may partially or completely clean it.
But my completely cleaning it is as much work as it would have been before, except you've made it neccesary.
It's an interesting thought experiment I'll agree. Not quite sure whether it's the same situation. For example, would your views change if it's the victim of a crime you're helping, or a child, or - in the opposite direction - if it's a violent criminal?
But hey, I agree with you. It's the mother's choice.
True, but that's not the point.
The point is that some people believe it to be the same crime as killing a live human being. Would you permit the murder of a child if he had been forced upon the mother in a violent act?
You may think it's a totally different situation, and I'll probably agree with you, but there are some people who don't.
As for what the mother is supposed to do - You'll have to ask people with string anti abortion views about that one.
Presumably, only a Troll could be pro-bush.
Speaking as a troll, I think that the only way this great nation can be free of all the evil communists and terrorists is by electeing GWB as world leader.
But I did read Stupid White Men.
Michael Moore does make some good points, but he also fails to check his facts, and if often so innacurate that his honesty becomes questionable, and misses the point a number of times.
For example, he claims that the US government gave permission only to Bin Ladens family out of the US after the September 11th attacks. Further checking of facts will reveal that it was the Saudi government that arranged for all of its citizens to return home should they so desire. And while flights were limited at the time, there were a number permitted for important reasons.
Then there's the complaints that certain politicians want to outlaw abortions "even in cases of rape". That's because some people consider it murder! Now, whether you agree with them or not in this respect, I don't think you can criticise them for not wanting to kill a child because his father was a rapist.
Then there's his "Cold hard statistics". He talks about how the richest 1 percent saw their wages go up by 147%, whereas the poorest 20 percent are earning $100 less (adjusted for inflation). Those are two totally different statistics!
And my final complaint - He seems totally unable to comprehend how any black person could possibly be oopposed to Affermative Action.
Just look at how many people the steam engine put out of work! Nobody worked in mills after they were mechanised. Well, apart from all the people who tended the machines of course.
Strange really. The industrial revolution seemed to lead to more employment. Not less.
Must be a totally different situation though. It's a well known fact that the world only has a certain finite number of jobs (which is apparently the same argument used against immigration), and if you create a new piece of technology, then exactly the same work is done by fewer people. As opposed to production increasing.
I suspect outsourcing will only be a short term problem as well. Standards of living in India are going to improve over the next decade, which means that they'll have a high demand for imported consumer goods. Anyone who exploits that market will make a killing.
As we all know, The weather forcast was developed by the military. It gives a tactical edge if we know in advance which direction the wind is blowing, how far our troops are going to be able to see. The reason it is shared is that this information is also useful for civilians.
But what happens if this country finds itself at war again!? All our enemies need to do is log onto their enemy's web site, and download the weather forecast. This gives them more resources to fighht against us.
By keeping the forecast in a proprietry format, we can control who can and cannot read the data. We can keep it out of the hands of our enemies. Wanting to make it available for free would be an act of treason.
and then we can leverage our position into a new market segment!
So Joe Shmoe robs 6 liquer stores, makes off with $6000, and gets a several years in prison.
Because the alternative is that he goes around robbing more liquer stores, making every liquer store owner in the area fear for their lives, and runs the risk of him actually killing one of them.
Jeff Skilling bankrupts a large company while netting several million dollars for himself, and several thousand people have lost their life savings.
My god! We'll have to get that guy off the street! He may go around bankrupting more companies! Eventually we'll lose every company in the country if he isn't kept in check.
Fortunately we have prison! This works so well, because simply by locking the guy up for long enough, the people who have lost money suddenly get it back.
Quite frankly, I don't see any logic even in making the penalty proportional to the harm done. there are 4 reasons for prison - Retribution, Prevention, Reformation and detterent. You seem to be hung up on the first of these. Why? It doesn't do anyone any good.
"Self replicating computer programs" it is then.
If Amazon wins, then it could mean that Amazon will have better supplies of their stocks, and that will be terrible because..
erm... I mean, if Toys R Us wins, then it could mean that Amazon will keep running out of stuff, and thre will be no option for the toy buying public but to go to one of the many other online retailers
No. Sorry... Why do I care?
Why do you need to differentiate between the two in plural and not in the singular?
And even if virus was a latin singular noun, the plural would be "viri". Not "virii".
So, check the install.log. Does it exist? If not then nothing was installed.
I've always understood skinflint to mean miserly.
But I think it's a bit of an unfair criticism. Do we consider the movie companies to be tightfisted because they want to make as much money as possible? If not, why should we think people are tightfisted because they want to see it for as little as possible?
i think it's just another crap article.
You could have a point.
I think the trademark is "CD-Audio" and the logo.
I think you're right. I've heard that they aren't allowed to (and therefore don't) put the "compact disc audio" logo on CDs with this copy protection.
It's not installed!
It just runs an application.
If you get caught, you lose the money, and probably get shunned by everyone you ever knew. You'd be doing a couple of years at $0 each. And the Hollywood view of prison isn't that much like real life.
Exactly. So punishing white collar criminals isn't going to be a lot of good is it, except as a deterrent. And quite frankly, I'd say a couple of years in jail is enough of a risk to deter most people who may otherwise consider committing such a crime.
Well, that screws up the argument for prison being a means for prevention or rehabilitiation.
The reason we put them away for so long is that they are a danger to others. They have offended, and will do so again.
Yup. Guilty as charged. ;)
Copies of hit movies frequently show up on the Internet while they're still in theaters, allowing skinflint fans to see new releases like "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" without coughing up the price of a ticket.
There are other reasons. In some countries, it hasn't even been released yet! And when it is released it's going to be dubbed. I don't think it's too tightfisted to not want to buy an airline ticket to another country just to see the film in the correct language.
And why is this suddenly a problem? You've been able to get pirate videos since the 1980's. Exactly the same thing - recorded on a camcorder. The only difference is that the distribution method has changed. Changed to one that doesn't actually make the copiers any money!
Here in America (by which I mean the USA and Canada), punishment rarely fits the crime. If you steal a billion dollars from investors, you'll be asked to retire and pay a fine. Steal a hundred dollars from a liquour store, and you'll get twenty years in jail.
Ah yes, but most people who steal from liquor stores have commited many other crimes, and are likely to commit a lot more, whereas white collar criminals tend to only commit one crime.
Take the stairs! Get some exercise!
I mean a 4 elevator building can't be much more than 40 floors. Think how much weight you'll lose.
If it can be proven that animated gifs were used in web pages before Acacia filed for its patents.
Hmmm.... Unlikely. The patent was filed 2 years before the web was invented.
Of course, the whole point of GIF compression was for downloading, so if the patent is too general, this may invalidate it. You would need to prove that there was prior art though. This would imply that you would need to get sued first. You would also probably need to hire legal representation, since the legal system is kinda biased towards lawyers.
Sorry. That was just a gripe about the legal system.
The fact that you have to qualify your use of the word stable with "reasonably" is hilarious.
Most companies don't bother to reach the level of reasonably stable. Who do you consider as their competitors?
In the field of server operating systems, Sun with Solaris, and IBM with OS/2. Both overweight slow and nasty pieces of work.