The law explicitly states that all of the four factors enumerated there will be considered when determining if something is fair use, and those factors include the type of use (educational or commercial, for instance), the amount of material copied, and the effect on the market. (emphasis mine)
"Considered" != "required". The court could very well decide it's Fair Use based solely upon the fact that the use was purely educational.
"But make no mistake.... copyright infringement is most definitely stealing."
BR Ermmm. yeah. Despite the fact that it does not meet the definition. Chalk this up to the weak argument: "copyright infringement is theft because I SAY it is, no explanation necessary."
No no, you need to say this:
"copyright infringement is theft because I SAY it is, no explanation necessary. Period."
See, ending the sentence with the WORD "period" is what proves that you're undeniably right.
I haven't been keeping track. Is it the same idiots over and over again claiming "copyright is undeniably theft", or is it a fresh crop every few weeks?
What part about the fact that copyright is supposed to be the _EXCLUSIVE_ right of its holder to copy a work is incomprehensible? If you don't think that's what it should be, that's fine, but that doesn't change the fact that is exactly what copyright is.
So your argument is that because the law says so, it must be right? See the thing about copyright is that it's a favor, a gift, granted by we, the people, through our government, to artists in order to enrich the public domain. "Exclusivity" is not property that can be stolen, it's merely an enticement, a bargain between the public and the creator: "you create and share it with humanity, and in return we'll use the power of government to keep others from profiting from your work for a little while". See, it's fucktards who think it's even rational that someone could own a song or a story that are the problem. Copyright is not a natural right (like the right to life, liberty, or property) by the simplest measure: the exercise of copyright is inherently a restriction on the freedom of others. I simply cannot fathom why it is that there are so many fools out there who don't understand this.
> Though it's misleading to say XP blew OS X away, because the application were PowerPC native and not a universal binary:
It's not just 'misleading,' it's downright deceptive to omit that detail.
If native binaries for the apps don't fucking exist for the Intel Mac, then it's not "deceptive". I'll send you a shiny dime if you can point out the deception in the statement: "DV (Digital Video) did a test with the new Core2Duo and did a variety of tasks on the same machine in OS X and XP; XP blew OS X away". They did, and it did. This may change in the future with the introduction of native binary Mac versions, but until then you cannot deny the truth: XP won. It doesn't matter if the Mac version "had an excuse" for losing-- it was still just plain fucking slower.
people paid by sony to drum up some last minute hype. that or just a bunch of tards.
My first thought was "gotta be Sony shills, 'cause there's no way so many like-minded tards would happen to show up in the same place"--- but then I thought of Slashdot...
I didn't say anything was sneaky about it. It is up to chance which justices retire when. The fact remains that 7 of the 9 justices were appointed by Republicans.
Even with that being the case, that doesn't necessarily mean anything. Supreme Court Justices are essentially untouchable, so they can-- and do-- rule as they please without regard to who appointed them. The classic example is Justice Harry Blackmun. Appointed by Nixon and conservative as they came back in those days... but then he came out with the Roe v. Wade decision.
There is just one problem with what you are saying. The growth of the US government has been exponential, it can only go on for so much longer without running up against the laws of physics.
Actually, no. I think he was either engaging in hyperbole of doesn't know what "exponential" means. The government is only growing quite gradually, by a modest percentage. The problem is that it does it every year with no sign of stopping. The only light at the end of the tunnel right now is that GDP is growing faster. We'll still be shackled by all kinds of nasty law, but there's a slim chance we might not end up in the poorhouse to boot.
Can you explain how VA benefits to provide health care to veteran's injured in Iraq is not a military expense?
Because when you're speaking in the context of "let's cut the military budget to save money", nobody's ever suggesting that we cut care for veterans-- they're talking about buying fewer bombs and enlisting fewer soldiers. Therefore, including vet costs as "proof" that the military has plenty of room to cut is disingenuous.
If you use the figures from the offical U.S. Budget, you get 20%. However, the war on Iraq is not included in the budget and is funded through a special package.
A special package amounting to $75B in 2006, on top of $419B regularly allocated. An increase of about a fifth, enough to push the DoD up to 22%. Still a far cry from the "over half" claim.
The funding has to be borrowed, and just like when I borrow money from the bank to buy something I cannot offered (like a house) I have to include the interest costs of borrowing this money in my accounting of its costs. Federal deficit costs that came from the wide variety of military actions we have been involved in since WWII, from Korea to Iraq to Nicaraqua (the first "War on Terror") to the funding we gave Hussien before he stopped following our orders. All of this costs money and should appropriately be assigned to military spending.
When people speak of cutting military spending, they're talking about buying fewer bombs and enlisting fewer soldiers. Citing service of debt for past irresponsible budgeting by congress as "proof" that the military has plenty of room to cut is disingenuous.
The flaw in your old saw is that you make the error of assuming the budget actually covers everything and that it properly categories expenses. All you have to do is think about how much is being spent in Iraq to get a sense that there is a serious flaw in your argument.
Iraq is indeed expensive, but it pales in comparison to the rest of the budget. $75B might seem like a lot of money, but the government borrows $2.55 billion a day. The extra appropriation plus the shared portion of the deficit in the DoD budget is borrowed in the first 2 months. Where's all the rest of that borrowed money going?
Add in the money being spent on "Homeland Defense", Veterans Affairs, NASA, Department of Energy, that are primarily related to the military, and you have a lot more than 20%.
No you don't. Even if we put on our "idiot hats" and pretend that the entire budget of all those agencies is somehow part of the "military budget", we end up at only $519B out of $2.2 trillion: less than 24%. Throw in the $75B emergency addition, it's only %26. No matter how you cut it, the military ain't sucking up "over half" of the budget. Furthermore, all this stupid song and dance you're prattling on about past debt service and with the DOE and NASA "technically" being part of the military budget,is completely irrelevant. When someone says "we should cut the military, it's over half the budget" they're not talking about firing NASA or DOE scientists, or closing VA hospitals, or defaulting on interest payments for money borrowed in 1991 to pay the fuel bill for the 101st Airborne during Desert Storm. They're talking about cutting a piece out of the $419B(+$75B) the DoD spent to pay soldiers and replace the bombs they used, and that simply isn't "over half" of the budget-- it's in 20-22% range. Frankly, your ridiculous attempt to redefine the "military budget" to include everything from congressional fiscal irresponsibility to the Hubble orbital telescope is tantamount to an admission that you're wrong.
If you want to cut spending, tell them to cut the thing that takes over half of the budget: the military.
Not that old saw again! The military budget is about 20%. If you use the common ruse of pretending Social Security spending isn't part of the budget, it's still only about 25%. Even if you go to the absurd length of counting as "military spending" the cost of veteran's benefits and the interest on the national debt as accrued by past military and veteran's benefits spending, it still only amounts to about 49%. The only metric by which the military budget barely ekes out a majority at 50.5% is as a percentage of discretionary spending, but that just highlights the abomination that is non-discretionary (or entitlement) spending, which is simply assorted things congress has arbitrarily decreed cannot be cut. It's not "over half" by any sane measure, and hasn't been since World War II. This is part of the absurdity of the "war on terror". Not only is it a tremendous waste on its face, but the military they sent to do it has been consistently cut over the last 15 years (remember the sol-called "peace dividend" shit?) leaving a force inadequately equipped to do the job it's been assigned.
Or the ever popular, to just ignore the Geneva Convention, where ever they see fit.
Please. You speak as though the Geneva Convention is holy writ. The uncomfortable truth about it is that signatories are not required to abide by its principles if they decide their enemy is not conducting warfare according to the Convention. See, they really are no rules to warfare. The Geneva Convention is little more than a few of the more organized nations getting together and saying "in the future, let's agree to not to escalate the fighting in such a way that makes the loser of the next war look really bad, because you never know who that'll be." It's gilded with altruism and compassion, it's just political ass-covering. War is never altruistic nor compassionate. It's just killin' folks and breakin' things.
Voting puts forth the very strong implication that you support the way the system works, as you are willing to participate. Well, I don't support the way the system works, as far as I am concerned, it is about as broken as it can get and still superficially resemble the occasional fragment of democratic procedure or any vestige of a republic well enough to fool the middle part of the gaussian.
Well put. I too refuse to participate in the charade-- unless they include a single checkbox on the ballot reading:
[ ] Revolution
Until another way presents itself, I am forced to use abstention as the nearest thing to a vote of no confidence. What do you suppose would happen if they held an election and nobody showed up...
Actually, that doesn't have to be the case. I keep the DSLR in a small satchel near the door. If we think we're going to have an opportunity to take photos, it comes along. Otherwise, my wife has a DPAS (I like the term:) in her purse all the time.
I'm not a pro by any stretch of the imagination. I'm just an avid amateur. But the DSLR comes along on quite a few little trips now that I have a bag small enough and easy enough to "just bring".
I used to have a Pentax 35mm SLR with all the lenses and flash shoe danglies you could imagine, but even when I pared it down to a flash, one lens, and a few rolls of fil it was a sizeable mass to tote. I found that even when I did decide/remember to bring it along, it was such an albatross around my neck that I felt like I wasn't participating in the event, but more just there as a photographer. Subsequently, I found myself leaving it behind most of the time. The best thing to happen to my photography has been my stupid little DPOS Canon SD450. The thing is the size of a credit card and half an inch thick-- it fits in a tiny belt pouch. What I've lost in quality (not much, truth be told) I've more than made up for in sheer quantity of pictures. Instead of the usual 24-36 pictures I'd come back from a week's camping with with the SLR, I have nearly 200. Granted, many are dupes due to "bracketing", but after going through them I end up with probably 30 pictures worth putting in the family album vs. the 6-12 I'd get with the SLR. But see, I'm not a "photographer" by any measure. I mostly just want decent snapshots of people because in 80 years the great grandkids will want to see what we looked like, not a picture of Mount Rushmore that looks mediocre in comparison to the postcard.
All software I've ever wanted to buy and HAVE bought has evaluation versions.
The "piracy for evaluation" excuse is a weak cop-out in my eyes.
It's only a weak cop out to you because your evaluation needs are fulfilled within the limited functionality of the eval version. Many years ago I installed the evaluation version of Borland C++ Builder 5. It took me 30 days just to learn the basics of how it worked well enough to even be able to test its suitability. I ended up flushing it out and installing a pirated copy. After 6 months or so it was clear that it'd be just what I needed, so I purchased a legitimate copy. No crippled or time limited demo would have done it, and a sales-drone coming in to show it off on his laptop certainly wouldn't do it either. See, for every anecdotal example there's a counter-example. Your sample size of one is statistically irrelevant.
It's a sarcastic illustration of how the GP poster is a fucking moron with his "stealing and stealing of other people's IP" comment. Copyright infringement isn't theft, no matter how much idiots like him pretend otherwise. "Insightful" might have been a better mod.
In related news, judge Patel just issued an injunction requiring movie theaters to cease doing business until their facilities were in accordance with the ADA. This ruling includes that headphones be available for the visually disabled, with a narrator telling the listener what is happening on the screen."
No, I'm saying that with the amount of money we spend annually on Iraq, certain other government projects have to get the axe. There's limited money to go around and we're already up to our nipples in debt. Pretty soon, we'll be in up to our noses and unable to breathe, so something's got to give, I guess.
Actually, no. You're working from the ridiculous premise that the federal budget has some sort of "balance" to it, that a greater expense in one area must necessarily be countered by an equal cut elsewhere. Our government doesn't work like that. If it runs low on cash, it just basically prints more money. A lot of hot air is blown around about the enormous cost of the War on Terror, but nobody actually stops to look at the big picture. The war costs about $200 million a day, and sure, that's a lot of money; but as a part of the deficit, which is about $2.55 billion a day, it's rather unremarkable. When the entire budget of the NSF Division of Astronomical Sciences, of which Arecibo is only a small part, is only $450 million, surely it's obvious that budget cuts here are not part of any meaningful effort to fund the war. I know it's fashionable to blame everything on Chimpy BUSHitler's war, but this is just the NSF shuffling funds around.
I have a proposal-- No more including Wikipedia links in articles. I mean seriously, does anyone out there really need help searching the wikipedia? Please, if you want to give real information on a subject, give a real primary or secondary source.
There's nothing wrong with linking wikipedia for a simple overview. Why do you object to people including a freakin' hyperlink in their summary, demanding that people go look it up themselves? Get over yourself.
I'd be interested if somebody has done a study to determine how much additional throughput is gained by giving X% of drivers congestion information. My guess is it would do more to reduce the variance of travel times than it would to reduce the average travel time.
It would depend entirely on the amount of traffic. In god-awful places like the Los Angeles area, knowing there's an exceptional traffic jam doesn't help, as any and all alternate routes are already filled to capacity under "normal" conditions. In an area where traffic is normally light and there's an unusual traffic-inducing event, knowledge of the anomaly gives people the opportunity to route around it.
I'd be interested if somebody has done a study to determine how much additional throughput is gained by giving X% of drivers congestion information. My guess is it would do more to reduce the variance of travel times than it would to reduce the average travel time.
It would depend entirely on the amount of traffic. In god-awful places like the Los Angeles area, knowing there's an exceptional traffic jam doesn't help, as any and all alternate routes are already filled to capacity under "normal" conditions. In an area where traffic is normally light and there's an unusual traffic-inducing event, knowledge of the anomaly gives people the opportunity to route around it.
But I have been studying the Middle East and US involvement there quite actively since 1992 when I became an Arabic linguist in US Military Intelligence.
Ah, a scribble reader! I was a russian linguist, myself. What service? DLI presidio or monterrey?
Impreachment for wasting $200 billion USD of military equipment and weakening the military should be at the top of the list.
Given that he's the Commander in Chief of the military and was given congressional approval for war, there's no impeachable offense there. Sorry. I agree that he's pissed away a lot of lives and money on a revenge war for daddy, but unpopular != illegal. This is what elections are for.
Using pirated music costs you: you can be sued, and you gotta use questionable service full of porn, scam ads and trojans. Not every price has a dollar value.
It truly is a terrible price to pay, having all that free porn available right next to all that free music.
This is the thing about the appearance of impropriety. It's an important, and formal, concept in credible court systems like those in America.
If there may be an appereance that the verdict was planned or timed, you do things to avoid even that appearance.
Such as not announcing a verdict on the weekend before the U.S. elections.
I'm not saying for sure they timed it, because I just don't know. But I do know for sure that they could have waited 3 days and changed the whole image of the thing.
Such is the great conceit of Americans, to think that the legal system of a foreign country timed a verdict so as to coincide with our mid-term elections. Not much less of a conceit to suggest that they should modify their schedule so as to minimize the appearance of impropriety to a bunch of foreign conspiracy theorists.
The consequence of this is that contrary to the theory that writing something once should be sufficient, the truth of the matter is that in the vast majority of practical cases, it is simpler to write the code once again, bespoke for your particular needs and environment, than it is to pick up the best available pre-written component to do it.
Indeed, the classic advice is "don't reinvent the wheel", but even that advice misses the target beyond a very basic level of complexity. Wooden cart wheels are inappropriate for railroad cars; steel railroad wheels are inappropriate for automobiles; pneumatic automobile tires are inappropriate for a moon rover. Really, you are usually better off reimplementing the wheel, but it's a good idea to have a bunch of wheels around to look at for reference.
Libertarians aren't against government - they see it as necessary for certain things like national defense.
True. I was being glib for purpose of brevity. Illustrating that the unspoken implication of comments about using elections to get Chimpy out of office are most likely to come from those who think the likely alternative (a lefty democrat) is significantly better.
Slashdot Mirror
"Considered" != "required". The court could very well decide it's Fair Use based solely upon the fact that the use was purely educational.
"copyright infringement is theft because I SAY it is, no explanation necessary. Period."
See, ending the sentence with the WORD "period" is what proves that you're undeniably right.
I haven't been keeping track. Is it the same idiots over and over again claiming "copyright is undeniably theft", or is it a fresh crop every few weeks?
A special package amounting to $75B in 2006, on top of $419B regularly allocated. An increase of about a fifth, enough to push the DoD up to 22%. Still a far cry from the "over half" claim.
When people speak of cutting military spending, they're talking about buying fewer bombs and enlisting fewer soldiers. Citing service of debt for past irresponsible budgeting by congress as "proof" that the military has plenty of room to cut is disingenuous.
Iraq is indeed expensive, but it pales in comparison to the rest of the budget. $75B might seem like a lot of money, but the government borrows $2.55 billion a day. The extra appropriation plus the shared portion of the deficit in the DoD budget is borrowed in the first 2 months. Where's all the rest of that borrowed money going?
No you don't. Even if we put on our "idiot hats" and pretend that the entire budget of all those agencies is somehow part of the "military budget", we end up at only $519B out of $2.2 trillion: less than 24%. Throw in the $75B emergency addition, it's only %26. No matter how you cut it, the military ain't sucking up "over half" of the budget. Furthermore, all this stupid song and dance you're prattling on about past debt service and with the DOE and NASA "technically" being part of the military budget,is completely irrelevant. When someone says "we should cut the military, it's over half the budget" they're not talking about firing NASA or DOE scientists, or closing VA hospitals, or defaulting on interest payments for money borrowed in 1991 to pay the fuel bill for the 101st Airborne during Desert Storm. They're talking about cutting a piece out of the $419B(+$75B) the DoD spent to pay soldiers and replace the bombs they used, and that simply isn't "over half" of the budget-- it's in 20-22% range. Frankly, your ridiculous attempt to redefine the "military budget" to include everything from congressional fiscal irresponsibility to the Hubble orbital telescope is tantamount to an admission that you're wrong.
[ ] Revolution
Until another way presents itself, I am forced to use abstention as the nearest thing to a vote of no confidence. What do you suppose would happen if they held an election and nobody showed up...
http://ncam.wgbh.org/news/mopixnews13.html