I'm civil, which is more than can be said for yourself. You think he's uncivil? i'm uncivil. All he was doing was asking was whether you're intentionally acting like an idiot to get a rise out of people (troll), or if you're idiocy stems from your belief in long-discredited childish economic theories (Marxist).
It is wrong to say the holder "would not otherwise have" this right.
Ethically, it belongs to him - he invested the time and money to make it; it is *his property*. Cripes, you really are a moron, aren't you. You keep repeating the same falsehood as if by being more emphatic it will make you less wrong.
It isn't fucking property in the first place, and "ethics" have nothing to do with that. You cannot own an idea, a song, or a story. You can own the copyright on a song, but a copyright is simply a legal fiction. The song itself is a cultural artifact that belongs to everyone.
How do I recapture the time and money I spent making the table if other people make copies for free?
I cannot.
And since I cannot, I can't make the table in the first place, because I need to make money so I can feed myself and rent my flat and buy clothes.
That, sir, is neither my nor society at large's fucking problem. How do you get paid for something that seems inherently unprofitable? Well, either you find a way to make money off it, or you do something lese for money. The world does not automatically owe you something just because you worked hard at some arbitrary task.
Now, as it happens, we as a society decided a long time ago that all this writing, music, and such are a great boon for the cultural commons. In order to encourage the expansion of our common culture, we decided to add a little incentive to the process. We decided to allow the creator, for a limited time, to abridge the rights of others to freely share via copying the work, thereby giving him the means to make a little cash off the monopoly. This scheme has been twisted by publishers over the years via legislation and prpaganda into a de jure "ownership" of the work, and fools like you have bought into it, actually believing that artifacts of our common culture (music, literature, etc) can somehow belong to anyone.
Don't get me wrong...my parents listened to me....often they let me have my way on some things. But, I did not lay down the rules. When push came to shove...Mom and Dad were the final say, no arguments at that point.
It sounds like in this article...the kids are ruling the roost. I think this lack of parenting authority may be causing a lot of the problems we see with youth in society today. Parents by and large just don't seem to have a firm handle on their kids today. Yep, the kids are setting the rules because the parents are behaving like children and have completely abdicated responsibility. Sure, they bring home the money and drive the kids around, but they never demonstrate that they are in charge and handling things. Humans, being pack animals much like dogs, instinctively desire strong leadership. In cases like this, where there's a leadership vacuum, the children are instinctively filling that vacuum. Problem is, kids aren't equipped to handle the position and they generally end up with a whole host of neuroses from the stress.
I only meant to juxtapose him relatively to his peers. People who walk around $2000 sunglasses but still don't donate anything to the poor or humanitarian programs. True, I do acknowledge his generosity, and he is to be applauded for that. I'm just not comfortable with claims of "not caring about money" from the filthy rich.
You know, like how the pope wears a million dollar hat as countries starve. Ever ask yourself why that dumbsh*t doesn't get his act together, liquidate the hat and pope mobile & feed a nation for a year? Hell, I'd be happy if he came out and admitted the whole obstinacy over birth control is a secret agenda to keep their numbers up. I have plenty of objections to the Catholic church, but then again, I have no illusions that it's anything but a self-serving organization...
Not to mention the complete loss of huge bodies of creative works. Society has lost large amounts of early films because the reels simply deteriorated in the basement of some studio. Why was it locked up in a damp basement closet? Because even a century later those studios are protecting their precious "intellectual property". An interesting related factoid: 108 of the 253 episodes from the first 6 years of Doctor Who were lost between 1967 and 1978 when penny pinching bureaucrats at the BBC either taped over them rather than buying more tapes, or threw them away rather than arranging for more storage. Some of these episodes have been recovered from BBC affiliates in other countries who kept some their copies, but the primary source for reconstructing them is from fans who captured all the audio from every episode on tape, and a few who also captured some of the video on Super-8mm or early video tape machines.
Copyright was originally intended to better assure that artists are compensated for their work Actually, the original intent of copyright (at least in the US) was to enrich the public domain. Providing a mechanism in law for the creator to demand compensation for a limited time was merely the means to that end. The notion that society somehow owes these creators anything is a bit of propaganda cooked up by publishing concerns who make money buying copyrights.
Who knows why they claim to need this money. Especially U2, that actually shocks me. Bono used to be all about people and to hell with money. This is a philosophy which can only be genuinely pursued by two types of people: the obscenely wealthy, and the utterly destitute. Forgive me if I have significantly more respect for Buddhist monks who have eschewed all personal property save the clothes on their backs, than I do for a rich jackass who only doesn't care about money because he has so much he'll never be able to spend it all. The latter is not a transcendence of materialism. It's merely the difficulties of materialism being irrelevant. When Bono pledges all his money to a foundation to fight AIDS in Africa and lives in a small austere flat with nothing but the clothes on his back, maybe I'll change my mind. But so long as the fucker is walking around in $2000 sunglasses, I will only consider him a humanitarian of convenience.
I'm surprised you can do this. Most ISPs block port 25 traffic that isn't sent to or from their own badly overloaded email servers. No, only the bad ISPs block port 25 unilaterally without appeal. If you're on cable or cheap fucker ILEC administered DSL, yeah, youu probably can't go out through port 25. You probably also don't have a static IP either. Any halfway decent DSL ISP will open port 25 for you upon request. I use DSL Extreme and while they do block 25 by default, i only need to log in to their website and check a box to open it up.
How about taking some of those new 40% efficiency solar panels and moving some data centers down to the S.W. for a start? A large portion of the power usage goes towards keeping the machines cool. Moving the data centers to a hotter climate to take advantage of the extra sunlight via solar cells is essentially a wash, as the added generatoion capacity is easily eaten up by the additional cooling needs. Actually, it's a net loss, as solar power systems aren't free...
The study was a load of shit. It reeks of blatant self-selection. Seriously, if you go around to a bunch of sufferers of spontaneous cancer and essentially ask them "do you think maybe your cell phone might have caused it", what do you think the answer is going to skew towards?
The Swedish study has got it backwards - they look at the mobile phone use of those already with tumors. They found a preference for the tumor side to be the same as the phone side in heavy users. This is correlative data, not causative.
It's quite possible that it could be some other effect like people preferring to use the same side as the tumor because the other side of the brain (which would control tumor-side movements) is healthier or something like that.
Put another way: it was a correlative study in an already affected population. It could just as easily be that the tumor caused a preference for the phone to be used on the same side.
captcha: fatally Even more likely is "self selection". When someone is told they have apparently spontaneous brain cancer on one side, then later someone else asks which side they used their mobile phone on the most, there is going to be a natural tendency to skew towards the cancer side. In reality, most people don't have a preferred side, but rather switch fairly equally depending on which hand they need to keep free. There will be a tendency for the cancer stricken to want to assign a cause. Therefore, there will be a natural jump in correlation between cancer and reported phone size.
Seriously, anyone who believes a crap "study" that isn't even single blind is a moron.
Why does this always come up when military spending is mentioned. The $10,000 Toilet seat is one of three examples on a submarine designed to prevent seawater from coming up the toilet, they are really expensive because of all the R&D invovled and how few are made. The $1,000 wrench is a wrench made of a non-sparking metal for use around high explosives in the USAF.
Most of the item prices that people go off about are limited production items, and often the costs figure in R&D to bring it upto military specs, and the lowered productivity of the production line because of military auditors and paperwork. GE for example charges 25% more for the same engine if it's going to the military because the auditors slow the line down, and they have to store all the additional paperwork for years longer then would be required for it's civil product. Lockheed Martin for example is still charging the DOD for warehouse full of paperwork just for the F-16.
Additionally, there is much ignorance in the press about how the DOD does its accounting. When procurement costs for a bunch of miscellaneous items in a requisition are listed, the R&D costs for everything are generally amortized across all items because it would be wasteful to have someone sit down and figure out what proportion of the labor expense went to the engineers designing a custom mil-spec generator mount vs. the engineers choosing the bolts to fasten it to the floor. Subsequently, the 5 $2,000 mounts and the 100 $5 bolts all each get a $400 engineering charge and the media goes nuts over the DOD "spending $405 each for bolts", and never looking at the other side and saying "wow, they got a good dead on the design of those custom mounts".
Good article here by Sydney J. Freedberg Jr on how this all comes about.
Since the 90's military standards have declined disasterously anyways as well as development time for ridiculous requirements, see: the Bradly. The Bradley is from the 80's. Criticism of the Bradley came from idiots who saw the turret and 25mm gun and thought it should be able to take hits like a tank. Those people were morons, especially the congressmen--- but that's to be expected. It's an Armored Personnel Carrier, not a tank. The Bradley APC is just fine for what it's intended to do.
Now, if you want an example of real 90's money wasting, look no further than the Stryker, a wheeled light armored vehicle that they claim (get this) is less vulnerable to IEDs because it's faster and can drive past the IED before the insurgents can set it off! Quick, everyone in the convoy drive faster! Just swerve around that burning car!
But among military folks, I thought "gun" *was* used to refer specifically to artillery weapons. As opposed to "sidearm" and "rifle" which are allegedly the common terms used for those weapons. Also, note the lack of acronyms. The proper military term for all individual infantry weapons is "small arms". A "gun" is indeed alsways an artillery piece or naval cannon.
When we were first given our hats, the TI says "These used to be called cunt caps. You are not allowed to use that term."
It never would have occured to me to call it that, but afer he said that, "cunt cap" is the first thing that pops into my head.
That was 22 years ago, hopefully that has changed.
It hasn't. However, something better has. The stupid fucking garrison cap has bee replaced by the stupid, but less stupid looking black beret. But yeah, they called it a "cunt cap" up to the very end.
could this be a serious problem for VR going forward?
I want to know what marketroid fool started the irritating trend of using "going forward" instead of the perfectly serviceable "in the future" and "from now on". It's not that I'm against new and interesting additions to the language; it's just that "forward" and "backward" have traditionally been used as indications of progress--- e.g. "we will be going forward with our plan to kill half the sales department". Clearly, the use of "going forward" to encompass all of future events is a cheap trick to make it sound like everything in the future will be progress. I say it makes them sound like a tool.
How else would you suggest they stop the problem? No matter how you cut it, downloading copyrighted music without paying for it is a crime.
Ah yes, and the fact that it is illegal is the end of the argument of course. The law is the ultimate decider of morality, right? The fact that certain groups have purchased law that leans heavily in their favor, in direct contravention of the stated premise of the area of law in question, that is immaterial, yes?
I do not have to supply an alternate solution to the "problem". The "problem" is the solution. If a small cartel of non-producing corrupt money-grubbers think they can erect a permanent fence around our common freakin' culture and charge us admission, the only solution is to refuse to acknowledge the validity of the fence and knock it down wherever we can.
Bill Gates was never good at guessing what the future would be. Who would need more than 640K of RAM? Vista would not even run with good performance and all the bells and wistles with one thousand more RAM than that . .. First, the 640K thing is well established as myth. Second, he never said he would eliminate spam in 2006, only that he could. He outlined a simple "pay for each email sent" plan (either in CPU time or money) that has been proposed a thousand times before here on Slashdot. It would work. It'll never be adopted, but it would work.
Instead we should be going after the money. It doesn't matter if the source of the SPAM is offshore or not. The products they are selling have some sort of presence in the US -- otherwise, why spam Americans?
The majority of my spam is pump-n'-dump penny stock scamming. There is no product. Just a "wow! this stock is going to take off and go up fifty points! Invest now!" message, and some daytrader jackass somewhere waiting for it to go up half a point so he can sell and make a couple thousand bucks.
that someone actually _payed_ for the report payed is the past tense of pay only when you're talking about rope, cable, or cordage; e.g. "he payed out more rope as the climber descended". The word you're looking for is paid.
(brought to you by the Federation of Concerned Language Fascists)
Sure, it's not "stealing" music. But both stealing and copyright infringement are criminal acts. You argue like you're trying to convince us that because your victim isn't dead, only severely beaten, you're innocent of murder so you should be let go. Nice loaded analogy, asshat. Copyright infringement is hardly comparable to assault. It's more like parking on a city street and not feeding the parking meter.
But there has to be actual parody to uphold. Outright claiming the man sodomized llamas and spent time in jail isn't parody unless his past indicates some sort of association with llamas, jail, et cetera. Otherwise, it's simply slander. And that sure looks like slander. No, there is a simple defense for this. In order for something to be libelous*, it must be believable. Preposterous statements (e.g. parodies like this case) cannot be defamatory because no one would take them seriously enough to allow their opinion of the subject to be affected by them. For amusement's sake, I quote from the Wikipedia entry on Slander and Libel:
"the defendant may claim that the allegedly defamatory statement is not actually capable of being defamatory--an insulting statement that does not actually harm someone's reputation is prima facie not libelous."
* Slander is spoken, libel recorded. You wonder why everyone thinks you're a twit and doesn't take your opinion seriously, oftentimes it's because you don't know what you're talking about-- in this case, that being the difference between libel and slander.
So the test was a total success. Because it proved, in undeniable public, that in the event of an emergency, the first responders around essential Air Force bases would be getting jammed by people opening their garage doors.
Yeah, a system operating out of Cheyenne mountain with an antenna on the peak and a range of miles is going to be affected by a bunch of milliwatt transmitters with an effective range of about 100 feet. Time for you to go back to Radio Theory 101.
These tests are important. That's why I was stunned when I realized (3 years later) that on September 11, 2001, I didn't hear a single transmission of the Emergency Broadcast System. If ever there were an emergency during my lifetime that the public needed broadcasts to know what what was happening and what to do, it was multiple aerial bombings of NYC and the Pentagon. But there was nothing.
Though we'd all been taught since childhood to be always at least a little bit subconsciously afraid, but trusting the government had a system to handle even the ultimate emergency: nuclear war. And endured countless nerve-rattling drills, usually interrupting the most otherwise "relaxing" TV and radio (PBS, mostly).
The Emergency Broadcast System was retired in 1994. The current system is teh Emergency Alert System. This name more accurately describes its purpose. It's not meant to be a news channel. On 9-11 we had plenty of those already. The purpose of the EBS is to inform people that they may need to take action, and take it quickly. Things like wildfires, flash floods, or tsunamis--- those are what you use the EBS for. Since the appropriate action in the aftermath of a plane hitting a building is to essentially stay calm, stay put, and let emergency crews do their job, the EBS was not needed. I've heard the EBS used for real locally. The message is usually terse, prerecorded, and informative only in a very limited way, briefly outlining the danger, its location, and what to do. You know, something along the lines of "Flash flood warning for the eastern county, stay out of the lower canyons area, highways A, B, and C are closed". This weird fantasy you have in your head where Walter Cronkite is supposed to come on the air over EBS and give us the low-down on what's up is laughable in the extreme.
I guess those weren't "tests" at all. They were the real thing: steady fear/trust propaganda.
Yeah, OK. I don't trust the government either, but I haven't let paranoia turn me into a freak about it. The EAS works fine. You just don't know what it's for. You've apparently formulated an expectation based not upon the stated purpose of the system, but upon armchair speculation after having the EAS/EBS tone interrupt your viewing of National Geographic Explorer a few too many times.
Never really expected to do anything in any kind of emergency, even survivable ones like 9/11/2001. Because they all delivered the desired result.
I'd still love to hear what you think the EAS should have broadcast on 9-11.
So maybe these Air Force tests are really failures. Because instead of keeping people irrationally afraid, yet trusting the government, they've actually woken people up.
Yeah.... sure. You know conspiracy nuts like you are all the same. You're all secretly (or not secretly!) obsessive/compulsive control freaks. You all believe there's some sort of sinister puppet master behind the scenes, twisting the government to their will. You can't bear to consider the real truth, that for the most part the bad things that happen are completely unpredictable and mostly unavoidable. Stupid things the government does or fails to do are not part of some grand plan by a criminal mastermind, but simply a byproduct of the sheer size of government. Its very size creates an incredible amount of inertia, and when it does manage to move, it's either too much or too little, and often in the wrong direction. In short nobody is in contr
Actually, all new cell phones in the US are required to have internal GPS receivers so they can be located when dialing 911. A nice idea in theory, but in practice it's largely useless. The nature of GPS is such that the receiver needs to have a fairly unobstructed view of a large sector of sky for a goodly amount of time in order to calculate position. It works passably well when someone's outdoors, not under any cover (including trees), and holding the phone up to their head. When the phone in your pocket, on your belt in a case, indoors, or in the car, GPS is not going to work.
Slashdot Mirror
It isn't fucking property in the first place, and "ethics" have nothing to do with that. You cannot own an idea, a song, or a story. You can own the copyright on a song, but a copyright is simply a legal fiction. The song itself is a cultural artifact that belongs to everyone.
I cannot.
And since I cannot, I can't make the table in the first place, because I need to make money so I can feed myself and rent my flat and buy clothes.
That, sir, is neither my nor society at large's fucking problem. How do you get paid for something that seems inherently unprofitable? Well, either you find a way to make money off it, or you do something lese for money. The world does not automatically owe you something just because you worked hard at some arbitrary task.
Now, as it happens, we as a society decided a long time ago that all this writing, music, and such are a great boon for the cultural commons. In order to encourage the expansion of our common culture, we decided to add a little incentive to the process. We decided to allow the creator, for a limited time, to abridge the rights of others to freely share via copying the work, thereby giving him the means to make a little cash off the monopoly. This scheme has been twisted by publishers over the years via legislation and prpaganda into a de jure "ownership" of the work, and fools like you have bought into it, actually believing that artifacts of our common culture (music, literature, etc) can somehow belong to anyone.
It sounds like in this article...the kids are ruling the roost. I think this lack of parenting authority may be causing a lot of the problems we see with youth in society today. Parents by and large just don't seem to have a firm handle on their kids today. Yep, the kids are setting the rules because the parents are behaving like children and have completely abdicated responsibility. Sure, they bring home the money and drive the kids around, but they never demonstrate that they are in charge and handling things. Humans, being pack animals much like dogs, instinctively desire strong leadership. In cases like this, where there's a leadership vacuum, the children are instinctively filling that vacuum. Problem is, kids aren't equipped to handle the position and they generally end up with a whole host of neuroses from the stress.
The study was a load of shit. It reeks of blatant self-selection. Seriously, if you go around to a bunch of sufferers of spontaneous cancer and essentially ask them "do you think maybe your cell phone might have caused it", what do you think the answer is going to skew towards?
It's quite possible that it could be some other effect like people preferring to use the same side as the tumor because the other side of the brain (which would control tumor-side movements) is healthier or something like that.
Put another way: it was a correlative study in an already affected population. It could just as easily be that the tumor caused a preference for the phone to be used on the same side.
captcha: fatally Even more likely is "self selection". When someone is told they have apparently spontaneous brain cancer on one side, then later someone else asks which side they used their mobile phone on the most, there is going to be a natural tendency to skew towards the cancer side. In reality, most people don't have a preferred side, but rather switch fairly equally depending on which hand they need to keep free. There will be a tendency for the cancer stricken to want to assign a cause. Therefore, there will be a natural jump in correlation between cancer and reported phone size.
Seriously, anyone who believes a crap "study" that isn't even single blind is a moron.
Most of the item prices that people go off about are limited production items, and often the costs figure in R&D to bring it upto military specs, and the lowered productivity of the production line because of military auditors and paperwork. GE for example charges 25% more for the same engine if it's going to the military because the auditors slow the line down, and they have to store all the additional paperwork for years longer then would be required for it's civil product. Lockheed Martin for example is still charging the DOD for warehouse full of paperwork just for the F-16.
Additionally, there is much ignorance in the press about how the DOD does its accounting. When procurement costs for a bunch of miscellaneous items in a requisition are listed, the R&D costs for everything are generally amortized across all items because it would be wasteful to have someone sit down and figure out what proportion of the labor expense went to the engineers designing a custom mil-spec generator mount vs. the engineers choosing the bolts to fasten it to the floor. Subsequently, the 5 $2,000 mounts and the 100 $5 bolts all each get a $400 engineering charge and the media goes nuts over the DOD "spending $405 each for bolts", and never looking at the other side and saying "wow, they got a good dead on the design of those custom mounts".Good article here by Sydney J. Freedberg Jr on how this all comes about.
Now, if you want an example of real 90's money wasting, look no further than the Stryker, a wheeled light armored vehicle that they claim (get this) is less vulnerable to IEDs because it's faster and can drive past the IED before the insurgents can set it off! Quick, everyone in the convoy drive faster! Just swerve around that burning car!
When we were first given our hats, the TI says "These used to be called cunt caps. You are not allowed to use that term."
It never would have occured to me to call it that, but afer he said that, "cunt cap" is the first thing that pops into my head.
That was 22 years ago, hopefully that has changed.
It hasn't. However, something better has. The stupid fucking garrison cap has bee replaced by the stupid, but less stupid looking black beret. But yeah, they called it a "cunt cap" up to the very end.
I do not have to supply an alternate solution to the "problem". The "problem" is the solution. If a small cartel of non-producing corrupt money-grubbers think they can erect a permanent fence around our common freakin' culture and charge us admission, the only solution is to refuse to acknowledge the validity of the fence and knock it down wherever we can.
"but it's against the law!"
moron
(brought to you by the Federation of Concerned Language Fascists)
For amusement's sake, I quote from the Wikipedia entry on Slander and Libel:
"the defendant may claim that the allegedly defamatory statement is not actually capable of being defamatory--an insulting statement that does not actually harm someone's reputation is prima facie not libelous."
* Slander is spoken, libel recorded. You wonder why everyone thinks you're a twit and doesn't take your opinion seriously, oftentimes it's because you don't know what you're talking about-- in this case, that being the difference between libel and slander.
So the test was a total success. Because it proved, in undeniable public, that in the event of an emergency, the first responders around essential Air Force bases would be getting jammed by people opening their garage doors.
Yeah, a system operating out of Cheyenne mountain with an antenna on the peak and a range of miles is going to be affected by a bunch of milliwatt transmitters with an effective range of about 100 feet. Time for you to go back to Radio Theory 101.
These tests are important. That's why I was stunned when I realized (3 years later) that on September 11, 2001, I didn't hear a single transmission of the Emergency Broadcast System. If ever there were an emergency during my lifetime that the public needed broadcasts to know what what was happening and what to do, it was multiple aerial bombings of NYC and the Pentagon. But there was nothing.
Though we'd all been taught since childhood to be always at least a little bit subconsciously afraid, but trusting the government had a system to handle even the ultimate emergency: nuclear war. And endured countless nerve-rattling drills, usually interrupting the most otherwise "relaxing" TV and radio (PBS, mostly).
The Emergency Broadcast System was retired in 1994. The current system is teh Emergency Alert System. This name more accurately describes its purpose. It's not meant to be a news channel. On 9-11 we had plenty of those already. The purpose of the EBS is to inform people that they may need to take action, and take it quickly. Things like wildfires, flash floods, or tsunamis--- those are what you use the EBS for. Since the appropriate action in the aftermath of a plane hitting a building is to essentially stay calm, stay put, and let emergency crews do their job, the EBS was not needed. I've heard the EBS used for real locally. The message is usually terse, prerecorded, and informative only in a very limited way, briefly outlining the danger, its location, and what to do. You know, something along the lines of "Flash flood warning for the eastern county, stay out of the lower canyons area, highways A, B, and C are closed". This weird fantasy you have in your head where Walter Cronkite is supposed to come on the air over EBS and give us the low-down on what's up is laughable in the extreme.
I guess those weren't "tests" at all. They were the real thing: steady fear/trust propaganda.
Yeah, OK. I don't trust the government either, but I haven't let paranoia turn me into a freak about it. The EAS works fine. You just don't know what it's for. You've apparently formulated an expectation based not upon the stated purpose of the system, but upon armchair speculation after having the EAS/EBS tone interrupt your viewing of National Geographic Explorer a few too many times.
Never really expected to do anything in any kind of emergency, even survivable ones like 9/11/2001. Because they all delivered the desired result.
I'd still love to hear what you think the EAS should have broadcast on 9-11.
So maybe these Air Force tests are really failures. Because instead of keeping people irrationally afraid, yet trusting the government, they've actually woken people up.
Yeah.... sure. You know conspiracy nuts like you are all the same. You're all secretly (or not secretly!) obsessive/compulsive control freaks. You all believe there's some sort of sinister puppet master behind the scenes, twisting the government to their will. You can't bear to consider the real truth, that for the most part the bad things that happen are completely unpredictable and mostly unavoidable. Stupid things the government does or fails to do are not part of some grand plan by a criminal mastermind, but simply a byproduct of the sheer size of government. Its very size creates an incredible amount of inertia, and when it does manage to move, it's either too much or too little, and often in the wrong direction. In short nobody is in contr