No, I said I'd like the advance notice that a government panel setting a blanket rule would provide, unlike an HMO denying me specifically when sick.
Learn to read.
Btw the whole world uses the term republitard, it's just so accurate. As I said, some people have real problems with real issues, some people scream "Death Panels!".
Yes, it contributed correctness to the world - always a good thing.
Seriously, it also (if the original poster is able to take criticism) helped them avoid this mistake in the future, potentially in front of a prospective client/etc.
There's a big difference between a typo or otherwise one-off failure and mistaking one word for another. It's nitpicking over typos because it's unlikely someone thinks 'teh' is correct, but when they use a word like mute in place of moot - not easily mistyped but easily mistaken - it's usually an indicator that they don't know better.
"Clarifying" the law would make it more restrictive, not less restrictive.
Agree.
It is better this way.
Disagree.
It is a fact that they would restrict rights and reward cronies if "they" "clarified" the law, but that doesn't mean a broad and poorly-worded law is better simply because they could always make it worse.
Copyright law, patent law, and other monopoly grants are ridiculous, especially when they're given to someone based on being first and applied to everyone without regard for usefulness. The only good solution is no government monopolies.
Really, it's deeper than that though, our legal system is fundamentally flawed. Your chances of success are directly based on your finances. What might be fair and reasonable laws if they applied equally to everyone are nothing but shit when sold to the highest bidder.
Sure, and buy a copy on XP or Vista, Photoshop, etc. You're absolutely entitled, by common-law and explicitly through copyright statute, to use the work.
But the EULA says otherwise.
So yeah, those Mark Twain books can say whatever they want but if they're primarily a reformatting of a now-copyright expired work they aren't actually under copyright.
If I had my way lies like that would result in a direct forfeiture of the rights claimed and any related rights. That might end up public-domaining a few operating systems, etc and a few companies going bankrupt, but if they're pushing fake contracts with illegal tactics, wouldn't we all be better off without them?
they need a system to make sure the copyright is public domain and need to protect the customer [...]
Or, they could take out the ability to revoke a book. That'd protect the customer, and not having the ability they couldn't get sued and forced to use it.
They're exactly as interested in consumer protection as Apple and Microsoft are.
Or, they're showing that thousands of people can have open guns and nobody will get shot.
I recently got threatened (in a group) by a big guy who had talked about his martial arts training. If a majority of the group was potentially armed he probably wouldn't have even threatened us, let alone been a credible threat. As was, against a bunch of disarmed geeks, he was a very credible threat.
Any place with a "no guns" sticker just said that they'd like my wife to be as helpless as her size indicates. Thanks, but no. Guns are scary, like cars and table-saws, but far scarier is the person who desires to hurt you - they'll manage without any "weapons".
And this is different from your insurance company deciding that they don't need to pay for your cancer drugs? How?
I'd rather have an impartial panel that set standards (ie, drugs costing more $x are used where the person has more than y years of life ahead of them) than insurance companies cheating everyone.
Insurance companies lie and claim they'll help you until the critical time when they don't. The "death panels" would set standards that you'd know about beforehand. If you don't like your insurance company's decision you can try, at the last minute while sick and broke, to go to Mexico. If you don't like the panel's decision you'd know the minute they made it and you could lobby to change it, or go shopping around for overseas help/home while healthy.
There are many credible things you could dislike in Obama's proposal, and many things you could dislike about how he's proposing/pushing it. But you don't, you focus on the republitard 'death panels' nonsense. You're a fucking imbecile. Fox news, brought to Slashdot.
However, they do have an obligation to copyright holders and their own stakeholders
I'm sure Apple has just as annoying of a justification for the iPhone app-store... "If we didn't keep dictionaries with bad words off our service, someone might sue!!1!"
That's why these walled gardens like Steam, the iPhone, Kindle (the Kindle is less so, but still totally controlled by Amazon) are worthless to consumers.
If PG mistakenly offers a book for download as PD they'll be forced to remove it but all the downloaders will be fine. But if someone like Amazon is there to be sued, they will be, and if they have control over the downloaders or their devices they'll be forced to use it.
The only devices you own are the ones the manufacturer cannot access.
As if the law usually, let alone always, was right.
By law, you do not have that right.
You are SO stupid.
The law was bought by special interests, it doesn't serve the people at all. That's the simplest indicator of a bad law.
That simple fact makes the rest of your post irrelevant.
As a defense in court, yes.
But in the real world, as people who are talking about the effects of a law because it needs changing, then no. A law does not make right.
Your inability to try to understand what people are saying makes you irrelevant. For all your troll-like insistence that the law is absolute you merely show yourself to be equivalent to a Nazi sympathizer, etc. Someone willing, or eager, to use any excuse to force their beliefs on others. You're not capable of understanding this, nor willing to try. Thankfully, your role in life is to be a warning to others - "this is an authoritarian asshole, don't be like him."
Or get off your ass and give the downtrodden the things they need so desperately. If someone gets in your way, go through them. Hire mercenaries with money, and give the poor food.
That, and nothing less, is what people need.
By participating in the fund-a-dictator program you're only making things worse. By pretending this is help you're ensuring it'll never get better.
By calling, at least, for the death of the dictators you'd be starting social change that while not feeding the current victims would at least remove the problem so that there were less future victims.
Oh yeah, because you certainly gave a thoughtful discourse on why n>1 copies are bad... You just stated your own opinion as if it were fact, when in fact it's not only just opinion, but just the opinion the RIAA pays to shove down kids throats. Are you especially gullible, or a product of these first training classes?
As if the law usually, let alone always, was right.
Such a simplistic argument is guaranteed to be wrong, and by making it, you're wrong.
The rest of us can look at copyright, etc, as a treaty for the benefit of some and detriment of others.
It's pretty easy to say that copyright today is unhelpful in many ways. It's obviously the one-sided result of intense lobbying, and now moralistic propaganda. The pro-copyright side (ie, you) never gives reasons why copying is bad other than that it's against the law.
Certainly copying of LotR doesn't hurt the creator in any way and "helps" many people by giving them something to read.
The belief that human life should be valued, even when you don't directly benefit from it yourself, shouldn't be indoctrinated to children?
Nope, because it's ridiculous.
Not only is it untrue, but you and everyone else who purport to believe it are lying through your teeth.
There are BILLIONS of potentially dying people on this planet. People who really only need food and shelter for a while to drag themselves out of their mess. But nobody gives it to them because they're foreigners, and foreign countries need to self-govern (ie, hold their own people slaves), etc. If you really thought life was even the slightest bit sacred you'd be helping Cuban refugees get to the USA, doing something yourself (rather than protesting, yawn) about Iran's elections, the slaughter of the Tamil, etc.
But, that statement is provably wrong. The only value the leaders of North Korea have, for instance, is very negative. If they were brutally murdered today the lives of their people would improve greatly, even if chaos broke out, simply because their slavers would be dead.
Ditto a long line of people, including RIAA execs, the organizers of the Rwandan genocide, those who arranged earlier pro-Tutsi slaughters, Saddam Hussein, George W. Bush, etc.
A well-spent bullet, applied by a non-indoctrinated child, could have ended WW2 before it started. Pity the Iraqis that nobody shot GW before he organized the war that has killed over a million of them. Pity the modern North Koreans - if they'd killed Kim Il-Sung a long time ago they wouldn't be plagued by his defective offspring now, millions more of them would be alive and South Kora wouldn't be literally, under the gun.
The UK school-system *should* be telling kids to masturbate. Not as in, "drop your drawers and go", but "if you do, you will enjoy it, and you should give it a try." It's true, and it would make the kids lives better. Even if they didn't do it, simply cutting back on all the moralistic drivel out there would remove useless sources of stress.
If the parents don't like it, and try to censor the message, I'd say the kid should be given the choice to be emancipated or placed in foster care.
Now if the RIAA comes in and gives a blatant one-sided talk about copyright, they're in the wrong. Blatant misrepresentation of the law (they're telling children this shit, hoping children don't understand how crazy these views are) doesn't help the children.
We (the net connected) should start a policy of copyright poisoning. Show that while it can help some living authors, etc, that copyrights pay more lawyers than authors, that they sue more innocent users than industrial counterfeiters, etc. Surely the copyright on the LotR has enriched lawyers and parasites far more than the author...
Right now most people somewhat respect (if not follow) copyrights. They feel they're roughly related to rewarding creators. That's mostly incorrect because like patents copyrights are now far more of a business weapon than a leg-up. If they saw how rarely these laws actually benefit society (and the creators) they'd probably flaunt the laws more.
It really is that simple. The only hitch is that lawyers who are paid to lie will claim that something is unfair simply because they see some money and think they can get it.
Perhaps the lady fined $1.8 million will decide to buy bullets instead of paying anyone, then the definitions (or number of lawyers willing to argue it) will change.
Yes, the law is crap in that it doesn't define anything but even if it did (think of how you clearly and explicitly don't need permission to use software, but the industry says otherwise and supplies EULAs) you'd still have liars and their legal staff trying to twist the truth. Law just *is* shit.
In fact, if I did know such things are possible, I wouldn't trial at all. Why bother?
Why not? If EVE is your cup of tea you'll need to adjust to the fact that most of the other players have more skills, stuff, and money than you. They've just been playing longer and are ahead. At that, who cares if some idiot payed for his ship? If anything, it's ideal because they won't be very good and you'll get expensive toys for killing them.
But really, if flying a ship around is fun, it's fun, do it because you like it not to compete.
At that, EVE is kind of fun. The skill system rewards length of time player, but makes death have real consequences, so it's good for casual players. You can camp and mine for hours but you can also usually kill NPCs instead which is usually more fun. I played EVE for a while (and liked it) but their cheating-GM scandal and the company's crappy response caused me to stop playing. I probably wouldn't have kept paying to play because you can't stop or your character is gone... No replay value in other words.
Seriously, this is just like ISPs who advertise unlimited usage and then ban users who take them literally. And in every post about something like that people like you come along - people who don't game much, or use much bandwidth, and they act like reneging on your contracts is okay as long as you have some token justification.
Hey, at that, I've looked at my finances and this Visa company is sucking up 80% of the resources... I just need to say that while demanding some money is okay, demanding as much as they do is excessive and cut them off. A bit of "for the good of the rest of my creditors" rhetoric - play the car dealership against Visa, and I'm all set.
"I pay for my bandwidth and choose what to download. That is the model of the internet." is the grossest slight on the words net neutrality I have seen in a long, long time.
No. You're reading it wrong.
It's my connection, and I choose carefully what I wish to download. I pay per kb (very little but it adds up quickly) and download at 4k/s usually. Blocking the ads on your site probably saves three-quarters of the bandwidth and most of the loading time.
I don't think this pays you, nor would I want my ISP kicking anything back to you. I may have read your site but nothing about that obligates me to pay you - I may not have liked to article or merely not thought it was worth paying for.
You couldn't possible understand the latency in loading a page over crappy cellular. To expect me to go through that more than once is madness, more than ten times is some sick fucking joke. NEVER going to happen.
Go ahead and block ad-blockers though. Please. I just makes telling if your site has anything to offer me that much easier. Whenever I hit a site that doesn't work, for lack of non-javascript or non-flash fallbacks, because it's crashed, or because it blocks me I simply pop over to a google and have a new link to that topic (though not at the same site) in seconds (plus my insane loading time...).
Do you want a model that will work? So does the world. But one that will NOT is expecting me to view your content in the way YOU choose.
First manufacturers of CDs learned, but you were not a music publisher so you did not learn. Then manufacturers of DVDs learned, but you were not in the movie industry and did not learn. Then software publishers learned, but you didn't write software and did not learn. Then paper publishers learned, but you were on the web and did not learn. Then web content providers learned, and you have a chance to catch on: DRM (taking control from the customer) is HATED and always cracked.
I run no-script because I hate bad UI and almost everything that people use javascript for is making their own custom UIs. In almost all cases it's annoying or interferes with my browsing habits (selecting links by text or number, etc).
I allow it places like here where I agree with the value-add, but it's my computer, my screen, my eyes, and my choice of how it's viewed. Not just because I can, but because depending if I'm on the projector or the netbook my viewing needs are totally different.
HTML was all about a platform and layout independent markup. Many web designers forgot that so no-script, aardvark, ad-block, etc were created, but it's supposed to let us view what we want, how we want.
If you (generic) wish to get paid for for eyeballs perhaps the web isn't for you...
I'm waiting for the lawsuits against people who resell these, hack them, etc.
When one of these ends up on a lamp-post in Brooklyn with a timer on it who will the department of homeland security waterboard? Putting electronics in the hands of terrorists is a serious charge.
Totally baseless of course because bombs don't need fancy timers and a cheap ipod device, like many manufacturers make for almost nothing, could do the same if you wanted a timer, but hey, when has law been about reason?
Slashdot Mirror
No, I said I'd like the advance notice that a government panel setting a blanket rule would provide, unlike an HMO denying me specifically when sick.
Learn to read.
Btw the whole world uses the term republitard, it's just so accurate. As I said, some people have real problems with real issues, some people scream "Death Panels!".
Yes, it contributed correctness to the world - always a good thing.
Seriously, it also (if the original poster is able to take criticism) helped them avoid this mistake in the future, potentially in front of a prospective client/etc.
There's a big difference between a typo or otherwise one-off failure and mistaking one word for another. It's nitpicking over typos because it's unlikely someone thinks 'teh' is correct, but when they use a word like mute in place of moot - not easily mistyped but easily mistaken - it's usually an indicator that they don't know better.
"Clarifying" the law would make it more restrictive, not less restrictive.
Agree.
It is better this way.
Disagree.
It is a fact that they would restrict rights and reward cronies if "they" "clarified" the law, but that doesn't mean a broad and poorly-worded law is better simply because they could always make it worse.
Copyright law, patent law, and other monopoly grants are ridiculous, especially when they're given to someone based on being first and applied to everyone without regard for usefulness. The only good solution is no government monopolies.
Really, it's deeper than that though, our legal system is fundamentally flawed. Your chances of success are directly based on your finances. What might be fair and reasonable laws if they applied equally to everyone are nothing but shit when sold to the highest bidder.
Sure, and buy a copy on XP or Vista, Photoshop, etc. You're absolutely entitled, by common-law and explicitly through copyright statute, to use the work.
But the EULA says otherwise.
So yeah, those Mark Twain books can say whatever they want but if they're primarily a reformatting of a now-copyright expired work they aren't actually under copyright.
If I had my way lies like that would result in a direct forfeiture of the rights claimed and any related rights. That might end up public-domaining a few operating systems, etc and a few companies going bankrupt, but if they're pushing fake contracts with illegal tactics, wouldn't we all be better off without them?
they need a system to make sure the copyright is public domain and need to protect the customer [...]
Or, they could take out the ability to revoke a book. That'd protect the customer, and not having the ability they couldn't get sued and forced to use it.
They're exactly as interested in consumer protection as Apple and Microsoft are.
Or, they're showing that thousands of people can have open guns and nobody will get shot.
I recently got threatened (in a group) by a big guy who had talked about his martial arts training. If a majority of the group was potentially armed he probably wouldn't have even threatened us, let alone been a credible threat. As was, against a bunch of disarmed geeks, he was a very credible threat.
Any place with a "no guns" sticker just said that they'd like my wife to be as helpless as her size indicates. Thanks, but no. Guns are scary, like cars and table-saws, but far scarier is the person who desires to hurt you - they'll manage without any "weapons".
Do not attempt to watch Fox News, or in fact any TV, while driving.
Actually, I encourage Fox "News" viewers to view while driving.
If you're listening to Bill O'Reily when you die it's a free pass into neocon heaven. Get there early and help keep out foreigners!
What if someone's famous because we hate them? Are they short-changed on the fame, or do they get it in two-minute chunks?
And this is different from your insurance company deciding that they don't need to pay for your cancer drugs? How?
I'd rather have an impartial panel that set standards (ie, drugs costing more $x are used where the person has more than y years of life ahead of them) than insurance companies cheating everyone.
Insurance companies lie and claim they'll help you until the critical time when they don't. The "death panels" would set standards that you'd know about beforehand. If you don't like your insurance company's decision you can try, at the last minute while sick and broke, to go to Mexico. If you don't like the panel's decision you'd know the minute they made it and you could lobby to change it, or go shopping around for overseas help/home while healthy.
There are many credible things you could dislike in Obama's proposal, and many things you could dislike about how he's proposing/pushing it. But you don't, you focus on the republitard 'death panels' nonsense. You're a fucking imbecile. Fox news, brought to Slashdot.
However, they do have an obligation to copyright holders and their own stakeholders
I'm sure Apple has just as annoying of a justification for the iPhone app-store... "If we didn't keep dictionaries with bad words off our service, someone might sue!!1!"
That's why these walled gardens like Steam, the iPhone, Kindle (the Kindle is less so, but still totally controlled by Amazon) are worthless to consumers.
If PG mistakenly offers a book for download as PD they'll be forced to remove it but all the downloaders will be fine. But if someone like Amazon is there to be sued, they will be, and if they have control over the downloaders or their devices they'll be forced to use it.
The only devices you own are the ones the manufacturer cannot access.
As if the law usually, let alone always, was right.
By law, you do not have that right.
You are SO stupid.
The law was bought by special interests, it doesn't serve the people at all. That's the simplest indicator of a bad law.
That simple fact makes the rest of your post irrelevant.
As a defense in court, yes.
But in the real world, as people who are talking about the effects of a law because it needs changing, then no. A law does not make right.
Your inability to try to understand what people are saying makes you irrelevant. For all your troll-like insistence that the law is absolute you merely show yourself to be equivalent to a Nazi sympathizer, etc. Someone willing, or eager, to use any excuse to force their beliefs on others. You're not capable of understanding this, nor willing to try. Thankfully, your role in life is to be a warning to others - "this is an authoritarian asshole, don't be like him."
Or get off your ass and give the downtrodden the things they need so desperately. If someone gets in your way, go through them. Hire mercenaries with money, and give the poor food.
That, and nothing less, is what people need.
By participating in the fund-a-dictator program you're only making things worse. By pretending this is help you're ensuring it'll never get better.
By calling, at least, for the death of the dictators you'd be starting social change that while not feeding the current victims would at least remove the problem so that there were less future victims.
Why can't we ALL be global protectors?
Oh yeah, because you certainly gave a thoughtful discourse on why n>1 copies are bad... You just stated your own opinion as if it were fact, when in fact it's not only just opinion, but just the opinion the RIAA pays to shove down kids throats. Are you especially gullible, or a product of these first training classes?
As if the law usually, let alone always, was right.
Such a simplistic argument is guaranteed to be wrong, and by making it, you're wrong.
The rest of us can look at copyright, etc, as a treaty for the benefit of some and detriment of others.
It's pretty easy to say that copyright today is unhelpful in many ways. It's obviously the one-sided result of intense lobbying, and now moralistic propaganda. The pro-copyright side (ie, you) never gives reasons why copying is bad other than that it's against the law.
Certainly copying of LotR doesn't hurt the creator in any way and "helps" many people by giving them something to read.
And it isn't harmful anyways, so just shutting up would be best.
The belief that human life should be valued, even when you don't directly benefit from it yourself, shouldn't be indoctrinated to children?
Nope, because it's ridiculous.
Not only is it untrue, but you and everyone else who purport to believe it are lying through your teeth.
There are BILLIONS of potentially dying people on this planet. People who really only need food and shelter for a while to drag themselves out of their mess. But nobody gives it to them because they're foreigners, and foreign countries need to self-govern (ie, hold their own people slaves), etc. If you really thought life was even the slightest bit sacred you'd be helping Cuban refugees get to the USA, doing something yourself (rather than protesting, yawn) about Iran's elections, the slaughter of the Tamil, etc.
But, that statement is provably wrong. The only value the leaders of North Korea have, for instance, is very negative. If they were brutally murdered today the lives of their people would improve greatly, even if chaos broke out, simply because their slavers would be dead.
Ditto a long line of people, including RIAA execs, the organizers of the Rwandan genocide, those who arranged earlier pro-Tutsi slaughters, Saddam Hussein, George W. Bush, etc.
A well-spent bullet, applied by a non-indoctrinated child, could have ended WW2 before it started. Pity the Iraqis that nobody shot GW before he organized the war that has killed over a million of them. Pity the modern North Koreans - if they'd killed Kim Il-Sung a long time ago they wouldn't be plagued by his defective offspring now, millions more of them would be alive and South Kora wouldn't be literally, under the gun.
Universal value of human life, my ass.
The UK school-system *should* be telling kids to masturbate. Not as in, "drop your drawers and go", but "if you do, you will enjoy it, and you should give it a try." It's true, and it would make the kids lives better. Even if they didn't do it, simply cutting back on all the moralistic drivel out there would remove useless sources of stress.
If the parents don't like it, and try to censor the message, I'd say the kid should be given the choice to be emancipated or placed in foster care.
Now if the RIAA comes in and gives a blatant one-sided talk about copyright, they're in the wrong. Blatant misrepresentation of the law (they're telling children this shit, hoping children don't understand how crazy these views are) doesn't help the children.
We (the net connected) should start a policy of copyright poisoning. Show that while it can help some living authors, etc, that copyrights pay more lawyers than authors, that they sue more innocent users than industrial counterfeiters, etc. Surely the copyright on the LotR has enriched lawyers and parasites far more than the author...
Right now most people somewhat respect (if not follow) copyrights. They feel they're roughly related to rewarding creators. That's mostly incorrect because like patents copyrights are now far more of a business weapon than a leg-up. If they saw how rarely these laws actually benefit society (and the creators) they'd probably flaunt the laws more.
what fair use is
Anything that isn't unfair.
It really is that simple. The only hitch is that lawyers who are paid to lie will claim that something is unfair simply because they see some money and think they can get it.
Perhaps the lady fined $1.8 million will decide to buy bullets instead of paying anyone, then the definitions (or number of lawyers willing to argue it) will change.
Yes, the law is crap in that it doesn't define anything but even if it did (think of how you clearly and explicitly don't need permission to use software, but the industry says otherwise and supplies EULAs) you'd still have liars and their legal staff trying to twist the truth. Law just *is* shit.
Yes, if they try to prevent it by passing some retarded law about who can pay for whose car.
If they want a time-limit, implement a time-limit. Otherwise families with kids will get off easy.
Besides, what does the criminality of your next-door business have to do with parking duration?
In fact, if I did know such things are possible, I wouldn't trial at all. Why bother?
Why not? If EVE is your cup of tea you'll need to adjust to the fact that most of the other players have more skills, stuff, and money than you. They've just been playing longer and are ahead. At that, who cares if some idiot payed for his ship? If anything, it's ideal because they won't be very good and you'll get expensive toys for killing them.
But really, if flying a ship around is fun, it's fun, do it because you like it not to compete.
At that, EVE is kind of fun. The skill system rewards length of time player, but makes death have real consequences, so it's good for casual players. You can camp and mine for hours but you can also usually kill NPCs instead which is usually more fun. I played EVE for a while (and liked it) but their cheating-GM scandal and the company's crappy response caused me to stop playing. I probably wouldn't have kept paying to play because you can't stop or your character is gone... No replay value in other words.
So charge by the hour...
Seriously, this is just like ISPs who advertise unlimited usage and then ban users who take them literally. And in every post about something like that people like you come along - people who don't game much, or use much bandwidth, and they act like reneging on your contracts is okay as long as you have some token justification.
Hey, at that, I've looked at my finances and this Visa company is sucking up 80% of the resources... I just need to say that while demanding some money is okay, demanding as much as they do is excessive and cut them off. A bit of "for the good of the rest of my creditors" rhetoric - play the car dealership against Visa, and I'm all set.
"I pay for my bandwidth and choose what to download. That is the model of the internet." is the grossest slight on the words net neutrality I have seen in a long, long time.
No. You're reading it wrong.
It's my connection, and I choose carefully what I wish to download. I pay per kb (very little but it adds up quickly) and download at 4k/s usually. Blocking the ads on your site probably saves three-quarters of the bandwidth and most of the loading time.
I don't think this pays you, nor would I want my ISP kicking anything back to you. I may have read your site but nothing about that obligates me to pay you - I may not have liked to article or merely not thought it was worth paying for.
You couldn't possible understand the latency in loading a page over crappy cellular. To expect me to go through that more than once is madness, more than ten times is some sick fucking joke. NEVER going to happen.
Go ahead and block ad-blockers though. Please. I just makes telling if your site has anything to offer me that much easier. Whenever I hit a site that doesn't work, for lack of non-javascript or non-flash fallbacks, because it's crashed, or because it blocks me I simply pop over to a google and have a new link to that topic (though not at the same site) in seconds (plus my insane loading time...).
Do you want a model that will work? So does the world. But one that will NOT is expecting me to view your content in the way YOU choose.
First manufacturers of CDs learned, but you were not a music publisher so you did not learn. Then manufacturers of DVDs learned, but you were not in the movie industry and did not learn. Then software publishers learned, but you didn't write software and did not learn. Then paper publishers learned, but you were on the web and did not learn. Then web content providers learned, and you have a chance to catch on: DRM (taking control from the customer) is HATED and always cracked.
I run no-script because I hate bad UI and almost everything that people use javascript for is making their own custom UIs. In almost all cases it's annoying or interferes with my browsing habits (selecting links by text or number, etc).
I allow it places like here where I agree with the value-add, but it's my computer, my screen, my eyes, and my choice of how it's viewed. Not just because I can, but because depending if I'm on the projector or the netbook my viewing needs are totally different.
HTML was all about a platform and layout independent markup. Many web designers forgot that so no-script, aardvark, ad-block, etc were created, but it's supposed to let us view what we want, how we want.
If you (generic) wish to get paid for for eyeballs perhaps the web isn't for you...
Funny, if you'd shot the lawyer he'd BE disbarred, the state would be paying to house you, and you'd probably still own your house.
Well, not funny.
And that's the problem with the system.
I'm waiting for the lawsuits against people who resell these, hack them, etc.
When one of these ends up on a lamp-post in Brooklyn with a timer on it who will the department of homeland security waterboard? Putting electronics in the hands of terrorists is a serious charge.
Totally baseless of course because bombs don't need fancy timers and a cheap ipod device, like many manufacturers make for almost nothing, could do the same if you wanted a timer, but hey, when has law been about reason?
I've got popcorn.