And this content is some of the website's most-accessed.
Because I have never run across porn there, I didn't even realize Wikipedia had a porn problem. That said, if pornographic content is really the most accessed content on Wikipedia, why not get a few paid/unpaid interns to review the top N accessed images on Wikipedia. I am sure there are people who would like to be paid to look at porn.
I don't want the "bad guys" to be better off. I want them to fear for their life if they break into my home, mug me, or attempt to kill me.
Right. The fun thing about fear is that it makes you react, often violently. In the position you describe, I'd rather have my assailant be completely sure that I was not a threat, so he'd concentrate on his primary financial goal and have no reason to harm me. You can't choose that sort of thing, though, and I don't think small time robbers (physical bandits, in contrast to white-collar criminals, the ones that actually rake in the big bucks) are educated enough to consider such statistics before starting their entrepreneurial venture of the day.
So you want anyone to be able to take your stuff at their leisure? What if they are not there for your possessions? What if they would like to rape your family? What if they not only want to rape your family but have a thing for necrophilia. There are sick bastards out there that I do not want anywhere near my loved ones.
The dress maker expects to get paid. The caterer expects to get paid. The photographer expects to get paid. The bartender expects to get paid. The band expects to get paid. The DJ expects to get paid. And why shouldn't they? They are all working and using skills they have spent years and decades training in. They have overhead, they have expenses, they have employees... music isn't free to make. Even a simple indie album will often cost about $8k-10k on the low end to produce and that ignores everyone's time and energy to write, rehearse and perform.
First off, assuming the music was legally purchased, they did get paid for their music. It is not like people are handing out the CDs or MP3s at the parties so that everyone can listen to them at their leisure. They are broadcasting the audio over a very limited area and the music must be listened to at that moment.
Second, if you noticed everyone you just listed is performing a service once and getting paid once. If they want to get paid a second time, they have to perform the service a second time. I just checked Canada's copyright length. It is life plus 50 years. What non-intellectual property based job do you know of in which a person can perform a service once not only get paid for their whole life but also most of their children's lives? Why should artists get special treatment? I understand that there are costs to recording music but not 150 years worth. 5 to 10 years from the publication date would be more than reasonable. If you can't make any money in that amount of time, you need to go into another business.
Lastly, as others have mentioned. With the exception of indie music where the artists use their own funds and do everything themselves, very little of the money from copyright actually gets to the artists.
Health micromanagement is not the beginning of Nanny Government; it is the logical conclusion of Nanny Government. You can't say the public is responsible for individual people's health, and then not also give the public power to use force to make individuals be healthy despite their wishes.
He didn't say the government should be responsible an individuals person's health.
Interpersonal pressure and government pressure are two very different things. Going against interpersonal pressure would likely results in lost or strained relationships. If one party escalates to anything worse like assault or murder, the offending party would likely be arrested. Going against government pressure can easily lead to incarceration or death. Justice from government wrongs is unlikely.
I have always wondered. Who is the bigger idiot? The man who is so fat that he cannot walk or even fit through a door or the man who brings food to said man. If I was providing for a man that fat, I would bring them nothing but salad, vitamins, and water. If he didn't like that, he could get up and find his own food.
Terms of the copyrights and patents involved could be shortened proportionally to the amount the government spends on said project. If a company accepts government money, they would be required to release the source at the end of their shortened copyright.
Which is why they are having trouble finding anyone. It is also probably why the day of the company/employee loyalty relationship has largely disappeared.
Can arbitration actually enforce anything or does the arbitrator simply act as a mediator between the two parties? If at the end of the day, I can say "Screw this, arbitration is not working." and then file a class action lawsuit, I have no issue with an arbitration first clause. I do have an issue with an arbitration/small claims only clause.
How much extra does that other person have to have? $5, $100, $1000, $10000?
What if it is your neighbor's life that depends on it and not you?
Is your life the maximum bound of your willingness to steal from another or could you go with something less important than your life?
Are you an advocate for forcibly removing a kidney from someone who has two kidneys and giving it to someone who needs a kidney transplant? What about a partial liver? What about bone marrow?
I don't believe "the great lie that somehow you alone are responsible for what you become". I just believe people should be able to do what they want with what is theirs barring that they don't encroach on another's rights. I do believe that we should help each other out. I don't believe that we should steal from those that choose otherwise. Now, I can choose to not treat those who choose otherwise the same as everyone else but that is not stealing. That is simply choosing how I to allocate my resources.
It is one thing if you to give something to another out of your own volition. It is another thing to force someone else to give something to another by the point of a gun or incarceration.
This is a perfect example of why there needs to be less power in the Federal government and instead manage things at the state level whenever possible. Like minded people tend to converge to each other. Therefore, the closer the government is to the people, the less likely it is that people are under laws and regulations that they do not agree with.
I forgot about that one but I have always wanted that too. Anything set related needs to be part of their permission scheme. For example, set intersection if I only want to share with people who are in both circles but not those only in one. While this might be a little complicated for some, they don't have to use the feature and as some other have said, most of the people who regularly use Google+ are technical people. They already understand how to use sets. Outside of the whole set thing, I should be able to change permissions on the fly.
While Iran trying to take legal action about this is just dumb, why doesn't Google just label it with multiple names or simply show the name based on the location of the client?
A substantial fraction of the tax code is the way it is because they are patches done to attempt to preclude diversions of income which were not intended by the simple code.
Because a complicated tax system is working so well for us now. It doesn't matter what the system is. As long as there are those that want to avoid taxes and have enough resources to do so, the system will be gamed. If the system is going to be gamed regardless, it might as well be simple.
Slashdot Mirror
Good or bad. If people are spamming the site with it, it is still a nuisance.
From the summary:
And this content is some of the website's most-accessed.
Because I have never run across porn there, I didn't even realize Wikipedia had a porn problem. That said, if pornographic content is really the most accessed content on Wikipedia, why not get a few paid/unpaid interns to review the top N accessed images on Wikipedia. I am sure there are people who would like to be paid to look at porn.
I don't want the "bad guys" to be better off. I want them to fear for their life if they break into my home, mug me, or attempt to kill me.
Right. The fun thing about fear is that it makes you react, often violently. In the position you describe, I'd rather have my assailant be completely sure that I was not a threat, so he'd concentrate on his primary financial goal and have no reason to harm me. You can't choose that sort of thing, though, and I don't think small time robbers (physical bandits, in contrast to white-collar criminals, the ones that actually rake in the big bucks) are educated enough to consider such statistics before starting their entrepreneurial venture of the day.
So you want anyone to be able to take your stuff at their leisure? What if they are not there for your possessions? What if they would like to rape your family? What if they not only want to rape your family but have a thing for necrophilia. There are sick bastards out there that I do not want anywhere near my loved ones.
If you take away guns, the law-abiding citizens will still fear for their life except now they can't do anything about it.
In "small" crimes, both the victim and the bad guy are better off without guns.
I don't want the "bad guys" to be better off. I want them to fear for their life if they break into my home, mug me, or attempt to kill me.
The dress maker expects to get paid. The caterer expects to get paid. The photographer expects to get paid. The bartender expects to get paid. The band expects to get paid. The DJ expects to get paid. And why shouldn't they? They are all working and using skills they have spent years and decades training in. They have overhead, they have expenses, they have employees... music isn't free to make. Even a simple indie album will often cost about $8k-10k on the low end to produce and that ignores everyone's time and energy to write, rehearse and perform.
First off, assuming the music was legally purchased, they did get paid for their music. It is not like people are handing out the CDs or MP3s at the parties so that everyone can listen to them at their leisure. They are broadcasting the audio over a very limited area and the music must be listened to at that moment.
Second, if you noticed everyone you just listed is performing a service once and getting paid once. If they want to get paid a second time, they have to perform the service a second time. I just checked Canada's copyright length. It is life plus 50 years. What non-intellectual property based job do you know of in which a person can perform a service once not only get paid for their whole life but also most of their children's lives? Why should artists get special treatment? I understand that there are costs to recording music but not 150 years worth. 5 to 10 years from the publication date would be more than reasonable. If you can't make any money in that amount of time, you need to go into another business.
Lastly, as others have mentioned. With the exception of indie music where the artists use their own funds and do everything themselves, very little of the money from copyright actually gets to the artists.
It is about time.
Health micromanagement is not the beginning of Nanny Government; it is the logical conclusion of Nanny Government. You can't say the public is responsible for individual people's health, and then not also give the public power to use force to make individuals be healthy despite their wishes.
He didn't say the government should be responsible an individuals person's health.
Interpersonal pressure and government pressure are two very different things. Going against interpersonal pressure would likely results in lost or strained relationships. If one party escalates to anything worse like assault or murder, the offending party would likely be arrested. Going against government pressure can easily lead to incarceration or death. Justice from government wrongs is unlikely.
I have always wondered. Who is the bigger idiot? The man who is so fat that he cannot walk or even fit through a door or the man who brings food to said man. If I was providing for a man that fat, I would bring them nothing but salad, vitamins, and water. If he didn't like that, he could get up and find his own food.
Terms of the copyrights and patents involved could be shortened proportionally to the amount the government spends on said project. If a company accepts government money, they would be required to release the source at the end of their shortened copyright.
I wonder if anyone has ever considered creating a launch pad in international waters.
Which is why they are having trouble finding anyone. It is also probably why the day of the company/employee loyalty relationship has largely disappeared.
Can arbitration actually enforce anything or does the arbitrator simply act as a mediator between the two parties? If at the end of the day, I can say "Screw this, arbitration is not working." and then file a class action lawsuit, I have no issue with an arbitration first clause. I do have an issue with an arbitration/small claims only clause.
Mutually beneficial and consensual contributions and taxes are not the same thing. Also there are other forms of pressure beside government force.
How much extra does that other person have to have? $5, $100, $1000, $10000?
What if it is your neighbor's life that depends on it and not you?
Is your life the maximum bound of your willingness to steal from another or could you go with something less important than your life?
Are you an advocate for forcibly removing a kidney from someone who has two kidneys and giving it to someone who needs a kidney transplant? What about a partial liver? What about bone marrow?
I don't believe "the great lie that somehow you alone are responsible for what you become". I just believe people should be able to do what they want with what is theirs barring that they don't encroach on another's rights. I do believe that we should help each other out. I don't believe that we should steal from those that choose otherwise. Now, I can choose to not treat those who choose otherwise the same as everyone else but that is not stealing. That is simply choosing how I to allocate my resources.
Not wanting your money taken by force and being willing to give money are not mutually exclusive.
Does that give you the right to go to someone's house point a gun to their head and take their money?
Remember: a bird needs at least two wings to fly.
But only one rocket.
It is one thing if you to give something to another out of your own volition. It is another thing to force someone else to give something to another by the point of a gun or incarceration.
This is a perfect example of why there needs to be less power in the Federal government and instead manage things at the state level whenever possible. Like minded people tend to converge to each other. Therefore, the closer the government is to the people, the less likely it is that people are under laws and regulations that they do not agree with.
I forgot about that one but I have always wanted that too. Anything set related needs to be part of their permission scheme. For example, set intersection if I only want to share with people who are in both circles but not those only in one. While this might be a little complicated for some, they don't have to use the feature and as some other have said, most of the people who regularly use Google+ are technical people. They already understand how to use sets. Outside of the whole set thing, I should be able to change permissions on the fly.
While Iran trying to take legal action about this is just dumb, why doesn't Google just label it with multiple names or simply show the name based on the location of the client?
A substantial fraction of the tax code is the way it is because they are patches done to attempt to preclude diversions of income which were not intended by the simple code.
Because a complicated tax system is working so well for us now. It doesn't matter what the system is. As long as there are those that want to avoid taxes and have enough resources to do so, the system will be gamed. If the system is going to be gamed regardless, it might as well be simple.