I'm not to worried about that. I've got three family members who use Verison because it's the cheapest.
It's almost like they don't offer service. It doesn't work indoors, the signals are always weak, and you can go out of the coverage areas very often by crossing the street.
They don't blanket their coverage zones with recievers like a lot of other companies do. And in case you're wondering, they live in Orlando - which is a place that has very, very good phone services for the other companies because three of them have headquarters there and also because the tourism makes it quite marketable.
How are they possibly going to get data rates that high when they can't get normal calls to go through?
Such an extremely high quality actor in such an extremely high quality film couldn't possibly be lying! You scientists! With all of your science (pardon my French, but it had to be said)! What could you possibly know that hollywood doesn't? Can you make movies? I didn't think so. Next you'll be saying that you can't make a world where computers use people for energy!
When the smokers come to take over MY atoll, I'll be ready! I'm trying to grow gills even as we speak.
Yeah, they been known to do that when people make server farms to attempt to influence the rankings of google. It is in their best interest to ensure that the pages that people actually want to see come up first, not the advertisers pages.
That's why people use google. If they stacked the deck supporting places people don't care about - advertisers pages, for instance, then we'd all jump ship and use another search engine.
They're like the Swiss and Consumer Reports. Part of the reason they make money is neutrality, and they won't make as much if they're not.
Recall TransGaming's Winex scam. They planned to offer their work back to Wine when they got a certain amount of supporters.
Well...they have that. Where's the releases?
And for that matter, they're not really following the GPL's spirit if they track down everyone who is giving out a compiled version of their stuff (such as Debian and Gentoo) and telling them not to - and being listened to.
People asking for free money are not always appreciative of it without contracts to ensure that they have to be.
The lack of clarity in the license one reason why the FSF has to maintain pages and pages of FAQs about the GPL, and perhaps one reason they're working on yet another version of the GPL.
Something where you could be sure that linking is allowed, for instance? I suppose you could say their working on that, if by "working" you mean "have had available and in use for a long time."
It's called the LGPL, and its a wonderful thing when you're writing libraries that you want everyone to use and freely improve upon.
To quote the nature article that's been mentioned several times here: Mosaicism is more common than chimaerism and is also better studied. Human mosaics arise when a mistake during cell division in the early embryo stops the correct number of chromosomes segregating to each cell, or creates a mutation in a single gene.
Chimaerism, on the other hand is "people carrying tissues that originated in two separate embryos."
Who else has any right whatsoever to tell us what we can do with our lives? To a limited extent, the government does it for the good of society. I believe the point that I made at first is that it isn't obvious that self-destructive behavior is an inalienable right. It only takes a single example to disprove the fact that it is obvious, and I have it: it is not obvious to me.
Beyond that, though, if it were obvious to EVERYONE then all forms of self-destructive behavior that are not harmful to other people would be legal (note that the reverse is not necessarily true because some things that are self-destructive may also have some positive purposes - enough to outweigh their negative sides). I'll give you one to work with: you're not allowed to use weed for recreational purposes even if you will never do anything for which the changes in perception will hurt someone else (such as driving) because it's self-destructive. You may disagree with this ONE point, but keep in mind that to prove the self-evidence, you're really going to have to show that there is no one to whom it is not obvious that self-destructive behavior is an inalienable right. I'll even be satisified if you can prove that I'm the only one who thinks it isn't.
I'm willing to bet you can't prove it. If it isn't obvious, so the claim that this is a right doesn't hold any water; it is merely an opinion. That being the case, and because it is not stated in the constitution as an exception to one of the other ammendments, the US government is not obligated to defend the privelege of viewing porn as an inalienable right.
Apparently so. To quote a major scientist involved: "She's [the exciton] giving me excitations. I'm picking up good vibrations!"
Another nearby scientist, after having accidentally dropped nearly thirty pounts of excitons directly on his crotch added this in high falsetto: "Ooo, ooh, ooh! Good Vibrations!"
I too have a website, and I've got the logs in a nice, easy to read form. Most of the readership of my site is from slashdot.
Notice how many people are using Windows/IE?
Of course, the only reason people usually visit my site is because I said something interesting and they wanted to see who I was. Maybe IE/Windows users are more prone to webwandering.
No...if James Bond were into wardriving, a lot more Bond girls would be computer nerds with an expertise in War Driving. Similarly, if there were more Bond girls into War Driving, James Bond would be more interested in it.
First point: I'm not sure about you, but where I live every gas station sells porn.
If they weren't forced to keep it behind the counter, they might not - places like Walmart might not, for example...and then it would be unavoidable, as it is in many other countries. At least, it would be unavoidable to those who want to drive and go to Walmart.
It's like putting a smoking section in most restaurants - it doesn't make any difference; smoking fills up most places and nonsmokers can't avoid it.
Point 2: But on another point...are you saying that people have the right to buy porn?
It is not, as the naturalists have suggested, self-evident that certain "rights" are inalienable - that they are rights. Specifically, I have brought up two points - driving fast, and looking at porn - that are considered by many to be self-destructive.
Why is engaging in what is considered self-destructive behavior an enlargement of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness? What makes it an inalienable right?
While what you say is true, it is also not applicable if I'm right. These are still issue's of human rights. How does a state or the government benefit from withholding pornography? Is a state more powerful because of this?
It is an issue of whether to give the privilege to NOT have to see pornography in the store to a group, or to give the privilege to buy pornography to another. They are conflicting priveleges.
Obsenity violates integrity (which I believe falls under the "pursuit of happiness" thing) of some individuals for the sake of others. Obviously someone has to lose out on priveleges (unless the surpreme court decides that integrity is not a legitimate privilege). This falls under the same category as most other laws, and gives insight into why we have them at all.
The speed limit laws limit the ability for me to go fast in my car. Does that make them illegal since speed limits are not specifically granted by the constitution? It gives others an more of a chance to have life.
I was neither posing a position for or against the issue, I was merely justifying it under the logic of the law. The parent of my post indicates that the law is being applied willy-nilly, rather than being given a clear outline of usage.
As far as making it illegal to critize a non-political figure, it isn't because there is no such person. All people have political power.
However, there is some legal protection given to the individual. It is illegal to publicly declare that I stole something from you if I didn't, for example, because the would be slander or libel (depending on how you said it).
Maybe you should question why something is covered by free speech. The intent of the idea of free speech is to mostly to allow the populace to criticize the government and other figures with power as a means of exacting political change.
As a supplement, it is to allow one to teach one's beliefs and way of life to other people.
So I put it to you that porn is not for either of these purposes; it is merely for pleasure. It stands, therefore, not as a right, but rather as a privelege awarded by the majority.
The question may be raised, then, as to why they should repress others in satisfying their desires. The answer should be simple: because the mere presence of such material is displeasurable for them. They don't want to risk their children getting it, or them seeing things in a moment of weakness.
Since 1) It does not further the intent of the free speech ammendment 2) It makes some people happy, and others unhappy.
The decision falls to the majority. Will more people be unhappy with it than happy? Then it won't be allowed.
What have they got to lose? A good product? No. A company? It's already in the toilet - they could lose it at any time. Personal holdings? No, the company is doing the charging.
This could make them all wildly rich! Why not go for it, just in case somebody buys it?
I've got a bachelors in C.S. with a minor in math specializing in logic, thank you very much. I might add that my school specilized in logic classes. I took eight of them.
A logical statement - with a claim and a true conclusion with no supporting evidence is just an implication. If it's true you can call it a tautology. It is not referred to as an argument.
An argument, proof, or logic chain has supporting evidence. It is, by definition, a justification for WHY a claim leads to a particular conclusion. Sometimes an argument is considered the smallest unit of a proof/logical chain, with one premise that leads to a single conclusion with only one step. This is not really debatable. If it didn't have supporting evidence, you wouldn't call it an argument. But this is all semantics so that we can know that I know what I'm talking about. It's drifting from the point: your conclusion is highly questionable and without any evidence it cannot be accepted as true by an impartial observer.
The "this" that I was referring to in "This is the major claim of many ad hominem fallacies" is "It's just that simple," not "everybody knows it, ask anybody," though I'd say that a lot of ad hominem fallacies are appeals to anonymous authority, or appeals to personal authority, as is your case. I included it because the attitude of both seem to be the same. It was just for flavor. The point is that you have characterized a group as leechers without backing up your claim, and that doing so is ad hominem.
without reason for bias. I worded this carefully to exclude those lawyers who are paid by those who are in favor of copyright laws, and those who are against these laws. These lawyers risk being colored by gain. Others can, perhaps, make a fair assessment of the situation. Not really, the point, though. I was just giving you a chance to present your credentials. Does attacking my preciseness help to prove your point somehow?
How about the 400 years of copyright law? Good. At least you attempted to provide evidence. What about it, though? How does the statement "400 years of copyright law" show that creativity would collapse without it? And where did you get the 400 from? I can't seem to draw any conclusions from that statement alone.
Well, since no information is adequate, what's the point of discussing it again? Actually, a good reason why people will be going out of work would be more than adequate. A list of who those people would be isn't really a reason, is it?
I'd say there's an 80% chance this whole thing was a troll, but I'm bored anyway, so whatever.
I suppose I could be a troll, but my M.O. suggests otherwise, if you'll check my recent posts. Occasionally my sense of truth gets the better of me and try to guide someone who is speaking their opinions passionately but without reason to do so logically as well. Try again. You almost got one piece of supporting evidence. Refer to the other people who have critiqued your posts as reference for improvements.
Who cares? To not care when you speak falsely is to troll for attention because there are so many in/. who are concerned with the truth. I'd like to think that most people here do care.
Cubicledrone, you have been accused of "ad hominem" fallacy, and have thus far failed to disprove the truth of this claim.
"It's that simple"
This is the major claim of most ad hominem fallacies. "Isn't it obvious? Everybody knows it." Since THIS point has been contested, it is this point you should address. What lets you know that everyone who wants copyright changes want it because they want free stuff? Or, to weaken your claim to a point you can stick, what makes you sure that most people who want change want it because they want free stuff? Keep in mind that personal anecdote, such as "I've studied it for 10 years" is generally not considered valid as evidence unless you have expert qualifications. Are you a copyright lawyer without reason for bias?
How does infringing on copyright help artists? It doesn't. That's an irrefutable chain of logic.
This is rather ironic, don't you think? A chain of logic requires a claim, evidence and a conclusion to be considered valid. The claim is implied "Infringing on copyright doesn't help artists," and the conclusion is stated: "It doesn't," but there is no evidence. I can therefore refute your claim simply because no evidence has been presented.
In 200 years or so,... Okay, this looks like a conclusion, and as far as I can tell, and trying to piece together the several claims from what you've got: Removing copyright law will remove incentive to produce creative works (no evidence given for this - nothing is even mentioned that might be considered such evidence) This will result in a loss of jobs and a decline in the literacy rate (no evidence given for this either because a list of people who would go out of work is not evidence that those people will go out of work)
Once again, you have failed to provide any supporting evidence.
I have systematically eliminated every point you have made on the grounds of lack of evidence from your second point, proving that your post lacks merit as a argument for copyright laws (because there are no valid arguments). I leave it as an exercise for the reader (Fun game!) to verify antiMStroll's claim on Cubicdrone's original post.
Sure, it seems good now, but what about thirty years from now?
By then the genetic revolution will have happened, and only those approved using the sophisticated government-run breeding program will be able to have children, and even those will be genetically modified to have the best traits. With stuff like this, it will be almost impossible to fool the robot-search droids, who will be able to identify you in an instant as a "mutt" whose parents concieved you out of love, not mandate.
I ask you, would YOU want to be one of the ones sent to the extermination chamber for the "good" of society because your actions are unpredictable? I think not. We need to nip this in the bud while we still can, just as we need to nip the robot-search droid projects in the bud as soon as they come up.
Then you probably have a problem with your audio or your configuration.
I can watch any DIVX at full speed with a P3-500 without a problem. Resizing to arbitrary sizes while it runs is also not a problem. I might add that I've been able to run DIVX at full speed while also using one thread to compile the kernel (two threads is too many and leads to choppy audio).
The resizing thing can really kill you if you're trying to do it with software. It does, however, work great if you can manage to use a vidix or dga driver.
Of course "that road" is still being traveled by Verizon, but I would like to propose that this may be, in fact, an entirely different road.
Almost every college I have been to behaves a bit like a small city - sometimes it's own state - with it's own set of rules, regulations, and policies.
Most also have their own policing organizations and post office. What is the point?
The point is that this may be slightly a matter of juristiction, and I'm certain that at least the college that invented Kerebos sees it that way. They police themselves - watching their own networks, and work very hard to ensure that their citizens are protected, and that what is private remains so.
They also discipline them when they do something they shouldn't.
This may not be legal reasoning for MIT and Boston, but it sure is ethical grounds. It is not in either MIT or Boston's best interest to have massive file-swapping, and as tech-savvy colleges, they certainly limit it.
Does anyone know of any cases where students rights where protected from outside litigation because schools were taking care of the problems?
Do you realize how long it takes to convert a DVI into an mpeg which is acceptable by DVD players?
On my Athlon 1.4Ghz it was taking 12 hours for 1.5 hours of video.
However, having this leads to more questions, since AVI as a format can support pretty much all video compression codecs in existance.
The one they advertise support for is called "MPEG-4 Advanced Simple Profile" and "MPEG-4 Simple." My guess is that they're referring to fast and slow motion opendivx support, though that could be off.
But a good questions are: how upgradable is this? Can it take new codecs? And what exactly do they mean by "MPEG-4 Simple" and advanced (since as far as I know these are not codecs that are in use). And how well does it deal with losing its place in the file (in case there are errors), with mangled files (is it all or nothing?), and with files of different sizes and frames per second?
Re:important safety tip!
on
United Nuclear
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Ok right that's BAD, important safety tip.
Thanks Egon.
Re:important safety tip!
on
United Nuclear
·
· Score: 3, Funny
(1) An inkblot (2) An inkblot (3) An inkblot (4) An inkblot (5) An inkblot (6) An inkblot (7) An inkblot (8) An inkblot (9) An inkblot (10) Standing in sort of sun-god robes on a pyramid with thousands of naked women screaming and throwing little pickles.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not to worried about that. I've got three family members who use Verison because it's the cheapest.
It's almost like they don't offer service. It doesn't work indoors, the signals are always weak, and you can go out of the coverage areas very often by crossing the street.
They don't blanket their coverage zones with recievers like a lot of other companies do. And in case you're wondering, they live in Orlando - which is a place that has very, very good phone services for the other companies because three of them have headquarters there and also because the tourism makes it quite marketable.
How are they possibly going to get data rates that high when they can't get normal calls to go through?
He didn't!
Such an extremely high quality actor in such an extremely high quality film couldn't possibly be lying! You scientists! With all of your science (pardon my French, but it had to be said)! What could you possibly know that hollywood doesn't? Can you make movies? I didn't think so. Next you'll be saying that you can't make a world where computers use people for energy!
When the smokers come to take over MY atoll, I'll be ready! I'm trying to grow gills even as we speak.
Yeah, they been known to do that when people make server farms to attempt to influence the rankings of google. It is in their best interest to ensure that the pages that people actually want to see come up first, not the advertisers pages.
That's why people use google. If they stacked the deck supporting places people don't care about - advertisers pages, for instance, then we'd all jump ship and use another search engine.
They're like the Swiss and Consumer Reports. Part of the reason they make money is neutrality, and they won't make as much if they're not.
No, imagine it more like this: the boat itself is not the kernel. None of the stuff that runs it is the kernel.
The kernel is, in fact,just a life vest. It's going to float no matter what.
Unfortunately, if you lose all of the parts of the boat, you're not going anywhere anyway...
Bitter memories.
Recall TransGaming's Winex scam. They planned to offer their work back to Wine when they got a certain amount of supporters.
Well...they have that. Where's the releases?
And for that matter, they're not really following the GPL's spirit if they track down everyone who is giving out a compiled version of their stuff (such as Debian and Gentoo) and telling them not to - and being listened to.
People asking for free money are not always appreciative of it without contracts to ensure that they have to be.
The lack of clarity in the license one reason why the FSF has to maintain pages and pages of FAQs about the GPL, and perhaps one reason they're working on yet another version of the GPL.
Something where you could be sure that linking is allowed, for instance? I suppose you could say their working on that, if by "working" you mean "have had available and in use for a long time."
It's called the LGPL, and its a wonderful thing when you're writing libraries that you want everyone to use and freely improve upon.
Mosaics aren't Chimeras.
To quote the nature article that's been mentioned several times here:
Mosaicism is more common than chimaerism and is also better studied. Human mosaics arise when a mistake during cell division in the early embryo stops the correct number of chromosomes segregating to each cell, or creates a mutation in a single gene.
Chimaerism, on the other hand is "people carrying tissues that originated in two separate embryos."
Who else has any right whatsoever to tell us what we can do with our lives?
To a limited extent, the government does it for the good of society. I believe the point that I made at first is that it isn't obvious that self-destructive behavior is an inalienable right. It only takes a single example to disprove the fact that it is obvious, and I have it: it is not obvious to me.
Beyond that, though, if it were obvious to EVERYONE then all forms of self-destructive behavior that are not harmful to other people would be legal (note that the reverse is not necessarily true because some things that are self-destructive may also have some positive purposes - enough to outweigh their negative sides). I'll give you one to work with: you're not allowed to use weed for recreational purposes even if you will never do anything for which the changes in perception will hurt someone else (such as driving) because it's self-destructive. You may disagree with this ONE point, but keep in mind that to prove the self-evidence, you're really going to have to show that there is no one to whom it is not obvious that self-destructive behavior is an inalienable right. I'll even be satisified if you can prove that I'm the only one who thinks it isn't.
I'm willing to bet you can't prove it. If it isn't obvious, so the claim that this is a right doesn't hold any water; it is merely an opinion. That being the case, and because it is not stated in the constitution as an exception to one of the other ammendments, the US government is not obligated to defend the privelege of viewing porn as an inalienable right.
Apparently so. To quote a major scientist involved:
"She's [the exciton] giving me excitations. I'm picking up good vibrations!"
Another nearby scientist, after having accidentally dropped nearly thirty pounts of excitons directly on his crotch added this in high falsetto:
"Ooo, ooh, ooh! Good Vibrations!"
I too have a website, and I've got the logs in a nice, easy to read form. Most of the readership of my site is from slashdot.
Notice how many people are using Windows/IE?
Of course, the only reason people usually visit my site is because I said something interesting and they wanted to see who I was. Maybe IE/Windows users are more prone to webwandering.
No...if James Bond were into wardriving, a lot more Bond girls would be computer nerds with an expertise in War Driving. Similarly, if there were more Bond girls into War Driving, James Bond would be more interested in it.
I'd pay $8 to see that movie.
First point:
I'm not sure about you, but where I live every gas station sells porn.
If they weren't forced to keep it behind the counter, they might not - places like Walmart might not, for example...and then it would be unavoidable, as it is in many other countries. At least, it would be unavoidable to those who want to drive and go to Walmart.
It's like putting a smoking section in most restaurants - it doesn't make any difference; smoking fills up most places and nonsmokers can't avoid it.
Point 2:
But on another point...are you saying that people have the right to buy porn?
It is not, as the naturalists have suggested, self-evident that certain "rights" are inalienable - that they are rights. Specifically, I have brought up two points - driving fast, and looking at porn - that are considered by many to be self-destructive.
Why is engaging in what is considered self-destructive behavior an enlargement of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness? What makes it an inalienable right?
While what you say is true, it is also not applicable if I'm right. These are still issue's of human rights. How does a state or the government benefit from withholding pornography? Is a state more powerful because of this?
It is an issue of whether to give the privilege to NOT have to see pornography in the store to a group, or to give the privilege to buy pornography to another. They are conflicting priveleges.
Obsenity violates integrity (which I believe falls under the "pursuit of happiness" thing) of some individuals for the sake of others. Obviously someone has to lose out on priveleges (unless the surpreme court decides that integrity is not a legitimate privilege). This falls under the same category as most other laws, and gives insight into why we have them at all.
The speed limit laws limit the ability for me to go fast in my car. Does that make them illegal since speed limits are not specifically granted by the constitution? It gives others an more of a chance to have life.
I was neither posing a position for or against the issue, I was merely justifying it under the logic of the law. The parent of my post indicates that the law is being applied willy-nilly, rather than being given a clear outline of usage.
As far as making it illegal to critize a non-political figure, it isn't because there is no such person. All people have political power.
However, there is some legal protection given to the individual. It is illegal to publicly declare that I stole something from you if I didn't, for example, because the would be slander or libel (depending on how you said it).
Maybe you should question why something is covered by free speech. The intent of the idea of free speech is to mostly to allow the populace to criticize the government and other figures with power as a means of exacting political change.
As a supplement, it is to allow one to teach one's beliefs and way of life to other people.
So I put it to you that porn is not for either of these purposes; it is merely for pleasure. It stands, therefore, not as a right, but rather as a privelege awarded by the majority.
The question may be raised, then, as to why they should repress others in satisfying their desires. The answer should be simple: because the mere presence of such material is displeasurable for them. They don't want to risk their children getting it, or them seeing things in a moment of weakness.
Since
1) It does not further the intent of the free speech ammendment
2) It makes some people happy, and others unhappy.
The decision falls to the majority. Will more people be unhappy with it than happy? Then it won't be allowed.
What have they got to lose? A good product? No. A company? It's already in the toilet - they could lose it at any time. Personal holdings? No, the company is doing the charging.
This could make them all wildly rich! Why not go for it, just in case somebody buys it?
I've got a bachelors in C.S. with a minor in math specializing in logic, thank you very much. I might add that my school specilized in logic classes. I took eight of them.
/. who are concerned with the truth. I'd like to think that most people here do care.
A logical statement - with a claim and a true conclusion with no supporting evidence is just an implication. If it's true you can call it a tautology. It is not referred to as an argument.
An argument, proof, or logic chain has supporting evidence. It is, by definition, a justification for WHY a claim leads to a particular conclusion. Sometimes an argument is considered the smallest unit of a proof/logical chain, with one premise that leads to a single conclusion with only one step. This is not really debatable. If it didn't have supporting evidence, you wouldn't call it an argument. But this is all semantics so that we can know that I know what I'm talking about.
It's drifting from the point: your conclusion is highly questionable and without any evidence it cannot be accepted as true by an impartial observer.
The "this" that I was referring to in "This is the major claim of many ad hominem fallacies" is "It's just that simple," not "everybody knows it, ask anybody," though I'd say that a lot of ad hominem fallacies are appeals to anonymous authority, or appeals to personal authority, as is your case. I included it because the attitude of both seem to be the same. It was just for flavor. The point is that you have characterized a group as leechers without backing up your claim, and that doing so is ad hominem.
without reason for bias.
I worded this carefully to exclude those lawyers who are paid by those who are in favor of copyright laws, and those who are against these laws. These lawyers risk being colored by gain. Others can, perhaps, make a fair assessment of the situation. Not really, the point, though. I was just giving you a chance to present your credentials. Does attacking my preciseness help to prove your point somehow?
How about the 400 years of copyright law?
Good. At least you attempted to provide evidence.
What about it, though? How does the statement "400 years of copyright law" show that creativity would collapse without it? And where did you get the 400 from? I can't seem to draw any conclusions from that statement alone.
Well, since no information is adequate, what's the point of discussing it again?
Actually, a good reason why people will be going out of work would be more than adequate. A list of who those people would be isn't really a reason, is it?
I'd say there's an 80% chance this whole thing was a troll, but I'm bored anyway, so whatever.
I suppose I could be a troll, but my M.O. suggests otherwise, if you'll check my recent posts. Occasionally my sense of truth gets the better of me and try to guide someone who is speaking their opinions passionately but without reason to do so logically as well. Try again. You almost got one piece of supporting evidence. Refer to the other people who have critiqued your posts as reference for improvements.
Who cares?
To not care when you speak falsely is to troll for attention because there are so many in
Cubicledrone, you have been accused of "ad hominem" fallacy, and have thus far failed to disprove the truth of this claim.
...
"It's that simple"
This is the major claim of most ad hominem fallacies. "Isn't it obvious? Everybody knows it." Since THIS point has been contested, it is this point you should address. What lets you know that everyone who wants copyright changes want it because they want free stuff? Or, to weaken your claim to a point you can stick, what makes you sure that most people who want change want it because they want free stuff? Keep in mind that personal anecdote, such as "I've studied it for 10 years" is generally not considered valid as evidence unless you have expert qualifications. Are you a copyright lawyer without reason for bias?
How does infringing on copyright help artists? It doesn't. That's an irrefutable chain of logic.
This is rather ironic, don't you think? A chain of logic requires a claim, evidence and a conclusion to be considered valid. The claim is implied "Infringing on copyright doesn't help artists," and the conclusion is stated: "It doesn't," but there is no evidence. I can therefore refute your claim simply because no evidence has been presented.
In 200 years or so,
Okay, this looks like a conclusion, and as far as I can tell, and trying to piece together the several claims from what you've got:
Removing copyright law will remove incentive to produce creative works (no evidence given for this - nothing is even mentioned that might be considered such evidence)
This will result in a loss of jobs and a decline in the literacy rate (no evidence given for this either because a list of people who would go out of work is not evidence that those people will go out of work)
Once again, you have failed to provide any supporting evidence.
I have systematically eliminated every point you have made on the grounds of lack of evidence from your second point, proving that your post lacks merit as a argument for copyright laws (because there are no valid arguments). I leave it as an exercise for the reader (Fun game!) to verify antiMStroll's claim on Cubicdrone's original post.
Sure, it seems good now, but what about thirty years from now?
By then the genetic revolution will have happened, and only those approved using the sophisticated government-run breeding program will be able to have children, and even those will be genetically modified to have the best traits. With stuff like this, it will be almost impossible to fool the robot-search droids, who will be able to identify you in an instant as a "mutt" whose parents concieved you out of love, not mandate.
I ask you, would YOU want to be one of the ones sent to the extermination chamber for the "good" of society because your actions are unpredictable? I think not. We need to nip this in the bud while we still can, just as we need to nip the robot-search droid projects in the bud as soon as they come up.
Then you probably have a problem with your audio or your configuration.
I can watch any DIVX at full speed with a P3-500 without a problem. Resizing to arbitrary sizes while it runs is also not a problem. I might add that I've been able to run DIVX at full speed while also using one thread to compile the kernel (two threads is too many and leads to choppy audio).
The resizing thing can really kill you if you're trying to do it with software. It does, however, work great if you can manage to use a vidix or dga driver.
Of course "that road" is still being traveled by Verizon, but I would like to propose that this may be, in fact, an entirely different road.
Almost every college I have been to behaves a bit like a small city - sometimes it's own state - with it's own set of rules, regulations, and policies.
Most also have their own policing organizations and post office. What is the point?
The point is that this may be slightly a matter of juristiction, and I'm certain that at least the college that invented Kerebos sees it that way. They police themselves - watching their own networks, and work very hard to ensure that their citizens are protected, and that what is private remains so.
They also discipline them when they do something they shouldn't.
This may not be legal reasoning for MIT and Boston, but it sure is ethical grounds. It is not in either MIT or Boston's best interest to have massive file-swapping, and as tech-savvy colleges, they certainly limit it.
Does anyone know of any cases where students rights where protected from outside litigation because schools were taking care of the problems?
Actually, that's rather a good point, isn't it?
Do you realize how long it takes to convert a DVI into an mpeg which is acceptable by DVD players?
On my Athlon 1.4Ghz it was taking 12 hours for 1.5 hours of video.
However, having this leads to more questions, since AVI as a format can support pretty much all video compression codecs in existance.
The one they advertise support for is called "MPEG-4 Advanced Simple Profile" and "MPEG-4 Simple." My guess is that they're referring to fast and slow motion opendivx support, though that could be off.
But a good questions are: how upgradable is this? Can it take new codecs? And what exactly do they mean by "MPEG-4 Simple" and advanced (since as far as I know these are not codecs that are in use). And how well does it deal with losing its place in the file (in case there are errors), with mangled files (is it all or nothing?), and with files of different sizes and frames per second?
Ok right that's BAD, important safety tip.
Thanks Egon.
I'm a little fuzzy on the whole good-bad thing.
What do you mean, "bad?"
(1) An inkblot
(2) An inkblot
(3) An inkblot
(4) An inkblot
(5) An inkblot
(6) An inkblot
(7) An inkblot
(8) An inkblot
(9) An inkblot
(10) Standing in sort of sun-god robes on a pyramid with thousands of naked women screaming and throwing little pickles.
So the correct password is atatatatatatatatatss