Actually, I bet the situations are far more similar, since you can no more affect a football game than the election at this point. If the game was pre-recorded, but you didn't know the outcome, would it make any difference?
I wonder if you could prove the equivalence using some theory of modern physics? Greg Egan could could probably write a book on it.:-) -- Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
The U.S Patent Office has no jurisdiction here. Any patent granted by the SPO is valid in this jurisdiction.
You punishment has been commuted due to negative moderation. However, should your post become positive again, you will also be in violation of Article 5 of my aforementioned patent. -- Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
And what's wrong with that? There are merits to both sides of each of these three issues, and quite frankly, I don't really care which way they go, as each side has fanatics pushing at both sides, ensuring little movement one way or the other.
There are relatively few people who seem concerned about the erosion of the public domain, the corporate control of Internet policy, and free speech rights that are trampled, so I will focus on what is important to me because if I don't who else will?
And don't get on some elitist trip and start telling the rest of us IP and technology policy doesn't matter. In the long run this little toy called the Internet is far more important than these other issues. They are fashion, even if you ascribe great philosphical significance to them, they are still fashion, swinging back and forth according to the norms of current society.
Technology, however, doesn't go backwards, and it doesn't take sides, but it does have a profound effect on society, far more than I would ascribe to the ideological hand waving of people with "causes". The Internet is going to define the culture of this new century, and I want it to embody my values, not those of the corporate hucksters, fundy politicians, and social engineers whose propoganda compose most of American politics. -- Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
Man, the old hippy slogan sounds very appropriate in this situation: do you own your car, or does your car own you? -- Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
Re:But the CoS *does* infiltrate governments.
on
FRG on W2K: No CoS
·
· Score: 1
It's a conspiracy, man! The same thing happened to me a few months ago. My karma took an approximate 10 point hit, and then began slipping one point almost every day since then. It eventually leveled out in the twenties. It was in the mid sixties when this started.
Needless to say I was pissed. Being one who took moderation and the use of the +2 seriously, it seemed like a betrayal that either Malda himself, or miscreants taking advantage of his social engineering, had punished me for trying to make the system work.
My advice: don't give a shit anymore. Slashdot is broken, and Malda doesn't seem too intent on lifting a finger to fix it. For god's sake, even the posting modes are still mislabeled!
And you know, it isn't that hard to whore yourself up to the +2 again. There are even instructions. -- Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
What school is it? What is the dean's name? I know you're probably afraid of retribution from the morons running your school, but think of all the people you could help by telling them to avoid attending it. Kick those petty tyrants where it hurts! -- Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
That's a good observation. But I'll add that most tyranny occurs because people who lust for power don't want people to fork. It's "my way or the highway" (or jail, gulag, death camp) as far as they are concerned. Both government and property rights are barriers to forking. -- Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
But the second half of my point is, those very companies abusing the patent office were the ones who pressured them to be more lenient. It's all in the interpretation, and I don't see how legislation would help, unless it did away with whole classes of patents entirely.
Not every commons is abused, not when people stand up to protect it. It is in their own best interests spend a little to organize a means of protection, even if free riders will benefit, rather than spend a lot to make up for its loss. The cheapest way is the traditional way, using non-coercive punishment, such as shame (generate bad PR for the offending company) and ostracism (refuse to do business with offending company). When people bend over and place all the blame on the patent office, they're shirking that duty to hold the those accountable who actually committed the offense.
All intellectual property is a commons. Sure, it is protected from exploitment by threat of violence, but the criteria where that becomes acceptable is open to change. We've let the biggest exploiters and parasites set the rules in their favor. The patent office is part of those rules, and are under their influence.
Sure, the patent office needs to be reformed. But that will never happen as long as everyone is an apoligist for those who put it in its current state. -- Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
Don't blame the murderer. He's too psychopathic to do anything else. The real problem is with law enforcement.
No, it's not a perfect analogy, but it gets the point across. For every company that abuses the patent office, there is another that does not. Just because a system allows you to exploit it doesn't make it your obligation to do so, nor does it remove any moral obligations to behave responsibly.
And who do you think payed for the patent office to get to this state? Do you really think they decided they were just to strict in their criteria for handing out patents? Or that incompentence magically appeared in the last twenty years, where as they had been doing a great job beforehand? -- Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
That's definately the window borders of 4Dwm, the window managaer that comes with IRIX.
To demonstate, here's some dude's screenshot I found through google. -- Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
Re:We both know there is more to D & D than that..
on
D&D Trailer
·
· Score: 1
the person who thinks they can mess with D&D without getting burnt is whistling in the dark.
That reminds me of a little ditty by They Might Be Giants:
A woman came up to me and said
"I'd like to poison your mind
With wrong ideas that appeal to you
Though I am not unkind"
She looked at me, I looked at something
Written across her scalp
And these are the words that it faintly said
As I tried to call for help:
There's only one thing that I know how to do well
And I've often been told that you only can do
What you know how to do well
And that's be you,
Be what you're like,
Be like yourself,
And so I'm having a wonderful time
But I'd rather be whistling in the dark
Whistling in the dark
Whistling in the dark
There's only one thing that I like
And that is whistling in the dark
And kids, follow this link to see just how dangerous D&D really is!!!
Is there anyone else who really doesn't give a hoot about email monitoring? If your company respects you, they're not going to be a snit about personal use of email and web surfing, unless of course, you're obnoxious about it. If your company acts like the Gestapo, well, find yourself a new employer. It is the company's resources, after all. And if you're divulging secrets or bad-mouthing other employees, well duh! you moron, of course you're going to get smacked.
I myself keep job inquiries in my inbox, just as a warning to any snoopers: mess with me, and I can walk in a heartbeat.
What too many people seem to forget though is the imbalance of power in this situation. Your email is suspectible to snooping by upper managment, but how many of you have the oppurtinity to snoop on their personal doings at work? And before all your submissive lap-dogs whine about "it's not your job to know what they're doing", remember that a great many wokers in the tech sector are stockholders in the companies for which they work. I have just as much desire to see the company succeed as the suit with the inflated salary, and I have a right to know that he isn't wasting my money.
But alas, that's the corporate republic for you. It's feudalism, not democracy. --
Oh, quit yer whining. Samus, the protagonist of Metroid, is female. In fact, it made a big deal of it, because you weren't aware of it the first time through the game. Then it's like, "holy shit, I've been playing as a girl!" I suspect thousands of pubescent boys were scarred by this deception. It might have even pushed some into gender-bending deviency, like you, Siggy.
What an interesting troll... you said "cannot afford it then you cannot have it" rather than "do not pay for it you cannot have it".
Is it morally justifiable to deny one part of an infinately reproducable resource, not because they are not willing to pay for it, but are incapable of paying the going price for it? If you are poor, yet by no means a parasite, why shouldn't you enjoy the same access to intellectual property that the sleazy yuppy enjoys? I can't rationalize a critique to this, expect to say that if this were the case, the system would break, as everyone pays the price everyone can afford, which would approach zero. --
Wow's that quite a statistical analysis you've got there. Update your count, because it now looks like three Democrats and six Republicans are co-sponsoring this bill. Gosh, that's certainly enough now to draw a correlation.
I would challange you to back this assertion of yours, but I think it will be more telling to watch this bill get thrashed by Hyde and everyone else on the Judiciary Committee. Selling influence is bi-partisan, and though the entertainment industry leans Democratic, they've hardly put all their eggs in one basket.
And hey, remember the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act? Or the, *drumroll...* DMCA? --
How could there be nothing if there were not something to compare it to? Even now there is "something", but there an infinite ways of not being that "something".
Try to conceive of nothing. Not black space, not the abscence of awareness, but the complete non-existence of the universe itself. You can't do it. The very act assures its impossibility. You might fill it with God, but that concept is itself part of the failure. For all intents and purposes, your god is just another aspect of the universe: it is the something that is not nothing. For that reason, the universe implies a god no more than a god implies the universe. --
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I bet the situations are far more similar, since you can no more affect a football game than the election at this point. If the game was pre-recorded, but you didn't know the outcome, would it make any difference?
:-)
I wonder if you could prove the equivalence using some theory of modern physics? Greg Egan could could probably write a book on it.
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
This election is as tight as the western lug-nuts on a '55 Ford.
I couldn't have heard that right!?
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
Underscore may, but don't bet the trailer money on it yet.
What is it with Dan and trailers today?
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
I distinctly heard him say close only counts for hand-grenades and horse shoes.
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
Huh, did Rather just say a big wheel through a cotton field?
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
Bush is sweeping through the South like a tornado through a trailer park.
God I love Dan Rather, no other anchor has the balls to say weird shit like that...
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
The U.S Patent Office has no jurisdiction here. Any patent granted by the SPO is valid in this jurisdiction.
You punishment has been commuted due to negative moderation. However, should your post become positive again, you will also be in violation of Article 5 of my aforementioned patent.
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
You, sir, are in violation of Article 2 of Slashdot patent #535, Techniques for Enhancing Score of a Credibility Metric of Electronic Forums. You must cease this violation or pay the appropriate licensing fees.
I suppose you would also lick Bill's boots if they tasted like ice cream?
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
And what's wrong with that? There are merits to both sides of each of these three issues, and quite frankly, I don't really care which way they go, as each side has fanatics pushing at both sides, ensuring little movement one way or the other.
There are relatively few people who seem concerned about the erosion of the public domain, the corporate control of Internet policy, and free speech rights that are trampled, so I will focus on what is important to me because if I don't who else will?
And don't get on some elitist trip and start telling the rest of us IP and technology policy doesn't matter. In the long run this little toy called the Internet is far more important than these other issues. They are fashion, even if you ascribe great philosphical significance to them, they are still fashion, swinging back and forth according to the norms of current society.
Technology, however, doesn't go backwards, and it doesn't take sides, but it does have a profound effect on society, far more than I would ascribe to the ideological hand waving of people with "causes". The Internet is going to define the culture of this new century, and I want it to embody my values, not those of the corporate hucksters, fundy politicians, and social engineers whose propoganda compose most of American politics.
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
Man, the old hippy slogan sounds very appropriate in this situation: do you own your car, or does your car own you?
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
It's a conspiracy, man! The same thing happened to me a few months ago. My karma took an approximate 10 point hit, and then began slipping one point almost every day since then. It eventually leveled out in the twenties. It was in the mid sixties when this started.
Needless to say I was pissed. Being one who took moderation and the use of the +2 seriously, it seemed like a betrayal that either Malda himself, or miscreants taking advantage of his social engineering, had punished me for trying to make the system work.
My advice: don't give a shit anymore. Slashdot is broken, and Malda doesn't seem too intent on lifting a finger to fix it. For god's sake, even the posting modes are still mislabeled!
And you know, it isn't that hard to whore yourself up to the +2 again. There are even instructions.
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
How do we know you aren't making this up? What university was this?
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
Say WHAT?
Liiiithosphere, rusted!
Mars, baby, that's where it's at.
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
What school is it? What is the dean's name? I know you're probably afraid of retribution from the morons running your school, but think of all the people you could help by telling them to avoid attending it. Kick those petty tyrants where it hurts!
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
That's a good observation. But I'll add that most tyranny occurs because people who lust for power don't want people to fork. It's "my way or the highway" (or jail, gulag, death camp) as far as they are concerned. Both government and property rights are barriers to forking.
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
But the second half of my point is, those very companies abusing the patent office were the ones who pressured them to be more lenient. It's all in the interpretation, and I don't see how legislation would help, unless it did away with whole classes of patents entirely.
Not every commons is abused, not when people stand up to protect it. It is in their own best interests spend a little to organize a means of protection, even if free riders will benefit, rather than spend a lot to make up for its loss. The cheapest way is the traditional way, using non-coercive punishment, such as shame (generate bad PR for the offending company) and ostracism (refuse to do business with offending company). When people bend over and place all the blame on the patent office, they're shirking that duty to hold the those accountable who actually committed the offense.
All intellectual property is a commons. Sure, it is protected from exploitment by threat of violence, but the criteria where that becomes acceptable is open to change. We've let the biggest exploiters and parasites set the rules in their favor. The patent office is part of those rules, and are under their influence.
Sure, the patent office needs to be reformed. But that will never happen as long as everyone is an apoligist for those who put it in its current state.
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
Don't blame the murderer. He's too psychopathic to do anything else. The real problem is with law enforcement.
No, it's not a perfect analogy, but it gets the point across. For every company that abuses the patent office, there is another that does not. Just because a system allows you to exploit it doesn't make it your obligation to do so, nor does it remove any moral obligations to behave responsibly.
And who do you think payed for the patent office to get to this state? Do you really think they decided they were just to strict in their criteria for handing out patents? Or that incompentence magically appeared in the last twenty years, where as they had been doing a great job beforehand?
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
That's definately the window borders of 4Dwm, the window managaer that comes with IRIX.
To demonstate, here's some dude's screenshot I found through google.
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
the person who thinks they can mess with D&D without getting burnt is whistling in the dark.
/DD-MST3K/?file=dd-mst3k.php
That reminds me of a little ditty by They Might Be Giants:
A woman came up to me and said
"I'd like to poison your mind
With wrong ideas that appeal to you
Though I am not unkind"
She looked at me, I looked at something
Written across her scalp
And these are the words that it faintly said
As I tried to call for help:
There's only one thing that I know how to do well
And I've often been told that you only can do
What you know how to do well
And that's be you,
Be what you're like,
Be like yourself,
And so I'm having a wonderful time
But I'd rather be whistling in the dark
Whistling in the dark
Whistling in the dark
There's only one thing that I like
And that is whistling in the dark
And kids, follow this link to see just how dangerous D&D really is!!!
http://www.dark-library. com
--
Come on, it's fantasy! You know, make believe. So why can't there be a medieval world where everyone talks like the brats on TRL?
--
Is there anyone else who really doesn't give a hoot about email monitoring? If your company respects you, they're not going to be a snit about personal use of email and web surfing, unless of course, you're obnoxious about it. If your company acts like the Gestapo, well, find yourself a new employer. It is the company's resources, after all. And if you're divulging secrets or bad-mouthing other employees, well duh! you moron, of course you're going to get smacked.
I myself keep job inquiries in my inbox, just as a warning to any snoopers: mess with me, and I can walk in a heartbeat.
What too many people seem to forget though is the imbalance of power in this situation. Your email is suspectible to snooping by upper managment, but how many of you have the oppurtinity to snoop on their personal doings at work? And before all your submissive lap-dogs whine about "it's not your job to know what they're doing", remember that a great many wokers in the tech sector are stockholders in the companies for which they work. I have just as much desire to see the company succeed as the suit with the inflated salary, and I have a right to know that he isn't wasting my money.
But alas, that's the corporate republic for you. It's feudalism, not democracy.
--
Oh, quit yer whining. Samus, the protagonist of Metroid, is female. In fact, it made a big deal of it, because you weren't aware of it the first time through the game. Then it's like, "holy shit, I've been playing as a girl!" I suspect thousands of pubescent boys were scarred by this deception. It might have even pushed some into gender-bending deviency, like you, Siggy.
--
What an interesting troll... you said "cannot afford it then you cannot have it" rather than "do not pay for it you cannot have it".
Is it morally justifiable to deny one part of an infinately reproducable resource, not because they are not willing to pay for it, but are incapable of paying the going price for it? If you are poor, yet by no means a parasite, why shouldn't you enjoy the same access to intellectual property that the sleazy yuppy enjoys? I can't rationalize a critique to this, expect to say that if this were the case, the system would break, as everyone pays the price everyone can afford, which would approach zero.
--
Wow's that quite a statistical analysis you've got there. Update your count, because it now looks like three Democrats and six Republicans are co-sponsoring this bill. Gosh, that's certainly enough now to draw a correlation.
I would challange you to back this assertion of yours, but I think it will be more telling to watch this bill get thrashed by Hyde and everyone else on the Judiciary Committee. Selling influence is bi-partisan, and though the entertainment industry leans Democratic, they've hardly put all their eggs in one basket.
And hey, remember the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act? Or the, *drumroll...* DMCA?
--
How could there be nothing if there were not something to compare it to? Even now there is "something", but there an infinite ways of not being that "something".
Try to conceive of nothing. Not black space, not the abscence of awareness, but the complete non-existence of the universe itself. You can't do it. The very act assures its impossibility. You might fill it with God, but that concept is itself part of the failure. For all intents and purposes, your god is just another aspect of the universe: it is the something that is not nothing. For that reason, the universe implies a god no more than a god implies the universe.
--