Or are you just demonstrating that you suck at math?
Here's a mental exercise for you:
Say you have 1000 people. 499 of them die before they turn one year old. 499 of them die at the age of 70. Two of them die at the age of 35.
What is the average lifespan? At what age did most of them die?
Our "average lifespan" has been increasing because we're eliminating infant mortality, not because most people only lived to some ridiculously low age.
I cannot trust them because in the United States a public corporation is required by law, first and foremost, to do what is in the best interests of shareholders which generally means anything which legally maximizes profits.
So what you're saying is that you don't trust them because you have no idea what the law actually says, or how corporations actually work?
Your name wouldn't happen to be Kyle Mortensen would it?
A publicly-traded company is required to maximize shareholder value in accordance with its prospectus.
Before a company goes public, it produces a prospectus. The prospectus details the business plan of the company, as well as its philosophy and self-imposed restrictions. It is the responsibility of the investor to read and understand the prospectus before investing. If the prospectus states that the company will place customer loyalty above short-term profit, then any lawsuit based on "the company didn't maximize short-term profit because they weren't pricks to their customers" will fail.
Thankfully it is not nearly the level of Bias on MS "Text my blackberry please" NBC.
I'm not sure what you mean by "thankfully" - you're saying you want MSNBC to start promoting political protests like Fox News does?!?!?! This sort of thing is bad for *everyone*.
My wife was 27 when I met her in the 1990s. Although she was a huge movie fan, she hated science-fiction, and hadn't seen the Star Wars movies at all. It took some convincing, but she finally agreed to watch them with me. We rented "Star Wars", and watched it together. She liked it so much that she insisted we go rent the other two the same day.
Detach yourself, and watch any of the films with a critical eye. They are all awful.
You just said that you don't agree with my thesis, and then in the second sentence of your reply, you reworded exactly what I said.
I think you replied to the wrong post - he said he disagreed, then he said why. You said nothing about Lucas handing over the reigns, or hiring others to do the jobs he took on himself, so there's no way he "reworded" anything you said.
I was hoping that the monotonous and almost comically distorted voice-over was somehow a parody, but then it kept going on and on and on...
I'd like to hear what he had to say, but I just couldn't stand listening to that voice.. it sounded like he was trying to do an impression of Joe Lieberman doing an impression of Jar Jar's leader.
Filing a false notice is a fucking FELONY (17 USC 512).
No, it isn't. Deliberately filing a false notice when you know you're not the rightsholder is perjury. However the problem is that you'd have to *prove* that they filed it deliberately. If they say "whoops, we thought that file labeled 'Usher221.mp3' was ours" then there is nothing you can do about it.
Call the police and press charges.
What are the odds that a DA would take on a case like that, when they could instead focus their efforts prosecuting people for "creating child pornography" so they can get re-elected?
That's not giving the Liberals little enough credit. Call me a biased Albertan, but other than agreeing to Kyoto, they didn't actually do anything regarding GHG
So... in your world you see no difference between these:
A. ratifying an international treaty, and working on a bill to implement it (before being kicked out of office for other reasons)
and
B. destroying the same international treaty, and then actively working to destroy anything similar to it
?!?!
Sorry, but when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, the Liberals were *miles* above the Conservatives.
Defeating the entire purpose of the law in the first place: to protect small time artists.
Where did you get that?
I'm pretty certain that the entire purpose of the law is to make large multinational corporations the gateholders to our arts and culture, and prevent small-time artists from entering the market from without sponsorship from said corps.
It's not implied, it's explicit. Copying of music for personal use is entirely 100% legal in Canada
Correct. Citation here (warning, PDF), which states:
Before the Copyright Act was amended in 1998, copying a sound recording for almost any purpose infringed copyright, although, in practice, the prohibition was largely unenforceable. The amendment to the Act legalized the private copying of sound recordings of musical works
So if I legally change my name to the encoding of $latest_film in $some_format then that version of the film/format cannot be copyrighted and can be distributed freely?
Try it and see. You'd be surprised how many obstacles an idiot trying to prove a pedantic point would encounter.
I don't think Bruce wants to stop the lawsuit, he justs wants to get a piece of the pie.
Doesn't sound like that to me.
I'm not really sure what he hopes to gain unless he wants a piece of any monetary damages awarded... ?
How about clarification, like he says in his letter:
Unfortunately, all of this is confusing my strategic consulting customers. Thus, I will offer them a waiver of my interest where appropriate.
What this says to me is that he has clients who got spooked by the suit, and he's publically stating that he's not a party to it, and won't sue them... which is pretty much the opposite of "wanting a piece of the pie."
my comment specifically addresses the final charge that remains
So you *really* do believe "if he was charged, he must be guilty" then? I was hoping that you'd adjust your statement - but it turns out you're just an ignorant fuck who is too stupid to understand the concept of "innocent until proven guilty."
I happen to think that I own the toil of my hands and the ingenuity of my mind.
You can think whatever you like, it doesn't make it correct.
Say you walk by a construction site after everyone's gone home, and decide you're gonna use the materials there to build a house. Do you own the house? After all, it was done with "the toil of your hands and the ingenuity of your mind".
But no - you will find that the owners of the materials and the land own the house, not you. And *they* will be the ones that have "exclusive control" over it.
Creativity does not occur in a vacuum. Writing music, drawing, sculpting, story writing - these are *all* built upon the work of others. When you go to school and study how to become a painter, you start by examining the works of other artists. We learn how to be great artists by studying the works of others, and incorporating their methods into our own. If you disagree, I challenge you to create something that does not incorporate any prior work or idea from anyone else - if you are delusional, you might even think you will succeed.. but it wouldn't take anyone familiar with the medium to find similar elements "stolen" from others.
Since these works have no tangible goods they do not belong to anyone, but in order to encourage creation the government has graciously granted the authors the right to exclude others from copying them for a period of time. Make no mistake - you cannot own culture or ideas. You can be granted the exclusive right to profit from it, but you cannot own it.
The license under which they are produced allows collaboration and distribution in spite of craziness in other copyright laws.
It doesn't matter - all it takes is someone who is willing to say "hey, that code infringes our copyright". The "offending" code gets removed, and (after the third time) the person who posted it gets kicked off the net.
Good luck trying to clear your name when you don't get to use the internet, and you can't sue to get reconnected because the company that made the claim is in another country.
And if you *do* manage to get it cleared up, the company just says "whoops, I guess I was wrong", and it starts all over again.
Slashdot Mirror
Any citations? I agree with your argument, but I've only heard it from second hand accounts. Data would be helpful.
You can find some data for the US broken down by age, sex, and (partially) race here.
peoples' expected lifespan returns to 35!
When exactly was our lifespan 35?
Or are you just demonstrating that you suck at math?
Here's a mental exercise for you:
Say you have 1000 people. 499 of them die before they turn one year old. 499 of them die at the age of 70. Two of them die at the age of 35.
What is the average lifespan? At what age did most of them die?
Our "average lifespan" has been increasing because we're eliminating infant mortality, not because most people only lived to some ridiculously low age.
Are you familiar with the Berne Convention?
Are you? Are you familiar with Canadian Law?
My guess would be proving infringement in the US is a first step to getting it shut down in Canada.
Um.... WHAT!?!?!?
I would imagine that suing in Canada would be the first step to getting it shut down in Canada.
that'd be "on the smart card that you stick into your decoder".
Since the decoder is software, how exactly do you do that?
My computer doesn't have a "smart card" slot. I'd wager that yours doesn't either.
If the solution is "the software only works on a computer with a smartcard reader installed" it's a non-starter from day 1.
I cannot trust them because in the United States a public corporation is required by law, first and foremost, to do what is in the best interests of shareholders which generally means anything which legally maximizes profits.
So what you're saying is that you don't trust them because you have no idea what the law actually says, or how corporations actually work?
Your name wouldn't happen to be Kyle Mortensen would it?
A publicly-traded company is required to maximize shareholder value in accordance with its prospectus.
Before a company goes public, it produces a prospectus. The prospectus details the business plan of the company, as well as its philosophy and self-imposed restrictions. It is the responsibility of the investor to read and understand the prospectus before investing. If the prospectus states that the company will place customer loyalty above short-term profit, then any lawsuit based on "the company didn't maximize short-term profit because they weren't pricks to their customers" will fail.
HTH.
Has anybody sued MS and won because there was a bug in their product?
Of course not. Everyone knows that MS products don't have bugs.
Just because Fox News is decidedly Neo-Con, doesn't mean that every other news outlet is automatically trustworthy.
Ahh.. the wonderful Republican tactic of changing the topic... "OK, *my* source isn't trustworthy - but that doesn't mean that yours is!"
Here's the thing: it doesn't mean they aren't.
Hows about instead of saying "oh, yours is *probably* untrustworthy too!", you actually show me how they are funding and promoting political protests?
Oh, that's right - you can't. If you can't show *evidence*, then don't make the claim.
Thankfully it is not nearly the level of Bias on MS "Text my blackberry please" NBC.
I'm not sure what you mean by "thankfully" - you're saying you want MSNBC to start promoting political protests like Fox News does?!?!?! This sort of thing is bad for *everyone*.
Why?
Because they admit they intentionally deceive their viewers, and they fund and promote anti-democrat political protests.
Should anything the New York Times reports on a Republican also be assumed to be false?
Only if you can show any evidence that they intentionally deceive their readers, and have funded anti-republican protests. I await your citations.
All of the films sucked.
Sorry, but no.
My wife was 27 when I met her in the 1990s. Although she was a huge movie fan, she hated science-fiction, and hadn't seen the Star Wars movies at all. It took some convincing, but she finally agreed to watch them with me. We rented "Star Wars", and watched it together. She liked it so much that she insisted we go rent the other two the same day.
Detach yourself, and watch any of the films with a critical eye. They are all awful.
Done, and it turns out you're completely wrong.
You just said that you don't agree with my thesis, and then in the second sentence of your reply, you reworded exactly what I said.
I think you replied to the wrong post - he said he disagreed, then he said why. You said nothing about Lucas handing over the reigns, or hiring others to do the jobs he took on himself, so there's no way he "reworded" anything you said.
I was hoping that the monotonous and almost comically distorted voice-over was somehow a parody, but then it kept going on and on and on...
I'd like to hear what he had to say, but I just couldn't stand listening to that voice.. it sounded like he was trying to do an impression of Joe Lieberman doing an impression of Jar Jar's leader.
Filing a false notice is a fucking FELONY (17 USC 512).
No, it isn't. Deliberately filing a false notice when you know you're not the rightsholder is perjury. However the problem is that you'd have to *prove* that they filed it deliberately. If they say "whoops, we thought that file labeled 'Usher221.mp3' was ours" then there is nothing you can do about it.
Call the police and press charges.
What are the odds that a DA would take on a case like that, when they could instead focus their efforts prosecuting people for "creating child pornography" so they can get re-elected?
That's not giving the Liberals little enough credit. Call me a biased Albertan, but other than agreeing to Kyoto, they didn't actually do anything regarding GHG
So... in your world you see no difference between these:
A. ratifying an international treaty, and working on a bill to implement it (before being kicked out of office for other reasons)
and
B. destroying the same international treaty, and then actively working to destroy anything similar to it
?!?!
Sorry, but when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, the Liberals were *miles* above the Conservatives.
ground beef is inherently what it is - pre-chewed bits of protein and fat. Is that gross? Who's to say, I'm made of protein and fat also.
But are you pre-chewed? :)
Defeating the entire purpose of the law in the first place: to protect small time artists.
Where did you get that?
I'm pretty certain that the entire purpose of the law is to make large multinational corporations the gateholders to our arts and culture, and prevent small-time artists from entering the market from without sponsorship from said corps.
Canadians on the other hand, do very little besides peacekeeping, and combing the hills of Afghanistan.
Sorry, but as a Canadian, I have to disagree with you. Since Harper took over, Canada has been actively working to scuttle any agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
It's not implied, it's explicit. Copying of music for personal use is entirely 100% legal in Canada
Correct. Citation here (warning, PDF), which states:
So if I legally change my name to the encoding of $latest_film in $some_format then that version of the film/format cannot be copyrighted and can be distributed freely?
Try it and see. You'd be surprised how many obstacles an idiot trying to prove a pedantic point would encounter.
the 1 in 15 smokes stat is a real motivator!
Maybe, but if you only smoke the other 14, you should be OK.
Unless the 15th one isn't labeled, then it's harder.
/me ducks
I don't think Bruce wants to stop the lawsuit, he justs wants to get a piece of the pie.
Doesn't sound like that to me.
I'm not really sure what he hopes to gain unless he wants a piece of any monetary damages awarded ... ?
How about clarification, like he says in his letter:
Unfortunately, all of this is confusing my strategic consulting customers. Thus, I will offer them a waiver of my interest where appropriate.
What this says to me is that he has clients who got spooked by the suit, and he's publically stating that he's not a party to it, and won't sue them... which is pretty much the opposite of "wanting a piece of the pie."
my comment specifically addresses the final charge that remains
So you *really* do believe "if he was charged, he must be guilty" then? I was hoping that you'd adjust your statement - but it turns out you're just an ignorant fuck who is too stupid to understand the concept of "innocent until proven guilty."
So what you're saying is that because he was accused of something, he is automatically guilty even though the accusations where later withdrawn?
I sure as hell hope that you never wind up on a jury for *anyone*.
I happen to think that I own the toil of my hands and the ingenuity of my mind.
You can think whatever you like, it doesn't make it correct.
Say you walk by a construction site after everyone's gone home, and decide you're gonna use the materials there to build a house. Do you own the house? After all, it was done with "the toil of your hands and the ingenuity of your mind".
But no - you will find that the owners of the materials and the land own the house, not you. And *they* will be the ones that have "exclusive control" over it.
Creativity does not occur in a vacuum. Writing music, drawing, sculpting, story writing - these are *all* built upon the work of others. When you go to school and study how to become a painter, you start by examining the works of other artists. We learn how to be great artists by studying the works of others, and incorporating their methods into our own. If you disagree, I challenge you to create something that does not incorporate any prior work or idea from anyone else - if you are delusional, you might even think you will succeed.. but it wouldn't take anyone familiar with the medium to find similar elements "stolen" from others.
Since these works have no tangible goods they do not belong to anyone, but in order to encourage creation the government has graciously granted the authors the right to exclude others from copying them for a period of time. Make no mistake - you cannot own culture or ideas. You can be granted the exclusive right to profit from it, but you cannot own it.
The license under which they are produced allows collaboration and distribution in spite of craziness in other copyright laws.
It doesn't matter - all it takes is someone who is willing to say "hey, that code infringes our copyright". The "offending" code gets removed, and (after the third time) the person who posted it gets kicked off the net.
Good luck trying to clear your name when you don't get to use the internet, and you can't sue to get reconnected because the company that made the claim is in another country.
And if you *do* manage to get it cleared up, the company just says "whoops, I guess I was wrong", and it starts all over again.