Just for curiosity's sake, could we ensure the following if these laws get passed?
Company A becomes convicted of copyright infringement 3 times Company A loses permanent access to the internet
Why on earth would you want to do that? Why give corporations benefits that individuals don't get?
Remember - the three strikes makes no mention of conviction - they want you to be cut off based on accusation. The entire point is to skip the courts and due process.
Allow me to introduce you to the concept of sarcasm. It will probably surprise you to learn that people sometimes say things that are obviously false in order to demonstrate the absurdity of the statement. Sarcasm is fairly common on the internet, and if you have been online for more than a few days, you likely have encountered it already in other forums.
I also suggest you do some reading on verbal irony so that you may partake in discussions such as this one without embarrassing yourself further.
A fitting name for this Haskell programming language might have been "Python" hadn't it all ready been taken.
Actually, naming it "Python" would be doubly-fitting.. in fact, I think we should rename *all* programming languages "Python", just so it doesn't get confusing:)
The big problem is really obvious. It's the quality of teachers. And it's not that the teachers are bad per se, it's that they're unmotivated to do better. Teacher's unions make it so that you get paid on years on the job and tenure, not how well you teach. Decoupling rewards with results in this way has been the single worst decision in education in this country.
You're absolutely correct, but that's still only 50% of the problem.
The other 50% is the way school boards are run. Where you go to school is a product of where you live - this is wrong, as it creates a system where *schools* are unmotivated to do better. Allow students to go to any school they want, and have the funding follow the student. That will encourage schools to work to attract students, rather than just sitting around collecting money.
Insurance agents ARE often experts in the field they insure.
Bullshit. The only thing insurance agents are experts in is risk assessment.
How else would they do their job?
Allow me to introduce you to the concept of actuaries.
Car insurers know a LOT about cars, that is what they do.
Bullshit - as proven by your next sentence...
They collect as much data as they can and then determine what premium to charge
Congratulations! You have posted something correct! Don't let the fact that it completely and utterly destroys every other argument in the rest of your post stop you in the future.
The problem is that doctors are rather incented to declare people sick, so insurers will pay them.
This. This is what is wrong with US health care. The only incentive doctors should have to declare people sick is that the people are sick. If your system is designed to encourage anything else then it's broken by definition.
This is why you can't just publish every damn thing that you did. It makes a big confusing mess. Instead, you take the data and your methods and results, provide discussion and interpretation, and then have peers review to make sure what you've done is reproducible and accounts for as many relative scientific facts as possible.
Oh, tosh! The problem with doing as you suggest is that it would actually be science, and therefore wouldn't give the deniers anything they could use to reinforce their belief that this is all a conspiracy by the evil scientists!
Could you point it out to the rest of us? Last time I checked, there was no approval process for FB apps, and the FB API requires no NDA. So I'm having a pretty tough time finding any irony here.
Just stop buying the cheap displays, and get one that has hardware-based scaling built into the device. Why do something in software when it can be done better by specialized hardware?
You answered your own question... because it's cheap. As Walmart has proven, cheap beats everything else - people bitch about price because "they can get the same thing" at Walmart for 1/3 the price, then when it doesn't do everything they want and turns out to be a cheap piece of crap, they bitch about that.
over a one-mile course [...] The cheetah takes 30.9 minutes
God damn - that's gotta be the slowest cheetah I've ever heard. Isn't the "four minute mile" a target for the average sprinter? And the cheetah is more than 7 times slower than that?!?!?
If I assume that watching ads is the payment for content
Why would you assume something so obviously wrong? As is so often quoted here, in advertising viewers are the product being sold. The payment comes from the advertiser.
I assume this is tounge in cheek and I don't have to go into the problems with the premise?
Yes, it is tongue-in-cheek, but it *does* have a subtle point behind it - either web advertising is undervalued, or print/TV advertising is overvalued. If print/TV advertising is overvalued, don't you think someone might have noticed by now? That leaves... web advertising being undervalued, which leads you to ask "why"? It's pretty obvious that it would be because the focus is on user tracking.. as that's the metric that receives the most focus.
Think about it: How many TV or magazine advertisements are valued on how many people immediately stop what they're doing and buy the product? How much is TV advertising worth? Magazine advertising? Web advertising is the only one that does this large-scale. It's also perceived as the one with the least value. You believe this is mere co-incidence?
But just for the record - based on advertising rates, TV and print advertising is (apparently) much more valuable than web advertising. And yet, they don't do per-user tracking at all. It would seem to me that getting rid of per-user tracking would make it more valuable, not less.
The oldest TDK I have were bought in late 2007 - they all work well (amazingly enough, just going through them, copying to my new Myth box so the wife can view them:)
all of my Memorex "white label" discs work perfectly, some 10-12 years later.
Holy shit - so *you're* the guy who got the only good box of Memorex
I've never seen a Memorex disc last longer than a couple of months - some are unreadable *minutes* after burning.
Sony are a bit better, but not much (typically 2 years.)
I've had good luck with Phillips, but the best I've used are Maxell.. haven't had one fail yet.
Like you, I blacklist at my firewall... I also send reports to the block's owner... unlike you (apparently:) I go through my blacklist every few months, and if there haven't been any hits from that block, I'll remove it. I figure that will prevent the list from eventually becoming 0.0.0.0/0.:)
OK, maybe I spoke too soon.. a more thorough search reveals one anonymous post that mentions it, but only links to information about the book by the languages author.
I'd guess that the language only came to light because of the naming controversy
Nitpick: One guy raising a stink is not "controversy"
Anecdotally: I'd never heard of it, and neither had any of my developer co-workers
Same here.. in fact, a quick search of the original/. story (which had over 700 comments) produces exactly zero other people here who had heard of it either. You'd think with the large number of language geeks here, if there was anyone actually using it, *someone* would have heard of it (at least.)
Neither have passed review to enter the magic land of fact.
What?!?!? Evolution *is* a scientific fact. By definition. To reject it is to reject the existence of the computer that you typed that drivel into.
Until such a time as there is some solid proof, the best thing to do is file a " no opinion yet" down at the head office and quit appearing to be complete fools.
We've had proof of evolution for *YEARS*. The only ones appearing foolish are the idiots who don't understand science.
We don't know there is God.
Correct.
We don't know there is evolution.
Yes, we do - because there is no other scientific theory that can even approach explaining the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that exists. If you have another scientific theory that better explains genetics, the fossil record, observed speciation, and countless other parts of biology, please let someone know - your Nobel prize will be a slam-dunk.
We only believe.
No, idiots who don't understand science believe. If you understand science and are willing to learn, evolution requires no belief, no trust, no faith.
Belief is different than knowledge.
Correct.
Science relys on knowledge derived from belief.
***WHAT***?!?!?!?! Please do yourself a favour and finish some science classes before you spout idiocy like this - you're just embarrassing yourself.
Until it is distilled to fact it is not science.
Seriously. Science courses. You *REALLY* need them.
The only thing we KNOW is; there are two (three) camps of belief
No, there is one camp of belief, and there is science.
the vast majority of people are devolved morons who will say anything they believe with or without proper analysis
When I was at the 2001 Canadian copyright consultation, I spoke with a publisher about something just like this.
We were arguing about DMCA-like amendments to copyright law. His position was that he should be able to prohibit *anything* that was capable of reading an e-book, because it would infringe his copyright. Even if that device would read ebooks to blind people. He told me that if he wanted to publish a version for blind people, he would, and that if he didn't, nobody should be allowed to make something that would do it for them.
I asked him "if someone invented a device that read paper books to blind people, would you have the same opinion?" He said absolutely - as a publisher, it was his right to prevent people from reading his books if he didn't want them to - and if he didn't publish a braille version, blind people shouldn't be allowed to read them.
I said "even though this would increase your audience, and thus your sales at no cost to you?", and he said "Absolutely. The books are *mine*, and something that allows blind people to read them is a violation of my copyright."
Since then, I've never met a publisher that had a different attitude. They're all fucking batshit insane.
Slashdot Mirror
Obama gives new Afghan stragey
You're saying he's gonna redecorate the Oval Office with a throw?
Just for curiosity's sake, could we ensure the following if these laws get passed?
Company A becomes convicted of copyright infringement 3 times
Company A loses permanent access to the internet
Why on earth would you want to do that? Why give corporations benefits that individuals don't get?
Remember - the three strikes makes no mention of conviction - they want you to be cut off based on accusation. The entire point is to skip the courts and due process.
Hello,
Allow me to introduce you to the concept of sarcasm. It will probably surprise you to learn that people sometimes say things that are obviously false in order to demonstrate the absurdity of the statement. Sarcasm is fairly common on the internet, and if you have been online for more than a few days, you likely have encountered it already in other forums.
I also suggest you do some reading on verbal irony so that you may partake in discussions such as this one without embarrassing yourself further.
What I took away from this story is this:
"MS is worried about Google, and so they're paying someone to say that Google is just as bad as MS is."
Thank you for providing proof to support Nicolas MONNET's assertion. As he said - "personal attacks and outright lies."
A fitting name for this Haskell programming language might have been "Python" hadn't it all ready been taken.
Actually, naming it "Python" would be doubly-fitting.. in fact, I think we should rename *all* programming languages "Python", just so it doesn't get confusing :)
The big problem is really obvious. It's the quality of teachers. And it's not that the teachers are bad per se, it's that they're unmotivated to do better. Teacher's unions make it so that you get paid on years on the job and tenure, not how well you teach. Decoupling rewards with results in this way has been the single worst decision in education in this country.
You're absolutely correct, but that's still only 50% of the problem.
The other 50% is the way school boards are run. Where you go to school is a product of where you live - this is wrong, as it creates a system where *schools* are unmotivated to do better. Allow students to go to any school they want, and have the funding follow the student. That will encourage schools to work to attract students, rather than just sitting around collecting money.
Insurance agents ARE often experts in the field they insure.
Bullshit. The only thing insurance agents are experts in is risk assessment.
How else would they do their job?
Allow me to introduce you to the concept of actuaries.
Car insurers know a LOT about cars, that is what they do.
Bullshit - as proven by your next sentence...
They collect as much data as they can and then determine what premium to charge
Congratulations! You have posted something correct! Don't let the fact that it completely and utterly destroys every other argument in the rest of your post stop you in the future.
The problem is that doctors are rather incented to declare people sick, so insurers will pay them.
This. This is what is wrong with US health care. The only incentive doctors should have to declare people sick is that the people are sick. If your system is designed to encourage anything else then it's broken by definition.
This is why you can't just publish every damn thing that you did. It makes a big confusing mess. Instead, you take the data and your methods and results, provide discussion and interpretation, and then have peers review to make sure what you've done is reproducible and accounts for as many relative scientific facts as possible.
Oh, tosh! The problem with doing as you suggest is that it would actually be science, and therefore wouldn't give the deniers anything they could use to reinforce their belief that this is all a conspiracy by the evil scientists!
Could you point it out to the rest of us? Last time I checked, there was no approval process for FB apps, and the FB API requires no NDA. So I'm having a pretty tough time finding any irony here.
I'm sick of getting my browser hijacked every time I install a program.
Maybe you should stop installing malicious software, then.
But.. but.. how else will I see the dancing bunnies?!?!?!
Just stop buying the cheap displays, and get one that has hardware-based scaling built into the device. Why do something in software when it can be done better by specialized hardware?
You answered your own question... because it's cheap. As Walmart has proven, cheap beats everything else - people bitch about price because "they can get the same thing" at Walmart for 1/3 the price, then when it doesn't do everything they want and turns out to be a cheap piece of crap, they bitch about that.
over a one-mile course [...] The cheetah takes 30.9 minutes
God damn - that's gotta be the slowest cheetah I've ever heard. Isn't the "four minute mile" a target for the average sprinter? And the cheetah is more than 7 times slower than that?!?!?
Now, someone was aquitted based on their IP address.
No, someone was aquitted based on the IP address their account was used from. There is a distinct difference.
In this case, there is a username and password that is used to identify someone, not just an IP address.
It's distinctly possible that he gave his account information to someone else, but there were witnesses to corroborate the alibi as well.
If I assume that watching ads is the payment for content
Why would you assume something so obviously wrong? As is so often quoted here, in advertising viewers are the product being sold. The payment comes from the advertiser.
I assume this is tounge in cheek and I don't have to go into the problems with the premise?
Yes, it is tongue-in-cheek, but it *does* have a subtle point behind it - either web advertising is undervalued, or print/TV advertising is overvalued. If print/TV advertising is overvalued, don't you think someone might have noticed by now? That leaves... web advertising being undervalued, which leads you to ask "why"? It's pretty obvious that it would be because the focus is on user tracking.. as that's the metric that receives the most focus.
Think about it: How many TV or magazine advertisements are valued on how many people immediately stop what they're doing and buy the product? How much is TV advertising worth? Magazine advertising? Web advertising is the only one that does this large-scale. It's also perceived as the one with the least value. You believe this is mere co-incidence?
it will make the ads just a little less valuable.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
But just for the record - based on advertising rates, TV and print advertising is (apparently) much more valuable than web advertising. And yet, they don't do per-user tracking at all. It would seem to me that getting rid of per-user tracking would make it more valuable, not less.
Generally true (esp.TDK)
The oldest TDK I have were bought in late 2007 - they all work well (amazingly enough, just going through them, copying to my new Myth box so the wife can view them :)
all of my Memorex "white label" discs work perfectly, some 10-12 years later.
Holy shit - so *you're* the guy who got the only good box of Memorex
I've never seen a Memorex disc last longer than a couple of months - some are unreadable *minutes* after burning.
Sony are a bit better, but not much (typically 2 years.)
I've had good luck with Phillips, but the best I've used are Maxell.. haven't had one fail yet.
Like you, I blacklist at my firewall... I also send reports to the block's owner... unlike you (apparently :) I go through my blacklist every few months, and if there haven't been any hits from that block, I'll remove it. I figure that will prevent the list from eventually becoming 0.0.0.0/0. :)
It's about pay-per-view.
Yeah, that's what they said about the Broadcast Flag. Most people didn't believe them then, and rightfully so.
OK, maybe I spoke too soon.. a more thorough search reveals one anonymous post that mentions it, but only links to information about the book by the languages author.
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1439072&cid=30057422
The post doesn't mention McCabe, nor anything useful - just some links to (what appears to be) a self-published book.
I'd guess that the language only came to light because of the naming controversy
Nitpick: One guy raising a stink is not "controversy"
Anecdotally: I'd never heard of it, and neither had any of my developer co-workers
Same here.. in fact, a quick search of the original /. story (which had over 700 comments) produces exactly zero other people here who had heard of it either. You'd think with the large number of language geeks here, if there was anyone actually using it, *someone* would have heard of it (at least.)
Neither have passed review to enter the magic land of fact.
What?!?!? Evolution *is* a scientific fact. By definition. To reject it is to reject the existence of the computer that you typed that drivel into.
Until such a time as there is some solid proof, the best thing to do is file a " no opinion yet" down at the head office and quit appearing to be complete fools.
We've had proof of evolution for *YEARS*. The only ones appearing foolish are the idiots who don't understand science.
We don't know there is God.
Correct.
We don't know there is evolution.
Yes, we do - because there is no other scientific theory that can even approach explaining the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that exists. If you have another scientific theory that better explains genetics, the fossil record, observed speciation, and countless other parts of biology, please let someone know - your Nobel prize will be a slam-dunk.
We only believe.
No, idiots who don't understand science believe. If you understand science and are willing to learn, evolution requires no belief, no trust, no faith.
Belief is different than knowledge.
Correct.
Science relys on knowledge derived from belief.
***WHAT*** ?!?!?!?! Please do yourself a favour and finish some science classes before you spout idiocy like this - you're just embarrassing yourself.
Until it is distilled to fact it is not science.
Seriously. Science courses. You *REALLY* need them.
The only thing we KNOW is; there are two (three) camps of belief
No, there is one camp of belief, and there is science.
the vast majority of people are devolved morons who will say anything they believe with or without proper analysis
Including you, it would seem.
Doesn't the Americans with Disabilities Act require books to be published in braille form, if a blind person requests it?
I have no idea. I do know, however, that as a US law, it's not binding on Canadians. :)
When I was at the 2001 Canadian copyright consultation, I spoke with a publisher about something just like this.
We were arguing about DMCA-like amendments to copyright law. His position was that he should be able to prohibit *anything* that was capable of reading an e-book, because it would infringe his copyright. Even if that device would read ebooks to blind people. He told me that if he wanted to publish a version for blind people, he would, and that if he didn't, nobody should be allowed to make something that would do it for them.
I asked him "if someone invented a device that read paper books to blind people, would you have the same opinion?" He said absolutely - as a publisher, it was his right to prevent people from reading his books if he didn't want them to - and if he didn't publish a braille version, blind people shouldn't be allowed to read them.
I said "even though this would increase your audience, and thus your sales at no cost to you?", and he said "Absolutely. The books are *mine*, and something that allows blind people to read them is a violation of my copyright."
Since then, I've never met a publisher that had a different attitude. They're all fucking batshit insane.