internet service providers are obliged to take action against repeat infringers
The problem is that they want service providers to take action against alleged repeat infringers.
If the media providers want the ISPs to cut off people while they're in prison for copyright infringement, that's not so unreasonable. Unfortunately, this likely isn't what they meant.
gadget junkie has a valid point, as there are many voices in the scientific community who are saying the science is far from settled.
Then why didn't he cite any of them, instead of using bogus arguments?
Your attempt to belittle him by comparing his doubt as being equal to those who doubt evolution is a flamebait.
No, it isn't. It's a valid way of pointing out that his arguments are faulty.
The simple fact that you need to cry "flamebait" instead of trying to rebut my point (which you obviously can't do) points to the fact that you can't come up with valid arguments to support his point either.
Strangely enough, I am still convinced that the evidence behind evolution is much less than watertight.
For one thing, there is abviously no chance to have a double blind experiment, since we only have one earth. Second, on the timescales we are arguing about, we are trying to extrapolate judgements from a very small data set.
Uhh, OK, so it's a licensing limit, and after that it's an architecture limit? That doesn't make much sense to me.. if there was an architecture limit at all, what does licensing have to do with it?
According to the British government, there has been a 48% decrease in recorded crime since the peak in 1995
[citation needed]
Your uncited "48%" is out by an order of magnitude if you compare it to the report I found showing only a 4% drop overall. Particularly interesting is that the drop primarily happens in car parks, while some other areas see an increase in crime since CCTV's installation.
We just need to catch them. Given a 50% risk of being caught a one year prison sentence would provide more than adequate deterrence.
Your post displays a lack of understanding of the criminal mind. Don't feel too bad though, because most people (especially lawmakers) have the same lack of understanding.
The thing about criminal sentences is that they don't work as deterrents - because criminals don't believe they'll be caught. Career criminals believe that only idiots get caught, and since they're smarter than everyone else (thanks to the Dunning-Krueger effect), they won't be caught.
It's not locked to some "app store" with "approved apps"
Neither is Android.
This alone will make it explode ahead of the iPhone and Andriod phones.
iPhone perhaps, but Android has no restrictions on installing non-market apps. Market is a convenient place to get new apps, but if you want to install from somewhere else, you're perfectly free to do so.
I disagree. There is no doubt he was unique, but only marginally so. I've read many authors which were much more unique than Adams. In fact, now that I think about it, the amount of uniqueness he had was pretty common.
You know, the movie is definitely not as _funny_ as the books, but I think they definitely made the main characters more _likeable_, especially Arthur.
The movie not being "as funny" is an understatement among the lines of "you know, being hit in the balls with a 5 pound sledge hammer is definitely not as _pleasant_ as a blowjob, but it's easier to get."
Yes, the characters were more likeable. Unfortunately, they did it at the expense of making the movie as a whole unlikable. They could have made the characters more sympathetic without removing the humor, instead they chose to do both, to the detriment of all.
I borrowed the movie from my local library. It cost me $0, and yet I feel I paid too much.
To say that the kid who eats the marshmallow won't be successful is a bit misleading.
It's also a mischaracterization of what's said in the video.
If you watch the video, he says that 100% of the children who didn't succumb were successful students, but that 80% of the ones who did were having school problems.
So nobody is saying that if you ate it you won't be successful (just that you're less likely to be), and nobody is saying that you wouldn't be successful in life, but in school.
So your post really has nothing whatsoever to do with the article, or any of the statements or claims within.
Telling him he can't use social networking sites to do so is a more narrow restriction, what's more there is a rational justification for it.
No, the "justification" is most irrational.
Lumping violent repeat rapists in with people who pee in the woods when they think they're alone, and claiming that "it's for the children" is 100% completely and totally emotional, and therefor about as far from rational as you can get.
Wow! Your flawless logic has convinced me! Now you just have to use that exact same argument to convince all the judges and lawyers who would say you're a complete fucking tool.
Dmitry Sklyarov was arrested for "manufacturing" software that could read ROT-13 encrypted PDFs. The software was distributed by someone else, but he got nailed for manufacturing. They only dropped the charges when he agreed to testify "against" his employer.
This really has nothing to do with piracy- it is pure greed on the part of a handful of media companies. They aren't content with you paying once or twice to watch a movie (in theater and on DVD). The want you to pay 3 or more times for the SAME movie
It's more than that - the anti-circumvention provision of the DMCA are expressly designed to eliminate fair use (as we see here) and "work around" the copyright expiration clause of the US Constitution.
Think about it - barring any more copyright extension, all of your DVDs will become public domain in 100 years or so... so you would be free to copy them, except that you're prohibited from owning or creating anything that actually could copy them.
You can write your own tool to do it, you just can't obtain one or give it to anyone else.
As others have pointed out, this is incorrect. I thought I'd include the actual letter of the law here:
TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 12 > 1201
1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems (a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures.-- (1) (A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
[...]
(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that-- (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
Writing one yourself would be considered "manufacturing".
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly.. note the wording...
internet service providers are obliged to take action against repeat infringers
The problem is that they want service providers to take action against alleged repeat infringers.
If the media providers want the ISPs to cut off people while they're in prison for copyright infringement, that's not so unreasonable. Unfortunately, this likely isn't what they meant.
gadget junkie has a valid point, as there are many voices in the scientific community who are saying the science is far from settled.
Then why didn't he cite any of them, instead of using bogus arguments?
Your attempt to belittle him by comparing his doubt as being equal to those who doubt evolution is a flamebait.
No, it isn't. It's a valid way of pointing out that his arguments are faulty.
The simple fact that you need to cry "flamebait" instead of trying to rebut my point (which you obviously can't do) points to the fact that you can't come up with valid arguments to support his point either.
Strangely enough, I am still convinced that the evidence behind evolution is much less than watertight.
For one thing, there is abviously no chance to have a double blind experiment, since we only have one earth. Second, on the timescales we are arguing about, we are trying to extrapolate judgements from a very small data set.
See how that works?
No, it's a licensing limit
Uhh, OK, so it's a licensing limit, and after that it's an architecture limit? That doesn't make much sense to me.. if there was an architecture limit at all, what does licensing have to do with it?
is more of a licensing preference then an architectural limit
So it's a licensing preference, followed by an architectural limit? If so, how is this a story?
According to the British government, there has been a 48% decrease in recorded crime since the peak in 1995
[citation needed]
Your uncited "48%" is out by an order of magnitude if you compare it to the report I found showing only a 4% drop overall. Particularly interesting is that the drop primarily happens in car parks, while some other areas see an increase in crime since CCTV's installation.
Lucas always meant Stormtroopers to be clones
Yeah, just like he always meant for Greedo to shoot first.
We just need to catch them. Given a 50% risk of being caught a one year prison sentence would provide more than adequate deterrence.
Your post displays a lack of understanding of the criminal mind. Don't feel too bad though, because most people (especially lawmakers) have the same lack of understanding.
The thing about criminal sentences is that they don't work as deterrents - because criminals don't believe they'll be caught. Career criminals believe that only idiots get caught, and since they're smarter than everyone else (thanks to the Dunning-Krueger effect), they won't be caught.
Why should the US cellular companies cater to people that like foreign technology?
Exactly - they should keep offering technology from American companies like Samsung, LG, Sony/Ericsson, Nokia, Blackberry and HTC!
It's not locked to some "app store" with "approved apps"
Neither is Android.
This alone will make it explode ahead of the iPhone and Andriod phones.
iPhone perhaps, but Android has no restrictions on installing non-market apps. Market is a convenient place to get new apps, but if you want to install from somewhere else, you're perfectly free to do so.
Perhaps you need to update your propaganda?
Douglas Adams was a very unique writer
I disagree. There is no doubt he was unique , but only marginally so. I've read many authors which were much more unique than Adams. In fact, now that I think about it, the amount of unique ness he had was pretty common.
You know, the movie is definitely not as _funny_ as the books, but I think they definitely made the main characters more _likeable_, especially Arthur.
The movie not being "as funny" is an understatement among the lines of "you know, being hit in the balls with a 5 pound sledge hammer is definitely not as _pleasant_ as a blowjob, but it's easier to get."
Yes, the characters were more likeable. Unfortunately, they did it at the expense of making the movie as a whole unlikable. They could have made the characters more sympathetic without removing the humor, instead they chose to do both, to the detriment of all.
I borrowed the movie from my local library. It cost me $0, and yet I feel I paid too much.
However, all the major changes in the movie script were penned by Adams himself.
The problem is that it was the minor changes (ie. removing all the funny bits) that made it unwatchable.
The radio, book and movie versions of HHGTTG were all supposed to be different in their own way.
So you're trying to tell me that Adams decided that he didn't want the movie to be funny?
I suppose it could be some last practical joke of his, but somehow, I doubt it.
They said the same thing about the Hollywood movie, and look how that turned...
Oh, CRAP!
people concerned about whether the hardware still functions in 30 years are not Microsoft's core demographic
How about people who are concerned whether it will function after 3 years, which is what the OP said? Do they care about them?
I highly doubt any console maker cares about you, in fact.
Then either they are idiots, or you are a moron, because three years is a very short time.
ASUS said the same thing about the EeePC return rates.
As far as I can tell, the "higher return rates" source is MSI, who shipped a borked distro. Everyone else seems to be doing swimmingly.
The fact that Travis and Julien found it after eight years pretty much means that the flaw existed in obscurity.
Except for the fact that it was out in the open (being open source and all), which pretty much means it was not in "obscurity".
Just because something isn't known doesn't mean someone is trying to hide it.
To say that the kid who eats the marshmallow won't be successful is a bit misleading.
It's also a mischaracterization of what's said in the video.
If you watch the video, he says that 100% of the children who didn't succumb were successful students, but that 80% of the ones who did were having school problems.
So nobody is saying that if you ate it you won't be successful (just that you're less likely to be), and nobody is saying that you wouldn't be successful in life, but in school.
So your post really has nothing whatsoever to do with the article, or any of the statements or claims within.
I learned about it when I discovered my dad's old Penthouse and Playboys in the basement.
I learned about it with the girl next door when I was 6.
The re-offense rate for sex offenders is unfortunately high.
[citation needed]
I would like to point out that someone has posted recidivism rate for sex offenders is 5%, whereas the recidivism rate for *all* violent offence is 62%.
Please either cite your source, or admit that you are wrong.
Telling him he can't use social networking sites to do so is a more narrow restriction, what's more there is a rational justification for it.
No, the "justification" is most irrational.
Lumping violent repeat rapists in with people who pee in the woods when they think they're alone, and claiming that "it's for the children" is 100% completely and totally emotional, and therefor about as far from rational as you can get.
Writing a program is not manufacturing.
Wow! Your flawless logic has convinced me! Now you just have to use that exact same argument to convince all the judges and lawyers who would say you're a complete fucking tool.
Dmitry Sklyarov was arrested for "manufacturing" software that could read ROT-13 encrypted PDFs. The software was distributed by someone else, but he got nailed for manufacturing. They only dropped the charges when he agreed to testify "against" his employer.
I'd say that if you can stick a DVD in, click one button, and have it backed up, their measure does not effectively control access.
And you would be wrong. This argument has already been tried in the 2600/DeCSS case, and the judge called it "indefensible".
This really has nothing to do with piracy- it is pure greed on the part of a handful of media companies. They aren't content with you paying once or twice to watch a movie (in theater and on DVD). The want you to pay 3 or more times for the SAME movie
It's more than that - the anti-circumvention provision of the DMCA are expressly designed to eliminate fair use (as we see here) and "work around" the copyright expiration clause of the US Constitution.
Think about it - barring any more copyright extension, all of your DVDs will become public domain in 100 years or so... so you would be free to copy them, except that you're prohibited from owning or creating anything that actually could copy them.
You can write your own tool to do it, you just can't obtain one or give it to anyone else.
As others have pointed out, this is incorrect. I thought I'd include the actual letter of the law here:
Writing one yourself would be considered "manufacturing".