I've seen not too few who are drones because they use Linux for simple things:
1) They think it's cool. Or why not 31337.
2) It's fast and stable. Or so they've heard it is.
3) It's great. They don't know why.
And so on. There are intelligent Windows- and Linux users, as well as stupid ones. One is not smart simply because one use Linux. However, patience IS a good thing, when working with it.
I agree that forwarding emails would be illegal is plain stupid.
But it seems to me that you are against all forms of copyright? Is that true? In that case, why?
However, if we say that this
How would you like if some gave away all your work for free? Communist!
is not irony from you, I must say I agree. The day we lose the copyright, is the first step down the road that leads to even more restrictions in our freedoms. What is next? Freedom of speech?
Copyright is good for all. I realize that I am in minority to think like this, but unless *someone* wants to abolish the right we have to our own opinions as well, I will stick to mine.
I believe that everyone has the right to quote, for "fair use".
I also know, that the mail, when reached it's recipient, is the property of that recipient.
Can't you use and quote text from your own property?
I can not imagine that Australia really would have so different laws to many other countries in this matter?
Does NASA and and other gov space agencies in other countries have a future? Maybe it is time for the private sector to take over soon, to commercialize space. In the "private sector", I include foundations, corporations and also universities (although the unis would ofcourse only take care of the science part).
I have a few interesting links to private projects, that might just show the path to commerce in space, such as tourism, mining and research.
Artemis Project - A private venture to establish a permanent self supporting community on the moon.
Space Frontier Foundation - Want to open up the new frontier for everyone.
Space Island Group - Among other things, they wish to creat low earth orbit commercial space stations.
The X Prize - A prize dedicated to boost the development of private space crafts.
Ok, this was probably off topic, but I guess that my point is, governments will probably not be able to finance all the space projects. There are not enough money. The private sector can do this. Competition is always good, and I think that it will some day make it possible for anyone to go into space.
I can see a possible future where a team of scientists at a university will send a mission to Pluto, mining companies establishing mines on the moon, you will go to the low earth orbit space hotel for your vacation. Ok, this is far in the future, but I think it will happen one day.
They are not biased against people with faith. If they post news about scientific results and new evidence, is that *wrong* because there are people out there with faith, who would rather believe something with NO evidence?
It does matter a lot for scientists dedicated to unveil the mysteries all around us, and for a lot of people interested in science.
It wont, however, make much change when it comes to religions. When science finds an answer, the religious ones sometimes deny it, for some reason. They did the same with Galileo Galilei, when he had the nerve of telling the world that Earth orbits around the Sun. Over 300 years later, the pope admitted that what the church did back then was wrong. You don't say...!
If something comes in conflict with a religion, its scripts, gods and so on, it will be considered humbug by those who are religious. Because, you know... they think that an unproven god is more likely to exist than scientific theories that are proven or have strong evidence behind.
I can promise you all, that if scientists can prove the existance of an omnipotent god (impossible, but IF), I am the first one to read up on what they discovered. Have they proof, then that god indeed exist.
I don't care what scientists will discover, what answers they may find. All I ask for, is that those who present new results, have evidence and proof behind to back it all up. I don't believe in god simply because we have yet no evidence for the existance of a god. I do however believe that earth is round, and that the big bang theory and that evolution is close to the truth, simply because they are backed up by proof.
(Probably some spelling errors... english isn't my first language)
"No matter how much scientific evidence is presented, those who prefer religion over science will continue not to listen to it. They will always find some objection, reasonable or not."
I think it is called "selective hearing"? They accept anything as long as it does not come in conflict with a god that they believe in.
There seems to be a lot of things pointing towards evolution being correct and once again, religion proves wrong.
Why? Simply because science is about investigating, exploring, experimenting with a sceptical mind. Science is about finding the answers no matter what the answers may be!
Religion, on the other hand,. does not work that way. Religion is, as I see it, originally nothing but a substitute for the answers we once did not have. So, we made some nice answers up.
It seems as the chance for life to form in the universe is getting better all the time. We have now discovered planets orbiting other stars, as well as solar systems in the process of being formed, that is, discs of gas and dust around young stars. And now this, complex organic molecules.
Could life perhaps be a most natural part of the universe? Or, is it only the possibility that is everywhere, but the right conditions are rarely met?
I for one hope that life is very much common in the universe, and that we one day can establish contact with another civillization. It would indeed be the greatest and most important discovery in the history of mankind.
Well, I understand where you're getting at. But I still can not agree with your point.
Think about it. If you can not own digital data or numbers, then noone can sell it, either. The record company can't sell their CDs, and the musicians will never get anything back from their composing the music. It will become everyones property. Is this how we want it? You invent or create something, and it automatically becomes everyones property, is that really such a good idea? We can go even further, and say that everything belongs to everyone, and there is no possibility to own anything, since it belongs to everyone.
I for one is such a weird person, that I want to get something back for what I do, or rather will do when I graduate and get a job. The company I work for does not own my abilities, creativity or skills. They have to pay for it to get it. Even if it is possible for me to "copy" my skills by teaching others!
You are of course right, so I wonder how this is a Troll? Can anyone tell me why this is considered troll? Is it because his opinions are not the same as yours?
I agree with what you say, and I can not understand why protecting ones copyright could ever be wrong. Does everyone have the right to everyone elses music? If I want something, I usually have to pay for it. Why? Because that is how it works. You can't GET everything for free. That's not even a utopia. A utopia is supposed to be something good, right?
A lot of people seem to have the opinion that it is not right to charge for something someone creates, be it software, music, literature, etc..
The way I see it, though, is that the creator has the right, in this case the copyright, to the music he/she creates, and can sell copies of it everywhere. The creator also have the rights to give away the music for free, if that is what he/she wants.
I see it as an agreement between "users" (listeners) and the musician. If music costs money, then that is what the musician wants in exchange. It is like any kind of trade. There's no such thing as a free lunch (unfortunately...!), and I don't think that too many people who produces anything, wish to give it away for free. One of the main reasons to produce and create, is, I assume, money. If it is free for the user, it will still be a cost for the producer, and that can't work out well in the long run. Very simple but true.
I do however think that CDs today are way too expensive...
"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises."
This is another loophole. I guess licensing means that the government may charge you for the right to own a TV? That is how it is over here, sadly enough. Anyway...
[...] may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, [...]
I think there is the problem: "for the protection of the reputation or rights of others". This is what this EU law is about, to prevent people from publish information about others on the net without that persons consent. In some ways, this is great to protect private citizens. In other ways, it can seriously reduce our freedom of speech.
I don't like it at all. I wonder what will come next? A new convention with even more escapes for the member governments?
And besides, to be fair, I have to say this; if a law and a constitutional law is "competing", the constitutional law wins. So I am not sure how serious this PUL law is, yet.
Slashdot Mirror
I would like to see the criterias used to decide what stories to post and what to reject... btw, you can mod me wherever you want for this comment...
But ofcourse. Science is the only way to find the answers to our questions.
I've seen not too few who are drones because they use Linux for simple things: 1) They think it's cool. Or why not 31337. 2) It's fast and stable. Or so they've heard it is. 3) It's great. They don't know why. And so on. There are intelligent Windows- and Linux users, as well as stupid ones. One is not smart simply because one use Linux. However, patience IS a good thing, when working with it.
I don't think there's much more to add here.
Touché.
But it seems to me that you are against all forms of copyright? Is that true? In that case, why?
However, if we say that this
is not irony from you, I must say I agree. The day we lose the copyright, is the first step down the road that leads to even more restrictions in our freedoms. What is next? Freedom of speech?Copyright is good for all. I realize that I am in minority to think like this, but unless *someone* wants to abolish the right we have to our own opinions as well, I will stick to mine.
I believe that everyone has the right to quote, for "fair use".
I also know, that the mail, when reached it's recipient, is the property of that recipient.
Can't you use and quote text from your own property?
I can not imagine that Australia really would have so different laws to many other countries in this matter?
I have a few interesting links to private projects, that might just show the path to commerce in space, such as tourism, mining and research.
Artemis Project - A private venture to establish a permanent self supporting community on the moon.
Space Frontier Foundation - Want to open up the new frontier for everyone.
Space Island Group - Among other things, they wish to creat low earth orbit commercial space stations.
The X Prize - A prize dedicated to boost the development of private space crafts.
Ok, this was probably off topic, but I guess that my point is, governments will probably not be able to finance all the space projects. There are not enough money. The private sector can do this. Competition is always good, and I think that it will some day make it possible for anyone to go into space.
I can see a possible future where a team of scientists at a university will send a mission to Pluto, mining companies establishing mines on the moon, you will go to the low earth orbit space hotel for your vacation. Ok, this is far in the future, but I think it will happen one day.
The latest I hared, is that Pluto still has planet status. So yes, it is a planet.
1: "Uh.. smoke is not capable of passing through matter. ;)"
Which had this effect:
2: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't understand.
One would think evolution would have taken care of that. The scary thing is, it hasn't.
I don't know what is more funny - comments or moderations made on them.
I don't know whether to laugh or to cry.
They are not biased against people with faith. If they post news about scientific results and new evidence, is that *wrong* because there are people out there with faith, who would rather believe something with NO evidence?
No, Linux
(I know)
It wont, however, make much change when it comes to religions. When science finds an answer, the religious ones sometimes deny it, for some reason. They did the same with Galileo Galilei, when he had the nerve of telling the world that Earth orbits around the Sun. Over 300 years later, the pope admitted that what the church did back then was wrong. You don't say...!
If something comes in conflict with a religion, its scripts, gods and so on, it will be considered humbug by those who are religious. Because, you know... they think that an unproven god is more likely to exist than scientific theories that are proven or have strong evidence behind.
I can promise you all, that if scientists can prove the existance of an omnipotent god (impossible, but IF), I am the first one to read up on what they discovered. Have they proof, then that god indeed exist.
I don't care what scientists will discover, what answers they may find. All I ask for, is that those who present new results, have evidence and proof behind to back it all up. I don't believe in god simply because we have yet no evidence for the existance of a god. I do however believe that earth is round, and that the big bang theory and that evolution is close to the truth, simply because they are backed up by proof.
(Probably some spelling errors... english isn't my first language)
I think it is called "selective hearing"? They accept anything as long as it does not come in conflict with a god that they believe in.
There seems to be a lot of things pointing towards evolution being correct and once again, religion proves wrong.
Why? Simply because science is about investigating, exploring, experimenting with a sceptical mind. Science is about finding the answers no matter what the answers may be!
Religion, on the other hand,. does not work that way. Religion is, as I see it, originally nothing but a substitute for the answers we once did not have. So, we made some nice answers up.
My wild guess is that you have not read the news on what is happening in this field. Astronomers have detected planets orbiting other stars. Sorry.
No, there ARE other solar systems.
Could life perhaps be a most natural part of the universe? Or, is it only the possibility that is everywhere, but the right conditions are rarely met?
I for one hope that life is very much common in the universe, and that we one day can establish contact with another civillization. It would indeed be the greatest and most important discovery in the history of mankind.
Think about it. If you can not own digital data or numbers, then noone can sell it, either. The record company can't sell their CDs, and the musicians will never get anything back from their composing the music. It will become everyones property. Is this how we want it? You invent or create something, and it automatically becomes everyones property, is that really such a good idea? We can go even further, and say that everything belongs to everyone, and there is no possibility to own anything, since it belongs to everyone.
I for one is such a weird person, that I want to get something back for what I do, or rather will do when I graduate and get a job. The company I work for does not own my abilities, creativity or skills. They have to pay for it to get it. Even if it is possible for me to "copy" my skills by teaching others!
I agree with what you say, and I can not understand why protecting ones copyright could ever be wrong. Does everyone have the right to everyone elses music? If I want something, I usually have to pay for it. Why? Because that is how it works. You can't GET everything for free. That's not even a utopia. A utopia is supposed to be something good, right?
The way I see it, though, is that the creator has the right, in this case the copyright, to the music he/she creates, and can sell copies of it everywhere. The creator also have the rights to give away the music for free, if that is what he/she wants.
I see it as an agreement between "users" (listeners) and the musician. If music costs money, then that is what the musician wants in exchange. It is like any kind of trade. There's no such thing as a free lunch (unfortunately...!), and I don't think that too many people who produces anything, wish to give it away for free. One of the main reasons to produce and create, is, I assume, money. If it is free for the user, it will still be a cost for the producer, and that can't work out well in the long run. Very simple but true.
I do however think that CDs today are way too expensive...
This is another loophole. I guess licensing means that the government may charge you for the right to own a TV? That is how it is over here, sadly enough. Anyway...
[...] may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, [...]
I think there is the problem: "for the protection of the reputation or rights of others". This is what this EU law is about, to prevent people from publish information about others on the net without that persons consent. In some ways, this is great to protect private citizens. In other ways, it can seriously reduce our freedom of speech.
I don't like it at all. I wonder what will come next? A new convention with even more escapes for the member governments?
And besides, to be fair, I have to say this; if a law and a constitutional law is "competing", the constitutional law wins. So I am not sure how serious this PUL law is, yet.