Besides that, a great professor giving a lecture using a blackboard is a million times better than watching a crappy professor go through a powerpoint show. The one isn't using technology, but technology isn't going to make up for the other's incompetence.
Powerpoint and other slides are terrible for lectures. If I write the main ideas of the lecture on the blackboard, then I am sure to go slow enough for my students to take notes. If I have a pre-made slide showing the main points, then I will tend to go as fast as normal talking speed, which is likely to fast for the students to write down what's on the slide.
Yes, of course, I could just make the slides available for download, but that still isn't as good as student notes. For one, I find that if I write something down, I recall it more easily. For another, a good note taker writes down a bit more than the prof put on the blackboard. He notes things that surprise him, or that he believes are important, and so the notes are more personal than the slides (and their contents easier to recall).
What a change from the Sony vs. Universal Studios case, when Sony argued (and won) that copying television programs for time-shifting was a legitimate exercise of fair use.
That was back when Sony regarded themselves as a technology company rather than a content provider, of course.
One might argue that having to show ID at the airport is a whittling away of our civil rights (or maybe not — I'm not expressing an opinion on that). If so, it is a very minor infringement compared to, say losing Habeas Corpus. (Arguably, Habeas is in trouble too, mind you, but not for American citizens. And *yes* we should be very concerned about that.)
All I'm saying is that the situation now is troubling, indeed, very troubling. But no, Liberty has not become a mockery of itself. Let's complain or do something about those things that bother us, rather than use hyperbole to exaggerate our reasonable concerns.
"There are relatively few days when we really notice the changes affecting us personally."
Lack of empathy among the governed is the greatest boon to those with dictatorial ambitions.
I don't know how you got the impression that I thought recent changes are acceptable or that I don't care about those affected negatively by the increased emphasis of security over civil rights.
I'll say it again: the current situation is very troubling. We should certainly be aware of the recent changes and encourage discussion. But I don't see any reason that hyperbole helps this purpose—things are troubling, but the Bill of Rights has not been repealed.
No. Terrorism has already won. I sat there on 9/11, watching the news and crying. Crying for the innocent people who were murdered, yes, but also crying for the end of freedom. The end of civil rights. I knew at that moment that "liberty" would never again be anything but a hollow mockery of itself. I knew the gov't - to "protect" us - would strip us of the entire Bill of Rights and more besides. And that is exactly what they did. What RICO began, what the "War on (Some) Drugs" carried through, we, ourselves, through our government, have completed. And don't lecture me about the Republicans did this or the Democrats did something else. Both sides of the aisle voted for these things. Both share the blame.
Well, what you "knew" is just silly hyperbole. Liberty is not a "hollow mockery of itself" and the Bill of Rights is still the law of the land.
These exaggerations don't help explain what is really going on. Civil rights have been eroded to some extent, generally by well-meaning people who aim to protect US citizens—and perhaps don't mind having greater power and responsibility. The situation is certainly grave, especially when we consider other abuses that the US is meting out to foreign suspects. Balancing freedom and protection will be a pretty difficult road ahead, and it's pretty clear that so far, the govt. is doing a pretty bad job of it.
But let's just drop this silliness about liberty being a mockery of itself. There are relatively few days when we really notice the changes affecting us personally. Visits to the airport, govt. offices and tourist traps are notably less pleasant, with more intrusive security and a whole lot less courtesy. A few of us may even have become innocent suspects due to the new fear, and that's a horrible thing. And we need to do something to fix the overreaction. An overreaction in the other direction, including implications that the government is repealing the Bill of Rights under the guise of "protection", just doesn't seem all that useful to me.
They turned the machine on so that they could run some diagnostic tools and see if the problem really was the monitor hinge. You don't think they'd take the purchaser's word for it, do you?
Fine, let them win. Okay, fair use is not a consumer right!
And copyright protection is not a producer right either then.
That doesn't follow. He argues that fair use is not a right but rather an affirmative defense. It seems to me a rather less contentious claim than the Slashdot post suggests (but I don't know the legal distinction he's drawing).
So what if fair use properly is an affirmative defense and that such defenses are not properly called "rights". It simply doesn't follow that copyright protection is not a right either.
Now, I'm not defending his claim regarding fair use, but your retort is a non-sequitur.
If it makes you feel any better, it was a federal judge, not the Supreme Court, that issued this ruling. Well, maybe that shouldn't make you feel better, since I suppose it can be appealed to a higher court. (?)
Also, it was the revised Patriot act, which was signed into law on March 9, 2006. I don't know if the offending provision was in the original act or not.
True, but if the IP belongs to a certain company and the message edited serves the interest of that particular company, I can safely assume that it's the doing of that company.
Right. Because it is safe to assume that *no* employee says anything positive about his employer unless ordered to.
Is this what you mean by a safe assumption? If not, why do you regard your assumption as "safe"? When I say that an assumption is safe, I mean that it is very likely correct. Do you mean something else?
"Any other use of this telecast or any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent is prohibited."
That says any descriptions or accounts. Either it is a remarkably poorly worded warning referring only to the NFL's copyrighted descriptions or they are claiming rights that copyright law surely doesn't give them.
Makes one wonder: if Wikipedia describes the latest Superbowl, are they violating this clause? Sounds like the NFL is claiming so.
$ sudo passwd root Password: jesse is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
What's the problem? The Slackware distros I've used have no sudoers by default, so this command doesn't do much of anything. Have things changed since 10.1?
Any time I have to spend f$%king with my OS instead of playing games, reading web pages, checking and answering my email is wasted. It's this spending-time-on-your-OS-is-your-ultimate-goal mentality that's holding Linux back from more mainstream adoption. The perfect OS would 'just work', let me run applications, and not require my attention in any way.
Then choose a different distro. The tinkerer who wants to learn about Linux can use Slackware while you use something else.
No, the mouse won't re-invent computing, but the home imax projector? Man, that will change everything! University curricula will have to be rewritten from scratch!
In my book, using violence or threat of violence to1 take control over a ship you do not own, is piracy. Selling counterfeit CDs? Not piracy. Piracy involves vessels moving on the surface of a large body of water, and weapons. Selling counterfeit CDs can be piracy if you stole them from a ship.
Your book is very, very old and incomplete. The term "pirate" has been used to mean "one who takes another's work without permission" since 1701. See http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pirate.
Sex is a primary human function and drive, and to brush it under the carpet on an extended space mission would be the height of irresponsibility. Even worse would be to let cultural dogmatists decide on what should be done about sex on the basis of their preconceived smalltown agendas. This is a medical matter, and needs to be handled on a medical basis, professionally.
A medical matter? You are sooo cute! Just adorable, you are!
Right. Sex is a medical matter in pretty much the same sense that politics is a medical matter. There's rather more involved in sexual behavior.
Nonsense! The claim was that knowing accuracy, precision, etc., would "help you in any career". This does not mean it helps only unsuccessful people. In other words, it is not reasonably translated as, "If one is unsuccessful, then learning X will make one successful."
Moreover, it is silly to mistake natural language conditionals for material implication. They are different. In plain English, it is false that if I have seven arms, then I can swim in the stars. But that sentence is true when we interpret if-then in terms of material implication.
The first lesson is that formal logic isn't the same as conversational reasoning. The second is that one shouldn't get too uppity in critiquing others' debating skills on the basis of a rudimentary introduction to logic.
(Of course, perhaps I should be humble here too. But I won't.)
It's nice to think so, but if you "proceed to checkout", you go to a real paypal page. Looks to me like they're accepting money, so I suppose they must actually be rendering services.
Then you will have no cause for complaint when "intelligent design" is taught as biology, video surveillance systems are ramped up to Supermax proportions and Office 2007 is introduced into the classroom.
Oh, bullhonkies. There is no good argument that failing to vote implies one cannot complain.
Whether or not I vote, I can damn well complain when my government makes bad choices. Indeed, complaining is a heck of a lot more effective than voting. Writing letters, petitioning and so on is a lot more likely to change things than my single vote out of hundreds, thousands or millions.
Yours is a familiar claim, but I have yet to see any good argument for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention the Flintstones being blocked for being a violation of The Honeymooners' IP.
Totally different. The Flinstones had dinosaurs.
I'm so sick of this sort of Slashdot straw man. Look, if you take something old and add dinosaurs, then it's new. 'Cause now it's got dinosaurs.
Duh.
Besides that, a great professor giving a lecture using a blackboard is a million times better than watching a crappy professor go through a powerpoint show. The one isn't using technology, but technology isn't going to make up for the other's incompetence.
Powerpoint and other slides are terrible for lectures. If I write the main ideas of the lecture on the blackboard, then I am sure to go slow enough for my students to take notes. If I have a pre-made slide showing the main points, then I will tend to go as fast as normal talking speed, which is likely to fast for the students to write down what's on the slide.
Yes, of course, I could just make the slides available for download, but that still isn't as good as student notes. For one, I find that if I write something down, I recall it more easily. For another, a good note taker writes down a bit more than the prof put on the blackboard. He notes things that surprise him, or that he believes are important, and so the notes are more personal than the slides (and their contents easier to recall).
Blackboards are under-rated.
What a change from the Sony vs. Universal Studios case, when Sony argued (and won) that copying television programs for time-shifting was a legitimate exercise of fair use.
That was back when Sony regarded themselves as a technology company rather than a content provider, of course.
No.
One might argue that having to show ID at the airport is a whittling away of our civil rights (or maybe not — I'm not expressing an opinion on that). If so, it is a very minor infringement compared to, say losing Habeas Corpus. (Arguably, Habeas is in trouble too, mind you, but not for American citizens. And *yes* we should be very concerned about that.)
All I'm saying is that the situation now is troubling, indeed, very troubling. But no, Liberty has not become a mockery of itself. Let's complain or do something about those things that bother us, rather than use hyperbole to exaggerate our reasonable concerns.
The security theatre that goes on in American airports these days bothers me a lot less than changes in surveillance laws, frankly.
"There are relatively few days when we really notice the changes affecting us personally."
Lack of empathy among the governed is the greatest boon to those with dictatorial ambitions.
I don't know how you got the impression that I thought recent changes are acceptable or that I don't care about those affected negatively by the increased emphasis of security over civil rights.
I'll say it again: the current situation is very troubling. We should certainly be aware of the recent changes and encourage discussion. But I don't see any reason that hyperbole helps this purpose—things are troubling, but the Bill of Rights has not been repealed.
No. Terrorism has already won. I sat there on 9/11, watching the news and crying. Crying for the innocent people who were murdered, yes, but also crying for the end of freedom. The end of civil rights. I knew at that moment that "liberty" would never again be anything but a hollow mockery of itself. I knew the gov't - to "protect" us - would strip us of the entire Bill of Rights and more besides. And that is exactly what they did. What RICO began, what the "War on (Some) Drugs" carried through, we, ourselves, through our government, have completed. And don't lecture me about the Republicans did this or the Democrats did something else. Both sides of the aisle voted for these things. Both share the blame.
Well, what you "knew" is just silly hyperbole. Liberty is not a "hollow mockery of itself" and the Bill of Rights is still the law of the land.
These exaggerations don't help explain what is really going on. Civil rights have been eroded to some extent, generally by well-meaning people who aim to protect US citizens—and perhaps don't mind having greater power and responsibility. The situation is certainly grave, especially when we consider other abuses that the US is meting out to foreign suspects. Balancing freedom and protection will be a pretty difficult road ahead, and it's pretty clear that so far, the govt. is doing a pretty bad job of it.
But let's just drop this silliness about liberty being a mockery of itself. There are relatively few days when we really notice the changes affecting us personally. Visits to the airport, govt. offices and tourist traps are notably less pleasant, with more intrusive security and a whole lot less courtesy. A few of us may even have become innocent suspects due to the new fear, and that's a horrible thing. And we need to do something to fix the overreaction. An overreaction in the other direction, including implications that the government is repealing the Bill of Rights under the guise of "protection", just doesn't seem all that useful to me.
Is FreeDOS a "pure" DOS? Does it run reasonably well on modern computers?
(This is not a rhetorical question. I've never tried it.)
They turned the machine on so that they could run some diagnostic tools and see if the problem really was the monitor hinge. You don't think they'd take the purchaser's word for it, do you?
Fine, let them win. Okay, fair use is not a consumer right!
And copyright protection is not a producer right either then.
That doesn't follow. He argues that fair use is not a right but rather an affirmative defense. It seems to me a rather less contentious claim than the Slashdot post suggests (but I don't know the legal distinction he's drawing).
So what if fair use properly is an affirmative defense and that such defenses are not properly called "rights". It simply doesn't follow that copyright protection is not a right either.
Now, I'm not defending his claim regarding fair use, but your retort is a non-sequitur.
If it makes you feel any better, it was a federal judge, not the Supreme Court, that issued this ruling. Well, maybe that shouldn't make you feel better, since I suppose it can be appealed to a higher court. (?)
Also, it was the revised Patriot act, which was signed into law on March 9, 2006. I don't know if the offending provision was in the original act or not.
True, but if the IP belongs to a certain company and the message edited serves the interest of that particular company, I can safely assume that it's the doing of that company.
Right. Because it is safe to assume that *no* employee says anything positive about his employer unless ordered to.
Is this what you mean by a safe assumption? If not, why do you regard your assumption as "safe"? When I say that an assumption is safe, I mean that it is very likely correct. Do you mean something else?
That says any descriptions or accounts. Either it is a remarkably poorly worded warning referring only to the NFL's copyrighted descriptions or they are claiming rights that copyright law surely doesn't give them.
Makes one wonder: if Wikipedia describes the latest Superbowl, are they violating this clause? Sounds like the NFL is claiming so.
You (and the author) forgot the word "retroactive".
That word makes a lot of difference.
$ sudo passwd root
Password:
jesse is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
What's the problem? The Slackware distros I've used have no sudoers by default, so this command doesn't do much of anything. Have things changed since 10.1?
Any time I have to spend f$%king with my OS instead of playing games, reading web pages, checking and answering my email is wasted. It's this spending-time-on-your-OS-is-your-ultimate-goal mentality that's holding Linux back from more mainstream adoption. The perfect OS would 'just work', let me run applications, and not require my attention in any way.
Then choose a different distro. The tinkerer who wants to learn about Linux can use Slackware while you use something else.
What's the problem?
No, the mouse won't re-invent computing, but the home imax projector? Man, that will change everything! University curricula will have to be rewritten from scratch!
In my book, using violence or threat of violence to1 take control over a ship you do not own, is piracy. Selling counterfeit CDs? Not piracy. Piracy involves vessels moving on the surface of a large body of water, and weapons. Selling counterfeit CDs can be piracy if you stole them from a ship.
Your book is very, very old and incomplete. The term "pirate" has been used to mean "one who takes another's work without permission" since 1701. See http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pirate.
Sex is a primary human function and drive, and to brush it under the carpet on an extended space mission would be the height of irresponsibility. Even worse would be to let cultural dogmatists decide on what should be done about sex on the basis of their preconceived smalltown agendas. This is a medical matter, and needs to be handled on a medical basis, professionally.
A medical matter? You are sooo cute! Just adorable, you are!
Right. Sex is a medical matter in pretty much the same sense that politics is a medical matter. There's rather more involved in sexual behavior.
The term "piracy" has been used to describe copyright and similar infringements since 1701. I suppose it's time to get used to this usage.
(See http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pirate)
Nonsense! The claim was that knowing accuracy, precision, etc., would "help you in any career". This does not mean it helps only unsuccessful people. In other words, it is not reasonably translated as, "If one is unsuccessful, then learning X will make one successful."
Moreover, it is silly to mistake natural language conditionals for material implication. They are different. In plain English, it is false that if I have seven arms, then I can swim in the stars. But that sentence is true when we interpret if-then in terms of material implication.
The first lesson is that formal logic isn't the same as conversational reasoning. The second is that one shouldn't get too uppity in critiquing others' debating skills on the basis of a rudimentary introduction to logic.
(Of course, perhaps I should be humble here too. But I won't.)
Wrong.
The original poster said knowing X will help anyone. The respondent said here are some people that don't know X and learning X would not help them.
This is not the logical fallacy you thought it was.
This website is a nice prank.
It's nice to think so, but if you "proceed to checkout", you go to a real paypal page. Looks to me like they're accepting money, so I suppose they must actually be rendering services.
Even supposing my real life friends hang out with me only because I spend money freely, there is a difference.
My real life friends are real people.
Then you will have no cause for complaint when "intelligent design" is taught as biology, video surveillance systems are ramped up to Supermax proportions and Office 2007 is introduced into the classroom.
Oh, bullhonkies. There is no good argument that failing to vote implies one cannot complain.
Whether or not I vote, I can damn well complain when my government makes bad choices. Indeed, complaining is a heck of a lot more effective than voting. Writing letters, petitioning and so on is a lot more likely to change things than my single vote out of hundreds, thousands or millions.
Yours is a familiar claim, but I have yet to see any good argument for it.