TotalFinaElf and Lukoil in Iraq. USSR all over Eurasia. France in Indo-China Burma. The whole British empire, for that matter (that would be the guys who drew the lines on the map of Iraq). And on and on and on.
The US is just as guilty as everyone else. The only difference is that they're the ones doing it now.
If they really want to have a look, let them come and ask me to take it off. They already do that with shoes, belts, jackets, hats and whatnot, what's the problem with that? I'm a frequent flyer . ..
What an odd reaction. A frequent flier who wants to spend yet more time dressing and undressing in airports!? In fact, this device sounds like it will make searches more efficient (i.e. faster) and more dignified (i.e. other passengers wouldn't see us as much as in a pat down and partial disrobing).
That said, as a frequent flier, I prefer less security to either kind of search.
Good: Eriogonom truncatum is alive. The Ivory Bill is alive. Bad: Which some people will say means it was unnecessary to have so many laws protecting the environment these last 30 years. Good: Their return from the dead may spark kids' interest in biology and conservation. Bad: Their return from the dead will fuel the public's distrust of any prediction of environmental disaster since "the scientists were wrong last time."
All in all, though, where there's life, there's hope.
Of course, the U.S. Constitution really isn't a given in this discussion. It remains open to interpretation in the form of legislation, not to mention court review and voter amendment. Plus, the judges in TFA were in France, a democracy based on different documents.
Also, the grandparent said "rationalize", "not nationalize".
When, how, and under what circumstances is it ok for copyright owners to protect their content?
A: When the cost of compliance* with copyright is low enough that almost everyone will comply voluntarily.
What we see today is a large chunk of society deciding that the *IAA does not deserve the money and control it demands. Widespread compliance depends on a balance between benefit of compliance and penalty for noncompliance. If the benefit of compliance remains as poor as it is today, then increasing the penalty to infinite amounts will do little to increase compliance. That penalty is already high enough to bankrupt most individuals and many people remain undeterred.
Who said a Democracy only functions until the people realize they can vote themselves other peoples property?
Y'know, today's copyright holders call this stuff their "property", but it only got that way because we (through our elected represenatives) voted it to them. Lately, the *IAA has been voting themselves more and more things -- things that should have been our public domain. If votes about "property" can kill democracy, then already our country is not among the living.
"By vote begun, by vote undone." --Member of Parliament Barbossa, floor speech for the repeal of the Curse of the Black Copyright (2006)
Who said a Democracy only functions until the people realize they can vote themselves other peoples property?
I dunno, but shortly after the first vote, we'll probably realize that other people can vote themselves our property, too.
In the ensuing debate, it will be pointed out that property is an artificial concept. In the end, "my property" = {things that you and I agree won't be taken from me without my consent}. At that point, we're right back where we started: in a democracy.
that the Palm - PalmOne - Palmsource - Palm Trademark Holding Corp. saga isn't all that different from the first few chapters of the Santa Cruz Operation - Caldera - SCO story, lo these many years ago. I guess I'll just have to RAFO.
Is the grandparent daft? Liberals shudder every time the phrase "drive down the property values" is invoked. Just typing it has given me the screaming willies.
Zoning laws and housing codes are a quintessentially conservative (in the sense of I-have-something-and-I-want-to-keep-on-having-it) proposition.
This has been true from the yellow pages to Yahoo Maps to now. These services don't show what's there; they show only that subset of things they want us to know about. When a mapping service shows ALL businesses, not just those who pay, we will flock to it.
He proposed to give a talk on the benefits of P2P and talk about the law relating to P2P and copyright in Spain. He proposed to demo what sort of legal uses one could make of copyrighted works from P2P networks, and informed the Spanish collecting society, the national police and the attorney general to let them know what he was up to.
Oh, we're definitely straying from the topic. But why not?
The ipod example* shows extracting something by threat. The second example shows extracting something by use of force (assuming the cop eventually shoots the guy). The third example shows overcharing.
The possibilities are: (1) these fit the definition and are extortion; (2) these fit the definition, but aren't extortion because they're not "undue" under their special circumstances; (3) these fit the definition, but aren't extortion because of the various exceptions you mention; (4) ??.
Since we agree these aren't extortion, (1) is false. My (2) sort of gives the definition more credit than it maybe deserves by supposing that the poor little word "undue" can stand for all the special circumstances. Actually, I think that (3) is the most true. Which means that the definition itself would make a poor law since it leaves out a lot of important information about exceptions.
[*I was thinking of an ipod that I had loaned to the guy but that he later refused to return.]
Extortion n. 1. The act of extorting; the act or practice of wresting anything from a person by force, by threats, or by any undue exercise of power; undue exaction; overcharge.
There's a lot of room in the word "undue". For instance, "I'll sue you if you don't give me back my iPod" isn't exactly extortion. Nor is the policeman who says "Put your hostage or I will shoot you" committing extortion. I'd even hazard to say that the theatre that sells popcorn for $7 isn't committing extortion, but YMMV.
The point? Dictionary definitions are seldom clear enough to be a law all by themselves. (Nor are most laws clear enough to make good dictionary definitions.;-) That's what makes it fun.)
TFA stated a confusing idea right: Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates on Thursday countered the popular notion that workers are universally overloaded with too much information.
TFAS, OTOH, garbled it: "Microsoft's . . . meet-and-greet kicked off on Thursday with . . . Gates . . . countering the notion that the workers today are not overloaded with information.
We have two reasons for sending people to prison . ..
Actually, there are several more than that. In no particular order: (a) to incapcitate them (while they are locked up) from committing another crime (b) to deter them (after they get out) from committing a second crime (specific deterence) (c) to deter others from committing a similar crime (general deterence) (d) to hurt them (retribution) (e) to reform them (rehabilitation) (f) to express our condemnation of the crime (denunciation) This page does as good a job as any of defining the jargon. Some punishments (other than jail) are also designed to restore to a victim something that was taken from him/her (compensation).
This line of argument is not new. In general form, it reads:
How can any moral person justify not dedicating his/her time to the benefit of all people [i.e. "charity"]?
Those who employ this argument generally contrast "charity" against some activity of their victim of which they disapprove. Actually, it's a cheap debating trick. Some of the stock answers are: (a) "You first. If you eliminate all your activities of which I disapprove, I'll reciprocate." (b) No one is obligated to give. That's one of the things that freedom means. (c) I give already in other ways. I have given enough.
Slashdot Mirror
in the BBC piece, but this article provides more info on the practicalities of acquiring the materials and actually building the device.
You're kidding, right? Interfering is what we do.
Interfering is what everyone does, if they can.
TotalFinaElf and Lukoil in Iraq. USSR all over Eurasia. France in Indo-China Burma. The whole British empire, for that matter (that would be the guys who drew the lines on the map of Iraq). And on and on and on.
The US is just as guilty as everyone else. The only difference is that they're the ones doing it now.
2. How do I get put in charge of the 'Hot Chick' section
"Hell is other people." --Jean-Paul Sartre (No Exit, 1944)
"Hell is getting to see all of all other people." TSA (2005)
I don't think it's going to be all that much fun most of the time. Not even for the bisexuals.
If they really want to have a look, let them come and ask me to take it off. They already do that with shoes, belts, jackets, hats and whatnot, what's the problem with that? I'm a frequent flyer . . .
What an odd reaction. A frequent flier who wants to spend yet more time dressing and undressing in airports!? In fact, this device sounds like it will make searches more efficient (i.e. faster) and more dignified (i.e. other passengers wouldn't see us as much as in a pat down and partial disrobing).
That said, as a frequent flier, I prefer less security to either kind of search.
Good: Eriogonom truncatum is alive. The Ivory Bill is alive.
Bad: Which some people will say means it was unnecessary to have so many laws protecting the environment these last 30 years.
Good: Their return from the dead may spark kids' interest in biology and conservation.
Bad: Their return from the dead will fuel the public's distrust of any prediction of environmental disaster since "the scientists were wrong last time."
All in all, though, where there's life, there's hope.
That's a fair point.
Of course, the U.S. Constitution really isn't a given in this discussion. It remains open to interpretation in the form of legislation, not to mention court review and voter amendment. Plus, the judges in TFA were in France, a democracy based on different documents.
Also, the grandparent said "rationalize", "not nationalize".
When, how, and under what circumstances is it ok for copyright owners to protect their content?
A: When the cost of compliance* with copyright is low enough that almost everyone will comply voluntarily.
What we see today is a large chunk of society deciding that the *IAA does not deserve the money and control it demands. Widespread compliance depends on a balance between benefit of compliance and penalty for noncompliance. If the benefit of compliance remains as poor as it is today, then increasing the penalty to infinite amounts will do little to increase compliance. That penalty is already high enough to bankrupt most individuals and many people remain undeterred.
*In money, convenience, reward, etc.
Who said a Democracy only functions until the people realize they can vote themselves other peoples property?
Y'know, today's copyright holders call this stuff their "property", but it only got that way because we (through our elected represenatives) voted it to them. Lately, the *IAA has been voting themselves more and more things -- things that should have been our public domain. If votes about "property" can kill democracy, then already our country is not among the living.
"By vote begun, by vote undone." --Member of Parliament Barbossa, floor speech for the repeal of the Curse of the Black Copyright (2006)
Who said a Democracy only functions until the people realize they can vote themselves other peoples property?
I dunno, but shortly after the first vote, we'll probably realize that other people can vote themselves our property, too.
In the ensuing debate, it will be pointed out that property is an artificial concept. In the end, "my property" = {things that you and I agree won't be taken from me without my consent}. At that point, we're right back where we started: in a democracy.
First ask, are they famous because they blogged or did they blog because they're famous?
that the Palm - PalmOne - Palmsource - Palm Trademark Holding Corp. saga isn't all that different from the first few chapters of the Santa Cruz Operation - Caldera - SCO story, lo these many years ago. I guess I'll just have to RAFO.
or is the Palm - PalmOne - Palmsource - Palm Trademark Holding saga starting to sound like New Coke, Old Coke?
Ah... it's rare to see jokes of that mettle around here.
True, but this is slashdot. Perhaps you should try kuro5hin.
Is the grandparent daft? Liberals shudder every time the phrase "drive down the property values" is invoked. Just typing it has given me the screaming willies.
Zoning laws and housing codes are a quintessentially conservative (in the sense of I-have-something-and-I-want-to-keep-on-having-it) proposition.
PAID PLACEMENT.
This has been true from the yellow pages to Yahoo Maps to now. These services don't show what's there; they show only that subset of things they want us to know about. When a mapping service shows ALL businesses, not just those who pay, we will flock to it.
Why, in that embarrasing way that the phrase doesn't really mean, of course. ;) Thanks for the link.
I just hope they don't execute Order 66...
Which begs the question: "what were the other 65 orders?"
He proposed to give a talk on the benefits of P2P and talk about the law relating to P2P and copyright in Spain. He proposed to demo what sort of legal uses one could make of copyrighted works from P2P networks, and informed the Spanish collecting society, the national police and the attorney general to let them know what he was up to.
Does anyone know what he actually said?
Oh, we're definitely straying from the topic. But why not?
The ipod example* shows extracting something by threat. The second example shows extracting something by use of force (assuming the cop eventually shoots the guy). The third example shows overcharing.
The possibilities are: (1) these fit the definition and are extortion; (2) these fit the definition, but aren't extortion because they're not "undue" under their special circumstances; (3) these fit the definition, but aren't extortion because of the various exceptions you mention; (4) ??.
Since we agree these aren't extortion, (1) is false. My (2) sort of gives the definition more credit than it maybe deserves by supposing that the poor little word "undue" can stand for all the special circumstances. Actually, I think that (3) is the most true. Which means that the definition itself would make a poor law since it leaves out a lot of important information about exceptions.
[*I was thinking of an ipod that I had loaned to the guy but that he later refused to return.]
there are passengers, and there are drivers. And there are vehicles that don't want either.
Great. That's just great.
Oh good gravey! How are we ever going to get any respect when we can't even summarize the first paragraph of an article right?
Extortion n. 1. The act of extorting; the act or practice of wresting anything from a person by force, by threats, or by any undue exercise of power; undue exaction; overcharge.
;-) That's what makes it fun.)
There's a lot of room in the word "undue". For instance, "I'll sue you if you don't give me back my iPod" isn't exactly extortion. Nor is the policeman who says "Put your hostage or I will shoot you" committing extortion. I'd even hazard to say that the theatre that sells popcorn for $7 isn't committing extortion, but YMMV.
The point? Dictionary definitions are seldom clear enough to be a law all by themselves. (Nor are most laws clear enough to make good dictionary definitions.
TFA stated a confusing idea right: Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates on Thursday countered the popular notion that workers are universally overloaded with too much information.
TFAS, OTOH, garbled it: "Microsoft's . . . meet-and-greet kicked off on Thursday with . . . Gates . . . countering the notion that the workers today are not overloaded with information.
Welcome to slashdot, I guess.
We have two reasons for sending people to prison . . .
Actually, there are several more than that. In no particular order:
(a) to incapcitate them (while they are locked up) from committing another crime
(b) to deter them (after they get out) from committing a second crime (specific deterence)
(c) to deter others from committing a similar crime (general deterence)
(d) to hurt them (retribution)
(e) to reform them (rehabilitation)
(f) to express our condemnation of the crime (denunciation)
This page does as good a job as any of defining the jargon. Some punishments (other than jail) are also designed to restore to a victim something that was taken from him/her (compensation).
(a) "You first. If you eliminate all your activities of which I disapprove, I'll reciprocate."
(b) No one is obligated to give. That's one of the things that freedom means.
(c) I give already in other ways. I have given enough.