Well, a subnet is a very tiny net you put in your hair to keep stray hairs from getting in the food, routed protocols go someplace, while unrouted ones stay in your inbox forever, and my handwriting isn't very good so I usually print instead of using script...
It's the age old smart sock/dumb sock problem. The smart sock hops from sweater to towel and slowly escapes to the land of sock. The dumb sock stays with its original owner, getting put on feet, sweated into, and, finally, thrown away.
As much as I hate to agree with this by and large I have to.
3 reasons:
1. I grew up in rural Maine. I knew a LOT of people who deliberately worked the welfare system. It wasn't that they were stupid, it was that they preferred to NOT work as much as they could. I hung out with these people, I dated these people. This exists.
2. (really another version of 1) -- My mother owns her own business. People have claimed to have applied for work there on their welfare forms when they had not (welfare calls and checks up sometimes) Also -- people would come in when she was not hiring and "apply" for a job to fulfill the welfare rules.
3. 2 years ago, after I quit a career in the theatre (being a very skilled seamstress pays LOTS less than a somewhat skilled web developer -- go figure)I spent a while QUITE poor, and then a while in a HORRIBLE job for health insurance while I got skills that actually paid. It helps that I like it, but nevertheless, it was a bit of a journey from needles to computers.
Where am I going with this -- welfare can be a very helpful hand up for people who need it (I never used it, thank you) but is VERY abused. People can learn the skills necessary to get out of poverty.
Come now, Ayn Rand is wonderful and fun and a great light read. But her books are akin to romance novels -- over simplified fantasy that illustrates a few basic ideas (Rand nicely summarizes hers at the end of her books in the "in case you missed it" speeches by the protagonists.)
Re:A real review of the book
on
Selfish Society
·
· Score: 2
What a great review -- informative and clear rather than rabble-rousing.
Obviously it's not necessary in any immediate, practical sense to know the year of the Magna Carta.
No, but the Magna Carta (1215, BTW) set the groundwork for our modern justice system with the idea that the accused has the right to trial by a jury of his peers. It is a rather important document in western history, which is why any decent western histort class should discuss it, preferably at some length so you understand its relevance, not just when it was signed.
(OK, John first called "Lackland" (as his father, Henry, and mother, Eleanor of Aquitane (who was a minor figure in the start of the 100 years war, married two kings, mothered several, and left all her land to Richard the Lionhearted) didn't give him squat) ended up king of England (he was also known as "Bad King John), mostly because all his older brothers died. He was so utterly oppressive that the English Baronry rose up and demanded he sign the Magna Carta (great letter? great something -- my Latin has gone to hell it would seem) to make sure he couldn't keep stripping them of land, titles and freedom without any sort of trial. It originally only assured landed, titled men to trial by a jury of thier peers, but it was a pretty important start)
Freedom of speech is important, yes, but remember that freedom can be revoked when it threatens and infringes on the rights of others.
WHAT!
No. Wrong. Who ARE you that you think this? In the most general of terms the First Amendment doesn't cover speech that SPECIFICALLY endangers others (the old -- you can't yell fire in a crowded movie theatre)
Please please please don't go through life thinking that your various civil freedoms are that easy to take away.
Hey, I've had ACs on slashdot say MUCH worse things to me, and I survived. And she does sound painfully stupid. (And I'm female, so that assessment can't possibly be sexist. Mean and judgemental maybe, but not sexist)
Well, for the record, I am a feminist. Which mean that I believe that everyone (male, female, other) should have equal political and economic rights and responsibilities.
It's sad that feminism has become dominated by high profile wackos who keep journals about the wonders of thier menstrual cycles and babble on about how all men are rapists in hiding, so that most women shun the label as being contaminated.
Re:review of Katz's review (summary: katz != siske
on
Slashdot Meets X-Men
·
· Score: 1
His biggest problem was that Stewart and McKellen's acting almost totally overwhelm the movie.
What a strange criticism -- those actors are just too darn good. What, should that have hired BAD actors?
I refuse to accept that my 4th amendment rights protecting me from unreasonable search and seizure should be violated because there are criminals. I have done nothing wrong (and, if I have, that must be proven, innocent until proven guilty, and all that) and should not get punished, spied upon, or evesdropped upon simply because someone else has.
Ummm...people do have control over their lives. No one forces people to buy expensive houses/cars/toys or to work at the kind of jobs required to sustain that lifestyle. If your job makes you too stressed -- find another one, change your lifestyle. OK, that sounds over-simplified, but I left a career I hated with hours that were making me miserable (professional theatre) so I know it can be done.
So which things of yours would you not consider legitimate possessions? How about your intelligence, your talents, your ability to produce? If I find a way to get your skills from you against your will for nothing, is that OK?
Those basic laws of supply and demand tend to set prices for music and sneakers, and just about anything (except monopolies -- but that is a different discussion)
You COULD always download the songs you want and then pay the musician directly -- that way you are only paying for what you want without screwing the artist over.
In my original post I conceded that there are some people who have strong personal beliefs regarding copyright law (who, because I wish to think the best of people, I will assume follow through on their beliefs and make their work publicily available) but that as far as I can tell most people are just pleased they can get "something for nothing". If you truly feel that copyright laws are unjust, and are willing to "put your money where your mouth is", I have no problems with your use of napster and its ilk. However, using other people's convictions which you do not share to justify depriving someone of payment for their work is cowardly, filled with a rather unattractive form of self-justification, and, in the end, just plain theft.
As you exercise your right of civil disobedience (and I will assume that you feel deeply about copyright law, have studied the laws, and thought at length about them and have concluded they are unjust, not that you have leapt onto the "cause of the month") do keep in mind that many artists depend on what they earn from their art to support themselves. If you copy their music freely you deprive them of income, and will eventually drive smaller, less mainstream artists out of business. It costs money to make the recordings people download -- if you don't have cash you can't record. Once these smaller artists can't afford to record, all that will be available in recorded format will be "big label" offerings. If you wished to pay artists and avoid the corporate empire, you could always download their stuff then send them a check for whatever it's worth to you.
There are some ethical reasons to pay artists, and some practical ones. You may select the reason you prefer, or decide that not only do you firmly believe in the free exchange of music/software/etc, but that you figure the artists shouldn't expect to get paid. I mean, they can still perform live, right?
Do you beleive it is morally right for you to obtain a product or service for free when the artist producing said product has made clear they wish to be payed for their work? In obtaining their work for free, you are not only expressly going against thier wishes, but depriving them of thier livelihood. How is this in any way right?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, a subnet is a very tiny net you put in your hair to keep stray hairs from getting in the food, routed protocols go someplace, while unrouted ones stay in your inbox forever, and my handwriting isn't very good so I usually print instead of using script...
It's the age old smart sock/dumb sock problem. The smart sock hops from sweater to towel and slowly escapes to the land of sock. The dumb sock stays with its original owner, getting put on feet, sweated into, and, finally, thrown away.
I mean, wouldn't YOU try to escape?
Note: -- I gote the PIN on Friday, August 11.
As much as I hate to agree with this by and large I have to.
3 reasons:
1. I grew up in rural Maine. I knew a LOT of people who deliberately worked the welfare system. It wasn't that they were stupid, it was that they preferred to NOT work as much as they could. I hung out with these people, I dated these people. This exists.
2. (really another version of 1) -- My mother owns her own business. People have claimed to have applied for work there on their welfare forms when they had not (welfare calls and checks up sometimes) Also -- people would come in when she was not hiring and "apply" for a job to fulfill the welfare rules.
3. 2 years ago, after I quit a career in the theatre (being a very skilled seamstress pays LOTS less than a somewhat skilled web developer -- go figure)I spent a while QUITE poor, and then a while in a HORRIBLE job for health insurance while I got skills that actually paid. It helps that I like it, but nevertheless, it was a bit of a journey from needles to computers.
Where am I going with this -- welfare can be a very helpful hand up for people who need it (I never used it, thank you) but is VERY abused. People can learn the skills necessary to get out of poverty.
I confess -- I couldn't make it all the way through the damn speech.
I've got you beat -- I signed up July 14, and still don't have my PIN.
Well, I can't argue with you about the beer...
Come now, Ayn Rand is wonderful and fun and a great light read. But her books are akin to romance novels -- over simplified fantasy that illustrates a few basic ideas (Rand nicely summarizes hers at the end of her books in the "in case you missed it" speeches by the protagonists.)
What a great review -- informative and clear rather than rabble-rousing.
Obviously it's not necessary in any immediate, practical sense to know the year of the Magna Carta.
No, but the Magna Carta (1215, BTW) set the groundwork for our modern justice system with the idea that the accused has the right to trial by a jury of his peers. It is a rather important document in western history, which is why any decent western histort class should discuss it, preferably at some length so you understand its relevance, not just when it was signed.
(OK, John first called "Lackland" (as his father, Henry, and mother, Eleanor of Aquitane (who was a minor figure in the start of the 100 years war, married two kings, mothered several, and left all her land to Richard the Lionhearted) didn't give him squat) ended up king of England (he was also known as "Bad King John), mostly because all his older brothers died. He was so utterly oppressive that the English Baronry rose up and demanded he sign the Magna Carta (great letter? great something -- my Latin has gone to hell it would seem) to make sure he couldn't keep stripping them of land, titles and freedom without any sort of trial. It originally only assured landed, titled men to trial by a jury of thier peers, but it was a pretty important start)
Freedom of speech is important, yes, but remember that freedom can be revoked when it threatens and infringes on the rights of others.
WHAT!
No. Wrong. Who ARE you that you think this? In the most general of terms the First Amendment doesn't cover speech that SPECIFICALLY endangers others (the old -- you can't yell fire in a crowded movie theatre)
Please please please don't go through life thinking that your various civil freedoms are that easy to take away.
Hey, I've had ACs on slashdot say MUCH worse things to me, and I survived. And she does sound painfully stupid. (And I'm female, so that assessment can't possibly be sexist. Mean and judgemental maybe, but not sexist)
I am not a feminist, I believe in equality.
Well, for the record, I am a feminist. Which mean that I believe that everyone (male, female, other) should have equal political and economic rights and responsibilities.
It's sad that feminism has become dominated by high profile wackos who keep journals about the wonders of thier menstrual cycles and babble on about how all men are rapists in hiding, so that most women shun the label as being contaminated.
His biggest problem was that Stewart and McKellen's acting almost totally overwhelm the movie.
What a strange criticism -- those actors are just too darn good. What, should that have hired BAD actors?
I refuse to accept that my 4th amendment rights protecting me from unreasonable search and seizure should be violated because there are criminals. I have done nothing wrong (and, if I have, that must be proven, innocent until proven guilty, and all that) and should not get punished, spied upon, or evesdropped upon simply because someone else has.
Ummm...people do have control over their lives. No one forces people to buy expensive houses/cars/toys or to work at the kind of jobs required to sustain that lifestyle. If your job makes you too stressed -- find another one, change your lifestyle. OK, that sounds over-simplified, but I left a career I hated with hours that were making me miserable (professional theatre) so I know it can be done.
A conservative is a republican who doesn't believe in god.
So which things of yours would you not consider legitimate possessions? How about your intelligence, your talents, your ability to produce? If I find a way to get your skills from you against your will for nothing, is that OK?
Those basic laws of supply and demand tend to set prices for music and sneakers, and just about anything (except monopolies -- but that is a different discussion)
You COULD always download the songs you want and then pay the musician directly -- that way you are only paying for what you want without screwing the artist over.
You pay taxes which support the library -- you are paying for it whether you use it or not, so the parallel isn't terribly good.
It's nice to know someone does -- I've been pretty much burned at the stack as a trolling RIAA loving wacko.
Oh well.
In my original post I conceded that there are some people who have strong personal beliefs regarding copyright law (who, because I wish to think the best of people, I will assume follow through on their beliefs and make their work publicily available) but that as far as I can tell most people are just pleased they can get "something for nothing". If you truly feel that copyright laws are unjust, and are willing to "put your money where your mouth is", I have no problems with your use of napster and its ilk. However, using other people's convictions which you do not share to justify depriving someone of payment for their work is cowardly, filled with a rather unattractive form of self-justification, and, in the end, just plain theft.
As you exercise your right of civil disobedience (and I will assume that you feel deeply about copyright law, have studied the laws, and thought at length about them and have concluded they are unjust, not that you have leapt onto the "cause of the month") do keep in mind that many artists depend on what they earn from their art to support themselves. If you copy their music freely you deprive them of income, and will eventually drive smaller, less mainstream artists out of business. It costs money to make the recordings people download -- if you don't have cash you can't record. Once these smaller artists can't afford to record, all that will be available in recorded format will be "big label" offerings. If you wished to pay artists and avoid the corporate empire, you could always download their stuff then send them a check for whatever it's worth to you.
There are some ethical reasons to pay artists, and some practical ones. You may select the reason you prefer, or decide that not only do you firmly believe in the free exchange of music/software/etc, but that you figure the artists shouldn't expect to get paid. I mean, they can still perform live, right?
How does the fact that the record labels essentially steal from artists make it OK for you to do so?
OK, forget legality --
Do you beleive it is morally right for you to obtain a product or service for free when the artist producing said product has made clear they wish to be payed for their work? In obtaining their work for free, you are not only expressly going against thier wishes, but depriving them of thier livelihood. How is this in any way right?