Don't bother. "I might go back over it and look for actual information" is a lie.
Alcohol is as well, but there's simply no chance in cutting society's ties to that particular substance (even though we see how damaging it can be).
See that sentence?
FyberOptic is immune to thought on this issue. It's like when someone tries to patent something obvious, but "on a computer", or tries to spin some crime as being totally different because it's "on a computer"; In FyberOptic's case, alcohol is clearly not prohibitable, because we tried that and it didn't work, but any other drug is prohibitable until proven otherwise, because those drugs aren't alcohol. Even when seventy-four years of trying to get rid of Substance X has only made it more popular, he's sure it's still possible to "cut society's ties" with Substance X...
About half of the open petitions are calling for sacking the drug czar because she won't individually respond to each of other bunch of pot legalization petitions. The petitions that aren't about drugs are poorly written...
They're calling for the resignation of the drug czar because HIS response was poorly written. Nothing, not one goddamn thing, in Gil Kerlikowske's blanket response can't be countered with "because pot is illegal" or "while alcohol and tobacco remain legal".
Except for the part about him being a police chief for years, which pretty much automatically disqualifies him from making unbiased judgements about drug policy wholly and forever. He DIRECTLY PROFITED from prohibition throughout his career.
Even according to a pro-marijuana website I found, alcohol related deaths number in the tens of thousands. They did give marijuana a goose egg, but I'd question the validity of that considering that it's not something that can typically be medically determined at this stage.
"At this stage"?!? You imagine there's some future "stage" at which a lethal dose of pot will be discovered, and based on THAT, you doubt the validity of the result?
Next election I'm probably going to be voting for him. Because the other option will be a lot worse.
Cowardly thinking like this is why our country sucks.
VOTE FOR WHO YOU LIKE. If someone in a Big Two party wants your vote, make them fucking earn it. If you vote for some third-party candidate, that sends a VERY STRONG message to them that, to get your vote, THEY NEED TO CHANGE.
Don't believe me? Take a look at what the Greens did to the Democratic party in 2000, and what the Tea Party is doing to the Republican platform right fucking now.
Voting for a canditate because you think he might win is terrorized thinking. It tells the party that they don't have to do what you want to get your vote, because you're pissy-pants scared that the other guy might win. BOTH major parties play this angle like it's the Holy Grail of propaganda, and the only time they EVER change their platforms to include one fucking iota of common sense is when said Holy Grail doesn't work and people vote positively.
Google and Facebook are, no doubt, going to send mountains of lawyers to stop this one.
Why should they? They're far too large to attack, even if the law is against them. They could just sit back and let the Content Middleman Industry destroy after any newer, smaller competitors that happen to pop up, while sitting safe and secure behind their nuclear arsenal of lawyers...
There have been studies that the strength of the stress response is largely set in early life. What you stress out over is up to you, but once you stress, the biochemical response is largely based on early trauma.
So, if you get a heart attack from stress, it's because you were stressed as a child AND your job is killing you.
Digital data is unique as it can be copied over and over again without loosing anything.
What'll really bake your noodle is: Digital data can be copied over and over again without producing anything of value.
In fact, the only thing that gives value to digital data is access restriction. Data that everyone has access to isn't worth anything.
What makes, for example, a book valuable, is: you can't point your magic wand at it and magically produce a copy of it. As soon as you can, the book itself loses all value. Only the original writing of the book is worth paying for, at that point -- original creation is perfect access restriction.
Copyright is good. Linux uses it, news sources use it, our society practically requires it to function properly.
That's like saying "LAWYERS ARE GOOD." Just because something is seen as a necessity doesn't automatically make it peachy keen nifty neato. Are nuclear bombs good because the USA has them?
Our society does not practically require copyright to function properly. It's outlived its usefulness. Society needs to change to adapt to the existence of computers, and copyright is one of the biggest wooly mammoths of its age. Flawlessly adapted for its original environment, hopelessly lost in the new.
It is about protecting the public, but not in the sense that the GP believes.
It is about protecting the public by keeping an incentive for the produces of works of art, to keep producing. That incentive is financial compensation. It allows them to produce these works as a job, rather than in their free time, allowing them to produce more. This then provides more options for public consumption.
This USED to be what Strong Copyright was about, but back when you were little/before you were born, it got hijacked into a system to protect corporate profits indefinitely. This was even before computer technology reduced the discrete value of any copy of information to zero.
There's arguments for some kind of patronage system - but what incentive do the patrons have - if it is a painting, something where the original can be easily determined and have a set value, something displayable on a wall for all to see, with appreciating value, then that is one thing. But with books, music and movies, that doesn't work so well.
Crowdsourced patronage is the ONLY technological way to restrict access to digital or digitizable works. Get people to pay to have it made, and then make the product and publish it. Just like movies and books and records are made now, but without the now-absurd step of a middleman trying to sell things that have no value and taking the lion's share of the money in return.
But it seems that no DRM scheme has been unbreakable so far, so these sorts of draconian 'copyright' measures endorsed by smut kingpins and other content providers are simply another way to use the powers of the state to protect their economic interests.
DRM is inherently breakable. You have to crack it open to use it. There is a legal way to do this, and an illegal way to do this, but one way or another, they're handing the keys to the same party they're attempting to restrict. Social factors, such as the powers of the State, or user apathy/co-operation, are THE ONLY thing that allows DRM to work.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't bother. "I might go back over it and look for actual information" is a lie.
Alcohol is as well, but there's simply no chance in cutting society's ties to that particular substance (even though we see how damaging it can be).
See that sentence?
FyberOptic is immune to thought on this issue. It's like when someone tries to patent something obvious, but "on a computer", or tries to spin some crime as being totally different because it's "on a computer"; In FyberOptic's case, alcohol is clearly not prohibitable, because we tried that and it didn't work, but any other drug is prohibitable until proven otherwise, because those drugs aren't alcohol. Even when seventy-four years of trying to get rid of Substance X has only made it more popular, he's sure it's still possible to "cut society's ties" with Substance X...
About half of the open petitions are calling for sacking the drug czar because she won't individually respond to each of other bunch of pot legalization petitions. The petitions that aren't about drugs are poorly written...
They're calling for the resignation of the drug czar because HIS response was poorly written. Nothing, not one goddamn thing, in Gil Kerlikowske's blanket response can't be countered with "because pot is illegal" or "while alcohol and tobacco remain legal".
Except for the part about him being a police chief for years, which pretty much automatically disqualifies him from making unbiased judgements about drug policy wholly and forever. He DIRECTLY PROFITED from prohibition throughout his career.
Even according to a pro-marijuana website I found, alcohol related deaths number in the tens of thousands. They did give marijuana a goose egg, but I'd question the validity of that considering that it's not something that can typically be medically determined at this stage.
"At this stage"?!? You imagine there's some future "stage" at which a lethal dose of pot will be discovered, and based on THAT, you doubt the validity of the result?
Some scientist YOU are.
Next election I'm probably going to be voting for him. Because the other option will be a lot worse.
Cowardly thinking like this is why our country sucks.
VOTE FOR WHO YOU LIKE. If someone in a Big Two party wants your vote, make them fucking earn it. If you vote for some third-party candidate, that sends a VERY STRONG message to them that, to get your vote, THEY NEED TO CHANGE.
Don't believe me? Take a look at what the Greens did to the Democratic party in 2000, and what the Tea Party is doing to the Republican platform right fucking now.
Voting for a canditate because you think he might win is terrorized thinking. It tells the party that they don't have to do what you want to get your vote, because you're pissy-pants scared that the other guy might win. BOTH major parties play this angle like it's the Holy Grail of propaganda, and the only time they EVER change their platforms to include one fucking iota of common sense is when said Holy Grail doesn't work and people vote positively.
He doesn't mean ALL the veins, you doofus.
Its 1st, but capitalized.
Or much higher than the market will bear. See movies, music.
Obligatory Bob the Angry Flower.
B.S. Copyright is a good thing overall, I think. Countless authors over the centuries owe their livelihoods to the existence of copyright.
...and then the computer was invented, with which it is entirely incompatible, as it renders copies valueless.
1. Political Party
2. Cares about liberty
3. Isn't Nut-Jobs
Pick any two.
Google and Facebook are, no doubt, going to send mountains of lawyers to stop this one.
Why should they? They're far too large to attack, even if the law is against them. They could just sit back and let the Content Middleman Industry destroy after any newer, smaller competitors that happen to pop up, while sitting safe and secure behind their nuclear arsenal of lawyers...
Google's annual profit is bigger than the recording industry's entire revenue
RIAA: Lawsuit time, fuckers!
Google: I crap bigger than you.
There have been studies that the strength of the stress response is largely set in early life. What you stress out over is up to you, but once you stress, the biochemical response is largely based on early trauma.
So, if you get a heart attack from stress, it's because you were stressed as a child AND your job is killing you.
Solar panel manufacture is not a problem you can just throw cheap labor at.
Could Microsoft "control" you into buying Zune?
No, but they could damn well make it impossible to buy something else, by putting smaller competitors out of business.
Yes, but since they were not employees of the crown, they would not have been working on computers with this technology.
In ten years or so, every single citizen of the UK will be working on computers with this technology.
Digital data is unique as it can be copied over and over again without loosing anything.
What'll really bake your noodle is: Digital data can be copied over and over again without producing anything of value.
In fact, the only thing that gives value to digital data is access restriction. Data that everyone has access to isn't worth anything.
What makes, for example, a book valuable, is: you can't point your magic wand at it and magically produce a copy of it. As soon as you can, the book itself loses all value. Only the original writing of the book is worth paying for, at that point -- original creation is perfect access restriction.
Copyright is good. Linux uses it, news sources use it, our society practically requires it to function properly.
That's like saying "LAWYERS ARE GOOD." Just because something is seen as a necessity doesn't automatically make it peachy keen nifty neato. Are nuclear bombs good because the USA has them?
Our society does not practically require copyright to function properly. It's outlived its usefulness. Society needs to change to adapt to the existence of computers, and copyright is one of the biggest wooly mammoths of its age. Flawlessly adapted for its original environment, hopelessly lost in the new.
Anyway, anonymity is not a pre-requisite of free speech
It is, however, an absolute requirement when speaking out against an unjust authority who has power over the speaker.
This is why those who argue against anonymity are, so very, very often, unjust authorities.
It is about protecting the public, but not in the sense that the GP believes.
It is about protecting the public by keeping an incentive for the produces of works of art, to keep producing. That incentive is financial compensation. It allows them to produce these works as a job, rather than in their free time, allowing them to produce more. This then provides more options for public consumption.
This USED to be what Strong Copyright was about, but back when you were little/before you were born, it got hijacked into a system to protect corporate profits indefinitely. This was even before computer technology reduced the discrete value of any copy of information to zero.
There's arguments for some kind of patronage system - but what incentive do the patrons have - if it is a painting, something where the original can be easily determined and have a set value, something displayable on a wall for all to see, with appreciating value, then that is one thing. But with books, music and movies, that doesn't work so well.
Crowdsourced patronage is the ONLY technological way to restrict access to digital or digitizable works. Get people to pay to have it made, and then make the product and publish it. Just like movies and books and records are made now, but without the now-absurd step of a middleman trying to sell things that have no value and taking the lion's share of the money in return.
Please, please, please, please, PLEASE please please tell me he'll be setting up a time synchronization server.
But it seems that no DRM scheme has been unbreakable so far, so these sorts of draconian 'copyright' measures endorsed by smut kingpins and other content providers are simply another way to use the powers of the state to protect their economic interests.
DRM is inherently breakable. You have to crack it open to use it. There is a legal way to do this, and an illegal way to do this, but one way or another, they're handing the keys to the same party they're attempting to restrict. Social factors, such as the powers of the State, or user apathy/co-operation, are THE ONLY thing that allows DRM to work.
Slashdot doesn't have a "boot, stamping on a human face, forever" icon.
the ruling class exists to have a great life and we, the 99%, exist to support them and serve them.
...and/or invent a special machine to cut their heads off.
Maybe Little Johnny shouldn't borrow $100,000 if he doesn't have a reasonable plan for a career after graduation
Maybe you should have told him that six years ago when he started college, O Mighty Oracle. I bet his plan seemed pretty sound back then.