Whoever wrote a script that doesn't start with "What have you already tried? [check off all steps already attempted by customer]" should consider another line of work. Something far removed from phones, customer support, troubleshooting, or writing.
I think your wild, conspiratorial accusations are completely out of line.
Slashdot and its biases theories aside, there are a lot of grown ups out in the world who have looked at IP law in general and, while perhaps accepting that there are occasional absurdities and oddities around the edges that do need to be worked out, have concluded that it is fundamentally good.
They are fundamentally wrong.
The absurdity and oddity is at the CORE of this thing:
1) Copies of things in computers have no intrinsic value. You gain nothing of value when you create them, and lose nothing of value when you destroy them. 2) Copyright grants an exclusive right to make copies. 3) Copyright, on computers, gives an exclusive right to sell something that has no value
Only access has value. Making copies is a great way to grant access, but everyone can do that part by themselves for free now, for anything digitizable. We don't need to pay someone to do that anymore.
Old business models in this new enviroment are insane at a base level: pay out-of-pocket for the valuable part, the creation of the work, and then try to recoup costs by selling value-free copies of the work that anyone can create with a twitch of their finger. Fucking bizarre.
They (we) have looked for this from multiple angles, including econonomic theory, economic REALITY (we now have excellent examples of rates of development vs strength of IP regulation - and guess what - IPR does seem to matter quite a bit), and ethics.
When you look at it from a computer science reality angle, you run into an insurmountable problem: Bits don't have "Colour" can't be made to have "Colour"; the property doesn't exist in Computerland. Yet IP law is absolutely 100% "Colour" dependent.
Solution: Break one of the following things: IP Law, Computers. Your pick.
You may disagree - you may have your own arguments against IPR - fine, fair enough - but for you to immediately proclaim " I suspect it's rare with members of the various parts of the judicial system in the field of IP who do not have significant financial interest in enforcing IP. Whether it's revolving door interest or more blatant abuses the field of government granted monopolies has always been lucrative for those on the inside, which probably makes the field very attractive for those with slightly lower ideals than what could be expected in a judiciary." is irresponsible and juvenile.
Somebody hit a nerve?
IPR will remain broken as long as it remains so deeply fixated on trying to monetize copies. Patent and trademark law will be a lot better off without that albatross around their necks.
As a youngster I remember my grandmother serving me peaches her brother had canned 40 years earlier during the Great Depression. They'd lost color and turned grey but tasted good.
They were probably that color when they went in the can, actually. According to the movies and documentary footage I've seen from the era, everything was in black & white back then.
Maybe you do it voluntarily but many people are not lucky enough to have that choice. By doing 80 hour weeks you are pretty much forcing other people to do them as well if they want a job, otherwise they are not going to get the work.
It's worse than that -- the selfish prick is also putting someone else out of a job entirely, by allowing his employer to not have to hire another person to put the hours in.
Under normal economic conditions, people with two or three jobs are hard-working and industrious. When there are four unemployed people per open position, people with two or three jobs are fucking assholes.
Someone has to pay the salary of the people building it during that time,
Yes, and that someone is the people buying previous games from the publisher. That's where the money comes from: people pretending that copies have value, so that the delusional fuckers controlling the purse strings will pony up some portion of the take to make the next game.
Right now, the prices we pay for games shoulder every goddamn dollar of risk on the next one. Sometimes within the company itself, or, if the company fails, through layers of VCs who made their money on successful titles that we paid for. Ultimately, we're paying for every game to be made, already.
Yes, people will need to understand that they will shoulder that risk directly, instead of having it obfuscated and tacked on to the list price of whatever popular AAA title. But all that will change is the perspective, and the cut that the publishers were taking. The actual process of paying people to make games, and the ultimate costs to the end user of failures of that process, will remain effectively unchanged.
I wasn't logged in, but to repeat my question (which is sincere—I'm trying to understand the science, not defend Akin's claims):
I'm confused about the numbers in the paper's abstract. They say the pregnancy rate is 5%, and the number of resulting pregnancies annually in the U.S. is 32,000. That means the number of incidents of rape is 640,000.
Other sources claim the number of reported rapes in the U.S. is around 90,000. How do we reconcile these numbers? Surely the authors don't claim that 86% of rapes in the U.S. go unreported?
No, they're claiming that 100% of rapes in the study were reported.
Person is inside of your jurisdiction so you can murder them? That's the argument I just got.
Shame it isn't the one I gave. Person is OUTSIDE YOUR JURISDICTION unless you claim ownership of someone else's body.
Any person in my house can be shot in the face.
Your house is not your body. Bullshit argument.
Seriously. The argument that there is "another individual entirely within the body of a full-grown human being" has very little bearing on whether or not you can kill said individual.
It has EVERY bearing. Even if you grant full human rights to a newly-formed zygote, it does not have the right to infringe on the rights of other individuals.
More importantly, you have no standing to demand that someone else's fundamental rights be infringed on behalf of that individual.
There is no practical moral difference between the state having the authority to demand that a woman remain pregnant and the state having the authority to demand that a woman become pregnant. In both cases, other people are claiming the exact same right of ownership over her body.
If we agree that said individual is indeed a person, with rights, and that being inside that body for a limited time is the only way for said person to survive, then it is absolutely insane to attempt some warped justification of killing them.
So, you'd argue that if the only way to save someone's life were to give them one of your organs, it would be okay to do so without your consent, right? It would be "absolutely insane" to allow you to say "no," right?
If your body belongs to someone else you have no meaningful rights at all. That shit may fly in China but as far as I'm concerned it can fucking stay there.
Basically one group sees the woman as a caregiver who has by her actions taken over care of another individual currently incapacitated from caring for themselves, and doesn't believe a woman should be allowed to casually withdraw care given that it is 100% likely to lead to the death of said individual. The other group says that said individual is currently entirely within the body of a full-grown human being, and therefore no one else's fucking business, on account of no one else can claim ownership of her fucking body save for her own fucking self.
Repaired.
Sure, go ahead and grant our government legal jurisdiction over your living internal organs. I'm sure that will work out JUST FINE.
I'd say that wealth being passed to offspring is ovewhelmingly more predictive of future wealth of that offspring than are genes getting passed to them.
There was a political scandal with the CIA smuggling suspected terrorists from Sweden to an egyptian CIA run prison where they were tortured, and no politician in Sweden will want to be involved in anything related to extradictions and the US again.
Why, if all them criminals and terrorists were to get iPhones, they'd just be able to blab anything they wanted all day long and there ain't a durn thing we could do to crack 'em, nope. Why, I don't know what we'd do then, no sirree. I sure hope them criminals don't all go out and buy iPhones to openly talk about crime to each other on or nothin'...
In other words cutting something into cold bits and pieces instead of trying to blow it up.
They'd also need to separate the bits at more than the escape velocity of the asteroid, otherwise they'd just fall back together into a big lump nearly indistinguishable from a solid object.
Slashdot Mirror
They HAVE to follow the script.
Whoever wrote a script that doesn't start with "What have you already tried? [check off all steps already attempted by customer]" should consider another line of work. Something far removed from phones, customer support, troubleshooting, or writing.
I think your wild, conspiratorial accusations are completely out of line.
Slashdot and its biases theories aside, there are a lot of grown ups out in the world who have looked at IP law in general and, while perhaps accepting that there are occasional absurdities and oddities around the edges that do need to be worked out, have concluded that it is fundamentally good.
They are fundamentally wrong.
The absurdity and oddity is at the CORE of this thing:
1) Copies of things in computers have no intrinsic value. You gain nothing of value when you create them, and lose nothing of value when you destroy them.
2) Copyright grants an exclusive right to make copies.
3) Copyright, on computers, gives an exclusive right to sell something that has no value
Only access has value. Making copies is a great way to grant access, but everyone can do that part by themselves for free now, for anything digitizable. We don't need to pay someone to do that anymore.
Old business models in this new enviroment are insane at a base level: pay out-of-pocket for the valuable part, the creation of the work, and then try to recoup costs by selling value-free copies of the work that anyone can create with a twitch of their finger. Fucking bizarre.
They (we) have looked for this from multiple angles, including econonomic theory, economic REALITY (we now have excellent examples of rates of development vs strength of IP regulation - and guess what - IPR does seem to matter quite a bit), and ethics.
When you look at it from a computer science reality angle, you run into an insurmountable problem: Bits don't have "Colour" can't be made to have "Colour"; the property doesn't exist in Computerland. Yet IP law is absolutely 100% "Colour" dependent.
Solution: Break one of the following things: IP Law, Computers. Your pick.
You may disagree - you may have your own arguments against IPR - fine, fair enough - but for you to immediately proclaim " I suspect it's rare with members of the various parts of the judicial system in the field of IP who do not have significant financial interest in enforcing IP. Whether it's revolving door interest or more blatant abuses the field of government granted monopolies has always been lucrative for those on the inside, which probably makes the field very attractive for those with slightly lower ideals than what could be expected in a judiciary." is irresponsible and juvenile.
Somebody hit a nerve?
IPR will remain broken as long as it remains so deeply fixated on trying to monetize copies. Patent and trademark law will be a lot better off without that albatross around their necks.
As a youngster I remember my grandmother serving me peaches her brother had canned 40 years earlier during the Great Depression. They'd lost color and turned grey but tasted good.
They were probably that color when they went in the can, actually. According to the movies and documentary footage I've seen from the era, everything was in black & white back then.
without government regulation or fear of monopolies.
I think there's a fundamental flaw in their definition.
That's strange; I thought it was Timothy Ray Brown the only man to be officially declared cured from AIDS.
Except despite the headline, what the actual article you linked correctly points out is that he's the only man officially delcared cured from HIV.
Those people who have HIV but never develop AIDS still have HIV.
Attopeen, you idiot.
Seriously, how do you fuck that up? HOW do you FUCK THAT UP?!
I think you are making his point. Why is it ok to demand Romney's tax records, but Obama's college records and transcript are off limits?
Because Obama's OWN FATHER didn't start a precedent for a long-standing tradition of political candidates releasing college transcripts?
It's not a requirement, of course, but it's a pretty clear test of character. A uniquely damning one in Mitt Romney's case, for obvious reasons.
Maybe you do it voluntarily but many people are not lucky enough to have that choice. By doing 80 hour weeks you are pretty much forcing other people to do them as well if they want a job, otherwise they are not going to get the work.
It's worse than that -- the selfish prick is also putting someone else out of a job entirely, by allowing his employer to not have to hire another person to put the hours in.
Under normal economic conditions, people with two or three jobs are hard-working and industrious. When there are four unemployed people per open position, people with two or three jobs are fucking assholes.
Your stupid, stop driving
Stop posting. Same reason.
Someone has to pay the salary of the people building it during that time,
Yes, and that someone is the people buying previous games from the publisher. That's where the money comes from: people pretending that copies have value, so that the delusional fuckers controlling the purse strings will pony up some portion of the take to make the next game.
Right now, the prices we pay for games shoulder every goddamn dollar of risk on the next one. Sometimes within the company itself, or, if the company fails, through layers of VCs who made their money on successful titles that we paid for. Ultimately, we're paying for every game to be made, already.
Yes, people will need to understand that they will shoulder that risk directly, instead of having it obfuscated and tacked on to the list price of whatever popular AAA title. But all that will change is the perspective, and the cut that the publishers were taking. The actual process of paying people to make games, and the ultimate costs to the end user of failures of that process, will remain effectively unchanged.
Gee Wiz. When IT stops putting up obsticals, people can actually get work accomplished. Who'd of thunk it.
Aw, whoseums confuses longer hourses with more productivities? You do! Yes you do! Wuzzle wuzzle wuzzle.
You're so adorable, with your wee little toes and your backwards ideas about working productivity. I could just eat you up!
I wasn't logged in, but to repeat my question (which is sincere—I'm trying to understand the science, not defend Akin's claims):
I'm confused about the numbers in the paper's abstract. They say the pregnancy rate is 5%, and the number of resulting pregnancies annually in the U.S. is 32,000. That means the number of incidents of rape is 640,000.
Other sources claim the number of reported rapes in the U.S. is around 90,000. How do we reconcile these numbers? Surely the authors don't claim that 86% of rapes in the U.S. go unreported?
No, they're claiming that 100% of rapes in the study were reported.
Person is inside of your jurisdiction so you can murder them? That's the argument I just got.
Shame it isn't the one I gave. Person is OUTSIDE YOUR JURISDICTION unless you claim ownership of someone else's body.
Any person in my house can be shot in the face.
Your house is not your body. Bullshit argument.
Seriously. The argument that there is "another individual entirely within the body of a full-grown human being" has very little bearing on whether or not you can kill said individual.
It has EVERY bearing. Even if you grant full human rights to a newly-formed zygote, it does not have the right to infringe on the rights of other individuals.
More importantly, you have no standing to demand that someone else's fundamental rights be infringed on behalf of that individual.
There is no practical moral difference between the state having the authority to demand that a woman remain pregnant and the state having the authority to demand that a woman become pregnant. In both cases, other people are claiming the exact same right of ownership over her body.
If we agree that said individual is indeed a person, with rights, and that being inside that body for a limited time is the only way for said person to survive, then it is absolutely insane to attempt some warped justification of killing them.
So, you'd argue that if the only way to save someone's life were to give them one of your organs, it would be okay to do so without your consent, right? It would be "absolutely insane" to allow you to say "no," right?
If your body belongs to someone else you have no meaningful rights at all. That shit may fly in China but as far as I'm concerned it can fucking stay there.
Basically one group sees the woman as a caregiver who has by her actions taken over care of another individual currently incapacitated from caring for themselves, and doesn't believe a woman should be allowed to casually withdraw care given that it is 100% likely to lead to the death of said individual. The other group says that said individual is currently entirely within the body of a full-grown human being, and therefore no one else's fucking business, on account of no one else can claim ownership of her fucking body save for her own fucking self.
Repaired.
Sure, go ahead and grant our government legal jurisdiction over your living internal organs. I'm sure that will work out JUST FINE.
But in the end we don't actually much at all.
We don't even what we don't.
I'd say that wealth being passed to offspring is ovewhelmingly more predictive of future wealth of that offspring than are genes getting passed to them.
but if that schedule is rigidly enforced it's going to result in people dying from fatigue caused mistakes, carelessness, or suicide.
Yes, yes it will.
There was a political scandal with the CIA smuggling suspected terrorists from Sweden to an egyptian CIA run prison where they were tortured, and no politician in Sweden will want to be involved in anything related to extradictions and the US again.
Not for free, anyway.
It's an antibacterial agent that weakens your immune system when you're exposed to it.
They should have banned the stupid shit as soon as that was discovered.
"Dammit! I KNEW we forgot something...."
- Vietnamese Constitution authors
FACT: you are a dumbass.
Let the man stand trial in Sweden and then - pending the outcome - offer him asylum.
Asylum from what, exactly?
Why, if all them criminals and terrorists were to get iPhones, they'd just be able to blab anything they wanted all day long and there ain't a durn thing we could do to crack 'em, nope. Why, I don't know what we'd do then, no sirree. I sure hope them criminals don't all go out and buy iPhones to openly talk about crime to each other on or nothin'...
And what distinguishes a sociopath from a normal human?
For one thing, believing that everyone else would act the way they themselves would, if only they were smart enough...
In other words cutting something into cold bits and pieces instead of trying to blow it up.
They'd also need to separate the bits at more than the escape velocity of the asteroid, otherwise they'd just fall back together into a big lump nearly indistinguishable from a solid object.