Let's have a couple of personal examples from the first semester of my senior year in high school: 1st Period - Discrete Math - I slept through class every day. I did my homework twice during the semester. I made A's on my tests and got a C for the course. 2nd Period - Physics - I was awake because the teacher made it interesting. I did my homework once during the semester, but it was never collected anyway, so it didn't count against me. The teacher gave small quizzes every 2-3 days, which I did well on and got an A for the course.
In example 1, it was obvious that despite not attending class (mentally anyway) or doing the homework I still understood the material well enough to make good grades on the tests. Why? I read the textbook! All the teacher did during class (according to those who were awake) was read out of the book or write stuff from the book on the board as examples. However, I was punished for my ability to understand the material without the bullshit.
In example 2, I did the homework when I needed the practice, and otherwise I didn't. It didn't hurt me, and I was rewarded for my grasp of the material.
My point is that kids of this age are always going to hate their schools I wholeheartedly disagree. If schools were about learning instead of about doing work, kids wouldn't hate them so much. If teachers actually taught instead of blandly repeating notes or textbooks, kids would be interested and pay more attention. If attendence wasn't mandatory, you'd be able to figure out which teachers weren't doing their jobs based on which classes people ditched (because the teachers would have to make the kids WANT to go to class). It's not that complicated really. Give people the freedom to choose for themselves, and let them make their own damn mistakes. That's the only way anybody ever learns anything about life anyway -- experience!
Are the new Chinese processors superior to the processors we have? Also, aren't our existing fighters superior to migs and sukkhois anyway? Funding Lockheed Martin is called R&D research. It's an investment in air superiority. That has nothing to do with the Chinese building microprocessors.
Re:Oh and I forgot to address part of your argueme
on
Freenet 0.5.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
Because you have no proof its a mental disorder. we can prove somethings a mental disorder by watching a persons actions, you cannot prove they have a mental disorder just by guessing.
Actually, I do. You don't have to be a doctor to have proof. It's called doing a little reasearch: ASK A DOCTOR!
"Mental health professionals agree that pedophilia should never be considered normal, because it is truly a disease. None of the things that make homosexuality a normal variation of human sexuality apply to pedophilia." -WebMD
Excuse the out-of-order clipping of stuff. If anything is out of context I apologize.
1s and 0s are speech, binary is speech, source code is speech. Everything online is 1s and 0s.
Despite what you say, binary IS speech. Its the number system, its written language.
Again, speech is verbal/vocal. If you don't believe me, click the dictionary.reference.com link in my previous post and see. Binary is NOT speech unless you literally say, "one zero zero zero one one zero one". If I write the number 10001101, 0x8D, or 141, it's still written. It's not spoken and therefore not speech. I really don't see why you're having such a problem with this.
you must understand that if you are going to take the position that freedom of speech is right, and that censorship online is wrong, it must be absolute I think censorship of speech is wrong, and I think censorship of natural-language writing is wrong, but I don't think censorship of photographs is wrong. If you oppose all censorship, what do you think about a guy who hides in the bushes and looks through a window and takes a picture of people having sex. The people find out and sue to have the site shutdown. Do they not have a right to prevent pictures of themselves from being distributed around the world? Of course they do!
you can forget about trying to sue everyone who looks at kiddie porn. I don't want to sue anybody. I want people who are hosting it intentionally to be arrested and people hosting it unintentionally to be forced to get rid of it.
The protection in the real world I agree with, online is not the physical world, I do not believe online should have a government. I'm not talking about some internationall Internet government. I'm talking about existing governments enforcing things within their own borders. If the server is in the US, it's subject to US law. If it's in Germany, it's subject to German law. If there's an American involved, the FBI should track them down and castrate them with a blowtorch.
I will not accept any censorship on the net, I want absolute freedom of expression online, There, you finally used the right term! The problem is, there is no guaranteed freedom of expression anywhere I've ever seen. If I'm wrong, feel free to provide information, but I don't know of anything guaranteed but free speech, assembly, petition, press, and religion.
this is why I'm for P2P Such high ideals. I tend to think you're for P2P because you're a socialist with an overinflated sense of entitlement, but maybe I'm wrong. Who knows?
What did Clinton create? The economic problems we're suffering from today. (Bush's economic policy is just starting to show its effects, as everything he can do takes years to show any improvement.)
We werent at war under Clinton, We're no more at war now than we were under Clinton. He undertook several military operations, though there was no formal declaration of war. Similarly, there was no formal declaration of war for Iraq.
Saddam was not put in power by Clinton, No, but Clinton left him there in Desert Fox (or whichever Desert * his was). Yes, I know Bush Sr. did as well, and I'm equally pissed at him over it, but you act like Dubya doing the Right Thing by getting rid of the bastard was a damnable offense.
Bin Laden was not trained to fight the soviets by Clinton. No, but Clinton had the option to eliminate him, which he refused. Instead, he launched a missile at an empty camp. What a hero!
If you censor childporn you dont truely believe in freedom of speech.
Why the hell not? Childporn isn't speech. Speech is verbal/vocal (look it up). Childporn is rape and abuse. Please note, viewing isn't the issue anymore than hearing is the issue with speech. Storing childporn ANYWHERE should be illegal because possession is illegal. If you think that's about freedom of expression, you're insane. You said yourself it isn't art. The government's job is to protect its citizens, especially the young ones who can't protect themselves, and quite frankly, I'd gladly accept censorship in order to ensure the safety and welfare of my future stepdaughter.
The copying performed by pathogens and of copyrighted mp3s are analogous: Not really. Pathogens copy and distribute themselves. mp3s don't. You don't share a disease; it shares itself. And you do lose the pathogens that are spread, it's just that the rest continue to replicate.
One would never say you had stolen a disease. Actually I've heard of people stealing anthrax. Contracting a disease isn't stealing because the desease, which is its own owner, gives itself to you.
So would you suggest we've "stolen" Plato's idea? Of course not. Plato was ahead of our time. He gave of his ideas freely in the way that one should. At any rate, I still say that idea sharing falls under definition 3 of share, to relate to someone, and therefore the whole jointly/taking turns thing is a non-issue.
And it seems pretty clear to me that "sharing" is a much better verbal approximation of the action of filesharing than is "stealing." To that I agree totally. I'm just saying that both of them are bad terms, and I wish people would call something what it is instead of a. sugarcoating it or b. blowing it way out of proportion.
If I am to believe all the Verizon advertising, two people can share a moment over the phone (and thus in different places). Well, while not the same physical place, I'd consider the phone conversation to put you in the same virtual place because you're still "together" despite the physical distance.
If I'm talking to friends on IRC/aim about music, and I say, "hey, wait, listen to this," the only way to get them to share in the moment is to send them a copy of the file. Again I'd go with that being the same virtual place in the IRC channel or AIM conversation. Also, on AIM you can just crank up your stereo and use the talk feature. On IRC there's no way around sending the file, but directly sending the file is still different from putting it on a server for mass download.
And that should be a felony? Hell no! I think it should be a civil (and non-criminal) matter. I just wish people would use the right words for what they mean. If it's your idea/music/etc, you can freely give it out, and that's sharing in the sense that you're granting them a share in the idea (share, v.t., defn. 4). If it's not your idea/music/etc, you can't grant shares, and therefore, you're distributing, not sharing.
it isn't implied anywhere that the turns need to be taken in series rather then in parallel Yes, it is. It's implied by the definition of taking turns.
v : do something in turns; "We take turns on the night shift" [syn: alternate] --WordNet 1.6 via Dictionary.com
by turns One after another; alternately: "From the... testimony emerges a man by turns devious and honest, vulgar and gallant, scatterbrained and shrewd" (Life). in turn In the proper order or sequence. --The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language via Dictionary.com
I just don't understand why people try to spin this every direction. The law calls it copyright infringement. The RIAA wants to call it theft. The infrengers want to call it sharing. If you're distributing your property, that's sharing (by definition 1). If you're distributing someone else's property, that's copyright infringement. Network shares are called shares because it allows joint use of drive space on the network. The drive is shared. English isn't this complicated.
I didn't miss it. It says to relate to others, and gives a secret as an example. You're not relating the file to others; you're giving it to them. Just because something is kept secret doesn't mean that to reveal that secret is a relation and/or sharing.
What about sharing a disease? You don't share a disease, you transfer a disease. You lose part of the bacteria/virus and they gain part. Compare it to sharing a bowl of cereal. I give half the bowl to my friend, and I have less.
Or sharing a thought with someone? Sharing a thought would probably fall under definition 3 instead of 2, but in any case, I'd argue that you're both using the thought at the same place and time (be it a virtual place or a physical one, you're interacting and using the thought together). Sure, the person you share with will take it with them in a way, but it won't be your thought at that point because it'll be modified inside their head.
\Joint"ly\, adv. In a joint manner; together; unitedly; in concert; not separately. --Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary
jointly adv. In common; together. --The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
Somebody needs to buy a dictionary.
But seriously, if I copy a file and give the copy to my friend, how is that together, united, in concert, and not separate? Sharing means one copy, used together in the same place at the same time, or used individually, taking turns. So, the grandparent was exactly right: it's neither sharing nor stealing.
Re:People work harder in the U.S.?
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 1
I stand corrected. What I should've said was, "in every known implementation of communism".
Re:People work harder in the U.S.?
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 1
Actually, there is no motivation in communism. Anything you produce through your hard work goes to the government who pays you the same thing they pay everybody else. Then they sell it and the profits go to the government. Instead of a richboy capitalist, you get a richboy communist pushing you around. There is no wealth redistributed because nobody has any wealth to spread. It's all distributed evenly and unfairly. No matter how little you work, you get paid the same as somebody who works hard. Where, exactly, is the incentive in that?
The parent's point was that while 50 bucks is cheap for a month's entertainment, it's too damned expensive for an hour of deciding it sucks. It's a lot of money to blow on something you won't like, and some people don't like to take that kind of risk.
According to the page about the act (see old/. article... RTFA?), it can only be renewed every 5 years until the end of the copyright term. Therefore, when the term would normally have expired, it would expire. People just have to pay extra for it this way.
You need to stop using Slackware and try a DESKTOP Linux distro. I put my Slackware 9 Live CD into my laptop. I boot the system. It works.
I put my Slackware 9 Install CD into my laptop. Granted, the install is a text menu, but I can point-and-click without a problem. It requires slightly more knowledge than a Windows install, but for your college target market, it's not hard. Sound configures itself. Network cards probe themselves. Even my 802.11 networking was easier than in Windows!
Why would a tax cut convince MS to hire anyone at all?
If they did hire someone, why would they hire low-level grunt positions?
When did I advocate a tax cut for MS? I'm pretty sure that I said a tax cut for corporations would be ok but that you should put a tax on outsourcing (so that the corporation directly pays our government for the priviledge).
Bush never gave him a fair chance and you know it. He had 12 years. More than a decade, and Saddam was still being a fuckhead. Quite frankly, I'm pissed off that we haven't found him and killed him yet, but he had more than a fair chance before Bush was even elected.
Big business should be paying for my retirement or at least an equal portion to what you pay. They do. Every cent that you pay in social security tax, your employer pays as well. The point though is that you get everything you pay in social security tax back, so cutting the tax may make you feel better now, but it'll screw you down the road.
I dont understand how we cant tax them, they work for our companies. They're outside our borders. Our laws can only be enforced on US soil. They pay taxes to their countries. It's like, any Honda or Toyota employees in the US pay US taxes instead of Japanese taxes.
They have a monopoly, if they raise prices it actually helps competition, this would stimulate the economy, In this case, this may be true. However, generally, if one company hikes their prices due to taxes, their competitors will do the same (due to the same taxes). People are greedy man.
Thats IMPOSSIBLE!!...you cannot ask Saddam to provide the proof, its our job. UN Security Council Resolution 1441 demanded that Saddam provide the proof. I'm not arguing that it was a reasonable demand. I'm stating the fact that the UN demanded it, set out steps to provide "proof" according to the resolution, and Saddam accepted those terms. Then he failed to comply. That is all.
how about a social security tax cut? Because social security isn't really a tax, it's a retirement plan. You pay the "tax" now, you get it back in benefits later. You should get every cent you pay in back, no more, no less (adjusted for inflation). Quite frankly, I think it's a broken system and I'll never see a cent of it again, but that's fine because the old people need it and it's not their fault the government squandered it.
We should also tax all those workers in India and these other countries, How can we do that? If they're in India they're not ours to tax.
Wouldnt it be nice if you and I never had to pay taxes again? Let these big greedy companies pay most of the taxes considering they already make most of the money, and control most of the government. In a perfect world, that'd kick ass. The problem is, in the real world, the greedy companies will just raise prises when you tax them more. They'll cover it with a price hike and blame the government.
Americans also didnt care about Clinton getting a blowjob, this didnt stop Clinton from getting Impeached. Where did I claim otherwise?
If Saddam destroyed them, well then Bush lied. Howso? I don't recall him ever saying Saddam didn't destroy them. He said that the UN said that Saddam had them. He said that the UN demanded that Saddam prove that he destroyed them. He said that Saddam never proved that he destroyed them. Whether he destroyed them or not was never an issue, only Saddam's refusal to present proof.
Do you honestly think Bush couldnt have seen Iraqis destroying the weapons and tossing them into the river I'm pretty sure I said, "they need to tell us where they went because the CIA has to have a pretty good idea by now", and with that statement I was trying to be nice. It's obvious that the government knows where the weapons are (be they destroyed or otherwise), and that's why I say they need to tell their constituents what's going on.
No but if Bush lied, he can be charged with war crimes, alot of people died over this war, and if its proven Iraq did destroy the weapons and they did disarm yet we still attacked them even while knowing they did this, Bush is in serious trouble. Again, the issue wasn't with them disarming or not. We attacked because they refused to comply with the UN's demands that they prove their disarmament. He could be charged with war crimes whether he lied or not actually, but that doesn't mean he'd be convicted. However, I'm sure many people in the world would love to see him executed as a war criminal, but, many people in the world would love to see our entire country burned to the ground.
I'm not against tax cuts, I'm against tax cuts which help big business. All tax cuts help big business unless you specifically exclude them from the tax cut. Also, which tax cuts were targeted at helping big business again?
They will send jobs to India if you tax them or not, so we should just tax them and punish them for sending jobs to India and give tax cuts to companies who hire 90%+ American workers. That's the most sensible thing I think you've ever said.
As a side note, if you want to tax big business, you should put taxes on the things that they do which hurt the country. Tax them for outsourcing so that it becomes unprofitable. If they incorporate offshore, tarriff them so badly that nobody can afford their goods and will go to their competators. I have no problem with punishing evil corporations. I just have a problem with punishing a single good one in the process.
the WMD were most likely destroyed, theres not a trace of it left. I hope so. I honestly believe they were probably destroyed in the couple of weeks leading up to invasion.
What river are you talking about? The Euphrates. There was Mustard Gas dumped into it during the invasion.
You mean Americans who are republicans dont care, everyone else does care. No, I mean Americans, in general, don't care what the government does as long as it doesn't directly impact them in a visible way. The majority of Americans, as reported by one of those ABC or CBS sciency poll things, don't care. Granted, that takes into account the hardcore right wing who don't care because the party says not to care as well as the hardcore morons who take an out of sight, out of mind approach, but facts are facts.
I personally think the President owes it to the world to tell us what happened to the WMD's because even the UN said Saddam had them. If they were destroyed, they should tell us. I, for one, would be relieved. If not, they need to tell us where they went because the CIA has to have a pretty good idea by now.
I'm indepedent, I dont trust Bush, I never did, I dont trust any politician, Bush has ruined any chance that I'll trust him by being suspicious. That's a good approach. We all know that "politics" is derived from a phrase meaning "several bloodsucking insect parasites".
We agree on one thing, the current Admin is not doing their job. Indeed we do. I'd just like to note that no administration has done their job for many years. This is an ongoing problem with corruption in the system, and if we're not careful, we're going to end up like Rome.
I know Clinton lied, and Clinton was almost Impeached for it, now its Bush's turn. Clinton was Impeached (not almost) when the House accused him of lying under oath before a Grand Jury. The Senate acquitted him of course, and the rest is history. Bush hasn't testified under oath, so he can't be charged with perjury. Politicians lie to the public all the time, and for some reason (institutional corruption?) that's not a crime.
You are a republican What gave you that idea?;)
but even you know by now that Bush is no Ronald Reagan. I knew this before the 2000 election. Compassion isn't something you base a conservative campaign on. Frankly, compassion isn't something you base a political campaign on at all. (Compassion is an emotion, not an issue.) Then again, I wanted McKain to win the primary. I'm not so sure about that anymore though with the party line he's been spewing lately.
Hes actually given tax cuts, but these tax cuts arent going to help the economy because he gives most of these cuts to big business, the same big business busy hiring your good buddies in India. Actually, those tax cuts help small business, too. My father and mother's businesses are both incorporated (and employing 2 and 8 people respectively), but they can take dividends with the tax cut instead of a salary. They pay taxes on the money at the corporate rate, which is less than the personal rate on the same money. The same situation will help small businesses accross the company. You know, the ones trying to stay afloat, provide services, and give people jobs, despite being stomped on by the big companies.
So by giving a tax cut to big business hes giving more of our jobs to India. Please explain. I see no causation here. If the big business paid more taxes, they'd send more jobs to India to cut costs.
I'm not saying its bad, I'm saying he isnt doing this for the right reasons or on a large enough scale. I don't know his reasons, but I agree about the scale.
Bin Laden and Saddam definitely need to be found and... let's just say delt with. The WMD are hidden somewhere. Many of them were dumped into the rivers over there. I think the CIA knows more than anybody cares to tell us though because the majority of Americans don't care anymore. It's sad. Most people just don't care enough to hold the government accountable. As for the borders, I know the answer. It's actually very simple. Bush has refused to secure the borders for the same reason that Clinton did and the same reason that Bush-the-Older did and for that matter the same reason damn near all of them did: They don't want to piss off the hispanic voters. Anyway, my original point was just... I don't care which country he keeps our jobs from going to as long as he keeps them here.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't have it both ways.
Why not?
Let's have a couple of personal examples from the first semester of my senior year in high school:
1st Period - Discrete Math - I slept through class every day. I did my homework twice during the semester. I made A's on my tests and got a C for the course.
2nd Period - Physics - I was awake because the teacher made it interesting. I did my homework once during the semester, but it was never collected anyway, so it didn't count against me. The teacher gave small quizzes every 2-3 days, which I did well on and got an A for the course.
In example 1, it was obvious that despite not attending class (mentally anyway) or doing the homework I still understood the material well enough to make good grades on the tests. Why? I read the textbook! All the teacher did during class (according to those who were awake) was read out of the book or write stuff from the book on the board as examples. However, I was punished for my ability to understand the material without the bullshit.
In example 2, I did the homework when I needed the practice, and otherwise I didn't. It didn't hurt me, and I was rewarded for my grasp of the material.
My point is that kids of this age are always going to hate their schools
I wholeheartedly disagree. If schools were about learning instead of about doing work, kids wouldn't hate them so much. If teachers actually taught instead of blandly repeating notes or textbooks, kids would be interested and pay more attention. If attendence wasn't mandatory, you'd be able to figure out which teachers weren't doing their jobs based on which classes people ditched (because the teachers would have to make the kids WANT to go to class). It's not that complicated really. Give people the freedom to choose for themselves, and let them make their own damn mistakes. That's the only way anybody ever learns anything about life anyway -- experience!
Are the new Chinese processors superior to the processors we have? Also, aren't our existing fighters superior to migs and sukkhois anyway? Funding Lockheed Martin is called R&D research. It's an investment in air superiority. That has nothing to do with the Chinese building microprocessors.
Because you have no proof its a mental disorder. we can prove somethings a mental disorder by watching a persons actions, you cannot prove they have a mental disorder just by guessing.
Actually, I do. You don't have to be a doctor to have proof. It's called doing a little reasearch: ASK A DOCTOR!
"Mental health professionals agree that pedophilia should never be considered normal, because it is truly a disease. None of the things that make homosexuality a normal variation of human sexuality apply to pedophilia."
-WebMD
Excuse the out-of-order clipping of stuff. If anything is out of context I apologize.
1s and 0s are speech, binary is speech, source code is speech. Everything online is 1s and 0s.
Despite what you say, binary IS speech. Its the number system, its written language.
Again, speech is verbal/vocal. If you don't believe me, click the dictionary.reference.com link in my previous post and see. Binary is NOT speech unless you literally say, "one zero zero zero one one zero one". If I write the number 10001101, 0x8D, or 141, it's still written. It's not spoken and therefore not speech. I really don't see why you're having such a problem with this.
you must understand that if you are going to take the position that freedom of speech is right, and that censorship online is wrong, it must be absolute
I think censorship of speech is wrong, and I think censorship of natural-language writing is wrong, but I don't think censorship of photographs is wrong. If you oppose all censorship, what do you think about a guy who hides in the bushes and looks through a window and takes a picture of people having sex. The people find out and sue to have the site shutdown. Do they not have a right to prevent pictures of themselves from being distributed around the world? Of course they do!
you can forget about trying to sue everyone who looks at kiddie porn.
I don't want to sue anybody. I want people who are hosting it intentionally to be arrested and people hosting it unintentionally to be forced to get rid of it.
The protection in the real world I agree with, online is not the physical world, I do not believe online should have a government.
I'm not talking about some internationall Internet government. I'm talking about existing governments enforcing things within their own borders. If the server is in the US, it's subject to US law. If it's in Germany, it's subject to German law. If there's an American involved, the FBI should track them down and castrate them with a blowtorch.
I will not accept any censorship on the net, I want absolute freedom of expression online,
There, you finally used the right term! The problem is, there is no guaranteed freedom of expression anywhere I've ever seen. If I'm wrong, feel free to provide information, but I don't know of anything guaranteed but free speech, assembly, petition, press, and religion.
this is why I'm for P2P
Such high ideals. I tend to think you're for P2P because you're a socialist with an overinflated sense of entitlement, but maybe I'm wrong. Who knows?
What did Clinton create?
The economic problems we're suffering from today. (Bush's economic policy is just starting to show its effects, as everything he can do takes years to show any improvement.)
We werent at war under Clinton,
We're no more at war now than we were under Clinton. He undertook several military operations, though there was no formal declaration of war. Similarly, there was no formal declaration of war for Iraq.
Saddam was not put in power by Clinton,
No, but Clinton left him there in Desert Fox (or whichever Desert * his was). Yes, I know Bush Sr. did as well, and I'm equally pissed at him over it, but you act like Dubya doing the Right Thing by getting rid of the bastard was a damnable offense.
Bin Laden was not trained to fight the soviets by Clinton.
No, but Clinton had the option to eliminate him, which he refused. Instead, he launched a missile at an empty camp. What a hero!
If you censor childporn you dont truely believe in freedom of speech.
Why the hell not? Childporn isn't speech. Speech is verbal/vocal (look it up). Childporn is rape and abuse. Please note, viewing isn't the issue anymore than hearing is the issue with speech. Storing childporn ANYWHERE should be illegal because possession is illegal. If you think that's about freedom of expression, you're insane. You said yourself it isn't art. The government's job is to protect its citizens, especially the young ones who can't protect themselves, and quite frankly, I'd gladly accept censorship in order to ensure the safety and welfare of my future stepdaughter.
The copying performed by pathogens and of copyrighted mp3s are analogous:
Not really. Pathogens copy and distribute themselves. mp3s don't. You don't share a disease; it shares itself. And you do lose the pathogens that are spread, it's just that the rest continue to replicate.
One would never say you had stolen a disease.
Actually I've heard of people stealing anthrax. Contracting a disease isn't stealing because the desease, which is its own owner, gives itself to you.
So would you suggest we've "stolen" Plato's idea?
Of course not. Plato was ahead of our time. He gave of his ideas freely in the way that one should. At any rate, I still say that idea sharing falls under definition 3 of share, to relate to someone, and therefore the whole jointly/taking turns thing is a non-issue.
And it seems pretty clear to me that "sharing" is a much better verbal approximation of the action of filesharing than is "stealing."
To that I agree totally. I'm just saying that both of them are bad terms, and I wish people would call something what it is instead of a. sugarcoating it or b. blowing it way out of proportion.
If I am to believe all the Verizon advertising, two people can share a moment over the phone (and thus in different places).
Well, while not the same physical place, I'd consider the phone conversation to put you in the same virtual place because you're still "together" despite the physical distance.
If I'm talking to friends on IRC/aim about music, and I say, "hey, wait, listen to this," the only way to get them to share in the moment is to send them a copy of the file.
Again I'd go with that being the same virtual place in the IRC channel or AIM conversation. Also, on AIM you can just crank up your stereo and use the talk feature. On IRC there's no way around sending the file, but directly sending the file is still different from putting it on a server for mass download.
And that should be a felony?
Hell no! I think it should be a civil (and non-criminal) matter. I just wish people would use the right words for what they mean. If it's your idea/music/etc, you can freely give it out, and that's sharing in the sense that you're granting them a share in the idea (share, v.t., defn. 4). If it's not your idea/music/etc, you can't grant shares, and therefore, you're distributing, not sharing.
it isn't implied anywhere that the turns need to be taken in series rather then in parallel
Yes, it is. It's implied by the definition of taking turns.
v : do something in turns; "We take turns on the night shift" [syn: alternate]
--WordNet 1.6 via Dictionary.com
by turns
One after another; alternately: "From the... testimony emerges a man by turns devious and honest, vulgar and gallant, scatterbrained and shrewd" (Life).
in turn
In the proper order or sequence.
--The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language via Dictionary.com
I just don't understand why people try to spin this every direction. The law calls it copyright infringement. The RIAA wants to call it theft. The infrengers want to call it sharing. If you're distributing your property, that's sharing (by definition 1). If you're distributing someone else's property, that's copyright infringement. Network shares are called shares because it allows joint use of drive space on the network. The drive is shared. English isn't this complicated.
I didn't miss it. It says to relate to others, and gives a secret as an example. You're not relating the file to others; you're giving it to them. Just because something is kept secret doesn't mean that to reveal that secret is a relation and/or sharing.
What about sharing a disease?
You don't share a disease, you transfer a disease. You lose part of the bacteria/virus and they gain part. Compare it to sharing a bowl of cereal. I give half the bowl to my friend, and I have less.
Or sharing a thought with someone?
Sharing a thought would probably fall under definition 3 instead of 2, but in any case, I'd argue that you're both using the thought at the same place and time (be it a virtual place or a physical one, you're interacting and using the thought together). Sure, the person you share with will take it with them in a way, but it won't be your thought at that point because it'll be modified inside their head.
jointly
\Joint"ly\, adv. In a joint manner; together; unitedly; in concert; not separately.
--Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary
jointly
adv.
In common; together.
--The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
Somebody needs to buy a dictionary.
But seriously, if I copy a file and give the copy to my friend, how is that together, united, in concert, and not separate? Sharing means one copy, used together in the same place at the same time, or used individually, taking turns. So, the grandparent was exactly right: it's neither sharing nor stealing.
I stand corrected. What I should've said was, "in every known implementation of communism".
Actually, there is no motivation in communism. Anything you produce through your hard work goes to the government who pays you the same thing they pay everybody else. Then they sell it and the profits go to the government. Instead of a richboy capitalist, you get a richboy communist pushing you around. There is no wealth redistributed because nobody has any wealth to spread. It's all distributed evenly and unfairly. No matter how little you work, you get paid the same as somebody who works hard. Where, exactly, is the incentive in that?
No. That'd be a lot like Shepherd. Scruffy-looking, on the other hand, should definitely be banned. ;)
The parent's point was that while 50 bucks is cheap for a month's entertainment, it's too damned expensive for an hour of deciding it sucks. It's a lot of money to blow on something you won't like, and some people don't like to take that kind of risk.
According to the page about the act (see old /. article... RTFA?), it can only be renewed every 5 years until the end of the copyright term. Therefore, when the term would normally have expired, it would expire. People just have to pay extra for it this way.
You need to stop using Slackware and try a DESKTOP Linux distro.
I put my Slackware 9 Live CD into my laptop. I boot the system. It works.
I put my Slackware 9 Install CD into my laptop. Granted, the install is a text menu, but I can point-and-click without a problem. It requires slightly more knowledge than a Windows install, but for your college target market, it's not hard. Sound configures itself. Network cards probe themselves. Even my 802.11 networking was easier than in Windows!
The point? Even Slackware "Just Works" now.
Why would a tax cut convince MS to hire anyone at all?
If they did hire someone, why would they hire low-level grunt positions?
When did I advocate a tax cut for MS? I'm pretty sure that I said a tax cut for corporations would be ok but that you should put a tax on outsourcing (so that the corporation directly pays our government for the priviledge).
So in reality when we give tax cuts, what we are doing is transfering money directly from our government, to their governments. Interesting.
What? Would you mind providing some sort of information and reasoning to back that statement up instead of just throwing out an opinion?
Our tax cuts go to our people who pay less taxes. How does that have anything to do with a foreign government?
Bush never gave him a fair chance and you know it.
He had 12 years. More than a decade, and Saddam was still being a fuckhead. Quite frankly, I'm pissed off that we haven't found him and killed him yet, but he had more than a fair chance before Bush was even elected.
Big business should be paying for my retirement or at least an equal portion to what you pay.
They do. Every cent that you pay in social security tax, your employer pays as well. The point though is that you get everything you pay in social security tax back, so cutting the tax may make you feel better now, but it'll screw you down the road.
I dont understand how we cant tax them, they work for our companies.
They're outside our borders. Our laws can only be enforced on US soil. They pay taxes to their countries. It's like, any Honda or Toyota employees in the US pay US taxes instead of Japanese taxes.
They have a monopoly, if they raise prices it actually helps competition, this would stimulate the economy,
In this case, this may be true. However, generally, if one company hikes their prices due to taxes, their competitors will do the same (due to the same taxes). People are greedy man.
Thats IMPOSSIBLE!!...you cannot ask Saddam to provide the proof, its our job.
UN Security Council Resolution 1441 demanded that Saddam provide the proof. I'm not arguing that it was a reasonable demand. I'm stating the fact that the UN demanded it, set out steps to provide "proof" according to the resolution, and Saddam accepted those terms. Then he failed to comply. That is all.
how about a social security tax cut?
Because social security isn't really a tax, it's a retirement plan. You pay the "tax" now, you get it back in benefits later. You should get every cent you pay in back, no more, no less (adjusted for inflation). Quite frankly, I think it's a broken system and I'll never see a cent of it again, but that's fine because the old people need it and it's not their fault the government squandered it.
We should also tax all those workers in India and these other countries,
How can we do that? If they're in India they're not ours to tax.
Wouldnt it be nice if you and I never had to pay taxes again? Let these big greedy companies pay most of the taxes considering they already make most of the money, and control most of the government.
In a perfect world, that'd kick ass. The problem is, in the real world, the greedy companies will just raise prises when you tax them more. They'll cover it with a price hike and blame the government.
Americans also didnt care about Clinton getting a blowjob, this didnt stop Clinton from getting Impeached.
Where did I claim otherwise?
If Saddam destroyed them, well then Bush lied.
Howso? I don't recall him ever saying Saddam didn't destroy them. He said that the UN said that Saddam had them. He said that the UN demanded that Saddam prove that he destroyed them. He said that Saddam never proved that he destroyed them. Whether he destroyed them or not was never an issue, only Saddam's refusal to present proof.
Do you honestly think Bush couldnt have seen Iraqis destroying the weapons and tossing them into the river
I'm pretty sure I said, "they need to tell us where they went because the CIA has to have a pretty good idea by now", and with that statement I was trying to be nice. It's obvious that the government knows where the weapons are (be they destroyed or otherwise), and that's why I say they need to tell their constituents what's going on.
No but if Bush lied, he can be charged with war crimes, alot of people died over this war, and if its proven Iraq did destroy the weapons and they did disarm yet we still attacked them even while knowing they did this, Bush is in serious trouble.
Again, the issue wasn't with them disarming or not. We attacked because they refused to comply with the UN's demands that they prove their disarmament. He could be charged with war crimes whether he lied or not actually, but that doesn't mean he'd be convicted. However, I'm sure many people in the world would love to see him executed as a war criminal, but, many people in the world would love to see our entire country burned to the ground.
I'm not against tax cuts, I'm against tax cuts which help big business.
All tax cuts help big business unless you specifically exclude them from the tax cut. Also, which tax cuts were targeted at helping big business again?
They will send jobs to India if you tax them or not, so we should just tax them and punish them for sending jobs to India and give tax cuts to companies who hire 90%+ American workers.
That's the most sensible thing I think you've ever said.
As a side note, if you want to tax big business, you should put taxes on the things that they do which hurt the country. Tax them for outsourcing so that it becomes unprofitable. If they incorporate offshore, tarriff them so badly that nobody can afford their goods and will go to their competators. I have no problem with punishing evil corporations. I just have a problem with punishing a single good one in the process.
the WMD were most likely destroyed, theres not a trace of it left.
;)
I hope so. I honestly believe they were probably destroyed in the couple of weeks leading up to invasion.
What river are you talking about?
The Euphrates. There was Mustard Gas dumped into it during the invasion.
You mean Americans who are republicans dont care, everyone else does care.
No, I mean Americans, in general, don't care what the government does as long as it doesn't directly impact them in a visible way. The majority of Americans, as reported by one of those ABC or CBS sciency poll things, don't care. Granted, that takes into account the hardcore right wing who don't care because the party says not to care as well as the hardcore morons who take an out of sight, out of mind approach, but facts are facts.
I personally think the President owes it to the world to tell us what happened to the WMD's because even the UN said Saddam had them. If they were destroyed, they should tell us. I, for one, would be relieved. If not, they need to tell us where they went because the CIA has to have a pretty good idea by now.
I'm indepedent, I dont trust Bush, I never did, I dont trust any politician, Bush has ruined any chance that I'll trust him by being suspicious.
That's a good approach. We all know that "politics" is derived from a phrase meaning "several bloodsucking insect parasites".
We agree on one thing, the current Admin is not doing their job.
Indeed we do. I'd just like to note that no administration has done their job for many years. This is an ongoing problem with corruption in the system, and if we're not careful, we're going to end up like Rome.
I know Clinton lied, and Clinton was almost Impeached for it, now its Bush's turn.
Clinton was Impeached (not almost) when the House accused him of lying under oath before a Grand Jury. The Senate acquitted him of course, and the rest is history. Bush hasn't testified under oath, so he can't be charged with perjury. Politicians lie to the public all the time, and for some reason (institutional corruption?) that's not a crime.
You are a republican
What gave you that idea?
but even you know by now that Bush is no Ronald Reagan.
I knew this before the 2000 election. Compassion isn't something you base a conservative campaign on. Frankly, compassion isn't something you base a political campaign on at all. (Compassion is an emotion, not an issue.) Then again, I wanted McKain to win the primary. I'm not so sure about that anymore though with the party line he's been spewing lately.
Hes actually given tax cuts, but these tax cuts arent going to help the economy because he gives most of these cuts to big business, the same big business busy hiring your good buddies in India.
Actually, those tax cuts help small business, too. My father and mother's businesses are both incorporated (and employing 2 and 8 people respectively), but they can take dividends with the tax cut instead of a salary. They pay taxes on the money at the corporate rate, which is less than the personal rate on the same money. The same situation will help small businesses accross the company. You know, the ones trying to stay afloat, provide services, and give people jobs, despite being stomped on by the big companies.
So by giving a tax cut to big business hes giving more of our jobs to India.
Please explain. I see no causation here. If the big business paid more taxes, they'd send more jobs to India to cut costs.
I'm not saying its bad, I'm saying he isnt doing this for the right reasons or on a large enough scale.
I don't know his reasons, but I agree about the scale.
Bin Laden and Saddam definitely need to be found and... let's just say delt with. The WMD are hidden somewhere. Many of them were dumped into the rivers over there. I think the CIA knows more than anybody cares to tell us though because the majority of Americans don't care anymore. It's sad. Most people just don't care enough to hold the government accountable. As for the borders, I know the answer. It's actually very simple. Bush has refused to secure the borders for the same reason that Clinton did and the same reason that Bush-the-Older did and for that matter the same reason damn near all of them did: They don't want to piss off the hispanic voters. Anyway, my original point was just... I don't care which country he keeps our jobs from going to as long as he keeps them here.