How will Google try to prevent users from circumventing the ads? I don't think the "if" is even a question. And does this represent a move towards Evil(tm)?
I imagine a lot of people who find the original titles' content as objectionable as you find the altered versions. Therefore, it comes down to a simple matter of taste. You don't have to get your panties in a wad over it; just buy what you want from where you want.
Kudos to Wal-Mart for finding an otherwise untapped market, and matching a product to them.
Personally, I find most music produced today "offensive to my musical sensibilities", but you don't hear me complaining about who's selling it, do you?
So I asked why a dislike of the personality some Democratic supporters would cause you to not vote Democratic
Oh I don't know. Maybe because I don't like arrogant, condescending elitists, and don't particularly want to be represented by someone who looks down upon his/her constituents as if they were dumb farm animals.
I guess some people like to be treated like that, but I don't. But then, what do I know? I'm just an ignorant rube from Pennsyltuckey, right?
So before you say it, yes, I'm an arrogant liberal who looks down on people who disagree with me because I think they're less intelligent.
I was under the impression that liberals were supposed to be open-minded. I guess dismissing people with different opinions is easier than defending your own. How intellectually lazy of you.
They were just expressing their frustration with the expanding influence of capitalism. In the future, we should try to react to protests like this with a little understanding.
I think my cynicism is well-deserved. All I hear from both parties is fear mongering and loony conspiracy theories.
I'd say the fundies on the right and the welfare queens on the left pretty well cancel each other out in the "brainless voter" count.
I might lean more Democrat if not for the fact that people like you seem to think that their (and by association your) ideology demonstrates a superior intellect, and people on the left tend to look down upon people with whom they disagree. Telling people they're stupid isn't going to win them over to your cause. Failing to realize that by now demonstrates a measure of ignorance too, I would say.
I don't see what the beef is with teaching kids about copyright laws as they are today. Perhaps it would be an appropriate time to discuss the matter and introduce various points of view.
But I think the days of "I didn't know it was illegal to share my entire music collection with the world" should be long gone by now. Chances are they're still going to do it, but they should at least know the legal potential of doing so.
"Global Climate Change" is much more forgiving if/when the computer models and dire predictions turn out to be inaccurate.
Getting hotter? Global Climate Change Getting colder? Global Climate Change More rain? Global Climate Change Less rain? Global Climate Change Hurricanes? Earthquakes? Global Climate Change Bridges/mines collapsing? Global Climate Change Me stubbing my toe in the parking lot? Global Climate Change
See? Global Climate Change encompasses so many more potential disasters than Global Warming.
So in other words, since the global climate is so complex, science cannot sufficiently explain past global climate phenomena, nor can it predict future patterns? Where have I heard THAT argument before?
Anecdotal evidence is hardly an appropriate substitute for reliable, reproducable scientific analysis.
Unless, that is, you've already made up your mind on the subject, in which case anything that supports your view will suffice as "proof".
Re:As much as I hate to suggest this...
on
Storm Worm Rising
·
· Score: 1
Most people do NOT know how to protect computers from the internet, NOR SHOULD THEY!
Yet we expect people to maintain their own cars. Are you suggesting it's unrealistic to expect people to get regular oil changes?
The computer makers and the OS writers should handle this, it's THEIR PRODUCT!!!
So let's sue automakers when a negligent owner lets their car's engine seize.
Re:As much as I hate to suggest this...
on
Storm Worm Rising
·
· Score: 1
The "victims" here are everyone who has to deal with the spam, DDoS attacks, and whatever else these botnets are spewing. And it's not a problem that can be limited to or by individual ISPs.
The public has been aware of computer viruses for 20 years now, and there are plenty of free tools (many of which are provided at no cost by ISPs) to prevent an infection. It's long past time people took responsibility for their own computers.
As much as I hate to suggest this...
on
Storm Worm Rising
·
· Score: 1
...but perhaps we need a law that would require ISPs to disconnect customers with compromised computers, and inform them that they will remain disconnected until the computer(s) has been cleaned.
Us conscientious customers shouldn't have to suffer the conditions imposed on us by people who can't bother to take even the most simple precautions. How much better would service be without all these botnets clogging the tubes?
Slashdot Mirror
It's not so much the ads themselves I'm refering to, but whatever methods Google employs to prevent circumvention of those ads.
How will Google try to prevent users from circumventing the ads? I don't think the "if" is even a question. And does this represent a move towards Evil(tm)?
I imagine a lot of people who find the original titles' content as objectionable as you find the altered versions. Therefore, it comes down to a simple matter of taste. You don't have to get your panties in a wad over it; just buy what you want from where you want.
Kudos to Wal-Mart for finding an otherwise untapped market, and matching a product to them.
Personally, I find most music produced today "offensive to my musical sensibilities", but you don't hear me complaining about who's selling it, do you?
Wrong? Offensive?? If you're offended by a store choosing not to sell a certain product, you need a HUGE dose of perspective.
Whose rights, exactly, are being violated here??
I answered your question, but you seem to be having trouble understanding. Not my problem. Moving on.
So I asked why a dislike of the personality some Democratic supporters would cause you to not vote Democratic
Oh I don't know. Maybe because I don't like arrogant, condescending elitists, and don't particularly want to be represented by someone who looks down upon his/her constituents as if they were dumb farm animals.
I guess some people like to be treated like that, but I don't. But then, what do I know? I'm just an ignorant rube from Pennsyltuckey, right?
So before you say it, yes, I'm an arrogant liberal who looks down on people who disagree with me because I think they're less intelligent.
I was under the impression that liberals were supposed to be open-minded. I guess dismissing people with different opinions is easier than defending your own. How intellectually lazy of you.
They were just expressing their frustration with the expanding influence of capitalism. In the future, we should try to react to protests like this with a little understanding.
I think my cynicism is well-deserved. All I hear from both parties is fear mongering and loony conspiracy theories.
I'd say the fundies on the right and the welfare queens on the left pretty well cancel each other out in the "brainless voter" count.
I might lean more Democrat if not for the fact that people like you seem to think that their (and by association your) ideology demonstrates a superior intellect, and people on the left tend to look down upon people with whom they disagree. Telling people they're stupid isn't going to win them over to your cause. Failing to realize that by now demonstrates a measure of ignorance too, I would say.
There is no fundamental difference at all. The only difference is in where they're funneling our tax dollars.
Say whatever despicable things it takes to get (re)elected, and pay back the people who got you there. That's our government in a single sentence.
Umm, the bill hasn't even been passed. And if it does get passed, who are you going to blame? Bush or the Democrat congress?
And if you think any of that is going to change by electing Democrats, you've got another thing coming.
For example, we still occupy Iraq...
I'll grant you that if you agree to eliminate "emotional distress" from the list of reasons to sue. I'm really tired of seeing that in EVERY lawsuit.
I know this is Slashdot, but you could at least RTFSummary:
"the RIAA countered by arguing that 'making available' on a p2p file sharing network is a violation of the distribution right in 17 USC 106(3).
Don't worry, the gub'mint will protect you from criminals. And if you try to do so yourself, you go to jail.
I'm SURE that's what the founding fathers intended.
Just ask (Ted) Turner.
I don't see what the beef is with teaching kids about copyright laws as they are today. Perhaps it would be an appropriate time to discuss the matter and introduce various points of view.
But I think the days of "I didn't know it was illegal to share my entire music collection with the world" should be long gone by now. Chances are they're still going to do it, but they should at least know the legal potential of doing so.
"Global Climate Change" is much more forgiving if/when the computer models and dire predictions turn out to be inaccurate.
Getting hotter? Global Climate Change
Getting colder? Global Climate Change
More rain? Global Climate Change
Less rain? Global Climate Change
Hurricanes? Earthquakes? Global Climate Change
Bridges/mines collapsing? Global Climate Change
Me stubbing my toe in the parking lot? Global Climate Change
See? Global Climate Change encompasses so many more potential disasters than Global Warming.
The Theory of Evolution seems to have been given a pass in that department. Is it, like climate change, simply too complex to explain scientifically?
So in other words, since the global climate is so complex, science cannot sufficiently explain past global climate phenomena, nor can it predict future patterns? Where have I heard THAT argument before?
And the climate-change doomsayers will deride it as (another) Bush snow-job. Wake me up when the cycle changes.
Anecdotal evidence is hardly an appropriate substitute for reliable, reproducable scientific analysis.
Unless, that is, you've already made up your mind on the subject, in which case anything that supports your view will suffice as "proof".
Most people do NOT know how to protect computers from the internet, NOR SHOULD THEY!
Yet we expect people to maintain their own cars. Are you suggesting it's unrealistic to expect people to get regular oil changes?
The computer makers and the OS writers should handle this, it's THEIR PRODUCT!!!
So let's sue automakers when a negligent owner lets their car's engine seize.
The "victims" here are everyone who has to deal with the spam, DDoS attacks, and whatever else these botnets are spewing. And it's not a problem that can be limited to or by individual ISPs.
The public has been aware of computer viruses for 20 years now, and there are plenty of free tools (many of which are provided at no cost by ISPs) to prevent an infection. It's long past time people took responsibility for their own computers.
...but perhaps we need a law that would require ISPs to disconnect customers with compromised computers, and inform them that they will remain disconnected until the computer(s) has been cleaned.
Us conscientious customers shouldn't have to suffer the conditions imposed on us by people who can't bother to take even the most simple precautions. How much better would service be without all these botnets clogging the tubes?