Sometimes in the winter, my front door doesn't always shut tight. When I come home, I'll occasionally find that my door was blown open by wind.
Are you saying that people can reasonably assume, because my door happens to be wide open while I'm away at work, that they are welcome to enter my house and take a look around?
Yes, it is up to me to secure my home. But failure to do so does not imply an invitation to anyone to come on in. I think (what I call) "digital trespassing" laws are perfectly reasonable.
Conservation alone isn't a replacement for burning fossil fuels. Sure, it's a good idea for many reasons, but the fact remains that we need a source of energy that can maintain and improve our standard of living.
Environmentalists argue that high standard of living and technological progress is mutually exclusive with good stewardship of the earth. They will never be taken seriously by enough people to make a difference until they abandon their pessimistic ludditism.
Weren't these the same environmentalists that have been telling us for years to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels? Were they right then? Or are they right now?
Or are most prominent environmentalists simply argumentative to the point where they will contradict themselves for the sake of opposing the inexorable progress of technology and industry?
I've long since dismissed the environmentalist movement for exactly this kind of thing. No matter what we to do try to placate them, we will be wrong. Giving them any consideration anymore is an exercise in futility.
"Funny how most people's beliefs end up making them look good."
The same goes for poor people. Are they poor because of a lack of hard work and determination? Or are they poor because the system is unfair? Which answer do you think most of them would give?
Everybody has the opportunity to make money and maintain their own means of survival. The fact that so many don't take advantage of that opportunity isn't my fault, and it isn't my responsibility to cover the cost of their lack of ambition and/or work ethic.
Most poor people are poor because they squandered their opportunities, not because "the man" is keeping them down. Propping them up as victims only encourages them to blame others for their own failures, and continue living off of the hard work of others.
I don't get it. What does this have to do with censorship? Since when have other journalists been barred from reporting stories and posting Youtube videos that portray the military in an other-than-positive light?
Or is Slashdot/submitter suggesting that the military should be censored?
"...same latching onto vague promises that have not materialized..."
Kind of sounds like environmental alarmists over the past twenty years, don't you think? Wasn't the depletion of the ozone layer supposed to have killed us all off by now?
What do SUVs have to do with pollution? Oh I see what you did there; equate fuel comsumption with pollution.
I don't know who you're listening to, but I don't hear anyone claiming we shouldn't be better stewards of the earth. Certainly no such assertion was made in TFA.
The question isn't how Blizzard would attract a customer like you. At this point, the issue is how many customers would they lose in the process of accommodating you and potential customers with similar tastes.
"It serves only one purpose: the circumvention of fair use"
I see what you're saying, but something doesn't sound right to me.
What do you think threatens the media industries' bottom lines more; fair use or unauthorized duplication and distribution?
Clearly the people making DVD rips and posting a torrent, making the movie/whatever freely available at no charge has more of an impact than someone trying to make backups of movies already purchased.
The problem is that there is technologically a lot of overlap between the two, and the difference is only realized AFTER the technology has been applied.
It's like when I worked for the gov't, and was involved in an effort to develop software that would analyze transaction data to find credit card fraud. The problem was that looking at the transaction data, a legitimate purchase could look exactly the same as a fraudulent one. No software in the world can look at that data and see if the items purchased were used for a legitimate workplace function, or simply tossed in the trunk of somebody's car.
The media industries have taken the easy (though improper) road of simply banning the technology that has both legitimate and illegal uses. When they sue somebody, they should have to prove that the defendant actually violated copyright law. But then, I suppose that's the real problem with the DMCA; they don't actually have to prove that a copyright violation actually took place.
Pardon the long rant:) Bottom line is that I'm OK with the media companies going after copyright violaters. That's not what's happening now though, thanks to the DMCA.
Long ago our country decided that everyone should have the opportunity and responsibility to provide for their own well-being.
Today we have people like you who believe that people should be able to do whatever they want to their bodies and compel the rest of us to pay for their inevitable health problems.
If being angry that my insurance costs pay for people who smoke 3 packs a day, eat fast food 5 times a week, and consider channel-surfing exercise makes me greedy and unsympathetic, then I am proud to be greedy and unsympathetic.
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."
Be careful what you ask for. You might just get it.
Slashdot Mirror
Sometimes in the winter, my front door doesn't always shut tight. When I come home, I'll occasionally find that my door was blown open by wind.
Are you saying that people can reasonably assume, because my door happens to be wide open while I'm away at work, that they are welcome to enter my house and take a look around?
Yes, it is up to me to secure my home. But failure to do so does not imply an invitation to anyone to come on in. I think (what I call) "digital trespassing" laws are perfectly reasonable.
Conservation alone isn't a replacement for burning fossil fuels. Sure, it's a good idea for many reasons, but the fact remains that we need a source of energy that can maintain and improve our standard of living.
Environmentalists argue that high standard of living and technological progress is mutually exclusive with good stewardship of the earth. They will never be taken seriously by enough people to make a difference until they abandon their pessimistic ludditism.
I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for a nuclear energy source that passes prominent environmentalists' litmus test.
"A permanent moratorium on growing plants in soil as a biofuel feedstock is what we need."
And the alternative is....?
Weren't these the same environmentalists that have been telling us for years to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels? Were they right then? Or are they right now?
Or are most prominent environmentalists simply argumentative to the point where they will contradict themselves for the sake of opposing the inexorable progress of technology and industry?
I've long since dismissed the environmentalist movement for exactly this kind of thing. No matter what we to do try to placate them, we will be wrong. Giving them any consideration anymore is an exercise in futility.
"Funny how most people's beliefs end up making them look good."
The same goes for poor people. Are they poor because of a lack of hard work and determination? Or are they poor because the system is unfair? Which answer do you think most of them would give?
By the way, to whom is "the system" unfair?
Everybody has the opportunity to make money and maintain their own means of survival. The fact that so many don't take advantage of that opportunity isn't my fault, and it isn't my responsibility to cover the cost of their lack of ambition and/or work ethic.
Most poor people are poor because they squandered their opportunities, not because "the man" is keeping them down. Propping them up as victims only encourages them to blame others for their own failures, and continue living off of the hard work of others.
"I can pull the debunkings from it out whenever someone says something stupid instead of having to write about it, track down references, etc."
There's a term for that: "talking points".
I don't get it. What does this have to do with censorship? Since when have other journalists been barred from reporting stories and posting Youtube videos that portray the military in an other-than-positive light?
Or is Slashdot/submitter suggesting that the military should be censored?
Please explain.
"...same latching onto vague promises that have not materialized..."
Kind of sounds like environmental alarmists over the past twenty years, don't you think? Wasn't the depletion of the ozone layer supposed to have killed us all off by now?
Scientists and scholars were once absolutely positive that the earth was the center of the universe too.
And just like back then, anyone who questions the prevailing groupthink is branded a heretic or worse.
What do SUVs have to do with pollution? Oh I see what you did there; equate fuel comsumption with pollution.
I don't know who you're listening to, but I don't hear anyone claiming we shouldn't be better stewards of the earth. Certainly no such assertion was made in TFA.
When the weather isn't consistent with what models predict, it's the weather that's wrong, not the models.
Mine was 6... not that I use it much anymore, but I hope I still have it for the status :)
The question isn't how Blizzard would attract a customer like you. At this point, the issue is how many customers would they lose in the process of accommodating you and potential customers with similar tastes.
"The customer is always right" doesn't mean "The customer gets to customize the product to their own personal preferences".
You aren't more important than Blizzard's 8+ million subscribers. Get over it.
"It serves only one purpose: the circumvention of fair use"
:) Bottom line is that I'm OK with the media companies going after copyright violaters. That's not what's happening now though, thanks to the DMCA.
I see what you're saying, but something doesn't sound right to me.
What do you think threatens the media industries' bottom lines more; fair use or unauthorized duplication and distribution?
Clearly the people making DVD rips and posting a torrent, making the movie/whatever freely available at no charge has more of an impact than someone trying to make backups of movies already purchased.
The problem is that there is technologically a lot of overlap between the two, and the difference is only realized AFTER the technology has been applied.
It's like when I worked for the gov't, and was involved in an effort to develop software that would analyze transaction data to find credit card fraud. The problem was that looking at the transaction data, a legitimate purchase could look exactly the same as a fraudulent one. No software in the world can look at that data and see if the items purchased were used for a legitimate workplace function, or simply tossed in the trunk of somebody's car.
The media industries have taken the easy (though improper) road of simply banning the technology that has both legitimate and illegal uses. When they sue somebody, they should have to prove that the defendant actually violated copyright law. But then, I suppose that's the real problem with the DMCA; they don't actually have to prove that a copyright violation actually took place.
Pardon the long rant
socialist free health care"
Do you mean "free" as in beer, speech, or taxpayer subsidized?
Don't you realize it's easier for the government to control you when you can't distinguish between free and subsidized?
Indeed, we need to start emulating socialist utopias like France. I'm tired of living in a fascist country where I have to work for my salary.
Long ago our country decided that everyone should have the opportunity and responsibility to provide for their own well-being.
Today we have people like you who believe that people should be able to do whatever they want to their bodies and compel the rest of us to pay for their inevitable health problems.
If being angry that my insurance costs pay for people who smoke 3 packs a day, eat fast food 5 times a week, and consider channel-surfing exercise makes me greedy and unsympathetic, then I am proud to be greedy and unsympathetic.
Ahh yes, the old "He should fork over X amount of $$ because he can afford it" argument.
I love it when one's sense of entitlement comes back to bite them in the ass.
"...unless the government somehow subsidized it."
In other words, forcing people to spend tens of thousands of dollars.
"Surely it should be mandatory/make sense for compulsary solar panelling on houses?"
And who exactly is supposed to pay for that?
If something can be both subsidized AND free, where does government get the $$ with which to subsidize?
Government doesn't earn money; it takes it.
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."
Be careful what you ask for. You might just get it.