The PERFORM Act, or the "Platform Equality and Remedies for Rights Holders in Music Act," Um... I believe that's the PERRHM Act. Not as catchy, although cat lovers might take to it. The proposed legislation makes zero sense so therefore the acronym makes zero sense. Why have an acronym? Call it the Eliminate Free Internet Radio Act. Or just Yet Another Gift to Our Large and All-Powerful Contributors Act.
90% of drivers are below average drivers. That just doesn't seem right to me. I'd say that 90% are at least average, but far fewer are actually better than average.
Like braking suddenly for tailgaters. Ahhh, so basically you compound the tailgater's dangerous behavior! Brilliant! I am sure they learn their lesson and never tailgate again! And of course, you're ignoring the fact that this behavior could easily cause a traffic jam just by itself. Good job.
Have you considered that you may be one of those who mistakenly thinks they are an above average driver.
they certainly could continue putting rootkits on their CDs, but they're not in the business of giving money away. These companies are big, but the different divisions (and sub-divisions) all keep records of profits and losses. This is going to show up in a big way.
I can see the meeting now:
Muckety Muck: Last quarter your unit had profits of $1.5mil. But this quarter you have a loss of $.5mil. Care to explain? Sony Music Exec: Well we put this DRM on our CDs and got sued and settled for $2mil. Muckety Muck: I see. Did the DRM reduce piracy? Or increase sales? Sony Music Exec: Well... we can't tell if it reduced piracy. And, ahem, sales kinda collapsed after people found out we were getting sued for it. Muckety Muck: That might just qualify for the dumbest business decision this year! No bonus for you and I'm taking away your parking space.
so while for Sony it's not a big deal, you can bet that the people that made the decision to rootkit their CDs are scrambling to save their careers.
Oh damn! You really nailed Google there. They're all about making you see ads. Oh man, they're never going to live that tongue-lashing down. I bet their PR people are going nuts trying to figure out how to clean this mess up.
Are you angry because Google suspended the SOAP API? Or are you just a grumpy troll?
I personally am disappointed. Imagine the YouTube videos that would have been possible with just a month's worth of such video. I mean, yes, 90% of it would be unshowered nerds with bad posture, but that 10% would have been gold!
I also can envision them simply shrugging this off because I highly doubt that there are any neo-conservative global warming denier polar bear researchers in the field
Methinks, perhaps, you have a skewed understanding of what it means to be a scientist (which is odd since you say you are a scientist yourself). A research scientist performs experiments and observations and then publishes those results for all to see regardless of whether the outcome of the study matched their initial expectations.
A lobbyist might pick and choose studies to makes an argument for or against any particular position, but that's doesn't impugn the research results.
It's true that everyone has a personal bias (my favorite color is green). But to claim that individual bias comes together to form a societal mental block which conceals the truth from everyone... Sir, I am impressed by the size and scope of your paranoia.
Though this does explain the relative lack of scientific journal articles researching whether I am the center (and the sole purpose) of the universe! It's because cosmologists have a bias against my personal view of things. If it were not for this giant subconscious conspiracy I might assume my rightful place as the omnipotent ruler of the earth and all its creatures!
actually this is a great idea for all those stupid sites that require you to have a user-name and password for no particular reason. With FF I can put in whatever garbage info I want for the registration and it will remember the login for me next time I load the page. Obviously, for important sites (e.g. not a myspace account) I tell FF to not remember the password.
Yes, this vulnerability is a problem and needs to be fixed, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
And for you, Mr-I-Dont-Like-It, you can just turn the feature off.
What incentive would one of these "nontraditional partners" have to sell a $50 drug for $.05 when they could sell it on the black market for $5.00?
You're arguing against the petition and your own hypothetical grants a 90% discount in the price of drugs? That's the worst-case scenario! Sounds pretty sweet to me. And since you think so highly of market forces (at least as far as driving future research) why wouldn't there be equally as much competition driving the price of this hypothetical drug down to its cost to produce?
So the bogeyman is actually "overpopulation", eh? Sounds like you're saying what poor developing countries need to do is cull the herds. I am sure you don't think of yourself as a racist elitist, but the implication of your statement is as racist and elitist as you can get. You're blaming these people for being sick; for needing help. Shame on you.
Yes these countries have issues. But it's hard to establish law and order when life expectancy drops below 33 years. It's hard to plant crops when you're dying of malaria. It's difficult to organize a protest against corrupt officials when every other person is busy tending to their dying wife/sibling/child.
The effort required to achieve prosperity is intense and the foundation on which these improvements are made is so very slender. Having a plague that is actively culling what should be the next generation makes it impossible to build for the future. And I think that's what this proposal is about. No, it wont solve every crises in the developing world, but cheaper medications would make a difference.
Is it just me or does it seem like this article has brought out a high percentage of astroturfers. Reading highly modded comments like "Universities don't make drugs, dummy! They just license them to drug companies at which point it's completely out of their hands." and "If you don't pay market price for your life-saving drugs then no one will do research and the terrorists win!" I hope these are astroturfers, anyways.
Oh no! Someone's suggested charging poor people a price they can afford for the drugs they need to survive the multitude of plagues that they suffer through! And they've also suggested universities research "less profitable" diseases! This is a horrible idea. Because... um... free market... invisible hand... survival of the fittest... blah blah blah.
If you're sick and dying, you can't work, you can't support your family, you can't even protest the fact that you're sick and dying. Now, in many of these cases, either A) no rich people have your disease and so no big university/company has funded enough research to find a treatment or B) not enough rich people have had your disease for long enough so the treatment created by a big university/company is still protected under international patent law and so costs more money than you could ever make.
The idea that research (most of which is heavily subsidized) should be directed toward doing the most good and not making the most money should not be so quickly ridiculed. Those of you posting that Universities will no longer do research if they can't make money off it need to ask yourselves what is the difference between a research university and a pharmaceutical company?
And, at this point, whether they're universities or drug companies, the people doing medical research aren't hurting for money. But profit maximization means that people who cannot pay (because they are dieing) do not get treated.
What's that? You want to be even more informed than what you can get in 5 minutes? Well, now that's a different question: "Ask Slashdot: How Much Information Is Required For Me To Make An Informed Vote?" (The answer to that question is either none or infinity.)
You cannot accurately predict the future behavior of the people you vote for. Many 'informed' voters voted for Bush last time and now regret it (and think of all those Democratic primary voters who voted for Kerry). The candidates you are voting for are actually - gasp - real people. And there's an incredibly high likelihood that once they're elected they'll change their positions on any number of important (to you) issues. And using past life experience to predict future behavior in office is no guarantee either (Ahem... McCain v. Torture)
If you don't feel like searching the web. Just go and vote. It'll just take a minute. And at the very least, if you go through the process of voting now, next time there's an election you may remember this point in your life and try a little harder to be prepared.
At least the game said I did well enough to get on the Buddy All Stars list.
Of course, it didn't say how I would get on that list. Maybe they have a signup page where I can enter my name, address, social security number and a picture of myself in the bathtub. Oh, here it is.
Maybe I am slow, but I honestly don't understand what you're getting at with this post. Are you saying that Bob Woodward got it wrong with the first two books, or that he's gotten it wrong with his third book? Or are you suggesting that it's unclear which is wrong?
Reading your post again it seems like you might be suggesting that Rosen's opinion of Woodward is similar to the Bush administration's opinion of its critics. But that comparison doesn't make sense to me. The influence that Rosen exerts is infinitesimally, microscopically smaller than that of the White House.
For example there might be the undoctored screenshot of my computer's share list. So that instead of showing my list of legally shareable works (public domain recordings, stuff I made at home) it shows "Michael Jackson - Thriller.mpg" or whatever else they think I'm stealing from them.
Or a manual on how to doctor screenshots of the various file sharing programs.
Or a document digitally signed by the president of RIAA saying "Man are we going to screw this 'Sweatyboatman' guy".
I mean, it's a fishing expedition, right? They want the court to authorize the theft of my computer so they can prove their suspicions that I've stolen their music. I want the court to authorize the theft of their computers so I an prove my allegations of falsified evidence. What's good for the goose, after all.
I'm willing to believe that you're right. But clearly, you're better at googling than I am. Might you point us to a link or two that supports your statement.
... [The Attorney General] serves and protects the rights of all citizens of Texas through the activities of the various divisions of the agencies. Actions that benefit all citizens of this state include enforcement of health, safety and consumer regulations; educational outreach programs and protection of the rights of the elderly and disabled. The Attorney General is also charged with the collection of court-ordered child support and the administration of the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund.
Yeah, this guy's really a shark. Stupid frickin lawyers always screwing everything up enforcing laws. God dammit. Imagine how great the world would be without lawyers making sure everyone follows the rules. </sarcasm>
Slashdot Mirror
This is the most intelligent thing I have ever read on Slashdot. Kudos!
Sigh.
-tom
np
Have you considered that you may be one of those who mistakenly thinks they are an above average driver.
should probably toss in a link: http://www.sparkart.com/
Hah! The third project page (click the forward button) is for a "'viral' promotion" Project called Dr. M... DRM, get it? Oy.
they certainly could continue putting rootkits on their CDs, but they're not in the business of giving money away. These companies are big, but the different divisions (and sub-divisions) all keep records of profits and losses. This is going to show up in a big way.
I can see the meeting now:
Muckety Muck: Last quarter your unit had profits of $1.5mil. But this quarter you have a loss of $.5mil. Care to explain?
Sony Music Exec: Well we put this DRM on our CDs and got sued and settled for $2mil.
Muckety Muck: I see. Did the DRM reduce piracy? Or increase sales?
Sony Music Exec: Well... we can't tell if it reduced piracy. And, ahem, sales kinda collapsed after people found out we were getting sued for it.
Muckety Muck: That might just qualify for the dumbest business decision this year! No bonus for you and I'm taking away your parking space.
so while for Sony it's not a big deal, you can bet that the people that made the decision to rootkit their CDs are scrambling to save their careers.
Oh damn! You really nailed Google there. They're all about making you see ads. Oh man, they're never going to live that tongue-lashing down. I bet their PR people are going nuts trying to figure out how to clean this mess up.
Are you angry because Google suspended the SOAP API? Or are you just a grumpy troll?
I personally am disappointed. Imagine the YouTube videos that would have been possible with just a month's worth of such video. I mean, yes, 90% of it would be unshowered nerds with bad posture, but that 10% would have been gold!
and you think taxes are high now?
it's funny...
because it's true!
ah me!
Hey Slashdot, can we stop seeing stories about how nobody's going to use Vista, please? Seriously, we get the idea.
Methinks, perhaps, you have a skewed understanding of what it means to be a scientist (which is odd since you say you are a scientist yourself). A research scientist performs experiments and observations and then publishes those results for all to see regardless of whether the outcome of the study matched their initial expectations.
A lobbyist might pick and choose studies to makes an argument for or against any particular position, but that's doesn't impugn the research results.
It's true that everyone has a personal bias (my favorite color is green). But to claim that individual bias comes together to form a societal mental block which conceals the truth from everyone... Sir, I am impressed by the size and scope of your paranoia.
Though this does explain the relative lack of scientific journal articles researching whether I am the center (and the sole purpose) of the universe! It's because cosmologists have a bias against my personal view of things. If it were not for this giant subconscious conspiracy I might assume my rightful place as the omnipotent ruler of the earth and all its creatures!
actually this is a great idea for all those stupid sites that require you to have a user-name and password for no particular reason. With FF I can put in whatever garbage info I want for the registration and it will remember the login for me next time I load the page. Obviously, for important sites (e.g. not a myspace account) I tell FF to not remember the password.
Yes, this vulnerability is a problem and needs to be fixed, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
And for you, Mr-I-Dont-Like-It, you can just turn the feature off.
mod parent up...
ahhhh lameness filter, why must you plague me so
Is it just me or does it seem like this article has brought out a high percentage of astroturfers. Reading highly modded comments like "Universities don't make drugs, dummy! They just license them to drug companies at which point it's completely out of their hands." and "If you don't pay market price for your life-saving drugs then no one will do research and the terrorists win!" I hope these are astroturfers, anyways.
First, at least, read the opening of the Consensus Statement.
Oh no! Someone's suggested charging poor people a price they can afford for the drugs they need to survive the multitude of plagues that they suffer through! And they've also suggested universities research "less profitable" diseases! This is a horrible idea. Because... um... free market... invisible hand... survival of the fittest... blah blah blah.
If you're sick and dying, you can't work, you can't support your family, you can't even protest the fact that you're sick and dying. Now, in many of these cases, either A) no rich people have your disease and so no big university/company has funded enough research to find a treatment or B) not enough rich people have had your disease for long enough so the treatment created by a big university/company is still protected under international patent law and so costs more money than you could ever make.
The idea that research (most of which is heavily subsidized) should be directed toward doing the most good and not making the most money should not be so quickly ridiculed. Those of you posting that Universities will no longer do research if they can't make money off it need to ask yourselves what is the difference between a research university and a pharmaceutical company?
And, at this point, whether they're universities or drug companies, the people doing medical research aren't hurting for money. But profit maximization means that people who cannot pay (because they are dieing) do not get treated.
Jeez. Use the inter-web to find out information about the candidates in your area. This should take 5 minutes. Now... vote!
What's that? You want to be even more informed than what you can get in 5 minutes? Well, now that's a different question: "Ask Slashdot: How Much Information Is Required For Me To Make An Informed Vote?" (The answer to that question is either none or infinity.)
You cannot accurately predict the future behavior of the people you vote for. Many 'informed' voters voted for Bush last time and now regret it (and think of all those Democratic primary voters who voted for Kerry). The candidates you are voting for are actually - gasp - real people. And there's an incredibly high likelihood that once they're elected they'll change their positions on any number of important (to you) issues. And using past life experience to predict future behavior in office is no guarantee either (Ahem... McCain v. Torture)
If you don't feel like searching the web. Just go and vote. It'll just take a minute. And at the very least, if you go through the process of voting now, next time there's an election you may remember this point in your life and try a little harder to be prepared.
At least the game said I did well enough to get on the Buddy All Stars list.
Of course, it didn't say how I would get on that list. Maybe they have a signup page where I can enter my name, address, social security number and a picture of myself in the bathtub. Oh, here it is.
Maybe I am slow, but I honestly don't understand what you're getting at with this post. Are you saying that Bob Woodward got it wrong with the first two books, or that he's gotten it wrong with his third book? Or are you suggesting that it's unclear which is wrong?
Reading your post again it seems like you might be suggesting that Rosen's opinion of Woodward is similar to the Bush administration's opinion of its critics. But that comparison doesn't make sense to me. The influence that Rosen exerts is infinitesimally, microscopically smaller than that of the White House.
For example there might be the undoctored screenshot of my computer's share list. So that instead of showing my list of legally shareable works (public domain recordings, stuff I made at home) it shows "Michael Jackson - Thriller.mpg" or whatever else they think I'm stealing from them.
Or a manual on how to doctor screenshots of the various file sharing programs.
Or a document digitally signed by the president of RIAA saying "Man are we going to screw this 'Sweatyboatman' guy".
I mean, it's a fishing expedition, right? They want the court to authorize the theft of my computer so they can prove their suspicions that I've stolen their music. I want the court to authorize the theft of their computers so I an prove my allegations of falsified evidence. What's good for the goose, after all.
I'm willing to believe that you're right. But clearly, you're better at googling than I am. Might you point us to a link or two that supports your statement.
Slashdot: Ads for Nerds. Stuff that's paid for.
teehee
From http://www.oag.state.tx.us/
Yeah, this guy's really a shark. Stupid frickin lawyers always screwing everything up enforcing laws. God dammit. Imagine how great the world would be without lawyers making sure everyone follows the rules. </sarcasm>
wirless
clearly posted using a blackberry.
why have pictures at all? i mean, stock photos, tv-stills, pictures of lunch... what does that have to do with the essay?
perhaps he can have another essay on his site, "Why I Put Random Photos Inline With My Essays"