... because mono-cultures are SO much better than diversity...
To the farmer they are, yes, because automating the tending of a crop that is all identical is much easier. If they could economically clone cattle and ensure they grow uniformly, they would because it would mean the slaughter floor could be completely automated.
... because they'll never abuse their monopoly license...
They do indeed abuse their monopoly license.. but that is a measurable cost and it is in the monopolists interest to keep that cost at a level that their customer is willing to pay. So it really boils down to the choice: do you want to make less money just to spite the monopoly. Some people do, most people don't.
Dell sells computers with Windows preinstalled on it because they can make more money than selling computers without it preinstalled. My argument was that farmers find Monsanto's crops better. Not that it was what was best for the consumer.
Indeed. I'd actually like all food to be grown in vats.. preferably vats that are small and portable and installable in your own home.. powered by your home fusion generator.
The problem with GMO crops, and more importantly, for anti-GMO people, is that they are simply better for the farmer. They can produce more for less work. Even when you take the licensing costs into account, it is more economical overall. Presumably, the anti-GMO people are against this push into new markets because it will do the same for pig farmers as it did for crop farmers. And that'll make it harder for anti-GMO people to continue their "organic" lifestyle.
And still I have to wait for the future. Better method for breeding pigs? How about making bacon (and pork chops and all the other piggy goodness!) without breeding? Where's that cholesterol free bacon we were promised?
I keep waiting for the militant vegans to give up ignoring the problem (which is all abstinence does) and move to economically crush their enemies - that's what boycotting is supposedly for after all, not that it works. Buy meat from organic farms that treat animals with the respect they say animals deserve. Demand more such farms. Then demand new and better techniques for getting meat without harming animals.. like genetically engineering animals to grow fat meaty tails that drop off, or something. Then, eventually, demand meat production in vats that doesn't even need an animal brain.
Shouldn't biotech companies be making vat grown meat by now? With everything that is happening in biotech, "farming" pigs should be laughable. It should be compared to plowing a field with horse power.
FPS is a hard core genre. That's not the Wii's core demographic.
With the swordfighting, one major problem is that if your on screen sword hits another sword, there's no force feedback to stop your wiimote. You'd swing through, your sword on screen would stop.
Just make the controller buzz.. oh yeah, there's buzz patents.. no can do. The whole value of the Wii system is that it's arbitrated reality. The player wants to believe in the fiction, so they ignore the differences between reality and the alternate reality displayed on the screen.
Wiretaps are just as unconstitutional too.. but that battle has been fought and lost already.
Of course, lately they've decided that rubber stamp court authorization isn't even needed.. and that they should just record everything as they might need it later.
Copyright law is preserving the right of the artist to attempt to profit from their work without the active interference of others.
And what exactly do you base this naive belief on?
Please, thrill us with your legal history skills.
Cause the rest of us are over here clinging to beliefs like copyright is supposed to exist to encourage people to create works that they otherwise would not..
Umm.. every country in the world with a copyright law acknowledges that free speech is infringed by it - even countries that typically don't care about free speech, or have no explicit free speech guarantee. This is because TRIPS recognizes the need to balance free speech and copyright. You might want to argue that copyright isn't much of a infringement on free speech but you simply can't claim that it is "not at all".
Do you even have an honest opinion or are you just a shill?
ethos like "information wants to be free, man" just cheapens the argument for all of us.
No.... what cheapens the argument is shit like:
If ABC can't control the merchandising of the show Lost [..] ABC wouldn't produce TV shows, and I happen to like Lost, thank you very much.
You fucking what? I'm making the argument that copyright is a violation of civil rights and you're countering it with "I happen to like Lost".. and I am the one cheapening it?
Your entire argument is not supported by fact. It's my computer. I have the right to copy whatever I want with it. If copyright law didn't exist then the author (actually, more typically, the publisher.. it's funny how authors go on about their sacred right to control their work but they're happy to sign over their rights to someone with a checkbook) would have no say. As it should be. Copyright law is simply an attack on my ability to use a personal computer to exercise my liberty to copy files.
It wasn't that she was too tired. It wasn't even happenstance. She got on the bus with the intention of sitting in the "whites only" part of it and getting arrested. It was the fact that she didn't back down and appealed to a higher court that made it civil disobedience. Unfortunately the whole message of civil rights never moved beyond the racism issue. Civil rights isn't just about racism.
Being able to sit where you want on the bus is about as trivial as being able to copy whatever you want with your own computer. If you try hard enough you can trivialize anything. Similarly, I think copying files is all about free speech and that's no more trivial than racism.
The only reason why I don't have the right is because there's a law that takes it away. A law that only bad judges in many countries is keeping around.
Slashdot Mirror
... because mono-cultures are SO much better than diversity ...
To the farmer they are, yes, because automating the tending of a crop that is all identical is much easier. If they could economically clone cattle and ensure they grow uniformly, they would because it would mean the slaughter floor could be completely automated.
... because they'll never abuse their monopoly license ...
They do indeed abuse their monopoly license.. but that is a measurable cost and it is in the monopolists interest to keep that cost at a level that their customer is willing to pay. So it really boils down to the choice: do you want to make less money just to spite the monopoly. Some people do, most people don't.
Dell sells computers with Windows preinstalled on it because they can make more money than selling computers without it preinstalled. My argument was that farmers find Monsanto's crops better. Not that it was what was best for the consumer.
Indeed. I'd actually like all food to be grown in vats.. preferably vats that are small and portable and installable in your own home.. powered by your home fusion generator.
The problem with GMO crops, and more importantly, for anti-GMO people, is that they are simply better for the farmer. They can produce more for less work. Even when you take the licensing costs into account, it is more economical overall. Presumably, the anti-GMO people are against this push into new markets because it will do the same for pig farmers as it did for crop farmers. And that'll make it harder for anti-GMO people to continue their "organic" lifestyle.
And still I have to wait for the future. Better method for breeding pigs? How about making bacon (and pork chops and all the other piggy goodness!) without breeding? Where's that cholesterol free bacon we were promised?
I keep waiting for the militant vegans to give up ignoring the problem (which is all abstinence does) and move to economically crush their enemies - that's what boycotting is supposedly for after all, not that it works. Buy meat from organic farms that treat animals with the respect they say animals deserve. Demand more such farms. Then demand new and better techniques for getting meat without harming animals.. like genetically engineering animals to grow fat meaty tails that drop off, or something. Then, eventually, demand meat production in vats that doesn't even need an animal brain.
Shouldn't biotech companies be making vat grown meat by now? With everything that is happening in biotech, "farming" pigs should be laughable. It should be compared to plowing a field with horse power.
No chance of that. And their response. :)
Maybe Google will make a game engine that doesn't suck next.
FPS is a hard core genre. That's not the Wii's core demographic.
With the swordfighting, one major problem is that if your on screen sword hits another sword, there's no force feedback to stop your wiimote. You'd swing through, your sword on screen would stop.
Just make the controller buzz.. oh yeah, there's buzz patents.. no can do. The whole value of the Wii system is that it's arbitrated reality. The player wants to believe in the fiction, so they ignore the differences between reality and the alternate reality displayed on the screen.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/11/13/
Yeah, you don't need to be a US resident to have that either.
I've always wanted to see the transition where the blue sky disappears.
Maybe if enough people see it answers to the question "why can't you see stars during the day?" will finally get better.
"I have a ham radio."
Ya know, that's really not what I read sci-fi for.
Are the media so naive that they don't understand how the appeal process happens?
The vast majority of artists who have ever lived have supported themselves by asking their fans for money.
When the original creator asks for money in exchange for their work
I don't anyone has a problem with them asking.
Wiretaps are just as unconstitutional too.. but that battle has been fought and lost already.
Of course, lately they've decided that rubber stamp court authorization isn't even needed.. and that they should just record everything as they might need it later.
Who says the slippery slope is a logical fallacy.
Copyright law is preserving the right of the artist to attempt to profit from their work without the active interference of others.
And what exactly do you base this naive belief on?
Please, thrill us with your legal history skills.
Cause the rest of us are over here clinging to beliefs like copyright is supposed to exist to encourage people to create works that they otherwise would not..
Umm.. every country in the world with a copyright law acknowledges that free speech is infringed by it - even countries that typically don't care about free speech, or have no explicit free speech guarantee. This is because TRIPS recognizes the need to balance free speech and copyright. You might want to argue that copyright isn't much of a infringement on free speech but you simply can't claim that it is "not at all".
Do you even have an honest opinion or are you just a shill?
Fuck the GPL. With no copyright it's unneeded.
ethos like "information wants to be free, man" just cheapens the argument for all of us.
No.... what cheapens the argument is shit like:
If ABC can't control the merchandising of the show Lost [..] ABC wouldn't produce TV shows, and I happen to like Lost, thank you very much.
You fucking what? I'm making the argument that copyright is a violation of civil rights and you're countering it with "I happen to like Lost".. and I am the one cheapening it?
Only on Slashdot.
So if they obtained court authorization to deploy Sarin gas that'd be ok too right?
Are you saying that when the president does it then it's not a crime?
Your entire argument is not supported by fact. It's my computer. I have the right to copy whatever I want with it. If copyright law didn't exist then the author (actually, more typically, the publisher.. it's funny how authors go on about their sacred right to control their work but they're happy to sign over their rights to someone with a checkbook) would have no say. As it should be. Copyright law is simply an attack on my ability to use a personal computer to exercise my liberty to copy files.
Sigh.
It wasn't that she was too tired. It wasn't even happenstance. She got on the bus with the intention of sitting in the "whites only" part of it and getting arrested. It was the fact that she didn't back down and appealed to a higher court that made it civil disobedience. Unfortunately the whole message of civil rights never moved beyond the racism issue. Civil rights isn't just about racism.
Being able to sit where you want on the bus is about as trivial as being able to copy whatever you want with your own computer. If you try hard enough you can trivialize anything. Similarly, I think copying files is all about free speech and that's no more trivial than racism.
The only reason why I don't have the right is because there's a law that takes it away. A law that only bad judges in many countries is keeping around.
How is this not breaking the law?
Breaking the law to enforce the law.. way to piss on justice.