History is full of examples of huge corporations toppling, when a new start-up came out of the woodwork with a fresh, new idea. (Remember when IBM was "Big Blue", the dominant player in all things computing? Apparently, a couple of college drop-outs appeared with "personal computer" ideas and wound up knocking them right over.)
Only marginally true. IBM is still healthy and making lots of money, since they're still dominant in their own market (minicomputers). The reason Apple, Microsoft and others could grow so quickly was that a *new* market opened up (personal computers).
Actually, I'll expand on that: in the UK, after a General Election (the process by which Members of Parliament are elected to the House of Commons), the leader of the majority party is customarily invited by the Crown to become Prime Minister and form a Government. In the case of a hung parliament (i.e. no single party controls a simple majority of votes in the Commons), the Crown will try to choose the person who is most likely to successfully form a coalition.
That's very similar to how it works in Sweden, except that the Speaker of The House, not the Crown, invites a party leader to form the Government.
Most likely, we pirated the procedure from you Brits;-P
I think there may be a slight confusion in terms here - in English-speaking countries, "government" is often used to refer to the state as a whole. In that sense, the entire parliament and all authorities are part of the government.
In Sweden, the word is used in a stricter sense; only the executive organ is referred to as "government". The rest is referred to simply as "the state".
The Swedish Pirate Party has no power whatsoever over pirate parties in other countries. The moment the German pirate party, for example, feel that the Swedes have gone too far, they can just ignore them and go their own way.
It's actually common that European political parties have "sister parties" in other countries. The Christian Democrats exist in many European countries, as well as Green parties, and Liberal parties. It's not comparable to the International Socialist Organization.
I think you've found out their secret. The real purpose of the copyright extensions is not to promote the creation of the arts, but to ensure large corporations' profits from existing art.
The better example would be doing a porno version of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs in the Disney style. Seriously are we all being damaged by "not" seeing that?
Copyright to me is about protecting my ideas, it's not a trade I make, it's about the state protecting my property.
Which hinges on the assumption that ideas are property, and can be owned in roughly the same way that physical objects can be owned. To me, that sounds absurd. For example, if two people come up with the same idea independently, why should one have the right to stop the other from using the idea just because he came up with it two months earlier?
*lol*
*Pictures the Economist website, where authors type in their articles in web forms, and then the editors scour them to find something publishable*
Trading casualties would be idiotic. I hope gweihir didn't mean that. But one should try to keep casualties on the other side low.
That's insanely stupid and even if it did, then it would be time to stop only shooting at the bad guys and either consider total annihilation or doing something separate to retain the good will of the people surrounded by the fighting.
Wasn't the purpose of the war to save the Iraqi population from a tyrannic dictator?
Iraq has never been involved in terrorism against the USA, and the WMDs turned out to be non-existent.
The ideal solution is that a select group of smart people, elected by the public or at the very least appointed by those elected by the public could review such things and [...]
... and then cover it up. Which is what always seems to happen, since people in power tend to scratch the backs of other people in power. Officers are protected by beaureaucrats, who are protected by politicians, who are protected by businessmen, and so on.
The only way to avoid this is to make the process public.
sumdumass, what you're saying applies to conventional warfare, where two conventional forces oppose each other on the battlefield. What we have in Iraq is terrorism and guerilla warfare. That "war" is fought as much by getting the population on your side and undermining support for the guerillas/terrorists, as by killing them.
Or to put it in simpler terms: killing one terrorist and producing two new terrorist recruits defeats the purpose of the "war".
Keep in mind this was three years ago during some of the most violent times in Iraq. [...]
That may be an excuse for accidentally shooting at civilians, but not for covering it up. The larger guilt probably rests on the officers and administrators doing the cover-up than on the soldiers themselves.
Also, we should remember that war is dehumanising and that mistakes will be made the next time we're asked to support a war.
Slashdot Mirror
Preferably a car analogy!
History is full of examples of huge corporations toppling, when a new start-up came out of the woodwork with a fresh, new idea. (Remember when IBM was "Big Blue", the dominant player in all things computing? Apparently, a couple of college drop-outs appeared with "personal computer" ideas and wound up knocking them right over.)
Only marginally true. IBM is still healthy and making lots of money, since they're still dominant in their own market (minicomputers). The reason Apple, Microsoft and others could grow so quickly was that a *new* market opened up (personal computers).
Actually, I'll expand on that: in the UK, after a General Election (the process by which Members of Parliament are elected to the House of Commons), the leader of the majority party is customarily invited by the Crown to become Prime Minister and form a Government. In the case of a hung parliament (i.e. no single party controls a simple majority of votes in the Commons), the Crown will try to choose the person who is most likely to successfully form a coalition.
That's very similar to how it works in Sweden, except that the Speaker of The House, not the Crown, invites a party leader to form the Government.
Most likely, we pirated the procedure from you Brits ;-P
I think there may be a slight confusion in terms here - in English-speaking countries, "government" is often used to refer to the state as a whole. In that sense, the entire parliament and all authorities are part of the government.
In Sweden, the word is used in a stricter sense; only the executive organ is referred to as "government". The rest is referred to simply as "the state".
The Swedish Pirate Party has no power whatsoever over pirate parties in other countries. The moment the German pirate party, for example, feel that the Swedes have gone too far, they can just ignore them and go their own way.
It's actually common that European political parties have "sister parties" in other countries. The Christian Democrats exist in many European countries, as well as Green parties, and Liberal parties. It's not comparable to the International Socialist Organization.
What exactly do they suck?
Hollywood Sucks Up Dick
Doing away with his wife was necessary so he could have a relationship with the athletic brunette he specified for the implanted memory.
Yes, I can read it on my laptop, but I refuse to take my laptop to bed with me.
Not even when you can have some Dick in it?
I'll have you know that enjoying Dick is very manly.
Does not compute
That's infringing, you insensitive clod!
Screw getting paid for 95 year old work - I want to get paid for what my PARENTS did 95 years ago !
I think you've found out their secret. The real purpose of the copyright extensions is not to promote the creation of the arts, but to ensure large corporations' profits from existing art.
The better example would be doing a porno version of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs in the Disney style. Seriously are we all being damaged by "not" seeing that?
I would like to see it :-D
Maybe they should have complained on the grounds that retroactive extension violates the "for the promotion of the arts and sciences" part...
Copyright to me is about protecting my ideas, it's not a trade I make, it's about the state protecting my property.
Which hinges on the assumption that ideas are property, and can be owned in roughly the same way that physical objects can be owned. To me, that sounds absurd. For example, if two people come up with the same idea independently, why should one have the right to stop the other from using the idea just because he came up with it two months earlier?
What artist takes 14 years to complete a work, working full-time?
But your 2 year olds doodle with crayons and snot don't need automatic copyright protection that lasts until she dies of old age.
But my child will be the new Picasso when she grows up!
*lol* *Pictures the Economist website, where authors type in their articles in web forms, and then the editors scour them to find something publishable*
Trading casualties would be idiotic. I hope gweihir didn't mean that. But one should try to keep casualties on the other side low.
That's insanely stupid and even if it did, then it would be time to stop only shooting at the bad guys and either consider total annihilation or doing something separate to retain the good will of the people surrounded by the fighting.
Wasn't the purpose of the war to save the Iraqi population from a tyrannic dictator?
Iraq has never been involved in terrorism against the USA, and the WMDs turned out to be non-existent.
The ideal solution is that a select group of smart people, elected by the public or at the very least appointed by those elected by the public could review such things and [...]
... and then cover it up. Which is what always seems to happen, since people in power tend to scratch the backs of other people in power. Officers are protected by beaureaucrats, who are protected by politicians, who are protected by businessmen, and so on.
The only way to avoid this is to make the process public.
sumdumass, what you're saying applies to conventional warfare, where two conventional forces oppose each other on the battlefield. What we have in Iraq is terrorism and guerilla warfare. That "war" is fought as much by getting the population on your side and undermining support for the guerillas/terrorists, as by killing them.
Or to put it in simpler terms: killing one terrorist and producing two new terrorist recruits defeats the purpose of the "war".
If there was nothing wrong with what the soldiers did, why try to cover it up?
Keep in mind this was three years ago during some of the most violent times in Iraq. [...]
That may be an excuse for accidentally shooting at civilians, but not for covering it up. The larger guilt probably rests on the officers and administrators doing the cover-up than on the soldiers themselves.
Also, we should remember that war is dehumanising and that mistakes will be made the next time we're asked to support a war.