The only thing funny about China is if I tried to pull one tenth of the stunts they do, over here in Canada/US, I'd spend the rest of my days in court and/or jail for fraud.
On the other hand, when they do crack down, they do it hard. A couple of years ago it came to light that many dairies were adding melamine to milk powder, which boosted the apparent protein level. While poisoning the consumers. About 50 infants died from using it in baby formula. The government executed a few dozen of the people responsible.
The Chinese dairy industry has never recovered. Still many mainlanders come to Hong Kong specifically to buy imported baby formula.
I live in Hong Kong and my experience is, except for a few notorious tourist traps, businesses are quite honest. They just want to do business fast and efficiently. Screwing people over for retail goods isn't worth the hassle it can bring.
They can't allow them to run unsupervised. Can you imagine the target they'd be for any politically motivated hacker? And they can't pay the technicians watching the hardware, or for the electricity for the servers, etc. So the plugs are pulled.
companies (especially huge ones like Coke or Hostess) will tweak products so they are *precisely* outside of any legal definition of "junk". You'll have "Coke - AZ" tailored to have exactly one less calorie, point zero one less carb grams, and just enough vitamin C added to make it "not junk food" by the AZ tax codes.
Yes, that will be the inevitable response. And they'll have their lobbyists raise the "freedom of choice" flag, same as Big Tobacco did to delay legislation for decades while people die by the million.
I've never seen a broadly-accepted definition of junk food. People do use it to mean "food I don't like."
Not anyone I know. Lots of people (kids especially) don't like vegetables. Most people find junk food tempting. We also know that fried food with lots of salt and sugar is bad for our health. It's the fast food merchants that try to create uncertainty, exactly as the tobacco companies did.
I'm pretty sure in a lot of jurisdictions you can't sue someone for what happened to you when you did something illegal (but I may be wrong).
Of course you're wrong. You can't set a boobytrap to kill intruders, you can't beat the shit out of burglars if you catch them, etc. That's why you have police and courts.
if you asked anyone if they thought this was right they'd say no.
Vendettas and vigilantism is what you are advocating.
Try living in a place where you can dispense "justice" like that, such as the Northwest Frontier of Pakistan.
No, you are. The world cannot support everyone having their own car It can't now, and every year makes it more ridiculous and destructive. Not just by car accidents, but the environment. But don't worry, the rich will always have their private transport.
"Make a personal statement and stylistic preferences."
No, you are. The world canot support evryone havnig thero own car It can;t now, and every year makes it more ridicualous and destructive. Not just by car accidents, but the environment. But dont worry, teh rich will alwys have tehor provate transport.
"Make a personal statement and stylistic preferences."
Two robots w the same manufacturing and programming will be exactly alike
More or less, when they're new. But a car-bot will suffer wear and tear, just like a normal car. Things will get out of whack, tyres get bald, etc, etc.The robot can monitor that to an extent, but it still requires active maintenance.
The guy in the video never mentioned the cost of these things. It must be much higher than a normal car. And maintenance must also be higher. Probably it'll all be locked down and the owners won't be able, or even allowed, to do much maintenance themselves.
If a small part of the huge cost of these robot cars was spent to create usable public transport, you'd have safe roads, less pollution, save a lot of money, and require less of the city to be devoted to cars roads, parking, garages, etc. Robocars could be part of this, as taxis. That would use them more efficiently, and the ownership by the taxi company would mean they'd be responsible for maintenance of the cars and any deaths of passengers or otherwise.
At least Slashdot has the journalistic ethics to post the follow-up. Good for them.
They're not posting this as penance, they haven't apologised or retracted the original story; they're doing it to gain hits. Same reason they posted the first story without confirmation.
Slashdot has no claim to being described as "journalism", or has any demonstrable professional ethics.
Boston College has redacted that text now. It's fairly obvious what they actually meant was that having an UNSECURED wifi network could make it easier for OTHERS to infringe and leave you looking guilty. But the way they wrote it was ambiguous.
My point was that the makers (according to the stub) agree with the decision, and seem to be pretty decent about the whole thing. Why would you fret about censorship when pretty much everyone (who has rights to the work) are in agreement?
Because he's already been paid for it, he has a copy of it himself. He isn't impacted at all. It's the people in Europe who are being deprived of seeing these shows -- not a great offence against the Rights of Man, yet it still is censorship. Especially since no one has actually died (yet) as a result of the nuclear leaks.
I would be torn if it was "2012" being banned though for depicting earthquakes and tsunamis, that piece of crap wasted 2 hours of my life. I suppose I'd (half-heartedly) protest.
, no one is answering about the middle production side. For books, they just lost one of their two flagship outlets (Borders), and hang on tight if movie cinemas start to close.
You might blame Amazon for Borders closing, both their mailorder and recently ebook sales. But very few (proportionally) are reading "warezed" books. It's just not pleasant, and books are cheap to buy and a lot more convenient to read for most people, despite some authors getting very angry about downloads. And reading is just facing more -- legitimate -- competition now.
moreover, they make it hard for content owners to check for infringing content by not providing any kind of search facility over publicly shared files.
They are not "publicly shared files". It's up to the uploaders who to give the download links to. They may only send it to one person. They may post it on a forum. But by default, all links are private. And "content owners" have no right to search through anyone else's files. In any case, files that are movies, say, are often in encrypted archives and you can't search them without knowing the password.
I certainly don't think they should be blocked, but they are a long way from squeaky clean.
Of course not, they're assholes who don't give a shit about anyone. It's not about protecting their business. But if they have broken any laws, they should be prosecuted for that, not just blocked because someone says they're "not squeaky clean".
These sites support the rapid free sharing of information, thus reducing the ability of authors to profit from the books they write, of singers to profit from the songs they sing, of directors to profit from the films they create. In turn, this reduces their motivation to create such works, and this reduced motivation might lead them to reduce the amount of works they create for our enjoyment....Note that this isn't a silly argument
It isn't a "silly" argument, it's a frightening one. That the desire of some people to make greater profits should allow them to dictate what websites are accessible to the community as a whole is incredibly anti-democratic, basically it's fascist. If laws have been broken they need to prove it and take legal action.Not just send a list of sites they disapprove of to the ISP and have a website blocked, without any due process.
.
Changing?
The Hobbit was written with the full knowledge of what the ring was
No it wasn't.
Tolkien made it up as he went along. He later enlarged the mythology, both into the past (the stories in Silmarillion) and future (The Lord of the Rings). He revised The Hobbit when he "realised" the nature of the Ring much later.
You can solve that problem with underground, redundant links.
Really? Being underground makes it unbreakable during an earthquake?
Come and try it, if you dare.
We're on an Internet forum, you idiot. We're both anonymous. You can't physically threaten anyone, and expect anything except ridicule.
So, "fuck you" again, and out.
then you have to be a complete fucking idiot to put the backups right next to the primaries.
No use having backup power safely at a remote site when the grid is broken. There is plenty enough electricity in Japan to run the reactor coolant system. But getting it to the plant was the problem - I think just reconnected today.
"Intellectual property" didn't become a legal term...
Whatever it was called in the past, copyright, patents, etc have existed for a few centuries. And you may notice that I was arguing AGAINST the "strained analogies".
I'm comfortable using IP as a category, and if people are (willfully) dumb enough not to get the distinctions, it probably doesn't matter what words you use.
And I didn't just mean copyright, because this case was about copying/and selling apps, and I wouldn't like to say which exact IP laws it violated. But copyright at least.
Slashdot Mirror
The only thing funny about China is if I tried to pull one tenth of the stunts they do, over here in Canada/US, I'd spend the rest of my days in court and/or jail for fraud.
On the other hand, when they do crack down, they do it hard. A couple of years ago it came to light that many dairies were adding melamine to milk powder, which boosted the apparent protein level. While poisoning the consumers. About 50 infants died from using it in baby formula. The government executed a few dozen of the people responsible.
The Chinese dairy industry has never recovered. Still many mainlanders come to Hong Kong specifically to buy imported baby formula.
I live in Hong Kong and my experience is, except for a few notorious tourist traps, businesses are quite honest. They just want to do business fast and efficiently. Screwing people over for retail goods isn't worth the hassle it can bring.
I thought it was for prescribing aspirin.
I figured 99% of their duties is fielding idiot requests from users
Probably; but like firemen, it's the unpredictable 1% of the time when they need to act quickly that is the reason you need them on duty.
They can't allow them to run unsupervised. Can you imagine the target they'd be for any politically motivated hacker? And they can't pay the technicians watching the hardware, or for the electricity for the servers, etc. So the plugs are pulled.
companies (especially huge ones like Coke or Hostess) will tweak products so they are *precisely* outside of any legal definition of "junk". You'll have "Coke - AZ" tailored to have exactly one less calorie, point zero one less carb grams, and just enough vitamin C added to make it "not junk food" by the AZ tax codes.
Yes, that will be the inevitable response. And they'll have their lobbyists raise the "freedom of choice" flag, same as Big Tobacco did to delay legislation for decades while people die by the million.
I've never seen a broadly-accepted definition of junk food. People do use it to mean "food I don't like."
Not anyone I know. Lots of people (kids especially) don't like vegetables. Most people find junk food tempting. We also know that fried food with lots of salt and sugar is bad for our health. It's the fast food merchants that try to create uncertainty, exactly as the tobacco companies did.
if it cannot be prevented - killing
THAT is the important distinction. You don't have a licence to kill. If you can't justify lethal force, you are a murderer.
I'm pretty sure in a lot of jurisdictions you can't sue someone for what happened to you when you did something illegal (but I may be wrong).
Of course you're wrong. You can't set a boobytrap to kill intruders, you can't beat the shit out of burglars if you catch them, etc. That's why you have police and courts.
if you asked anyone if they thought this was right they'd say no.
Vendettas and vigilantism is what you are advocating. Try living in a place where you can dispense "justice" like that, such as the Northwest Frontier of Pakistan.
===============
"You are wrong"
No, you are. The world cannot support everyone having their own car It can't now, and every year makes it more ridiculous and destructive. Not just by car accidents, but the environment. But don't worry, the rich will always have their private transport.
"Make a personal statement and stylistic preferences."
Wanker.
No, you are. The world canot support evryone havnig thero own car It can;t now, and every year makes it more ridicualous and destructive. Not just by car accidents, but the environment. But dont worry, teh rich will alwys have tehor provate transport.
"Make a personal statement and stylistic preferences."
Wanker.
Two robots w the same manufacturing and programming will be exactly alike
More or less, when they're new. But a car-bot will suffer wear and tear, just like a normal car. Things will get out of whack, tyres get bald, etc, etc.The robot can monitor that to an extent, but it still requires active maintenance.
The guy in the video never mentioned the cost of these things. It must be much higher than a normal car. And maintenance must also be higher. Probably it'll all be locked down and the owners won't be able, or even allowed, to do much maintenance themselves.
If a small part of the huge cost of these robot cars was spent to create usable public transport, you'd have safe roads, less pollution, save a lot of money, and require less of the city to be devoted to cars roads, parking, garages, etc. Robocars could be part of this, as taxis. That would use them more efficiently, and the ownership by the taxi company would mean they'd be responsible for maintenance of the cars and any deaths of passengers or otherwise.
At least Slashdot has the journalistic ethics to post the follow-up. Good for them.
They're not posting this as penance, they haven't apologised or retracted the original story; they're doing it to gain hits. Same reason they posted the first story without confirmation.
Slashdot has no claim to being described as "journalism", or has any demonstrable professional ethics.
Boston College has redacted that text now. It's fairly obvious what they actually meant was that having an UNSECURED wifi network could make it easier for OTHERS to infringe and leave you looking guilty. But the way they wrote it was ambiguous.
My point was that the makers (according to the stub) agree with the decision, and seem to be pretty decent about the whole thing. Why would you fret about censorship when pretty much everyone (who has rights to the work) are in agreement?
Because he's already been paid for it, he has a copy of it himself. He isn't impacted at all. It's the people in Europe who are being deprived of seeing these shows -- not a great offence against the Rights of Man, yet it still is censorship. Especially since no one has actually died (yet) as a result of the nuclear leaks.
I would be torn if it was "2012" being banned though for depicting earthquakes and tsunamis, that piece of crap wasted 2 hours of my life. I suppose I'd (half-heartedly) protest.
, no one is answering about the middle production side. For books, they just lost one of their two flagship outlets (Borders), and hang on tight if movie cinemas start to close.
You might blame Amazon for Borders closing, both their mailorder and recently ebook sales. But very few (proportionally) are reading "warezed" books. It's just not pleasant, and books are cheap to buy and a lot more convenient to read for most people, despite some authors getting very angry about downloads. And reading is just facing more -- legitimate -- competition now.
moreover, they make it hard for content owners to check for infringing content by not providing any kind of search facility over publicly shared files.
They are not "publicly shared files". It's up to the uploaders who to give the download links to. They may only send it to one person. They may post it on a forum. But by default, all links are private. And "content owners" have no right to search through anyone else's files. In any case, files that are movies, say, are often in encrypted archives and you can't search them without knowing the password.
I certainly don't think they should be blocked, but they are a long way from squeaky clean.
Of course not, they're assholes who don't give a shit about anyone. It's not about protecting their business. But if they have broken any laws, they should be prosecuted for that, not just blocked because someone says they're "not squeaky clean".
... founding fathers... Five posts and and already the context, the UK, has been forgotten.
These sites support the rapid free sharing of information, thus reducing the ability of authors to profit from the books they write, of singers to profit from the songs they sing, of directors to profit from the films they create. In turn, this reduces their motivation to create such works, and this reduced motivation might lead them to reduce the amount of works they create for our enjoyment....Note that this isn't a silly argument
It isn't a "silly" argument, it's a frightening one. That the desire of some people to make greater profits should allow them to dictate what websites are accessible to the community as a whole is incredibly anti-democratic, basically it's fascist. If laws have been broken they need to prove it and take legal action.Not just send a list of sites they disapprove of to the ISP and have a website blocked, without any due process. .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwtaYCj_qwU
No, the point of the backup power generators is that they can be flown-in from offsite,
"No"? That's a third option.
Changing? The Hobbit was written with the full knowledge of what the ring was
No it wasn't. Tolkien made it up as he went along. He later enlarged the mythology, both into the past (the stories in Silmarillion) and future (The Lord of the Rings). He revised The Hobbit when he "realised" the nature of the Ring much later.
You can solve that problem with underground, redundant links.
Really? Being underground makes it unbreakable during an earthquake?
Come and try it, if you dare.
We're on an Internet forum, you idiot. We're both anonymous. You can't physically threaten anyone, and expect anything except ridicule. So, "fuck you" again, and out.
the plant has its own backup generators which are useless when they are on-site.
And ones off site are useless if the connection to the plant is broken.
way to be obtuse
And a big fuck you to you.
then you have to be a complete fucking idiot to put the backups right next to the primaries.
No use having backup power safely at a remote site when the grid is broken. There is plenty enough electricity in Japan to run the reactor coolant system. But getting it to the plant was the problem - I think just reconnected today.
"Intellectual property" didn't become a legal term ...
Whatever it was called in the past, copyright, patents, etc have existed for a few centuries. And you may notice that I was arguing AGAINST the "strained analogies".
I'm comfortable using IP as a category, and if people are (willfully) dumb enough not to get the distinctions, it probably doesn't matter what words you use.
And I didn't just mean copyright, because this case was about copying/and selling apps, and I wouldn't like to say which exact IP laws it violated. But copyright at least.