I dunno, when it's a republican government overseeing the votes of a democratic county, perhaps it points to something going on at the governmental level that gets found out when people start looking into things a little deeper.
Bullshit, that is not just a "gotcha" for city revenue. It's called deterrence.
The thing is, if all they wanted was for people to go slow if there happens to be a cop around, then yes, using unmarked cars and disguises would make no sense. But what they want is for people to be paying due care and attention and not speeding even when there isn't a cop around to enforce it.
If people would obey the law at all times (instead of only when it's risky to break them) then there'd be no need for these tactics. Then again, if people would obey the law at all times there'd be no need for police either.
So, because people are jerks and have the attitude of "if I don't get caught, it's okay to do" then the police have to put the idea into people's head that they could get caught at any time. So it may not enhance public safety at that particular moment in time, but it does enhance it by making those drivers wary in future.
I don't understand why you're horrifed. I mean, yes, it's prophesies standa a very good chance of being fulfilled in the general sense.
But the downside that this thing proposes fails to take into account that if you don't have the right information, you fail. Ergo, those who wind up with too narrow or shallow of a viewpoint will tend to fail against those who take the time/have the network to find solid and insightful information. As they fail, they'll be able to match their own experience with what they thought was true and start downgrading the sources that provided them with false information.
In essence, this thing simply makes it easier for *anybody* to become the savvy, media-aware reader by tapping into those people who are already savvy and media aware, and seeing what they see.
Those who are determined to see the world the way they want to see it already do that, and EPIC won't make it any easier or less relevant than it already is. But for those of us who are interested in finding real answers, the ideas behind EPIC are exciting.
So.. now help out your fellow geeks. Give the name of the retailer so that we know not to shop there, but to go in and occasionally tell them why we're shopping elsewhere.
So can we use this quote to demonstrate "adhering to their Enemies"?
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." -- George W. Bush
Right. You can only copy music for your own personal use. You cannot give away copies.
You can, however, give the original media away to somebody else. They can then legally copy that music for personal use.
Downloading was covered under this, since you were the one doing the copying, and it's for your own personal use. Uploading was in question, since it was unclear whether making a copy available is the same as giving it away.
Recent rulings in Canada have suggested that making a copy available is not the same as giving it away. This is under appeal, however, so it remains to be seen.
You haven't been reading many report by independant analysts on this topic.
Many of them state that while the music industry has seen significant losses in some sectors (notably CD singles), there is no evidence suggesting that this is any more significantly correlated with file trading than other factors, such as less product being made available in those formats or general economic decline.
Those that study the file trading issue specifically generally come to a result that the net change in dollars received by the music industry due to file trading is essentially 0. Not a profit, like Slashdots like to claim, but no loss either.
Depending on the depth of the study, you may see notes that some of the gain comes to those who aren't RIAA members. Which is what the RIAA is really up in arms about, but you can't go around claiming that losing business to the competition is illegal.
he Canadian way is to pay levys/taxes on everything so we don't have to worry about anything.
Only to a point. When someone does something illegal, the taxpayers aren't supposed to pay to provide restitution to the person who suffers.
If someone comes in and robs you, I'm not expected to pay to replace what they took. You're expected to get it back from them.
Why should the CCRA be any different? If someone steals from them, they have every right to try and get what's stolen back. The trick comes down to defining what is stealing. Canadian law currently suggests that downloading isn't stealing. Recent court rules have suggested that uploading isn't stealing either. So this is where it gets fun.
This is where you're in the crux of that "having to find a new business model" idea that folks seem to spout around here so much.
Unfortunately, few of them have any ideas of exactly *what* that business model is.
Probably the most successful model I've seen is donation based. Basically, you put up a pathetic plea saying "Guys.. going broke here. Please donate or the site's going to have to go. A guy hasta eat you know."
A bit risky, because if you don't get enough but stay up anyway, people know you're full of crap about having to go down. And if you do go down, it can take a long time to rebuild a user base.
Thnk about how many real lives -- specifically CEO's and top executives -- that killing a corporation like that would ruin and try telling me that again.
Basically, you revoke the corporations charter, pay all the debts (which hopefully include a whopping fine for negligence) and divest the remainder of the holdings (if any) to the shareholders.
Ideally, the shareholders get bupkiss after the fine, which raises an immediate scream from investment firms all over the globe and prompts *serious* investigation of any company that is being invested in to make sure that kind of stuff doesn't happen again.
The guy who ran the company at the time is obviously washed up forever, as no board would want to touch such a person with a 10-ft pole.
Punish non-ethical companies severely, and they'll stop receiving investments. Darwinian law applies.
You're missing the connection between authority and action.
Squawking before was done without any authority. Precious little divided us from the tinfoil hats.
Supposedly, by being admitted as an observer to the WIPO, it's been acknowledged by the powers that be there that the FSFE is not wearing tinfoil. This will encourage other leaders to look more seriously at the points raised, since they now have some assurance that it's not coming from the local loon.
It's a bloody stupid right anyway, only put in for the practicalities and so that the system can't always add perjury to any list of charges against you.
It does nothing to benefit society, and little to benefit the individual since "pleading the fifth" is nearly as damning anyway.
Re:Some calculations...
on
Hacking Vodka
·
· Score: 1
Nah, it's just that someone is hoping to get a "+1 Funny" MetaMod
Actually, a punch card *is* a paper trail. We can say that 'cause they're made of.. well.. paper.
However, doesn't this logic send up red flags for you? "People won't trust it, so we won't let them double-check it." And this encourages people trusting the system how? Instead, what they're looking for is a cheap and easy way to run an election where it doesn't matter if people actually believe in the results or not.
Hey.. I got a good one.. have someone in a dark room flip a coin and call out which person won.. that's just as non-trustable and even easier.
Slashdot Mirror
I dunno, when it's a republican government overseeing the votes of a democratic county, perhaps it points to something going on at the governmental level that gets found out when people start looking into things a little deeper.
Uh-huh.
I take it you live in a town with all one way streets?
No?
Then how the hell do you expect them to be able to time the lights so that no matter which way you're going you get them all green?
Bullshit, that is not just a "gotcha" for city revenue. It's called deterrence.
The thing is, if all they wanted was for people to go slow if there happens to be a cop around, then yes, using unmarked cars and disguises would make no sense. But what they want is for people to be paying due care and attention and not speeding even when there isn't a cop around to enforce it.
If people would obey the law at all times (instead of only when it's risky to break them) then there'd be no need for these tactics. Then again, if people would obey the law at all times there'd be no need for police either.
So, because people are jerks and have the attitude of "if I don't get caught, it's okay to do" then the police have to put the idea into people's head that they could get caught at any time. So it may not enhance public safety at that particular moment in time, but it does enhance it by making those drivers wary in future.
Or.. there's simply no need to search for the NFL because it's plastered all over the god-damned TV all the time anyway.
Me, I'm one of those who looked up Tour de France, the reason being I couldn't find any decent coverage locally.
We wanted to release a Windows version as part of Windows 98, but sadly, Microsoft has effective building security.
Wouldn't you just know it.. the one place Microsoft has effective security is the place that keeps people from doing something useful.
Or did you think you may have just given her e-mail account to an abusive ex-boyfriend and she can use that to track down where she lives now?
I don't understand why you're horrifed.
I mean, yes, it's prophesies standa a very good chance of being fulfilled in the general sense.
But the downside that this thing proposes fails to take into account that if you don't have the right information, you fail. Ergo, those who wind up with too narrow or shallow of a viewpoint will tend to fail against those who take the time/have the network to find solid and insightful information. As they fail, they'll be able to match their own experience with what they thought was true and start downgrading the sources that provided them with false information.
In essence, this thing simply makes it easier for *anybody* to become the savvy, media-aware reader by tapping into those people who are already savvy and media aware, and seeing what they see.
Those who are determined to see the world the way they want to see it already do that, and EPIC won't make it any easier or less relevant than it already is. But for those of us who are interested in finding real answers, the ideas behind EPIC are exciting.
However, those terms are actually a loosening of your current rights with respect to that software, which are essentially none.
You see, without agreeing to the terms, you're not even allowed to use the software. That's what the terms give you.
So.. now help out your fellow geeks.
Give the name of the retailer so that we know not to shop there, but to go in and occasionally tell them why we're shopping elsewhere.
...but haven't answered his.
Not only is this the apex of scummyness but the work required outweighs the reward of a free map.
Now, what if that map cost you $50-70? (such as a game)
What if it cost you $100-250 (such as a business application/suite)
What if it cost you $800-900 (such as for a professional graphics suite)
The scummyness never changes, but the work/reward ratio certainly does.
You're assuming their innocent of it.
So can we use this quote to demonstrate "adhering to their Enemies"?
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." -- George W. Bush
Right. You can only copy music for your own personal use. You cannot give away copies.
You can, however, give the original media away to somebody else. They can then legally copy that music for personal use.
Downloading was covered under this, since you were the one doing the copying, and it's for your own personal use. Uploading was in question, since it was unclear whether making a copy available is the same as giving it away.
Recent rulings in Canada have suggested that making a copy available is not the same as giving it away. This is under appeal, however, so it remains to be seen.
You haven't been reading many report by independant analysts on this topic.
Many of them state that while the music industry has seen significant losses in some sectors (notably CD singles), there is no evidence suggesting that this is any more significantly correlated with file trading than other factors, such as less product being made available in those formats or general economic decline.
Those that study the file trading issue specifically generally come to a result that the net change in dollars received by the music industry due to file trading is essentially 0. Not a profit, like Slashdots like to claim, but no loss either.
Depending on the depth of the study, you may see notes that some of the gain comes to those who aren't RIAA members. Which is what the RIAA is really up in arms about, but you can't go around claiming that losing business to the competition is illegal.
he Canadian way is to pay levys/taxes on everything so we don't have to worry about anything.
Only to a point.
When someone does something illegal, the taxpayers aren't supposed to pay to provide restitution to the person who suffers.
If someone comes in and robs you, I'm not expected to pay to replace what they took. You're expected to get it back from them.
Why should the CCRA be any different? If someone steals from them, they have every right to try and get what's stolen back. The trick comes down to defining what is stealing. Canadian law currently suggests that downloading isn't stealing. Recent court rules have suggested that uploading isn't stealing either. So this is where it gets fun.
..ever heard of a pendulum?
LOL! Now available in Luxembourg.
This is where you're in the crux of that "having to find a new business model" idea that folks seem to spout around here so much.
Unfortunately, few of them have any ideas of exactly *what* that business model is.
Probably the most successful model I've seen is donation based. Basically, you put up a pathetic plea saying "Guys.. going broke here. Please donate or the site's going to have to go. A guy hasta eat you know."
A bit risky, because if you don't get enough but stay up anyway, people know you're full of crap about having to go down. And if you do go down, it can take a long time to rebuild a user base.
Thnk about how many real lives -- specifically CEO's and top executives -- that killing a corporation like that would ruin and try telling me that again.
Actually, it can "get the chair".
Basically, you revoke the corporations charter, pay all the debts (which hopefully include a whopping fine for negligence) and divest the remainder of the holdings (if any) to the shareholders.
Ideally, the shareholders get bupkiss after the fine, which raises an immediate scream from investment firms all over the globe and prompts *serious* investigation of any company that is being invested in to make sure that kind of stuff doesn't happen again.
The guy who ran the company at the time is obviously washed up forever, as no board would want to touch such a person with a 10-ft pole.
Punish non-ethical companies severely, and they'll stop receiving investments. Darwinian law applies.
State Legislatures would just have the intestinal fortitude to pick Presidential Electors themselves.
Or we could go one further and just let the companies that make the voting machines pic..oh wait..
You're missing the connection between authority and action.
Squawking before was done without any authority. Precious little divided us from the tinfoil hats.
Supposedly, by being admitted as an observer to the WIPO, it's been acknowledged by the powers that be there that the FSFE is not wearing tinfoil. This will encourage other leaders to look more seriously at the points raised, since they now have some assurance that it's not coming from the local loon.
Hopefully nothing.
It's a bloody stupid right anyway, only put in for the practicalities and so that the system can't always add perjury to any list of charges against you.
It does nothing to benefit society, and little to benefit the individual since "pleading the fifth" is nearly as damning anyway.
Nah, it's just that someone is hoping to get a "+1 Funny" MetaMod
Actually, a punch card *is* a paper trail. We can say that 'cause they're made of.. well.. paper.
However, doesn't this logic send up red flags for you? "People won't trust it, so we won't let them double-check it." And this encourages people trusting the system how? Instead, what they're looking for is a cheap and easy way to run an election where it doesn't matter if people actually believe in the results or not.
Hey.. I got a good one.. have someone in a dark room flip a coin and call out which person won.. that's just as non-trustable and even easier.