Jack leighton has recently whored himself out to the liberals for the sum of 4.6 billion dollars worth of budget considerations.
It's not whoring, it's strategy.
Layton dictated what the government's spending policy would be and then supported that policy to the benefit of all Canadians. Since the Reform-Bloc alliance will consistently vote against the government on confidence votes, the NDP can use their balance of power to achieve their goals - that's not whorish, it's just being smart. Now the NDP is free to bring the government down on any non-confidence vote of their choosing - but when you have the proverbial gun to the government's head it just makes sense to extract what benefit you can before you pull the trigger.
We know that leighton is a whore. His payment was in the form of 4.6 billion dollars towards his socialist goals.
Yes, damn him and his socialist goals. How dare he want the govermnet to spend money on helping the poor.
I mean, the poor! What have they done for me lately?
Once you are informed, read my statements again and see whether you agree or not.
I don't think there are many people who don't want artists to be compensated for their work. Many do have a problem with the fact that most of the money they spend on artistic content is taken by **AA executives who earn ridiculous profits from their broken pricing, promotion and distribution systems.
Gas prices are now higher here than they have ever been. The national average is over $2/gallon, and there are numerous angecies saying that it only goes up from here.
Frankly, I don't think that would be the case if old Georgie was seriously trying to secure permanent oil interests in Iraq. Perhaps we will benefit in the long run, but if we do, I suspect that it will be only if greater peace and stability makes it to that region.
Anyone who thinks that this war was just about securing American oil interests is being shortsighted. The deisred result from this conflict is ultimately for America to gain control over the middle eastern region. In order to get control of the region, individual countries (Iran , Iraq, Lebanon, Syria) need to be "stabilized" by the means of education (or re-education) of the population, investment in infrastructure and, of course, the deployment of massive amounts of American troops who will "liberate" the people from their current political regimes.
Strategically it is a good idea for the US to have an (even greater) controlling interst in the middle east, from the perspective of resources (oil) and geography, to act as a foil against an incresingly contrary Europe and the ever-increasing economic and military "threat" posed by both India and China.
Now I can understand the American position where they are the dominant power and will do what it takes to remain so -- but it irritates me when they act as if this America-first strategy is an excellent thing for the rest of the world...
In order for a telco in country B to terminate calls in country A they need to sign a termination agreement with a telco that owns facilities in country A. The requirement to comply with country A's telecom regulations is included as a condition of the termination agreement.
But skeet shooting / paper target shooting is just a method for the marksman to develop proficiency with the weapon so that they will be more effective when using it for its primary purpose - which is to kill or maim living things.
The actual point is that while it is possible that some, if not most, of the content that is downlaoded would never be paid for the copyright holder will still experience some lost revenue as a result of unlawful downloading.
Additionally, even if no company ever lost revenue as the result of downloading it would still be unlawful to violate copyright. If everyone chose to not pay for content the the movie industry would collapse.
Poverty is not an excuse for violating the MPAA/RIAA's copyright. I mean, come on, you obviously can afford to own a computer and pay for an internet connection. So you have some disposable income which you could use to buy a DVD player and some DVDs if you wanted.
Why can't you just admit that you can afford to pay for movies but you don't want to because it is easier and cheaper to download them for free?
There's no need for the BS "I wanted to try it out" or "I wouldn't have paid for it anyway" excuses.
The real game is the way people try to convince others that because copyright infringement is not theft, it is therefore perfectly lawful and in no way causes damaged to the copyright holders.
If you buy a Coke instead of a Pepsi, you just deprived Pepsi of a sale.
If you buy a Coke, then you have bought one Coke - that transaction has nothing to do with Pepsi.
If you went to your friends house, took a can of Pepsi from their fridge and were somehow able to make an infinite number of exact copies to give to your friends, that would be an analogous situation. In this case you would be unlawfully copying and distributing a product that is produced and sold by someone else - and you would certainly be held responsible for your actions.
Obviously they lose the money that you would normally have paid to see the film had you not downloaded it from unsanctioned distributers.
I know that some people like to argue that they "wouldn't have paid to watch the movie anyway" although they are happy to watch it for free. In some cases that might be true - but people have to admit that there are many cases where people are downloading and watching films that they would have happily paid for when downloading wasn't a viable option.
Ah - so the first American president to win the election, both in electoral votes AND popular votes in oh, however many years, is a fuckup? But you can say that John Kerry (or any of the other candidates) wasn't one? OK...If you say so Frenchy.
Is this honestly how people "debate" in your country? I feel sorry for you.
But, a lot of us Americans are sick and fucking tired of seeing the lackadasical people of most of the world, let bullshit like what Saddam was getting away with, happen.
Horrible acts are commited by numerous political regimes worldwide. Why single out Saddam? If the US is so worried about stopping "evildoers" why didn't they offer any help to the largely unsupported, underfunded Canadian and Belgian troops who tried to stop the Rwandan genocide? Why was no support offered to Canadian peacekeepers in Cyprus or the Golan Heights?
It's so funny hearing the words from those who think that they're "better" because they don't have the capability to make any real difference in the world.
Canada has already done more to promote global peace and security than the US government will ever have the will to do (despite the good intentions of many Americans).
Nice straw-man argument. Lets compare the ratio of copyright breaking activities VS non copyright breaking activities those protocols have and compare them with p2p's ratio. I think you may find p2p to have a significantly higher ratio.
How is anyone supposed to determine what the ratio of copyright breaking activities vs non-copyright breaking activities is for each protocol? I mean, we can't possibly know what kind of data every single HTTP, FTP, NNTP session is transferring right? And even if we did know, how we would weed out those transfers that appear to be copyright infringement but are actually fair use?
I agree this law is bad, but there's no need to use straw-man arguments to make your point.
It looks to me like the only one making straw man arguments is you.
P.S. I know this will get modded down offtopic or flame-bait, but I've got Karma to burn and it needed to be said.
Ah, the good ol' "mod me down" strategy for getting modded up -- classic.
Citizens in a representative democracy accept that the elected majority (or plurality) have the authority to govern. Governing sometimes requires the restriction of some personal freedoms for the good of the society as a whole. The people are free to express their views on what is "good" for society by voting for representatives that share their views/values.
So, as long as we accept representative democracy as our political system, we accept that the majority (plurality) elected current government can govern (tax) all of us even though they may not share our views/values. The government is an expression of our collective free will as a people.
If we didn't accept representative democracy we would revolt...
Wow - that's unfortuneate for them. And now that I think of it I'm sure that there are many types of government that do this (dictatorships, monarchies, pseudo-democracies).
I should have said, "What kind of free country allows unelected people to impose taxes?".
The CRTC are most definitely not the decision makers with regard to the creation of taxes - this includes taxes on physical media. Their job is to create policy to ensure that the industry is meeting the goals that parliament has established in the Telecommunications and Broadcasting Acts. The need to created taxes on recording media is a subject oustide of the Commission's expertise and authority. Consequently, I am sure they would not be consulted at all regarding issue.
Obviously MPs are not experts and therefore need to be breifed on issues before they create law - but that's why we have the PMO and the Privy Council.
But he used it to check the accuracy of wiki. That is use my friend.
By the way "taking with a grain of salt" means "not worth much." So why use Wiki again?
The same reason you might ask one of your peers to explain something to you - you need the information quickly and they are there. If you want more accurate information then you can use a book.
This is like arguing over the meaning of the word "is." Anyways, there is a difference between pulling a wikipedia article to evaluate its content--reviewing it, and pulling a wikipedia article when you're actually trying to learn, and research the subject matter.
There really isn't a difference in terms of your obligation to edit. If you pull an article for any reason and you find incorrect information - you should edit it - it's the right theing to do.
If you don't know how to put the word "use" in a sentence, you'll never make it out of community college.
It looks to me like you're the one who doesn't understand the word use - that's why I explained it to you. Clearly you need to work on your reading comprehension. Read my posts again and this time think about what I wrote - I know that's a knew thing for you - it will come with time.
somebody call a whaaaa-mbulance!!!
A whaaaaa-mbulance? Let me guess, you listen to a lot of AM radio right? Big fan of certain "news" television programs?
He wasn't making use of it, nor am I, dumbshit. He was pointing out how bad it was, and trying to explain why it is hopeless to expect it to magically get better. It isn't about "thinking critically" it is about "using sources that are not gratuitously unreliable" and "not having a pipe dream that random blogging in high enough quantity leads to quality information."
Actually he was making use of it. He went to the website and looked up information on Hamilton. See how that works? He used the website to get information. Get it now?
All I'm saying is that you can use wiki to get some general info on a lot of subjects knowing full well that some details might be incorrect. If you need more reliable information then by all means - go out and get it. Only a retard would use wikipedia as their only source of information.
Having to get off my ass (where do you get off calling me lazy?) to find additional sources is exactly why Wikipedia does not serve its purpose.
Being unwilling to get off your ass and look for other sources makes you lazy. The same way posting AC makes you a pussy.
I try to think critically all the time, but it doesn't mean that I'm ready, at any moment, to develop enough expertise in an area I want information in to be able to go over Wikipedia articles to make sure they don't get any fact wrong.
As for the critical thinking - keep trying! Maybe one day you'll have the necessary skills to be able to take the wiki articles with a grain of salt. Wikipedia is a good way to get general information on a subject with the caveat that some details may be incorrect. It's as simple as that.
This response clearly demonstrates that you need to work on your reading comprehension skills. You might also want to step up your logic game while you're at it. When your get your shit together we can discuss this subject in more detail.
His point is there are fundamental flaws in the Wikipedia methodology. One of those flaws is that people are, on average, well...average. Edits may improve a poor entry but are likely to weaken a great one. Articles are eventually "edited into mediocrity." McHenry takes issue with the concept of a general knowledge source such as an encyclopedia edited and maintained by committee that takes all comers.
McHenry may take issue with the way wikipedia is operated, edited and maintained - it is a valid criticism. But when he chooses to use the resource to obtain information then he becomes a part of the community of wiki users. As a community member he has the obligation to correct any errors he might find; to allow them to stand is immoral.
So the "action" by which McHenry is allowing incorrect information to spread is to allow Wikipedia to exist. Is it therefor his moral obligation to destroy Wikipedia?
McHenry does not know for certain that incorrect information is being spread by wikipedia. He therefore has no reason to take any action against it. However, if he finds errors while using wikipedia he has a moral obligation as a community member to correct them.
If he finds so many errors that it would be impossible to correct them all then yes, I'd say he'd have no choice but to destroy the system (and its users).
Slashdot Mirror
Jack leighton has recently whored himself out to the liberals for the sum of 4.6 billion dollars worth of budget considerations.
It's not whoring, it's strategy.
Layton dictated what the government's spending policy would be and then supported that policy to the benefit of all Canadians. Since the Reform-Bloc alliance will consistently vote against the government on confidence votes, the NDP can use their balance of power to achieve their goals - that's not whorish, it's just being smart. Now the NDP is free to bring the government down on any non-confidence vote of their choosing - but when you have the proverbial gun to the government's head it just makes sense to extract what benefit you can before you pull the trigger.
We know that leighton is a whore. His payment was in the form of 4.6 billion dollars towards his socialist goals.
Yes, damn him and his socialist goals. How dare he want the govermnet to spend money on helping the poor.
I mean, the poor! What have they done for me lately?
Once you are informed, read my statements again and see whether you agree or not.
I still disagree.
I don't think there are many people who don't want artists to be compensated for their work. Many do have a problem with the fact that most of the money they spend on artistic content is taken by **AA executives who earn ridiculous profits from their broken pricing, promotion and distribution systems.
Gas prices are now higher here than they have ever been. The national average is over $2/gallon, and there are numerous angecies saying that it only goes up from here.
Frankly, I don't think that would be the case if old Georgie was seriously trying to secure permanent oil interests in Iraq. Perhaps we will benefit in the long run, but if we do, I suspect that it will be only if greater peace and stability makes it to that region.
Anyone who thinks that this war was just about securing American oil interests is being shortsighted. The deisred result from this conflict is ultimately for America to gain control over the middle eastern region. In order to get control of the region, individual countries (Iran , Iraq, Lebanon, Syria) need to be "stabilized" by the means of education (or re-education) of the population, investment in infrastructure and, of course, the deployment of massive amounts of American troops who will "liberate" the people from their current political regimes.
Strategically it is a good idea for the US to have an (even greater) controlling interst in the middle east, from the perspective of resources (oil) and geography, to act as a foil against an incresingly contrary Europe and the ever-increasing economic and military "threat" posed by both India and China.
Now I can understand the American position where they are the dominant power and will do what it takes to remain so -- but it irritates me when they act as if this America-first strategy is an excellent thing for the rest of the world...
In order for a telco in country B to terminate calls in country A they need to sign a termination agreement with a telco that owns facilities in country A. The requirement to comply with country A's telecom regulations is included as a condition of the termination agreement.
But skeet shooting / paper target shooting is just a method for the marksman to develop proficiency with the weapon so that they will be more effective when using it for its primary purpose - which is to kill or maim living things.
The actual point is that while it is possible that some, if not most, of the content that is downlaoded would never be paid for the copyright holder will still experience some lost revenue as a result of unlawful downloading.
Additionally, even if no company ever lost revenue as the result of downloading it would still be unlawful to violate copyright. If everyone chose to not pay for content the the movie industry would collapse.
Poverty is not an excuse for violating the MPAA/RIAA's copyright. I mean, come on, you obviously can afford to own a computer and pay for an internet connection. So you have some disposable income which you could use to buy a DVD player and some DVDs if you wanted.
Why can't you just admit that you can afford to pay for movies but you don't want to because it is easier and cheaper to download them for free?
There's no need for the BS "I wanted to try it out" or "I wouldn't have paid for it anyway" excuses.
The real game is the way people try to convince others that because copyright infringement is not theft, it is therefore perfectly lawful and in no way causes damaged to the copyright holders.
If you buy a Coke instead of a Pepsi, you just deprived Pepsi of a sale.
If you buy a Coke, then you have bought one Coke - that transaction has nothing to do with Pepsi.
If you went to your friends house, took a can of Pepsi from their fridge and were somehow able to make an infinite number of exact copies to give to your friends, that would be an analogous situation. In this case you would be unlawfully copying and distributing a product that is produced and sold by someone else - and you would certainly be held responsible for your actions.
Obviously they lose the money that you would normally have paid to see the film had you not downloaded it from unsanctioned distributers.
I know that some people like to argue that they "wouldn't have paid to watch the movie anyway" although they are happy to watch it for free. In some cases that might be true - but people have to admit that there are many cases where people are downloading and watching films that they would have happily paid for when downloading wasn't a viable option.
Ah - so the first American president to win the election, both in electoral votes AND popular votes in oh, however many years, is a fuckup? But you can say that John Kerry (or any of the other candidates) wasn't one? OK...If you say so Frenchy.
Is this honestly how people "debate" in your country? I feel sorry for you.
But, a lot of us Americans are sick and fucking tired of seeing the lackadasical people of most of the world, let bullshit like what Saddam was getting away with, happen.
Horrible acts are commited by numerous political regimes worldwide. Why single out Saddam? If the US is so worried about stopping "evildoers" why didn't they offer any help to the largely unsupported, underfunded Canadian and Belgian troops who tried to stop the Rwandan genocide? Why was no support offered to Canadian peacekeepers in Cyprus or the Golan Heights?
It's so funny hearing the words from those who think that they're "better" because they don't have the capability to make any real difference in the world.
Canada has already done more to promote global peace and security than the US government will ever have the will to do (despite the good intentions of many Americans).
Nice straw-man argument. Lets compare the ratio of copyright breaking activities VS non copyright breaking activities those protocols have and compare them with p2p's ratio. I think you may find p2p to have a significantly higher ratio.
How is anyone supposed to determine what the ratio of copyright breaking activities vs non-copyright breaking activities is for each protocol? I mean, we can't possibly know what kind of data every single HTTP, FTP, NNTP session is transferring right? And even if we did know, how we would weed out those transfers that appear to be copyright infringement but are actually fair use?
I agree this law is bad, but there's no need to use straw-man arguments to make your point.
It looks to me like the only one making straw man arguments is you.
P.S. I know this will get modded down offtopic or flame-bait, but I've got Karma to burn and it needed to be said.
Ah, the good ol' "mod me down" strategy for getting modded up -- classic.
The US was never a party to the Berne convention. Perhaps you mean the Universal Copyright Convention (UCC)?
Farily free I would say.
Citizens in a representative democracy accept that the elected majority (or plurality) have the authority to govern. Governing sometimes requires the restriction of some personal freedoms for the good of the society as a whole. The people are free to express their views on what is "good" for society by voting for representatives that share their views/values.
So, as long as we accept representative democracy as our political system, we accept that the majority (plurality) elected current government can govern (tax) all of us even though they may not share our views/values. The government is an expression of our collective free will as a people.
If we didn't accept representative democracy we would revolt...
Wow - that's unfortuneate for them. And now that I think of it I'm sure that there are many types of government that do this (dictatorships, monarchies, pseudo-democracies).
I should have said, "What kind of free country allows unelected people to impose taxes?".
The CRTC are most definitely not the decision makers with regard to the creation of taxes - this includes taxes on physical media. Their job is to create policy to ensure that the industry is meeting the goals that parliament has established in the Telecommunications and Broadcasting Acts. The need to created taxes on recording media is a subject oustide of the Commission's expertise and authority. Consequently, I am sure they would not be consulted at all regarding issue.
Obviously MPs are not experts and therefore need to be breifed on issues before they create law - but that's why we have the PMO and the Privy Council.
I agree. It is preferable to pay a relatively small levy on media or devices in exchange for the ability to download with impunity.
Incidentally, it's the CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association).
Sorry but you are way off base with that statement. The CRTC has never had the authority to impose taxes, levies or fines - and they still don't.
Honestly, what kind of country allows an entity other than the elected representatives to impose taxes?
Honestly I don't use wiki ever - but I do like to argue with the anti-wiki zealots for the amusement factor.
But he used it to check the accuracy of wiki. That is use my friend.
By the way "taking with a grain of salt" means "not worth much." So why use Wiki again?
The same reason you might ask one of your peers to explain something to you - you need the information quickly and they are there. If you want more accurate information then you can use a book.
This is like arguing over the meaning of the word "is." Anyways, there is a difference between pulling a wikipedia article to evaluate its content--reviewing it, and pulling a wikipedia article when you're actually trying to learn, and research the subject matter.
There really isn't a difference in terms of your obligation to edit. If you pull an article for any reason and you find incorrect information - you should edit it - it's the right theing to do.
If you don't know how to put the word "use" in a sentence, you'll never make it out of community college.
It looks to me like you're the one who doesn't understand the word use - that's why I explained it to you. Clearly you need to work on your reading comprehension. Read my posts again and this time think about what I wrote - I know that's a knew thing for you - it will come with time.
somebody call a whaaaa-mbulance!!!
A whaaaaa-mbulance? Let me guess, you listen to a lot of AM radio right? Big fan of certain "news" television programs?
Actually it's been corrected. He doesn't know if any more incorrect information is being spread unless he uses the site....
He wasn't making use of it, nor am I, dumbshit. He was pointing out how bad it was, and trying to explain why it is hopeless to expect it to magically get better. It isn't about "thinking critically" it is about "using sources that are not gratuitously unreliable" and "not having a pipe dream that random blogging in high enough quantity leads to quality information."
Actually he was making use of it. He went to the website and looked up information on Hamilton. See how that works? He used the website to get information. Get it now?
All I'm saying is that you can use wiki to get some general info on a lot of subjects knowing full well that some details might be incorrect. If you need more reliable information then by all means - go out and get it. Only a retard would use wikipedia as their only source of information.
Having to get off my ass (where do you get off calling me lazy?) to find additional sources is exactly why Wikipedia does not serve its purpose.
Being unwilling to get off your ass and look for other sources makes you lazy. The same way posting AC makes you a pussy.
I try to think critically all the time, but it doesn't mean that I'm ready, at any moment, to develop enough expertise in an area I want information in to be able to go over Wikipedia articles to make sure they don't get any fact wrong.
As for the critical thinking - keep trying! Maybe one day you'll have the necessary skills to be able to take the wiki articles with a grain of salt. Wikipedia is a good way to get general information on a subject with the caveat that some details may be incorrect. It's as simple as that.
Jeff
This response clearly demonstrates that you need to work on your reading comprehension skills. You might also want to step up your logic game while you're at it. When your get your shit together we can discuss this subject in more detail.
Thanks
His point is there are fundamental flaws in the Wikipedia methodology. One of those flaws is that people are, on average, well...average. Edits may improve a poor entry but are likely to weaken a great one. Articles are eventually "edited into mediocrity." McHenry takes issue with the concept of a general knowledge source such as an encyclopedia edited and maintained by committee that takes all comers.
McHenry may take issue with the way wikipedia is operated, edited and maintained - it is a valid criticism. But when he chooses to use the resource to obtain information then he becomes a part of the community of wiki users. As a community member he has the obligation to correct any errors he might find; to allow them to stand is immoral.
So the "action" by which McHenry is allowing incorrect information to spread is to allow Wikipedia to exist. Is it therefor his moral obligation to destroy Wikipedia?
McHenry does not know for certain that incorrect information is being spread by wikipedia. He therefore has no reason to take any action against it. However, if he finds errors while using wikipedia he has a moral obligation as a community member to correct them.
If he finds so many errors that it would be impossible to correct them all then yes, I'd say he'd have no choice but to destroy the system (and its users).