If you had content (a song for example) that was a method for you to put food on the table, you would be thinking differently about copyright laws.
Most musicians, composers, and songwriters will never have a Top 40 hit. The RIAA and its Swedish equivalent really don't give a damn about people pirating the latest from your local bands, and they certainly don't care about all the gazillions of unsigned musicians out there.
Plus the RIAA tends to use Hollywood accounting to ensure that the artist themselves never sees a dime from CD sales. The way most good musicians see recordings is as advertising for their concerts. Hence the Grateful Dead response to bootleg recordings.
Well, regarding point d, be fair: the biggest cause of extinction occurred at the Permian-Triassic boundary and still hasn't been identified.
And there is an argument that a lot of the domesticated species, such as corn or dogs, have evolved over the last 20,000 years or so to form a symbiotic system with humans: we protect them for a while, give them ideal conditions, and make sure they reproduce, and in return we get food. So humans aren't too dangerous to be around if you're a species humans can make good use of. At least, not more dangerous than having a tiger in the area.
I have empathy for these families, but I don't think we're doing them any favors by constantly seeking different labels for everything, or using pseudoscience and finger-pointing to find a scapegoat for poor health, genetics, or luck.
Or stupidity. Some kids are stupid. That's just the way things go. The reason autism and ADD turned into such popular diagnoses is that they gave the parents an explanation for their kid not doing well in school other than "s/he's stupid, lazy, and/or you're bad parents".
You think "public" (i.e. government) education has made things better?
You mean like going from 11% illiteracy in 1900 to less than 1% today (among minorities the shift is 56% to 2%)? Or maybe you were referring to the number of people who've gotten past 8th grade (less than half in 1940, almost everyone today)?
Or maybe you were thinking of underachievers like Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, and Larry Page.
Yeah, I'd say public education has made things better.
Then you get birds stuck in the titanium chicken wire, and the engine has a good shot of now sucking in both the bird and the chicken wire. On top of that, even if that doesn't happen, you're still seriously impeding air flow into the engine which is needed to make the engine function.
And according to Wikipedia at least, a typical modern jet engine shunts dead bird parts through a bypass rather than through the engine.
Stimlus spending didn't cure the Great Depression. Admirers of the New Deal take great offense at the notion that the New Deal was a failure in reversing the Depression, but even left-leaning historians and economists agree that it was WWII production, not the New Deal, that finally brought us out of the depression.
The main difference between the New Deal spending and the WWII spending is that the WWII spending was even more massive and with much greater government control. For example, wages and benefits for a large proportion of workers were set by government regulators. What could be produced was set by government bureaucrats. During WWII, the domestic economy was something approaching a Communist command economy.
So if WWII-style spending is what gets us out of a Depression, then expect more government control than you have in the current stimulus bill, not less.
Absolutely: My sister is an EMT out in Utah, and spends a lot of time scraping up skiers, snowmobilers, mountain bikers, ATVers, etc as well as the usual assortment of accidents. So for people into "action sports", it's a top destination.
If I was a sports fan, and I couldn't view ESPN's content because of my choice of ISP, I think I'd just look elsewhere (ie. another sports news site), rather than go through the hassle of changing ISPs.
You missed the point: the way ESPN wants to work things, by using your ISP you subscribe to their service whether you want it or not. And what's worse, the ISPs may well go for this because many ISPs are also cable providers so ESPN can say "sign this or we pull all our cable channels". And of course the deal doesn't cost the ISPs anything because they just pass the cost along to the captive customer base.
Interestingly, I'd say GP is on to something there: It wrecks the argument that "Linux on the desktop sucks more than Windows because you have to take the time to install $PATENTED_SOFTWARE."
Also, Microsoft could probably bundle free (beer and libre) software without too much hassle from the EU. You know, ship Windows 7 with Firefox or something like that. They choose not to.
Keep in mind that the scared-crapless kids are in that position because they're having a really tough time as well: if you have 3 years of experience, you're basically not hire-able in many areas, so the kids have to take what they can get.
To give you an idea, when you factor in underemployment as well as unemployment you get something like 25% of younger aspiring geeks with appropriate degrees unable to work in geeky jobs (admins, developers, etc). So if you think the labor market is weak for middle-aged workers (which it is), realize that your kids have it much worse.
That boom must have been something I missed. Maybe because my primary source of income was work rather than securities or home equity.
Wages and salaries for anyone not working in the financial sector didn't boom at all. Assets did. And for anyone without significant assets (in my case, it was because I'm in my 20's and hadn't had time to build much wealth), they missed the boat completely.
Slashdot Mirror
If you had content (a song for example) that was a method for you to put food on the table, you would be thinking differently about copyright laws.
Most musicians, composers, and songwriters will never have a Top 40 hit. The RIAA and its Swedish equivalent really don't give a damn about people pirating the latest from your local bands, and they certainly don't care about all the gazillions of unsigned musicians out there.
Plus the RIAA tends to use Hollywood accounting to ensure that the artist themselves never sees a dime from CD sales. The way most good musicians see recordings is as advertising for their concerts. Hence the Grateful Dead response to bootleg recordings.
I'll supply the Microsoft Bob Legacy display.
Well, regarding point d, be fair: the biggest cause of extinction occurred at the Permian-Triassic boundary and still hasn't been identified.
And there is an argument that a lot of the domesticated species, such as corn or dogs, have evolved over the last 20,000 years or so to form a symbiotic system with humans: we protect them for a while, give them ideal conditions, and make sure they reproduce, and in return we get food. So humans aren't too dangerous to be around if you're a species humans can make good use of. At least, not more dangerous than having a tiger in the area.
Be fair: G.W. is no Neanderthal. Neanderthals were generally pretty stocky, and he's rather skinny.
Rush Limbaugh, on the other hand ...
The common man, even 200+ years later, is not educated enough, or even intelligent enough, to make an informed decision about who should lead the US.
Your argument is actually quite a bit older than that: Try some Plato.
Don't forget that is also worked for W's dad.
Although since Sarah Palin has gotten herself onto the national scene, we've realized how bright Dan Quayle was.
I have empathy for these families, but I don't think we're doing them any favors by constantly seeking different labels for everything, or using pseudoscience and finger-pointing to find a scapegoat for poor health, genetics, or luck.
Or stupidity. Some kids are stupid. That's just the way things go. The reason autism and ADD turned into such popular diagnoses is that they gave the parents an explanation for their kid not doing well in school other than "s/he's stupid, lazy, and/or you're bad parents".
He might well have based his book on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem
You think "public" (i.e. government) education has made things better?
You mean like going from 11% illiteracy in 1900 to less than 1% today (among minorities the shift is 56% to 2%)? Or maybe you were referring to the number of people who've gotten past 8th grade (less than half in 1940, almost everyone today)?
Or maybe you were thinking of underachievers like Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, and Larry Page.
Yeah, I'd say public education has made things better.
I swear to God I'm going to pistol whip the next guy who says "Shenanigans".
Then you get birds stuck in the titanium chicken wire, and the engine has a good shot of now sucking in both the bird and the chicken wire. On top of that, even if that doesn't happen, you're still seriously impeding air flow into the engine which is needed to make the engine function.
And according to Wikipedia at least, a typical modern jet engine shunts dead bird parts through a bypass rather than through the engine.
Stimlus spending didn't cure the Great Depression. Admirers of the New Deal take great offense at the notion that the New Deal was a failure in reversing the Depression, but even left-leaning historians and economists agree that it was WWII production, not the New Deal, that finally brought us out of the depression.
The main difference between the New Deal spending and the WWII spending is that the WWII spending was even more massive and with much greater government control. For example, wages and benefits for a large proportion of workers were set by government regulators. What could be produced was set by government bureaucrats. During WWII, the domestic economy was something approaching a Communist command economy.
So if WWII-style spending is what gets us out of a Depression, then expect more government control than you have in the current stimulus bill, not less.
Here's my question: how the heck do you get modded Informative +2 for just posting that you're here?
(Just kidding, Bruce. I'm glad you show up here)
There are times when I'd rather it was Debbie Does Dallas in space.
No he isn't lying: his gf is totally into that. With me.
That wasn't to Congress, that was during a deposition.
Absolutely: My sister is an EMT out in Utah, and spends a lot of time scraping up skiers, snowmobilers, mountain bikers, ATVers, etc as well as the usual assortment of accidents. So for people into "action sports", it's a top destination.
If I was a sports fan, and I couldn't view ESPN's content because of my choice of ISP, I think I'd just look elsewhere (ie. another sports news site), rather than go through the hassle of changing ISPs.
You missed the point: the way ESPN wants to work things, by using your ISP you subscribe to their service whether you want it or not. And what's worse, the ISPs may well go for this because many ISPs are also cable providers so ESPN can say "sign this or we pull all our cable channels". And of course the deal doesn't cost the ISPs anything because they just pass the cost along to the captive customer base.
Is lying to Congress illegal? Is it considered perjury?
I do not recall.
Interestingly, I'd say GP is on to something there: It wrecks the argument that "Linux on the desktop sucks more than Windows because you have to take the time to install $PATENTED_SOFTWARE."
Also, Microsoft could probably bundle free (beer and libre) software without too much hassle from the EU. You know, ship Windows 7 with Firefox or something like that. They choose not to.
A better example would be this guy (especially relevant now).
How do you know he's from Russia?
Wouldn't Sloth have to go with Sleepy?
Keep in mind that the scared-crapless kids are in that position because they're having a really tough time as well: if you have 3 years of experience, you're basically not hire-able in many areas, so the kids have to take what they can get.
To give you an idea, when you factor in underemployment as well as unemployment you get something like 25% of younger aspiring geeks with appropriate degrees unable to work in geeky jobs (admins, developers, etc). So if you think the labor market is weak for middle-aged workers (which it is), realize that your kids have it much worse.
That boom must have been something I missed. Maybe because my primary source of income was work rather than securities or home equity.
Wages and salaries for anyone not working in the financial sector didn't boom at all. Assets did. And for anyone without significant assets (in my case, it was because I'm in my 20's and hadn't had time to build much wealth), they missed the boat completely.