is Hulu is missing most if not all of the drama shows my kid watches. I couldn't care less about sports. But her not having TV made her stand out around her friends as weird. TV is a very social thing for girls.
True, but if you read the grandparent's link to Wikipedia it describes bluray players that can recognize the audio watermark and won't play the disc. According to the article all players released after 2012 are required to implement the tech. It's not much of a stretch to expect phones and mp3 players will get the same tech soon. It's like I keep telling my buddies: like it or not tech is gonna make crime obsolete, least the nonviolent variety...
so we can make new works using them. You know, Disney didn't write the story in the Lion King, right? It's an age old story. They don't write _any_ of their own stories (even Lilo and Stitch was just something they bought because they thought they could get 626 toys out of it).
The idea was that copyright and patents encouraged people to share information so that it wouldn't be lost. The entire point was to get the works into the public domain at some point. We've turned it into a rent seeking scheme. If it started out this way we'd all be paying royalties to some Nords and a few Egyptians who claimed ownership of stone tablets from 200 B.C..
in order to qualify for the "Safe Harbor" part you have to take down the "infringing" content immediately. No questions asked. Only _after_ you take it down can the person who put it up apply to have it put back up.
It makes it really easy to get stuff silenced and much harder to get it back out there; especially for quasi-legal journalistic sources like leaks.
is that this is exactly the sort of overreach of intent that people said would happen with the DMCA. There's a lot of dirt in those emails on Sony (like them coordinating with Attorneys General to attack Google). Much of that information falls under what used to be freedom of press. The DMCA screws all that. Now anything you don't want making the rounds you just copyright and an ironclad and unquestionable law shuts it down instantly. I believe the phrase is "Chilling Effect"...
it was about saving money on office space. With the economy tanking and all signs pointing to things only getting worse for workers employers can dump on them as much as their want. Don't like it? Good luck finding a new job.
I think it's safe to say the average/.er is much more likely to have access to a heat gun for fixing broken solder joints than a Kitchen over for cooking.
at least not if they keep up with the path they started with IE10 and continued on with 11. They've been pushing standards compliance because they can make way more money selling software-as-a-service (Office 365) then keeping browser competition down. Netscape's dead, buried and the built a playground on the burial site. Firefox and Chrome exist to serve ads. It's a different market now that requires different strategies, and Microsoft isn't shy about pivoting.
because most of the games that came with the consoles were digital copies. This was done because digital copies are cheaper (no disc pressing, and yes, at these volumes it's an expense worth talking about) and there's not second hand market depressing the price of the physical copies in store. Having a pack in game basically tanks the value of the game at retail because of how the used market works.
make movies look like they were shot on a daytime TV cam to me. I saw Braveheart on one of those modern tvs and I suppose the lighting was more natural, but it was considerably less dramatic. It just killed it for me. Also (and this is mostly just me) I can perceive noticeable drops in framerate on those newer tvs. The rate goes up and down like crazy. Drives me nuts.
How so? The "No True Scotsman" fallacy doesn't apply. You know, people _can_ lie and misrepresent themselves. It can happen in the real world. And you don't get to just yell "No True Scotsman" to make it go away. The hilarious thing is you're actually quoting a fallacy that doesn't apply to misdirect the conversation away from the dirty little secret: that socialism works; and that the overwhelming weight of evidence is that it's alternatives do not.
It's the old "No True Scottsman" argument. At any rate what you're describing is called _communism_. You can have socialism (large scale involvement by a central power in the well being of the common man along with wealth distribution) and still have ownership. You just don't allow ownership to become power at the expense of people's well being. As soon as you do that you've just crossed over to socialism.
businesses flock to Canada because their socialized medicine is so much cheaper than America's employer based system. Germany's Unionized car manufacturing is the envy of the world. Meanwhile the UK, who implemented American style policies under Thacher, has been in a nose dive for decades. Where in the world have you been?
and the only real navy in the worlds. Our military can defend our country against anything, and we can pretty much seize anything we want. China isn't a credible threat. We still have more than enough nukes to make the world uninhabitable and any time we stop feeding their population they collapse...
and our leadership knew it. After WWII they towed their tanks back home with pack animals because they didn't have gas for christ's sake. We needed a foe to keep the military industrial complex going, and we needed the Military Industrial Complex to keep wealth inequality from tanking our economy again. Fear of communism is the only thing that kept the vulture capitalists at bay...
Socialism is doing just fine in Germany, France, the Netherlands, Canada and anywhere else it's really been tried, thank you very much.
Fascist dictatorships who borrow socialism's rhetoric to excuse stealing everything for themselves (China, USSR, North Korea) don't work so well, but then again they're not socialist, so it all evens out.
NASA did all the really hard work (the basic design of space rockets). You know, the Basic Science that costs billions and doesn't pay off for decades. You see, private companies are too focused on short term profit generation to basic science. That's why it's done on the public dime.
As for gov't inefficiency: it's a myth brought on by a few high profile pork projects (the US Military comes to mind) and underfunded DMVs. Go to a modern well funded post office some time. They're incredibly efficient. Also, go work in management for a large (private) corporation sometime and tell me again how amazingly efficient they are compared to government.
you can't install properly configured red light cameras. As soon as you do people start either a) driving around them or b) stop running red lights. They seem to work too well, and then the revenue drops like a rock. Whatever else we want debate about how effective they are they're there to generate money for cash strapped cities not allowed to raise taxes; Safety may or may not be a byproduct, but one thing is sure: less light running at the intersections their put into is. And sooner or later to keep profits up they have to game the cameras to give out more tickets...
And you're right, fixing safety is really, really simple. Just run a yellow for a few extra seconds to make sure the intersection is clear. It costs nothing, but it also doesn't generate any revenue.
his insurance isn't likely to pay you for the full value of your car. As someone who's been rear ended twice in my life I've never once gotten the real market value of my car from an insurance company...
There's always libertarian paradise (Google it) , but I've noticed a running theme with libertarians; whenever the market doesn't behave the way they expect and/or want it just wasn't "free" enough
For those laws, and its not Just to keep bueracrats employed. those laws exist to prevent very real abuses by employers. There's tons of documentaries on the subject. Unions came to power right around the time film cameras were getting affordable
Slashdot Mirror
is Hulu is missing most if not all of the drama shows my kid watches. I couldn't care less about sports. But her not having TV made her stand out around her friends as weird. TV is a very social thing for girls.
My kid hasn't made a phone call in years. Now if you broke text messaging There'd be hell to pay
True, but if you read the grandparent's link to Wikipedia it describes bluray players that can recognize the audio watermark and won't play the disc. According to the article all players released after 2012 are required to implement the tech. It's not much of a stretch to expect phones and mp3 players will get the same tech soon. It's like I keep telling my buddies: like it or not tech is gonna make crime obsolete, least the nonviolent variety...
so we can make new works using them. You know, Disney didn't write the story in the Lion King, right? It's an age old story. They don't write _any_ of their own stories (even Lilo and Stitch was just something they bought because they thought they could get 626 toys out of it).
The idea was that copyright and patents encouraged people to share information so that it wouldn't be lost. The entire point was to get the works into the public domain at some point. We've turned it into a rent seeking scheme. If it started out this way we'd all be paying royalties to some Nords and a few Egyptians who claimed ownership of stone tablets from 200 B.C..
in order to qualify for the "Safe Harbor" part you have to take down the "infringing" content immediately. No questions asked. Only _after_ you take it down can the person who put it up apply to have it put back up.
It makes it really easy to get stuff silenced and much harder to get it back out there; especially for quasi-legal journalistic sources like leaks.
is that this is exactly the sort of overreach of intent that people said would happen with the DMCA. There's a lot of dirt in those emails on Sony (like them coordinating with Attorneys General to attack Google). Much of that information falls under what used to be freedom of press. The DMCA screws all that. Now anything you don't want making the rounds you just copyright and an ironclad and unquestionable law shuts it down instantly. I believe the phrase is "Chilling Effect"...
it was about saving money on office space. With the economy tanking and all signs pointing to things only getting worse for workers employers can dump on them as much as their want. Don't like it? Good luck finding a new job.
I think it's safe to say the average /.er is much more likely to have access to a heat gun for fixing broken solder joints than a Kitchen over for cooking.
that there was _tons_ of proof that God exists (e.g. Miracles) right up until the invention of the camera, the jet airplane and the t.v. journalist...
at least not if they keep up with the path they started with IE10 and continued on with 11. They've been pushing standards compliance because they can make way more money selling software-as-a-service (Office 365) then keeping browser competition down. Netscape's dead, buried and the built a playground on the burial site. Firefox and Chrome exist to serve ads. It's a different market now that requires different strategies, and Microsoft isn't shy about pivoting.
is the number of Astroturfer comments. I'd like to see some effort made to find and eliminate them.
because most of the games that came with the consoles were digital copies. This was done because digital copies are cheaper (no disc pressing, and yes, at these volumes it's an expense worth talking about) and there's not second hand market depressing the price of the physical copies in store. Having a pack in game basically tanks the value of the game at retail because of how the used market works.
make movies look like they were shot on a daytime TV cam to me. I saw Braveheart on one of those modern tvs and I suppose the lighting was more natural, but it was considerably less dramatic. It just killed it for me. Also (and this is mostly just me) I can perceive noticeable drops in framerate on those newer tvs. The rate goes up and down like crazy. Drives me nuts.
How so? The "No True Scotsman" fallacy doesn't apply. You know, people _can_ lie and misrepresent themselves. It can happen in the real world. And you don't get to just yell "No True Scotsman" to make it go away. The hilarious thing is you're actually quoting a fallacy that doesn't apply to misdirect the conversation away from the dirty little secret: that socialism works; and that the overwhelming weight of evidence is that it's alternatives do not.
It's the old "No True Scottsman" argument. At any rate what you're describing is called _communism_. You can have socialism (large scale involvement by a central power in the well being of the common man along with wealth distribution) and still have ownership. You just don't allow ownership to become power at the expense of people's well being. As soon as you do that you've just crossed over to socialism.
businesses flock to Canada because their socialized medicine is so much cheaper than America's employer based system. Germany's Unionized car manufacturing is the envy of the world. Meanwhile the UK, who implemented American style policies under Thacher, has been in a nose dive for decades. Where in the world have you been?
When they come asking what we spent all their money on we'll just say: "All these Bombs and missiles..."
and the only real navy in the worlds. Our military can defend our country against anything, and we can pretty much seize anything we want. China isn't a credible threat. We still have more than enough nukes to make the world uninhabitable and any time we stop feeding their population they collapse...
and our leadership knew it. After WWII they towed their tanks back home with pack animals because they didn't have gas for christ's sake. We needed a foe to keep the military industrial complex going, and we needed the Military Industrial Complex to keep wealth inequality from tanking our economy again. Fear of communism is the only thing that kept the vulture capitalists at bay...
Socialism is doing just fine in Germany, France, the Netherlands, Canada and anywhere else it's really been tried, thank you very much.
Fascist dictatorships who borrow socialism's rhetoric to excuse stealing everything for themselves (China, USSR, North Korea) don't work so well, but then again they're not socialist, so it all evens out.
NASA did all the really hard work (the basic design of space rockets). You know, the Basic Science that costs billions and doesn't pay off for decades. You see, private companies are too focused on short term profit generation to basic science. That's why it's done on the public dime.
As for gov't inefficiency: it's a myth brought on by a few high profile pork projects (the US Military comes to mind) and underfunded DMVs. Go to a modern well funded post office some time. They're incredibly efficient. Also, go work in management for a large (private) corporation sometime and tell me again how amazingly efficient they are compared to government.
you can't install properly configured red light cameras. As soon as you do people start either a) driving around them or b) stop running red lights. They seem to work too well, and then the revenue drops like a rock. Whatever else we want debate about how effective they are they're there to generate money for cash strapped cities not allowed to raise taxes; Safety may or may not be a byproduct, but one thing is sure: less light running at the intersections their put into is. And sooner or later to keep profits up they have to game the cameras to give out more tickets...
And you're right, fixing safety is really, really simple. Just run a yellow for a few extra seconds to make sure the intersection is clear. It costs nothing, but it also doesn't generate any revenue.
his insurance isn't likely to pay you for the full value of your car. As someone who's been rear ended twice in my life I've never once gotten the real market value of my car from an insurance company...
There's always libertarian paradise (Google it) , but I've noticed a running theme with libertarians; whenever the market doesn't behave the way they expect and/or want it just wasn't "free" enough
For those laws, and its not Just to keep bueracrats employed. those laws exist to prevent very real abuses by employers. There's tons of documentaries on the subject. Unions came to power right around the time film cameras were getting affordable