If someone could explain what "creative professionals" actually do to come by the stuff they churn out, then maybe non"creative professionals" would care about it.
Also, what is this "hard work" you speak of? Maybe you should switch to some work you find easier to do, and let people who find the type of work you are doing now easy, take over.
My explanation wasn't meant to be funny. When I posted my explanation the first time, I agreed the joke was lame, I like to "get" jokes even if they're not funny and my explanation was one way to get it.
Somebody else in a different thread had a different interpretation, but here's mine:
It comes from the perspective of someone who believes a juice cleanse is a waste of money so the person who bought one got punished for wasting money when they threw up.
This is how I broke it down:
It comes from the perspective of someone who believes a juice cleanse is a waste of money so the person who bought one got punished for wasting money when they threw up.
It's really lame. It comes from the perspective of someone who believes a juice cleanse is a waste of money so the person who bought one got punished for wasting money when they threw up.
One of your prepositions is similar to the statement "Generally following the rule of law is always good." A second is that laws aren't usually based on feelings.
If no feelings are hurt, then usually not very many people see the need for a law.
Generally following the rule of law cannot be tested because there is no way to draw an objective line between generally following the law and not generally following the law as well as the fact that even if you could draw an objective line regarding one set of laws, if it was proved to be better than not following them, it does not follow that all sets of laws are that way. Also, it is wrong to assume that the set of sets of laws for which it is generally good that they are followed has members because again, you cannot objectively draw a line between generally followed and not generally followed.
You are wrong in making a supposition that it's a good thing in Canada we generally follow the rule of law.
It may contain an Existential fallacy, in that generally following the rule of law is not necessarily a good thing.
A syllogism is a kind of logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion based on two or more propositions that are asserted or assumed to be true.
One of your prepositions is similar to the statement "Generally following the rule of law is always good." A second is that laws aren't usually based on feelings.
If no feelings are hurt, then usually not very many people see the need for a law.
Generally following the rule of law cannot be tested because there is no way to draw an objective line between generally following the law and not generally following the law as well as the fact that even if you could draw an objective line regarding one set of laws, if it was proved to be better than not following them, it does not follow that all sets of laws are that way. Also, it is wrong to assume that the set of sets of laws for which it is generally good that they are followed has members because again, you cannot objectively draw a line between generally followed and not generally followed.
You're free to make that supposition, but that doesn't make it right. It may even be one of those things that aren't even wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
But did they get a search warrant to be served to Facebook to search their possessions, or did the government just say the warrant served to John Doe covers searching Facebook. It appears the government did the latter.
We gave our data to Facebook in exchange for service. If the government wants the data the government should give something in return as a matter of principle. Or at least get a search warrant against Facebook if it wants data Facebook holds. It's like going over to a friend of mine's house and demanding to search the premises to look for something of mine. They should need to get a search warrant against the friend in that case, just as they should get a search warrant against Facebook.
No, but the only things preventing everyone from being a musician, film director or games programmer are handicaps that research into them would allow us to produce technology that would enable them to overcome said handicaps.
So how do you determine what's copied and what's "created"?
What if I say I couldn't care less about this "creativity" thing you just made up to justify charging me for something that no one actually owns. What if I said, I don't like the hostile environment you're shoving down people's throats.
What if I told you I thought you were being disingenuous about how all this stuff came into being and if apparently destroyed could come into being again. What if I told I wanted you to stop "making" stuff ever again, and stop harassing people who are doing interesting things with the stuff you claim you made. Your stuff is garbage and I'm just recycling.
We wouldn't need things like Jurassic World if we had decent tools that helped us overcome whatever handicaps we have in making decent content ourselves. However there is plenty of free work out there legally already that I personally don't need Jurassic World. http://www.qb64.net/forum/ http://sourceforge.net/directo... http://freebasic.net/forum/
Slashdot Mirror
If someone could explain what "creative professionals" actually do to come by the stuff they churn out, then maybe non"creative professionals" would care about it.
Also, what is this "hard work" you speak of? Maybe you should switch to some work you find easier to do, and let people who find the type of work you are doing now easy, take over.
My explanation wasn't meant to be funny. When I posted my explanation the first time, I agreed the joke was lame, I like to "get" jokes even if they're not funny and my explanation was one way to get it.
Somebody else in a different thread had a different interpretation, but here's mine:
It comes from the perspective of someone who believes a juice cleanse is a waste of money so the person who bought one got punished for wasting money when they threw up.
This is how I broke it down:
It comes from the perspective of someone who believes a juice cleanse is a waste of money so the person who bought one got punished for wasting money when they threw up.
It's really lame. It comes from the perspective of someone who believes a juice cleanse is a waste of money so the person who bought one got punished for wasting money when they threw up.
One of your prepositions is similar to the statement "Generally following the rule of law is always good." A second is that laws aren't usually based on feelings. If no feelings are hurt, then usually not very many people see the need for a law. Generally following the rule of law cannot be tested because there is no way to draw an objective line between generally following the law and not generally following the law as well as the fact that even if you could draw an objective line regarding one set of laws, if it was proved to be better than not following them, it does not follow that all sets of laws are that way. Also, it is wrong to assume that the set of sets of laws for which it is generally good that they are followed has members because again, you cannot objectively draw a line between generally followed and not generally followed.
You are wrong in making a supposition that it's a good thing in Canada we generally follow the rule of law.
It may contain an Existential fallacy, in that generally following the rule of law is not necessarily a good thing.
A syllogism is a kind of logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion based on two or more propositions that are asserted or assumed to be true.
One of your prepositions is similar to the statement "Generally following the rule of law is always good." A second is that laws aren't usually based on feelings.
If no feelings are hurt, then usually not very many people see the need for a law.
Generally following the rule of law cannot be tested because there is no way to draw an objective line between generally following the law and not generally following the law as well as the fact that even if you could draw an objective line regarding one set of laws, if it was proved to be better than not following them, it does not follow that all sets of laws are that way. Also, it is wrong to assume that the set of sets of laws for which it is generally good that they are followed has members because again, you cannot objectively draw a line between generally followed and not generally followed.
What operating system and browser are you using? Somehow between that and Slashdot's servers your punctuation got badly mangled.
I don't see it in his post. Could you please spell it out for people like me?
You're free to make that supposition, but that doesn't make it right. It may even be one of those things that aren't even wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
But did they get a search warrant to be served to Facebook to search their possessions, or did the government just say the warrant served to John Doe covers searching Facebook. It appears the government did the latter.
Like "Soylent Green is people" I thought everyone knew that.
http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/F...
Some researcher connected a cow's brain to the internet and gave it a Slashdot account.
We gave our data to Facebook in exchange for service. If the government wants the data the government should give something in return as a matter of principle. Or at least get a search warrant against Facebook if it wants data Facebook holds. It's like going over to a friend of mine's house and demanding to search the premises to look for something of mine. They should need to get a search warrant against the friend in that case, just as they should get a search warrant against Facebook.
This is a poor article. What does The Great Firewall have to do with this particular problem.
I tried explaining to him once that he was the only cow here. For awhile it seemed like it might have helped, but he's back again.
No, but the only things preventing everyone from being a musician, film director or games programmer are handicaps that research into them would allow us to produce technology that would enable them to overcome said handicaps.
I think the "Blurred Lines" case has shown us that we aren't perfectly free to make our own software, music or movies.
Nobody said they were responsible for anything. In fact, I woud say we'd be better off if they just stopped being involved in junk culture..
So how do you determine what's copied and what's "created"?
What if I say I couldn't care less about this "creativity" thing you just made up to justify charging me for something that no one actually owns. What if I said, I don't like the hostile environment you're shoving down people's throats.
What if I told you I thought you were being disingenuous about how all this stuff came into being and if apparently destroyed could come into being again. What if I told I wanted you to stop "making" stuff ever again, and stop harassing people who are doing interesting things with the stuff you claim you made. Your stuff is garbage and I'm just recycling.
But they do want to take giving your time to whomever, whenever, as you see fit. They do it every time somebody said what you wanted to say first.
We wouldn't need things like Jurassic World if we had decent tools that helped us overcome whatever handicaps we have in making decent content ourselves. However there is plenty of free work out there legally already that I personally don't need Jurassic World.
http://www.qb64.net/forum/
http://sourceforge.net/directo...
http://freebasic.net/forum/
Why Thankfully?
I had to do a lookup for drayage, and it seems to have more to do with moving packages short distances than it does mules.
GLaDOS, is that you?