A right without a corresponding obligation is nonsensical, it is nothing more than nonsense upon stilts. So unless there is a corresponding obligation for someone to provide analog TV broadcasts, there can be no right to receive an analog digital broadcast. A similar line of thought can easily be applied to a 'right' to put frequencies to better use.
You're argument would be a lot more convincing if it made an argument about what would make for the greatest good of the greatest number, backed up of course by evidance (rather than metaphysical jibberish about rights).
Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider: (pulling down a diagram of Chewie) this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a funny Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. This is not insightful! (jury looks shocked)
How could a Wookiee -- an eight foot tall funny Wookiee -- be insightful? That does not make sense!
But more importantly, you have to ask yourself: what does that have to do with this case? (calmly) Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense!
Look at me, I'm a know it all bagging out the parent post, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense.
And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation... does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense.
If Chewbacca is funny, he can not be insightful! The defense rests.
Copyright sure, Trademark sure, Trade Secret same again. Patents, no valid empirical basis in reality (other than entrenched intrest) why these should be recognised.
I had specifically agreed to the viewing of ads *prior* to having the info downloaded onto my computer. Else an argument that I am violating a social contract is completely bogus.
My only problem with it is that people generally take articles published in journals to be at least partially authoratitive (as apposed to articles published in a tabloid). Now if the profit motive is the only criterion determining whether an article is published or not, then this will probably have a negative impact on people's perceptions of journals in general (with a lot of articles which didn't make make it through peer-review being published in journals which will publish you if you pay them).
Academic journals (from what I've seen) are often published by professional organisations & research centers. So it wouldn't supprise me if the subscription costs in part subsidised those bodies.
and when the German's looked like they had overthrown the Prussian King (What went on to become Germany was at that time was divided between Habsburg and Prussia) and set up an assembly for a united Germany they offered the former Prussian king the thrown of a united Germany (the French also outsourced their "monarch re-instating" job to the Germans).
"Linux does not need to, and never needed to, reverse engineer Unix or any operating system. Linux is an independent implementation of freely published POSIX specs. The way it works internally is entirely a new invention."
SCO disagree with you about that, but then what would they know.
There's one little consideration that you left out in your prognosis of the future, i.e. the oil ain't going to last all that long. Once it's gone say good-bye modern industry, say good-bye petro-chemicals (fertalisers) and the ability of agriculture to feed such massive ammounts of over-population (as poorly as it does that). In a word, things are going to change and there will be no new superpowers (and maybe even non once china, india, US and Russia start waring over what scarce resources are left).
Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider: (pulling down a diagram of Chewie) this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does not make sense! (jury looks shocked)
Why would a Wookiee -- an eight foot tall Wookiee -- want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!
But more importantly, you have to ask yourself: what does that have to do with this case? (calmly) Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense!
Look at me, I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense.
And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation... does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense.
If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.
"Patents aren't entirely a bad thing (although I would rather do away with them altogether than keep the current system) and as with most arguments there are certainly two or more legitimate sides to this."
The only arguments that can be proffered for patents are fallacious ones. Such as the timeless "incentive for invention". Under such an idea the Wheel would of never been invented because no one could profit from it with the idea being open to others to implement. We however know that the wheel was invented, in spite of the fact that there was not patent regime present. Another great argument is that it individuals/companies should be able to profit from their work (like they don't already profit through the adoption and said method which allows productivity to rise). This view completely ignores the very real possibility of the same idea being thought up by two or more individuals/companies in parallel with no influence from each other. A great example of this is again the Wheel, which historians have discovered to have been invented in 4 different continents roughly in parallel with no contact with each other (transportation was a bit crude back then, given that they had only just discovered the wheel and all). Imagine if patents had existed back then and the richest of the inventors had patented the Wheel. One can only imagine the degree of backwardness that most of the world would be experiencing today as a result. So in short there is no non fallacious defence of patents.
The workers who evaluate the patent applications. Would slow the time taken to grant a patent down to snails crawl. Perhaps a better solution would be to abolish patents all together. Given that every man stands on the advances of others, trying to claim something as uniquely yours is fraudulent and can not be empirically justified.
apples, oranges if windows 2003 came bundled with MS SQL, MS Office, Exchange and all the other MS programs which perform a similar function to all the programs which come bundled with your typical Linux distro then you'd have a valid analogy. As it is you don't.
Scary shit that. I don't think the problem is the software though. More like crazy governments. People don't always know what a porn images is of before they download it. So therefore if it is right to charge someone who has inadvertently downloaded child porn and deleted it immediately with child sex crimes, it is logically implied that is right to charge anyone who has downloaded any porn at all (child porn or otherwise) with child sex crimes. Cause after all it could be child porn for all they know. Throws intent out the window as a question to be considered in deciding whether anyone is guilty of a crime. It all sound a bit to much like 1984.
WTF is it with the usage of the word "Interweb" that I've been seeing and hearing over the last few months. Is it an old one come back into fashion or is it a new term used as a synomyn for the www? Or is it people trying to be hip by saying Internet in a different way? I hope it's just a new synomyn for the www, if it ain't it just looks like a mass circle jerk.
The Liberal party (Currently the dominant political party in Australia's Federal parliament) are masters of doublespeak. Take members of the party for instance, due to what they stand for and the often wide gulf between them and liberals, in political discussions they are often refered to as "Big L Liberals" to distinguish them from people who believe in liberalism and avoid confusion. The only liberalism they seem to believe in is liberalism for big business, which they are always trying to "reform" (again doublespeak they often use, because in fact their "reforms" do not benefit or bring about greater freedom for the masses) the system on behalf off. The Liberal party in Australia today is in fact a center-right conservative party who glorify the society of the 1950s and measure everything accordingly.
Courts can interpret the law in light of it's intent or current custom if it is considered sufficiently ambiguous (where there is not precedent), it's called common law here. I'm no lawyer, just a laymen who happens to live in Australia, so take what I say with a pinch of salt as a lawyer might say otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
A right without a corresponding obligation is nonsensical, it is nothing more than nonsense upon stilts. So unless there is a corresponding obligation for someone to provide analog TV broadcasts, there can be no right to receive an analog digital broadcast. A similar line of thought can easily be applied to a 'right' to put frequencies to better use.
You're argument would be a lot more convincing if it made an argument about what would make for the greatest good of the greatest number, backed up of course by evidance (rather than metaphysical jibberish about rights).
Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider: (pulling down a diagram of Chewie) this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a funny Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. This is not insightful! (jury looks shocked)
How could a Wookiee -- an eight foot tall funny Wookiee -- be insightful? That does not make sense!
But more importantly, you have to ask yourself: what does that have to do with this case? (calmly) Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense!
Look at me, I'm a know it all bagging out the parent post, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense.
And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation... does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense.
If Chewbacca is funny, he can not be insightful! The defense rests.
Copyright sure, Trademark sure, Trade Secret same again. Patents, no valid empirical basis in reality (other than entrenched intrest) why these should be recognised.
I had specifically agreed to the viewing of ads *prior* to having the info downloaded onto my computer. Else an argument that I am violating a social contract is completely bogus.
My only problem with it is that people generally take articles published in journals to be at least partially authoratitive (as apposed to articles published in a tabloid). Now if the profit motive is the only criterion determining whether an article is published or not, then this will probably have a negative impact on people's perceptions of journals in general (with a lot of articles which didn't make make it through peer-review being published in journals which will publish you if you pay them).
Academic journals (from what I've seen) are often published by professional organisations & research centers. So it wouldn't supprise me if the subscription costs in part subsidised those bodies.
and when the German's looked like they had overthrown the Prussian King (What went on to become Germany was at that time was divided between Habsburg and Prussia) and set up an assembly for a united Germany they offered the former Prussian king the thrown of a united Germany (the French also outsourced their "monarch re-instating" job to the Germans).
if anything this highlights why it is best to give your credit card details to as few companies as possible and where possible get them to bill you.
I, for one, welcome our new identity thieving overlords.
Or they could just modify Sarge so that it runs stock Ubuntu packages if they haven't gotten Sarge perfect enough to release yet.
"Linux does not need to, and never needed to, reverse engineer Unix or any operating system. Linux is an independent implementation of freely published POSIX specs. The way it works internally is entirely a new invention."
SCO disagree with you about that, but then what would they know.
Netcraft confirms: BitKeeper is dying
There's one little consideration that you left out in your prognosis of the future, i.e. the oil ain't going to last all that long. Once it's gone say good-bye modern industry, say good-bye petro-chemicals (fertalisers) and the ability of agriculture to feed such massive ammounts of over-population (as poorly as it does that). In a word, things are going to change and there will be no new superpowers (and maybe even non once china, india, US and Russia start waring over what scarce resources are left).
Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider: (pulling down a diagram of Chewie) this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does not make sense! (jury looks shocked)
Why would a Wookiee -- an eight foot tall Wookiee -- want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!
But more importantly, you have to ask yourself: what does that have to do with this case? (calmly) Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense!
Look at me, I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense.
And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation... does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense.
If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.
"Patents aren't entirely a bad thing (although I would rather do away with them altogether than keep the current system) and as with most arguments there are certainly two or more legitimate sides to this."
The only arguments that can be proffered for patents are fallacious ones. Such as the timeless "incentive for invention". Under such an idea the Wheel would of never been invented because no one could profit from it with the idea being open to others to implement. We however know that the wheel was invented, in spite of the fact that there was not patent regime present.
Another great argument is that it individuals/companies should be able to profit from their work (like they don't already profit through the adoption and said method which allows productivity to rise). This view completely ignores the very real possibility of the same idea being thought up by two or more individuals/companies in parallel with no influence from each other. A great example of this is again the Wheel, which historians have discovered to have been invented in 4 different continents roughly in parallel with no contact with each other (transportation was a bit crude back then, given that they had only just discovered the wheel and all).
Imagine if patents had existed back then and the richest of the inventors had patented the Wheel. One can only imagine the degree of backwardness that most of the world would be experiencing today as a result.
So in short there is no non fallacious defence of patents.
The workers who evaluate the patent applications. Would slow the time taken to grant a patent down to snails crawl. Perhaps a better solution would be to abolish patents all together. Given that every man stands on the advances of others, trying to claim something as uniquely yours is fraudulent and can not be empirically justified.
the story was about them having a version that ran on NTFS.
The story was that MS was porting Office or IE to Linux.
apples, oranges
if windows 2003 came bundled with MS SQL, MS Office, Exchange and all the other MS programs which perform a similar function to all the programs which come bundled with your typical Linux distro then you'd have a valid analogy. As it is you don't.
Scary shit that. I don't think the problem is the software though. More like crazy governments. People don't always know what a porn images is of before they download it. So therefore if it is right to charge someone who has inadvertently downloaded child porn and deleted it immediately with child sex crimes, it is logically implied that is right to charge anyone who has downloaded any porn at all (child porn or otherwise) with child sex crimes. Cause after all it could be child porn for all they know. Throws intent out the window as a question to be considered in deciding whether anyone is guilty of a crime. It all sound a bit to much like 1984.
SMH don't require a registration to read it either, which is good.
WTF is it with the usage of the word "Interweb" that I've been seeing and hearing over the last few months. Is it an old one come back into fashion or is it a new term used as a synomyn for the www? Or is it people trying to be hip by saying Internet in a different way? I hope it's just a new synomyn for the www, if it ain't it just looks like a mass circle jerk.
Australia doesn't have a bill of rights with the "freedom of speech" enshrined in it.
The Liberal party (Currently the dominant political party in Australia's Federal parliament) are masters of doublespeak. Take members of the party for instance, due to what they stand for and the often wide gulf between them and liberals, in political discussions they are often refered to as "Big L Liberals" to distinguish them from people who believe in liberalism and avoid confusion. The only liberalism they seem to believe in is liberalism for big business, which they are always trying to "reform" (again doublespeak they often use, because in fact their "reforms" do not benefit or bring about greater freedom for the masses) the system on behalf off. The Liberal party in Australia today is in fact a center-right conservative party who glorify the society of the 1950s and measure everything accordingly.
Courts can interpret the law in light of it's intent or current custom if it is considered sufficiently ambiguous (where there is not precedent), it's called common law here. I'm no lawyer, just a laymen who happens to live in Australia, so take what I say with a pinch of salt as a lawyer might say otherwise.