You're saying the average user understands email protocols? And that the average user is able to fix their email when something goes wrong? I'm a programmer, and I can't even fix my email when it goes wrong, because someone else is in charge of the system and I don't where the servers are. Email problems are almost always server-side in my experience. Most email users don't even know what a protocol is, let alone understand email's protocol; the success of email is based on other factors already mentioned.
Obviously the consumer will pay for it. I'm struggling not to call you a rude name here. Manufacturers will pass the added cost of compliance on to the consumer, so people who buy new cars will bear the cost.
Alcohol fuels don't produce any net CO2 because the plants grown to make the fuel consume the atmospheric CO2 that's released by combustion. So it results in fewer greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuels, and of course it's renewable. I'm not saying it's the answer; personally I'm hoping for viable fusion power. Maybe it's a pipe dream, but if it were cheap enough it could solve many many problems far beyond just electricity. I just hope somebody figures it out, and the sooner the better.
There's no reason the law can't have an exception for manufacturers selling fewer than X vehicles per year. I would guess there is already such an exception.
The only problem with the gas tax is it's regressive. Regulate or tax based on a new vehicle's MPG, and the poor can continue driving their old cars without being penalized. Then again, maybe you think they should be penalized disproportionately to their income, I don't know.
Re:weird perspective for a conflict... and wrong!
on
Sun's Open Source DRM
·
· Score: 1
First, I never said I was opposed to an open source DRM system. I'm not; I just don't think it will ever get widespread adoption because it won't give content providers any control. DRM is all about control, so they'll stay away in droves. Second, I'm still not buying your premise. You keep talking about how we have to (or will have to) use DRM; we're being forced into it; we don't have any choice. That just isn't true. When you download something from iTunes, or buy a DVD, or whatever else, you are making a choice. Nobody is making you buy any of those things, and nobody ever can make you.
As far as what DRM I submit to, yes I buy DVDs. I don't have any fear that I might not be able to do what I want with my DVDs in the future, so to me it's as though they don't have any DRM. I don't care what unethical laws have been passed prohibiting me from ripping a DVD onto my computer for my own personal use, so if I'm violating DMCA, so be it. I don't feel any obligation to follow such a law, because I don't recognize any right by the movie studio to control that behavior. As far as games, I primarily play a game that was released before DRM existed, so no problem there. And I have no plans to buy either of these DRM-encrusted HD movie formats. Not having an HD TV makes that decision very easy, and since there's almost no HD content still, not buying an HD set is also very easy. Not planning to get a PS3 either, in case you're wondering.
I understand what you're saying about how I'm a minority. DRM will only become more obnoxious and pervasive before (I hope) it gets better. That's all true. But it doesn't change the fact that nobody can make you submit to DRM; it's your choice. Just remember that you have at least three choices: submit to the DRM, break the DRM (which is probably illegal, but possibly ethical depending on what you're doing with the content), or don't use the content. These are choices, and nobody is making you do any of them.
Re:weird perspective for a conflict... and wrong!
on
Sun's Open Source DRM
·
· Score: 1
"We, as the end-users, must use DRM because we are required to."
No. No, we are not. You're just helping them by spreading this propaganda. Personally, I don't use DRM unless you count DVDs. I simply don't buy anything protected with DRM. Guess what? I'm still breathing.
The GP's plan would work on non-evil hardware, though. In other words, hardware that is willing to play unprotected content. The steps are, buy song, download altered consumer-friendly DReaM version (I'll call it daydream), run the song through daydream which decodes the content and outputs it as MP3 or whatever you want, and then you're home free. The only way this DRM scheme would be effective is if all hardware is evil, which is of course exactly what all the content providers are shooting for.
Seems to me the summary doesn't match TFA (big surprise). Which makes me think all the smug "well, duh" respondents didn't RTFA. Another surprise.
"The researchers found no significant differences among the treatment groups in the primary composite endpoint. However, six-month mortality was lower in patients assigned bedside MIT, with the lowest absolute death rates observed in patients treated with both prayer and bedside MIT."
How is a decreased 6-month death rate not helpful?
It's not likely there would be any successful price dumping complaint/lawsuit for selling in a similar price range to XBox 360, unless perhaps they sold it for far more in Japan.
Most of this was already addressed by the other poster, but I'll add my own comments where I have something additional to say.
Driving -- Can't physically accomplish this.
That's just not true. There are vehicles set up for paraplegics to drive with just their hands, there's no reason a car couldn't be made drivable by my five-year-old. So should kids be allowed to drive?
Using drugs -- Kids don't like needles or coughing. This won't be a huge issue, and you can always charge the parents with neglect if for some crazy reason they get the kids addicted for shits and giggles.
As the other guy said, you're being inconsistent about who is responsible for the kids' behavior, the kids or the parents. If it's the parents, then you're treating children differently from adults. If it's the kids, then explain why it's OK to allow kids to drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, and get their own prescriptions filled. And "they probably won't do that anyway" is a cop out, so don't bother.
Buying Property (such as houses and cars) - They lack the ability to do this
Legally, yes. What would prevent a 9-year-old from saying, I want *that* car! and writing a check for it? After all, under your scheme the kid could have his own bank account, right? Or if not, why not?
Shooting guns - Children can already do this. Go google the video of the car shoots out in the midwest
Oh, good. Glad to know that small children are allowed to have guns.
Suing - They don't have the comprehension to fill out a legal form
Aren't you treating them differently from adults? Who's to say an adult has any comprehension of what they're signing when they sue?
working - Why not? They have paper routes. If you mean "working in coal mines", we already have laws to address this.
But WHY?? Adults are allowed to work in coal mines!
Entering Into Contracts - Already covered by fraud laws if the contract is unjust
What if the contract is just?
Living By Themselves - Without a job, they are incapable of this
What if they live off a trust fund? Assume that they have the money to do it. Should it be allowed? If not, why not?
Voting, driving, using drugs, buying property (such as houses and cars), shooting guns, suing, working, entering into contracts, living by themselves, getting married... that should get you started. These are all things that currently adults are allowed to do and children are not. I would be interested to see a consistent legal and ethical theory that permits children to do all these things.
"I beleive that is a problem. Our country was founded on the principle that all men are created equal (hopefully they were using the archaic meaning of "humankind). While it is nice and feely-good to say that children are above normal people and deserve special attention, any system that separates people on the basis of who they are and not what they've done is not just."
Come on, surely you must see that we must, *must* treat children differently in every way than adults. Socially, legally, morally, any way you can name. We must do this because they really are fundamentally different from adults, and to treat them the same is bad in so many ways - stupid, unethical, impractical... Maybe you're trolling. I have a hard time beleiving you actually think children should be treated the same as adults.
It always irks me when I read about poor real life friends being abandoned in favour of smoking crack, but not for the reasons you might expect. See, I've abandoned plenty of real life "friends" and made friends smoking crack too, but the drugs were not the reason why my real life friendships began to suffer. If anything, it was because the people who I had previously hung out with just didn't click with me anymore, and smoking crack was a way to distance myself from them. If any of them had attempted an "intervention," I would have been pretty damn pissed -- meeting me in real life does NOT give anyone the right to try and pry me away from my chosen form of entertainment. It's my life, and I get to choose who I want to be friends with and what I want to do in my spare time.
Incidentally, my life has never particularly suffered as a result of the small amount of crack addiction that I have experienced. Maybe my marks would have been a bit higher (I usually get low to mid A's and high B's, with the odd A+ for flavour) if I'd spent less time smoking crack and more time doing homework, but realistically, if I hadn't been smoking crack or wasting time doing other hardcore nerd stuff, I would have been out dancing, getting drunk, and having random unprotected sex like the average university student -- not exactly my cup of tea.
Quite honestly, having a chance to smoke crack is a LOT more important to me than getting laid or frying a bunch of brain cells, even though the latter activities might be more "normal" or even "healthy." If smoking crack makes me happy and sex/drinking doesn't, my former friends don't need to intervene... if they truly care, they need to let me be happy on my own terms.
There are certainly people who do need help breaking a crack addiction, specifically the ones who are actually depressed by the prospect of losing aspects of their real lives, but the point I'm trying to make is that not all crack addicts either want or need help. I'd rather let people be happy doing what they love than force them to take part in more socially-accepted activities that I know they're going to hate. Maybe they will lose their jobs, marriages, and friends, but if they're still happy, why does it matter? Isn't it better to be unemployed, alone and happy than rich, married, and depressed?
You could (in theory) have a system of whitelisting, where if I want to get a mailing list I have to put it on my whitelist. The mailing list message hits my account, and if whitelisted is delivered for free. If not, it's charged, and then the sender removes me from the mailing list. As I said, currently we cannot do this, but in theory something along those lines could work.
I think we're in agreement. I wasn't suggesting regulation, I was just saying that the market, if nothing more is done about it, will not solve the problem. As you say, the thing that should be done about it is education.
Slashdot Mirror
You're saying the average user understands email protocols? And that the average user is able to fix their email when something goes wrong? I'm a programmer, and I can't even fix my email when it goes wrong, because someone else is in charge of the system and I don't where the servers are. Email problems are almost always server-side in my experience. Most email users don't even know what a protocol is, let alone understand email's protocol; the success of email is based on other factors already mentioned.
Oh, so you're part of the reality-based community, are you?
Obviously the consumer will pay for it. I'm struggling not to call you a rude name here. Manufacturers will pass the added cost of compliance on to the consumer, so people who buy new cars will bear the cost.
Alcohol fuels don't produce any net CO2 because the plants grown to make the fuel consume the atmospheric CO2 that's released by combustion. So it results in fewer greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuels, and of course it's renewable. I'm not saying it's the answer; personally I'm hoping for viable fusion power. Maybe it's a pipe dream, but if it were cheap enough it could solve many many problems far beyond just electricity. I just hope somebody figures it out, and the sooner the better.
There's no reason the law can't have an exception for manufacturers selling fewer than X vehicles per year. I would guess there is already such an exception.
The only problem with the gas tax is it's regressive. Regulate or tax based on a new vehicle's MPG, and the poor can continue driving their old cars without being penalized. Then again, maybe you think they should be penalized disproportionately to their income, I don't know.
First, I never said I was opposed to an open source DRM system. I'm not; I just don't think it will ever get widespread adoption because it won't give content providers any control. DRM is all about control, so they'll stay away in droves. Second, I'm still not buying your premise. You keep talking about how we have to (or will have to) use DRM; we're being forced into it; we don't have any choice. That just isn't true. When you download something from iTunes, or buy a DVD, or whatever else, you are making a choice. Nobody is making you buy any of those things, and nobody ever can make you.
As far as what DRM I submit to, yes I buy DVDs. I don't have any fear that I might not be able to do what I want with my DVDs in the future, so to me it's as though they don't have any DRM. I don't care what unethical laws have been passed prohibiting me from ripping a DVD onto my computer for my own personal use, so if I'm violating DMCA, so be it. I don't feel any obligation to follow such a law, because I don't recognize any right by the movie studio to control that behavior. As far as games, I primarily play a game that was released before DRM existed, so no problem there. And I have no plans to buy either of these DRM-encrusted HD movie formats. Not having an HD TV makes that decision very easy, and since there's almost no HD content still, not buying an HD set is also very easy. Not planning to get a PS3 either, in case you're wondering.
I understand what you're saying about how I'm a minority. DRM will only become more obnoxious and pervasive before (I hope) it gets better. That's all true. But it doesn't change the fact that nobody can make you submit to DRM; it's your choice. Just remember that you have at least three choices: submit to the DRM, break the DRM (which is probably illegal, but possibly ethical depending on what you're doing with the content), or don't use the content. These are choices, and nobody is making you do any of them.
"We, as the end-users, must use DRM because we are required to." No. No, we are not. You're just helping them by spreading this propaganda. Personally, I don't use DRM unless you count DVDs. I simply don't buy anything protected with DRM. Guess what? I'm still breathing.
The GP's plan would work on non-evil hardware, though. In other words, hardware that is willing to play unprotected content. The steps are, buy song, download altered consumer-friendly DReaM version (I'll call it daydream), run the song through daydream which decodes the content and outputs it as MP3 or whatever you want, and then you're home free. The only way this DRM scheme would be effective is if all hardware is evil, which is of course exactly what all the content providers are shooting for.
Open Source doesn't mean a lot of people work on it, that's just one common model for open source development.
That's really just a hypothetical problem though, since copyrights really don't expire anymore anyway. At least not in the US.
Why?
Make sure to tell the bacteria that, so they can un-evolve these clearly inferior mechanisms they've developed. What's the emoticon for rolling eyes?
OK, so how will this ruin Sweden's cultural wealth?
Seems to me the summary doesn't match TFA (big surprise). Which makes me think all the smug "well, duh" respondents didn't RTFA. Another surprise.
"The researchers found no significant differences among the treatment groups in the primary composite endpoint. However, six-month mortality was lower in patients assigned bedside MIT, with the lowest absolute death rates observed in patients treated with both prayer and bedside MIT."
How is a decreased 6-month death rate not helpful?
It's not likely there would be any successful price dumping complaint/lawsuit for selling in a similar price range to XBox 360, unless perhaps they sold it for far more in Japan.
Voting, driving, using drugs, buying property (such as houses and cars), shooting guns, suing, working, entering into contracts, living by themselves, getting married... that should get you started. These are all things that currently adults are allowed to do and children are not. I would be interested to see a consistent legal and ethical theory that permits children to do all these things.
"I beleive that is a problem. Our country was founded on the principle that all men are created equal (hopefully they were using the archaic meaning of "humankind). While it is nice and feely-good to say that children are above normal people and deserve special attention, any system that separates people on the basis of who they are and not what they've done is not just." Come on, surely you must see that we must, *must* treat children differently in every way than adults. Socially, legally, morally, any way you can name. We must do this because they really are fundamentally different from adults, and to treat them the same is bad in so many ways - stupid, unethical, impractical... Maybe you're trolling. I have a hard time beleiving you actually think children should be treated the same as adults.
Ah, very clear now. Thank you.
Yes, and I didn't see anything in the definition of hormone that I looked up that excludes hormones from being drugs.
You're quite right. Here goes.
It always irks me when I read about poor real life friends being abandoned in favour of smoking crack, but not for the reasons you might expect. See, I've abandoned plenty of real life "friends" and made friends smoking crack too, but the drugs were not the reason why my real life friendships began to suffer. If anything, it was because the people who I had previously hung out with just didn't click with me anymore, and smoking crack was a way to distance myself from them. If any of them had attempted an "intervention," I would have been pretty damn pissed -- meeting me in real life does NOT give anyone the right to try and pry me away from my chosen form of entertainment. It's my life, and I get to choose who I want to be friends with and what I want to do in my spare time.
Incidentally, my life has never particularly suffered as a result of the small amount of crack addiction that I have experienced. Maybe my marks would have been a bit higher (I usually get low to mid A's and high B's, with the odd A+ for flavour) if I'd spent less time smoking crack and more time doing homework, but realistically, if I hadn't been smoking crack or wasting time doing other hardcore nerd stuff, I would have been out dancing, getting drunk, and having random unprotected sex like the average university student -- not exactly my cup of tea.
Quite honestly, having a chance to smoke crack is a LOT more important to me than getting laid or frying a bunch of brain cells, even though the latter activities might be more "normal" or even "healthy." If smoking crack makes me happy and sex/drinking doesn't, my former friends don't need to intervene... if they truly care, they need to let me be happy on my own terms.
There are certainly people who do need help breaking a crack addiction, specifically the ones who are actually depressed by the prospect of losing aspects of their real lives, but the point I'm trying to make is that not all crack addicts either want or need help. I'd rather let people be happy doing what they love than force them to take part in more socially-accepted activities that I know they're going to hate. Maybe they will lose their jobs, marriages, and friends, but if they're still happy, why does it matter? Isn't it better to be unemployed, alone and happy than rich, married, and depressed?
Adrenaline seems to me to meet the definitions for "drug".
You could (in theory) have a system of whitelisting, where if I want to get a mailing list I have to put it on my whitelist. The mailing list message hits my account, and if whitelisted is delivered for free. If not, it's charged, and then the sender removes me from the mailing list. As I said, currently we cannot do this, but in theory something along those lines could work.
I think we're in agreement. I wasn't suggesting regulation, I was just saying that the market, if nothing more is done about it, will not solve the problem. As you say, the thing that should be done about it is education.