I suppose the Moderation of "Troll" is accurate, but I'll give you a simple answer anyway: Buying music does not "support the artists" if the purchase is done through a corrupted industry where the artist will see only a tiny fraction (if anything) of the money.
Of course, artists receiving very little or none of the purchase price of a commercially-distributed CD is not an excuse for infringing copyright -- but it is a very good reason to listen to and support truly independent artists (by helping them build their audience and by purchasing CDs directly from the artist which guarantees they get all of the profits).
{sigh...} It's times like this I wish the OMR had been more of a success (meaning, that I had more time and energy to make it so). Then again, 70,000+ downloads of independent artists' music isn't too shabby either.
...a brilliant criminal is just someone who's skills are being expressed in the right forum, but in the wrong direction...
This is a potentially-dangerous oversimplification. From what I recall, Ted Kaczynski (the Unabomber) was no dimwit, but -- given the social and political views expressed in his "manifesto" -- would you want to employ him in some manner in hopes of improving postal security? There's potentially much more to a criminal's mind than lack of a socially-acceptable avenue for using his/her skills.
News in the discovery, not in the application
on
More Microsoft Patents
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Are you aware of every single patent application in the past 30 days? Yeah, me neither. There are so many patent applications, even those who are being paid to keep track of it all seem unable to accomplish that feat. Thus, patents get into the system without much notice. When someone runs across an "interesting" one and brings it to light, it is that "shedding of light" that makes it "news."
To use an overly-blunt analogy, it's not the death of a dinosaur that makes the news, it's the discovery of its fossil remains. The death event is "many" years ago, but it's still worth reporting today when the fossils are discovered, especially if there's something unusual about it, since we're all pretty familiar with fossils in general. (This analogy won't be as useful for those who believe dinosaurs didn't exist and that their bones were planted in the ground by Satan to confuse us and turn us away from our Holy Creation origins.)
I don't know about cell phones, but as for "known fact" I'd say that concept is overrated. For many, many years it was a "known fact" that the Earth was flat. It was also a "known fact" that the Earth was the center of the universe. OTOH, most would consider it a "known fact" that DDT is a Bad Thing but you'll still find some denial of this from anti-environmentalists. Heck, most people would consider the Holocaust and the Moon landing to be "known facts" but it's not too hard to find people who will deny them.
Well, since we are redefining what censorship means...
Who is? Not me. Censorship according to The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition (per Reference.com) is "The act, process, or practice of censoring." And censoring is "To examine and expurgate," e.g., by a censor. And a censor is "A person authorized to examine books... or other material and to remove... what is considered morally... or otherwise objectionable." Emphasis added, to highlight the connection to the (moral) justification provided by the Kansas AG. Doesn't sound like redefinition, just a perfect example for a future printing of a dictionary.
Well, most notably this is NOT censorship. It's a reasonable rejection by Kansas of crap foisted onto them in the form of a "settlement".
Define "crap." Clearly for Kansas, "crap" music means music that doesn't agree with the AG's morals, and has nothing to do with the quality, popularity, or other facets of music that people would normally associate with the "crap" designation for music.
Define "reasonable." If the libraries want to reject material, should they not make that decision, rather than delegating that responsibility to the AG? It sounds like they were happy to reduce their workload, but does that mean it's reasonable? To what moral police will they foist off their responsibilities next?
Yes, it's censorship, even if it's associated with a ridiculous "settlement."
Those who say this isn't censorship are apparently too focused on the ridiculousness of the "settlement" to notice that morality was the reason for rejecting those CDs, not popularity, quality of music, or other aspects that might be relevant to "dumping junk music."
I'm glad I don't live there -- not only does the AG feel the need to be moral daddy, but the libraries think it's appropriate for the AG to do their work for them. Ugh.
The older I get, the less I care about whether or not there is other life in the universe (or galaxy). I'm not "old" but I was around to watch the Saturn 5 launches, and was very excited about space and space exploration then. I'm still very excited about space exploration and colonization of other planets, and very intrigued by the possibility of other life forms (simplistic as they may be) on other planets or moons in our solar system.
But life beyond our solar system? It's just not something to consider, IMHO. We can't get there yet, we probably won't get there anytime "soon," and the odds that it will get here are low too. I'd rather see a focus on mastering our own solar system than worrying about what is beyond it. Perhaps this seems short-sighted, but did we go from non-flying to space shots, or did we spend quite a few useful years of just flying around on our planet?
Me, for one. I was there and did...... Kids today...
So did I, but it has nothing to do with "kids," laziness, etc. When I was doing it, I did so for an employer, and the other adults I was working with could not have done it for themselves. It's about education and experience -- I couldn't have done their job without getting some training first, they couldn't have done mine without getting some training first. I believe the comment to which you were replying was pointing out that installation and configuration of Windows back then "required" experience and education, much in the same way that Linux installation and configuration "requires" experience and education today.
Well, perhaps it's not generally applicable enough to be considered a "solution" so let's call it a "solar consideration" instead.
Anyway, although I was disappointed when Real Goods became part of Gaiam, they at least still have a decent selection of solar power devices, some of which (as I understand it) can power your laptop directly. Under the right conditions, this would easily allow you to keep the system powered for many more hours than the typical laptop battery would provide (although, for DVD watching, the darker environment that may be desired for viewing would be counterproductive for watching on solar power).
Anyway, just something to think about, and certainly Real Goods is not the only source of such items. I recently bought a small solar battery recharger from Silicon Solar, for example, and some of the products in their catalog would probably be workable for this too.
(Many caveats apply, of course, including the size/portability/convenience of the solar power device.)
Yes, and with every message I include a link to my Web site, which -- with not much effort -- would provide abundant information about me, how to contact me, etc. Unlike those who post as the all-too-apt Anonymous Coward.
...nothing they can do makes copywrite infringements moral...
Did I state anything to the contrary? By the tone of your message I will guess that you're assuming I've viewed pirated movies -- and in that assumption you would be wrong.
I assume you're implying either that the Libertarian Party is not one of the top three parties, or that it's irrelevant -- either way, it's just an off-topic bit of flamebait if I ever saw one (hints to those with moderation points). But, I'll respond to this troll because I have some time (and karma) to kill:
Yes, by any meaningful measurement in a system that is vastly dominated by two parties (e.g., number of candidates run per election, number of people in office, etc.), the Libertarian Party is the third party in the US, and the other alternative parties are much smaller. And, in Washington State, there are three political parties that have achieved "major party" status, and yes, the Libertarian Party is the 3rd.
This doesn't mean that the LP is a "big" party, but even the Democrats and (especially) the Republicans are recognizing the impact on elections caused by the LP. In heavily-read, well-respected publications written for Republicans, political pundits are pushing for a more libertarian approach for Republican candidates, to try to plug the drain of votes. That alone is a victory for libertarian ideals, and proves that even a comparatively tiny party can have a national impact, especially once it reaches the level that the LP has reached over the past few decades.
...america can't pull out of the middle east because of the oil...
To quote my latest blog entry, "three of the top five importers are on the American continents." Poorly worded, in retrospect, since it should say "sources of imported oil" rather than "importers" but it's the data -- which you seem "less than familiar with" -- that is of interest.
I've wanted to go to Comdex for years, but never could swing it time-wise or money-wise. There used to be a local "computer fair" at the University of Washington that I enjoyed going to, but that came to an end some years ago. {sigh} Oddly enough, I had a dream just last night about being at a trade show with my parents and showing them how to find and collect the various freebies...??
It's been awhile since I had a Yahoo! account, but what I remember of it was pretty much like every other Web-based email system -- every other, except Gmail. Sure, sure, the storage space is nice, but that's just a component of what really makes Gmail useful: Full-featured search capability.
Here's an example, from which you can extrapolate your own interests (coding, or recipes, or political commentary, etc., instead of models). As a photographer, I like to be kept informed about new models in my area who have signed up with OneModelPlace.com. So, I have signed up with that site to get automated notifications, which now go to my Gmail account. When I get a notification, I decide -- by looking at the model's portfolio -- whether it's a "keeper" or not. If not, I delete it, because I don't want it coming up in my searches later. If it's a keeper, I tack on a "Interesting Models" label and archive the message. That's where the big storage helps.
Then, when I want to find a model that meets certain criteria, I can do a search in my Gmail account. For example, I could do a search for "nude AND edmonds" if I wanted to find a model in Edmonds, WA who is available for nude work. This is better than doing a search on OMP directly, because I know the model's portfolio isn't "stale" (since some "models" on OMP are no longer modeling), and I've already culled out those models I probably wouldn't be interested in working with (for whatever reason -- cost, looks, etc.), so my results in my Gmail search are prequalified.
Other features of Gmail are nice, but not necessarily unique. For example, Opera's email client allows the use of labels (although I haven't used that client enough to know if they work as well as Gmail's label feature). Other features are underpowered or missing -- if you're looking for a Web-based email address that has lots of integration gimmicks, then Gmail doesn't cut it, at least not yet. But for raw power for the core purpose of handling email, I'm liking Gmail more and more.
Obviously, as with any Web-based email, or really any non-encrypted email, there are privacy concerns, but those can be managed. While I probably won't use Gmail for personal mail very often (if ever), I certainly will use it for newsletters and other content that I might want to be able to search in the future.
It was suicide to fly aircraft into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and wherever the fourth one was headed (capitol hill? white house?). That didn't keep it from happening.
True, but there's really no valid analogy to be drawn between the 9/11/01 attack, which was performed by an essentially-landless terrorist group, and a ballistic missile launch from a land-based nation like North Korea.
...that doesn't mean [North Korea's] leaders won't "push the button" if, for instance, their government is collapsing. (You KNOW they'll blame us for it, and if they're on their way out deterrence makes no difference.)
To annihilate their own people in order to knock out -- what, two or three US cities? -- they would have to hate their own people more than the US. The same goes for other countries that have, or may later obtain, missiles with the range to strike the US. There's a vast difference between sending over a few missiles and getting missiles rained on you in response.
I'm not saying that a missile attack against the US is impossible, but I do think the odds are substantially lower than a WMD attack delivered by an alternative, more convenient mechanism. And, as the earlier-linked documentation and this new chart indicate, the odds aren't even good that the NMD system would actually do what it needs to if there ever is a ballistic missile attack against the US. Again, I only see it as a dangerous government jobs program -- any "bargaining" usefulness of it is distant history at this point.
I agree that North Korea is a threat, but it would be suicide on a national scale for them to launch a ballistic missile attack against the US. Tracking a shipping container attack would be difficult if it was even possible; tracking a missile attack would presumably be in progress before the attack was complete, and I assume it would be done with pinpoint accuracy (courtesy of our non-NMD Cold War leftovers). The US could very literally annihilate North Korea if it so chose. Some factors would surely mitigate a US counter-strike, but I think there's little doubt that the North Korean government and military would be utterly destroyed. We don't need NMD to prevent that missile attack, we just need what we already have -- "peace through superior firepower."
North Korea is still a serious threat, but I'm less concerned about their launching a direct attack against the US than I am about what they could do within their own region. And for that region, NMD is meaningless.
If it was only to be used as a bargaining chip against the Soviet Union, why is the US still developing it, under the new label of National Missile Defense (NMD), when the Soviet Union doesn't exist? Oh, right, the Bush administration says it's a way to defend against terrorists -- and we all know how likely it is that terrorists will use a complex ICBM when a nuclear device in a shipping container would be so much simpler.
More about the "Farce and Fraud" of the National Missile Defense program can be found via this chart and accompanying document.
Sounds like a government jobs program to me, and a dangerous one at that. I'll just keep hoping for "Regime Change 2004"...
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose the Moderation of "Troll" is accurate, but I'll give you a simple answer anyway: Buying music does not "support the artists" if the purchase is done through a corrupted industry where the artist will see only a tiny fraction (if anything) of the money.
Of course, artists receiving very little or none of the purchase price of a commercially-distributed CD is not an excuse for infringing copyright -- but it is a very good reason to listen to and support truly independent artists (by helping them build their audience and by purchasing CDs directly from the artist which guarantees they get all of the profits).
{sigh...} It's times like this I wish the OMR had been more of a success (meaning, that I had more time and energy to make it so). Then again, 70,000+ downloads of independent artists' music isn't too shabby either.
This is a potentially-dangerous oversimplification. From what I recall, Ted Kaczynski (the Unabomber) was no dimwit, but -- given the social and political views expressed in his "manifesto" -- would you want to employ him in some manner in hopes of improving postal security? There's potentially much more to a criminal's mind than lack of a socially-acceptable avenue for using his/her skills.
Are you aware of every single patent application in the past 30 days? Yeah, me neither. There are so many patent applications, even those who are being paid to keep track of it all seem unable to accomplish that feat. Thus, patents get into the system without much notice. When someone runs across an "interesting" one and brings it to light, it is that "shedding of light" that makes it "news."
To use an overly-blunt analogy, it's not the death of a dinosaur that makes the news, it's the discovery of its fossil remains. The death event is "many" years ago, but it's still worth reporting today when the fossils are discovered, especially if there's something unusual about it, since we're all pretty familiar with fossils in general. (This analogy won't be as useful for those who believe dinosaurs didn't exist and that their bones were planted in the ground by Satan to confuse us and turn us away from our Holy Creation origins.)
I don't know about cell phones, but as for "known fact" I'd say that concept is overrated. For many, many years it was a "known fact" that the Earth was flat. It was also a "known fact" that the Earth was the center of the universe. OTOH, most would consider it a "known fact" that DDT is a Bad Thing but you'll still find some denial of this from anti-environmentalists. Heck, most people would consider the Holocaust and the Moon landing to be "known facts" but it's not too hard to find people who will deny them.
My name for the ferret is just F.E.R.R.E.T. as an acronym for Freedom Erased by Revenue-Ravenous Executive Teams
Or, you could try reading the article, which states:
I emphasized a word there for you, since you apparently missed it before!
Well, since we are redefining what censorship means...
Who is? Not me. Censorship according to The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition (per Reference.com) is "The act, process, or practice of censoring." And censoring is "To examine and expurgate," e.g., by a censor. And a censor is "A person authorized to examine books... or other material and to remove... what is considered morally... or otherwise objectionable." Emphasis added, to highlight the connection to the (moral) justification provided by the Kansas AG. Doesn't sound like redefinition, just a perfect example for a future printing of a dictionary.
Booo....
Well, most notably this is NOT censorship. It's a reasonable rejection by Kansas of crap foisted onto them in the form of a "settlement".
Define "crap." Clearly for Kansas, "crap" music means music that doesn't agree with the AG's morals, and has nothing to do with the quality, popularity, or other facets of music that people would normally associate with the "crap" designation for music.
Define "reasonable." If the libraries want to reject material, should they not make that decision, rather than delegating that responsibility to the AG? It sounds like they were happy to reduce their workload, but does that mean it's reasonable? To what moral police will they foist off their responsibilities next?
Yes, it's censorship, even if it's associated with a ridiculous "settlement."
Those who say this isn't censorship are apparently too focused on the ridiculousness of the "settlement" to notice that morality was the reason for rejecting those CDs, not popularity, quality of music, or other aspects that might be relevant to "dumping junk music."
I'm glad I don't live there -- not only does the AG feel the need to be moral daddy, but the libraries think it's appropriate for the AG to do their work for them. Ugh.
The older I get, the less I care about whether or not there is other life in the universe (or galaxy). I'm not "old" but I was around to watch the Saturn 5 launches, and was very excited about space and space exploration then. I'm still very excited about space exploration and colonization of other planets, and very intrigued by the possibility of other life forms (simplistic as they may be) on other planets or moons in our solar system.
But life beyond our solar system? It's just not something to consider, IMHO. We can't get there yet, we probably won't get there anytime "soon," and the odds that it will get here are low too. I'd rather see a focus on mastering our own solar system than worrying about what is beyond it. Perhaps this seems short-sighted, but did we go from non-flying to space shots, or did we spend quite a few useful years of just flying around on our planet?
Me, for one. I was there and did...... Kids today...
So did I, but it has nothing to do with "kids," laziness, etc. When I was doing it, I did so for an employer, and the other adults I was working with could not have done it for themselves. It's about education and experience -- I couldn't have done their job without getting some training first, they couldn't have done mine without getting some training first. I believe the comment to which you were replying was pointing out that installation and configuration of Windows back then "required" experience and education, much in the same way that Linux installation and configuration "requires" experience and education today.
Heh, apparently we were writing our solar suggestions at the same time...
Well, perhaps it's not generally applicable enough to be considered a "solution" so let's call it a "solar consideration" instead.
Anyway, although I was disappointed when Real Goods became part of Gaiam, they at least still have a decent selection of solar power devices, some of which (as I understand it) can power your laptop directly. Under the right conditions, this would easily allow you to keep the system powered for many more hours than the typical laptop battery would provide (although, for DVD watching, the darker environment that may be desired for viewing would be counterproductive for watching on solar power).
Anyway, just something to think about, and certainly Real Goods is not the only source of such items. I recently bought a small solar battery recharger from Silicon Solar, for example, and some of the products in their catalog would probably be workable for this too.
(Many caveats apply, of course, including the size/portability/convenience of the solar power device.)
Yes, and with every message I include a link to my Web site, which -- with not much effort -- would provide abundant information about me, how to contact me, etc. Unlike those who post as the all-too-apt Anonymous Coward.
Did I state anything to the contrary? By the tone of your message I will guess that you're assuming I've viewed pirated movies -- and in that assumption you would be wrong.
I don't have a problem with that, which is why I didn't post anonymously -- coward.
Judge this industry by how much they lose, and the actions they take to reduce that loss, not by how much they make.
How about judging them on something other than their profit margin, like ethics, respect for rights, etc.?
Well, you have a point, but there's always ROT13/ROT47 encoding, such as this message, which has been double-ROT47 encoded so you can't read it.
...uh...
...well, anyway, I'm sure the prior post wasn't intended any more seriously than this one.
*@F 42? 6?4@56 2?5 564@56 E6IED @?=:?6 96C6i 9EEAi^^HHH];FDE\DEF2CE]4@>^48:\3:?^FC`b WD66 >J %649?@=@8J A286 7@C #@E@%6IE6C[ :? 6DD6?46 2 DE2?5\2=@?6 G6CD:@? 7@C (:?5@HDX]
I assume you're implying either that the Libertarian Party is not one of the top three parties, or that it's irrelevant -- either way, it's just an off-topic bit of flamebait if I ever saw one (hints to those with moderation points). But, I'll respond to this troll because I have some time (and karma) to kill:
Yes, by any meaningful measurement in a system that is vastly dominated by two parties (e.g., number of candidates run per election, number of people in office, etc.), the Libertarian Party is the third party in the US, and the other alternative parties are much smaller. And, in Washington State, there are three political parties that have achieved "major party" status, and yes, the Libertarian Party is the 3rd.
This doesn't mean that the LP is a "big" party, but even the Democrats and (especially) the Republicans are recognizing the impact on elections caused by the LP. In heavily-read, well-respected publications written for Republicans, political pundits are pushing for a more libertarian approach for Republican candidates, to try to plug the drain of votes. That alone is a victory for libertarian ideals, and proves that even a comparatively tiny party can have a national impact, especially once it reaches the level that the LP has reached over the past few decades.
To quote my latest blog entry, "three of the top five importers are on the American continents." Poorly worded, in retrospect, since it should say "sources of imported oil" rather than "importers" but it's the data -- which you seem "less than familiar with" -- that is of interest.
I've wanted to go to Comdex for years, but never could swing it time-wise or money-wise. There used to be a local "computer fair" at the University of Washington that I enjoyed going to, but that came to an end some years ago. {sigh} Oddly enough, I had a dream just last night about being at a trade show with my parents and showing them how to find and collect the various freebies...??
It's been awhile since I had a Yahoo! account, but what I remember of it was pretty much like every other Web-based email system -- every other, except Gmail. Sure, sure, the storage space is nice, but that's just a component of what really makes Gmail useful: Full-featured search capability.
Here's an example, from which you can extrapolate your own interests (coding, or recipes, or political commentary, etc., instead of models). As a photographer, I like to be kept informed about new models in my area who have signed up with OneModelPlace.com. So, I have signed up with that site to get automated notifications, which now go to my Gmail account. When I get a notification, I decide -- by looking at the model's portfolio -- whether it's a "keeper" or not. If not, I delete it, because I don't want it coming up in my searches later. If it's a keeper, I tack on a "Interesting Models" label and archive the message. That's where the big storage helps.
Then, when I want to find a model that meets certain criteria, I can do a search in my Gmail account. For example, I could do a search for "nude AND edmonds" if I wanted to find a model in Edmonds, WA who is available for nude work. This is better than doing a search on OMP directly, because I know the model's portfolio isn't "stale" (since some "models" on OMP are no longer modeling), and I've already culled out those models I probably wouldn't be interested in working with (for whatever reason -- cost, looks, etc.), so my results in my Gmail search are prequalified.
Other features of Gmail are nice, but not necessarily unique. For example, Opera's email client allows the use of labels (although I haven't used that client enough to know if they work as well as Gmail's label feature). Other features are underpowered or missing -- if you're looking for a Web-based email address that has lots of integration gimmicks, then Gmail doesn't cut it, at least not yet. But for raw power for the core purpose of handling email, I'm liking Gmail more and more.
Obviously, as with any Web-based email, or really any non-encrypted email, there are privacy concerns, but those can be managed. While I probably won't use Gmail for personal mail very often (if ever), I certainly will use it for newsletters and other content that I might want to be able to search in the future.
It was suicide to fly aircraft into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and wherever the fourth one was headed (capitol hill? white house?). That didn't keep it from happening.
True, but there's really no valid analogy to be drawn between the 9/11/01 attack, which was performed by an essentially-landless terrorist group, and a ballistic missile launch from a land-based nation like North Korea.
To annihilate their own people in order to knock out -- what, two or three US cities? -- they would have to hate their own people more than the US. The same goes for other countries that have, or may later obtain, missiles with the range to strike the US. There's a vast difference between sending over a few missiles and getting missiles rained on you in response.
I'm not saying that a missile attack against the US is impossible, but I do think the odds are substantially lower than a WMD attack delivered by an alternative, more convenient mechanism. And, as the earlier-linked documentation and this new chart indicate, the odds aren't even good that the NMD system would actually do what it needs to if there ever is a ballistic missile attack against the US. Again, I only see it as a dangerous government jobs program -- any "bargaining" usefulness of it is distant history at this point.
I agree that North Korea is a threat, but it would be suicide on a national scale for them to launch a ballistic missile attack against the US. Tracking a shipping container attack would be difficult if it was even possible; tracking a missile attack would presumably be in progress before the attack was complete, and I assume it would be done with pinpoint accuracy (courtesy of our non-NMD Cold War leftovers). The US could very literally annihilate North Korea if it so chose. Some factors would surely mitigate a US counter-strike, but I think there's little doubt that the North Korean government and military would be utterly destroyed. We don't need NMD to prevent that missile attack, we just need what we already have -- "peace through superior firepower."
North Korea is still a serious threat, but I'm less concerned about their launching a direct attack against the US than I am about what they could do within their own region. And for that region, NMD is meaningless.
If it was only to be used as a bargaining chip against the Soviet Union, why is the US still developing it, under the new label of National Missile Defense (NMD), when the Soviet Union doesn't exist? Oh, right, the Bush administration says it's a way to defend against terrorists -- and we all know how likely it is that terrorists will use a complex ICBM when a nuclear device in a shipping container would be so much simpler.
More about the "Farce and Fraud" of the National Missile Defense program can be found via this chart and accompanying document.
Sounds like a government jobs program to me, and a dangerous one at that. I'll just keep hoping for "Regime Change 2004"...