"The connection is very clear. Pirating movies gives money to terrorists."
I hope they take the anti-drug commercial "you're supporting terrorism" approach. Makes for great entertainment, and with the shit coming out of hollywood these days, I could use some great entertainment. Best part is, THEY are PAYING to give us this entertainment for FREE. kickass.
Re:If it can be used to "protect the children"....
on
Wozniak Unveils WozNet
·
· Score: 1
You are quite stupid if you think that was my point. But the most we can/should do is ban child moseltation (done), ban kidnapping (done), and encourage people to drive safely (done). Anything else is taking away my rights in order to "protect" those who should be protected by parents, not by laws.
Then it is instantly accepted, and anyone who disagrees with it is a pedophile child-hater-beater. "Saving Our Children" is the ultimate form of marketing in the 21st century. Nearly every bill proposed in Congress begins with the "statement of finding" that "In order to protect our children...." That way nobody can dissent, or else... well ya know. Instant per se pedophile.
It really sickens me that human larvae cause us to lose all our rights. If they're so precious, stick them in a safety deposit box until they're 18. Or learn to be a responsible parent... oh wait, that's not practicable, I forgot.
Amazon will patent (and pay for the relevant legislation) the "illegal to remove cookie" that stays on your hard drive and tells amazon's search engine how many times you've searched within a given book. Once you reach, say, 10 pages (or a percentage of the book) it won't let you search through at book anymore. And if you dare remove the cookie from your computer or block it in any such way, the DMCA police will be at your door. This seems like the most logical, simple solution:P Ah, and book publishers are allowed to hack into people's computers to 1) make sure the cookie is there and 2) destroy the persons's computer if it isn't.
The cinemas sell the movies. The advertisements for the movies ("This summer's funniest film!") are for the cinemas, as well as the movie makers. Those ads are on the same page, and they are all paid for by the same people. The fraud is at the top of the page, and a listing of when the fraud is being sold is at the bottom. I don't see that as making the bottom part of the page legitimate.
No, the presumption is that if I read/hear enough information about product X not provided by the makers of product X, I will be able to form a reliable opinion as to whether product X is something I want to pay for.
I'm sure it says something along the lines of how special their sale prices are. And then there is the implicit fraud... I'm sure there is a hot semi-naked female on the front of the ad, which implicitly says "buy a dozen bananas and get laid by this hot girl with big tits." And I'm sure the pictures of the products look a lot better in the ad than they do in reality (e.g. a picture of a big mac on tv vs. what you really get at mcdonalds). It's all fraudulent. Showing a bigmac that looks infinitely more delicious than the ones you actually buy is fraud. There is extrinsic fraud and intrinsic fraud.
If someone has a problem or the need for something, they'll either seek out a solution or hear about it from someone else.
For example, if I want to see a good movie, I shouldn't watch a bunch of coming attractions/movie commercials to figure out what to go see, I should read some current movie reviews.
It is physically possible, but I cannot say I have ever seen such an ad. It is impossible to prove a negative, which is why I said "practically" nonexistant. Practically speaking, such a "bare data" advertisement would never be published. In fact, regarding such an ad, there would be no need for the advertising industry, now would there? Anyone can compile a list of items and prices. Not anyone can master the art of manipulative fraud... that takes a college degree.
Ads that purely and solely disseminate factual information about the product are practically nonexistant. Where there's a statement that "We are selling the new Harry Potter book for $XX.XX" there will necessarily also be a statement that it is "the lowest price in town" or "the best deal around" or some other unprovable, subjective (which in the realm of commercial speech, I say is per se false) statement to separate the ad from any other ad that says they have the harry potter book.
The only legitimate form of advertising is word of mouth. Anything else IS based, in whole or in part, on deception and trickery. The nature of advertising is to "convince," not to "inform."
Well this is why advertising is legal. I've said it before and I'll say it again - all advertising is fraudulent. There is no such thing as an unfraudulent ad. "Puff talk" or "puffery" is the legal term of art for 'de minimus fraud' and the only reason it's okay is because to prove up fraud, you need to show reliance. Few people, if any, are going to admit they relied on Katherine Zeta Jones saying X product is the best deal around. Thus, the fraud continues.
The loans are illusory, as the "strings" are instantly snapped as soon as the receivee country gets the money. It's understood that they don't have to pay us back. We'll let it slide if they don't argue with us and enforce our laws on their people.
We (the USA) produce most of the world's copyrighted material, and we give out billions of dollars each year to other countries for free. If we want them to pass a law that favors us, they will all do it. They have little choice. If we decide applejuice needs to be outlawed, we'll get (via bribes and threats) every country in the world to outlaw it. What the US wants, it gets. As an American, I'm not sure how I feel about that. Were we wanting rational things, I suppose I'd be somewhat happy and maybe even a bit proud (in an egocentric sorta way).
Anyway, that's all this is. Sorta like drug laws. We want it to be illegal, so we'll pay for everyone else to make it illegal. End of story.
is because it's full of rap music, product placement advertisements, gratuitous sex scenes (well those are okay), crappy dialogue, additional characters, and a new ending. just a hunch....
The essence of the article is snail mail has higher bandwidth than electronic means (or something to that extent). This ignores the fact that most programs/data transmitted today are huge. gigabytes. A one-sided DVD is 4.7gigs. Even if it took, for the sake of argument, 2 days to transfer that DVD electronically and 2 days to ship the DVD across the country priority mail, the cost of badwidth vs. postage has to be taken into account. Postage for a disc is a little less than $3 for priority mail (and less than a dollar for regular 1st class). Is having one's bandwidth tied up (slowing down everything else on the network) worth $3? $1? No, of course not. And as data gets bigger and bigger (it always does), mail will still cost less... at least for a long time. CDROMs and DVDs are small and light--perfect for sending cheaply in the mail. So, to say mail is faster than uploading data is a shitpoor comparison. And while it sounds fascinatingly shocking, that's only because it's ignoring some pretty big factors.
"Hey let's go to the movies!"
"Good idea, don't forget your cellphone!"
Remember, only 5% of the population is capable of turning their cellphone sounds/ringers off. Encouraging people to bring cellphones into movie theaters, museums, etc., is about the dumbest idea I've ever heard. But it might sell a product, so there's no stopping it.
Re:Section 105 of the 1976 Copyright acts covers t
on
Open Source Law
·
· Score: 1
Again, I never said anything a state does is per se bad. Just, historically, whenever a state has argued for "state's rights" it has been to do something bad (slavery most famously, and keeping sodomy illegal most recently).
Re:Section 105 of the 1976 Copyright acts covers t
on
Open Source Law
·
· Score: 1
The northern states outlawed slavery because of industrial revolution. Slaves were no longer an absolute necessity and they all felt they'd be better off getting rid of all the black people up there. Then, and only then, did the moral crusades start. They didn't want black people living 'down there' in the south, either. It was understood that they'd all be sent back to Africa. Liberia has been in the news lately... ever read about how it was founded?
Just because a state passes a trivial law that other states end up copying (i.e. seatbelt laws) has absolutely nothing to do with state's rights. About the only laws states can pass are seatbelt laws, helmet laws, and smoking ordinances. Everything else is preempted by federal law. And as for the first two, the states will lose highway funding if they don't comply. So, that means the only law a state can pass is one which tells people where they can't smoke cigarettes. That, of course, makes the 10th Amendment a waste of ink, IMHO.
indeed, i hit return a few times but forgot to put the html break in there. oops.
Section 105 of the 1976 Copyright acts covers this
on
Open Source Law
·
· Score: 3, Informative
105. Subject matter of copyright:
United States Government
Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise. If public interest groups draft model laws that they want enacted, they should be prepared to lose any copyright in those model laws if, in fact, they get adopted. What the hell would they want to keep the copyright for, anyway? Other than cock-strocking.
I suppose, however, that applies only to US government works and not US State Government works. Just another reason why we don't need states, and they sure as hell shouldn't have any rights. When has "state's rights" ever been used as an argument for anything worthy and moral?
Well argued points. I revert back to my initial satement that in based on the following propositions (by the way, i love arguments like this and I thank you for partiipating).
1) People should not be encouraged to keep themseles in the gene pool solely on the fat tht they are human beings. Sounds nice, but bad policy.
2) Indeed natural selection does not make moral judgments, but we as humans can.
3) To be honest I hve never heard of a case where a seatbeltless driver/passenger got thrown into another person's car through their windshield and hurt them. Maybe they caused property damage to their car (nice big head-dent in the hood/fender) but that can be paid for even if lausuit is necessary. insurancew would most lkely cover that.
You are right, natural selection does not make moral judgments, and who are we to question it. Were it not for natural selecton we woudln't be here (unless...you're one of "those" fundy people but I won't aknowledge them in this discussion as I find them totally irrelevant). If someone did, however get hurt, that's what lawsuits are for. And despite what our society has come to believe, lawsuits are a good thing. Much better than a duel at high noon, if ya know what I mean.
I know my opinion on this matter is "cruel" or whatever you want to label it, but I assure you I'm not trying to troll. And I know this is offtopic from the main subject of the discussion on this thread, but it is relevant to the sub-thread I have posted this on. Just consider this a microdiscussion within a macro one.
I don't see why you would be in favour of removing poor judgment from the gene pool, but against removing something medically treatable like diabetes.
Simple. Diabetes is involuntary. Deciding to not wear seatbelts is not. There is no stupidity involved in getting diabetes. There is stupidity involved in dying in a trffic accident because ya didn't have your seatbelt on. I'm not trying to cleanse the gene pool of all possible faults. Just stupidity. And that's easy to do, at least in the sense that "stupidity conservation laws" should not be passed. again, JMHO and i'm not advocating anything racist here. Stupid white people should not reproduce any more than stupid (name your minority).
Slashdot Mirror
Parents are responsible for the actions of their larvae. Natural selection should be allowed to take its course.
"The connection is very clear. Pirating movies gives money to terrorists."
I hope they take the anti-drug commercial "you're supporting terrorism" approach. Makes for great entertainment, and with the shit coming out of hollywood these days, I could use some great entertainment. Best part is, THEY are PAYING to give us this entertainment for FREE. kickass.
You are quite stupid if you think that was my point. But the most we can/should do is ban child moseltation (done), ban kidnapping (done), and encourage people to drive safely (done). Anything else is taking away my rights in order to "protect" those who should be protected by parents, not by laws.
Then it is instantly accepted, and anyone who disagrees with it is a pedophile child-hater-beater. "Saving Our Children" is the ultimate form of marketing in the 21st century. Nearly every bill proposed in Congress begins with the "statement of finding" that "In order to protect our children...." That way nobody can dissent, or else... well ya know. Instant per se pedophile.
It really sickens me that human larvae cause us to lose all our rights. If they're so precious, stick them in a safety deposit box until they're 18. Or learn to be a responsible parent... oh wait, that's not practicable, I forgot.
Amazon will patent (and pay for the relevant legislation) the "illegal to remove cookie" that stays on your hard drive and tells amazon's search engine how many times you've searched within a given book. Once you reach, say, 10 pages (or a percentage of the book) it won't let you search through at book anymore. And if you dare remove the cookie from your computer or block it in any such way, the DMCA police will be at your door. This seems like the most logical, simple solution :P Ah, and book publishers are allowed to hack into people's computers to 1) make sure the cookie is there and 2) destroy the persons's computer if it isn't.
god bless 'merikuh
The cinemas sell the movies. The advertisements for the movies ("This summer's funniest film!") are for the cinemas, as well as the movie makers. Those ads are on the same page, and they are all paid for by the same people. The fraud is at the top of the page, and a listing of when the fraud is being sold is at the bottom. I don't see that as making the bottom part of the page legitimate.
No, the presumption is that if I read/hear enough information about product X not provided by the makers of product X, I will be able to form a reliable opinion as to whether product X is something I want to pay for.
I'm sure it says something along the lines of how special their sale prices are. And then there is the implicit fraud... I'm sure there is a hot semi-naked female on the front of the ad, which implicitly says "buy a dozen bananas and get laid by this hot girl with big tits." And I'm sure the pictures of the products look a lot better in the ad than they do in reality (e.g. a picture of a big mac on tv vs. what you really get at mcdonalds). It's all fraudulent. Showing a bigmac that looks infinitely more delicious than the ones you actually buy is fraud. There is extrinsic fraud and intrinsic fraud.
If someone has a problem or the need for something, they'll either seek out a solution or hear about it from someone else.
For example, if I want to see a good movie, I shouldn't watch a bunch of coming attractions/movie commercials to figure out what to go see, I should read some current movie reviews.
no, you slipped on the slope of going from commercial speech to all speech.
It is physically possible, but I cannot say I have ever seen such an ad. It is impossible to prove a negative, which is why I said "practically" nonexistant. Practically speaking, such a "bare data" advertisement would never be published. In fact, regarding such an ad, there would be no need for the advertising industry, now would there? Anyone can compile a list of items and prices. Not anyone can master the art of manipulative fraud... that takes a college degree.
Ads that purely and solely disseminate factual information about the product are practically nonexistant. Where there's a statement that "We are selling the new Harry Potter book for $XX.XX" there will necessarily also be a statement that it is "the lowest price in town" or "the best deal around" or some other unprovable, subjective (which in the realm of commercial speech, I say is per se false) statement to separate the ad from any other ad that says they have the harry potter book.
The only legitimate form of advertising is word of mouth. Anything else IS based, in whole or in part, on deception and trickery. The nature of advertising is to "convince," not to "inform."
Well this is why advertising is legal. I've said it before and I'll say it again - all advertising is fraudulent. There is no such thing as an unfraudulent ad. "Puff talk" or "puffery" is the legal term of art for 'de minimus fraud' and the only reason it's okay is because to prove up fraud, you need to show reliance. Few people, if any, are going to admit they relied on Katherine Zeta Jones saying X product is the best deal around. Thus, the fraud continues.
The loans are illusory, as the "strings" are instantly snapped as soon as the receivee country gets the money. It's understood that they don't have to pay us back. We'll let it slide if they don't argue with us and enforce our laws on their people.
We (the USA) produce most of the world's copyrighted material, and we give out billions of dollars each year to other countries for free. If we want them to pass a law that favors us, they will all do it. They have little choice. If we decide applejuice needs to be outlawed, we'll get (via bribes and threats) every country in the world to outlaw it. What the US wants, it gets. As an American, I'm not sure how I feel about that. Were we wanting rational things, I suppose I'd be somewhat happy and maybe even a bit proud (in an egocentric sorta way).
Anyway, that's all this is. Sorta like drug laws. We want it to be illegal, so we'll pay for everyone else to make it illegal. End of story.
I know I've heard about these augmented reality goggle thingamazoos before.
is because it's full of rap music, product placement advertisements, gratuitous sex scenes (well those are okay), crappy dialogue, additional characters, and a new ending. just a hunch....
The essence of the article is snail mail has higher bandwidth than electronic means (or something to that extent). This ignores the fact that most programs/data transmitted today are huge. gigabytes. A one-sided DVD is 4.7gigs. Even if it took, for the sake of argument, 2 days to transfer that DVD electronically and 2 days to ship the DVD across the country priority mail, the cost of badwidth vs. postage has to be taken into account. Postage for a disc is a little less than $3 for priority mail (and less than a dollar for regular 1st class). Is having one's bandwidth tied up (slowing down everything else on the network) worth $3? $1? No, of course not. And as data gets bigger and bigger (it always does), mail will still cost less ... at least for a long time. CDROMs and DVDs are small and light--perfect for sending cheaply in the mail. So, to say mail is faster than uploading data is a shitpoor comparison. And while it sounds fascinatingly shocking, that's only because it's ignoring some pretty big factors.
Isn't that what government is for?
Damn them all to hell.
"Hey let's go to the movies!"
"Good idea, don't forget your cellphone!"
Remember, only 5% of the population is capable of turning their cellphone sounds/ringers off. Encouraging people to bring cellphones into movie theaters, museums, etc., is about the dumbest idea I've ever heard. But it might sell a product, so there's no stopping it.
Again, I never said anything a state does is per se bad. Just, historically, whenever a state has argued for "state's rights" it has been to do something bad (slavery most famously, and keeping sodomy illegal most recently).
The northern states outlawed slavery because of industrial revolution. Slaves were no longer an absolute necessity and they all felt they'd be better off getting rid of all the black people up there. Then, and only then, did the moral crusades start. They didn't want black people living 'down there' in the south, either. It was understood that they'd all be sent back to Africa. Liberia has been in the news lately... ever read about how it was founded?
Just because a state passes a trivial law that other states end up copying (i.e. seatbelt laws) has absolutely nothing to do with state's rights. About the only laws states can pass are seatbelt laws, helmet laws, and smoking ordinances. Everything else is preempted by federal law. And as for the first two, the states will lose highway funding if they don't comply. So, that means the only law a state can pass is one which tells people where they can't smoke cigarettes. That, of course, makes the 10th Amendment a waste of ink, IMHO.
indeed, i hit return a few times but forgot to put the html break in there. oops.
105. Subject matter of copyright:
United States Government Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise. If public interest groups draft model laws that they want enacted, they should be prepared to lose any copyright in those model laws if, in fact, they get adopted. What the hell would they want to keep the copyright for, anyway? Other than cock-strocking.
I suppose, however, that applies only to US government works and not US State Government works. Just another reason why we don't need states, and they sure as hell shouldn't have any rights. When has "state's rights" ever been used as an argument for anything worthy and moral?
Well argued points. I revert back to my initial satement that in based on the following propositions (by the way, i love arguments like this and I thank you for partiipating). 1) People should not be encouraged to keep themseles in the gene pool solely on the fat tht they are human beings. Sounds nice, but bad policy.
2) Indeed natural selection does not make moral judgments, but we as humans can.
3) To be honest I hve never heard of a case where a seatbeltless driver/passenger got thrown into another person's car through their windshield and hurt them. Maybe they caused property damage to their car (nice big head-dent in the hood/fender) but that can be paid for even if lausuit is necessary. insurancew would most lkely cover that.
You are right, natural selection does not make moral judgments, and who are we to question it. Were it not for natural selecton we woudln't be here (unless...you're one of "those" fundy people but I won't aknowledge them in this discussion as I find them totally irrelevant).
If someone did, however get hurt, that's what lawsuits are for. And despite what our society has come to believe, lawsuits are a good thing. Much better than a duel at high noon, if ya know what I mean. I know my opinion on this matter is "cruel" or whatever you want to label it, but I assure you I'm not trying to troll. And I know this is offtopic from the main subject of the discussion on this thread, but it is relevant to the sub-thread I have posted this on. Just consider this a microdiscussion within a macro one.
I don't see why you would be in favour of removing poor judgment from the gene pool, but against removing something medically treatable like diabetes. Simple. Diabetes is involuntary. Deciding to not wear seatbelts is not. There is no stupidity involved in getting diabetes. There is stupidity involved in dying in a trffic accident because ya didn't have your seatbelt on. I'm not trying to cleanse the gene pool of all possible faults. Just stupidity. And that's easy to do, at least in the sense that "stupidity conservation laws" should not be passed. again, JMHO and i'm not advocating anything racist here. Stupid white people should not reproduce any more than stupid (name your minority).