If state (or federal) intervention (including taxes) is driving wealth away, then state intervention should be stardardised across the whole world. This is fully consistent with the neo-liberal globalisation agenda.
Please don't blame hiphop for crimes of the major labels against hiphop.
It is worth noting that rap is not a genre, it is merely a style of delivery, which may be applied to any poetry... even good poetry. Rapping is not necessarily inartistic, just listen to any real hiphop and you would know this.
If 'Trusted' features are opt-in only, then won't I be able to run my box with a TCPA processor in exactly the same way that I do currently? Won't some of these manufacturers continue to sell some processors without these 'features'?
I see no reason for any of these manufacturers not to do both. The processors which are not part of TCPA ought to be cheaper because they don't do everything that the TCPA processors do and are simpler to make. After all, a large section of the market will just reject trusted computing.
I still see the problem that if there are *any* 'trusted' computers, then there will be content that I can't use. Though I object morally on these grounds, I have to live with that already.
> The RIAA is trying the same tactic the U.S is > going to try with the Middle East.
Yeah, but there is no pretence that RIAA is acting in our interests, and the situation seems a little more hopeful regarding the music industry than the Middle East.
On the other hand, Bush is waging war regardless of what Saddam does or his people want (while claiming popular support). The anti-war movement isn't going to succeed (without the realistic threat of force).
Bush might actually achieve something with his tactic, but RIAA won't. The recording industry is widely viewed with suspicion and will decline even if they keep buying draconian measures.
But one of the things that puts newbies off is the choice of distros. Experienced users can cope with multiple distros and multiple interfaces, and are sufficiently informed to choose between them, but newbies can't.
> Why don't we just get all of the soft-drink > manufacturers to get together to make ONE good > drink to rule them all.
One of the reasons that we don't want drinks manufacturers to unite like this is because this consortium would abuse its monopoly position. I don't think that an organisation that produces products whose appeal come from following standards and are free software, could become monopolists like Microsoft are.
I think that we have less to fear on the monopoly front from a non-profit organisation like that behind Ark Linux.
Any classification of games should consider not only the amount and explicitness of violence (and whatever else they want children not to view), but whether the game presents it in a good light. Perhaps the censors would want to encourage children to play games with an anti-violence message, even if they included some violent action.
It should also be noted that as games become more and more realistic, it gets more difficult to distiguish violent games from non-violent games, as players may be able to play violently or non-violently.
> Why not have a short copyright term as the > standard (say life + 10 years)
Why not just let it expire as soon as the work goes out of production (unless it is copylefted)? My main concern about the RIAA's copyright clamp down (on p2p, etc.) is that it involves most of the music that I listen to not being available anywhere at any price. How does this benefit companies? How does it provide an incentive for people to create more works?
Also, I don't think that copyright should usually last beyond the death of the author. The prospect of being paid when I'm dead doesn't spur me into a productive frenzy. Perhaps it should not expire on death, as that would provide an incentive for people like me to murder copyright holders. (Also, where the artist is not easily identifiable, or is more than one person, it creates difficulties, especially for non-lawyers).
Copyright should be for a fixed term, sufficiently short that some copyright holders would be alive when their copyright expires, but otherwise as long as possible. After all, we do want to make sure that as many as possible of the good artists, etc. are financially supported and have an incentive to produce intellectual works.
Software licenses like the GPL depend on copyright (because once the copyright expires, it would be legal to release proprietary derivative works). Because I believe in free software, I think that copyright should last long enough for most copylefted software to become obselete whilst in copyright.
Slashdot Mirror
If state (or federal) intervention (including taxes) is driving wealth away, then state intervention should be stardardised across the whole world. This is fully consistent with the neo-liberal globalisation agenda.
Abolish national borders.
> But you can't regulate and legistate things to
> suite your case, especially if there is no crime
> being committed.
Whether a crime has been committed depends on what we want to be illegal. That's how democracy ought to work.
The parent post is correct.
> Rap, "boy bands", Brittany Spears
Please don't blame hiphop for crimes of the major labels against hiphop.
It is worth noting that rap is not a genre, it is merely a style of delivery, which may be applied to any poetry... even good poetry. Rapping is not necessarily inartistic, just listen to any real hiphop and you would know this.
If 'Trusted' features are opt-in only, then won't I be able to run my box with a TCPA processor in exactly the same way that I do currently? Won't some of these manufacturers continue to sell some processors without these 'features'?
I see no reason for any of these manufacturers not to do both. The processors which are not part of TCPA ought to be cheaper because they don't do everything that the TCPA processors do and are simpler to make. After all, a large section of the market will just reject trusted computing.
I still see the problem that if there are *any* 'trusted' computers, then there will be content that I can't use. Though I object morally on these grounds, I have to live with that already.
> The RIAA is trying the same tactic the U.S is
> going to try with the Middle East.
Yeah, but there is no pretence that RIAA is acting in our interests, and the situation seems a little more hopeful regarding the music industry than the Middle East.
On the other hand, Bush is waging war regardless of what Saddam does or his people want (while claiming popular support). The anti-war movement isn't going to succeed (without the realistic threat of force).
Bush might actually achieve something with his tactic, but RIAA won't. The recording industry is widely viewed with suspicion and will decline even if they keep buying draconian measures.
But one of the things that puts newbies off is the choice of distros. Experienced users can cope with multiple distros and multiple interfaces, and are sufficiently informed to choose between them, but newbies can't.
> Why don't we just get all of the soft-drink
> manufacturers to get together to make ONE good
> drink to rule them all.
One of the reasons that we don't want drinks manufacturers to unite like this is because this consortium would abuse its monopoly position. I don't think that an organisation that produces products whose appeal come from following standards and are free software, could become monopolists like Microsoft are.
I think that we have less to fear on the monopoly front from a non-profit organisation like that behind Ark Linux.
Any classification of games should consider not only the amount and explicitness of violence (and whatever else they want children not to view), but whether the game presents it in a good light. Perhaps the censors would want to encourage children to play games with an anti-violence message, even if they included some violent action.
It should also be noted that as games become more and more realistic, it gets more difficult to distiguish violent games from non-violent games, as players may be able to play violently or non-violently.
> Microsoft is able to at least count
1, 2, 3, 95. *Well done*, Bill.
of reincarnation!
How about the Republican party of the US, the Democrat party of the US and their 'donors'.
The word 'random' means occuring at haphazard, or without aim. It was misused here.
An example of something that is random is this post.
In Soviet Russia, Boreing is getting these jokes.
Amazon applies for patent on one-click patenting
> Why not have a short copyright term as the
> standard (say life + 10 years)
Why not just let it expire as soon as the work goes out of production (unless it is copylefted)? My main concern about the RIAA's copyright clamp down (on p2p, etc.) is that it involves most of the music that I listen to not being available anywhere at any price. How does this benefit companies? How does it provide an incentive for people to create more works?
Also, I don't think that copyright should usually last beyond the death of the author. The prospect of being paid when I'm dead doesn't spur me into a productive frenzy. Perhaps it should not expire on death, as that would provide an incentive for people like me to murder copyright holders. (Also, where the artist is not easily identifiable, or is more than one person, it creates difficulties, especially for non-lawyers).
Copyright should be for a fixed term, sufficiently short that some copyright holders would be alive when their copyright expires, but otherwise as long as possible. After all, we do want to make sure that as many as possible of the good artists, etc. are financially supported and have an incentive to produce intellectual works.
Software licenses like the GPL depend on copyright (because once the copyright expires, it would be legal to release proprietary derivative works). Because I believe in free software, I think that copyright should last long enough for most copylefted software to become obselete whilst in copyright.