There is no fair use that falls under the current laws. However, I would say that it should be fair use. If he owns the albums or has purchased the songs from a digital retail store, then him sharing them is just another way of helping others device-shift their collection. He wouldn't be forcing anyone to break the law; it should be their responsibility to do the right thing, not his.
I just wanted to make it clear that my last question was rhetorical. I know what the reason was; and this privacy issue, as good a reason as it is to get this system out of bars, shouldn't have occurred in the first place.
A bar should not be liable for someone using a fake ID that looks real. If the ID looks genuine, the picture looks like the person using it, and it says they are of age, that should be as far as it needs to go. If the person gets caught, they should have to take responsibility for their actions. Why did bars think this system was a necessity in the first place?
How would having it unbundled work at all? You turn it on, no browser, then go where for the installer? getfirefox.com? with what browser? You'd have to either have another PC to download it with (most people don't) or use Windows Update to install IE anyway just to get a different browser.
It specifically states "CPU" in the graph and later in the article he said he removed the GPUs because there was some confusion on the exact output of the PS3's GPU.
I'd like to add that, no, I don't believe these people are thinking for themselves (sloppily or not). I believe they are being "blinded by religion" as my topic title states. They don't want to be confronted by something they don't agree with which might make them think for themselves, so they outlaw it.
However, now that you bring it up and I think about it a bit more, I wonder if this has anything to do with the Catholic/Protestant split has anything to do with this. (I read the first page of the article. Didn't see it mentioned.)
I understand what you're saying, even if you are saying it in a very passive-aggressive way. I could have been a bit less sarcastic myself in saying "This is one of the many reasons I do not like religion."
However, my statement stands. It might be a broad generalization, as humans like to generalize, but there are many more religious people advocating censorship and conformity than there are atheists doing the same.
You can also think for yourself and still agree with others. However, when your opinions are forced on you, as with something like this, then you are no longer thinking for yourself lest you don't mind breaking the law.
The church might not be asking for it directly, but it is still being done because of religion. Same outcome either way except I would expect it coming directly from the church.
This is the biggest reason why I can't stand religion. If you are so frightened by others' opinions as to attack them if they disagree with you then you have no right to make any decisions. It's the same with censorship. If you don't like it, ignore it.
Can we outlaw thinking for ourselves while we're at it? (/s)
Well, from their litter of seven, six are currently being used after their training. That isn't >90% but it's pretty good. Second, I believe what they mean from "cloned sniffer dogs had better performance that naturally-born sniffer dogs" is that the percentage of cloned dogs that are useful in drug sniffing is much higer than the percentage of naturally born sniffing dogs that end up passing the same training.
Now the reason for needing these dogs is another argument altogether...
I would love to see the major carriers have to compete with their services alone, but Verizon does make a valid point.
However, they also talk out of their asses. "Exclusivity arrangements promote competition and innovation in device development and design" but they fail to realize that we want a choice for where to go with whatever phone we want. Handset manufacturers would make new handsets regardless; I don't think the major carriers have as much influence as they think they do. Unfortunately, its tough to force them to do anything because people are tethered to their cell phones; a boycott would be impossible since nobody cares enough to do so. They care enough to complain but when push comes to shove, nothing.
Less war? Women HATE each other. Even best friends will talk behind each others backs at the drop of a hat.
Russia whispering to China: I heard the US said your hair looked too brown
China to Russia: Oh SNAP! WHERE'S THAT NUKE BUTTON?!
And women are much more emotional than men. I don't see a matriarchal society working very well... (yes, much generalization but this is much more likely than the opposite)
That is a valid argument, however, I would rather see them work with the transcript only than be swayed by emotion. If anything, record the trial on video, let them watch only the witnesses testimony (read the lawyers questions and comments from the transcript) so that they can see their reactions but not be influenced from anything else.
Doing this outside of the courtroom also goes to what DavidTC said. Doing things on the jury's schedule would make it less of a chore for people and would increase participation.
That's the biggest issue I have with our legal system. The prosecution and the defense should not be allowed to pre-screen the jurors. How is that fair? Everyone should be randomly selected with a set of alternates. If you have a legitimate reason for getting out (ie. in the hospital, in jail, out of the country for extended period ex. from when they sent the letters to the initial show-up date) then you can be replaced. As for your opinions, they shouldn't matter. If you're a racist, fine. If you believe in abortion/death penalty/hitler lives in your basement, fine. It's supposed to be a selection of your peers.
Now, if they want to screen for bias, etc, then fine; though I'm still against it but I understand why someone might want this. Find a third party with no affiliation or connection to anyone else in the trial and have them pre-screen. However, jury nullification should in no way be a reason for dismissal.
I would love to run the trial on its own and just give the jury a transcript after the fact. No emotions, no pandering to the jury by the defense/prosecution, and all the "stricken from record" items won't even be heard. Stick each juror in a hotel room to read it all and them let them meet to deliberate when they all finish. If they can't read, get them a computer with a voice synthesizer.
I understand their piracy stance. However, all they would have to do to make me happy would be to require bnet authentication when starting a game and then letting the game itself run over the lan without the need of an external connection. Hell, have it authenticate every minute or two. A shared pipe could easily accommodate that. But my measly 40k up speed probably can't handle an 8-man lan...
The way I see it, ignoring the DMCA, only someone downloading should be held responsible. The uploader has no idea if you own a legal copy of something. That should be the downloader's responsibility. If you upload, you are helping others make legitimate backups. If someone abuses that and doesn't own a legitimate copy, they are the only one's that should be prosecuted. On the same line of reasoning, even if you are guilty as a downloader, you don't know if anyone you are uploading to owns a license and should only be liable for your infraction; not the infraction of others.
The company is still going to be run by John Carmack. It looks like it's more of a business decision to make publishing/marketing easier and to get a hold of new tech than to merge IPs.
What the hell are they spending this money on? If they paid their engineers $150,000/year, they could hire almost 2500 engineers for a year-long project. It's not like they're building anything new or buying raw materials; they just need someone to re-draw plans with new measurements in a different system. The fitting/testing for the Ares should already be budgeted for so it shouldn't fit in with this cost. No wonder we're in debt...
Slashdot Mirror
Speak for yourself... I'm not a hipster don't try to look cool or own any Apple brand products.
There is no fair use that falls under the current laws. However, I would say that it should be fair use. If he owns the albums or has purchased the songs from a digital retail store, then him sharing them is just another way of helping others device-shift their collection. He wouldn't be forcing anyone to break the law; it should be their responsibility to do the right thing, not his.
I just wanted to make it clear that my last question was rhetorical. I know what the reason was; and this privacy issue, as good a reason as it is to get this system out of bars, shouldn't have occurred in the first place.
A bar should not be liable for someone using a fake ID that looks real. If the ID looks genuine, the picture looks like the person using it, and it says they are of age, that should be as far as it needs to go. If the person gets caught, they should have to take responsibility for their actions. Why did bars think this system was a necessity in the first place?
How would having it unbundled work at all? You turn it on, no browser, then go where for the installer? getfirefox.com? with what browser? You'd have to either have another PC to download it with (most people don't) or use Windows Update to install IE anyway just to get a different browser.
1. Microsoft Internet Explorer 8
2. Lynx
3. Mosaic
4. None
That will fill the requirement while shoving a boot up their collective asses
It specifically states "CPU" in the graph and later in the article he said he removed the GPUs because there was some confusion on the exact output of the PS3's GPU.
So, probably not.
# Microsoft says the Xbox 360 can do 1 teraflops
# Sony says the PS3 can do about 2 teraflops
so, who has more power? for a real-world comparison (like you said, marketing teams suck) here's an article from tgdaily: http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/37621/128/
developers never said the 360 has more power. they said it's easier to develop for.
I have a 1080p copy of a movie at home and it's ~8GB.
8 GB in 180 seconds = 364.09 mbps.
um.... no
I'd like to add that, no, I don't believe these people are thinking for themselves (sloppily or not). I believe they are being "blinded by religion" as my topic title states. They don't want to be confronted by something they don't agree with which might make them think for themselves, so they outlaw it.
However, now that you bring it up and I think about it a bit more, I wonder if this has anything to do with the Catholic/Protestant split has anything to do with this. (I read the first page of the article. Didn't see it mentioned.)
I understand what you're saying, even if you are saying it in a very passive-aggressive way. I could have been a bit less sarcastic myself in saying "This is one of the many reasons I do not like religion."
However, my statement stands. It might be a broad generalization, as humans like to generalize, but there are many more religious people advocating censorship and conformity than there are atheists doing the same.
You can also think for yourself and still agree with others. However, when your opinions are forced on you, as with something like this, then you are no longer thinking for yourself lest you don't mind breaking the law.
The church might not be asking for it directly, but it is still being done because of religion. Same outcome either way except I would expect it coming directly from the church.
This is the biggest reason why I can't stand religion. If you are so frightened by others' opinions as to attack them if they disagree with you then you have no right to make any decisions. It's the same with censorship. If you don't like it, ignore it.
Can we outlaw thinking for ourselves while we're at it? (/s)
Well, from their litter of seven, six are currently being used after their training. That isn't >90% but it's pretty good. Second, I believe what they mean from "cloned sniffer dogs had better performance that naturally-born sniffer dogs" is that the percentage of cloned dogs that are useful in drug sniffing is much higer than the percentage of naturally born sniffing dogs that end up passing the same training.
Now the reason for needing these dogs is another argument altogether...
I would love to see the major carriers have to compete with their services alone, but Verizon does make a valid point.
However, they also talk out of their asses. "Exclusivity arrangements promote competition and innovation in device development and design" but they fail to realize that we want a choice for where to go with whatever phone we want. Handset manufacturers would make new handsets regardless; I don't think the major carriers have as much influence as they think they do. Unfortunately, its tough to force them to do anything because people are tethered to their cell phones; a boycott would be impossible since nobody cares enough to do so. They care enough to complain but when push comes to shove, nothing.
oh for fuck's sake.
atheist: does no believe there is a supreme being
agnostic: does not believe there is a way to prove or disprove the existence of a supreme being
why can't anyone get this right? they are mutually exclusive opinions
almost...
1. Build ISS
2. State plans for De-Orbit
3. Receive additional funding
4. Profit!
5. GOTO 2
Less war? Women HATE each other. Even best friends will talk behind each others backs at the drop of a hat.
Russia whispering to China: I heard the US said your hair looked too brown
China to Russia: Oh SNAP! WHERE'S THAT NUKE BUTTON?!
And women are much more emotional than men. I don't see a matriarchal society working very well... (yes, much generalization but this is much more likely than the opposite)
That is a valid argument, however, I would rather see them work with the transcript only than be swayed by emotion. If anything, record the trial on video, let them watch only the witnesses testimony (read the lawyers questions and comments from the transcript) so that they can see their reactions but not be influenced from anything else.
Doing this outside of the courtroom also goes to what DavidTC said. Doing things on the jury's schedule would make it less of a chore for people and would increase participation.
That's the biggest issue I have with our legal system. The prosecution and the defense should not be allowed to pre-screen the jurors. How is that fair? Everyone should be randomly selected with a set of alternates. If you have a legitimate reason for getting out (ie. in the hospital, in jail, out of the country for extended period ex. from when they sent the letters to the initial show-up date) then you can be replaced. As for your opinions, they shouldn't matter. If you're a racist, fine. If you believe in abortion/death penalty/hitler lives in your basement, fine. It's supposed to be a selection of your peers.
Now, if they want to screen for bias, etc, then fine; though I'm still against it but I understand why someone might want this. Find a third party with no affiliation or connection to anyone else in the trial and have them pre-screen. However, jury nullification should in no way be a reason for dismissal.
I would love to run the trial on its own and just give the jury a transcript after the fact. No emotions, no pandering to the jury by the defense/prosecution, and all the "stricken from record" items won't even be heard. Stick each juror in a hotel room to read it all and them let them meet to deliberate when they all finish. If they can't read, get them a computer with a voice synthesizer.
I understand their piracy stance. However, all they would have to do to make me happy would be to require bnet authentication when starting a game and then letting the game itself run over the lan without the need of an external connection. Hell, have it authenticate every minute or two. A shared pipe could easily accommodate that. But my measly 40k up speed probably can't handle an 8-man lan...
The way I see it, ignoring the DMCA, only someone downloading should be held responsible. The uploader has no idea if you own a legal copy of something. That should be the downloader's responsibility. If you upload, you are helping others make legitimate backups. If someone abuses that and doesn't own a legitimate copy, they are the only one's that should be prosecuted. On the same line of reasoning, even if you are guilty as a downloader, you don't know if anyone you are uploading to owns a license and should only be liable for your infraction; not the infraction of others.
5 years and then it goes into public domain. no loopholes, no exceptions, no greedy lobbyists.
oh, and outlaw lobbyists....
The company is still going to be run by John Carmack. It looks like it's more of a business decision to make publishing/marketing easier and to get a hold of new tech than to merge IPs.
What the hell are they spending this money on? If they paid their engineers $150,000/year, they could hire almost 2500 engineers for a year-long project. It's not like they're building anything new or buying raw materials; they just need someone to re-draw plans with new measurements in a different system. The fitting/testing for the Ares should already be budgeted for so it shouldn't fit in with this cost. No wonder we're in debt...