And, since they just don't get it, in your opinion it's okeydokey to rip someone off by illegally posting copyrighted material rather than just letting them wither away in their ignorance?
Kinda like 1917 Russia, where the land owners "didn't get it", so had their land taken by force?
I find it interesting the whenever someone touts the free distribution schema, they tout that there are untold channels to get the free stuff and that's threatening the "Big Distribution" companies. Then, when there's clearly a breach of copyright law, those same people turn around and claim that "BD" is squelching distribution of indies.
Which is it?
"It wouldn't surprise me a bit if Viacom indirectly had people posting copyrighted material to YouTube as fast as Google can take it down."
Viacom couldn't have people indirectly posting. Are you really claiming you think they have people directly posting?
"... to do that successfully they need a copyright case."
Yeah, there was such a dearth of copyrighted material on YouTube from the git-go.
He wasn't so extreme as to say it's pointless, just that it has a lesser real survival value and should command more to teach. A good reason would be that math and tech are empirical, not subjective. Shakespere would probably fail a modern coure on "The Meaning of Shakespere".
Art is secondary to survival. It always has been the first thing cut out during hard times and will always be so.
"...but the guy who read..."
The issue is who gets paid more for teaching their area of expertise, not a lucky fluke. Sorry, but literature appreciation is a back seat in the realm of social survival compared to the sciences or technologies.
You Sir, have not been to college lately. I've been in more than one class where either the instructor themselves or an auditing faculty member has openly declared themselves Marxists. They have then proceeded to launch into very, very communist oriented rants against capitalism and US policies.
My, how pompous of you to proclaim his arguments wrong and then shove your opinions as being some sort of truth.
"Freedom of Migration is just as unalienable as all other means of Pursuing Happiness."
Only if it works both ways. It doesn't. Mexico? None . None at all. PLUS, they arrest and deport Central Americans and are starting a fence on their southern border.
Besides, you don't get to define "unalienable" rights.
If you think Americans won't do hard physical work, you need to explain the millions that are doing it. I've worked both areas. The parent (gp?) is right, we work and work hard. Don't project.
Bringing up the illegal hiring of illegal immigrants isn't a good argument. Otherwise, you can include criminals of all stripes in statistics. Ain't how it's done.
religion, n.
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
There ya go mate. Have at and describe athiests in those terms. Athiests are quite happy with whatever explanation has the emperical evidence. Those that aren't - aren't. No belief, as in faith, necessary.
Those I know, myself included, do not believe via faith that there are no supernatural beings. Rather, we reject any such claims that cannot be proven. The track record of religious people 'proving' their beliefs is such that it is apparent there are no supernatural beings.
The answer to that should be self-evident. People are cheapskates. They will sit and whine about the expense of things, but then will refuse to donate money to individuals who actually try to make a living by the cheapskates' suggestions. Just shows the "I want it all free" crowd are hypocrites and don't really want anything more than "free".
You get what you pay for.
By the way "Utopian Socialist", I have an outdoor structure I need built. Come on over and build it and I will give you some writing in exchange.
"...lie is necessary to get past their biased discrimination."
In other words, they shouldn't be allowed to base their opinion of you upon the truth, as said truth would work to give you a lower status in their opinion? Then it's OK to lie? Because the truth doesn't support your elevated self-image?
"Too many cooks"? In other words, don't let everyone who applies be an admin? Hmm. Just like now.
You missed his point altogether. One shows up at their site, one gets all functionality admins do regardless. Why not? This guy is a known liar. He was essentially doing that work AC. Let everybody.
"This is not a failing of this person or wikipedia so much as a general failing of the wikipedia user base."
That's a good way to foist your blame on surrounding people, virtual or otherwise. You screw up and it's the "user base's" fault? Bull. You screw up and it's your fault, not mine. I reject your attempt to lob guilt upon me for your shortcomming.
Commerical pilots require credentials, engineers require them, as do physicians. And, I'm damn glad they do.
I'm up two, it's your turn to list occupations where they "shouldn't" be needed. And, that's assuming I even agree about the elementary teaching thing.
"with a few 6 month course in teaching, public speaking and presentation, they could teach most of what is taught in public school with the exception of perhaps science"
Which would be... credentials.
Because a friggin' folder doesn't preclude you from copying. Oh, wait, accessing the contents automatically copies them. Hmm. Not at all like a library. Mayhap that's the reason, it ain't the same.
Slashdot Mirror
"just. don't. get. it."
And, since they just don't get it, in your opinion it's okeydokey to rip someone off by illegally posting copyrighted material rather than just letting them wither away in their ignorance?
Kinda like 1917 Russia, where the land owners "didn't get it", so had their land taken by force?
I find it interesting the whenever someone touts the free distribution schema, they tout that there are untold channels to get the free stuff and that's threatening the "Big Distribution" companies. Then, when there's clearly a breach of copyright law, those same people turn around and claim that "BD" is squelching distribution of indies.
Which is it?
"It wouldn't surprise me a bit if Viacom indirectly had people posting copyrighted material to YouTube as fast as Google can take it down."
Viacom couldn't have people indirectly posting. Are you really claiming you think they have people directly posting?
"... to do that successfully they need a copyright case."
Yeah, there was such a dearth of copyrighted material on YouTube from the git-go.
"I guess that if there isn't a well established trail of evidence,..."
You will presume it exists anyway.
He wasn't so extreme as to say it's pointless, just that it has a lesser real survival value and should command more to teach. A good reason would be that math and tech are empirical, not subjective. Shakespere would probably fail a modern coure on "The Meaning of Shakespere".
Art is secondary to survival. It always has been the first thing cut out during hard times and will always be so.
"...but the guy who read..."
The issue is who gets paid more for teaching their area of expertise, not a lucky fluke. Sorry, but literature appreciation is a back seat in the realm of social survival compared to the sciences or technologies.
You Sir, have not been to college lately. I've been in more than one class where either the instructor themselves or an auditing faculty member has openly declared themselves Marxists. They have then proceeded to launch into very, very communist oriented rants against capitalism and US policies.
My, how pompous of you to proclaim his arguments wrong and then shove your opinions as being some sort of truth.
"Freedom of Migration is just as unalienable as all other means of Pursuing Happiness."
Only if it works both ways. It doesn't. Mexico? None . None at all. PLUS, they arrest and deport Central Americans and are starting a fence on their southern border.
Besides, you don't get to define "unalienable" rights.
If you think Americans won't do hard physical work, you need to explain the millions that are doing it. I've worked both areas. The parent (gp?) is right, we work and work hard. Don't project.
Bringing up the illegal hiring of illegal immigrants isn't a good argument. Otherwise, you can include criminals of all stripes in statistics. Ain't how it's done.
No, moron, you will not be abducted. Note the thousands who have said exactly such things and are still walking around.
To be on equal footing, you must contribute equally. They don't.
"Punishment is supposed to (1) deter criminals and (2) keep them from committing crimes."
Who exactly told you this? I always thought it was to punish a given individual for a specific act.
Not to be flippant back, but that's just you figurehead, who shares characteristics with Buddah, Mithra and the figureheads of others.
The only reason it's called a god equation is the need of religious people to believe in a higher being.
I'll give you the secret meaning of the equation. Not a friggin' thing. It's an equation that describes something, so of course all the pieces fit.
Religious people start from the assumption that things had to be 'created' and back-fit any information to that.
That's all this is.
religion, n.
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
There ya go mate. Have at and describe athiests in those terms. Athiests are quite happy with whatever explanation has the emperical evidence. Those that aren't - aren't. No belief, as in faith, necessary.
Those I know, myself included, do not believe via faith that there are no supernatural beings. Rather, we reject any such claims that cannot be proven. The track record of religious people 'proving' their beliefs is such that it is apparent there are no supernatural beings.
No faith, just lack of belief (as in faith).
"I have not come up with such a test."
Nor can you, so it can't even be a hypothesis scientifically. You're back to being strictly supernatural.
And the avatar of the "I want it free" crowd is another terrible twos kid shouting "GIMME!" Your point?
The only difference I can see is the first kid actually has the right to claim ownership and the second just wants it given to them.
The answer to that should be self-evident. People are cheapskates. They will sit and whine about the expense of things, but then will refuse to donate money to individuals who actually try to make a living by the cheapskates' suggestions. Just shows the "I want it all free" crowd are hypocrites and don't really want anything more than "free".
You get what you pay for.
By the way "Utopian Socialist", I have an outdoor structure I need built. Come on over and build it and I will give you some writing in exchange.
"...lie is necessary to get past their biased discrimination."
In other words, they shouldn't be allowed to base their opinion of you upon the truth, as said truth would work to give you a lower status in their opinion? Then it's OK to lie? Because the truth doesn't support your elevated self-image?
"Too many cooks"? In other words, don't let everyone who applies be an admin? Hmm. Just like now.
You missed his point altogether. One shows up at their site, one gets all functionality admins do regardless. Why not? This guy is a known liar. He was essentially doing that work AC. Let everybody.
"It is just a repository of common knowledge."
Nope. It's a repository of common typing.
"This is not a failing of this person or wikipedia so much as a general failing of the wikipedia user base."
That's a good way to foist your blame on surrounding people, virtual or otherwise. You screw up and it's the "user base's" fault? Bull. You screw up and it's your fault, not mine. I reject your attempt to lob guilt upon me for your shortcomming.
Commerical pilots require credentials, engineers require them, as do physicians. And, I'm damn glad they do.
I'm up two, it's your turn to list occupations where they "shouldn't" be needed. And, that's assuming I even agree about the elementary teaching thing.
"with a few 6 month course in teaching, public speaking and presentation, they could teach most of what is taught in public school with the exception of perhaps science"
Which would be... credentials.
unverified trust -- There's no such thing as unverified trust.
Random House:
trust
1. reliance on the integrity, strength, ability, surety, etc., of a person or thing; confidence.
Not possible to have trust without verification. The word you're looking for is faith.
Textbridge -- works like a champ.
Because a friggin' folder doesn't preclude you from copying. Oh, wait, accessing the contents automatically copies them. Hmm. Not at all like a library. Mayhap that's the reason, it ain't the same.
Uh, you know this is /. right? Consider the probability of the posters here having:
1) Being old enough to have had children.
2) Being unselfish enough to have had children.
3) Having had sex.
I mean, read the posts already generated about reasoning with a 2 year old.