One mark of a post with no point is taking a linguistic turn of a word and acting as if it defines the context of a whole discussion.
You know good and well that "get" was used to mean an individual acquiring for himself a copy of said book outside of the copyright holder's desire for distribution.
By the way, gift or not, receiving stolen property is illegal.
"Imagine killing someone for stealing virtual property - simply some bytes of code."
A truly bogus comparison. The killing is at issue here, not the theft.
"Would MGM demand the death penalty for copying some movies?"
And, this is why it's a bogus comparison. The killing is at issue.
"Would it be okay for them to "fine" people by using the police for non-criminal acts?"
And, yet a further tread from the path. The issue is murder , which is very much a criminal act. How, pray tell, did you wander to this level? This is really nothing but troll.
"You see, I don't get the argument that we should grant strong monopoly rights on particular characters to the copyright or trademark holder to prevent them from being 'abused' or to preserve artistic integrity."
Allow me to clarify, then.
First, the character is mine, all mine. I invented him (a detective, in my case) and no one else contributed. I have a past, personality and future all worked out for him. Name too.
If I do not protect him, you or someone else can create alternate storylines for him that have him behaving terribly or way off course. You could kill him, ressurect him (if I kill him), or turn him into a drag queen. No, no. He's mine, all mine.
By controlling him, I restrain you from abusing him as mentioned and preserve my artistic integrity. He's mine, all mine, y'see.
Go develop your own character and do what you will. That way, we both win. I control my artistic development, you work to create your own to play with. Your comparison fails for the following reason; the rights to WTP were sold to Disney. That gave Disney permission to market as they have done. Don't like Disney's approach? Simple. Don't sell your characters. See?
This is all a very, very thin smoke screen for one simple thing. The people who take other's work and then "create" new paradigm's for it are really lazy. Fan or not. They did not do the development or even have the brain sparkle which lead to the creation in the first place.
The free market would probably have crated WTP toilet paper, so yes, leaving it to the free market would produce a worse result.
You do realize, don't you, that birds are not only warm-blooded, but live, breath and work as well? Many birds (smaller ones included) are warmer-blooded than mammals.
You're talking out yer butt on a couple of issues. First, they are not simple. Their many axions each have many dentrites. Their responses change depending upon the hormone bath that they live in. Second, they do indeed 'morph' throughout life. They can even repair. This is especially true of the dendrites.
You're pretty correct on the wiring, although not at the level you wrote. The basic connectivity and structure is known, but each and every brain is wired from experience, not just birth.
It's worth trying, and we will learn a lot regardless. We just won't learn as much about the brain as one might think.
I don't believe he is. And, we aren't. The higher the technological level, the less we do so. Mostly because we discover recapturing methods that provide us with otherwise wasted materials.
Some listen to Greenpeace et.al., those who suspect the screechers don't. That would be me. Whenever anyone demands that I listen to their side and ignores me, I suspect their motives and goals.
The reason to withdraw (as Russia, Italy, Canada, and others have, are, or are contemplating doing) would be the following:
Kyoto is, according to Europe's Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom, designed to "level the playing field for big businesses worldwide" (quoted by The Independent (London), 19 March 2002, p. 14).
It's not about the environment, it's about crippling certain nations.
"Our climate is fragile so we do need to look after it. Even if these changes can occur naturally."
This is the unfortunate conclusion that many on the environment's "side" come to. That natural changes need to be "looked after".
The motive and goal of the far-left environmentalists is not actually the protection of the environment (which continually changes), but the protection of their status quo. In other words, don't change my world as it is now, I'm comfortable.
It's not so much that the current view is necessarily myopic, it's that certain peoples would enforce long range changes based on such shallow information. And, they would do it based upon poor models and distorted data.
"But if world poverty was wiped out tomorrow the world over, the developed world would have to change its consumptive habits overnight for the world to sustain itself."
Yep. That's why simply sending gigatons of grain is not ever going to work. It will only create a dependant welfare state. Better to raise those people to a higher technological and informational level so they can also enjoy higher production, lower birth rates and greater personal freedom.
You'd be for that, wouldn't you?
At the end of the day, you just described all of Earth's history. And?
You'll have to provide some sort of definition here. I'm sure the word I'm familiar with is spelled "capitalism". Or, is that an attempt at snide political humor?
Capitalism is a better answer than communism. Why? We have observe that capitalism works better than communism in the real world with real people. Socialism is demonstrating the same end result as communism right now.
Now, it won't answer questions along the lines of "what is 2 + 2", but I don't think that's what you meant.
Your third line is self-contradictory. A solution is a solution. If, however, you mean we might think something is a solution when it's not, then all your thoughts and conclusions are in that basket as well. You have no magic knowledge.
No. A better guiding principle would be somewhere between do no harm and wanton harm. No harm to another ecosystem means never going there at all. You will squash, upturn, or otherwise kill something.
We're getting this "wrong" on Earth because you cannot "do no harm" and survive. Even a cow rips up weeds and grasses and munches the insects, frogs and other little critters it incidentally picks up. Harm.
"In my younger years" and then we find out you're still in college. Son, you don't really have any "younger years" yet. Nor, I would guess, have you accumulated all that much "useless knowledge".
"Others like me, myself included, find it futile at times to do anything, since we've done everything we're interested in doing."
Here is your actual problem. Lack of imagination and the desire to produce a good product. "Pick up a hammer and build something" says it all. Packed full of ignorance of the process of building "something" greater than a wooden box.
Yes, it's so hard for other like you, yourself included, "mental" giants to find a way to come down to peon level to be able to deal with the boring tedium of day to day life.
Get over yourself. You ain't as far above the masses as your writing tries to make it seem, and you ain't been around long enough to actually find life futile. Yeesh.
"... you cannot possibly believe in something you have yet to experience."
You miss the point of science. He doesn't believe in something that the believer cannot -- under any circumstances whatsoever -- provide some method of validating. Other than dying, of course. And then, it's a strictly personal experience and therefore, not science.
"Man cannot govern himself, let alone another."
Horsecrap. Man has been governing himself since the Pliestocene or earlier. Abstract fantasies cannot govern. They need men to enforce their man-created values.
P.S. Self is verifiable, the diety is not.
"I think God is trying to tell you something."
There are those who "see" the "hand" of a diety in anything they look at. Not news.
What a wonderful fobbing off of a perfectly good opportunity to demonstrate your social prowess. Please be the first to contribute a well thought out manner in which artists could be so encouraged. One that would actually work.
Alternatively, during the time it takes to develop said technologies, the caller always has the option of telling the 911 dispatcher where they are. Any telephone-like communications device should provide access to emergency personell.
Sometimes -- like recently in Nebraska -- having communication only means others know you're about to die. Tuff. Life ain't meant to be nice, only there.
Slashdot Mirror
More pedantic linguistic twisting.
..."
"... no law forbidding anybody from reading books
Having the "right to" meant possessing, not reading.
"It's like saying that if you stole a car to travel to the beach, it's illegal for you to be at the beach."
No. It's like saying if you stole a car to travel to the beach, it's illegal for you to drive it. Which it is.
One mark of a post with no point is taking a linguistic turn of a word and acting as if it defines the context of a whole discussion.
You know good and well that "get" was used to mean an individual acquiring for himself a copy of said book outside of the copyright holder's desire for distribution.
By the way, gift or not, receiving stolen property is illegal.
"... where the editors may not even know it's an error."
That is the job of an editor.
They danced in the streets.
"...but as soon as you land in 1978 you create a version of 1978 where you existed."
What makes you think that you weren't there?
"Imagine killing someone for stealing virtual property - simply some bytes of code."
A truly bogus comparison. The killing is at issue here, not the theft.
"Would MGM demand the death penalty for copying some movies?"
And, this is why it's a bogus comparison. The killing is at issue.
"Would it be okay for them to "fine" people by using the police for non-criminal acts?"
And, yet a further tread from the path. The issue is murder , which is very much a criminal act. How, pray tell, did you wander to this level? This is really nothing but troll.
"Entertainment is completely tenuous and everyone can drop it as soon as money gets tight or as fashion dictates."
While this is true, what does that mean? Candy falls into the same logical family. Note: tenuous != virtual.
"You see, I don't get the argument that we should grant strong monopoly rights on particular characters to the copyright or trademark holder to prevent them from being 'abused' or to preserve artistic integrity."
Allow me to clarify, then.
First, the character is mine, all mine. I invented him (a detective, in my case) and no one else contributed. I have a past, personality and future all worked out for him. Name too.
If I do not protect him, you or someone else can create alternate storylines for him that have him behaving terribly or way off course. You could kill him, ressurect him (if I kill him), or turn him into a drag queen. No, no. He's mine, all mine.
By controlling him, I restrain you from abusing him as mentioned and preserve my artistic integrity. He's mine, all mine, y'see.
Go develop your own character and do what you will. That way, we both win. I control my artistic development, you work to create your own to play with. Your comparison fails for the following reason; the rights to WTP were sold to Disney. That gave Disney permission to market as they have done. Don't like Disney's approach? Simple. Don't sell your characters. See?
This is all a very, very thin smoke screen for one simple thing. The people who take other's work and then "create" new paradigm's for it are really lazy. Fan or not. They did not do the development or even have the brain sparkle which lead to the creation in the first place.
The free market would probably have crated WTP toilet paper, so yes, leaving it to the free market would produce a worse result.
You do realize, don't you, that birds are not only warm-blooded, but live, breath and work as well? Many birds (smaller ones included) are warmer-blooded than mammals.
You're talking out yer butt on a couple of issues. First, they are not simple. Their many axions each have many dentrites. Their responses change depending upon the hormone bath that they live in. Second, they do indeed 'morph' throughout life. They can even repair. This is especially true of the dendrites.
You're pretty correct on the wiring, although not at the level you wrote. The basic connectivity and structure is known, but each and every brain is wired from experience, not just birth.
It's worth trying, and we will learn a lot regardless. We just won't learn as much about the brain as one might think.
What makes you think that the permafrost has not thawed and refrozen many times? That would make it not "big news", but an iteration.
Bullshit. Those cattle are merely replacing the now defunct bison herds. It's a push there.
"that's like saying ... shining at our glaciers."
Just how in hell would you provide a proof? Please be specific if you can.
I don't believe he is. And, we aren't. The higher the technological level, the less we do so. Mostly because we discover recapturing methods that provide us with otherwise wasted materials.
Some listen to Greenpeace et.al., those who suspect the screechers don't. That would be me. Whenever anyone demands that I listen to their side and ignores me, I suspect their motives and goals.
The reason to withdraw (as Russia, Italy, Canada, and others have, are, or are contemplating doing) would be the following:
Kyoto is, according to Europe's Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom, designed to "level the playing field for big businesses worldwide" (quoted by The Independent (London), 19 March 2002, p. 14).
It's not about the environment, it's about crippling certain nations.
"Our climate is fragile so we do need to look after it. Even if these changes can occur naturally."
This is the unfortunate conclusion that many on the environment's "side" come to. That natural changes need to be "looked after".
The motive and goal of the far-left environmentalists is not actually the protection of the environment (which continually changes), but the protection of their status quo. In other words, don't change my world as it is now, I'm comfortable.
It's not so much that the current view is necessarily myopic, it's that certain peoples would enforce long range changes based on such shallow information. And, they would do it based upon poor models and distorted data.
"But if world poverty was wiped out tomorrow the world over, the developed world would have to change its consumptive habits overnight for the world to sustain itself."
Yep. That's why simply sending gigatons of grain is not ever going to work. It will only create a dependant welfare state. Better to raise those people to a higher technological and informational level so they can also enjoy higher production, lower birth rates and greater personal freedom.
You'd be for that, wouldn't you?
At the end of the day, you just described all of Earth's history. And?
You'll have to provide some sort of definition here. I'm sure the word I'm familiar with is spelled "capitalism". Or, is that an attempt at snide political humor?
Capitalism is a better answer than communism. Why? We have observe that capitalism works better than communism in the real world with real people. Socialism is demonstrating the same end result as communism right now.
Now, it won't answer questions along the lines of "what is 2 + 2", but I don't think that's what you meant.
Your third line is self-contradictory. A solution is a solution. If, however, you mean we might think something is a solution when it's not, then all your thoughts and conclusions are in that basket as well. You have no magic knowledge.
No. A better guiding principle would be somewhere between do no harm and wanton harm. No harm to another ecosystem means never going there at all. You will squash, upturn, or otherwise kill something.
We're getting this "wrong" on Earth because you cannot "do no harm" and survive. Even a cow rips up weeds and grasses and munches the insects, frogs and other little critters it incidentally picks up. Harm.
What an amazing buttload of pomposity.
"In my younger years" and then we find out you're still in college. Son, you don't really have any "younger years" yet. Nor, I would guess, have you accumulated all that much "useless knowledge".
"Others like me, myself included, find it futile at times to do anything, since we've done everything we're interested in doing."
Here is your actual problem. Lack of imagination and the desire to produce a good product. "Pick up a hammer and build something" says it all. Packed full of ignorance of the process of building "something" greater than a wooden box.
Yes, it's so hard for other like you, yourself included, "mental" giants to find a way to come down to peon level to be able to deal with the boring tedium of day to day life.
Get over yourself. You ain't as far above the masses as your writing tries to make it seem, and you ain't been around long enough to actually find life futile. Yeesh.
"But you can't SPEND $2M a year."
Bullshit. People do it all the time.
"So... he doesn't believe that something exists until proof smacks him over the head."
No, just rejects ideas based on fantasy with no evidence. He stated that. Did you not even read the sentence you quoted?
"If you're shaking your head, then please tell me, what do you think of people who thought the world was flat?"
That, much like religious people, they formed ignorant conclusions. Some of them still refuse to adjust their ideas to accommodate new information.
"... you cannot possibly believe in something you have yet to experience."
You miss the point of science. He doesn't believe in something that the believer cannot -- under any circumstances whatsoever -- provide some method of validating. Other than dying, of course. And then, it's a strictly personal experience and therefore, not science.
"Man cannot govern himself, let alone another."
Horsecrap. Man has been governing himself since the Pliestocene or earlier. Abstract fantasies cannot govern. They need men to enforce their man-created values.
P.S. Self is verifiable, the diety is not.
"I think God is trying to tell you something."
There are those who "see" the "hand" of a diety in anything they look at. Not news.
What a wonderful fobbing off of a perfectly good opportunity to demonstrate your social prowess. Please be the first to contribute a well thought out manner in which artists could be so encouraged. One that would actually work.
When I lock my car, that is exactly what it does. Please explain how your care discriminates between thieves and your friends.
Alternatively, during the time it takes to develop said technologies, the caller always has the option of telling the 911 dispatcher where they are. Any telephone-like communications device should provide access to emergency personell.
Sometimes -- like recently in Nebraska -- having communication only means others know you're about to die. Tuff. Life ain't meant to be nice, only there.