Radio stations actually pay licensing royalties when a given song is played. Airplay benefits music producers because of the exposure. In order for music to be desired (and purchased) it needs to be exposed well. P2P downloads are generally songs that the downloader already heard on a radio station. Downloading a song for free cheats the producers out of the sale of the song. Moreover, as the law exists, downloading copyrighted material w/o the copyright holder's permission is unlawful. If you don't like it, change the law. Otherwise illegal downloader face possible penalties, civil and criminal.
True. But paying lobbyists is of little or no value if the constituency is angry enough. It seems that Americans can take a lot of abuse, but nothing moves a man or woman to vote in their own interest like economic disenfranchisement. Especially when there is a mortgage to pay and hungry mouths to feed.
The one's getting away with this is the large multinational corporations who have no national loyalty, and couldn't give a rat's ass if the American middle class is destroyed. People can fight back. People displaced by foreign outsourcing should lobby their congressmen and vote in their best interest come election day. Thank God the Indians can't vote for American congress and president. But Americans CAN. Use your vote. And harrass your congressman. Change may be ultimately inevitable. But there are better ways of handling this than wholesale rapid deflation of the U.S. IT industry, so as to minimize pain and suffering.
I am as much threatened by outsourcing as you, but I also understand that there are various roles in a marketplace - producer, consumer and labor. Americans do not have a God given right to be any of these.
God-given right or not, that's beside the point, which is anyone threatened with job loss, or who is already experiencing it, should do whatever the hell he/she can to remedy the situation, but voting for candidates that server their interest, and boycotting companies who utilize exported labor to their injury. Thank God Indians can't elect our government representatives.
You miss the point. American's who have lost their good jobs to foreigners due to "free trade" are not interested in the proficiency of Indian or Chinese workers one way or the other. They are interested in their own welfare. And they will vote for their own welfare when it's time to vote. The Indians and Chinese neither write American law, nor vote for American congressmen and presidents. Financial discomfiture is one of the chief motivators of the voting American populace. No matter how much you whine about it, this "free trade" scam will end soon enough.
"no amount of wishing, screaming, arguing, protesting, legislating, hoping, lobbying, letter-writing, bribing, petitioning, imagining, discussing, complaining, worrying, fretting, bothering, sign-writing, stalking, or planning will bring it back"
You are quite wrong. Much of the debate of the next Presidential election will focus on the "free trade" policies that are gutting the middle class in the U.S. to the benefit of U.S. Big Business. Many many middle class people who used to have decent jobs who now are out of work, or working at WalMart, are mad as hell. American workers are coming to realize that they cannot compete with overseas workers who earn a pittance. In the end, no amount of money from Big Business will keep the electorate from kicking the guilty parties out of office. Thankfully Indian programmers cannot vote for American congressmen and Presidents.
Yes, I agree with you there. Ultimately all we really know is our own subjective experience. And that is primary. I, for one, think it's out of court that machines will ever be conscious. But that's a big subject.
"What did you draw on when creating works? Or did you claim that you created works in a vacuum?"
What? Is this suppose to be a rhetorical argument that a creator doesn't own what he creates? You seem to miss the obvious reality here of what a creator does. While it is true that a creator draws upon life experience from sources outside his/her own brain, it's the part that doesn't come from the outside, the novel created part that does come uniquely from the creator's brain, is what is protected, and should be protected by copyright.
If I buy wood from a store and build a house with it, the store doesn't own the house. If I draw upon public domain sources, and even copyrighted sources, for inspiration, and add my own unique innovation, the innovation is not identical to the source, I have added my own novel element. The novel element is my property, for a limited time at least, and rightly so.
To say that society owns what a creator's brain creates is to say that society owns the creator's brain. It doesn't.
At any rate, the practical reality is that creative works are protected. And they always will be in the U.S. If you don't like the status quo, go ahead and try to change the laws. Good luck.
Indeed. Imagine some company, called XYZ, lobbying congress that all volunteerism in the U.S. should be stopped because it allows the beneficiaries to get something for free, instead of paying XYZ it.
The fact is, Linux may be harming some OS vendors, but Linux is helping many many companies to make money. I, for one, work for a company that switched to Linux from some proprietary OS, and it is saving us a bundle, and helping us to make a lot more money, with a lot less hassle.
So instead of SCO whining about it, they should try to *benefit* from it. They should try to make something somebody actually wants to buy, instead of their lame Unix passe distros. And if Linux helps them, so much the better.
The hack is unnecessary if you disallow Flash to run in Mozilla. I use Mozilla for most of my web browsing. If I want to see Flash (which is quite rare), I use Internet Explorer.
If you yourself were using a challenge/response filter, you wouldn't be seeing any challenges for email you didn't send. Your filter would challenge the challenge, and if a proper response to your challenge is not received, you would never see the original challenge.
Most challenge apps I've seen have white and blacklists. You could just configure your blacklist to immediately delete any email you receive that has your email as the From.
From the receiver's standpoint, I think the challenge/response method is nearly flawless, if the app also includes a white and black list, (white lists for automated emails that you want to receive, etc.), and if has an image-based auto-authenticator the auto-spammers can't deal with, and if automatically white-lists any validated email address. The major "problem" with such is system is not from the receiver's standpoint, but from some senders, such as tech support, and mass opted-in emailers, who bark about that fact that they have to validate themselves with the receiver. Too damn bad, I say. If I really want to receive something I've opted in to, I would put it on my white list. Personally, I never do that, so it doesn't matter to me anyway. The challenge/response method has proven to be the perfect thing for me. Kudos to whoever came up with it.
Have you tried a challenge/response app or plugin that uses a graphical image or the like? Seems like this is the best solution. I don't know why this isn't more highly touted.
Hmm, the guy who posted his question, "what should I do?" apparently A) owns a computer, B) is connected to the Internet, and C) has some kind of living quarters to put it in, and D) is a programmer. I'd say he's already has a good start. As far as your statement about investors, I've been involved in several startups over the years, and it's not as bleak as you seem to indicate. Moreover, there's a lot in today's world one can do without investors if one is willing to investigate the possibilities. As for the rest of your trollish attitude, it hardly needs addressing.
They're called "investors." Come up with a good idea and use Other Peoples' Money. Moreover, it costs little money to write software and put it on the Web. Lazy people always find an excuse. Entrepreneurs succeed or die trying. Sitting around and whining that some corporation won't hire you, coddle you, and otherwise guarantee you a cushy job for life is not going to yield nothing.
"In the long run, this is one world, and one market: individuals should be free to trade ideas with anybody they want, and in most cases goods and services too. Why shouldn't somebody in India, or Taiwan compete with me for my clients?"
No, it isn't "one world" and "one market." You are not free to level the playing field by moving to India and living as cheaply as an Indian. Indians can work cheaply because they can live cheaply. If the Indian government allowed as many Americans to live in India as the U.S. govt allows Indians to live in the USA, then you might have a valid point. But as is it stands, you do not.
"Or, put another way, ALL RELIGIOUS OBJECTIONS TO GAY MARRIAGE ARE INVALID for this discussion. This is (or should be) a legal discussion, not a moral or religious one."
It is true that any religious establishment or institution has no place directly dictating to the state any law or policy regarding marriage, or anything else for that matter. However, states have the right to define what marriage is, and the will of the people, including religious people, factor into this: they elect the ones who make the laws. If enough people in a given state for WHATEVER reason (religious or otherwise) don't like the idea of a state laws that includes homosexual marriage, then the state legislators are likely to keep marriage a heterosexual arrangement. Individual citizens may like or dislike the idea of homosexual marriage for any reason they like, including religious reasons. This is perfectly legal and proper. And religious people have the same right to lobby their legislators as anyone else.
If the US Supreme Court ever rules that disallowing homosexual marriage violates Equal Protection, then all this will change, unless the Constitution is amended.
The DMCA apparently doesn't cover illegal downloading of copyrighted material. Too bad for the RIAA and all those copyright holders. But it's a shame that these lawsuits and supoenas are necessary in the first place. If illegal downloaders would stop stealing the property of others in the first place, the copyright holders would not need to go after the lawbreakers.
I have no idea. One thing I do know is that the Bible-thumping fundamentalists (particularly Answers in Genesis, and Institute for Creation Research) don't like the Intellegent Design movement. They're pissed because the ID adherents refuse to name the Designer as the God of the Bible. However, the nature and identity of any particular intellegent designer is not the goal of the Intellegent Design movement. Rather, ID is a scientific approach that is concerned with detecting intellegent design in the impirical evidence at hand, bringing to light any deficiencies in the purely naturalistic framework of Neo-Darnwinism, information theory, and the philosophies involved in all of this. It is not scripture based, and has no interest in proving anyone's pet dogmas. I suggest anyone interested in the subject read No Free Lunch, by William Dembski. It is not dissimilar to the SETI program, which seeks to define what intellegent sources from the cosmos would look like, and attempt to detect them.
You seem to be under the mistaken notion that the Intellegent Design movement is the same as the old bible-thumping Creationist movement. It is not. For information see http://www.discovery.org/csc/ See particularly the articles by William Dembsky at http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php? command=view&id=32&isFellow=true
Interesting that all the whiners about DRM are typically those that *do* steal music. Without theft there would be no need for DRM. It's the honest people who are inconvenienced because of the activities of the dishonest. DRM is coming whether the thieves whine or not. And they are to blame. If they don't like it they can take the time to write and produce their own music.
SCO has *zero chance* of ever overthrowing the GPL. They have *no argument*. They only have a baseless claim. No judge is going to be that moronic because there is no argument. Claiming that the "U.S. Copyright trumps the GPL" is merely a vacuous claim that has no argument behind it. It doesn't even make sense. And if for some really *wild ass* chance the judge actual rules in SCO's favor on this issue, the appellate court will laugh it into oblivion. Keep telling yourself this over and over, because it's the reality of the situation. There is nothing to fear. The end of SCO is near.
Slashdot Mirror
Radio stations actually pay licensing royalties when a given song is played. Airplay benefits music producers because of the exposure. In order for music to be desired (and purchased) it needs to be exposed well. P2P downloads are generally songs that the downloader already heard on a radio station. Downloading a song for free cheats the producers out of the sale of the song. Moreover, as the law exists, downloading copyrighted material w/o the copyright holder's permission is unlawful. If you don't like it, change the law. Otherwise illegal downloader face possible penalties, civil and criminal.
True. But paying lobbyists is of little or no value if the constituency is angry enough. It seems that Americans can take a lot of abuse, but nothing moves a man or woman to vote in their own interest like economic disenfranchisement. Especially when there is a mortgage to pay and hungry mouths to feed.
The one's getting away with this is the large multinational corporations who have no national loyalty, and couldn't give a rat's ass if the American middle class is destroyed. People can fight back. People displaced by foreign outsourcing should lobby their congressmen and vote in their best interest come election day. Thank God the Indians can't vote for American congress and president. But Americans CAN. Use your vote. And harrass your congressman. Change may be ultimately inevitable. But there are better ways of handling this than wholesale rapid deflation of the U.S. IT industry, so as to minimize pain and suffering.
I am as much threatened by outsourcing as you, but I also understand that there are various roles in a marketplace - producer, consumer and labor. Americans do not have a God given right to be any of these.
God-given right or not, that's beside the point, which is anyone threatened with job loss, or who is already experiencing it, should do whatever the hell he/she can to remedy the situation, but voting for candidates that server their interest, and boycotting companies who utilize exported labor to their injury. Thank God Indians can't elect our government representatives.
You miss the point. American's who have lost their good jobs to foreigners due to "free trade" are not interested in the proficiency of Indian or Chinese workers one way or the other. They are interested in their own welfare. And they will vote for their own welfare when it's time to vote. The Indians and Chinese neither write American law, nor vote for American congressmen and presidents. Financial discomfiture is one of the chief motivators of the voting American populace. No matter how much you whine about it, this "free trade" scam will end soon enough.
"no amount of wishing, screaming, arguing, protesting, legislating, hoping, lobbying, letter-writing, bribing, petitioning, imagining, discussing, complaining, worrying, fretting, bothering, sign-writing, stalking, or planning will bring it back"
You are quite wrong. Much of the debate of the next Presidential election will focus on the "free trade" policies that are gutting the middle class in the U.S. to the benefit of U.S. Big Business. Many many middle class people who used to have decent jobs who now are out of work, or working at WalMart, are mad as hell. American workers are coming to realize that they cannot compete with overseas workers who earn a pittance. In the end, no amount of money from Big Business will keep the electorate from kicking the guilty parties out of office. Thankfully Indian programmers cannot vote for American congressmen and Presidents.
Yes, I agree with you there. Ultimately all we really know is our own subjective experience. And that is primary. I, for one, think it's out of court that machines will ever be conscious. But that's a big subject.
"(After all, if we're unable to make this demonstration wrt other humans, why make it a requirement for nonhuman intelligence?)"
Speak for yourself. My experience of myself demonstrates to myself constantly that I have this quality.
"What did you draw on when creating works? Or did you claim that you created works in a vacuum?"
What? Is this suppose to be a rhetorical argument that a creator doesn't own what he creates? You seem to miss the obvious reality here of what a creator does. While it is true that a creator draws upon life experience from sources outside his/her own brain, it's the part that doesn't come from the outside, the novel created part that does come uniquely from the creator's brain, is what is protected, and should be protected by copyright.
If I buy wood from a store and build a house with it, the store doesn't own the house. If I draw upon public domain sources, and even copyrighted sources, for inspiration, and add my own unique innovation, the innovation is not identical to the source, I have added my own novel element. The novel element is my property, for a limited time at least, and rightly so.
To say that society owns what a creator's brain creates is to say that society owns the creator's brain. It doesn't.
At any rate, the practical reality is that creative works are protected. And they always will be in the U.S. If you don't like the status quo, go ahead and try to change the laws. Good luck.
Indeed. Imagine some company, called XYZ, lobbying congress that all volunteerism in the U.S. should be stopped because it allows the beneficiaries to get something for free, instead of paying XYZ it.
The fact is, Linux may be harming some OS vendors, but Linux is helping many many companies to make money. I, for one, work for a company that switched to Linux from some proprietary OS, and it is saving us a bundle, and helping us to make a lot more money, with a lot less hassle.
So instead of SCO whining about it, they should try to *benefit* from it. They should try to make something somebody actually wants to buy, instead of their lame Unix passe distros. And if Linux helps them, so much the better.
The hack is unnecessary if you disallow Flash to run in Mozilla. I use Mozilla for most of my web browsing. If I want to see Flash (which is quite rare), I use Internet Explorer.
If you yourself were using a challenge/response filter, you wouldn't be seeing any challenges for email you didn't send. Your filter would challenge the challenge, and if a proper response to your challenge is not received, you would never see the original challenge.
Most challenge apps I've seen have white and blacklists. You could just configure your blacklist to immediately delete any email you receive that has your email as the From.
From the receiver's standpoint, I think the challenge/response method is nearly flawless, if the app also includes a white and black list, (white lists for automated emails that you want to receive, etc.), and if has an image-based auto-authenticator the auto-spammers can't deal with, and if automatically white-lists any validated email address. The major "problem" with such is system is not from the receiver's standpoint, but from some senders, such as tech support, and mass opted-in emailers, who bark about that fact that they have to validate themselves with the receiver. Too damn bad, I say. If I really want to receive something I've opted in to, I would put it on my white list. Personally, I never do that, so it doesn't matter to me anyway. The challenge/response method has proven to be the perfect thing for me. Kudos to whoever came up with it.
Have you tried a challenge/response app or plugin that uses a graphical image or the like? Seems like this is the best solution. I don't know why this isn't more highly touted.
Hmm, the guy who posted his question, "what should I do?" apparently A) owns a computer, B) is connected to the Internet, and C) has some kind of living quarters to put it in, and D) is a programmer. I'd say he's already has a good start. As far as your statement about investors, I've been involved in several startups over the years, and it's not as bleak as you seem to indicate. Moreover, there's a lot in today's world one can do without investors if one is willing to investigate the possibilities. As for the rest of your trollish attitude, it hardly needs addressing.
They're called "investors." Come up with a good idea and use Other Peoples' Money. Moreover, it costs little money to write software and put it on the Web. Lazy people always find an excuse. Entrepreneurs succeed or die trying. Sitting around and whining that some corporation won't hire you, coddle you, and otherwise guarantee you a cushy job for life is not going to yield nothing.
"So, what does an out of work programmer to do after his job got sent to india?">
Start your own company and create your own job.
"In the long run, this is one world, and one market: individuals should be free to trade ideas with anybody they want, and in most cases goods and services too. Why shouldn't somebody in India, or Taiwan compete with me for my clients?"
No, it isn't "one world" and "one market." You are not free to level the playing field by moving to India and living as cheaply as an Indian. Indians can work cheaply because they can live cheaply. If the Indian government allowed as many Americans to live in India as the U.S. govt allows Indians to live in the USA, then you might have a valid point. But as is it stands, you do not.
"Or, put another way, ALL RELIGIOUS OBJECTIONS TO GAY MARRIAGE ARE INVALID for this discussion. This is (or should be) a legal discussion, not a moral or religious one."
It is true that any religious establishment or institution has no place directly dictating to the state any law or policy regarding marriage, or anything else for that matter. However, states have the right to define what marriage is, and the will of the people, including religious people, factor into this: they elect the ones who make the laws. If enough people in a given state for WHATEVER reason (religious or otherwise) don't like the idea of a state laws that includes homosexual marriage, then the state legislators are likely to keep marriage a heterosexual arrangement. Individual citizens may like or dislike the idea of homosexual marriage for any reason they like, including religious reasons. This is perfectly legal and proper. And religious people have the same right to lobby their legislators as anyone else.
If the US Supreme Court ever rules that disallowing homosexual marriage violates Equal Protection, then all this will change, unless the Constitution is amended.
The DMCA apparently doesn't cover illegal downloading of copyrighted material. Too bad for the RIAA and all those copyright holders. But it's a shame that these lawsuits and supoenas are necessary in the first place. If illegal downloaders would stop stealing the property of others in the first place, the copyright holders would not need to go after the lawbreakers.
It's time for the laid-off geeks to stop whining. Better to use the energy to start your own company.
I have no idea. One thing I do know is that the Bible-thumping fundamentalists (particularly Answers in Genesis, and Institute for Creation Research) don't like the Intellegent Design movement. They're pissed because the ID adherents refuse to name the Designer as the God of the Bible. However, the nature and identity of any particular intellegent designer is not the goal of the Intellegent Design movement. Rather, ID is a scientific approach that is concerned with detecting intellegent design in the impirical evidence at hand, bringing to light any deficiencies in the purely naturalistic framework of Neo-Darnwinism, information theory, and the philosophies involved in all of this. It is not scripture based, and has no interest in proving anyone's pet dogmas. I suggest anyone interested in the subject read No Free Lunch, by William Dembski. It is not dissimilar to the SETI program, which seeks to define what intellegent sources from the cosmos would look like, and attempt to detect them.
You seem to be under the mistaken notion that the Intellegent Design movement is the same as the old bible-thumping Creationist movement. It is not. For information see http://www.discovery.org/csc/ See particularly the articles by William Dembsky at http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php? command=view&id=32&isFellow=true
Interesting that all the whiners about DRM are typically those that *do* steal music. Without theft there would be no need for DRM. It's the honest people who are inconvenienced because of the activities of the dishonest. DRM is coming whether the thieves whine or not. And they are to blame. If they don't like it they can take the time to write and produce their own music.
SCO has *zero chance* of ever overthrowing the GPL. They have *no argument*. They only have a baseless claim. No judge is going to be that moronic because there is no argument. Claiming that the "U.S. Copyright trumps the GPL" is merely a vacuous claim that has no argument behind it. It doesn't even make sense. And if for some really *wild ass* chance the judge actual rules in SCO's favor on this issue, the appellate court will laugh it into oblivion. Keep telling yourself this over and over, because it's the reality of the situation. There is nothing to fear. The end of SCO is near.