We all send copyrighted emails to one another under a license that does not allow AT&T to retransmit the contents without written permission. We then start a class-action lawsuit. IANAL, but that ought to slay the dragon if the judge agrees that the case has merit.
Cini said of Benedict's cancellation: 'By canceling, he is playing the victim, which is very intelligent. It will be a pretext for accusing us of refusing dialogue.'"
But you were refusing dialog. That was the point of the protest, right?
I know of a prof who will remain as nameless as her university and department who, in 1992, called up a student to ask if he was still interested in a graduate assistant teaching position. He declined; he had sent his letter of inquiry back in 1978 and was no longer interested.
4) Slashdot-crowd must abandon the notion that "not-for-profit" redistribution of someone else's work should be permitted without permission of the rights holder.
Do you make any distinction between sharing between friends and anonymous P2P? If so, what if anything needs to change in regards to libraries, especially libraries with digital content?
Your post did _my_ heart no end of good. After hearing the message of "It's YOUR fault, you damn Christian white male!" one too many times, I question the point of Women's Studies departments at all, except to keep gender-based Guilt alive like some creation of Frankenstein's. Nice to hear you ran into a WS prof who has a brain and a heart.
The schism between science and "religion" is mainly a Christian thing. The other religions don't have the problem.
If atheism is defined as a religion in a social sense, then you're wrong, as Richard Dawkins and others have demonstrated.
I think it is a way for God to protect humanity from the Christians.
You're showing your hate and intolerance here; why should you treat hateful and intolerant Christians differently than yourself?
After ethnically cleansing three continents and much of the plant and animal life, burning millions at the steak in Europe, colonizing and enslaving much of Asia and Africa we can only imagine what would be left of life on earth if the christian religious elect had embraced technology even more.
Every migration includes vast changes to the landscape and thus the native flora and fauna. Read 1491 to see this. Christians burned about 2,000 people at the stake in the history of Europe, not millions. Again, read 1491 to see how the Mexica forcibly converted their fellow man (i.e., via a religion that involved human sacrifice of those who didn't accept their control). Africans and Asians colonized and enslaved each other also, so such activity is not exclusively Christian.
Remember it was the inter-christian hostility that caused Europeans to emigrate to the new world on the Mayflower
That and wage control. And the price of land. And entrenched bureaucracies. And the lack of economic development. And the lack of free speech. And so on.
and a continence of this hostility that lead the founding fathers of the US to try to prevent the government from being used as a tool of this hostility with the very first amendment to the constitution.
Which modern atheists are trying to rescind. It is not Christians who are going to court to repress the right of minors to speak about atheism in schools.
But if you question this analysis, study the "Christian Values" unpresident bush demonstrated in shipping cluster bombs to Israel to bomb the civilian population of Lebanon. The schism should be enhanced not smoothed over.
Do the Muslim fanatics have nothing to do with it? Why is it a Christian's or a Jew's fault whenever there is violence in the Middle East? And if one hypocrite destroys the bunch in the case of Christianity, where does that leave atheism after Stalin? And Mao? And Pol Pot?
Your analysis is merely an excuse list as you why you hate Christians, I'm sorry to say. Your call to increase the schism would lead to... what? Would you go as far as Robespierre with those he considered his enemies? Or would it be enough to chant, "Hate! Hate! Hate!" at a crucifix at regular intervals?
Might be a good time to listen to afewtunes from a label that's not evil.
[Caveat: I don't work for them, own any part of the company, or know anyone personally who's released a CD through them. I just buy their stuff and dig Shannon Coulter's sultry voice.]
The most sane option IMHO is this: if copyright holders want extensive penalties for copyright infringement, copyright lasts a short time. If copyright holders want copyright to last longer, the penalties decrease proportionally.
A few examples: * Sony declares that it wants the death penalty for copyright infringement. Accordingly, their copyright lasts 24 hours.
* A new band claims it will sue fans for illegally downloading their songs at a fine of $1,000 per download. Their copyright lasts 14 years.
* An author says that anyone can copy her novel verbatim electronically but must purchase a dead-tree copy. Copyright lasts 28 years.
* McGraw-Hill wants to own the copyright on a textbook forever. Penalty for infringement: none.
My examples aren't perfect, but I hope the idea gets across: that is, copyright is part of a larger social contract. It is not meant to screw customers into a state of commercialized serfdom.
That's my understanding of the article. It has more to say to law students than FOSS advocates. The title, however, is inflammatory, probably just to make us read it.
IMHO, someone who knows a topic, any topic, both in theory and in practice exhibits intelligence.
I was talking to an exotic animal handler once, and when she found out I was working on an MS in math, she started the usual, "Oh, you're so much smarter than me, I can't do math, yada yada yada..." I politely pointed out that to run a business centered around exotic animals and to care for them on a daily basis outside of their natural environment requires a lot of intelligence.
Another example is a local teen who dropped out of high school to do decorative stone work. He was making $100/hr during his summers off and figured, "Why stop?"
Thanks for MST3K. It was and is a lot of fun. The MST-ied version of "The Day the Earth Froze" is one of my favorite movies all time.
So, on to the question: if you had to do it all over again, right back to the KTMA pilot, what would you do differently?
And by that, I don't mean, "Would you still hire _x_?" I'm really referring to creative decisions. Would you have fought harder to include certain movies? Would you have started your own distribution company and at least released some of the public domain material you riffed? Would you have used Creative Commons licenses for host segments? Same set, props, costumes, etc?
...and IMHO, the franchise never recovered. Episode III has _so_ many flaws; its only redeeming value was that it beat Eps I and II. Well, so did "The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra", and that film had a budget of $100K.
Lucas lives in his own world. He will die believing that the fans underrated his movies and that they'll be considered classics by 2050.
(because the media labels anyone as who is right of center as an extremist)
I say, "No."
One year and $250K fine would work for me. Two years tops. But 25 years? A quarter of a century? What would be the maximum penalty if they broke in and altered a paper record? Or if they had attempted to bribe the principal? The legal system needs a reality check.
Chicken Little, who has been saying for decades that the sky is falling. Since it's become popular, if not fashionable, to make such statements, the Noble committee felt that Little was due for recognition. Little was quoted as saying, "Remember, the ice caps on Mars are melting too. We must have polluted the planet with robots! When will the madness end?"
Seriously, you have to wonder how someone like Thomas Schelling feels about this. Granted, his prize was in Economics rather than Peace, but just much will Gore's 'achievements' tarnish the overall reputation of the Nobel?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I'm they will!
We all send copyrighted emails to one another under a license that does not allow AT&T to retransmit the contents without written permission. We then start a class-action lawsuit. IANAL, but that ought to slay the dragon if the judge agrees that the case has merit.
I know of a prof who will remain as nameless as her university and department who, in 1992, called up a student to ask if he was still interested in a graduate assistant teaching position. He declined; he had sent his letter of inquiry back in 1978 and was no longer interested.
In my case, it's the first reason. Why not be generous sometimes?
Ha-ha!
Thanks!
Your post did _my_ heart no end of good. After hearing the message of "It's YOUR fault, you damn Christian white male!" one too many times, I question the point of Women's Studies departments at all, except to keep gender-based Guilt alive like some creation of Frankenstein's. Nice to hear you ran into a WS prof who has a brain and a heart.
If atheism is defined as a religion in a social sense, then you're wrong, as Richard Dawkins and others have demonstrated.
You're showing your hate and intolerance here; why should you treat hateful and intolerant Christians differently than yourself?
Every migration includes vast changes to the landscape and thus the native flora and fauna. Read 1491 to see this. Christians burned about 2,000 people at the stake in the history of Europe, not millions. Again, read 1491 to see how the Mexica forcibly converted their fellow man (i.e., via a religion that involved human sacrifice of those who didn't accept their control). Africans and Asians colonized and enslaved each other also, so such activity is not exclusively Christian.
That and wage control. And the price of land. And entrenched bureaucracies. And the lack of economic development. And the lack of free speech. And so on.
Which modern atheists are trying to rescind. It is not Christians who are going to court to repress the right of minors to speak about atheism in schools.
Do the Muslim fanatics have nothing to do with it? Why is it a Christian's or a Jew's fault whenever there is violence in the Middle East? And if one hypocrite destroys the bunch in the case of Christianity, where does that leave atheism after Stalin? And Mao? And Pol Pot?
Your analysis is merely an excuse list as you why you hate Christians, I'm sorry to say. Your call to increase the schism would lead to... what? Would you go as far as Robespierre with those he considered his enemies? Or would it be enough to chant, "Hate! Hate! Hate!" at a crucifix at regular intervals?
It's time to stop hating.
Any fan of Trip's is OK by me.
20 Years Too Late? Nope... Trip was right on time.
Might be a good time to listen to a few tunes from a label that's not evil.
[Caveat: I don't work for them, own any part of the company, or know anyone personally who's released a CD through them. I just buy their stuff and dig Shannon Coulter's sultry voice.]
The most sane option IMHO is this: if copyright holders want extensive penalties for copyright infringement, copyright lasts a short time. If copyright holders want copyright to last longer, the penalties decrease proportionally.
A few examples:
* Sony declares that it wants the death penalty for copyright infringement. Accordingly, their copyright lasts 24 hours.
* A new band claims it will sue fans for illegally downloading their songs at a fine of $1,000 per download. Their copyright lasts 14 years.
* An author says that anyone can copy her novel verbatim electronically but must purchase a dead-tree copy. Copyright lasts 28 years.
* McGraw-Hill wants to own the copyright on a textbook forever. Penalty for infringement: none.
My examples aren't perfect, but I hope the idea gets across: that is, copyright is part of a larger social contract. It is not meant to screw customers into a state of commercialized serfdom.
Somebody with mod points, do the right thing. Vegeta99's post says it in a nutshell.
And that completes all of the good things I can to say about Best Buy.
Neither did the tape drive nor the disk drive. It was junk then, and nostalgia doesn't correct that in my case.
That's my understanding of the article. It has more to say to law students than FOSS advocates. The title, however, is inflammatory, probably just to make us read it.
Just the project cited as the principle example of free speech on planet Earth... being run by a cabal with "special" powers... backed by a dictator.
Nothing to get excited about. Move along, move along.
IMHO, someone who knows a topic, any topic, both in theory and in practice exhibits intelligence.
I was talking to an exotic animal handler once, and when she found out I was working on an MS in math, she started the usual, "Oh, you're so much smarter than me, I can't do math, yada yada yada..." I politely pointed out that to run a business centered around exotic animals and to care for them on a daily basis outside of their natural environment requires a lot of intelligence.
Another example is a local teen who dropped out of high school to do decorative stone work. He was making $100/hr during his summers off and figured, "Why stop?"
Thanks for MST3K. It was and is a lot of fun. The MST-ied version of "The Day the Earth Froze" is one of my favorite movies all time.
So, on to the question: if you had to do it all over again, right back to the KTMA pilot, what would you do differently?
And by that, I don't mean, "Would you still hire _x_?" I'm really referring to creative decisions. Would you have fought harder to include certain movies? Would you have started your own distribution company and at least released some of the public domain material you riffed? Would you have used Creative Commons licenses for host segments? Same set, props, costumes, etc?
...and IMHO, the franchise never recovered. Episode III has _so_ many flaws; its only redeeming value was that it beat Eps I and II. Well, so did "The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra", and that film had a budget of $100K.
Lucas lives in his own world. He will die believing that the fans underrated his movies and that they'll be considered classics by 2050.
(because the media labels anyone as who is right of center as an extremist)
I say, "No."
One year and $250K fine would work for me. Two years tops. But 25 years? A quarter of a century? What would be the maximum penalty if they broke in and altered a paper record? Or if they had attempted to bribe the principal? The legal system needs a reality check.
Bottled water?
Guess not. Use Kubuntu/Mac/PCBSD instead. They can copy files fine. Cheap too.
Chicken Little, who has been saying for decades that the sky is falling. Since it's become popular, if not fashionable, to make such statements, the Noble committee felt that Little was due for recognition. Little was quoted as saying, "Remember, the ice caps on Mars are melting too. We must have polluted the planet with robots! When will the madness end?"
Seriously, you have to wonder how someone like Thomas Schelling feels about this. Granted, his prize was in Economics rather than Peace, but just much will Gore's 'achievements' tarnish the overall reputation of the Nobel?