Don't laugh. I've seen a photograph of a retired professor of math holding up a cardboard sign reading, "Will solve partial differential equations for food!"
No, you don't lower the quotas, you raise them. This increases the supply of crab meat, lowerint its price, and making that horrible artificial "krab" less cost-effective as more people can afford to eat The Real Thing and the crab fishermen make more and more money. Everybody wins!
And where, I ask you, did I ever say they weren't thieves? I didn't. I specifically said that they're thieves, just as you do. Unlike you, I went into detail about their motives, to make a distinction about why they're thieves. There's nothing in their motives that changes the fact that they're thieves, but it does change the best way to deal with them from punishment (which won't remove their uncontrollable impulse to steal) to treatment (which can actually help in some cases).
Reporting spammers to every rbl list you can think of...
Sure, for those of us with the time, knowledge and inclination to do it. Expecting Aunt Minnie to do it is unreasonable. All she cares about is keeping spam out of her inbox, and if running something like this, or SpamAssasin at the server gets rid of most of it, isn't that all she can reasonable ask for?
One wonders what sort of people have so little moral fiber that they study spam-blockers and create new methods for getting around it.
Simple: people who see the profit in it and don't care what people think of them. Who cares if there's a.001% reply rate when you send out tens of millions of spam per day? As long as there's a way to get money out of people with spam, there will be spam, and there will be people looking for ways to get around sny filtering program or algorythm designed.
I must have missed the memo - the one where it's only stealing if you take something you couldn't afford to buy. Doesn't matter two hoots if you could afford to buy the shop, and it soesn't matter why - you steal something, you're a thief.
You missed the point. Of course they are. The point is, that these people aren't theives because they can't afford to buy, they're not thieves because they want to sell what they stole, they're thieves because they can't control the impulse to steal, even if they have no need for whatever they take. This is a known disorder, and can sometimes be cured.
Kleptomainia has been a recognized disorder for many decades. How else to you explain the occasional case of wealthy people who can't resist stealing small items from shops, even though they could easily have afforded to pay for them? Sometimes they steal things they don't really need but can't resist taking anyway?
Don't be so eager to take offense where none was offered. Bi-polar is a mental illness, none deny that. The OP was objecting to treating identity theft as though it too were a mental condition to be treated, instead of a crime to be punished.
Lord have mercy on me for the unholiness I am about to utter, Dreamweaver...
Y'know, there really ought to be a way to use rot13 on Slashdot so that innocent eyes wouldn't have to see things like that. Think of the chillllllllllldren!
Its a kin to getting the guy down the street to fix your car, because he spend a couple days memorizing facts about cars, without actually knowing how to diagnose or fix the problem.
This isn't a problem with Best Buy, or the Geek Squad, it's a fundamental problem with certifications in general. All a cert does is say that you passed a test. It doesn't say that you understand the subject, or are qualified to work in a particular field, it just says that you passed the test.
What's even worse is when the expected answers on the test are wrong. I've heard of cases where the expected answers wouldn't work in The Real World, and that people who know nothing except how to pass the test are set up to fail while people who know how to do the job but don't have that piece of paper can't get hired. I remember taking a test for an internal certification at a former job (good for promotions inside the company, and nothing else) where none of the answers to the multiple-choice questions were right and you could only guess which wrong answer the test expected. Although I was one of the most experienced techs that company had, I never managed to pass that test, probably because I knew the right answers, not the ones the testers thought were right.
Now I'm off to read TFA, and see whether I'm on-topic or not;)
Better late than never, I suppose, although a true slashdotter never bothers to RTFA. After all, it's so much more fun commenting when you have no idea what's going on other than the (usually inaccurate) summary.
I can't speak for anybody else, but I won't even read Slashdot at work. Not even at lunch. If I did, I'd get tempted to do it on company time, and for me, at least, that Just Isn't Right. I'm not saying that those of you who do are wrong, just that I wouldn't feel right about it. (I work in tech support, and not only have to take calls, I have to reseearch them and make call-backs. Reading Slashdot takes time that should be going to help customers. I suppose if I were a programmer, reading it during long compiles would be reasonable.)
The point I'm making, and that you missed, is that too many posters here are acting as though broadcasting something in public domain gives you 50-years of controlling it in all forms. Not so. It only gives you control of the contents of the broadcast itself. As you point out, if you tape a program that plays the first wax cylinder ever recorded, this would make it a crime to distribute it. However, if there's a.wav file of it on the net, you can still download, play and distribute that version.
It just occurs to me to wonder if this treaty would allow a broadcaster to waive their rights if appropriate by including a statement to that effect in the broadcast. It seems reasonable, but once you get politicians involved, all bets are off.
Re:Repackaged content deserves copyright?!
on
New IP Treaty Looming?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
You misunderstand the idea. Let's say some radio show broadcasts a dramatic reading of The Fall of the House of Usher,m by Edgar Allen Poe. That perfomance is covered by this, just as it's already covered by copyright. The story itself, however, remains in the public domain, just as it does now. Frankly, from what I can see, this is a tempest in a teapot, over a possible new treaty that doesn't change anything.
I know somebody who had access to those photos in the late '60s. He could recognize his own car in the parking lot. In shots of Soviet tanks, he could even tell which tank commanders had shaved that morning.
A good friend of mine is a hardware geek. I asked him about etherkillers once and he told me that the ports on the hubs and routers are all buffered. You'd kill the port you plugged into, and that's it. SIGH!
Slashdot Mirror
As another Type II diabetic, I'd like to remind you that in Soviet Russia, safflower overlords welcomed diabetics!
Good idea: Asking Slashdot for advice. Bad Idea: Following that advice.
Don't laugh. I've seen a photograph of a retired professor of math holding up a cardboard sign reading, "Will solve partial differential equations for food!"
No, you don't lower the quotas, you raise them. This increases the supply of crab meat, lowerint its price, and making that horrible artificial "krab" less cost-effective as more people can afford to eat The Real Thing and the crab fishermen make more and more money. Everybody wins!
And where, I ask you, did I ever say they weren't thieves? I didn't. I specifically said that they're thieves, just as you do. Unlike you, I went into detail about their motives, to make a distinction about why they're thieves. There's nothing in their motives that changes the fact that they're thieves, but it does change the best way to deal with them from punishment (which won't remove their uncontrollable impulse to steal) to treatment (which can actually help in some cases).
Now we know the real name of the next OS from Micro$oft: DukeNukemForeverDOS.
Sure, for those of us with the time, knowledge and inclination to do it. Expecting Aunt Minnie to do it is unreasonable. All she cares about is keeping spam out of her inbox, and if running something like this, or SpamAssasin at the server gets rid of most of it, isn't that all she can reasonable ask for?
Simple: people who see the profit in it and don't care what people think of them. Who cares if there's a
You missed the point. Of course they are. The point is, that these people aren't theives because they can't afford to buy, they're not thieves because they want to sell what they stole, they're thieves because they can't control the impulse to steal, even if they have no need for whatever they take. This is a known disorder, and can sometimes be cured.
Kleptomainia has been a recognized disorder for many decades. How else to you explain the occasional case of wealthy people who can't resist stealing small items from shops, even though they could easily have afforded to pay for them? Sometimes they steal things they don't really need but can't resist taking anyway?
Don't be so eager to take offense where none was offered. Bi-polar is a mental illness, none deny that. The OP was objecting to treating identity theft as though it too were a mental condition to be treated, instead of a crime to be punished.
Y'know, there really ought to be a way to use rot13 on Slashdot so that innocent eyes wouldn't have to see things like that. Think of the chillllllllllldren!
Fi on vi! Emacs forever!
This isn't a problem with Best Buy, or the Geek Squad, it's a fundamental problem with certifications in general. All a cert does is say that you passed a test. It doesn't say that you understand the subject, or are qualified to work in a particular field, it just says that you passed the test.
What's even worse is when the expected answers on the test are wrong. I've heard of cases where the expected answers wouldn't work in The Real World, and that people who know nothing except how to pass the test are set up to fail while people who know how to do the job but don't have that piece of paper can't get hired. I remember taking a test for an internal certification at a former job (good for promotions inside the company, and nothing else) where none of the answers to the multiple-choice questions were right and you could only guess which wrong answer the test expected. Although I was one of the most experienced techs that company had, I never managed to pass that test, probably because I knew the right answers, not the ones the testers thought were right.
Better late than never, I suppose, although a true slashdotter never bothers to RTFA. After all, it's so much more fun commenting when you have no idea what's going on other than the (usually inaccurate) summary.
There's one, slight problem with that quote: fecal material is the vector polio uses to go from one host to the next.
I can't speak for anybody else, but I won't even read Slashdot at work. Not even at lunch. If I did, I'd get tempted to do it on company time, and for me, at least, that Just Isn't Right. I'm not saying that those of you who do are wrong, just that I wouldn't feel right about it. (I work in tech support, and not only have to take calls, I have to reseearch them and make call-backs. Reading Slashdot takes time that should be going to help customers. I suppose if I were a programmer, reading it during long compiles would be reasonable.)
It just occurs to me to wonder if this treaty would allow a broadcaster to waive their rights if appropriate by including a statement to that effect in the broadcast. It seems reasonable, but once you get politicians involved, all bets are off.
You misunderstand the idea. Let's say some radio show broadcasts a dramatic reading of The Fall of the House of Usher,m by Edgar Allen Poe. That perfomance is covered by this, just as it's already covered by copyright. The story itself, however, remains in the public domain, just as it does now. Frankly, from what I can see, this is a tempest in a teapot, over a possible new treaty that doesn't change anything.
Oh, good! They'll go great in my tropy room, along with my three game wardens, seven hunters and pure, white, Jersey cow.
People who use "loose" when they mean "lose" are real luusers, aren't they?
From what I gather, ordinary wall current will burn them out, leaving them open, not shorted across. What more can 3 phase do?
I know somebody who had access to those photos in the late '60s. He could recognize his own car in the parking lot. In shots of Soviet tanks, he could even tell which tank commanders had shaved that morning.
Doesn't matter, the buffering in the port circuitry will keep it from damaging anything else.
A good friend of mine is a hardware geek. I asked him about etherkillers once and he told me that the ports on the hubs and routers are all buffered. You'd kill the port you plugged into, and that's it. SIGH!