We're not going. Extraterrestrials have basically quarantined us on this planet. Why do you think the last few Apollo missions were scrapped, even though they were already paid for? Why do you think we limited ourselved to low Earth orbit after that and have dragged feet on Mars? The secret part of our government is aware of this, even if Congress is not.
I, for one, welcome the (-1, OffTopic) score I will get for this post from our moderator overlords.
Re:I GOT A GREASED UP DARL MCBRIDE SHOVED UP MY AS
on
The Return of Apollo?
·
· Score: -1, Troll
FUCK SCO!
This is why we need to get Apollo going again...there is so much festering anger at the likes of RIAA, SCO, MPAA and the like (and justly so, IMHO). We need a distraction.
Another moonshot would be great. Hey, the technology worked, didn't it? I'm all for it. If we go back to the moon, we can show the we-didn't-go-to-the-moon crowd the error of their ways.
(By the way, you don't need to grease up Darl McBribe--he's greasy already.)
I worked as student help at a college that had a PDP-11 based mainframe. One night it went down. Computer techs were called out but could find nothing wrong. This continued night after night at about the same time each night. So the techs hung around after hours to keep an eye on it.
Around 6:30pm, the cleaning woman came in with her vaccuum cleaner. She promptly went over to the wall socket, unplugged the mainframe, plugged in her vaccuum cleaner and started vaccuuming the floor.
It is easier for some in the Open Source community to fire off a "rant" than to sit across a negotiation table.
Negotiate with who? Why? For what? If you're referring to the alleged infringing code, reveal what it is so it can be confirmed and replaced. Otherwise, shut your trap, sell your stock and go out of business like the market demands.
There is no law stating that you can't give your WSJ issue to somebody else when you're done with it, or even leave it in the laundromat for a random stranger to read.
Who said there was?
This is unauthorized duplication and is not allowed.
Yes. But so is unauthorized distribution, which is what happens when you "give" your WSJ issue to someone else. It is not "yours" to give, now is it? You do not own the content, so how can you give it away and still be within the law?
The reason that one is illegal and the other is not is related to the economic damage to WSJ that each method can cause. If I scan it and put it on my web site, it might be read by hundreds or thousands of people, and there's a decent change that some are reading it as a substitute for buying their own copy.
It might be read..A decent chance that some are reading it as a substitute... Can this ever be proven? If I scan WSJ and put in on my website, which few people ever visit, am I off the hook because the economics say so?
A WSJ issue is only really useful for a day...
Perhaps in your view, but that might not be the case for others.
...and how many people could I give that one copy to in a day? Eight? Ten? Big difference in scale than scanning it in and placing it on the web.
Great. I'll fire up Kazza and file share about five songs. That should keep the RIAA off my back; since the scale is smaller, I'm off the hook.
I've seen lots of straw man arguments to the effect of "there should be no difference between loaning my friend a CD and putting the CD on a P2P network!", but there clearly is. The law works like this in other areas as well: selling a joint is seen as different as selling ten kilos. Stealing a $5 bill is seen as different as stealing $50,000.00. I am not trying to equate copyright violation with drug dealing or stealing cash, but the same principle of the economy of scale applies.
You're talking about criminal law, not civil. And I think you've had one too many economics classes. Economics 101 does not and should not drive copyright law. You can't be a little bit pregnant.
I don't think your analogy quite works, as we're now dealing with transmission of the original, physical copy.
1. How do you know the physical copy is the original? The data undoubtedly came from a computer and who is to say where it was first published? And so what if it is the "original?" The content is the same.
2. People that read your dead tree version but didn't pay for it are copying the copyrighted content from the paper into their brain. Using your logic, you must assume responsibility for this, as you didn't make enough of an effort to prevent it and it is unauthorized duplication and distribution.
The point I'm making is that copyright needs to be reexamined in the digital age. How are libraries going to be able to exist if this nonsense keeps up?
If every morning, I made a copy of the Wall Street Journal (to which I hypothetically subscribe) and published it on my website for my own viewing pleasure, I should be obligated to make reasonably sure that unauthorized users can't view it. I should not be able to leave it out in the open with the excuse that "Maybe everybody accessing it is a legitimate WSJ subscriber."
If that's the case, you'd better guard the dead tree version as well if you have it. Don't leave it on your kitchen table, on the patio or at the laundromat. People that didn't pay for it should not be allowed to view it.
"Collecting data is only the first step toward wisdom, but sharing data is the first step toward community," Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr advises the boy in the ad...
...who later grew up and, upon reaching manhood, was promptly sued by the RIAA, MPAA and SCO for sharing data with the rest of the community.
Nice job distorting the data to fit their pitch though.
I've noticed that the mainstream press automatically links declines in music CD sales with increases in P2P downloading, as if it's a fact that one affects the other.
During the news conference, however, Sherman said the industry had the right to take steps to survive as a business. "These people have no right to free music," he maintained.
Whereas Sherman and the record companies have an unalienable right to huge, consistent profits even during recessions; they also have the right to collusion and price-fixing. They have the right to determine the technology you will use to listen to "their" music.
Fsck you, Sherman. Fsck you, RIAA. Fsck you, record companies.
Senator Ron Wyden recently introduced the Digital Consumer Right-to-Know Act (DCRKA), a bill that would require entertainment companies to label products with copy-protections that limit consumer use.
Contrast this with the Digital Online Right-to-Know Act (DORKA), which would let us geeks know when the RIAA is spying on our P2P activity in an attempt to limit consumer use.
Yes. OpenOffice is pure evil and will bring about the rise of communism, followed by the fall of civilization. The skies will burn and the rivers will turn red with blood. The Great Old Ones will return to bring unimagined terror to mankind and it truly will be hell on earth.
I, for one, welcome our new apocalyptic, environmentally-destructive, Hades-creating communist office suite.
"When you dominate a market, you change that market," Rosoff said. "Office already has all the document management features people could possibly want...
...EXCEPT a set of open/standard file formats, the most basic "management" tool.
Some of you might point out that you'll be able to save in or "export" to other formats, but we all know that non-computer literate office animals will always save in the default format which, of course, will be Micro$oft's DRM crap.
If we ate a tag with every meal, in theory we could associate our bowel movements with what we ate. This could be useful in determining what gave you food poisoning or diarrhea.
How on Earth do you witness somebody writing a virus?
I agree with you. The idea that one person could know so much about this person's activities is ridiculous.
By the way, that Coke you're drinking has gone flat. And that brand of blue jeans you're wearing tends to wear out quickly. And you've got a piece of fuzz stuck on your shirt.
I get the sudden impression of a trio who tried out for the role of the Lone Gunmen on the X-Files and failed miserably, crawling through MIT's underground tunnels.
The Terra Meridiani area looks like either the east coast of southeast Asia (Vietnam, etc.), or the Gulf of Mexico.
Arabia Terra could easily be China.
Hellas is in the right place for Australia.
I think you're promulgating a theory that Mars is really an orbiting mirror.
There is a lot of talk that the first Viking photos showed a blue horizon from surface side. This did not fit with NASA thinking and so they were color corected to present the red sky we all know.
Yes. A blue sky would capture the public's imagination and NASA would be under tremendous pressure to send human beings there. This could be a problem if there are artifacts there from a previous civilization (maybe us?), as we would know that we are not alone in the universe. It could be upsetting to our society, especially organized religion.
Around the edge of Mars you can see a blue tinge...is the atmosphere there more like Earth's than we've been led to believe? Or does any combination of gases produce blue (no Taco Bell jokes, please)?
Slashdot Mirror
We're not going. Extraterrestrials have basically quarantined us on this planet. Why do you think the last few Apollo missions were scrapped, even though they were already paid for? Why do you think we limited ourselved to low Earth orbit after that and have dragged feet on Mars? The secret part of our government is aware of this, even if Congress is not.
I bet the site runs on IIS.
Then that makes Microsoft (a big and brown) number two? Woo! Potty!
I, for one, welcome the (-1, OffTopic) score I will get for this post from our moderator overlords.
This is why we need to get Apollo going again...there is so much festering anger at the likes of RIAA, SCO, MPAA and the like (and justly so, IMHO). We need a distraction.
Another moonshot would be great. Hey, the technology worked, didn't it? I'm all for it. If we go back to the moon, we can show the we-didn't-go-to-the-moon crowd the error of their ways.
(By the way, you don't need to grease up Darl McBribe--he's greasy already.)
I don't know if this counts, but here goes:
I worked as student help at a college that had a PDP-11 based mainframe. One night it went down. Computer techs were called out but could find nothing wrong. This continued night after night at about the same time each night. So the techs hung around after hours to keep an eye on it.
Around 6:30pm, the cleaning woman came in with her vaccuum cleaner. She promptly went over to the wall socket, unplugged the mainframe, plugged in her vaccuum cleaner and started vaccuuming the floor.
Negotiate with who? Why? For what? If you're referring to the alleged infringing code, reveal what it is so it can be confirmed and replaced. Otherwise, shut your trap, sell your stock and go out of business like the market demands.
Who said there was?
This is unauthorized duplication and is not allowed.
Yes. But so is unauthorized distribution, which is what happens when you "give" your WSJ issue to someone else. It is not "yours" to give, now is it? You do not own the content, so how can you give it away and still be within the law?
The reason that one is illegal and the other is not is related to the economic damage to WSJ that each method can cause. If I scan it and put it on my web site, it might be read by hundreds or thousands of people, and there's a decent change that some are reading it as a substitute for buying their own copy.
It might be read..A decent chance that some are reading it as a substitute... Can this ever be proven? If I scan WSJ and put in on my website, which few people ever visit, am I off the hook because the economics say so?
A WSJ issue is only really useful for a day...
Perhaps in your view, but that might not be the case for others.
Great. I'll fire up Kazza and file share about five songs. That should keep the RIAA off my back; since the scale is smaller, I'm off the hook.
I've seen lots of straw man arguments to the effect of "there should be no difference between loaning my friend a CD and putting the CD on a P2P network!", but there clearly is. The law works like this in other areas as well: selling a joint is seen as different as selling ten kilos. Stealing a $5 bill is seen as different as stealing $50,000.00. I am not trying to equate copyright violation with drug dealing or stealing cash, but the same principle of the economy of scale applies.
You're talking about criminal law, not civil. And I think you've had one too many economics classes. Economics 101 does not and should not drive copyright law. You can't be a little bit pregnant.
1. How do you know the physical copy is the original? The data undoubtedly came from a computer and who is to say where it was first published? And so what if it is the "original?" The content is the same.
2. People that read your dead tree version but didn't pay for it are copying the copyrighted content from the paper into their brain. Using your logic, you must assume responsibility for this, as you didn't make enough of an effort to prevent it and it is unauthorized duplication and distribution.
The point I'm making is that copyright needs to be reexamined in the digital age. How are libraries going to be able to exist if this nonsense keeps up?
If that's the case, you'd better guard the dead tree version as well if you have it. Don't leave it on your kitchen table, on the patio or at the laundromat. People that didn't pay for it should not be allowed to view it.
I, for one, welcome this subtle form of mind control from our as-yet undiscovered overlords.
...who later grew up and, upon reaching manhood, was promptly sued by the RIAA, MPAA and SCO for sharing data with the rest of the community.
I've noticed that the mainstream press automatically links declines in music CD sales with increases in P2P downloading, as if it's a fact that one affects the other.
Whereas Sherman and the record companies have an unalienable right to huge, consistent profits even during recessions; they also have the right to collusion and price-fixing. They have the right to determine the technology you will use to listen to "their" music.
Fsck you, Sherman. Fsck you, RIAA. Fsck you, record companies.
Maybe the conspiracy thing is going to do you.
Maybe us I.T. people are the real patches. We keep Micro$oft in business by rebooting the PCs that their patches run on.
Contrast this with the Digital Online Right-to-Know Act (DORKA), which would let us geeks know when the RIAA is spying on our P2P activity in an attempt to limit consumer use.
I, for one, welcome our new apocalyptic, environmentally-destructive, Hades-creating communist office suite.
...EXCEPT a set of open/standard file formats, the most basic "management" tool.
Some of you might point out that you'll be able to save in or "export" to other formats, but we all know that non-computer literate office animals will always save in the default format which, of course, will be Micro$oft's DRM crap.
If we ate a tag with every meal, in theory we could associate our bowel movements with what we ate. This could be useful in determining what gave you food poisoning or diarrhea.
I agree with you. The idea that one person could know so much about this person's activities is ridiculous.
By the way, that Coke you're drinking has gone flat. And that brand of blue jeans you're wearing tends to wear out quickly. And you've got a piece of fuzz stuck on your shirt.
I think you meant "uniX-Files".
I think you're promulgating a theory that Mars is really an orbiting mirror.
Yes. A blue sky would capture the public's imagination and NASA would be under tremendous pressure to send human beings there. This could be a problem if there are artifacts there from a previous civilization (maybe us?), as we would know that we are not alone in the universe. It could be upsetting to our society, especially organized religion.
Around the edge of Mars you can see a blue tinge...is the atmosphere there more like Earth's than we've been led to believe? Or does any combination of gases produce blue (no Taco Bell jokes, please)?