Buy the iPad, certified cooler and better than the lesser Samsung Galaxy Tablet by no less than his royal honor UK Judge Numbnuts himself. (note: the Galaxy, being obviously inferior as determined by UK law, is at best a poor wanna be copy of the wondrous iPad, so buy the best: iPad)
There - all done, admitted it wasn't a copy, and get some good PR to boot. I'm sure the UK judge won't approve.
Somehow I missed this response, apparently/. has some issues with this one.
Cognitive ability wasn't tested for like today, but there was an impression apparently common across the Constitutional Convention attendees that there were advantages to being certain minimum ages for positions that were far older than what were considered standard at the time for various activities that we now consider "adult".
I note that you make assertions about various statements I made. My statements about General ages provide documented evidence that your statements about "The reason that the voting age was 21 was to ensure that people with enough property and standing could vote, but if you did not own enough property or have enough standing in the community you could not." was provably false. Let's also not forget that many at the Constitutional Convention were also involved with the army, and thus knew some of these younger generals, and they presumably on the whole respected them appropriately. The age of 21 for voting had nothing to do with standing nor property. In fact, the age of 21 wasn't sufficient without property, and standing was irrelevant, hence that portion of your argument is a complete fabrication.
A Black (or other) persons counting as 3/5s of a person wasn't for discriminating reasons, but for reasons of economic and political power. Interestingly enough, to correct your misconceptions, the South (you know, the slave states) wanted Black (or other) persons to count as a whole person. The North (those states including some that even then were largely against slavery) wanted them counted as 1/2 person or less. The 3/5s compromise came from a proposal for financial obligations during the Articles of Confederation when the two sides had opposite arguments, but was not adopted then. So, you see, it had absolutely nothing to do with discrimination, and everything to do with political power and economics. Oh, and lets not forget that Indians count as '0' persons.
Labeling facts and statements as fairy tales is ineffective. Presenting counter arguments may help your points depending upon their strength. So far you are failing to provide evidence of the reasoning why those at the Constitutional Convention set these ages, and that it wasn't for reasons of "stability" and "sound judgement" (although I shouldn't quote those, as I am not sure those are the exact words)
based on what I've seen of the teenage female, I'd say that study is so severely flawed as to be wrong in 99% of the cases. Yes, there may be a few select females that mature early, just as there are a few select males, but the mass moves right on by that age remaining in the same stage until somewhere in their early 20s
The intellectual property realizes maximum utility
It increases competition in the market place by removing protectionism
It cant be used as economic/geographical/class warfare
Intellectual property cannot be leveraged to help increase wealth inequality
Wealth inequality causes inherent economic inefficiencies
Where wealth inequality is less efficient because:
You know, I believe they tried this a couple of times - Russia, China, N Korea, Vietnam.... There's only one system left out of those still using it - N Korea, and they're just the most productive group of people ever. </sarcasm>
There has to be a degree of wealth inequality, otherwise most people won't expend the extra effort. There will be some, but as history has shown, they cannot compete with a society that rewards its creative and innovative elements. I'll repeat here what others have stated - your problem isn't with IP, but how it's been mutated from its original intentions and the current enforcement. Our current problem is that the inequality has exceeded all reasonable levels, which is another problem not directly related to your initial point, but influential to it.
That was just a few seconds of Googling, and just the first page of results listing the RED in Sony's PS3 area. The only place Sony appears to be getting a profit at the moment is from their remaining stake in Sony Pictures. Sony, the company we've grown to hate, looks like it's heading to the dump. Good riddance.
Thermal paste for a typical CPU installation runs in the pennies, but you do have to buy a whole tube. I'll bet you a dollar this sheet for a single CPU install runs in the dollars. This is Sony we're talking about, they need profitable revenue to offset their sinking Blu-Ray-PS/3 ship, among others.
Well who can blame him? I couldn't make any sense of the comments on/. about how 48fps looks "too real". Isn't that kinda the point? To make the TV show or movie look like just a window on another world? It's supposed to look real. (This reminds me of those persons who claimed CDs or lossless AACs were too perfect, and they'd rather hear the sizzle of downloaded MP3s. Illogical.)
I, for one, can't stand highly compressed MP3s. And having seen 60 fps recordings compared directly to 24fps of the same activity (HD 1080p cameras both) the 60 fps looks noticeably better by comparison. While the 24fps on its own looks fine and not that much different from the slightly smoother 30 fps, 60 fps seriously takes it to the point of barely being able to notice the frame rate. I'll be waiting on a 48 fps screen around here.
I'd agree with the sales statement, and as far as I can recall, back when I tried Steam out, you had to be logged in to run games. Granted, that was a very very long time ago. So now it's more just a distribution service? Or do you still have to start it to do anything?
Hell the prices on Steam would be cheap for rentals, much less full games and all the extras make it worth it IMHO. It sure as hell beats having to restore a disc image because SecuROM or Starforce took a crap on your PC.
That is certainly true - both of those are reasons I haven't bought the couple of AAA games I might have liked over the past few years. I refuse to install a game that will ruin my system. There's another interesting note - because I freed myself from the "game problem", I was free to fully switch OSes. There was no longer any reason to run Windows.
And never successfully navigate in snow or mud: The system would go into "ZOMG!" mode, decide that what you are otherwise-successfully doing is impossible, and slow down until the car stops...probably while encouraging you to call AAA for a towtruck, when all you really want to do is get up the fucking hill.
I hadn't thought of this, but my favorite tactic when we get sheet ice that's slicker than oil on our hills was to move over to the unpaved shoulder and just smoothly drive up the hill. It's pretty funny to see the looks of people trying to push each other up the hill on the ice. It also helps to have 4 wheel/all wheel drive.
Well thanks for pointing out a definite deal killer. Phone home games are absolutely out. It's also why I don't do Steam. It sounds great on the surface, but it's really a way to force external online authentication. No thanks.And a side note - I stopped buying games when they hit $50. I don't need something that's worth $25 so badly that I can't wait a few months. And yes, since I'm the potential buyer, that's all it's worth to me so that's the price. Until it gets within my price band, I don't buy.
You misread it greatly. It wasn't blacks, it was "others". Free persons and indentured servants were counted as whole persons, Indians were excluded, and 3/5s for all others. I'm not sure how that qualifies them as ageist or racist. Slavery was a pretty wide spread practice at the time.
There were generals only 19 years old during the revolution, and even during the civil war there were at least 2 under the age of 24 and perhaps as young as 20. We're talking generals here, not peasants, during a time when generals were generally propertied and respected men. Your argument withers.
Even your sideswipe of an agreement of the average age of consent being 13 is irrelevant, my statement wasn't about age of consent, but merely that many were married by age 14.
If you wish to argue the setting of ages, provide evidence of the reasoning why those at the Constitutional Convention set these ages, and that it wasn't for reasons of "stability" and "sound judgement" (although I shouldn't quote those, as I am not sure those are the exact words)
You've been beat soundly round the ears already, but to give you an idea of how long ago people were already aware of the psychological development of humans, you can go all the way back to the US constitution. Did you ever wonder(why the voting age was 21? Why the minimum age for a congressional representative was 25? Or that the president/vice president had to be 35? Note that this was during a time that "men" at least as young as 14 became soldiers. That "women" were often married by 14. Of course, life expectancy was a lot lower then too. It was a different world entirely, yet they had strict minimum age requirements far above the current age of consent to have positions of decision making power.
For those that have earlier evidence, I'd like to see it. This is just what I had at hand.
You could argue that way as well - as soon as it is life of the creator - that is unlimited from their POV. I was speaking from the perspective of others. In any case, it is not limited by any but the most technical of definitions as far as the living are concerned.
copyright should not be assignable, nor sellable. That would result in the creator retaining sole rights and the distribution industry focusing on... distribution, not ownership issues.
Slashdot Mirror
or bump enhancing...
Apple could spin this in interesting ways:
Buy the iPad, certified cooler and better than the lesser Samsung Galaxy Tablet by no less than his royal honor UK Judge Numbnuts himself. (note: the Galaxy, being obviously inferior as determined by UK law, is at best a poor wanna be copy of the wondrous iPad, so buy the best: iPad)
There - all done, admitted it wasn't a copy, and get some good PR to boot. I'm sure the UK judge won't approve.
Third parties fail because they are either too narrowly focused to gain much support or are full of loons that drive away the centrists
Republicans, anyone?
Somehow I missed this response, apparently /. has some issues with this one.
Cognitive ability wasn't tested for like today, but there was an impression apparently common across the Constitutional Convention attendees that there were advantages to being certain minimum ages for positions that were far older than what were considered standard at the time for various activities that we now consider "adult".
I note that you make assertions about various statements I made. My statements about General ages provide documented evidence that your statements about "The reason that the voting age was 21 was to ensure that people with enough property and standing could vote, but if you did not own enough property or have enough standing in the community you could not." was provably false. Let's also not forget that many at the Constitutional Convention were also involved with the army, and thus knew some of these younger generals, and they presumably on the whole respected them appropriately. The age of 21 for voting had nothing to do with standing nor property. In fact, the age of 21 wasn't sufficient without property, and standing was irrelevant, hence that portion of your argument is a complete fabrication.
A Black (or other) persons counting as 3/5s of a person wasn't for discriminating reasons, but for reasons of economic and political power. Interestingly enough, to correct your misconceptions, the South (you know, the slave states) wanted Black (or other) persons to count as a whole person. The North (those states including some that even then were largely against slavery) wanted them counted as 1/2 person or less. The 3/5s compromise came from a proposal for financial obligations during the Articles of Confederation when the two sides had opposite arguments, but was not adopted then. So, you see, it had absolutely nothing to do with discrimination, and everything to do with political power and economics. Oh, and lets not forget that Indians count as '0' persons.
Labeling facts and statements as fairy tales is ineffective. Presenting counter arguments may help your points depending upon their strength. So far you are failing to provide evidence of the reasoning why those at the Constitutional Convention set these ages, and that it wasn't for reasons of "stability" and "sound judgement" (although I shouldn't quote those, as I am not sure those are the exact words)
based on what I've seen of the teenage female, I'd say that study is so severely flawed as to be wrong in 99% of the cases. Yes, there may be a few select females that mature early, just as there are a few select males, but the mass moves right on by that age remaining in the same stage until somewhere in their early 20s
Whats better about it:
The intellectual property realizes maximum utility It increases competition in the market place by removing protectionism It cant be used as economic/geographical/class warfare Intellectual property cannot be leveraged to help increase wealth inequality Wealth inequality causes inherent economic inefficiencies
Where wealth inequality is less efficient because:
You know, I believe they tried this a couple of times - Russia, China, N Korea, Vietnam.... There's only one system left out of those still using it - N Korea, and they're just the most productive group of people ever. </sarcasm>
There has to be a degree of wealth inequality, otherwise most people won't expend the extra effort. There will be some, but as history has shown, they cannot compete with a society that rewards its creative and innovative elements. I'll repeat here what others have stated - your problem isn't with IP, but how it's been mutated from its original intentions and the current enforcement. Our current problem is that the inequality has exceeded all reasonable levels, which is another problem not directly related to your initial point, but influential to it.
You are incorrect
Your ancestors must have been strongly related to the Titanic Quartet.
That was just a few seconds of Googling, and just the first page of results listing the RED in Sony's PS3 area. The only place Sony appears to be getting a profit at the moment is from their remaining stake in Sony Pictures. Sony, the company we've grown to hate, looks like it's heading to the dump. Good riddance.
Thermal paste for a typical CPU installation runs in the pennies, but you do have to buy a whole tube. I'll bet you a dollar this sheet for a single CPU install runs in the dollars. This is Sony we're talking about, they need profitable revenue to offset their sinking Blu-Ray-PS/3 ship, among others.
Seriously, just how much farther can MS possibly need to ruin Nokia before they buy them out and give Elop his bonus?
I'd guess bankruptcy, where they can buy it for a song.
but when it comes to take decisions they use voting systems, where every single person (workers or soldiers) has the same wheight.
That sounds like... pure democracy.
Well who can blame him? I couldn't make any sense of the comments on /. about how 48fps looks "too real". Isn't that kinda the point? To make the TV show or movie look like just a window on another world? It's supposed to look real. (This reminds me of those persons who claimed CDs or lossless AACs were too perfect, and they'd rather hear the sizzle of downloaded MP3s. Illogical.)
I, for one, can't stand highly compressed MP3s. And having seen 60 fps recordings compared directly to 24fps of the same activity (HD 1080p cameras both) the 60 fps looks noticeably better by comparison. While the 24fps on its own looks fine and not that much different from the slightly smoother 30 fps, 60 fps seriously takes it to the point of barely being able to notice the frame rate. I'll be waiting on a 48 fps screen around here.
The ant was allowed to roam. The laser's tracking system was running on a Beowulf cluster of 50 million Raspberry Pi's.
And it nearly missed, barely getting the base leg joint.
Rare Earth elements aren't that rare. Not only that, China is the biggest miner, but not the only proven source.
I'd agree with the sales statement, and as far as I can recall, back when I tried Steam out, you had to be logged in to run games. Granted, that was a very very long time ago. So now it's more just a distribution service? Or do you still have to start it to do anything?
Hell the prices on Steam would be cheap for rentals, much less full games and all the extras make it worth it IMHO. It sure as hell beats having to restore a disc image because SecuROM or Starforce took a crap on your PC.
That is certainly true - both of those are reasons I haven't bought the couple of AAA games I might have liked over the past few years. I refuse to install a game that will ruin my system. There's another interesting note - because I freed myself from the "game problem", I was free to fully switch OSes. There was no longer any reason to run Windows.
And never successfully navigate in snow or mud: The system would go into "ZOMG!" mode, decide that what you are otherwise-successfully doing is impossible, and slow down until the car stops...probably while encouraging you to call AAA for a towtruck, when all you really want to do is get up the fucking hill.
I hadn't thought of this, but my favorite tactic when we get sheet ice that's slicker than oil on our hills was to move over to the unpaved shoulder and just smoothly drive up the hill. It's pretty funny to see the looks of people trying to push each other up the hill on the ice. It also helps to have 4 wheel/all wheel drive.
People generally don't have those, at least not nearly as often as a computer.
And then there are places where 14 year olds can drive with a mere signature of a parent/guardian.
At least that's how it was not long ago.
Well thanks for pointing out a definite deal killer. Phone home games are absolutely out. It's also why I don't do Steam. It sounds great on the surface, but it's really a way to force external online authentication. No thanks.And a side note - I stopped buying games when they hit $50. I don't need something that's worth $25 so badly that I can't wait a few months. And yes, since I'm the potential buyer, that's all it's worth to me so that's the price. Until it gets within my price band, I don't buy.
You misread it greatly. It wasn't blacks, it was "others". Free persons and indentured servants were counted as whole persons, Indians were excluded, and 3/5s for all others. I'm not sure how that qualifies them as ageist or racist. Slavery was a pretty wide spread practice at the time.
You are mistaken across the board.
There were generals only 19 years old during the revolution, and even during the civil war there were at least 2 under the age of 24 and perhaps as young as 20. We're talking generals here, not peasants, during a time when generals were generally propertied and respected men. Your argument withers.
Even your sideswipe of an agreement of the average age of consent being 13 is irrelevant, my statement wasn't about age of consent, but merely that many were married by age 14.
If you wish to argue the setting of ages, provide evidence of the reasoning why those at the Constitutional Convention set these ages, and that it wasn't for reasons of "stability" and "sound judgement" (although I shouldn't quote those, as I am not sure those are the exact words)
You've been beat soundly round the ears already, but to give you an idea of how long ago people were already aware of the psychological development of humans, you can go all the way back to the US constitution. Did you ever wonder(why the voting age was 21? Why the minimum age for a congressional representative was 25? Or that the president/vice president had to be 35? Note that this was during a time that "men" at least as young as 14 became soldiers. That "women" were often married by 14. Of course, life expectancy was a lot lower then too. It was a different world entirely, yet they had strict minimum age requirements far above the current age of consent to have positions of decision making power.
For those that have earlier evidence, I'd like to see it. This is just what I had at hand.
You could argue that way as well - as soon as it is life of the creator - that is unlimited from their POV. I was speaking from the perspective of others. In any case, it is not limited by any but the most technical of definitions as far as the living are concerned.
copyright should not be assignable, nor sellable. That would result in the creator retaining sole rights and the distribution industry focusing on ... distribution, not ownership issues.