I also just checked and copyright isn't anywhere near the republican platform and hasn't been in a while.
Good grief. Read it again, only this time use your eyes and not your imagination. A hint: Look under "Free and Fair Trade".
When RIAA lobies congress, they don't lobby one party more then another outside the majority in the respected houses. They lobby all the congress critters.
That's a good point, but I refuse to affiliate with any party. I loathe politicians on an individual basis.
And before you ask, yeah, go ahead and sell it without source code, I don't care.
Well, then I applaud the strength of your convictions, although I don't share them. While I think copyright is in need of some reform, I believe that creative works flourish much more when the creators right to control the work is protected.
The idea that the junk that's currently clogging our cinemas isn't even worth the bandwidth to download it is beyond them, it seems.
Samuel Pepys, diary entry for 29 September, 1662: "This day my oaths of drinking wine and going to plays are out, and so I do resolve to take a liberty to-day, and then to fall to them again. To the King's Theatre, where we saw "Midsummer's Night's Dream [sic]," which I had never seen before, nor shall ever again, for it is the most insipid ridiculous play that ever I saw in my life. I saw, I confess, some good dancing and some handsome women, which was all my pleasure."
When entertainment began, it is more likely that people would perform and then pass the hat round to get what people watching thought it was worth.
You actually believe money came 'round before entertainment? That's... an odd notion. More likely, amateurs came first. Later, when folks survived to be old enough to become unproductive, some likely took on the task of entertaining the nice young folks who fed them. The first professionals probably negotiated their fee (that's fee-as-in-beer*) in advance.
I'm not sure that copyright laws existed back then either, which begs the question; how did anyone ever make a living?
It does not. It raises the question, although a moment's thought will sink it again. Copyright was unnecessary because no means existed to reproduce works. A story is only as good as the teller.
You agree with Hatch that Canada is in the same league as Russia and China about copyright infringement?
He didn't say that, I didn't say that: You're seeing words in your head that aren't there. Canadia is on the same list because Congress feels their laws and enforcement do not protect America's property interests well enough. While it's far from the greatest issue facing our nation, we'd totally prefer it if every nation honored the spirit of the various copyright-protection treaties.
Only thing is there is no DMCA
One thing I appreciated in Hatch's little speech was his admission that the DMCA isn't perfect, which is a pretty big stretch for him (he was a major supporter of the bill). I'm assuming you're trying to get me to make a DMCA-supporting statement, which I won't: It's a bad law in too many ways.
Canada's issue isn't a lack of DMCA, but generally looser laws which are very hard to enforce civilly even with legitimate claims. Enforcement of a claim from outside the country is just a whisker shy of impossible.
Just to be clear, Sen. Orrin does not represent every republican's view on this.
Yes, he does. This is a platform issue for Republicans; hizzoner Hatch is standing dead center on the party line. If you are a member of or support the Republican party, you are supporting these views.
Oddly, I'm most definitely not Republican and support Hatch's statement. But not him: Hatch is a hypocritical, venal bastard. Remember when he got caught pirating software? Right after proposing that copyright holders should be allowed to destroy accused infringers' computers? And that's far (far!) from the worst thing he's done, although it may have been the funniest.
Quothz is right when he says "This is even worse than people who attribute characters' quotes to the author directly. Also; I slashdot poster Quothz; suck balls".
Ha! A well-made point. But someone quoting that Quothz should, properly, attribute it clearly to a fictional depiction of me in an anonymous post. It's not a difficult objection to get around, since a correct attribution is always a clear one.
He did not. I'm sure he said those words at some point, but not as a statement. He entitled a story "Everything's Eventual" (hell, likely as not, his editor entitled it). Pat Conroy did not say "The lords of discipline", John Barth did not say "Lost in the funhouse", and Douglas Beane did not say "Too wong foo, thanks for everything, Julie Newmar". Yeesh! This is even worse than people who attribute characters' quotes to the author directly.
why something that was written in a year and used over two decades, need millenia to be reimplemented?.
He said "man-millenia". Look: If you have two guys who each work one hour on a task, then you've expended two man-hours on that task, even though only one hour has passed. I've no idea whether the OP is right or not about the manpower that would be needed, but it's not implausible.
We uns engneers been being paid to code C and draw schematics, not public speaking-like people or writers of papers.
It's fairly difficult to get into a top engineering school without excellent grades from high school. You also need to maintain a certain GPA across the board to avoid suspension. Folks I've worked with who graduated from Cal Tech and New Mexico Tech had excellent communication skills.
The post's grammar did not demonstrate even an eighth-grade level; it was far below standards even for someone whose primary language is not English. Therefore, I don't believe his or her claim of graduation from a top-tier school.
Why not? The statistics are there for your reading.
Are not. The last complete prison survey which included offense information was in '04; the most recent in the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data is from '95. The '04 survey data are probably available to someone who can figure out how to request it.
Data from more recent years are estimates, usually made by groups with agenda. Numbers get tossed around like parade candy with few citations. I have yet to find a single estimate that cites primary data, although a few throw references to DoJ's own estimates. The latter cases use different years: I note a definite trend among pro-legalizationeers picking '97 estimates and anti-types choosing numbers from GWB's first term. In addition, the DoJ's estimates are as suspect as anyone esle's, and frankly I don't totally trust their primary data.
If you can find clean numbers in the cacophony, then I applaud you. The rest of us will have to make liberal use of grains of salt when we take in numbers.
I also failed to note earlier that pot-related offenders include those driving under the influence, providing it to children, and customs violations. These are highly unlikely to become legal in any event, so the number of freed-up cells following legalization is not equal to the number of only-weed-offenders. Mind you, this is still a nontrivial number.
Having said all that, I'm'a take advantage of my crushing disability and California's laws to roll up a totally legal fatty. The only words that can fully sum the feeling of legally smoking weed while debating legalization are "Neener neener neener".
For an example (yeah, I know it's fictional, but still)
But still, it's fictional. Using a fictional character as anecdotal evidence to prove a point is three steps and a light breeze away from crazy. Don't do it.
That said, I agree with you. I think Scott Adams said "the holodeck will be mankind's last invention".
And the majority (I believe, I have no reference) is related to marijuana.
Estimates range from 10% to 20%, but nobody really knows. This includes those who are in for both pot-related and other offenses, however. If I were to learn that the majority of prisoners had at least one drug-related charge I would not be surprised (I'm not claiming that's the case, just speculating).
And now for... Off-Topic Adventures with Quothz! In today's episode, Quothz answers a question asked sotto digitare by lavacano, whose email is hidden:
(Side question, is my grammar OK?)
It is okay, yeah. "There's" should be "there are". The first comma is superfluous. The comma in the parenthetical comment should be replaced with a colon (followed by a capital "I"). In a highly formal context, the parenthesis should be omitted, but they're fine in anything that isn't gonna get beaten with a style manual.
How can you "go" missing? Missing is something you are or are not, not a place or activity. How, unless you are a bad marksman, or are on the prowl for young ladies, can you "go" missing?
Go crazy, then take a left at the second stop sign. Missing's right on the left. You can't miss it.
The price predictor thing sound kinda cool (though pretty easy to clone).
"Easy to clone" is why they're offering it. There's a number of places on the 'Net offering this service, some of which have been doing so for years. This isn't innovation, it's renovation.
The "make it up in volume" theory doesn't work when you're not actually making any profit.
It can. If you can eat enough of a loss to start selling under your cost, sometimes you can get the production cost low enough to turn out a profit. That's what "make it up in volume" means.
It is self documenting and shouldn't have a definition for the same reason we don't write up definitions for every word with 'fuck' inserted. fan-fucking-tastic for example.
Bad example. "Fan-fucking-tastic" is a well-documented and carefully studied term. Numerous articles and at least one book have touched upon this little gem. I highly recommend McCawley's "The Fucking Infix" for a start if you're interested in the aca-fucking-demic study of this sort of thing.
Slashdot Mirror
I also just checked and copyright isn't anywhere near the republican platform and hasn't been in a while.
Good grief. Read it again, only this time use your eyes and not your imagination. A hint: Look under "Free and Fair Trade".
When RIAA lobies congress, they don't lobby one party more then another outside the majority in the respected houses. They lobby all the congress critters.
That's a good point, but I refuse to affiliate with any party. I loathe politicians on an individual basis.
And before you ask, yeah, go ahead and sell it without source code, I don't care.
Well, then I applaud the strength of your convictions, although I don't share them. While I think copyright is in need of some reform, I believe that creative works flourish much more when the creators right to control the work is protected.
The idea that the junk that's currently clogging our cinemas isn't even worth the bandwidth to download it is beyond them, it seems.
Samuel Pepys, diary entry for 29 September, 1662: "This day my oaths of drinking wine and going to plays are out, and so I do resolve to take a liberty to-day, and then to fall to them again. To the King's Theatre, where we saw "Midsummer's Night's Dream [sic]," which I had never seen before, nor shall ever again, for it is the most insipid ridiculous play that ever I saw in my life. I saw, I confess, some good dancing and some handsome women, which was all my pleasure."
When entertainment began, it is more likely that people would perform and then pass the hat round to get what people watching thought it was worth.
You actually believe money came 'round before entertainment? That's... an odd notion. More likely, amateurs came first. Later, when folks survived to be old enough to become unproductive, some likely took on the task of entertaining the nice young folks who fed them. The first professionals probably negotiated their fee (that's fee-as-in-beer*) in advance.
I'm not sure that copyright laws existed back then either, which begs the question; how did anyone ever make a living?
It does not. It raises the question, although a moment's thought will sink it again. Copyright was unnecessary because no means existed to reproduce works. A story is only as good as the teller.
* Rim shot.
Debating how Copyright should work is like debating who should be king. If you accept to be ruled does it really matter how?
So you won't mind if I download one of your programs, say TcpSafe, sell it, and keep all of the money. Right?
You agree with Hatch that Canada is in the same league as Russia and China about copyright infringement?
He didn't say that, I didn't say that: You're seeing words in your head that aren't there. Canadia is on the same list because Congress feels their laws and enforcement do not protect America's property interests well enough. While it's far from the greatest issue facing our nation, we'd totally prefer it if every nation honored the spirit of the various copyright-protection treaties.
Only thing is there is no DMCA
One thing I appreciated in Hatch's little speech was his admission that the DMCA isn't perfect, which is a pretty big stretch for him (he was a major supporter of the bill). I'm assuming you're trying to get me to make a DMCA-supporting statement, which I won't: It's a bad law in too many ways.
Canada's issue isn't a lack of DMCA, but generally looser laws which are very hard to enforce civilly even with legitimate claims. Enforcement of a claim from outside the country is just a whisker shy of impossible.
That is one heck of a summary. I really like how a line and a half of text is qualifying as a story these days.
That's what you call your executive summary.
Just to be clear, Sen. Orrin does not represent every republican's view on this.
Yes, he does. This is a platform issue for Republicans; hizzoner Hatch is standing dead center on the party line. If you are a member of or support the Republican party, you are supporting these views.
Oddly, I'm most definitely not Republican and support Hatch's statement. But not him: Hatch is a hypocritical, venal bastard. Remember when he got caught pirating software? Right after proposing that copyright holders should be allowed to destroy accused infringers' computers? And that's far (far!) from the worst thing he's done, although it may have been the funniest.
Quothz is right when he says "This is even worse than people who attribute characters' quotes to the author directly. Also; I slashdot poster Quothz; suck balls".
Ha! A well-made point. But someone quoting that Quothz should, properly, attribute it clearly to a fictional depiction of me in an anonymous post. It's not a difficult objection to get around, since a correct attribution is always a clear one.
Um, the narrator in the story uses those actual words, and it's a major plot point of the story. Did you actually read it?
No, I didn't, and so I stand corrected: This is exactly as bad as people who attribute characters' quotes to the author directly.
As Stephen King said, "Everything's eventual."
He did not. I'm sure he said those words at some point, but not as a statement. He entitled a story "Everything's Eventual" (hell, likely as not, his editor entitled it). Pat Conroy did not say "The lords of discipline", John Barth did not say "Lost in the funhouse", and Douglas Beane did not say "Too wong foo, thanks for everything, Julie Newmar". Yeesh! This is even worse than people who attribute characters' quotes to the author directly.
why something that was written in a year and used over two decades, need millenia to be reimplemented?.
He said "man-millenia". Look: If you have two guys who each work one hour on a task, then you've expended two man-hours on that task, even though only one hour has passed. I've no idea whether the OP is right or not about the manpower that would be needed, but it's not implausible.
The RIAA lawyers wouldn't know the law if it hit them on the head.
This is the sort of statement that requires empirical evidence. I'd suggest the OED as a control.
We uns engneers been being paid to code C and draw schematics, not public speaking-like people or writers of papers.
It's fairly difficult to get into a top engineering school without excellent grades from high school. You also need to maintain a certain GPA across the board to avoid suspension. Folks I've worked with who graduated from Cal Tech and New Mexico Tech had excellent communication skills.
The post's grammar did not demonstrate even an eighth-grade level; it was far below standards even for someone whose primary language is not English. Therefore, I don't believe his or her claim of graduation from a top-tier school.
I went to the school that has been at the top of the list for ~9 years now.
Given your extraordinarily poor grammar, I find that hard to believe.
Why not? The statistics are there for your reading.
Are not. The last complete prison survey which included offense information was in '04; the most recent in the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data is from '95. The '04 survey data are probably available to someone who can figure out how to request it.
Data from more recent years are estimates, usually made by groups with agenda. Numbers get tossed around like parade candy with few citations. I have yet to find a single estimate that cites primary data, although a few throw references to DoJ's own estimates. The latter cases use different years: I note a definite trend among pro-legalizationeers picking '97 estimates and anti-types choosing numbers from GWB's first term. In addition, the DoJ's estimates are as suspect as anyone esle's, and frankly I don't totally trust their primary data.
If you can find clean numbers in the cacophony, then I applaud you. The rest of us will have to make liberal use of grains of salt when we take in numbers.
I also failed to note earlier that pot-related offenders include those driving under the influence, providing it to children, and customs violations. These are highly unlikely to become legal in any event, so the number of freed-up cells following legalization is not equal to the number of only-weed-offenders. Mind you, this is still a nontrivial number.
Having said all that, I'm'a take advantage of my crushing disability and California's laws to roll up a totally legal fatty. The only words that can fully sum the feeling of legally smoking weed while debating legalization are "Neener neener neener".
For an example (yeah, I know it's fictional, but still)
But still, it's fictional. Using a fictional character as anecdotal evidence to prove a point is three steps and a light breeze away from crazy. Don't do it.
That said, I agree with you. I think Scott Adams said "the holodeck will be mankind's last invention".
And the majority (I believe, I have no reference) is related to marijuana.
Estimates range from 10% to 20%, but nobody really knows. This includes those who are in for both pot-related and other offenses, however. If I were to learn that the majority of prisoners had at least one drug-related charge I would not be surprised (I'm not claiming that's the case, just speculating).
(Side question, is my grammar OK?)
It is okay, yeah. "There's" should be "there are". The first comma is superfluous. The comma in the parenthetical comment should be replaced with a colon (followed by a capital "I"). In a highly formal context, the parenthesis should be omitted, but they're fine in anything that isn't gonna get beaten with a style manual.
How can you "go" missing? Missing is something you are or are not, not a place or activity. How, unless you are a bad marksman, or are on the prowl for young ladies, can you "go" missing?
Go crazy, then take a left at the second stop sign. Missing's right on the left. You can't miss it.
The price predictor thing sound kinda cool (though pretty easy to clone).
"Easy to clone" is why they're offering it. There's a number of places on the 'Net offering this service, some of which have been doing so for years. This isn't innovation, it's renovation.
The "make it up in volume" theory doesn't work when you're not actually making any profit.
It can. If you can eat enough of a loss to start selling under your cost, sometimes you can get the production cost low enough to turn out a profit. That's what "make it up in volume" means.
The government has frustrated more airline passengers than they've prevented terrorists
While I understand your point here and agree somewhat with the sentiment, you might want to rethink that choice of phrase.
It is self documenting and shouldn't have a definition for the same reason we don't write up definitions for every word with 'fuck' inserted. fan-fucking-tastic for example.
Bad example. "Fan-fucking-tastic" is a well-documented and carefully studied term. Numerous articles and at least one book have touched upon this little gem. I highly recommend McCawley's "The Fucking Infix" for a start if you're interested in the aca-fucking-demic study of this sort of thing.
It would be really hard to make an accurate comparison between a subscription rpg and free to play+premium content rpg.
What's wrong with average simultaneous players?