That there are an assload of trolls here who repeatedly shout down discussions of representative government with "your government is bought and paid for by businesses, your vote is worthless, the candidates are predetermined political conspiracy blah blah blah"
"An administration that will go down in history as one of the most incompetent bunch of corporate shills, full of failed ideologues, in no way represents me. I would be embarrased to say that a guy who said this represents me in any way:"
Oh, wait I WAS TALKING ABOUT YOU!!! Ha, isn't that funny, you're stupid AND a nutjob.
I'm pretty sure I asked nicely, but I'm assuming trolling is like crack for you, so I can understand I guess.
All I have to ask you, you dim-witted inbred mistake of nature, is "what happens in 2008?"
So instead of being beholden to the US government, you'd be beholden to IBM, who is beholden to the US government.
"Bet this argument would end quickly if we set up our own DNS servers"
Then do it. I doubt very seriously anyone would care, and they'd still have to connect to the current internet, because no business worth a crap would intentionally avoid the US market.
"The current government has nothing whatsoever to do with it."
Sorry, but I have to disagree STRONGLY.
The current government is indicative of what happens when a country's citizens are ignorant and apathetic. I believe the current goevernment is very much intertwined with the substance of "America" as much as any other group. They're just the bad side.
" 1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;"
Now read this last bit VERY carefully
"33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);
34. Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area."
Seems pretty clear that by violating 1441, they failed to meet the terms of their cease fire. CEASE FIRE. It also appears 678 authorizes the use of force to "secure peace and security" in the area.
There's nothing better than ill-founded national pride! Man you screwed this one up good.
Anaesthesia- Humphry Davy (CORNISH by the way, how close is that to scotland?) is credit with discovering the anaesthetic properties of laughing gas in 1795. I'm sure YOU were talking about James Young Simpson, but his use of Chloroform happened 50 years later. Even worse though, ether was being used already by the time Simpson started using chloroform. OOPS!
Telephone- Antonio Meucci. Italian. Philipp Reis (German) constructed a working telephone 15 YEARS before Bell stole it. OOPS!
Television- From wiki "in 1911, Boris Rosing and his student Vladimir Kosma Zworykin achieved a television system that used a mechanical mirror-drum scanner to transmit, in Zworykin's words, "very crude images" over wires to the electronic Braun tube (cathode ray tube) in the receiver." Russians. OOPS!
Radar- Christian Huelsmeyer, German. OOPS!
I'm just having a bit of fun at your expense, but if you planned on busting the other guy's balls, you should have checked your facts first.
"I said it was interesting and unusual. I didn't say it was incorrect."
I never said you did.
And as an aside, stop getting your panties in a bunch about what you percieve as my thought on this subject. You're embarassing yourself.
"They create a copy."
No, actually they take a copy from someone else and use it as a template. Without the ability to TAKE the information to create a copy, you would have NOTHING TO COPY.
"The internet is now a key part of the infrastructure of many countries and no matter if you like it or not, nations don't like it when a critical part of their infrastructure is controlled by a foreign government"
It's not controlled by a foreign goevernment, it's controlled by an international corporation.
Since you decided to lie in the first paragraph of your post, I didn't read the rest.
I don't particularly care for liars, and I certainly don't bother to listen to them.
Yes, interesting AND correct. For examples, from dictionary.com
Take
"To get into one's possession by force, skill, or artifice," also
"To appropriate for one's own or another's use or benefit"
Both of these examples prove my definition correct. While there are many possible definitions, mine is perfectly acceptable.
And a question, how does one get so called "stolen" music if they don't take it? Do they have it sent to them? Does it magically appear on their computer? I think you see what I'm getting at here.
"The specific definition of theft (in English) is the dishonest appropriation of another's property with intent to deprive him or her of it permanently."
No, that's ONE definition of theft. Please don't try to generalize one definition of a word into the only definition of that word.
The most commone definitions I've seen refer back to stealing, and those definitions are often pretty broad.
Some examples
to steal (stole, stolen)
1. to take something from somebody against their will
2. to move, carry, or place surreptitiously
3. to get or effect surreptitiously or artfully (this is the one downloaders should be concerned about)
4. to draw attention unexpectedly in (an entertainment), especially by being the outstanding performer
5. to copy something without permission (He stole my credit card number.)(this one too)
6. (baseball) to advance safely to (another base) during the delivery of a pitch, without the aid of a base hit, walk, passed ball, or wild pitch
7. to move silently or secretly
Those are not my definitions. They are mostly from dictionary.com, with some from wiktionary as well.
I think the point people who are trying to turn this debate into a semantic game need to realize is that arguing that it is not "theft" is a stupid, unnecessary red herring, and is almost certainly false. Not because they aren't correct with their logic, but because the English language is so flexible. That flexibility allows for definitions of words where previously there were none, and for definitions of words that are often counter-intuitive.
Ultimately I don't care about pinning down what the process of downloading "stolen" music is called, but relying on the accuracy of the English language to win the debate for you is a pretty foolish thing to do.
No. They're not taking the kid away, it's much less sinister than that.
A GAL acts in the child's legal interests, often (usually) when the parent cannot be counted upon to do so.
I can't really understand the reasoning for asking for one here, but this is the RIAA, and worse yet, their attorneys, so reason may not have anything to do with do.
"Remember that little war in Iraq we're having, where we're just settling it?"
This is the dumbest attempt at insight I've ever seen. The situation in Iraq was STABLE. There was no potential threat, and certainly NOTHING on the order of WW3.
On the other hand, you have Taiwan, to which the US has already committed resources and support, actively pissing off CHINA in the stupidest little ways. NOT STABLE AT ALL.
It's funny that you try to comment of foreign policy, yet have no clue what the hell you're blathering about.
Please shut up and let the adults chat for a while. You'll learn something from us.
PS, in the future, when someone clearly more informed and intelligent than you (that would be me) tells you you're stupid, don't take that as an insult because of your fragile ego. It's true. You are stupid, and the sooner you accept it the better.
The one that say "this is how this device works, if you don't like it don't buy it."
If your fat slut of a wife was too stupid to do any research, then it's her fault for being an imbecile (which explains why she married an asshat like you)
"Sometimes it's gets pretty stupid around here"
"You've done your part to make sure of that."
Yes, I got people like you to come up with idiotic, twisted, half thought out justifications of why it's a company's fault that you bought something you don't like, even though you KNEW EXACTLY WHAT YOU WERE GETTING. (by the way, THAT'S the deal, genius)
And if you didn't know, it's STILL your fault because you were too lazy and complacent to do any research.
Stop trying to blame the company. They told you what you were getting.
"The kind that are afraid of 600 nuclear tipped missiles 100 miles off their borders. It's not cowardess, it's sensible"
Two things, China wouldn't use nukes, because of Taiwan's proximity and the potential outrage of the world, and not doing what you think is right because you are afraid of the consequences is COWARDICE. I'm sure cowards all over would agree with you, but that's not saying much.
If they want it, there's a price. Being afraid to pay it, no matter the rationalization, is STILL BEING AFRAID TO PAY IT.
"The majority of the Taiwanese, if they believed they could declare themselves independent without total destruction of them and their land, would do so in a heartbeat."
This begs the question, what kind of cowards aren't willing to defend their freedom with their lives?
Why is it that every time this subject comes up (what to call Taiwan) the Chinese get hammered, and the Taiwanese get a pass?
Memo to Taiwan
If you don't like the current political climate, then settle the issue. I don't care HOW, just settle it. If you don't want to be part of China, then man up and say so. Fight if it comes to it. You'll know you'll lose though, which is why you don't try it.
The truth is, Taiwan has played the US as suckers in this. Sure, the US has a stake, but this is really a Taiwan vs. China issue, and should be dealt with as such.
And as an aside, it REALLY pisses me off that such an insignifcant blip is the focus of so much US military attention. Is Taiwan REALLY important enough to go to war with China over?
"Yes, and it's legal and moral to defend rapists and corrupt politicians, because they have legal rights too, but we talk here about priorities"
So, the attorneys of the world should take only the cases that appeal to them, and leave the distasteful defendants to make their own way?
What exactly are you prioritizing there? That your belief in MS's guilt regarding anti-competitive practices trumps your responsibility to the law, and the people who rely on you and people like you to uphold that law?
You honestly believe ONE COMPANY is that important?
Well, I don't and it's a good thing there are many others like me, and very few like you.
Well, it's a good thing that wasn't what I said then isn't it.
I said
"I would like to modify the code, then release it as a closed source, proprietary product."
I am both MODIFYING it (did you miss that? are you a non-native english speaker?) and USING it (PRODUCT, implies that it is, well, a PRODUCT).
Now it's possible I misunderstood what you were trying to say, but that is entirely because you were so obtuse. If you have a valid, reasonable point, try again.
Slashdot Mirror
"You know... Democracy is about letting everyone participate in the decisions"
WONDERFUL! Now, explain how the UN is a Democracy (ask ALL of the Chinese, Libyans, etc. if they got a vote).
Well? I'm waiting patiently.
"So what exactly are you saying? "
That there are an assload of trolls here who repeatedly shout down discussions of representative government with "your government is bought and paid for by businesses, your vote is worthless, the candidates are predetermined political conspiracy blah blah blah"
"An administration that will go down in history as one of the most incompetent bunch of corporate shills, full of failed ideologues, in no way represents me. I would be embarrased to say that a guy who said this represents me in any way:"
Oh, wait I WAS TALKING ABOUT YOU!!! Ha, isn't that funny, you're stupid AND a nutjob.
I'm pretty sure I asked nicely, but I'm assuming trolling is like crack for you, so I can understand I guess.
All I have to ask you, you dim-witted inbred mistake of nature, is "what happens in 2008?"
New government. So shut up now.
Yeah, you'd realize how hard it is and call IBM.
So instead of being beholden to the US government, you'd be beholden to IBM, who is beholden to the US government.
"Bet this argument would end quickly if we set up our own DNS servers"
Then do it. I doubt very seriously anyone would care, and they'd still have to connect to the current internet, because no business worth a crap would intentionally avoid the US market.
"The current government has nothing whatsoever to do with it."
Sorry, but I have to disagree STRONGLY.
The current government is indicative of what happens when a country's citizens are ignorant and apathetic. I believe the current goevernment is very much intertwined with the substance of "America" as much as any other group. They're just the bad side.
They violated 1441, specifically this part
" 1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;"
Now read this last bit VERY carefully
"33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);
34. Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area."
Seems pretty clear that by violating 1441, they failed to meet the terms of their cease fire. CEASE FIRE. It also appears 678 authorizes the use of force to "secure peace and security" in the area.
Have a nice day!
There's nothing better than ill-founded national pride! Man you screwed this one up good.
Anaesthesia- Humphry Davy (CORNISH by the way, how close is that to scotland?) is credit with discovering the anaesthetic properties of laughing gas in 1795. I'm sure YOU were talking about James Young Simpson, but his use of Chloroform happened 50 years later. Even worse though, ether was being used already by the time Simpson started using chloroform. OOPS!
Telephone- Antonio Meucci. Italian. Philipp Reis (German) constructed a working telephone 15 YEARS before Bell stole it. OOPS!
Television- From wiki "in 1911, Boris Rosing and his student Vladimir Kosma Zworykin achieved a television system that used a mechanical mirror-drum scanner to transmit, in Zworykin's words, "very crude images" over wires to the electronic Braun tube (cathode ray tube) in the receiver." Russians. OOPS!
Radar- Christian Huelsmeyer, German. OOPS!
I'm just having a bit of fun at your expense, but if you planned on busting the other guy's balls, you should have checked your facts first.
As they beg the UN to make the US help them.
You people always leave that part out, why is that?
"I said it was interesting and unusual. I didn't say it was incorrect."
I never said you did.
And as an aside, stop getting your panties in a bunch about what you percieve as my thought on this subject. You're embarassing yourself.
"They create a copy."
No, actually they take a copy from someone else and use it as a template. Without the ability to TAKE the information to create a copy, you would have NOTHING TO COPY.
You need to bruch up a bit on your rhetoric.
And lighten up, you seem like a colossal asshole.
"The US contributes almost nothing to the UN." Perhaps, but you've contributed EXACTLY nothing to this discussion. Oh, and you're lying.
"People here spouting Fuck Em comments about the UN should ask themselves why they identify so much with their government."
Because that's who i pay taxes to, and that's who is accountable to me.
Blather on all you want, if my government screws up they have to answer to me.
Who does the UN answer to? If your answer is "your government" then why are we adding complexity?
PS trolls, please spare us your "your government doesn't represent you anymore" crap.
"The internet is now a key part of the infrastructure of many countries and no matter if you like it or not, nations don't like it when a critical part of their infrastructure is controlled by a foreign government"
It's not controlled by a foreign goevernment, it's controlled by an international corporation.
Since you decided to lie in the first paragraph of your post, I didn't read the rest.
I don't particularly care for liars, and I certainly don't bother to listen to them.
"That's an interesting use of the word 'taken'."
Yes, interesting AND correct. For examples, from dictionary.com
Take
"To get into one's possession by force, skill, or artifice,"
also
"To appropriate for one's own or another's use or benefit"
Both of these examples prove my definition correct. While there are many possible definitions, mine is perfectly acceptable.
And a question, how does one get so called "stolen" music if they don't take it? Do they have it sent to them? Does it magically appear on their computer? I think you see what I'm getting at here.
"The specific definition of theft (in English) is the dishonest appropriation of another's property with intent to deprive him or her of it permanently."
No, that's ONE definition of theft. Please don't try to generalize one definition of a word into the only definition of that word.
The most commone definitions I've seen refer back to stealing, and those definitions are often pretty broad.
Some examples
to steal (stole, stolen)
1. to take something from somebody against their will
2. to move, carry, or place surreptitiously
3. to get or effect surreptitiously or artfully (this is the one downloaders should be concerned about)
4. to draw attention unexpectedly in (an entertainment), especially by being the outstanding performer
5. to copy something without permission (He stole my credit card number.)(this one too)
6. (baseball) to advance safely to (another base) during the delivery of a pitch, without the aid of a base hit, walk, passed ball, or wild pitch
7. to move silently or secretly
Those are not my definitions. They are mostly from dictionary.com, with some from wiktionary as well.
I think the point people who are trying to turn this debate into a semantic game need to realize is that arguing that it is not "theft" is a stupid, unnecessary red herring, and is almost certainly false. Not because they aren't correct with their logic, but because the English language is so flexible. That flexibility allows for definitions of words where previously there were none, and for definitions of words that are often counter-intuitive.
Ultimately I don't care about pinning down what the process of downloading "stolen" music is called, but relying on the accuracy of the English language to win the debate for you is a pretty foolish thing to do.
"If it is intellectual property then it wasn't taken: The owner still has it."
Since we've decided to resort to pedantry, it was taken AND the owner still has it.
Now, since the definition of theft isn't "and by taking deprives the owner of use" your statement doesn't really hold.
"So, download MP3's -> lose your mother??"
No. They're not taking the kid away, it's much less sinister than that.
A GAL acts in the child's legal interests, often (usually) when the parent cannot be counted upon to do so.
I can't really understand the reasoning for asking for one here, but this is the RIAA, and worse yet, their attorneys, so reason may not have anything to do with do.
"I'm inclined to agree, but then why are PSP movie sales through the roof?"
They're not. You swallowed a marketing pitch disguised as news.
Go stand in the corner until you get your "silly corporate hype" detector working.
"After bending over backward, after being a loyal employee, this is the reward?"
No, the paycheck was the reward. Everything else should be considered a bonus.
Not that I think it's right mind you, but sometimes you have to come to terms with reality.
"Remember that little war in Iraq we're having, where we're just settling it?"
This is the dumbest attempt at insight I've ever seen. The situation in Iraq was STABLE. There was no potential threat, and certainly NOTHING on the order of WW3.
On the other hand, you have Taiwan, to which the US has already committed resources and support, actively pissing off CHINA in the stupidest little ways. NOT STABLE AT ALL.
It's funny that you try to comment of foreign policy, yet have no clue what the hell you're blathering about.
Please shut up and let the adults chat for a while. You'll learn something from us.
PS, in the future, when someone clearly more informed and intelligent than you (that would be me) tells you you're stupid, don't take that as an insult because of your fragile ego. It's true. You are stupid, and the sooner you accept it the better.
"Which deal would that be?"
The one that say "this is how this device works, if you don't like it don't buy it."
If your fat slut of a wife was too stupid to do any research, then it's her fault for being an imbecile (which explains why she married an asshat like you)
"Sometimes it's gets pretty stupid around here"
"You've done your part to make sure of that."
Yes, I got people like you to come up with idiotic, twisted, half thought out justifications of why it's a company's fault that you bought something you don't like, even though you KNEW EXACTLY WHAT YOU WERE GETTING. (by the way, THAT'S the deal, genius)
And if you didn't know, it's STILL your fault because you were too lazy and complacent to do any research.
Stop trying to blame the company. They told you what you were getting.
"The kind that are afraid of 600 nuclear tipped missiles 100 miles off their borders. It's not cowardess, it's sensible"
Two things, China wouldn't use nukes, because of Taiwan's proximity and the potential outrage of the world, and not doing what you think is right because you are afraid of the consequences is COWARDICE. I'm sure cowards all over would agree with you, but that's not saying much.
If they want it, there's a price. Being afraid to pay it, no matter the rationalization, is STILL BEING AFRAID TO PAY IT.
But we know now which side your bias is on.
"The majority of the Taiwanese, if they believed they could declare themselves independent without total destruction of them and their land, would do so in a heartbeat."
This begs the question, what kind of cowards aren't willing to defend their freedom with their lives?
Why is it that every time this subject comes up (what to call Taiwan) the Chinese get hammered, and the Taiwanese get a pass?
Memo to Taiwan
If you don't like the current political climate, then settle the issue. I don't care HOW, just settle it. If you don't want to be part of China, then man up and say so. Fight if it comes to it. You'll know you'll lose though, which is why you don't try it.
The truth is, Taiwan has played the US as suckers in this. Sure, the US has a stake, but this is really a Taiwan vs. China issue, and should be dealt with as such.
And as an aside, it REALLY pisses me off that such an insignifcant blip is the focus of so much US military attention. Is Taiwan REALLY important enough to go to war with China over?
"Thus the question over DRM remains: should we be policed by our own property?"
Well, since it's only your property if you choose to buy it, then YES. Not because it's right or fair, but because YOU ACCEPTED THE DEAL.
If you don't like it, don't buy it in the first place.
"So much for the "do no evil" schtick, huh?"
Ok, so what is "evil" about this?
Is it that they call the country by a different name than they want? Is that the evil you are referring to?
Or are you another of those people whose definition of evil is "anything that Google does that I can call evil and get modded up for"?
WHAT EVIL?
"Yes, and it's legal and moral to defend rapists and corrupt politicians, because they have legal rights too, but we talk here about priorities"
So, the attorneys of the world should take only the cases that appeal to them, and leave the distasteful defendants to make their own way?
What exactly are you prioritizing there? That your belief in MS's guilt regarding anti-competitive practices trumps your responsibility to the law, and the people who rely on you and people like you to uphold that law?
You honestly believe ONE COMPANY is that important?
Well, I don't and it's a good thing there are many others like me, and very few like you.
Well, it's a good thing that wasn't what I said then isn't it.
I said
"I would like to modify the code, then release it as a closed source, proprietary product."
I am both MODIFYING it (did you miss that? are you a non-native english speaker?) and USING it (PRODUCT, implies that it is, well, a PRODUCT).
Now it's possible I misunderstood what you were trying to say, but that is entirely because you were so obtuse. If you have a valid, reasonable point, try again.