He is just returning the favor to his dark lord by delivering the web name of his arch nemesis to him. After all, had he even a shred of morality in him, he would not have done what he did and he would be a poor middle class person earning an 'honest' living instead of living the good life.
It makes perfect sense, seen in the right light. If you mug someone and take their copy, no new copies are made and the publisher has no 'lost revenues.' Since no [fictional] person of consequence has any of their federally guaranteed profits taken away, it's not such a big deal; however, deprivation of guaranteed profits is a very serious offense which is very seriously punished.
The police share some blame too. They have substantial leeway into what they prosecute and what they ignore. For example, in the USA people get over 20 years in jail and are branded terrorists for non-violent crimes against corporate polluters, but willful neglect leading to mass manslaughter (a felony crime), as in the case of FEMA and New Orleans, gets a pat on the back. Both are crimes, but in one case an already draconian law is applied to the letter, while in the other case a moderate and reasonable law goes completely unenforced.
Throw it into a wood stove - and hope that no toxic inks or bleach is used in the production of said paper, for your neighbors' sake.
For a more environmentally benign method of destruction, pulp it, and if you have no use for low grade ink contaminated paper pulp, you can always put it out in the recycling with your newspapers.
I just looked it up in the game, and it is indeed from the game. That line is quoted as being said by 'Pravin Lal,' while things the game quotes from outside sources are referred to as 'datalinks.'
I would second that. I would peg it at 25-50% of the people I know personally wanting abolition, and nearly 100% in favor of at least some reforms. The ones complaining that the DMCA is too soft are the ones in the minority, as I don't personally know a single person who would support that.
Personally, it's a law that causes me plenty of pain for no gain. I boycott whole industries because they royally piss me off. Even if I wasn't such a rule follower and didn't mind bootlegging, the brainwashing and marketing that goes with big media oligopolies is too much for me to bear. I would love nothing more than to see the big copyright industries (music, movies, software, TV, books, etc) utterly destroyed and replaced by a democratic and non-corporate system.
A good pair of binoculars will get your the power consumption of most residents. They're in public view on the power meters.
In my opinion, it should be public info, especially the consumption of politicians (particularly ones claiming to be green) and companies. After all, electricity hogs have a knack for triggering blackouts and raising utility rates to pay for new infrastructure.
As an educator, I must say that I'm quite opposed to most uses of computers/TVs/projectors/etc in the classroom. While interactive math games might be good for memorization (the least important part of learning, in my opinion), it's useless for teaching using other paradigms such as the Socratic Method (my personal favorite) or facilitative teaching (the paradigm preached by my public school system).
Also, unless you have both the source code and plenty of time on your hands, it takes control of the curriculum out of the hands of the teacher and school and puts it in the hands of the company doing the programming and politicians. Somehow I fear there will poor messages in the material, such as commercialism, materialism, sexism, ageism, and other ideas that are often pushed in commercial kids TV (and TV in general), among many other concerns that occur when either career politicians or private businesses are involved.
What if I wish my work to be used as widely and broadly as possible? Heck, what if I just want to resubmit something I did for another class again? In my book, that's perfectly moral.
"Technically, it's illegal to take a fact without citing it."
Most certainly not, and how do you cite a fact. g is about 9.8 m/s^2 because it is so, not because Newton says so. Now written material, like a paragraph taken from one of Newton's books, must be cited to avoid plagiarism, though AFAIK that is just a University rule and a moral rule, not a legal requirement.
Uranium is currently about 5% of the operating costs of a nuclear reactor. 400% wouldn't have much of an effect (it would go to 25% of operating costs for one-time through, negligible cost for breeders), but 40,000% would be a deal breaker, even with breeding.
It would be hard with a speaker, but a gram or so of gunpowder will do the trick. Mix it with bits of flint or sand, wrap it in a tissue, and throw. It won't do any damage other than a small burn mark where you hit, but it will make a big bang.
I certainly agree that they waste money. With all the resources wasted protecting out of town Republicans, the war on drugs (another neocon favorite), and the war on terror (yet another neocon ploy), the police department and the associated jail system is a huge money pit.
Still, the city isn't overflowing in cash. The waste gets paid for by shafting the parts of city government that actually do useful work and by jacking taxes up through the roof. At our tax rates and with our density (higher density areas are cheaper to provision), one would expect gold-plated government services. Instead we have underpaid teachers, overcrowded schools, worsening public housing, state sponsored gambling (lottery), poorly managed mass transit, and gobs of advertisements on city property (including in schools) among other complaints.
In the case for construction, it's so corrupt that we have added almost no subway mileage in over 50 years despite there being several good places where a new line would pay for itself, were there not so much corruption. The 'airtrain' that was built a few years back cost over $1B for a several mile stretch of elevated light rail with perhaps 1/10th the capacity of a standard subway line (only 2 narrow gauge cars vs. 8+ wide gauge cars for our normal subways).
Violent extremists are actually quite rare at protests. I've never seen an incident personally. Even with the violence that does happen, a lot of it is done or egged on by undercover cops.
The ruling class and, to a lesser extent, their petty bourgeoisie servants are the ones who benefit. In this case, the petty bourgeoisie servants are the police and spies paid to do the snooping with other people's money.
I'm not so sure. My best estimate is that running anti-virus software would increase the risk of hacking, at least in the case of Linux. There aren't exactly many Linux viruses (and none that I know of loose in the wild), and anti-virus software, which is proprietary, is a real easy way to get something like Magic Lantern or any other approved virus/trojan on your system.
Well, I would argue that most porn is sexist and very stereotypical. Still, there is this little issue of free speech, and banning every sexist or stereotyped TV show would leave you with little more than PBS (and even then, not the whole lineup ).
From Wiktionary: plagiarism is "the copying of someone's ideas, text or other creative work and claiming it as one's own." Ghostwriting most definitely is plagiarism and it is allowed by copyright law.
The only reason you may be sued if you plagiarize without permission is that doing so requires that you make a copy of the work. In other words, it has nothing to you plagiarizing, but with you making an unauthorized copy.
Since plagiarism is a crime against the reader, not the publisher, I consider this to be far more than a semantic difference.
Plagiarism is quite different than copyright. It is legal to plagiarize, and big companies do it very often (it's generally known as ghost writing). Copyright infringement is illegal.
It just so happens that my moral view on it is reversed, with plagiarism being wrong, and copyright being the law I would like to see gotten rid of.
The library at every school I've ever been to is closed at night and has pretty limited hours. P2P can be done by sneakernet, but actual research is going to be nearly impossible if you aren't a good enough planner to have relevant books on hand (and knowing me, that's usually the case).
Even $12,500 for a patent is enough to discourage an individual inventor without major financial backing. That's more than my annual personal budget.
For a big company, it could be $1M a patent and it would still be worthwhile, though perhaps they would only get a few hundred instead of a few thousand a year.
The first world deserves a good share of the blame for the third world's population explosion. After all, Christianity and Islam forbid family planning and contraception while encouraging women to have many children. First kick out the missionaries, and then with good family planning and good health, I'm confident that the third world birth rates would fall under replacement level, just like in the first world.
Slashdot Mirror
He is just returning the favor to his dark lord by delivering the web name of his arch nemesis to him. After all, had he even a shred of morality in him, he would not have done what he did and he would be a poor middle class person earning an 'honest' living instead of living the good life.
It makes perfect sense, seen in the right light. If you mug someone and take their copy, no new copies are made and the publisher has no 'lost revenues.' Since no [fictional] person of consequence has any of their federally guaranteed profits taken away, it's not such a big deal; however, deprivation of guaranteed profits is a very serious offense which is very seriously punished.
The police share some blame too. They have substantial leeway into what they prosecute and what they ignore. For example, in the USA people get over 20 years in jail and are branded terrorists for non-violent crimes against corporate polluters, but willful neglect leading to mass manslaughter (a felony crime), as in the case of FEMA and New Orleans, gets a pat on the back. Both are crimes, but in one case an already draconian law is applied to the letter, while in the other case a moderate and reasonable law goes completely unenforced.
Throw it into a wood stove - and hope that no toxic inks or bleach is used in the production of said paper, for your neighbors' sake.
For a more environmentally benign method of destruction, pulp it, and if you have no use for low grade ink contaminated paper pulp, you can always put it out in the recycling with your newspapers.
I just looked it up in the game, and it is indeed from the game. That line is quoted as being said by 'Pravin Lal,' while things the game quotes from outside sources are referred to as 'datalinks.'
I would second that. I would peg it at 25-50% of the people I know personally wanting abolition, and nearly 100% in favor of at least some reforms. The ones complaining that the DMCA is too soft are the ones in the minority, as I don't personally know a single person who would support that.
Personally, it's a law that causes me plenty of pain for no gain. I boycott whole industries because they royally piss me off. Even if I wasn't such a rule follower and didn't mind bootlegging, the brainwashing and marketing that goes with big media oligopolies is too much for me to bear. I would love nothing more than to see the big copyright industries (music, movies, software, TV, books, etc) utterly destroyed and replaced by a democratic and non-corporate system.
A good pair of binoculars will get your the power consumption of most residents. They're in public view on the power meters.
In my opinion, it should be public info, especially the consumption of politicians (particularly ones claiming to be green) and companies. After all, electricity hogs have a knack for triggering blackouts and raising utility rates to pay for new infrastructure.
As an educator, I must say that I'm quite opposed to most uses of computers/TVs/projectors/etc in the classroom. While interactive math games might be good for memorization (the least important part of learning, in my opinion), it's useless for teaching using other paradigms such as the Socratic Method (my personal favorite) or facilitative teaching (the paradigm preached by my public school system).
Also, unless you have both the source code and plenty of time on your hands, it takes control of the curriculum out of the hands of the teacher and school and puts it in the hands of the company doing the programming and politicians. Somehow I fear there will poor messages in the material, such as commercialism, materialism, sexism, ageism, and other ideas that are often pushed in commercial kids TV (and TV in general), among many other concerns that occur when either career politicians or private businesses are involved.
What if I wish my work to be used as widely and broadly as possible? Heck, what if I just want to resubmit something I did for another class again? In my book, that's perfectly moral.
"Technically, it's illegal to take a fact without citing it."
Most certainly not, and how do you cite a fact. g is about 9.8 m/s^2 because it is so, not because Newton says so. Now written material, like a paragraph taken from one of Newton's books, must be cited to avoid plagiarism, though AFAIK that is just a University rule and a moral rule, not a legal requirement.
Uranium is currently about 5% of the operating costs of a nuclear reactor. 400% wouldn't have much of an effect (it would go to 25% of operating costs for one-time through, negligible cost for breeders), but 40,000% would be a deal breaker, even with breeding.
It would be hard with a speaker, but a gram or so of gunpowder will do the trick. Mix it with bits of flint or sand, wrap it in a tissue, and throw. It won't do any damage other than a small burn mark where you hit, but it will make a big bang.
"What if Coke sued you because you bought a Pepsi?"
It's already happened in a way. Coke paid a school to have an official Coke day and a student was suspended for wearing a Pepsi tee shirt to school.
"Students today need more courses in ethics."
If that's the case, go after the real stuff - stuff that philosophers discuss, not the stuff that's illegal only because of special interest lobbying.
I certainly agree that they waste money. With all the resources wasted protecting out of town Republicans, the war on drugs (another neocon favorite), and the war on terror (yet another neocon ploy), the police department and the associated jail system is a huge money pit.
Still, the city isn't overflowing in cash. The waste gets paid for by shafting the parts of city government that actually do useful work and by jacking taxes up through the roof. At our tax rates and with our density (higher density areas are cheaper to provision), one would expect gold-plated government services. Instead we have underpaid teachers, overcrowded schools, worsening public housing, state sponsored gambling (lottery), poorly managed mass transit, and gobs of advertisements on city property (including in schools) among other complaints.
In the case for construction, it's so corrupt that we have added almost no subway mileage in over 50 years despite there being several good places where a new line would pay for itself, were there not so much corruption. The 'airtrain' that was built a few years back cost over $1B for a several mile stretch of elevated light rail with perhaps 1/10th the capacity of a standard subway line (only 2 narrow gauge cars vs. 8+ wide gauge cars for our normal subways).
Violent extremists are actually quite rare at protests. I've never seen an incident personally. Even with the violence that does happen, a lot of it is done or egged on by undercover cops.
The ruling class and, to a lesser extent, their petty bourgeoisie servants are the ones who benefit. In this case, the petty bourgeoisie servants are the police and spies paid to do the snooping with other people's money.
"That would shake things up quite a bit (for better or for worse)!"
It would be for the worse, as every company will move to Delaware of some other tax haven depriving every other state of income.
I'm not so sure. My best estimate is that running anti-virus software would increase the risk of hacking, at least in the case of Linux. There aren't exactly many Linux viruses (and none that I know of loose in the wild), and anti-virus software, which is proprietary, is a real easy way to get something like Magic Lantern or any other approved virus/trojan on your system.
Well, I would argue that most porn is sexist and very stereotypical. Still, there is this little issue of free speech, and banning every sexist or stereotyped TV show would leave you with little more than PBS (and even then, not the whole lineup ).
From Wiktionary: plagiarism is "the copying of someone's ideas, text or other creative work and claiming it as one's own." Ghostwriting most definitely is plagiarism and it is allowed by copyright law.
The only reason you may be sued if you plagiarize without permission is that doing so requires that you make a copy of the work. In other words, it has nothing to you plagiarizing, but with you making an unauthorized copy.
Since plagiarism is a crime against the reader, not the publisher, I consider this to be far more than a semantic difference.
Plagiarism is quite different than copyright. It is legal to plagiarize, and big companies do it very often (it's generally known as ghost writing). Copyright infringement is illegal.
It just so happens that my moral view on it is reversed, with plagiarism being wrong, and copyright being the law I would like to see gotten rid of.
The library at every school I've ever been to is closed at night and has pretty limited hours. P2P can be done by sneakernet, but actual research is going to be nearly impossible if you aren't a good enough planner to have relevant books on hand (and knowing me, that's usually the case).
Even $12,500 for a patent is enough to discourage an individual inventor without major financial backing. That's more than my annual personal budget.
For a big company, it could be $1M a patent and it would still be worthwhile, though perhaps they would only get a few hundred instead of a few thousand a year.
The first world deserves a good share of the blame for the third world's population explosion. After all, Christianity and Islam forbid family planning and contraception while encouraging women to have many children. First kick out the missionaries, and then with good family planning and good health, I'm confident that the third world birth rates would fall under replacement level, just like in the first world.