The balance of copyright was broken by our corrupt Congress on the behalf of a cartoon mouse long before the spectre of digital copying reared its ugly head.
Since the public domain has been effectively curtailed by a spineless legislative body in return for healthy campaign donations from those groups who stand to profit from unlimited durations, I no longer recognize the balance of copyright.
If by some miracle, copyrights return to a reasonable span, I may find respect for the law again. Until then, if I can copy, I will. If the past is any judge, the law will change before society does.
It's fairly neutral, but notice that all three questions assume the existence of god. It only says that "God had not part." How about one that says "There is no God."
However, "evolution" with respect to the origin of life is a theory.
Evolution does not concern itself with the origin of life. Evolution is the fact that organisms reproduce, mutate, and change. Evolution by natural selection is an important biological theory that is widely midunderstood. Abiogenesis is the theory that life on earth came from primordial ooze, and it has a lot less evidence for it than does evolution. This does not mean that is it neccessarily incorrect.
Of course, many theists just lump them all together because they are either confused or deceptive.
Or perhaps you aren't understanding what I am saying.
Possible, but unlikely.
I would refrain from alcohol if I were at a Moslem wedding, for instance, or at a Hindu ceremony I would refrain from beef. But niether Moslem nor Hindu would expect one not of their faith to refrain from these things ordinarily , nor would they wage war against them for that reason.
Strange, I didn't think that Slashdot had some Christian significance where it would be appropriate to nod to Christian customs.
These examples aren't comparable to deliberately mis-using a sacred name of God. Apples and Oranges...
Ah, I see. It's because your taboo is much more important than their taboo. So much so that it applies in all public fora
What I describe above is a pattern any sensible non-believer would follow, in my opinion, if he didn't want to get into unnecessary trouble.
Nice, a veiled threat. "Do what it says in the book, and there won't be any trouble." Very Christian.
After all, free-speech isn't a sacred princple, particularly not when compared to the principle of Truth, to which free-speech is supposed to be in service.
You are free to worship in any way you choose, but do not think for a second that declaring something "sacred" according to your religion gives it any status to non-believers or non-christian theists. Religion is simply a manifestation of free speech, not some superior version of it. The truths that religions provide are reflections of what we wish as humans to be true, not things as they truly are.
Anyway, I hope you don't mind but I don't feel that a correspondence between yourself and myself would be much fun, considering your previous comments. bye.
Probably so. We'd just keep talking past each other. I just have to get the last word.
I hate to say it but you are telling me what I was saying.
That's because you apparently aren't listening to what you're saying.
I specifically said that this is an issue of respect, not of forcing belief or following anothers rules etc etc.
But the way we should "respect" your religion is by following its commandments? Do you abstain from alchohol to be "respectful" to Muslims? Do you avoid beef to be "respectful" to Hindus? How is asking others not to take the Lord's name in vain any different?
I wasn't asking for respect for my beliefs. I was asking for respect for the fact that people believe, and in this case to do that by not abusing free speech.
Actually, you were asking someone to avoid taking the "Lord's" name in vain, which is a practice specific to the Christian religion. Asking others to avoid using that name is akin to asking them to follow your religious precepts, which is offensive to many people. Remove the log from your own eye first.
GPLv3 doesn't force hardware makers to create open boxes. It forces them to create open boxes in return for the licensed use of free software. Otherwise, the requirement that the software and any modifications remain modifiable is unenforceable.
In mathematics. there is 'no such number.' I'm saying there is in reality, and that mathematics has too narrow a scope to acknowledge such a numbers existance.
No. Numbers exist and are defined only through mathematics. You haven't found a number that exists in reality but not in mathematics. What you are saying is literally meaningless and therefore not in need of explanation.
I'm saying that reality can accept a value that mathematics can't such as an inifninte number of zeros with a trailing one.
Really, then would you enlighten us and tell us what that value would be? Perhaps you could write it down for us? You're talking about standing on an infinite plane and looking for the edge. (hint: there is none) It's called sophistry.
I love Bruce Sterling's books, but as far as I'm concerned, owning a powerbook and writing for Wired are two really good reasons to exclude him from a geek list.
Plus, the Illuminatus Trilogy is way too low in that list.
Any violations of the Geneva convention (assuming guilty before convicted here of course as the media does) are jumped upon by our media and dealt with sternly by the military brass.
Except that the POTUS has declared that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the non-uniformed enemy combatants that we're currently fighting, and had the US Attorney General make a legal argument to bolster that position. Since there is no state signatory to the Geneva Convention backing the insurgency, he may be correct. I personally feel, having been in the military, that we should hold ourselves to the higher standard, regardless.
That's like saying that the.tv TLD shouldn't have been made because all tv shows would have to be moved to it.
FYI the.tv domain has existed as long as the country codes have. It's the country code for Tuvalu, not a new TLD for television-related websites. It's a small country with a very sluggish economy so they decided to sell domain names using their country code. Pretty clever really.
It's a shame that his life-long dream has never come to fruition, but a similar and simpler one has taken over the globe. It must be incredibly frustrating.
The world needs good ideas, but good ideas do nothing by themselves. Imagining something brings it partially into existence in the sense that ideas are the mother of every action, but implmentation and execution are required for any real result.
My early experience in these many projects across the media board made me extremely confident as a designer and media innovator, and led me to recognize at once the potential of the computer screen and hypertext publishing even long before I saw a computer screen. It was this background that gave me an auteurist, lone film-maker's perspective on how software should be developed- as a branch of cinema and under the visionary supervision of a director who controls all aspects.
I see, he wants to be the "visionary director" and leave the "light-work" of building a robust, scalable, and secure system to the "tekkies". I think it would be a shame if his project were implemented, since it would almost certainly fall short of his vision and dissapoint him terribly. At least it's safe while it's in his head.
Nearly all countries control their top level domain servers already. There's some current confusion about who will administer.iq (Iraq), but that's a special case obviously. This is mostly UN whining about control of the.com and.net domains.
People not understanding the DNC law was the biggest annoyance we got. You'd be amazed. Almost nobody understands what the hell it does. I just can't fathom why you would sign up for something without having any idea what the fuck you're signing up for.
Like the vast majority of US citizens understand even a tiny fraction of the law. What they do understand is that they wanted to be on the "Do Not Call" list...because they don't want to be called for solicitations. Now why is that so hard for telemarketers to understand? Just because special interests put all sorts of restrictions on it doesn't change the manner in which they want it to work.
At my previous employer, they required a 8+ character password with a numeral, a special character, an uppercase letter, a lowercase letter, and each password had to be >30% different from any of the passwords you'd used in the previous year. That last requirement made sequencing impossible and just making a new password pretty damn hard.
I concur. When you look at how much we're relieved of responsibility when it comes to child-rearing, you can probably understand why. In the past, people were much more fearful of getting pregnant before they could support a child. Today, we have so many welfare doles available, it amazes me that we don't have MORE children.
Well, I'm not sure that this statement reflects the world's history too well. Before the effects of the industrial revolution were felt worldwide, couples would try to have as many offspring as they possibly could since they could only expect one out of three of their children to survive to adulthood. Children were free labor in an agricultural society, and the only "social security" people had as they aged. Also, once you'd had several children, they would help raise their siblings.
Somehow I think the first amendment trumps your right to travel down a particular street. According to your logic all protests are illegal because they all involve a group of people walking down the street "disrupting" your right to go to a funeral.
No, people walking down the street protesting are using the street and I have no problem with peaceful protest at all. The ones who get my ire are the "black-block" kids who set up roadblocks, chain themselves to each other in front of doorways, smash storefronts and generally disrupt people as much as possible.
well with people like you we are a day closer to fascism aren't we.
Yes, when the people's right to blockade highways and private property is infringed, it's always facism.
First of all, I think free speech zones are completely contrary to the principles that this country was founded on and that they should be eliminated
However, your comment is very common among the protest movement. As if shoppers were the only people to use the public roads. What about the people who are...
...heading to their chemotherapy?
...going to an important job interview?
...rushing their laboring wife to the hospital?
...going to a funeral?
...trying to catch a plane?
...etc...etc...ad nauseum...
Nope, in the protester's mind, it's always shoppers, as if shopping were a terrible crime in and of itself. However, people use public roads for the listed purposes every day. Also, blocking a public road will only inconvenience one person if you block state rd #43 in bum-fuck Idaho. Blocking any street in Seattle will inconvenience hundreds. You have the right to protest the government for a redress of grievances. You do not have the right to restrict other people's freedom of movement. Blocking public streets and buildings is a crime, and I applaud when those protesters are removed and arrested.
Slashdot Mirror
The balance of copyright was broken by our corrupt Congress on the behalf of a cartoon mouse long before the spectre of digital copying reared its ugly head.
Since the public domain has been effectively curtailed by a spineless legislative body in return for healthy campaign donations from those groups who stand to profit from unlimited durations, I no longer recognize the balance of copyright.
If by some miracle, copyrights return to a reasonable span, I may find respect for the law again. Until then, if I can copy, I will. If the past is any judge, the law will change before society does.
Looks fairly non-leading to me.
It's fairly neutral, but notice that all three questions assume the existence of god. It only says that "God had not part." How about one that says "There is no God."
However, "evolution" with respect to the origin of life is a theory.
Evolution does not concern itself with the origin of life. Evolution is the fact that organisms reproduce, mutate, and change. Evolution by natural selection is an important biological theory that is widely midunderstood. Abiogenesis is the theory that life on earth came from primordial ooze, and it has a lot less evidence for it than does evolution. This does not mean that is it neccessarily incorrect.
Of course, many theists just lump them all together because they are either confused or deceptive.
Or perhaps you aren't understanding what I am saying.
Possible, but unlikely.
I would refrain from alcohol if I were at a Moslem wedding, for instance, or at a Hindu ceremony I would refrain from beef. But niether Moslem nor Hindu would expect one not of their faith to refrain from these things ordinarily , nor would they wage war against them for that reason.
Strange, I didn't think that Slashdot had some Christian significance where it would be appropriate to nod to Christian customs.
These examples aren't comparable to deliberately mis-using a sacred name of God. Apples and Oranges...
Ah, I see. It's because your taboo is much more important than their taboo. So much so that it applies in all public fora
What I describe above is a pattern any sensible non-believer would follow, in my opinion, if he didn't want to get into unnecessary trouble.
Nice, a veiled threat. "Do what it says in the book, and there won't be any trouble." Very Christian.
After all, free-speech isn't a sacred princple, particularly not when compared to the principle of Truth, to which free-speech is supposed to be in service.
You are free to worship in any way you choose, but do not think for a second that declaring something "sacred" according to your religion gives it any status to non-believers or non-christian theists. Religion is simply a manifestation of free speech, not some superior version of it. The truths that religions provide are reflections of what we wish as humans to be true, not things as they truly are.
Anyway, I hope you don't mind but I don't feel that a correspondence between yourself and myself would be much fun, considering your previous comments. bye.
Probably so. We'd just keep talking past each other. I just have to get the last word.
I hate to say it but you are telling me what I was saying.
That's because you apparently aren't listening to what you're saying.
I specifically said that this is an issue of respect, not of forcing belief or following anothers rules etc etc.
But the way we should "respect" your religion is by following its commandments? Do you abstain from alchohol to be "respectful" to Muslims? Do you avoid beef to be "respectful" to Hindus? How is asking others not to take the Lord's name in vain any different?
I wasn't asking for respect for my beliefs. I was asking for respect for the fact that people believe, and in this case to do that by not abusing free speech.
Actually, you were asking someone to avoid taking the "Lord's" name in vain, which is a practice specific to the Christian religion. Asking others to avoid using that name is akin to asking them to follow your religious precepts, which is offensive to many people. Remove the log from your own eye first.
Not to mention that one of the most famous applications of game theory was to determine the possible outcomes of nuclear brinksmanship.
GPLv3 doesn't force hardware makers to create open boxes. It forces them to create open boxes in return for the licensed use of free software. Otherwise, the requirement that the software and any modifications remain modifiable is unenforceable.
"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."
In mathematics. there is 'no such number.' I'm saying there is in reality, and that mathematics has too narrow a scope to acknowledge such a numbers existance.
No. Numbers exist and are defined only through mathematics. You haven't found a number that exists in reality but not in mathematics. What you are saying is literally meaningless and therefore not in need of explanation.
I'm saying that reality can accept a value that mathematics can't such as an inifninte number of zeros with a trailing one.
Really, then would you enlighten us and tell us what that value would be? Perhaps you could write it down for us? You're talking about standing on an infinite plane and looking for the edge. (hint: there is none) It's called sophistry.
Yeah, like...totally!
Yeah, I'm sure Linus just hates the GPL.
Linus: Even with 20/20 hindsight, I consider the linux copyright to be one of the very best design decisions I ever did ...
I'm so glad that you can enjoy the benefits of Linux without regard for the license that makes it possible without any cognitive dissonance.
Man, if you're not a paid government astroturfer, you should really apply for a position. You're overqualified by half.
I love Bruce Sterling's books, but as far as I'm concerned, owning a powerbook and writing for Wired are two really good reasons to exclude him from a geek list.
Plus, the Illuminatus Trilogy is way too low in that list.
Any violations of the Geneva convention (assuming guilty before convicted here of course as the media does) are jumped upon by our media and dealt with sternly by the military brass.
Except that the POTUS has declared that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the non-uniformed enemy combatants that we're currently fighting, and had the US Attorney General make a legal argument to bolster that position. Since there is no state signatory to the Geneva Convention backing the insurgency, he may be correct. I personally feel, having been in the military, that we should hold ourselves to the higher standard, regardless.
Please, don't forget to include the $150 purchase price of Windows XP, since there's no way in hell that this will be available on Linux.
That's like saying that the .tv TLD shouldn't have been made because all tv shows would have to be moved to it.
FYI the .tv domain has existed as long as the country codes have. It's the country code for Tuvalu, not a new TLD for television-related websites. It's a small country with a very sluggish economy so they decided to sell domain names using their country code. Pretty clever really.
It's a shame that his life-long dream has never come to fruition, but a similar and simpler one has taken over the globe. It must be incredibly frustrating.
The world needs good ideas, but good ideas do nothing by themselves. Imagining something brings it partially into existence in the sense that ideas are the mother of every action, but implmentation and execution are required for any real result.
My early experience in these many projects across the media board made me extremely confident as a designer and media innovator, and led me to recognize at once the potential of the computer screen and hypertext publishing even long before I saw a computer screen. It was this background that gave me an auteurist, lone film-maker's perspective on how software should be developed- as a branch of cinema and under the visionary supervision of a director who controls all aspects.
I see, he wants to be the "visionary director" and leave the "light-work" of building a robust, scalable, and secure system to the "tekkies". I think it would be a shame if his project were implemented, since it would almost certainly fall short of his vision and dissapoint him terribly. At least it's safe while it's in his head.
If '50s science fiction movies are any guide, there's nothing that the Mars-Men want more than to breed with our women.
If they turn out to be inaccurate in some small detail, then my whole life has been a lie.
Yes, but these copies are digital. Diiiiiigggiiitallll!!!
Nearly all countries control their top level domain servers already. There's some current confusion about who will administer .iq (Iraq), but that's a special case obviously. This is mostly UN whining about control of the .com and .net domains.
People not understanding the DNC law was the biggest annoyance we got. You'd be amazed. Almost nobody understands what the hell it does. I just can't fathom why you would sign up for something without having any idea what the fuck you're signing up for.
Like the vast majority of US citizens understand even a tiny fraction of the law. What they do understand is that they wanted to be on the "Do Not Call" list...because they don't want to be called for solicitations. Now why is that so hard for telemarketers to understand? Just because special interests put all sorts of restrictions on it doesn't change the manner in which they want it to work.
At my previous employer, they required a 8+ character password with a numeral, a special character, an uppercase letter, a lowercase letter, and each password had to be >30% different from any of the passwords you'd used in the previous year. That last requirement made sequencing impossible and just making a new password pretty damn hard.
I concur. When you look at how much we're relieved of responsibility when it comes to child-rearing, you can probably understand why. In the past, people were much more fearful of getting pregnant before they could support a child. Today, we have so many welfare doles available, it amazes me that we don't have MORE children.
Well, I'm not sure that this statement reflects the world's history too well. Before the effects of the industrial revolution were felt worldwide, couples would try to have as many offspring as they possibly could since they could only expect one out of three of their children to survive to adulthood. Children were free labor in an agricultural society, and the only "social security" people had as they aged. Also, once you'd had several children, they would help raise their siblings.
Somehow I think the first amendment trumps your right to travel down a particular street. According to your logic all protests are illegal because they all involve a group of people walking down the street "disrupting" your right to go to a funeral.
No, people walking down the street protesting are using the street and I have no problem with peaceful protest at all. The ones who get my ire are the "black-block" kids who set up roadblocks, chain themselves to each other in front of doorways, smash storefronts and generally disrupt people as much as possible.
well with people like you we are a day closer to fascism aren't we.
Yes, when the people's right to blockade highways and private property is infringed, it's always facism.
First of all, I think free speech zones are completely contrary to the principles that this country was founded on and that they should be eliminated
However, your comment is very common among the protest movement. As if shoppers were the only people to use the public roads. What about the people who are...
Nope, in the protester's mind, it's always shoppers, as if shopping were a terrible crime in and of itself. However, people use public roads for the listed purposes every day. Also, blocking a public road will only inconvenience one person if you block state rd #43 in bum-fuck Idaho. Blocking any street in Seattle will inconvenience hundreds. You have the right to protest the government for a redress of grievances. You do not have the right to restrict other people's freedom of movement. Blocking public streets and buildings is a crime, and I applaud when those protesters are removed and arrested.