Ron Paul's a huge states-rights advocate who runs with the Libertarians, because they share the common goal of reducing the size of the Federal government, even though his views on state government are borderline tyrannical.
Do you have a reference for that? Nothing I've even seen in Ron Paul's voting record or stated positions are anything approaching 'tyrannical'.
1. I defy you to come up with a legitimately unregulated products market in the Industrialized world. I'll give you an illegitimate example, illicit drugs. Totally unregulated. Will I get a good fix this week? Will I get killed buying/selling/using? Maybe CDO's are a good example of a legally unregulated market and look where that's gotten us.
Illicit drugs is a ridiculous example. Making something illegal is the ultimate regulation and will obviously distort the market. The prohibition and subsequent legalisation of alcohol in the USA is a good case study for that.
2. What you also conveniently forget is economic history is full of examples of what ACTUALLY happens with unregulated markets. The market swiftly changes into a monopoly. End of story.
History's full of examples but you didn't provide even just one?
3. Do you like price fixing? How about collusion?
A truly free market allows for unlimited entry into the marketplace by competitors. Collusion that fixes prices at an unreasonable level encourages more competition, not less.
How about doctors and medicine that kill your loved ones.
That would be illegal under any society that believed in the rule of law. Do you believe that free market advocates also believe in the loss of individual rights? I didn't think so.
How about a house that doesn't fall down in a strong wind or earthquake? You like freeway bridges that stay up don't you?
Because government-owned bridges never fall down, right?
It's time for you and the jokers moderating you up to move out of your parent's basement and join the real world.
It's also time for free market haters to start considering that government intervention, whilst generally performed with the best of intentions, often doesn't turn out as expected.
No, he doesn't. Parodies are considered fair use under US copyright law and do not require licensing. Weird Al does tend to licence or get permission to do his parodies though as an act of good will (or possibly as preemptive legal protection if someone wanted to challenge the definition of 'parody'.)
Nobody would also want to make anything new ever again. The advancement of technologies would come to a halt. That is what he is trying to say. You are dodging the real issue here and you know it.
Why wouldn't anything new be made? Why would the ease of the duplication of all items duplication influence negatively on the desire to invent any one new item? Profiteering isn't the only reason to make something new, some people just like to invent stuff. Look at Linux.
With something like this your essentially eliminate the market economy and thus production will cease to exist. People would have little incentive to want to make anything new or improved because they would make no money off of it. They would have lost their job and live in an economy with no money or spare capitol to mess around with.
Why do they need spare capital anymore if everything is free to duplicate? Removing the profiteering perspective would actually encourage quality and pride in invention over marketability. Again, look at Linux.
Answering like you did is juvenile and you know it. I could say that people would replicate huge bombs and kill everyone too. That is not what he is trying to say. He communicated his point just fine to me, why are you so reluctant to see it? Because you know he is right.
I can't see how the GP is being childish; he's just not coming to the conclusion that you want him to come to.
+4 Interesting? I can't stand Howard either but this is just flamebait. The crappy state of broadband is a major national issue and within six months of a national election this is hardly a surprising announcement.
... what a fucking joke. Look, I can understand that the teachers feel they are being defamed - they certainly are - but some of the quotes illustrate why this is just an emotional reaction:
(From TFA) "It is clearly an absolute disgrace that people are anonymously able to make comments about teachers that are quite atrocious," she said.
So what? Why should someone's anonymous statement on some website mean anything to these teachers? Can't they just ignore it?
The quote from Jim McAlpine at the end of the article is an absolute disgrace and shows that he is completely out of touch with internet governance, or lack-thereof.
I'm sure Slashdotters will make plenty of disparaging comments towards Australians but this comes down to an irrational, emotional reaction by a small bunch of luddite fuckwits who should know better.
Mainly because that was the suggestion I was going to make.;) (Basically make new or recently edited external links nofollow until either a decent amount of time has passed or they're vetted by a trusted admin.)
from an Aussie dictionary. The narrator's an Aussie, using an American accent. It's not mispronunciation, it's just not the American pronunciation of those words. Patent and Methane with short vowel sounds would be considered mispronunciations here. It's an *Aussie* show, with American hosts and locations.
Don't knock it? The result of Webster's reforms was an unnecessary split between American English and 'International' English. I'm pretty sure most English-speaking countries outside of the US still spell those words 'colour' and 'programme'. Australians certainly do (although in the context of computers, 'program' is common... most likely due to the dominance of the USA in early computing.)
What moron modded up this obviously offtopic post? BTW, I love this kind of asinine reply to a flamebait-y post... "err, well America sucks but.. hmm, here's a problem in this other country!":)
...is such an idiot. I hear he's a free-market loving commie, socialist libertarian, china-loving, china-hating, m$-bashing, m$-astroturfing, linux-loving, bsd-loving, apple fanboi. He's such a contridiction that it's hard to believe he's one person.
Hehe, you should see the new ads they're showing over here (Australia, AKA USA's 51st state.)
Let's see, there's:
* Stoner girl runs over random person on street (they've made her eyes so red that she looks like she hasn't slept for several weeks)
* Young footballer drops a ball passed to him (noooo!)
* Young dude sits on bed shivering or something... it's unclear what the fuck they're trying to show in this one
* A couple of stoner dudes sitting on a couch at a party while their female friends wonder aloud what's become of them lately
* Some other inane scene that i've forgotten
It's so ridiculous that's it's fucking hilarious. It's ends with the slogan: "Marijuana: you don't know what it'll do to you." It should be, "Marijuana: we don't know what it'll do to you.":)
.. but in this case, it really depends on who is visiting your site. A lot (not sure of the exact proportion, but it's significant) of our web traffic (I work for an Australian Government department) comes from other staff of other government departments, and from staff in large businesses - both of which would be mainly using IE due to software management policies, desktop lockdown, etc.. My point? If you could somehow remove the data on visitors from the aforementioned organisations (not including *.gov.au would be a start), you would be left with a more accurate indication of Firefox takeup among users who actually have a choice in what browser they use. (BTW, this post is partially a rant - we're stuck with using IE here... grrrr;D)
I'm glad people copy'n'paste... I have restricted internet access at work, and this is the only way I can read a lot of these articles. Also, it helps to mitigate the/. effect and is basically more convenient for people reading slashdot. Assuming a link to the original story and the author's name is printed, I don't see any problem. That said, the site that it came from may have appreciated the traffic (for ad revenue, etc...)
I ought not be responding to anonymous trolls, but when I see it modded up Insightful, I have to wonder what the hell is going through the moderator's mind.
The OP's no longer modded insightful, but judging from your comment's current score, I think the "what the hell is going through the moderator's mind" question still stands.
Re:When libraries make the next revolutionary step
on
When Would You Accept DRM?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Now with DRM, one could devise a system where you had to "bring back your copy" before anybody else could check it out, therefore combining the digital advantage (speed, ease of use) with the library advantage (big selection, near-zero-price).
So, at least in this case, DRM can actually bring value to the people.
For fuck's sake, the only solution is to make it available to everyone, or don't publish the fucking thing online in the first place. I realise that your idea is perhaps the only one that copyright holders would consider, but it's still fucked. Digital information must be free (as in speech), especially library texts. Anything else is not only sub-optimal (why wait for someone to check back a digital book when you should be able to get it now?) but more importantly, unethical (why should people be deprived of sharing books that cost the copyright holder nothing to have propagated?) I really wish people could realise the potential of completely freeing digital information - DRM's sole purpose is to extend the control over distribution that megacorps currently have over tangible media (which is becoming less and less desired due to the flexibility and durability offered by digital content) to intangible media. /rant
Specifically, I'd like to see the temporary monopoly bit be clarified as applying specifically to wide-scale copying likely to affect commerical endeavors of the copyright holder. This still leaves messy edges, but ones I think easier to deal with the current system's mess.
Would there be messy edges? If the copyright infringer makes a profit from their infringement (eg pirate dvds being sold for $5 each in bulk) then copyright law should empower the copyright holder to sue the infringer for lost profit/revenue or whatever. If the infringer doesn't or can't make money (eg uploading/downloading from eMule) from their infringement then the law shouldn't provide the copyright holder with the right to go after the infringer (thus, removing the ability for the **AA to sue 12-year old P2P users.) I think the only grey areas are things like advertising revenue from p2p clients, which are being used to trade copyrighted works - however, based on recent legal history, companies like Sharman seem to getting away with it based on the fact that their clients can be used for legal purposes.
Re:Top 5 DVDs in my collection
on
Top 50 DVDs
·
· Score: 1
Hmm, I also bought some Princo ones online and they fucked up everytime.... until I started burning at 2X speed and they seemed to work OK. It's not really acceptable, but at least I can use the 50 that I bought....
Try going to a independent cinema some time, local band night, community theatre, etc., there's plenty of good shit out there that's not owned by the **AA. MOST movies at the major cinemas (and music on TV/Radio) is crap nowadays... And anyway, The Godfather and Dark Side of the Moon are over twenty years old, good luck seeing that kind of quality come from mass media any time soon.
(FTFA)
While they waited for a result to be returned, the bottom of the KMD was showing attendees in 21A that 2.1 million users were currently online sharing one billion, 176 million files.
Slashdot Mirror
Ron Paul's a huge states-rights advocate who runs with the Libertarians, because they share the common goal of reducing the size of the Federal government, even though his views on state government are borderline tyrannical.
Do you have a reference for that? Nothing I've even seen in Ron Paul's voting record or stated positions are anything approaching 'tyrannical'.
1. I defy you to come up with a legitimately unregulated products market in the Industrialized world. I'll give you an illegitimate example, illicit drugs. Totally unregulated. Will I get a good fix this week? Will I get killed buying/selling/using? Maybe CDO's are a good example of a legally unregulated market and look where that's gotten us.
Illicit drugs is a ridiculous example. Making something illegal is the ultimate regulation and will obviously distort the market. The prohibition and subsequent legalisation of alcohol in the USA is a good case study for that.
2. What you also conveniently forget is economic history is full of examples of what ACTUALLY happens with unregulated markets. The market swiftly changes into a monopoly. End of story.
History's full of examples but you didn't provide even just one?
3. Do you like price fixing? How about collusion?
A truly free market allows for unlimited entry into the marketplace by competitors. Collusion that fixes prices at an unreasonable level encourages more competition, not less.
How about doctors and medicine that kill your loved ones.
That would be illegal under any society that believed in the rule of law. Do you believe that free market advocates also believe in the loss of individual rights? I didn't think so.
How about a house that doesn't fall down in a strong wind or earthquake? You like freeway bridges that stay up don't you?
Because government-owned bridges never fall down, right?
It's time for you and the jokers moderating you up to move out of your parent's basement and join the real world.
It's also time for free market haters to start considering that government intervention, whilst generally performed with the best of intentions, often doesn't turn out as expected.
He still has to pay royalties to the song writer.
No, he doesn't. Parodies are considered fair use under US copyright law and do not require licensing. Weird Al does tend to licence or get permission to do his parodies though as an act of good will (or possibly as preemptive legal protection if someone wanted to challenge the definition of 'parody'.)
Nobody would also want to make anything new ever again. The advancement of technologies would come to a halt. That is what he is trying to say. You are dodging the real issue here and you know it.
Why wouldn't anything new be made? Why would the ease of the duplication of all items duplication influence negatively on the desire to invent any one new item? Profiteering isn't the only reason to make something new, some people just like to invent stuff. Look at Linux.
With something like this your essentially eliminate the market economy and thus production will cease to exist. People would have little incentive to want to make anything new or improved because they would make no money off of it. They would have lost their job and live in an economy with no money or spare capitol to mess around with.
Why do they need spare capital anymore if everything is free to duplicate? Removing the profiteering perspective would actually encourage quality and pride in invention over marketability. Again, look at Linux.
Answering like you did is juvenile and you know it. I could say that people would replicate huge bombs and kill everyone too. That is not what he is trying to say. He communicated his point just fine to me, why are you so reluctant to see it? Because you know he is right.
I can't see how the GP is being childish; he's just not coming to the conclusion that you want him to come to.
+4 Interesting? I can't stand Howard either but this is just flamebait. The crappy state of broadband is a major national issue and within six months of a national election this is hardly a surprising announcement.
... what a fucking joke. Look, I can understand that the teachers feel they are being defamed - they certainly are - but some of the quotes illustrate why this is just an emotional reaction:
(From TFA) "It is clearly an absolute disgrace that people are anonymously able to make comments about teachers that are quite atrocious," she said.
So what? Why should someone's anonymous statement on some website mean anything to these teachers? Can't they just ignore it?
The quote from Jim McAlpine at the end of the article is an absolute disgrace and shows that he is completely out of touch with internet governance, or lack-thereof.
I'm sure Slashdotters will make plenty of disparaging comments towards Australians but this comes down to an irrational, emotional reaction by a small bunch of luddite fuckwits who should know better.
Mainly because that was the suggestion I was going to make. ;) (Basically make new or recently edited external links nofollow until either a decent amount of time has passed or they're vetted by a trusted admin.)
*sigh*
/'meethayn/
/'paytnt/
methane
patent
from an Aussie dictionary. The narrator's an Aussie, using an American accent. It's not mispronunciation, it's just not the American pronunciation of those words. Patent and Methane with short vowel sounds would be considered mispronunciations here. It's an *Aussie* show, with American hosts and locations.
it never will be found a creature that is more than brute and less than human.
How do you know that?
And there's plenty more evidence for the non-existenance of evolution!
Do you mean you have evidence that can disprove the current Theory of Evolution? What is it?
so just score it nothing as usual
Huh? This is your first post!
nt
Cognos employees are known as Cognomen .
Cognoscenti are people who smell like employees of Cognos.
Don't knock it? The result of Webster's reforms was an unnecessary split between American English and 'International' English. I'm pretty sure most English-speaking countries outside of the US still spell those words 'colour' and 'programme'. Australians certainly do (although in the context of computers, 'program' is common... most likely due to the dominance of the USA in early computing.)
What moron modded up this obviously offtopic post? BTW, I love this kind of asinine reply to a flamebait-y post... "err, well America sucks but.. hmm, here's a problem in this other country!" :)
...is such an idiot. I hear he's a free-market loving commie, socialist libertarian, china-loving, china-hating, m$-bashing, m$-astroturfing, linux-loving, bsd-loving, apple fanboi. He's such a contridiction that it's hard to believe he's one person.
Hehe, you should see the new ads they're showing over here (Australia, AKA USA's 51st state.)
:)
Let's see, there's:
* Stoner girl runs over random person on street (they've made her eyes so red that she looks like she hasn't slept for several weeks)
* Young footballer drops a ball passed to him (noooo!)
* Young dude sits on bed shivering or something... it's unclear what the fuck they're trying to show in this one
* A couple of stoner dudes sitting on a couch at a party while their female friends wonder aloud what's become of them lately
* Some other inane scene that i've forgotten
It's so ridiculous that's it's fucking hilarious. It's ends with the slogan: "Marijuana: you don't know what it'll do to you." It should be, "Marijuana: we don't know what it'll do to you."
*head explodes*
.. but in this case, it really depends on who is visiting your site. A lot (not sure of the exact proportion, but it's significant) of our web traffic (I work for an Australian Government department) comes from other staff of other government departments, and from staff in large businesses - both of which would be mainly using IE due to software management policies, desktop lockdown, etc.. ;D)
My point? If you could somehow remove the data on visitors from the aforementioned organisations (not including *.gov.au would be a start), you would be left with a more accurate indication of Firefox takeup among users who actually have a choice in what browser they use.
(BTW, this post is partially a rant - we're stuck with using IE here... grrrr
I'm glad people copy'n'paste... I have restricted internet access at work, and this is the only way I can read a lot of these articles. Also, it helps to mitigate the /. effect and is basically more convenient for people reading slashdot. Assuming a link to the original story and the author's name is printed, I don't see any problem. That said, the site that it came from may have appreciated the traffic (for ad revenue, etc...)
I ought not be responding to anonymous trolls, but when I see it modded up Insightful, I have to wonder what the hell is going through the moderator's mind.
The OP's no longer modded insightful, but judging from your comment's current score, I think the "what the hell is going through the moderator's mind" question still stands.
Now with DRM, one could devise a system where you had to "bring back your copy" before anybody else could check it out, therefore combining the digital advantage (speed, ease of use) with the library advantage (big selection, near-zero-price).
/rant
So, at least in this case, DRM can actually bring value to the people.
For fuck's sake, the only solution is to make it available to everyone, or don't publish the fucking thing online in the first place. I realise that your idea is perhaps the only one that copyright holders would consider, but it's still fucked. Digital information must be free (as in speech), especially library texts. Anything else is not only sub-optimal (why wait for someone to check back a digital book when you should be able to get it now?) but more importantly, unethical (why should people be deprived of sharing books that cost the copyright holder nothing to have propagated?) I really wish people could realise the potential of completely freeing digital information - DRM's sole purpose is to extend the control over distribution that megacorps currently have over tangible media (which is becoming less and less desired due to the flexibility and durability offered by digital content) to intangible media.
Specifically, I'd like to see the temporary monopoly bit be clarified as applying specifically to wide-scale copying likely to affect commerical endeavors of the copyright holder. This still leaves messy edges, but ones I think easier to deal with the current system's mess.
Would there be messy edges? If the copyright infringer makes a profit from their infringement (eg pirate dvds being sold for $5 each in bulk) then copyright law should empower the copyright holder to sue the infringer for lost profit/revenue or whatever. If the infringer doesn't or can't make money (eg uploading/downloading from eMule) from their infringement then the law shouldn't provide the copyright holder with the right to go after the infringer (thus, removing the ability for the **AA to sue 12-year old P2P users.) I think the only grey areas are things like advertising revenue from p2p clients, which are being used to trade copyrighted works - however, based on recent legal history, companies like Sharman seem to getting away with it based on the fact that their clients can be used for legal purposes.
Hmm, I also bought some Princo ones online and they fucked up everytime.... until I started burning at 2X speed and they seemed to work OK. It's not really acceptable, but at least I can use the 50 that I bought....
Try going to a independent cinema some time, local band night, community theatre, etc., there's plenty of good shit out there that's not owned by the **AA. MOST movies at the major cinemas (and music on TV/Radio) is crap nowadays...
And anyway, The Godfather and Dark Side of the Moon are over twenty years old, good luck seeing that kind of quality come from mass media any time soon.
'Spiv' is British slang for a con-man. QC (Queen's Counsel) and SC(Senior Counsel) are British terms as well. Yes, we speak English here.
As an aside, Australians hate Foster's. That why we export it, to get it out of the fucking country.
But then again, who still uses Kazaa, anyway?
Quite a few people, it seems:
(FTFA) While they waited for a result to be returned, the bottom of the KMD was showing attendees in 21A that 2.1 million users were currently online sharing one billion, 176 million files.