Not charged with anything except joining terrorist orgs, supporting tyrannical regimes, and attempting to kill American, Canadian, English, etc. troops. If I was in charge and there was no Geneva convention, I'd have hung half those m0f0's up by their balls until they die, and I'd take the other half, give 'em a Gauntlet and take $100 per head for anyone wanting to play the most realistic Quake 3 multiplayer. It'd give new F'N meaning to "LAN Party".
I assume you're talking about the detainees in Cuba. I'm also pretty sure the original poster was talking about arabs living here in the US on visa, which actually have not been charged with anything. See this cnn story for the latest.
I'm also disapointed to see that, just like the terrorists, you lack basic respect for human life.
Speaking of blocking that site...i tried going there, and got a message 'No website configured at this address.' I'm on comcast. Can other people not on comcast get to it?
I'd hate to learn that they are filtering a connection i'm paying for. If i found out thats the case, i'll have to cancel my account.
Sanatize? No. But a parent should not have to worry about objectional content coming in, unwanted and unrequested, into their children's email. It's not like these kids went surfing to hotsloppysluts.com, they just opened their email.
Do we let children play in the street. Why? Because there is a high probability they will be hit.
Well right now, there's a high probability they will get porn spam in thier email box. So parents, in my mind, have two options. Montior their kids (ie, sitting right there with them), or dont' let them have an email address. Either is acceptable. And don't tell me a 9 year old NEEDS an email; thats just bunk.
Yes, parents SHOULD supervise their kids surfing habbits, but they shiouldn't have to moniter their email as well!
Um, why? Thats like saying they should make sure the kid doesn't burn themself in the kitchen, but they don't have to make sure the kid isn't playing with a knife. Why should parents montior one, and not the other?
And shit, I don't want ads for craptastic porn stolen from giffgirls, or penis enlargers, or hot sloppy russian sluts and all other sorts of fouls crap in my mailbox! If I want buy a spleen enlarger I'll go searching for one!
I agree. I wasn't saying spamming was moral or any such thing. Personally i think they have no right to email / call / snail mail advertisements, for the same reason you state. I am smart enough to find this crap should i want it. But that wasn't the issue i had a problem with, it was the statement that parents shouldn't have to montior what their kids are doing on the internet.
I understand your point, but they don't "force" you to listen to anything. You open and read the mail by choice.
i have to click on it to delete it. That opens it with the email program i'm using.
The cost of bandwidth argument is moot in my opinion (at least for those of us in the U.S)
Maybe, maybe not. Either way it still takes time for me to sort junk from the non-junk. My time is valuable, and they are wasting it.
But think of this. Spam email takes a significat amount of resources as it goes through the internet. Some estimates say that 70% of traffic is caused by spam. Thats alot of bandwidth. Maybe ISPs wouldn't need to constantly add bandwidth in turn charing you more if we elimiated the spam completely. It would free exisiting resources for things people really do want to do on the internet. So maybe bandwidth isn't as moot as you'd like to believe.
Sorry for the typo. At any rate, yes the Constitution specifically talks about copyright. Have you ever read the damn thing? Doubtful, and its doubtful those law books you say disagree with me really do. I doubt you read those either. Idiot.
Copyright infringment is NOT theft. They are distinct things. Try picking up some law books (and perhaps the Constition).
I would be wicked pissed if my clients decided to not pay for code I wrote for them because they just stole it from me instead.
Code you wrote for them. That implies to me that there is not an off the shelf solution and that they are paying you to write something custom for thier particular problem. So its doubtful they could steal something from you short of hacking into your network. Also, in the end you'll probably be giving them the source code, especialy if you work for an internet company like I do where there isn't really any escaping that. Usually, once they have it they can do as they please with it, except resell it. But what they can and cannot do is decided BEFORE we do any work for the client, and is clearly spelled out in our contract.
And should they break the contract, well tahts breaking a contract. But even that would not be 'theft' even if they chose to resell it when we did not agree to it.
Which in turn is moot since you can set marketing prefs to never have a popup ad when the aol client signs on. I've done this for family memebers, and they have not had an aol client pop up in 5+ years.
Of course, all three parties do want digital and HD. I guess this is where the government steps in...
If all three parties want it, why is no one trying to get it? I personally am happy with tv the way it is. Digital cable (which isn't really digital) has a clear enough picture for me.
The problem is that lots of people do biggie size their order when asked if they want to by a clerk/salesperson. Suggestive selling works, which is why most retail and food chains use it extensively.
Well i used to ask for biggie sizing when i wanted before they started asking me before i finish telling them. So for me personally, its just an annoyance, i know beforehad if i want that done or not. But perhaps it is just me.
No, they are not responsible, but once i say no once, drop it.
His reaction may have been over the top, but somewhat understandalbe. Especially if she wasn't giving him his card back.
What bugs me about it is this; I came to the store knowing what i wanted, if i had wanted to biggie size the combo (or whatever) i am smart enough to tell them myself. Its annoying when ordering something to be constanly interupted. Plus in the confusion of them constantly interupted, they screw up the order. Ask me those questions after i've told you what i want; i can always change my mind if i like what they have to say.
It is not good manners to take my hypothetical case and suggest that I am incompetent, or wish to oppress others.
In this case, the person buying the expensive sofware has paid for some exclusivity of sorts.
I really don't know how to reconsile your statements. Paying for exlusivity? Sounds like a class system. It also seems to go against the American dream of starting with nothing and building a personal fortune.
If your hypothetical case, the poor would never be able to get your kind of (assumingly) well paying job because they could never afford the tools to do so (and pirating them should be wrong). That smacks of oppression. what else would you call it? I only see it as an attempt to keep poor people poor (by denying education) and the rich people rich.
I personally don't care if someone pirates something and learns a skill; i am confident enough in my abilities to know that i could compete with him for a job. It seems to me thats what you fear, and logically leads me to the conclusion that you think you are incompetent. Also from your view of this, i think its safe to say you are, because your parents were wealthy enough to buy you a complier or photoshop or whatever. Its been my experience that children of parents with wealth usually end up spoiled, lazy, and trying to protect the status quo by throwing money around.
it costs nothing to replicate, but sometimes it costs millions of dollars to actually CREATE software such as adobe photoshop.
Yes, thats why we need a new model for this sort of thing. Why don't i just try to sell the light from the sun? That'd be rather foolish, wouldn't it?
Then lets see you "create" the movie the matrix at your house, or how about the new creed album?
I probably could, although it would take much longer. As far as the creed album goes...well there are thousands of bands, and alot of them are good. So i could give a shit if creed never made another album.
Cars are not data, and cannot be copied with almost no cost. So you obviously missed the point of my post.
With your scenario, the car company spends all that engineering money, and gets paid how?
Thats exactly my point. The whole system would need to be revamped. A replicator would significatly alter our world, just as the internet and computers have done in the data realm.
If you make an unauthorized copy of a Ferrari, you are reducing the value of the cars owned by people who bought the legit ones.
Yes, but again such technology would require rethinking the system. Ferrari's would only be valued because people like how it performs / looks compared to other available models. But economically it would be valueless. And thats not such a bad thing. If we could clone cars, we could probably do it for just about anything, and economics would become mostly useless. So we would need other motivations to produce things. Thats what 'content' providers need to figure out. Of course its more difficult b/c only content is being effected in this way.
I do not think it is fair that some kid (who cannot afford the program) can use an unauthorized copy of the program to compete with me.
Sounds like you want to keep certain people down, and hope to rise to the top. Or perhaps you don't have much skill, and your only hope is that this kid who has talent will be kept from using it b/c he can't afford the tools. That doesn't sound like captialism to me. Remember it works both ways; companies compete with each other for our dollars, but we compete with each other for jobs. If you can't hack it b/c some kid that learned to do your trade better off of priated software, maybe you should go find another profession.
What have they lost if you wouldn't have paid for it to begin with? How does something that can be copied for insignificate cost equate to a sizable loss?
Need is never a valid claim? Not even if someone is stealing to feed their family? Thats not the case here, but you paint with a broad stroke.
Do the rest of us a favour, and stay in the "USA". Please.
I must say i find your gross ignorance apalling. You seem to sugest that all americans feel the same as the one you were replying to. Thats not the case at all. I sure as hell would be trashed (and rightfully so) for saying that all french are cowards.
Please don't generalize americans like that. Yes my country has made its share of mistakes, but so has every other one. There are good and evil people in this country, just as tehre are in every other one.
What if i had a device to clone the Stratus (a la star trek)? Have i stolen anything? I didn't buy the car from them, but they aren't missing it either. And if such technology did exist, wouldn't it make such matters irrelevent since we can produce cars effortlessly and with little cost?
Such technology does not exist for cars, but it does for sound, video and other data. Data can be cloned endlessly, thus it has no value. So why are we artifically trying to keep something scarce that we can copy endlessly?
I agree. I was just talking about the mod chip however. Selling the pirated games is another matter, and i'm suprised that the article glossed over that to say that he was selling mod chips as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Not charged with anything except joining terrorist orgs, supporting tyrannical regimes, and attempting to kill American, Canadian, English, etc. troops. If I was in charge and there was no Geneva convention, I'd have hung half those m0f0's up by their balls until they die, and I'd take the other half, give 'em a Gauntlet and take $100 per head for anyone wanting to play the most realistic Quake 3 multiplayer. It'd give new F'N meaning to "LAN Party".
I assume you're talking about the detainees in Cuba. I'm also pretty sure the original poster was talking about arabs living here in the US on visa, which actually have not been charged with anything. See this cnn story for the latest.
I'm also disapointed to see that, just like the terrorists, you lack basic respect for human life.
Speaking of blocking that site...i tried going there, and got a message 'No website configured at this address.' I'm on comcast. Can other people not on comcast get to it?
I'd hate to learn that they are filtering a connection i'm paying for. If i found out thats the case, i'll have to cancel my account.
In the early seasons he was annoying, but in the later ones i thought he was much better.
So, when is my phone bill going to drop?
Sanatize? No. But a parent should not have to worry about objectional content coming in, unwanted and unrequested, into their children's email. It's not like these kids went surfing to hotsloppysluts.com, they just opened their email.
Do we let children play in the street. Why? Because there is a high probability they will be hit.
Well right now, there's a high probability they will get porn spam in thier email box. So parents, in my mind, have two options. Montior their kids (ie, sitting right there with them), or dont' let them have an email address. Either is acceptable. And don't tell me a 9 year old NEEDS an email; thats just bunk.
Yes, parents SHOULD supervise their kids surfing habbits, but they shiouldn't have to moniter their email as well!
Um, why? Thats like saying they should make sure the kid doesn't burn themself in the kitchen, but they don't have to make sure the kid isn't playing with a knife. Why should parents montior one, and not the other?
And shit, I don't want ads for craptastic porn stolen from giffgirls, or penis enlargers, or hot sloppy russian sluts and all other sorts of fouls crap in my mailbox! If I want buy a spleen enlarger I'll go searching for one!
I agree. I wasn't saying spamming was moral or any such thing. Personally i think they have no right to email / call / snail mail advertisements, for the same reason you state. I am smart enough to find this crap should i want it. But that wasn't the issue i had a problem with, it was the statement that parents shouldn't have to montior what their kids are doing on the internet.
I understand your point, but they don't "force" you to listen to anything. You open and read the mail by choice.
i have to click on it to delete it. That opens it with the email program i'm using.
The cost of bandwidth argument is moot in my opinion (at least for those of us in the U.S)
Maybe, maybe not. Either way it still takes time for me to sort junk from the non-junk. My time is valuable, and they are wasting it.
But think of this. Spam email takes a significat amount of resources as it goes through the internet. Some estimates say that 70% of traffic is caused by spam. Thats alot of bandwidth. Maybe ISPs wouldn't need to constantly add bandwidth in turn charing you more if we elimiated the spam completely. It would free exisiting resources for things people really do want to do on the internet. So maybe bandwidth isn't as moot as you'd like to believe.
Thats right, parents shouldn't have to montior thier children at all. We should sanatize everything for the children.
I take issue with the screening comment. I hate spam probably more then anyone. But saying that parents shouldn't have to parent pissed me off too.
Even if the spam was political, and it didnt cost you money to listen, i would argue they still have no right to force you to listen.
Sorry for the typo. At any rate, yes the Constitution specifically talks about copyright. Have you ever read the damn thing? Doubtful, and its doubtful those law books you say disagree with me really do. I doubt you read those either. Idiot.
Copyright infringment is NOT theft. They are distinct things. Try picking up some law books (and perhaps the Constition).
I would be wicked pissed if my clients decided to not pay for code I wrote for them because they just stole it from me instead.
Code you wrote for them. That implies to me that there is not an off the shelf solution and that they are paying you to write something custom for thier particular problem. So its doubtful they could steal something from you short of hacking into your network. Also, in the end you'll probably be giving them the source code, especialy if you work for an internet company like I do where there isn't really any escaping that. Usually, once they have it they can do as they please with it, except resell it. But what they can and cannot do is decided BEFORE we do any work for the client, and is clearly spelled out in our contract.
And should they break the contract, well tahts breaking a contract. But even that would not be 'theft' even if they chose to resell it when we did not agree to it.
I won't buy something b/c i liked a commerical, but i will NOT buy something if it irritated me enough that i remembered it.
Which in turn is moot since you can set marketing prefs to never have a popup ad when the aol client signs on. I've done this for family memebers, and they have not had an aol client pop up in 5+ years.
Of course, all three parties do want digital and HD. I guess this is where the government steps in...
If all three parties want it, why is no one trying to get it? I personally am happy with tv the way it is. Digital cable (which isn't really digital) has a clear enough picture for me.
I am still amazed that the industry didn't start using LS120's
You mean so we can have more data accessed at the same speed as the floppy, thus taking longer (possibly)?
The problem is that lots of people do biggie size their order when asked if they want to by a clerk/salesperson. Suggestive selling works, which is why most retail and food chains use it extensively.
Well i used to ask for biggie sizing when i wanted before they started asking me before i finish telling them. So for me personally, its just an annoyance, i know beforehad if i want that done or not. But perhaps it is just me.
No, they are not responsible, but once i say no once, drop it.
His reaction may have been over the top, but somewhat understandalbe. Especially if she wasn't giving him his card back.
What bugs me about it is this; I came to the store knowing what i wanted, if i had wanted to biggie size the combo (or whatever) i am smart enough to tell them myself. Its annoying when ordering something to be constanly interupted. Plus in the confusion of them constantly interupted, they screw up the order. Ask me those questions after i've told you what i want; i can always change my mind if i like what they have to say.
It is not good manners to take my hypothetical case and suggest that I am incompetent, or wish to oppress others.
In this case, the person buying the expensive sofware has paid for some exclusivity of sorts.
I really don't know how to reconsile your statements. Paying for exlusivity? Sounds like a class system. It also seems to go against the American dream of starting with nothing and building a personal fortune.
If your hypothetical case, the poor would never be able to get your kind of (assumingly) well paying job because they could never afford the tools to do so (and pirating them should be wrong). That smacks of oppression. what else would you call it? I only see it as an attempt to keep poor people poor (by denying education) and the rich people rich.
I personally don't care if someone pirates something and learns a skill; i am confident enough in my abilities to know that i could compete with him for a job. It seems to me thats what you fear, and logically leads me to the conclusion that you think you are incompetent. Also from your view of this, i think its safe to say you are, because your parents were wealthy enough to buy you a complier or photoshop or whatever. Its been my experience that children of parents with wealth usually end up spoiled, lazy, and trying to protect the status quo by throwing money around.
it costs nothing to replicate, but sometimes it costs millions of dollars to actually CREATE software such as adobe photoshop.
Yes, thats why we need a new model for this sort of thing. Why don't i just try to sell the light from the sun? That'd be rather foolish, wouldn't it?
Then lets see you "create" the movie the matrix at your house, or how about the new creed album?
I probably could, although it would take much longer. As far as the creed album goes...well there are thousands of bands, and alot of them are good. So i could give a shit if creed never made another album.
Cars are not data, and cannot be copied with almost no cost. So you obviously missed the point of my post.
With your scenario, the car company spends all that engineering money, and gets paid how?
Thats exactly my point. The whole system would need to be revamped. A replicator would significatly alter our world, just as the internet and computers have done in the data realm.
If you make an unauthorized copy of a Ferrari, you are reducing the value of the cars owned by people who bought the legit ones.
Yes, but again such technology would require rethinking the system. Ferrari's would only be valued because people like how it performs / looks compared to other available models. But economically it would be valueless. And thats not such a bad thing. If we could clone cars, we could probably do it for just about anything, and economics would become mostly useless. So we would need other motivations to produce things. Thats what 'content' providers need to figure out. Of course its more difficult b/c only content is being effected in this way.
I do not think it is fair that some kid (who cannot afford the program) can use an unauthorized copy of the program to compete with me.
Sounds like you want to keep certain people down, and hope to rise to the top. Or perhaps you don't have much skill, and your only hope is that this kid who has talent will be kept from using it b/c he can't afford the tools. That doesn't sound like captialism to me. Remember it works both ways; companies compete with each other for our dollars, but we compete with each other for jobs. If you can't hack it b/c some kid that learned to do your trade better off of priated software, maybe you should go find another profession.
Indeed, it is. A man stealing to feed his family and doesn't have another way to do it is not wrong.
What have they lost if you wouldn't have paid for it to begin with? How does something that can be copied for insignificate cost equate to a sizable loss?
Need is never a valid claim? Not even if someone is stealing to feed their family? Thats not the case here, but you paint with a broad stroke.
Do the rest of us a favour, and stay in the "USA". Please.
I must say i find your gross ignorance apalling. You seem to sugest that all americans feel the same as the one you were replying to. Thats not the case at all. I sure as hell would be trashed (and rightfully so) for saying that all french are cowards.
Please don't generalize americans like that. Yes my country has made its share of mistakes, but so has every other one. There are good and evil people in this country, just as tehre are in every other one.
What if i had a device to clone the Stratus (a la star trek)? Have i stolen anything? I didn't buy the car from them, but they aren't missing it either. And if such technology did exist, wouldn't it make such matters irrelevent since we can produce cars effortlessly and with little cost?
Such technology does not exist for cars, but it does for sound, video and other data. Data can be cloned endlessly, thus it has no value. So why are we artifically trying to keep something scarce that we can copy endlessly?
I agree. I was just talking about the mod chip however. Selling the pirated games is another matter, and i'm suprised that the article glossed over that to say that he was selling mod chips as well.
So i guess we should just be good citizens and not try to fight unjust laws.
The nice thing about the law is that if they are out of skew we can change them. So in the end, no the law doesn't matter.