Should there be a law against free-market lawyers?
Well, justice is supposed to be in the public domain. Not some proprietary system owned by a bunch of "crazy baldheads". The people who pay taxes for this system are the ones that should benefit. We are supposed to have a right to a fair trial. It shouldn't just go to the highest bidder. But...such is life.
A better one would be, "Do you rent a car and then keep it?" or "Do you rent a movie at Blockbuster and then crow manaiacally about 'sticking it to da man' because you have no intention of ever returning it?
That's not a better analogy at all. A better one would be if you rented the car and made a perfect copy(dents and all) and then returned the original. You, like too many others, are trying to tell us that making copies means losing the original, or some such nonsense.
...we should happily put the content on whatever device we want and then agree to the rental terms.
Why should agree to something so arbitrary? If they don't want me to see it, then they should keep it to themselves. How many friends should I be allowed to invite over before it becomes a public performance? IP law deserves no respect whatsoever. It's not about protecting property. It's about exclusive control that nobody should be allowed to have. It is censorship.
Anyway, when Bush comes into office, with a business background, 'fudging the numbers' is not cool...(especially since Enron had Bush in their pocket...)...
Very confusing...Considering Bush's "business" background, I wouldn't trust him to run a lemonade stand.
Only when accompanied by a few hundred milliamperes. Otherwise that 20,000 volt jolt of static you get from touching the door knob would knock you down dead.
about the jerk who always tailgates for that extra microsecond. It's the weird attitude of not letting anybody ahead of you that makes it impossible to move about freely. It's very simple. Leave adequate space in front of you and the jam-ups will disappear. Follow too close, and you deserve whatever happens. Leave three seconds!
that the internet had a very robust Department of Redundancy Department. Shouldn't this be a wake up call to all of us that if you want reliable internet, you have to break it free from the corporate mono culture that it and all of our present day communication infrastructure suffers from? Start with good wireless, perhaps? If we don't, you will soon see intentional shutdowns. And on another note, the people who make all of the equipment that makes the internet work and all of your computers and such belong to a pretty exclusive club. They can shut you down PDQ also. As far as expanding our freedoms, the whole internet thing is turning out to be one big disappointment. It is almost as tightly controlled as all the other mass communication technologies we have. Unless your machine gets smashed by falling debris, you should be able to network to other computers no matter where they are. Maybe the internet works just fine for DoD, but for the rest of us, it's no better than Ma Bell's phone service.
You mean to say that none of them run in Darwin? How 'bout X11? I have found the unix that comes with a mac to be fairly complete and would wager that most unix programs will run "right out of the box"(as unix programs go...). Does TeX come in a box?
However, from a deteriministic viewpoint, everything all-time has already been determined.
Maybe from a quantum viewpoint everything all-time already happened. There is no past. There is no future. So why worry about what you're going to do if you've already done it?
What about Snoopy?? He was a WWl ace, an author, a world traveler, multi-lingual, a real lady's man(dog?) and he could do cool tricks with his dog food dish.
...but at least we retain the power to remove the party from office...
But we dare not use it lest we suffer the consequences, like having that power removed. And at this point, the country is effectively under one party rule. It just answers to two different names. Any attempt to remove it from power will not bring the desired results. I would love to be proven wrong.
When one party claims dominance and owns the system so thoroughly that they become entrenched, then we'll have lost.
The most common name is "republicrats" or is it "demicons"? Either way they are indeed thoroughly entrenched, maybe so deeply that we can bury them alive.
Well, unfortunately, morality isn't very profitable these days. So don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. The customers are every bit as corrupt as the businesses they buy from, and they're just as corrupt as the politicians they vote for.
there must be a check & balance sort of situation available for this.
There is. The three branches of economy are:
1) Seller 2) Buyer 3) Money
All must agree to complete the transaction. And guess what? The buyer has all the marbles. If the seller wants the buyers money, he must convince him to give it up. The problem is that the buyers are too easy. If you want to keep shoddy (shady) products off the streets, don't buy them. It doesn't get much simpler than that. Don't argue with the seller, do what you can to educate the buyers. If they don't go along, well, then you're SOL. There is no doubt that buyers can control the market.
You must have taken a survey to verify your claim that..there is little if any evidence that today's widespread infringement has yet reached "majority" status, nor anywhere near it. Or did you just pull that out of your butt? Or maybe the evidence isn't widely known, or just being ignored? Next you're going to tell me that hardly anybody smokes weed? Just because you might not be aware of it? Well, I don't know anybody who doesn't. May I assume that everybody smokes weed? Give it up, man. Your gravy train is running out of track.
Slashdot Mirror
Should there be a law against free-market lawyers?
Well, justice is supposed to be in the public domain. Not some proprietary system owned by a bunch of "crazy baldheads". The people who pay taxes for this system are the ones that should benefit. We are supposed to have a right to a fair trial. It shouldn't just go to the highest bidder. But...such is life.
A better one would be, "Do you rent a car and then keep it?" or "Do you rent a movie at Blockbuster and then crow manaiacally about 'sticking it to da man' because you have no intention of ever returning it?
...we should happily put the content on whatever device we want and then agree to the rental terms.
That's not a better analogy at all. A better one would be if you rented the car and made a perfect copy(dents and all) and then returned the original. You, like too many others, are trying to tell us that making copies means losing the original, or some such nonsense.
Why should agree to something so arbitrary? If they don't want me to see it, then they should keep it to themselves. How many friends should I be allowed to invite over before it becomes a public performance? IP law deserves no respect whatsoever. It's not about protecting property. It's about exclusive control that nobody should be allowed to have. It is censorship.
Anyway, when Bush comes into office, with a business background, 'fudging the numbers' is not cool...(especially since Enron had Bush in their pocket...)...
Very confusing...Considering Bush's "business" background, I wouldn't trust him to run a lemonade stand.
Two hours from Heathrow to Gatwick seems like a bit much.
450 volts is quite enough to kill.
Only when accompanied by a few hundred milliamperes. Otherwise that 20,000 volt jolt of static you get from touching the door knob would knock you down dead.
Was something clicking in the backs of their heads warning them that they may be torturing real humans instead of electronic simulations?
Who knows? maybe they were. Let's see if any of the guys over there in Guantanamo have any new scars.
People get naked and do it, ho hum. Check out this other one where... Um... People get naked and do it, ho hum.
Actually, it's more like, "Wow! I've never seen the cat jump that high."
about the jerk who always tailgates for that extra microsecond. It's the weird attitude of not letting anybody ahead of you that makes it impossible to move about freely. It's very simple. Leave adequate space in front of you and the jam-ups will disappear. Follow too close, and you deserve whatever happens. Leave three seconds!
that the internet had a very robust Department of Redundancy Department. Shouldn't this be a wake up call to all of us that if you want reliable internet, you have to break it free from the corporate mono culture that it and all of our present day communication infrastructure suffers from? Start with good wireless, perhaps? If we don't, you will soon see intentional shutdowns. And on another note, the people who make all of the equipment that makes the internet work and all of your computers and such belong to a pretty exclusive club. They can shut you down PDQ also. As far as expanding our freedoms, the whole internet thing is turning out to be one big disappointment. It is almost as tightly controlled as all the other mass communication technologies we have. Unless your machine gets smashed by falling debris, you should be able to network to other computers no matter where they are. Maybe the internet works just fine for DoD, but for the rest of us, it's no better than Ma Bell's phone service.
It is very, very common for people to step right in front of a Prius because it is so quiet.
There ought to be a law!
So if I cross a rookie with a newbie, will I get some nookie? or just a ruby?
You mean to say that none of them run in Darwin? How 'bout X11? I have found the unix that comes with a mac to be fairly complete and would wager that most unix programs will run "right out of the box"(as unix programs go...). Does TeX come in a box?
However, from a deteriministic viewpoint, everything all-time has already been determined.
Maybe from a quantum viewpoint everything all-time already happened. There is no past. There is no future. So why worry about what you're going to do if you've already done it?
Is that the one where they tied a piece of buttered toast to his back to see how he would land when thrown off the roof?
What about Snoopy?? He was a WWl ace, an author, a world traveler, multi-lingual, a real lady's man(dog?) and he could do cool tricks with his dog food dish.
...but at least we retain the power to remove the party from office...
But we dare not use it lest we suffer the consequences, like having that power removed. And at this point, the country is effectively under one party rule. It just answers to two different names. Any attempt to remove it from power will not bring the desired results. I would love to be proven wrong.
When one party claims dominance and owns the system so thoroughly that they become entrenched, then we'll have lost.
The most common name is "republicrats" or is it "demicons"? Either way they are indeed thoroughly entrenched, maybe so deeply that we can bury them alive.
...a standard would be nice.
Lots of standards would be even nicer.
Well, unfortunately, morality isn't very profitable these days. So don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. The customers are every bit as corrupt as the businesses they buy from, and they're just as corrupt as the politicians they vote for.
With all the frivolous litigation going on, about the only way to effectively and economically guard against it is to move offshore.
there must be a check & balance sort of situation available for this.
There is. The three branches of economy are:
1) Seller
2) Buyer
3) Money
All must agree to complete the transaction. And guess what? The buyer has all the marbles. If the seller wants the buyers money, he must convince him to give it up. The problem is that the buyers are too easy. If you want to keep shoddy (shady) products off the streets, don't buy them. It doesn't get much simpler than that. Don't argue with the seller, do what you can to educate the buyers. If they don't go along, well, then you're SOL. There is no doubt that buyers can control the market.
You need to find some mules with voices to nip this in the bud before it goes any further.
How about a couple of burros loaded up on Tequila?
You must have taken a survey to verify your claim that ..there is little if any evidence that today's widespread infringement has yet reached "majority" status, nor anywhere near it. Or did you just pull that out of your butt? Or maybe the evidence isn't widely known, or just being ignored? Next you're going to tell me that hardly anybody smokes weed? Just because you might not be aware of it? Well, I don't know anybody who doesn't. May I assume that everybody smokes weed? Give it up, man. Your gravy train is running out of track.
...there is little if any evidence that today's widespread infringement has yet reached "majority" status, nor anywhere near it.
Yeah, I'm sure everybody answered perfectly honestly the little survey you took as evidence for that statement.
You'll just have to make better use of your feet. (Hey, if a guy with no arms can play the guitar for the pope...) Or just wait for FDA approval of some direct brain link device.
It was never released. Was there ever a Windows 2.0?...
...
...
D'oh!