I personally don't feel I should jump through the RIAA's security hoops if I want to share information. Because that's what P2P lets you do, share information. It doesn't matter if that information is a song or a book or kiddy porn or a funny picture or a program or my homework or whatever. The current interpretation of free speech includes the transfer of information even if it's not spoken.
This law is trying to let people sue the company for the actions of the customer. I don't care if it's a gun maker, the guy who sold you a duel tape deck, it doesn't matter. The customers actions are the customers responcibility.
That is truly sad. But the logic is somewhat lacking. I would say that because of drunk driving the casualities due to alcohaul probably exceed that of drugs, but alcohaul is still legal. Besides that, the article was about a book, the fact that it glorifies drugs is no better or worse then glorifying any other decision people make in their lives. People are free to make their own choices.
I think they can both be toys for ameusement. But they certainly need to be handled with care by people who no what they're doing. They're not something you joke around with, and they're not something you're casual about. But if you're safe and informed then both can be fun. (preferably not at the same time though.... that would certainly violate the 'safe' stipulation... lol)
I actually do get trails occasionally when I'm tired (and I know what the real thing looks like, so they are trails). It is possible to get them when not doing drugs.
Also, I'm not an expert (or even knowledgable) on the subject. But I've heard it said that LSD flashback aren't chemical reactions, they're in the same vien as the flashbacks that war veterans have. Obviously LSD flashbacks aren't allways debilitating and emotionally destructive like war flashbacks are (although I suppose with a signifigantly bad trip they can be), but they are the same mental mechanism of your mind reliving an emotionally charged memory.
But again, I'm not an expert, that's what I've been told. It seems plausable to me and came from a reliable source, but I'm not sure if it's 100% true or not.
The probability of an asteriod hitting doesn't compare to the probability of you using the same sequence as another composer. There only a limited number of notes. When you let people copyright things that aren't complex the chance of an unintended collision rises exponentially. The system can't handle that, so the system fails. The probability of you specifically getting into trouble is very low, but the probability of someone getting into trouble is encredibly high.
The bitch of it is that alot of companies use the 1,000 measurement so they can baost a higher storage capacity, so even when it's laid out nicely in MB for you, you still can't trust it.
Yes, but there isn't an infinite number of items. Human IQ scores (not possible scores, but actual ones) top out somewhere in the 300's. With millions of people in the country it's guaranteed that scores will be shared.
And what about wanted individuals? Giving out their name may well be incriminating, yet they can now be arrested for it. So yes, it does violate self incrimination.
Your opinion about whether it is "unforgivably humiliating them" is worth worth sweet f.a. As is mine, as is anyone's other than the person who feels they have been humiliated or cheated.
That is my point exactly. You're still centering your argument about the fact that they might find their career harmed. Which makes your argument a complete and utter falacy. If they feel the joke will in any way harm their career they're free to not sign the waver.
As for time being wasted. Fine, I'm sure you're right, there are probably people out there who will feel that the payment isn't sufficient once they realize the true nature of the show. But I personally don't think that wasting one day out of your life is such a disastrous event and I doubt the people that do believe that are taking time out of their life to go on news shows. You point about wasted time is valid, but if that's your only valid point then I think your on shakey ground here.
I think that is my absolute favorite type of guest. When a political personna or someone comes on and can talk about real issues as well as crack a joke or two. It's nice when politicians appear to have some amount of personality.
I think he was suggesting that people not be assholes
Why do you consider it to be people being assholes? Have you heard the expression "all in good fun'? I don't think comedy central is trying to ruin peoples reputations. I think they're just trying to be funny. And I don't think the effect is that it's going to ruin anyones reputation either. I don't even see where you can come to that conclusion.
You have to be informed of the premise of the show. Your consent is valid only after you have been informed. If someone refused to consent they might have to return the 200 bucks at most, but I doubt even that.
I don't at all agree that it is "unforgivably humiliating them". And no, comedy central isn't going to air the show without consent. If they didn't have consent they wouldn't be legally required to blur out the peoples faces and they're just not going to do that because the show wouldn't be entertaining. As has been mentioned, the people are paid for their time, so their time is not wasted, and as for safeguard, good taste is a safeguard. People being flat out mean is not something I would be inclined to watch, people being funny is something I would be inclined to watch. Untill anyone has actually seen this show then everyone whining (yea, it is whining) about the unjustice is blowing this out of proportion. I haven't seen the show either but I've seen the previews and it's presented as comedy, not as a serious debate. Again, if the faces of the contestants are shown that that indicates that they agreed to let it be released. If they have no problem with it then what right does anyone else have to complain?
Why wouldn't they tell her the actuall premise of the show outright?
BECAUSE YOU CAN'T PLAY A PRACTICAL JOKE ON PEOPLE WHO KNOW IT'S COMING!!!!
All I've heard on slashdot about this topic is whine, whine, whine. They're not trying to humiliate them, they're trying to make a funny show! If you think being the butt of a practical joke == being humiliated then you maybe need to take a look at what it is you find funny in life. Have you ever played a joke on a friend? Were you actually trying to insult that friend or were you just trying to have a little fun, no harm intended? That's the point people miss about this, no harm intended. The viewing audience knows it a gag, yes they're gonna laugh their asses off, no that doesn't mean they don't respect the person they're laughing about.
Oh god, they're not trying to discredit anyone. Everyone even passably intelligent viewer knows they try and dick around with people in the interviews. The task of sorting the real news out from the jokes in the Daily Show is so trivial that anyone incapable of performing it just isn't worth discussing. Fraud is when you try and decieve people, the Daily Show is presented as a comedy program, their's no deception.
Why is it so bad to get news from the Daily Show? Certainly you wouldn't want it to be your only source, but it's fine as one of your sources. They make it clear what is actually news and what is just them joking around.
Slashdot Mirror
I think what happens after you die is definitly worth knowing no matter what your religion is.
This law is trying to let people sue the company for the actions of the customer. I don't care if it's a gun maker, the guy who sold you a duel tape deck, it doesn't matter. The customers actions are the customers responcibility.
That is truly sad. But the logic is somewhat lacking. I would say that because of drunk driving the casualities due to alcohaul probably exceed that of drugs, but alcohaul is still legal. Besides that, the article was about a book, the fact that it glorifies drugs is no better or worse then glorifying any other decision people make in their lives. People are free to make their own choices.
I think they can both be toys for ameusement. But they certainly need to be handled with care by people who no what they're doing. They're not something you joke around with, and they're not something you're casual about. But if you're safe and informed then both can be fun. (preferably not at the same time though.... that would certainly violate the 'safe' stipulation... lol)
Also, I'm not an expert (or even knowledgable) on the subject. But I've heard it said that LSD flashback aren't chemical reactions, they're in the same vien as the flashbacks that war veterans have. Obviously LSD flashbacks aren't allways debilitating and emotionally destructive like war flashbacks are (although I suppose with a signifigantly bad trip they can be), but they are the same mental mechanism of your mind reliving an emotionally charged memory.
But again, I'm not an expert, that's what I've been told. It seems plausable to me and came from a reliable source, but I'm not sure if it's 100% true or not.
I would mod you funny... but there are other places in here I'd like to post... so I'm just gonna post and say so.
The probability of an asteriod hitting doesn't compare to the probability of you using the same sequence as another composer. There only a limited number of notes. When you let people copyright things that aren't complex the chance of an unintended collision rises exponentially. The system can't handle that, so the system fails. The probability of you specifically getting into trouble is very low, but the probability of someone getting into trouble is encredibly high.
My mistake, I read that Marilyn vos Savant had the highest IQ and I thought it was 328 but it's actually 228.
The bitch of it is that alot of companies use the 1,000 measurement so they can baost a higher storage capacity, so even when it's laid out nicely in MB for you, you still can't trust it.
Yes, but there isn't an infinite number of items. Human IQ scores (not possible scores, but actual ones) top out somewhere in the 300's. With millions of people in the country it's guaranteed that scores will be shared.
Aren't you assuming a continuous scale? IQ is a discrete scale.
It's hard to land when you can't come home.
He's been a test pilot for a while. I imagine anyone with a decent career in that field knows how to handle a close call, emotionally and literally.
So what your saying is only innocent people are protected from incriminating themselves?? Makes sense to me....
And what about wanted individuals? Giving out their name may well be incriminating, yet they can now be arrested for it. So yes, it does violate self incrimination.
We should perform a test. Send me an invite.
That is my point exactly. You're still centering your argument about the fact that they might find their career harmed. Which makes your argument a complete and utter falacy. If they feel the joke will in any way harm their career they're free to not sign the waver.
As for time being wasted. Fine, I'm sure you're right, there are probably people out there who will feel that the payment isn't sufficient once they realize the true nature of the show. But I personally don't think that wasting one day out of your life is such a disastrous event and I doubt the people that do believe that are taking time out of their life to go on news shows. You point about wasted time is valid, but if that's your only valid point then I think your on shakey ground here.
I think that is my absolute favorite type of guest. When a political personna or someone comes on and can talk about real issues as well as crack a joke or two. It's nice when politicians appear to have some amount of personality.
Why do you consider it to be people being assholes? Have you heard the expression "all in good fun'? I don't think comedy central is trying to ruin peoples reputations. I think they're just trying to be funny. And I don't think the effect is that it's going to ruin anyones reputation either. I don't even see where you can come to that conclusion.
You have to be informed of the premise of the show. Your consent is valid only after you have been informed. If someone refused to consent they might have to return the 200 bucks at most, but I doubt even that.
I don't at all agree that it is "unforgivably humiliating them". And no, comedy central isn't going to air the show without consent. If they didn't have consent they wouldn't be legally required to blur out the peoples faces and they're just not going to do that because the show wouldn't be entertaining. As has been mentioned, the people are paid for their time, so their time is not wasted, and as for safeguard, good taste is a safeguard. People being flat out mean is not something I would be inclined to watch, people being funny is something I would be inclined to watch. Untill anyone has actually seen this show then everyone whining (yea, it is whining) about the unjustice is blowing this out of proportion. I haven't seen the show either but I've seen the previews and it's presented as comedy, not as a serious debate. Again, if the faces of the contestants are shown that that indicates that they agreed to let it be released. If they have no problem with it then what right does anyone else have to complain?
BECAUSE YOU CAN'T PLAY A PRACTICAL JOKE ON PEOPLE WHO KNOW IT'S COMING!!!!
All I've heard on slashdot about this topic is whine, whine, whine. They're not trying to humiliate them, they're trying to make a funny show! If you think being the butt of a practical joke == being humiliated then you maybe need to take a look at what it is you find funny in life. Have you ever played a joke on a friend? Were you actually trying to insult that friend or were you just trying to have a little fun, no harm intended? That's the point people miss about this, no harm intended. The viewing audience knows it a gag, yes they're gonna laugh their asses off, no that doesn't mean they don't respect the person they're laughing about.
A-fucking-men.
Oh god, they're not trying to discredit anyone. Everyone even passably intelligent viewer knows they try and dick around with people in the interviews. The task of sorting the real news out from the jokes in the Daily Show is so trivial that anyone incapable of performing it just isn't worth discussing. Fraud is when you try and decieve people, the Daily Show is presented as a comedy program, their's no deception.
Why is it so bad to get news from the Daily Show? Certainly you wouldn't want it to be your only source, but it's fine as one of your sources. They make it clear what is actually news and what is just them joking around.