Here in America, we have something called the "burden of proof." Because of this principle, the government cannot restrict our rights until it has been proven that we have done something wrong. Because I have a Constitutional right to privacy, according to the United States Supreme Court, I will allow this sort of police-state only over my cold, dead body, and so should you.
Unless, of course, the "utopiae" in fiction such as Brazil and 1984 appeal to you.
I'll bet you fall asleep in art galleries too, because there's no guns or explosions.
Not trying to troll, but if you're watching 2001 and expecting a science-fiction movie, then you're sure to come out disappointed. If you go into it expecting what I did the first time I saw it - a spectacular avant-garde moving picture - then you're sure to get more out of it.
I also hear that the entire movie makes much more sense if you're on acid, but I'm drug-free (well, except for being a caffiene addict), so I wouldn't know.
Frankly, who cares how fast the good news is reported, if it's so buried in amateurish junk that it actually takes searching to find it? The news postings on Slashdot may be late, but they're edited, moderated, and quite professional.
"I think you are missing an important distinction. Stories in Digg do not get rejected. If it is of great interest to lot of people, it makes to the front page."
Just wait until it gets even more popular, and half the stories are Goatse redirects.
Rejection does involve personal opinion, yes, but it's also an excellent way of filtering the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. And it shows. Just looking at Digg's front page, it looks like a chaotic mish-mash of stories compared to Slashdot's.
...perhaps I should force Sony to sign the following when I purchase their CD's...
I, the undersigned, agree to the following terms of the use of TooMuchEspressoGuy's money (hereafter referred to as "my money") as it has been spent on Sony music products:
1) If Sony HQ, any factories, or any other property owned by employees of Sony gets burgled, you must give me back my money.
2) You cannot keep my money in your pocket at work, or in any bank or online service such as Paypal.
3) If you move out of the country, you must give me back my money.
4) You must install any and all software that I decide should be on the computers of any Sony employee, or else give me back my money.
5) I reserve the right to install any backdoors on said computers stipulated in (4) in order to enforce my rights as proper holder of my money.
6) I will never be liable to you for more than exactly $5.00 for damages to you or your property through the use of any of the rights granted to me in this EULA.
7) If you file for bankruptcy, you must give me back my money.
8) You have no right to transfer (i.e. spend) my money, even along with the original coins, dollar bills, etc.
9) You may not use my money for personal use, including but not limited to: origami; flipping coins; lighting expensive Cuban cigars; et al.
As soon as Sony agrees to this EULA, or gets rid of its own, I will begin buying Sony music again.
Maybe the parent should, oh, I don't know... see what the games are like first?
Discounting a system just because it won't support the latest and greatest technology seems extremely short-sighted to me. There's more to a system than "OMG teh shiny grafix0rz!" - that being the games that you actually play on it. A game with realistic 3-D, excellent physics, etc. is crap if it doesn't have good gameplay. A game with none of the above *but* good gameplay is still considered a good game. I'l llet you decide which you really want.
"Yeah, but if you like listening to CDs on your computer, you're going to be butting heads with DMA before long."
Not necessarily.
The types of music that I listen to (progressive rock, heavy metal, experimental/psych) aren't well-supported by the major record labels, so I usually go to indie labels to get my music fix. And it's doubtful that indie labels will be including DRM on their CD's any time soon.
So, you only need deal with DRM if you listen to the crap that the major labels churn out - but, why listen to crap when indie music is (1) better, (2) often cheaper, and (3) is, and will likely be in the future, DRM-free?
" And They want to change the government into something that supports a productive society.?"
Well, yes and no.
Libertarian theory states that the best government to support a productive society is one that keeps its hands off of society as much as possible. In other words, supporting it by neither trying to support or hinder it. What I took "changing the government into something that supports a productive society" to mean is supporting social programs and the like.
As a libertarian (small "l") political activist, the only thing on that list that fits with my personal activism is the part about wanting institutions to stop hiding facts and start paying attention to science.
Otherwise, many of us want to work toward a more individualist, rather than collectivist, society. Does that make us any less of "social activist modders"?
I've owned a Dell Axim for two years and change; as I recall, the original price was somewhere around $300. Cheap, right? Well, I haven't had a single problem with it. The battery life is huge, the D-pad is actually done pretty well, and the custom switcher-bar software makes life much easier. While I purchased it with a foldable keyboard to take notes in college classes, with just a couple of cheap memory cards, it's also become a portable OGG Vorbis player, Gameboy, and DivX viewer (all for free, too!) Furthermore, it's extremely durable; I've actually dropped it once or twice, and it still works without a glitch.
So, while my own experiences are an anecdote and should therefore be taken with a grain of salt, I've seen nothing to suspect that it's cheaply-made or easily broken.
...is normal, everyday, plain-Jane DVD's. Mostly so that I don't have to re-buy all of my DVD's just to keep up with the current standards, re-buy a compatible HD-DVD/Blu-Ray player, and then have to do the same thing all over again several years from now, just to "keep up with the standards."
So, I'd assume that you're using "transfers ownership to the public" as a synonym for "sells his/her work to the public"? How does this specific method of selling (which you haven't specified) differ from the other example that you offered (selling your work via contracts)?
"We, the public, are the owners. It is just on loan to the so called creators for a limited period of time, the period being copyright length."
Okay... in that case, we, the public, are the owners of your house. It's just on loan to its so-called "owner" (you) for a limited period of time, the period being a length of time decided by the government.
I'm not saying I'm for patents or anything - in fact, I think that they should be abolished entirely - but to say that "the public" is the owner of something that YOU create/buy is just ludicrous.
I hate to break it to you, but Macs are bloody *expensive.* Despite their supposedly superior quality, it's hard to justify getting one when you can build a more powerful Windows PC, or just buy one from Wal-Mart, that is both less money, more powerful, and more upgradeable than a low-end Mac.
And I'll bet that you can guess why that is; there's only one company that makes Macs: Apple Computers. Because of their monopoly, they can set a higher price on their computers, and people will still buy them for various reasons: they need the superior audio/visual-editing capabilities, they grew up on the Macintosh brand name, or they just plain don't want to use a Windows box.
If that's not abusing a monopoly, then I don't know what is.
"There shouldn't be one "regulator," and especially not the United States."
You're right. There shouldn't be ANY regulator.
If the UN, et al. intended to "free" the Internet from the US, they would leave it the way it is, and not have countries like China and Iran have a say in how it is "governed."
"And others have like former education secretary Bill Bennett: "you could... abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.""
Typical liberal selective quoting. You left out the part where he said, "this would obviously be morally reprehensible, but..."
Slashdot Mirror
Here in America, we have something called the "burden of proof." Because of this principle, the government cannot restrict our rights until it has been proven that we have done something wrong. Because I have a Constitutional right to privacy, according to the United States Supreme Court, I will allow this sort of police-state only over my cold, dead body, and so should you.
Unless, of course, the "utopiae" in fiction such as Brazil and 1984 appeal to you.
Parents: "Oh, no! Our child jumped to his death!"
Lawyer: "Let's find someone we can sue!"
Parents: "Well, our son played a lot of this game called 'World of Warcraft.'"
Lawyer: "Can you jump to your death in that game?"
Parents: "I think so..."
Lawyer: "A HA! So, *obviously,* your son jumped to his death while re-enacting a scene from a video game! Now, let's go sue the maker of this game."
Not trying to troll, but if you're watching 2001 and expecting a science-fiction movie, then you're sure to come out disappointed. If you go into it expecting what I did the first time I saw it - a spectacular avant-garde moving picture - then you're sure to get more out of it.
I also hear that the entire movie makes much more sense if you're on acid, but I'm drug-free (well, except for being a caffiene addict), so I wouldn't know.
Frankly, who cares how fast the good news is reported, if it's so buried in amateurish junk that it actually takes searching to find it? The news postings on Slashdot may be late, but they're edited, moderated, and quite professional.
Just wait until it gets even more popular, and half the stories are Goatse redirects.
Rejection does involve personal opinion, yes, but it's also an excellent way of filtering the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. And it shows. Just looking at Digg's front page, it looks like a chaotic mish-mash of stories compared to Slashdot's.
On the Digg front page, the most recent five have 1, 6, 5, 15, and 13 comments.
Yep, Slashdot is REALLY in danger.
I, the undersigned, agree to the following terms of the use of TooMuchEspressoGuy's money (hereafter referred to as "my money") as it has been spent on Sony music products:
1) If Sony HQ, any factories, or any other property owned by employees of Sony gets burgled, you must give me back my money.
2) You cannot keep my money in your pocket at work, or in any bank or online service such as Paypal.
3) If you move out of the country, you must give me back my money.
4) You must install any and all software that I decide should be on the computers of any Sony employee, or else give me back my money.
5) I reserve the right to install any backdoors on said computers stipulated in (4) in order to enforce my rights as proper holder of my money.
6) I will never be liable to you for more than exactly $5.00 for damages to you or your property through the use of any of the rights granted to me in this EULA.
7) If you file for bankruptcy, you must give me back my money.
8) You have no right to transfer (i.e. spend) my money, even along with the original coins, dollar bills, etc.
9) You may not use my money for personal use, including but not limited to: origami; flipping coins; lighting expensive Cuban cigars; et al.
As soon as Sony agrees to this EULA, or gets rid of its own, I will begin buying Sony music again.
Discounting a system just because it won't support the latest and greatest technology seems extremely short-sighted to me. There's more to a system than "OMG teh shiny grafix0rz!" - that being the games that you actually play on it. A game with realistic 3-D, excellent physics, etc. is crap if it doesn't have good gameplay. A game with none of the above *but* good gameplay is still considered a good game. I'l llet you decide which you really want.
Not necessarily.
The types of music that I listen to (progressive rock, heavy metal, experimental/psych) aren't well-supported by the major record labels, so I usually go to indie labels to get my music fix. And it's doubtful that indie labels will be including DRM on their CD's any time soon.
So, you only need deal with DRM if you listen to the crap that the major labels churn out - but, why listen to crap when indie music is (1) better, (2) often cheaper, and (3) is, and will likely be in the future, DRM-free?
Er... fallacy of excluded additional choices, anyone? Some of us are neither lefties *nor* Republicans.
O RLY?
Well, yes and no.
Libertarian theory states that the best government to support a productive society is one that keeps its hands off of society as much as possible. In other words, supporting it by neither trying to support or hinder it. What I took "changing the government into something that supports a productive society" to mean is supporting social programs and the like.
As a libertarian (small "l") political activist, the only thing on that list that fits with my personal activism is the part about wanting institutions to stop hiding facts and start paying attention to science.
Otherwise, many of us want to work toward a more individualist, rather than collectivist, society. Does that make us any less of "social activist modders"?
I've owned a Dell Axim for two years and change; as I recall, the original price was somewhere around $300. Cheap, right? Well, I haven't had a single problem with it. The battery life is huge, the D-pad is actually done pretty well, and the custom switcher-bar software makes life much easier. While I purchased it with a foldable keyboard to take notes in college classes, with just a couple of cheap memory cards, it's also become a portable OGG Vorbis player, Gameboy, and DivX viewer (all for free, too!) Furthermore, it's extremely durable; I've actually dropped it once or twice, and it still works without a glitch.
So, while my own experiences are an anecdote and should therefore be taken with a grain of salt, I've seen nothing to suspect that it's cheaply-made or easily broken.
Seriously. If it's not broke, don't fix it.
So, I'd assume that you're using "transfers ownership to the public" as a synonym for "sells his/her work to the public"? How does this specific method of selling (which you haven't specified) differ from the other example that you offered (selling your work via contracts)?
Okay... in that case, we, the public, are the owners of your house. It's just on loan to its so-called "owner" (you) for a limited period of time, the period being a length of time decided by the government.
I'm not saying I'm for patents or anything - in fact, I think that they should be abolished entirely - but to say that "the public" is the owner of something that YOU create/buy is just ludicrous.
(Okay, it's at 20% troll at the time of this posting, but, c'mon... only 20%??)
And I'll bet that you can guess why that is; there's only one company that makes Macs: Apple Computers. Because of their monopoly, they can set a higher price on their computers, and people will still buy them for various reasons: they need the superior audio/visual-editing capabilities, they grew up on the Macintosh brand name, or they just plain don't want to use a Windows box.
If that's not abusing a monopoly, then I don't know what is.
The thing is, many of them already do all of the above. So, why mandate any standards for bloggers at all?
Don't ask.
On the other... does it REALLY have to be the CIA?
You're right. There shouldn't be ANY regulator.
If the UN, et al. intended to "free" the Internet from the US, they would leave it the way it is, and not have countries like China and Iran have a say in how it is "governed."
Typical liberal selective quoting. You left out the part where he said, "this would obviously be morally reprehensible, but..."
Soylent green!