Actually I think he is railing against the millions of people who refuse to find employment even during an economic boom. Instead they "benefit" from a government program that incentivizes having children and provides no exit strategy since the benefits immediately disappears if they find any form of employment regardless of how unlivable the wage.
The reason I place "benefit" in quotes is that despite some of the right wingers assertions, I don't think they are living that great a life on government assistance.
First you chose to pick a "tear jerker" segment of the entitlement program and suggest that the parent is asking them to starve to death. Completely ignoring the huge amount of dollars wasted on different agencies who have overlapping responsibilities that dispense these entitlements.
Next you picked on Bill Gates. Of course he is a popular demon on Slashdot but your opinion run counter to the facts. Like how many operating systems during the 80's and early 90's operated on a "IBM" personal computer running a multitude of different hardware configurations? I think thats pretty f'ing innovative.
I question your source that Microsoft paid $0 dollars in US Taxes, and you didn't consider the amount of income taxes paid by the employees of Microsoft Corporation.
On top of that, you completely disregard the existence of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation that funds immunizations in underdeveloped countries.
I'm not the biggest fan of Microsoft. But try to get your facts straight and stay on topic. Your rant reminds me of a Family Guy sketch where Peter wins a debate against Lois by repeatedly saying "9/11".
There are a few developers who I feel indebted to. Icaza is one. I use Midnight Commander every day. I give these developers "the benefit of the doubt". Icaza is up there with Bram Moolenaar (VIM). VIM is more important, but MC also "gets it done". And has for almost 15 years.
I liked Norton Commander. In fact I like it so much, I almost made a version for linux. Luckily I found MC so I didn't need to reinvent the wheel. I'm sure there are other out there too. If Icaza hadn't created MC, then someone else would have. That was how popular Norton Commander was back in the day.
Has it only been 15 years? I swear it was longer...
It's most definitely NOT illegal anywhere in the USA. They collected data (note, they did not "access", that would be illegal) that was broadcasted unencrypted over public frequencies from public property.
That is probably not correct. I am not a lawyer, but the following seems to contradict your opinion:
Electronic Communications Privacy Act
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) sets out the provisions for access, use, disclosure, interception and privacy protections of electronic communications. The law was enacted in 1986 and covers various forms of wire and electronic communications. According to the U.S. Code, electronic communications "means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photo electronic or photo optical system that affects interstate or foreign commerce." ECPA prohibits unlawful access and certain disclosures of communication contents. Additionally, the law prevents government entities from requiring disclosure of electronic communications from a provider without proper procedure. The Legal Institute provides Title 18 of the U.S. Code, which encompasses ECPA.
By the FCC's rules, you can receive any unencrypted data that you want (It's another story to transmit, which again would classify as access)...
I believe you are talking about FCC's section 705. It was meant to decriminalize unintentional reception of a wireless communication. However if you use the communication for personal benefit which Google may have done, or divulge the contents of the communication then you have violated section 705.
The big benefit of "being able to run the software you want rather than what Steve Jobs says you can run" seems to speak to people, since that's the major thing Android has going for it that the iPhone doesn't.
Yea but Steve and I have the same taste in software. So it doesn't really bother me that much...
Actually, I brought up plagiarism because the culprit takes credit from someone else's work. Hence, he steals the credit from someone else and tries to better himself for it.
After establishing that plagiarism is a wrong I took it to the next step of unauthorized duplication, hence my quote:
Even if they give proper credit to the original author, they are republishing the work without the author's consent which equals copyright infringement.
I agree I could have done a better job writing that comment.
Yes but in the context of the parent article. The copyright infringement is willful and for private financial gain (ad revenue). Therefore it is a crime in this case.
Maybe newspapers could refuse to publish stories unless a certain number of people subscribe?
Sounds unrealistic, and a catch 22. How can you attract subscribers without stories? How can you publish stories without subscribers?
Now if only there was a way you could publish a story and have people come to your site and actually read it. But we need to make sure no one else poaches our story and reap the rewards of our hard work. If only there was a way of doing just that... oh right it's called copyright.
Or, perhaps it is time to change the system at a more fundamental level, and not have news be treated as a business, but as a public service?
Well I'm actually in favor of that. And there are non-profit news organizations being formed that accept donations to collect news stories so that they can be republished by other outlets. But this doesn't take away the for-profit news organization right to protect their works.
Vote with your wallet. Bloggers should support the non-profit news sources and stop plagiarizing the corporate sites. This would also have the added benefit of getting the word out about the non-profit.
This leaves the corporate sites with providing value added in-depth news articles, and the only way to support that model is to actually enforce the current copyright laws.
It is interesting how you dismiss a moral argument as "flimsy," and then present a greed based argument as the solution. Last I checked, the most successful news-driven-by-profit-motive operation was Fox News; do you want to see all news sources degenerate to that level?
That's a strawman argument. No one talking about the quality of the news, just the enforcement of copyright. In fact, your example lends credence to what I've been saying all along. The more valuable a source (by reputation) the more likely it will plagiarized. Fox News is successful because they offer biased news to the "unwashed" masses, yet don't worry too much from plagiarizers because no real research went in their articles anyway.
The fact that copyright infringement does not equate to what is traditionally thought of as theft does not make copyright infringement any less wrong or any less of a crime. Save your strawman arguments for another time. This has nothing to do with your addiction to share MP3s.
YES it does make it less a crime since theft is a criminal offense but copyright infringement is a civil offense.
From the Copyright Law FAQ, by Terry Carroll:
3.3) Is copyright infringement a crime, or a civil matter?
It's always at least a civil matter (a tort). 17 U.S.C. 501(b) details
the mechanisms by which an owner of a copyright may file a civil suit,
and 28 U.S.C. 1338 expressly refers to civil actions arising under the
copyright act.
However, under certain circumstances, it may also be a federal crime. A
copyright infringement is subject to criminal prosecution if infringement
is willful and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial
gain. 17 U.S.C. 506(a). If the offense consists of the reproduction or
distribution, during any 180-day period, of 10 or more copies having a
retail value of more than $2,500, the offense is a felony; otherwise, the
offense is a misdemeanor. 18 U.S.C. 2319.
As a side note, although 18 U.S.C. 2319 purports to prescribe the
penalties for criminal infringement, all crimes covered by Title 18 have
their penalties determined by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, another
part of Title 18.
The part in bold is my emphasis. Is he saying that facts, meaning news, can be copyrighted? That if his paper is the first to publish an article about the outcome of a sporting event, that that should be copyrighted? I agree that an article about the game shouldn't be copied verbatim to another site but copyrighting the facts is ridiculous.
I just wanted to amplify your sentiment, since it got lost in the weird corvette story.
The issue isn't the copyrighting of facts. The issue is the verbatim copying of the source article.
Nothing wrong with saying "I read in John's article that the local team won their away game", but to copy John's article is wrong. Also there is nothing wrong with quoting part of John's article (eg. John reports that "The local team arrived on the field ready for battle, and played splendidly throughout the match" to read more click this link").
This has been said a thousand times over, but somehow, nobody ever seems to get it.
Well actually the newspapers have been losing money from the loss of ad sells. This has been very well documented and the primary reason being that advertisers will not spend money when readership is in decline. The reason readership is down is because the articles can be read elsewhere for free.
The reason newspapers are going to the "pay wall" system is that the only ones that benefit from banner ads is Google and bloggers with very little expenses. After all, how much does it cost to cut and paste? Google is like a casino. They don't care who wins or loses because they always get a share of the money. Bloggers are happy with the small amount of money they get because they don't have the expense. Newspapers are screwed because they spend money for the articles, and watch other people benefit from their work.
What is being "protected" here is an out of date business model, created in an era where making a high quality copy required specialized and expensive equipment.
You've seem to left out the part that includes money being spent to pay the reporter's salary and his travel expenses. Not to mention the salaries of the support staff that doesn't include distribution.
It appears that the business model that you support involves taking someone else's work, republish it, garner web hits for free, and cash the check from Google. This doesn't sound like a sustainable business model. Of course, you are preserving the work itself by helping it being distributed to a wider audience. This is a flimsy moral argument that ignores the original author's intent or the need to sustain the actual sources of these articles.
Why does it appear that the "new business model" is parasitic? How does this model continue when the host dies?
If one equates copyright infringement with theft, he or she is either trolling of ignorant.
So you are saying if I disagree with you then I *must* be a troll because you are obviously right...
Republishing stories in full without crediting the original author is plagiarism. Basically taking someone else's work and passing them off as their own in order to garner hits, elevate the status of their blog, and possibly earn some revenue from Google advertising.
Even if they give proper credit to the original author, they are republishing the work without the author's consent which equals copyright infringement.
Copyrights exist to protect the works of the authors. The author had to spend money to research their articles and should expect some protection from poachers. I see nothing wrong with fair use that republishes a small portion of the article with a link to the full article, but to republish a significant portion of an article is not only bad manners it's also copyright infringement which is a crime.
The fact that copyright infringement does not equate to what is traditionally thought of as theft does not make copyright infringement any less wrong or any less of a crime. Save your strawman arguments for another time. This has nothing to do with your addiction to share MP3s.
there was the fear it might further damage the already broken valve.
Okay. Now explain the logic of the "Junk Shot" idea and its relation to further damaging of the valve.
I guess we will now see "spin doctors" on the media talking about how taking so long to fix the problem was necessary to prevent things from getting worse.
Here something for the "Lessons Learned" file... How about having a disaster plan *before* you drill a deep water well.
There is a difference between the quantity of users, and the network speed each user has. The data will be skewed since it'll give smaller and denser countries an advantage.
Also, the US has more "unlimited" plans than the rest of the world. Most broadband plans that we have in the US do not charge by the megabyte, yet in Australia (and others) they do. So I suspect there is quite a bit less bittorents in those countries than in the US. The more congested the network, the less the performance measured.
I didn't say television is parent, but it is a source of peer pressure. How many times has a parent used the cliche "If everybody jumped off of a bridge, would you?" yet the child winds up going behind the parents back so that he can "fit in" at school, the mall, and everywhere else a parent isn't at.
Hence the sarcastic remark:
What do parents know? They're old and television opens my eyes to the way it really is...
I'm not condoning being an over bearing parent (I'm not). But I do believe broadcasters are obligated to the guidelines that the community establishes and this includes material that is deemed appropriate for broadcast television.
Besides your kid can mostly read books (mine did) and still be influenced by what's on TV by talking to the other kids. You don't actually believe those trendy slang words materialize out of thin air do you?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually I think he is railing against the millions of people who refuse to find employment even during an economic boom. Instead they "benefit" from a government program that incentivizes having children and provides no exit strategy since the benefits immediately disappears if they find any form of employment regardless of how unlivable the wage.
The reason I place "benefit" in quotes is that despite some of the right wingers assertions, I don't think they are living that great a life on government assistance.
Your hyperbole is over whelming.
First you chose to pick a "tear jerker" segment of the entitlement program and suggest that the parent is asking them to starve to death. Completely ignoring the huge amount of dollars wasted on different agencies who have overlapping responsibilities that dispense these entitlements.
Next you picked on Bill Gates. Of course he is a popular demon on Slashdot but your opinion run counter to the facts. Like how many operating systems during the 80's and early 90's operated on a "IBM" personal computer running a multitude of different hardware configurations? I think thats pretty f'ing innovative.
I question your source that Microsoft paid $0 dollars in US Taxes, and you didn't consider the amount of income taxes paid by the employees of Microsoft Corporation.
On top of that, you completely disregard the existence of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation that funds immunizations in underdeveloped countries.
I'm not the biggest fan of Microsoft. But try to get your facts straight and stay on topic. Your rant reminds me of a Family Guy sketch where Peter wins a debate against Lois by repeatedly saying "9/11".
I liked Norton Commander. In fact I like it so much, I almost made a version for linux. Luckily I found MC so I didn't need to reinvent the wheel. I'm sure there are other out there too. If Icaza hadn't created MC, then someone else would have. That was how popular Norton Commander was back in the day.
Has it only been 15 years? I swear it was longer...
That is probably not correct. I am not a lawyer, but the following seems to contradict your opinion:
Electronic Communications Privacy Act
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) sets out the provisions for access, use, disclosure, interception and privacy protections of electronic communications. The law was enacted in 1986 and covers various forms of wire and electronic communications. According to the U.S. Code, electronic communications "means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photo electronic or photo optical system that affects interstate or foreign commerce." ECPA prohibits unlawful access and certain disclosures of communication contents. Additionally, the law prevents government entities from requiring disclosure of electronic communications from a provider without proper procedure. The Legal Institute provides Title 18 of the U.S. Code, which encompasses ECPA.
I believe you are talking about FCC's section 705. It was meant to decriminalize unintentional reception of a wireless communication. However if you use the communication for personal benefit which Google may have done, or divulge the contents of the communication then you have violated section 705.
If it wasn't for this slashvertisement, I wouldn't have heard of it.
Personally I like my toolchain to have some heritage and age, so at the moment GNU is a safe choice for me.
Yea but Steve and I have the same taste in software. So it doesn't really bother me that much...
Actually, I brought up plagiarism because the culprit takes credit from someone else's work. Hence, he steals the credit from someone else and tries to better himself for it.
After establishing that plagiarism is a wrong I took it to the next step of unauthorized duplication, hence my quote:
I agree I could have done a better job writing that comment.
Yes but in the context of the parent article. The copyright infringement is willful and for private financial gain (ad revenue). Therefore it is a crime in this case.
Sounds unrealistic, and a catch 22. How can you attract subscribers without stories? How can you publish stories without subscribers?
Now if only there was a way you could publish a story and have people come to your site and actually read it. But we need to make sure no one else poaches our story and reap the rewards of our hard work. If only there was a way of doing just that... oh right it's called copyright.
Well I'm actually in favor of that. And there are non-profit news organizations being formed that accept donations to collect news stories so that they can be republished by other outlets. But this doesn't take away the for-profit news organization right to protect their works.
Vote with your wallet. Bloggers should support the non-profit news sources and stop plagiarizing the corporate sites. This would also have the added benefit of getting the word out about the non-profit.
This leaves the corporate sites with providing value added in-depth news articles, and the only way to support that model is to actually enforce the current copyright laws.
That's a strawman argument. No one talking about the quality of the news, just the enforcement of copyright. In fact, your example lends credence to what I've been saying all along. The more valuable a source (by reputation) the more likely it will plagiarized. Fox News is successful because they offer biased news to the "unwashed" masses, yet don't worry too much from plagiarizers because no real research went in their articles anyway.
You skipped over my quote in the same comment:
So what was your point?
From the Copyright Law FAQ, by Terry Carroll:
3.3) Is copyright infringement a crime, or a civil matter?
It's always at least a civil matter (a tort). 17 U.S.C. 501(b) details the mechanisms by which an owner of a copyright may file a civil suit, and 28 U.S.C. 1338 expressly refers to civil actions arising under the copyright act.
However, under certain circumstances, it may also be a federal crime. A copyright infringement is subject to criminal prosecution if infringement is willful and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain. 17 U.S.C. 506(a). If the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution, during any 180-day period, of 10 or more copies having a retail value of more than $2,500, the offense is a felony; otherwise, the offense is a misdemeanor. 18 U.S.C. 2319.
As a side note, although 18 U.S.C. 2319 purports to prescribe the penalties for criminal infringement, all crimes covered by Title 18 have their penalties determined by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, another part of Title 18.
I just wanted to amplify your sentiment, since it got lost in the weird corvette story.
The issue isn't the copyrighting of facts. The issue is the verbatim copying of the source article.
Nothing wrong with saying "I read in John's article that the local team won their away game", but to copy John's article is wrong. Also there is nothing wrong with quoting part of John's article (eg. John reports that "The local team arrived on the field ready for battle, and played splendidly throughout the match" to read more click this link").
Well actually the newspapers have been losing money from the loss of ad sells. This has been very well documented and the primary reason being that advertisers will not spend money when readership is in decline. The reason readership is down is because the articles can be read elsewhere for free.
The reason newspapers are going to the "pay wall" system is that the only ones that benefit from banner ads is Google and bloggers with very little expenses. After all, how much does it cost to cut and paste? Google is like a casino. They don't care who wins or loses because they always get a share of the money. Bloggers are happy with the small amount of money they get because they don't have the expense. Newspapers are screwed because they spend money for the articles, and watch other people benefit from their work.
The problem is not the lack of proof.
You've seem to left out the part that includes money being spent to pay the reporter's salary and his travel expenses. Not to mention the salaries of the support staff that doesn't include distribution.
It appears that the business model that you support involves taking someone else's work, republish it, garner web hits for free, and cash the check from Google. This doesn't sound like a sustainable business model. Of course, you are preserving the work itself by helping it being distributed to a wider audience. This is a flimsy moral argument that ignores the original author's intent or the need to sustain the actual sources of these articles.
Why does it appear that the "new business model" is parasitic? How does this model continue when the host dies?
So you are saying if I disagree with you then I *must* be a troll because you are obviously right...
Republishing stories in full without crediting the original author is plagiarism. Basically taking someone else's work and passing them off as their own in order to garner hits, elevate the status of their blog, and possibly earn some revenue from Google advertising.
Even if they give proper credit to the original author, they are republishing the work without the author's consent which equals copyright infringement.
Copyrights exist to protect the works of the authors. The author had to spend money to research their articles and should expect some protection from poachers. I see nothing wrong with fair use that republishes a small portion of the article with a link to the full article, but to republish a significant portion of an article is not only bad manners it's also copyright infringement which is a crime.
The fact that copyright infringement does not equate to what is traditionally thought of as theft does not make copyright infringement any less wrong or any less of a crime. Save your strawman arguments for another time. This has nothing to do with your addiction to share MP3s.
You can almost say that BP was trying methods that allowed them to recover the oil for possible sale, instead of just stopping the flow outright.
Bullocks! We just import more oil from elsewhere while we continue to migrate to other types of automobiles.
Okay. Now explain the logic of the "Junk Shot" idea and its relation to further damaging of the valve.
I guess we will now see "spin doctors" on the media talking about how taking so long to fix the problem was necessary to prevent things from getting worse.
Here something for the "Lessons Learned" file... How about having a disaster plan *before* you drill a deep water well.
The same can be said of all of BP other failed attempts. This one actually made more sense than "top hat" and "junk shot".
Of course, hindsight is always 20/20.
Yea. It will relieve BP of some of its losses by allowing them to continue operations at the well.
If you don't want to hear about Apple then stop visiting a site thats "News for Nerds".
There are just as many Windows and Linux related stories.
Evidently, you're not as sensitive to those stories.
Wow. Your logic and reasoning is impressive. You must be new here.
No. It's because of the App writer's disregard of the GPL in light of said Apple's licensing restrictions.
There is a difference between the quantity of users, and the network speed each user has. The data will be skewed since it'll give smaller and denser countries an advantage.
Also, the US has more "unlimited" plans than the rest of the world. Most broadband plans that we have in the US do not charge by the megabyte, yet in Australia (and others) they do. So I suspect there is quite a bit less bittorents in those countries than in the US. The more congested the network, the less the performance measured.
You misunderstand.
I didn't say television is parent, but it is a source of peer pressure. How many times has a parent used the cliche "If everybody jumped off of a bridge, would you?" yet the child winds up going behind the parents back so that he can "fit in" at school, the mall, and everywhere else a parent isn't at.
Hence the sarcastic remark:
I'm not condoning being an over bearing parent (I'm not). But I do believe broadcasters are obligated to the guidelines that the community establishes and this includes material that is deemed appropriate for broadcast television.
Besides your kid can mostly read books (mine did) and still be influenced by what's on TV by talking to the other kids. You don't actually believe those trendy slang words materialize out of thin air do you?