Re:Is it just me
on
Defining Google
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I think the above post being modded a troll is actually quite unfair. Many Americans I know have expressed this opinion (here at slashdot and other places) and I don't believe all of them were trolls. Therefore I'll respond to it (and most likely be modded a troll as my opinions will be unpopular).
By your logic google is evil for having a DMCA policy. Now you might say "wait a minute, they have to do that, it's the law." Well I don't know if linking to infringing material is illegal, which means they're complying with censorship without being forced too. But assuming it is illegal to link to infringing material, they have to follow the law to comply with the US government. Well they have to censor material to comply with the Chinese government. If they don't do so in each case they get in a lot of trouble and risk having their business shut-down in a certain location/completely.
For a lot of people it's okay for google to comply with the US government but not the Chinese one. But if google should try to persuade people to criticise and change certain policies of the Chinese government, they should do the same with the US government (I don't think I'm alone in saying both policies are bad).
Having said that, I don't beleive in FOREIGN companies trying to persuade a country's laws. However I can see why a lot of Americans don't share this opinion, for instance some think it's the duty of their government to try to persuade other peoples to come within America's vision (democracy and capitalism).
Not all American's believe this, but many do. It only makes sense that they think it's okay for companies to try to influence foreign laws as well.
This isn't a troll, but a post commenting on this issue:)
Not if you don't give them your business. If it's a problem for you there are other options. Obviously those that stay with AOL don't care about it enough.
Re:Question to people who donate
on
LokiTorrent vs. MPAA
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I'm pretty sure that 99.999% of the people who download movies, music, e-books, software, and other copyrighted works without paying for them do so because they do not want to PAY for them. "Oh, $16 is too much for a CD! Oh, $20 is too much for a DVD! Oh, $200 is too much for a piece of software."
You know what. You're completely right. I don't want to pay $10.00 for a book. So I'm going to download it for free. Thankfully with the current laws I'm allowed to download HG Wells "The Time Machine" for free:)
Sorry, but you made such a sweeping statement I had to come out with the one thing that disproves your statement.
More seriously though, many people that will donate to this cause DO believe the law is unjust. They believe that the law is wrong. While what people are doing that the law is designed to stop may be wrong, as you so aptly pointed out "two wrongs don't make a right." Many people here believe that quite a large portion of copyright laws is wrong (Peter Jackson was not allowed to make a museum in New Zealand that would showcase many of the props used in his movie because the Tolkien Estate didn't want him too. In my opinion THAT'S wrong) and see this as the first step to fighting the laws that are wrong. Just because other people have dubious motives for breaking these laws, doesn't mean that people shouldn't support fighting the law through legal channels.
I am also dissalowed from watching Stargate: Atlantis by downloading it, even though I am not able to access it any other way. I can gurantee that the companies are not hurt by me downloading it. And yet I am still not allowed too. I believe that law is wrong. The studio has actually benefitted me from viewing it (I went to a university showing, I didn't ask how they obtained a copy of some episodes) and they have actually benefitted by me doing so as I will buy the DVD. And you'll point out I'm in the minority, but as you said "two wrongs don't make a right"
A good deal is a relative term. A good deal is when they get something for less then they normally pay.
Now if you can tell me how to get "at cost" or "at a loss" deals all year round without buying in bulk, then I'd be happy to admit people are getting a bad deal. But if you can't they're getting a good deal COMPARED to what they can normally get.
I'll let you in on a secret. All the major stores charge the same. And around here only the major stores exist.
Re:The king of the universe hates bestiality
on
Re-Pet a Reality
·
· Score: 1
Maybe in Jesusland bestiality is punishable by death, but over here we don't have the death penalty. We have a little thing where we like to seperate our religion from our laws (except when we're copying Jesusland).
Actually it's better to encourage people not to feel that they own anything in wikipedia. In this way, there are no such things as authors of articles. Everyone is equal.
This is of course against human nature in western society, but it is an ideal to strive for.
Quality Control is important, but wikipedia is careful in that it doesn't strive to be perfect. It strives to be the best it can.
No single source can be the best. Plenty of topics go unmentioned or barely mentioned in traditional encyclopedias. They often also have errors and biases.
Wikipedia can get around biases by people noticing them and fixing. Citing sources should help determine whose point of view is the correct one when it is difficult to know (and citing sources is something wikipedia is trying to encouragte). If both people's sources are as good as each other (and assuming both are actually authoritive rather then both being pathetic), then there is room for both points of view in the article. If each side can't do that alone, mediators can come along and help resolve the problem.
I've yet to see an article that continually had true information replaced with false information and it wasn't fixed with mediators/moderators soon enough. Pages that attract vandals/revert wars can also be locked so discussion occurs before a page is editted.
You know, this just isn't funny. The jokes obvious, no-one needed it said. Ever hear a joke 50 times in real life? I have, and it aint pretty. Yet it seems to be the norm here at slashdot. Says a lot about nerds.
Grandma: Oh don't worry Jonny. My internet is already hot. When I'm feeling a bit randy I just read my e-mail and I got all the stuff I need.
Don't think your grandmother would say that? If that's the case can we swap grandmothers? Mine freaks me out.
If you want to talk about facts don't link to a geocities website. Any website on geocities is untrustworthy as to how reliable the information is in my opinion. I'm sure that isn't the only website that has the information, so it's ridiculous to link to something as unauthoritive as that.
Ever since I got my new job (where I have to remember numbers) I've been able to create a buffer. So when someone calls and they're talking too fast for me to write down the number straight away, I get a 2 second delay and then my brain can interpret what they've just said so I can write it down.
They have no control over the kid problem. If they're going to allow computers I sure as hell wouldn't want them telling me I can't play game X. As long as I'm not viewing pornography I don't think it's their place to say what I can and can't play. And if they think it is I'll be certain to patron another company.
How will they implement interrupting your listening pleasure from your walkman at the best song so the pilot can tell you the weather at 35,000 feet? Oh noes!
People have been fearing our jobs would be lost to machines for quite some time now, and as far as I know unemployment isn't greater now then it was way back when. I'd say one of our biggest job takers are children in China and people in India.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the above post being modded a troll is actually quite unfair. Many Americans I know have expressed this opinion (here at slashdot and other places) and I don't believe all of them were trolls. Therefore I'll respond to it (and most likely be modded a troll as my opinions will be unpopular).
:)
By your logic google is evil for having a DMCA policy. Now you might say "wait a minute, they have to do that, it's the law." Well I don't know if linking to infringing material is illegal, which means they're complying with censorship without being forced too. But assuming it is illegal to link to infringing material, they have to follow the law to comply with the US government. Well they have to censor material to comply with the Chinese government. If they don't do so in each case they get in a lot of trouble and risk having their business shut-down in a certain location/completely.
For a lot of people it's okay for google to comply with the US government but not the Chinese one. But if google should try to persuade people to criticise and change certain policies of the Chinese government, they should do the same with the US government (I don't think I'm alone in saying both policies are bad).
Having said that, I don't beleive in FOREIGN companies trying to persuade a country's laws. However I can see why a lot of Americans don't share this opinion, for instance some think it's the duty of their government to try to persuade other peoples to come within America's vision (democracy and capitalism).
Not all American's believe this, but many do. It only makes sense that they think it's okay for companies to try to influence foreign laws as well.
This isn't a troll, but a post commenting on this issue
I wish you had have been around when Ghandi was alive to tell him that.
Actually you have to tick a box to install IE. So therefore it is installed with the user's consent.
Probably because it's false.
Microsoft Windows is the biggest nuisance and securuity thread facing PC users in the coming year.
Thankyou I'll be here all week.
Not if you don't give them your business. If it's a problem for you there are other options. Obviously those that stay with AOL don't care about it enough.
Isn't $1 US equal to $1000 Canadian?
Sorry, but you made such a sweeping statement I had to come out with the one thing that disproves your statement.
More seriously though, many people that will donate to this cause DO believe the law is unjust. They believe that the law is wrong. While what people are doing that the law is designed to stop may be wrong, as you so aptly pointed out "two wrongs don't make a right." Many people here believe that quite a large portion of copyright laws is wrong (Peter Jackson was not allowed to make a museum in New Zealand that would showcase many of the props used in his movie because the Tolkien Estate didn't want him too. In my opinion THAT'S wrong) and see this as the first step to fighting the laws that are wrong. Just because other people have dubious motives for breaking these laws, doesn't mean that people shouldn't support fighting the law through legal channels.
I am also dissalowed from watching Stargate: Atlantis by downloading it, even though I am not able to access it any other way. I can gurantee that the companies are not hurt by me downloading it. And yet I am still not allowed too. I believe that law is wrong. The studio has actually benefitted me from viewing it (I went to a university showing, I didn't ask how they obtained a copy of some episodes) and they have actually benefitted by me doing so as I will buy the DVD. And you'll point out I'm in the minority, but as you said "two wrongs don't make a right"
A good deal is a relative term. A good deal is when they get something for less then they normally pay.
Now if you can tell me how to get "at cost" or "at a loss" deals all year round without buying in bulk, then I'd be happy to admit people are getting a bad deal. But if you can't they're getting a good deal COMPARED to what they can normally get.
I'll let you in on a secret. All the major stores charge the same. And around here only the major stores exist.
Maybe in Jesusland bestiality is punishable by death, but over here we don't have the death penalty. We have a little thing where we like to seperate our religion from our laws (except when we're copying Jesusland).
Haven't you seen the movies? In Deep Impact they could ... oh. We're doomed.
Unless they want to become a serial killer.
Actually it's better to encourage people not to feel that they own anything in wikipedia. In this way, there are no such things as authors of articles. Everyone is equal.
This is of course against human nature in western society, but it is an ideal to strive for.
Quality Control is important, but wikipedia is careful in that it doesn't strive to be perfect. It strives to be the best it can. No single source can be the best. Plenty of topics go unmentioned or barely mentioned in traditional encyclopedias. They often also have errors and biases. Wikipedia can get around biases by people noticing them and fixing. Citing sources should help determine whose point of view is the correct one when it is difficult to know (and citing sources is something wikipedia is trying to encouragte). If both people's sources are as good as each other (and assuming both are actually authoritive rather then both being pathetic), then there is room for both points of view in the article. If each side can't do that alone, mediators can come along and help resolve the problem. I've yet to see an article that continually had true information replaced with false information and it wasn't fixed with mediators/moderators soon enough. Pages that attract vandals/revert wars can also be locked so discussion occurs before a page is editted.
Does my cloned pet being around count as alone?
You know, this just isn't funny. The jokes obvious, no-one needed it said. Ever hear a joke 50 times in real life? I have, and it aint pretty. Yet it seems to be the norm here at slashdot. Says a lot about nerds.
I'd like to apologise to everyone who read my post for feeding the troll. He's just copy and pasting the same flame-bait.
I'm sure they care when they can't visit their favorite IE-only websites.
But I guess deceiving your parents because you think they "won't care" and when it's "for their own good" is okay in your book.
Grandma: Oh don't worry Jonny. My internet is already hot. When I'm feeling a bit randy I just read my e-mail and I got all the stuff I need. Don't think your grandmother would say that? If that's the case can we swap grandmothers? Mine freaks me out.
If you want to talk about facts don't link to a geocities website. Any website on geocities is untrustworthy as to how reliable the information is in my opinion. I'm sure that isn't the only website that has the information, so it's ridiculous to link to something as unauthoritive as that.
Ever since I got my new job (where I have to remember numbers) I've been able to create a buffer. So when someone calls and they're talking too fast for me to write down the number straight away, I get a 2 second delay and then my brain can interpret what they've just said so I can write it down.
Quite nifty I think.
They have no control over the kid problem. If they're going to allow computers I sure as hell wouldn't want them telling me I can't play game X. As long as I'm not viewing pornography I don't think it's their place to say what I can and can't play. And if they think it is I'll be certain to patron another company.
How will they implement interrupting your listening pleasure from your walkman at the best song so the pilot can tell you the weather at 35,000 feet? Oh noes!
A game also offers entertainment for more time (2 hours vs 10 hours).
People have been fearing our jobs would be lost to machines for quite some time now, and as far as I know unemployment isn't greater now then it was way back when. I'd say one of our biggest job takers are children in China and people in India.
How dare they speak Finnish! You should be sorry.