Why should I give a shit about adademic dishonesty when fraud is what makes the world go around?
I'd have disagreed with you until the 2000 presidential election. Now I'll just answer it this way: regardless of reality, the appearance of credibility is important to your ultimate placement. Fraud isn't a problem itself, getting caught is. So you have to be better at your fraud than your competition, and better at it than those who would profit from detect yours. And as long as you're still on an upwardly mobile trajectory, the less influence/money your family has, the more important the appearance of credibility will be to your future.
I used to use Amarok as a music player until the 2.x series. I suppose they had a vision, but I certainly don't understand what it was, exactly. I want a music player that (1) plays as many formats as possible, (2) on as many different OSes as possible, for which (3) adjusting playback controls, eq, and playlists, etc are as simple as possible.
Amarok used to seem like a good candidate for that criteria. I gave 2.x a fair try, but didn't understand what the point of the design changes were, and it seemed to become a pretty buggy application. I soon moved to VLC for playback and haven't bothered to look back at Amarok sense. Does it actually offer any advantages over VLC?
Thanks for following up. On a personal note, I was at the Seattle/WTO riots; I was downtown when they first cleared the streets. Before and since I have seen a fair amount of police phalanxes in riot gear.
The point I'm continuing to make here, and which your democracy now link actually supports, is in rebuttal to your claim:
As far as being held for weeks without being charged of any crime... It happens all the time.
Rather, what actually happens "all the time" is that a person is arrested, and then either charged or released. Even the title itself makes this clear --"Attorney: "NATO 3" Activists Detained on Terror Charges in Chicago Are Victims of Police Entrapment." The attorney's claims describe arrestees being either charged or released. As for the two "vanished" people... well listen to arrestees' attorney Gelsomino herself. Like someone else's earlier response to you speculated:
And there is where they eventually arrested the nine people. They arrested two additional people down the street. Six of those people have since been released without charges. As you know, the NATO Three are facing very serious terrorism threatsâ"or terrorism charges. And the other two are who we now believe to be police informants . . ..But through our own investigation, we have been able to uncover evidence of these two informants.
And your naming a handful of protests certainly doesn't make your point. If protesters being arrested and held for weeks without charges happens "all the time", it should be easy to come up with at least one solid example. You have yet to. The two recent examples of held-without-charges that I'm aware of are in the context of military arrests, not protests: Bradley Manning and Jose Padilla. And remember, Padilla's case was so unusual that it went up to SCOTUS.
My larger point is this: I probably agree with many of your concerns about the erosion of rights for peaceful protest. But making extreme claims that are unfounded, unsupported, and unlikely only undermines your effectiveness. Spouting disinformation erodes your credibility, which in turns makes it that much easier for people to dismiss your valid concerns. Have a problem with increased use of anti-terror laws? Great, so do I. Claim that the state is disappearing people and arbitrarily holding people for weeks without charges? Well that's where you lost me. Misinformation --intentional or otherwise-- does not help.
As far as being held for weeks without being charged of any crime... It happens all the time. I won't even bother rebutting that -- do your own homework. You can start with arrests at the national caucus' of either party in the last 20 years, if you need a hint.
No, this actually doesn't happen "all the time." Rather, it's incredibly rare. It's also the sort of thing that goes up the appeals chain, and since I've already done considerable homework on it already, "do your own homework" isn't helpful.
Still, taking your claims as perhaps possibly credible, I've checked your "hint" about party caucuses, and have come up flat. Every source I've seen so far describing an arrest at either party's national caucus in the last 20 years also describes what the person was charged with. You're claiming that it's common for protestors to be detained for extended periods without being charged for any crime, but I've yet to come across a single mention of someone being held for weeks without being charged.
As for your first claim, please note that there's no way for anyone else to verify your own claims without more detail. So at this point, I, and anyone else who'd want to believe you, would have to simply take your claim at face value. Given the unusual gravity of what you're claiming --if that's true, it is a huge problem-- I'd really, really like to see something that can be independently verified. Do you have any more details at all, particularly anything that can be followed up on by others? Say for example, the names of the people who you claim have disappeared without a trace after seeing video footage of them being led away in cuffs?
To make that even more clear: in the context of DMCA takedown notices, it's only perjury if you lie (or are "mistaken") about who you are and who you represent. It's not perjury if you lie or "mistakenly" file an inaccurate takedown notice.
"A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."
I added the italics to make the division clear. The first part of that sentence is not under penalty of perjury. Perjury penalties only apply to the statement that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the (alleged) owner. This means it would only be perjury if, for example, the person/organization who filed the takedown notice in Scripps's name wasn't authorized by Scripps to do file DMCA takedown notices. AFAICT, operjury has never applied to whether the notification itself was accurate.
So if you're upset that no one has ever been charged with perjury for filing an inaccurate DMCA takedown notice, you should at least know that it's not because those organizations/people are above the law. Instead, it's because that's simply not what the law actually says.
Forget fines. DMCA takedown demands are supposedly filed "under penalty of perjury". Last I heard, perjury is a prosecutable offense.
That's not how the DMCA is written. The language you must be referring to is 17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(vi), and after describing other elements of a DMCA takedown notification reads as follows:
"A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."
I added the italics to make the division clear. The first part of that sentence is not under penalty of perjury. Perjury penalties only apply to the statement that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the (alleged) owner. This means it would only be perjury if, for example, the person/organization who filed the takedown notice in Scripps's name wasn't authorized by Scripps to do file DMCA takedown notices. Perjury has never applied to whether the notification itself was accurate.
So if you're upset that no one has ever been charged with perjury for filing an inaccurate DMCA takedown notice, you should at least know that it's not because those organizations/people are above the law. Instead, it's because that's simply not what the law actually says.
. Protesters are routinely disappeared in this country . . ..the protesters showed up and were promptly shoved into a dozen police SWAT vans and taken away, held for weeks without charge. The entire affair was later revealed to have been supported by the Department of Homeland Security, who labeled the protesters potential domestic terrorists and persons of interest.
Those two claims are astounding charges. They are incredibly serious claims, so serious that my initial suspicion is that you're exaggerating and/or making it up, OR that you got your information from someone else who was.
But hey, maybe you're not. Maybe it's true. Can you point to any reliable accounts for either of these two claims? Again, those two claims are (1) that protesters in the US are "routinely disappeared", or (2) that protesters in the US have been held for weeks without being charged for any crime.
The organization who misrepresented their ownership of the file is guilty of perjury. The chances of those criminals being punished are negligible. Is that not a problem?
It's not perjury, and they're not criminals. Perjury is making a false or misleading statement while under oath, and there is no oath here.
While frustrating and indicative of a systemic problem, their false representation of copyright ownership is not really a crime, either. If anything, it is a civil, non-criminal offense, and should properly be dealt with civil damages --fines or similar punishment-- rather than jail time. Not every legal wrong is a crime.
However I will agree with you that, if they did file a false DMCA takedown notice, and if they do escape any sort of punishment ($$$) for doing so, it is a major problem.
I finished law school last year. The first semester I took notes by hand. For the remaining five semesters I took notes using google docs. I don't need a lot of features for note taking, and most classes we were not permitted to audio or video record. Using docs meant I was device and operating system independent, it was easy to organize and edit, and you can upload any type of file to your class folder. On the few occasions the network prevented me from accessing docs, switching to a word pad program and pasting them in later sufficed.
For my brain, handwritten notes tend to solidify the material I write down -- I rarely have to actually refer back to my written notes to know what they said. However, two things made handwritten notes unwieldy: (1) the massive volume of text material covered in my classes, and (2) the fact that outlines were (usually) permitted for the final exams. Despite its advantages, the task of reducing an entire semester's worth of class notes into a usable outline was far more cumbersome when converting them from handwritten pages. Plus, I believe that most people can type much more quickly than they can transcribe.
That said, if my program hadn't been so heavily text-based -- it was not unusual to have to 1,000+ pages of reading material per week, 97% of which written in the style of an EULA-- I'd probably have tried to stick with handwritten notes throughout.
...after his eBay account, which used the same password as his Voices account, was compromised.
Analogy: Jeff Alan from New Hampshire decides to use the same numerical combination on both his briefcase and his bike lock. A thief watches Jeff pedal up to a cafe, lock his bike, and grab a table. The thief easily shoulder surfs the briefcase lock combination. On a hunch, the thief walks outside and tries the same combination on the Jeff's bike lock. It works, and the thief makes off with Jeff's bike. Jeff Alan from New Hampshire then sues the briefcase company for negligence, and demands that they replace his bicycle.
I will be very surprised if this case makes it past the pleading stage.
The user doesn't have to put up with surly condescending attitude on a chat call.
The user doesn't have to put up with poor language skills or a heavy accent, or a shitty phone connection.
The user doesn't have to give out a telephone number, and be monitored and recorded for quality control purposes.
The main reason I prefer chat sessions over phone sessions is that I can very easily document the session. Tiered support at times simply give you inaccurate or inconsequential information.
Recently I needed assistance with a fairly expensive product. It wasn't time urgent, and I insisted that the entirety of the help took place over email -- my rep repeatedly asked me to "just call her." I didn't want to because: (1) I'd have to transcribe some of what she was saying, and (2) by that point, she'd already given me contradictory and inaccurate information that got me nowhere.
So telling her that it would be easier for me to refer back to this in the future if it were in one long email thread, I insisted she take the time to type out her instructions, rather than have me take notes for her. Our session flowed much more smoothly because I was able to quote back her own language for the numerous times she needed to clarify or correct a previous statement.
The only way this could happen is if Game Stop is able to further limit the terms of the licenses of their download sales to give them an exclusive right to license buy-back. Without that, if Game Stop can buy back a license you purchased and resell it to someone else, that would mean that consumers have to have the same right to resell their software licenses and keys. There's a sound basis for businesses having the ability to restrict types of sales to distribution outlets that contract with them, but once a sales transaction to a customer has been completed, you cannot similarly restrict purchases of the same good or license purchased to specific outlets without either regulatory backing or specific license terms. IOW, if you can sell Game Stop a license for software that you purchased, you should be able to directly sell it to anyone else.
I'm all for the idea, personally; I'd love to see Craigslist filled with software resales. TFA article notes that a court in the EU has identified a right to sell secondhand software. However, I think this will undercut so many profit models of US businesses that, even if there were a similar court ruling (itself unlikely), it would face a lot of money being thrown in the direction of Congress to ensure that secondhand software sales remain impermissible. At best, US consumers will probably just even more restricted software licenses.
The time slot programming model of cable television is a technical vestige, and the sooner it is eliminated the better.
After the first time I watched an entire season of a show in the space of a single (and very lazy) weekend on a DVD years ago, I was unable to return to waiting for weekly installations. I now prefer to wait until a season is over, or even until a series has concluded entirely, before bothering to spend my time watching it.
Sometimes at the conclusion it will become clear that you shouldn't bother. For example I was waiting for LOST to end before watching it, but based on the non-plot-spoiler reviews I've read, I'm glad I didn't waste my time in the first place.
For quite a while now there has been more video entertainment than a single person could watch in one lifetime. If your primary reason is to be entertained --rather than to be able to discuss current entertainment at the office the way people do sports games-- you'll save time and money being selective about what you watch, as well as by not being in a hurry to catch the latest episode.
Amen. I suppose I'll get over the feeling of surprise eventually, but I'm still a bit startled at how little I want to watch video or listen to audio feeds now. Watching/listening is a huge time sink, and that's not even counting the doubling of the length with the inevitable ads.
For quite some time now I've been at the point where my instant reaction is to immediately close and move on if I follow an interestingly titled link, only to land on a video/audio clip that has no text transcript. (The only notable exception to this behavioral preference is listening to audio feeds while driving.)
How many times must this disinformation get corrected? It's a false equivocation, and it's designed to suppress votes by making people feel there's no point. It's annoying to see it consistently modded "insightful." Let's go over it again.
Yes, he pledged to close Guantanamo and hasn't. However, when he took office there were 242 detainees. He's already released 70, an scheduled an additional 87 for release... as soon as we can find some other country willing to accept them. (It's difficult to find takers.) This is a ~65% reduction in prisoners, and brings the # down from 242 to 85. But sure, he hasn't closed Guantanamo.
As a candidate, Obama said he'd end the war in Iraq. He also promised to escalate the war in Afghanistan. (As a reminder, candidate McCain was promising not only to stay in Iraq for several more generations, but also going around singing "Bomb bomb bomb Iran.") While the timeline was off by about a year for Iraq, otherwise he has kept his word on both counts.
ALSO: Obama never promised to end all war, usher in world peace, create utopia, eradicate all disease, nor end all suffering for humankind. I'm sick of seeing this bullshit, I'm sick of seeing it accepted at face value, and I'm sick of seeing people use their ignorance in preference of sound bites as an excuse not to bother to vote.
There are myriad number of issues you might not find addressed on this thread and will not be able to guess at. Archivist are professionals in long-term storage in various environments; some of them have been at it for over 25 years already. Society of American Archivists (SAA) members have a certification process. You should be able to find contacts and relevant publications here:http://www2.archivists.org/
Uhhhhmmmmm... so that was supposed to be a joke. Now I'm not going to make the "woosh" sound that would indicate it going over your head, but brace yourself, because someone else might.
. So much of our lives are online, but it is very easy to opt out of Facebook or Google+
Well, not really. Facebook at least almost certainly has a fairly detailed data profile on you already, regardless of whether you have an account. Real-life example: I set up a facebook account using a pseudonym, and have never disclosed any of the following info: my real name, my hometown, my birth date, the various cities I've lived in, schools attended. I've occasionally polluted my profile with false tags and information.
Unfortunately, I have a well-meaning, clueless aunt. Years ago, without my permission, she entered my name, birth date, hometown, and then-current place of residence in a shady, Eastern European hosted "genealogical site", and helpfully gave them my email address. So this info has been available through various search engines for some time. Even before I gave it up as useless and facebook friended her, she had began uploading dozens of pictures of me and other family members to facebook, from years back to current, and tagging them with our real names. (I'm surprised she didn't include phone numbers or addresses.)
So now, thanks to the carelessness and ignorance of a 3d party over whom I had no control, years of cautiously guarding my privacy online has been for naught, just because someone else spilled the beans before they understood the implications. Quite a bit of my personal info --some of which is used to authenticate my identity for financial transactions-- is now easily accessible even if you don't have uncontrolled access to facebook's profile. Just photograph my face, get my name from the autotag suggestion, and search on my name.
I don't understand what your concern has to do with same sex marriage. Take the current situation: straight marriage is legal. Well, why shouldn't straight polygamous marriage be legal, too?
I see nothing that prevents it; the multiple wives don't marry each other, just the husband. Why sanctify a relationship between only two, and not three people?
Great question, lots of issues arise... but wtf does it have to to with 2-person marriages? How are straight, monogamous marriages different from gay, monogamous marriages besides straight and gay -- and what of the gay monogamous marriages implicates polygamy? I really can not fathom how you get there.
Slashdot Mirror
Why should I give a shit about adademic dishonesty when fraud is what makes the world go around?
I'd have disagreed with you until the 2000 presidential election. Now I'll just answer it this way: regardless of reality, the appearance of credibility is important to your ultimate placement. Fraud isn't a problem itself, getting caught is. So you have to be better at your fraud than your competition, and better at it than those who would profit from detect yours. And as long as you're still on an upwardly mobile trajectory, the less influence/money your family has, the more important the appearance of credibility will be to your future.
I used to use Amarok as a music player until the 2.x series. I suppose they had a vision, but I certainly don't understand what it was, exactly. I want a music player that (1) plays as many formats as possible, (2) on as many different OSes as possible, for which (3) adjusting playback controls, eq, and playlists, etc are as simple as possible.
Amarok used to seem like a good candidate for that criteria. I gave 2.x a fair try, but didn't understand what the point of the design changes were, and it seemed to become a pretty buggy application. I soon moved to VLC for playback and haven't bothered to look back at Amarok sense. Does it actually offer any advantages over VLC?
Ah whoops, my bad.
The point I'm continuing to make here, and which your democracy now link actually supports, is in rebuttal to your claim:
As far as being held for weeks without being charged of any crime... It happens all the time.
Rather, what actually happens "all the time" is that a person is arrested, and then either charged or released. Even the title itself makes this clear --"Attorney: "NATO 3" Activists Detained on Terror Charges in Chicago Are Victims of Police Entrapment." The attorney's claims describe arrestees being either charged or released. As for the two "vanished" people... well listen to arrestees' attorney Gelsomino herself. Like someone else's earlier response to you speculated:
And there is where they eventually arrested the nine people. They arrested two additional people down the street. Six of those people have since been released without charges. As you know, the NATO Three are facing very serious terrorism threatsâ"or terrorism charges. And the other two are who we now believe to be police informants . . . .But through our own investigation, we have been able to uncover evidence of these two informants.
And your naming a handful of protests certainly doesn't make your point. If protesters being arrested and held for weeks without charges happens "all the time", it should be easy to come up with at least one solid example. You have yet to. The two recent examples of held-without-charges that I'm aware of are in the context of military arrests, not protests: Bradley Manning and Jose Padilla. And remember, Padilla's case was so unusual that it went up to SCOTUS.
My larger point is this: I probably agree with many of your concerns about the erosion of rights for peaceful protest. But making extreme claims that are unfounded, unsupported, and unlikely only undermines your effectiveness. Spouting disinformation erodes your credibility, which in turns makes it that much easier for people to dismiss your valid concerns. Have a problem with increased use of anti-terror laws? Great, so do I. Claim that the state is disappearing people and arbitrarily holding people for weeks without charges? Well that's where you lost me. Misinformation --intentional or otherwise-- does not help.
As far as being held for weeks without being charged of any crime... It happens all the time. I won't even bother rebutting that -- do your own homework. You can start with arrests at the national caucus' of either party in the last 20 years, if you need a hint.
No, this actually doesn't happen "all the time." Rather, it's incredibly rare. It's also the sort of thing that goes up the appeals chain, and since I've already done considerable homework on it already, "do your own homework" isn't helpful.
Still, taking your claims as perhaps possibly credible, I've checked your "hint" about party caucuses, and have come up flat. Every source I've seen so far describing an arrest at either party's national caucus in the last 20 years also describes what the person was charged with. You're claiming that it's common for protestors to be detained for extended periods without being charged for any crime, but I've yet to come across a single mention of someone being held for weeks without being charged.
As for your first claim, please note that there's no way for anyone else to verify your own claims without more detail. So at this point, I, and anyone else who'd want to believe you, would have to simply take your claim at face value. Given the unusual gravity of what you're claiming --if that's true, it is a huge problem-- I'd really, really like to see something that can be independently verified. Do you have any more details at all, particularly anything that can be followed up on by others? Say for example, the names of the people who you claim have disappeared without a trace after seeing video footage of them being led away in cuffs?
To make that even more clear: in the context of DMCA takedown notices, it's only perjury if you lie (or are "mistaken") about who you are and who you represent. It's not perjury if you lie or "mistakenly" file an inaccurate takedown notice.
"A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."
I added the italics to make the division clear. The first part of that sentence is not under penalty of perjury. Perjury penalties only apply to the statement that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the (alleged) owner. This means it would only be perjury if, for example, the person/organization who filed the takedown notice in Scripps's name wasn't authorized by Scripps to do file DMCA takedown notices. AFAICT, operjury has never applied to whether the notification itself was accurate.
So if you're upset that no one has ever been charged with perjury for filing an inaccurate DMCA takedown notice, you should at least know that it's not because those organizations/people are above the law. Instead, it's because that's simply not what the law actually says.
Forget fines. DMCA takedown demands are supposedly filed "under penalty of perjury". Last I heard, perjury is a prosecutable offense.
That's not how the DMCA is written. The language you must be referring to is 17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(vi), and after describing other elements of a DMCA takedown notification reads as follows:
"A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."
I added the italics to make the division clear. The first part of that sentence is not under penalty of perjury. Perjury penalties only apply to the statement that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the (alleged) owner. This means it would only be perjury if, for example, the person/organization who filed the takedown notice in Scripps's name wasn't authorized by Scripps to do file DMCA takedown notices. Perjury has never applied to whether the notification itself was accurate.
So if you're upset that no one has ever been charged with perjury for filing an inaccurate DMCA takedown notice, you should at least know that it's not because those organizations/people are above the law. Instead, it's because that's simply not what the law actually says.
. Protesters are routinely disappeared in this country . . . .the protesters showed up and were promptly shoved into a dozen police SWAT vans and taken away, held for weeks without charge. The entire affair was later revealed to have been supported by the Department of Homeland Security, who labeled the protesters potential domestic terrorists and persons of interest.
Those two claims are astounding charges. They are incredibly serious claims, so serious that my initial suspicion is that you're exaggerating and/or making it up, OR that you got your information from someone else who was.
But hey, maybe you're not. Maybe it's true. Can you point to any reliable accounts for either of these two claims? Again, those two claims are (1) that protesters in the US are "routinely disappeared", or (2) that protesters in the US have been held for weeks without being charged for any crime.
The organization who misrepresented their ownership of the file is guilty of perjury. The chances of those criminals being punished are negligible. Is that not a problem?
It's not perjury, and they're not criminals. Perjury is making a false or misleading statement while under oath, and there is no oath here.
While frustrating and indicative of a systemic problem, their false representation of copyright ownership is not really a crime, either. If anything, it is a civil, non-criminal offense, and should properly be dealt with civil damages --fines or similar punishment-- rather than jail time. Not every legal wrong is a crime.
However I will agree with you that, if they did file a false DMCA takedown notice, and if they do escape any sort of punishment ($$$) for doing so, it is a major problem.
I finished law school last year. The first semester I took notes by hand. For the remaining five semesters I took notes using google docs. I don't need a lot of features for note taking, and most classes we were not permitted to audio or video record. Using docs meant I was device and operating system independent, it was easy to organize and edit, and you can upload any type of file to your class folder. On the few occasions the network prevented me from accessing docs, switching to a word pad program and pasting them in later sufficed.
For my brain, handwritten notes tend to solidify the material I write down -- I rarely have to actually refer back to my written notes to know what they said. However, two things made handwritten notes unwieldy: (1) the massive volume of text material covered in my classes, and (2) the fact that outlines were (usually) permitted for the final exams. Despite its advantages, the task of reducing an entire semester's worth of class notes into a usable outline was far more cumbersome when converting them from handwritten pages. Plus, I believe that most people can type much more quickly than they can transcribe.
That said, if my program hadn't been so heavily text-based -- it was not unusual to have to 1,000+ pages of reading material per week, 97% of which written in the style of an EULA-- I'd probably have tried to stick with handwritten notes throughout.
...after his eBay account, which used the same password as his Voices account, was compromised.
Analogy: Jeff Alan from New Hampshire decides to use the same numerical combination on both his briefcase and his bike lock. A thief watches Jeff pedal up to a cafe, lock his bike, and grab a table. The thief easily shoulder surfs the briefcase lock combination. On a hunch, the thief walks outside and tries the same combination on the Jeff's bike lock. It works, and the thief makes off with Jeff's bike. Jeff Alan from New Hampshire then sues the briefcase company for negligence, and demands that they replace his bicycle.
I will be very surprised if this case makes it past the pleading stage.
The user doesn't have to put up with surly condescending attitude on a chat call. The user doesn't have to put up with poor language skills or a heavy accent, or a shitty phone connection. The user doesn't have to give out a telephone number, and be monitored and recorded for quality control purposes.
The main reason I prefer chat sessions over phone sessions is that I can very easily document the session. Tiered support at times simply give you inaccurate or inconsequential information.
Recently I needed assistance with a fairly expensive product. It wasn't time urgent, and I insisted that the entirety of the help took place over email -- my rep repeatedly asked me to "just call her." I didn't want to because: (1) I'd have to transcribe some of what she was saying, and (2) by that point, she'd already given me contradictory and inaccurate information that got me nowhere.
So telling her that it would be easier for me to refer back to this in the future if it were in one long email thread, I insisted she take the time to type out her instructions, rather than have me take notes for her. Our session flowed much more smoothly because I was able to quote back her own language for the numerous times she needed to clarify or correct a previous statement.
In this world we live in, talking softly while carrying a big stick is still the most practical way of doing things
Since when has "talking softly" described American diplomacy? We tend to talk not only rather loudly but also at considerable length.
I'd hope that it's not too difficult to find other things to talk about besides the latest shows and games.
The only way this could happen is if Game Stop is able to further limit the terms of the licenses of their download sales to give them an exclusive right to license buy-back. Without that, if Game Stop can buy back a license you purchased and resell it to someone else, that would mean that consumers have to have the same right to resell their software licenses and keys. There's a sound basis for businesses having the ability to restrict types of sales to distribution outlets that contract with them, but once a sales transaction to a customer has been completed, you cannot similarly restrict purchases of the same good or license purchased to specific outlets without either regulatory backing or specific license terms. IOW, if you can sell Game Stop a license for software that you purchased, you should be able to directly sell it to anyone else.
I'm all for the idea, personally; I'd love to see Craigslist filled with software resales. TFA article notes that a court in the EU has identified a right to sell secondhand software. However, I think this will undercut so many profit models of US businesses that, even if there were a similar court ruling (itself unlikely), it would face a lot of money being thrown in the direction of Congress to ensure that secondhand software sales remain impermissible. At best, US consumers will probably just even more restricted software licenses.
The time slot programming model of cable television is a technical vestige, and the sooner it is eliminated the better.
After the first time I watched an entire season of a show in the space of a single (and very lazy) weekend on a DVD years ago, I was unable to return to waiting for weekly installations. I now prefer to wait until a season is over, or even until a series has concluded entirely, before bothering to spend my time watching it.
Sometimes at the conclusion it will become clear that you shouldn't bother. For example I was waiting for LOST to end before watching it, but based on the non-plot-spoiler reviews I've read, I'm glad I didn't waste my time in the first place.
For quite a while now there has been more video entertainment than a single person could watch in one lifetime. If your primary reason is to be entertained --rather than to be able to discuss current entertainment at the office the way people do sports games-- you'll save time and money being selective about what you watch, as well as by not being in a hurry to catch the latest episode.
Amen. I suppose I'll get over the feeling of surprise eventually, but I'm still a bit startled at how little I want to watch video or listen to audio feeds now. Watching/listening is a huge time sink, and that's not even counting the doubling of the length with the inevitable ads.
For quite some time now I've been at the point where my instant reaction is to immediately close and move on if I follow an interestingly titled link, only to land on a video/audio clip that has no text transcript. (The only notable exception to this behavioral preference is listening to audio feeds while driving.)
I was horrified that advanced search is GONE now...
Google advanced search is not gone, and there are a number of ways to access it. Try googling "advanced search".
How many times must this disinformation get corrected? It's a false equivocation, and it's designed to suppress votes by making people feel there's no point. It's annoying to see it consistently modded "insightful." Let's go over it again.
Yes, he pledged to close Guantanamo and hasn't. However, when he took office there were 242 detainees. He's already released 70, an scheduled an additional 87 for release... as soon as we can find some other country willing to accept them. (It's difficult to find takers.) This is a ~65% reduction in prisoners, and brings the # down from 242 to 85. But sure, he hasn't closed Guantanamo.
As a candidate, Obama said he'd end the war in Iraq. He also promised to escalate the war in Afghanistan. (As a reminder, candidate McCain was promising not only to stay in Iraq for several more generations, but also going around singing "Bomb bomb bomb Iran.") While the timeline was off by about a year for Iraq, otherwise he has kept his word on both counts.
ALSO: Obama never promised to end all war, usher in world peace, create utopia, eradicate all disease, nor end all suffering for humankind. I'm sick of seeing this bullshit, I'm sick of seeing it accepted at face value, and I'm sick of seeing people use their ignorance in preference of sound bites as an excuse not to bother to vote.
There are myriad number of issues you might not find addressed on this thread and will not be able to guess at. Archivist are professionals in long-term storage in various environments; some of them have been at it for over 25 years already. Society of American Archivists (SAA) members have a certification process. You should be able to find contacts and relevant publications here:http://www2.archivists.org/
Uhhhhmmmmm... so that was supposed to be a joke. Now I'm not going to make the "woosh" sound that would indicate it going over your head, but brace yourself, because someone else might.
Would you leave your car idling in the garage all night long, so that when you come out in the morning, you won't need to defrost the windshield?
For those of us from the midwest or Canada: is this some sort of trick question?
. So much of our lives are online, but it is very easy to opt out of Facebook or Google+
Well, not really. Facebook at least almost certainly has a fairly detailed data profile on you already, regardless of whether you have an account. Real-life example: I set up a facebook account using a pseudonym, and have never disclosed any of the following info: my real name, my hometown, my birth date, the various cities I've lived in, schools attended. I've occasionally polluted my profile with false tags and information.
Unfortunately, I have a well-meaning, clueless aunt. Years ago, without my permission, she entered my name, birth date, hometown, and then-current place of residence in a shady, Eastern European hosted "genealogical site", and helpfully gave them my email address. So this info has been available through various search engines for some time. Even before I gave it up as useless and facebook friended her, she had began uploading dozens of pictures of me and other family members to facebook, from years back to current, and tagging them with our real names. (I'm surprised she didn't include phone numbers or addresses.)
So now, thanks to the carelessness and ignorance of a 3d party over whom I had no control, years of cautiously guarding my privacy online has been for naught, just because someone else spilled the beans before they understood the implications. Quite a bit of my personal info --some of which is used to authenticate my identity for financial transactions-- is now easily accessible even if you don't have uncontrolled access to facebook's profile. Just photograph my face, get my name from the autotag suggestion, and search on my name.
I don't understand what your concern has to do with same sex marriage. Take the current situation: straight marriage is legal. Well, why shouldn't straight polygamous marriage be legal, too?
I see nothing that prevents it; the multiple wives don't marry each other, just the husband. Why sanctify a relationship between only two, and not three people?
Great question, lots of issues arise... but wtf does it have to to with 2-person marriages? How are straight, monogamous marriages different from gay, monogamous marriages besides straight and gay -- and what of the gay monogamous marriages implicates polygamy? I really can not fathom how you get there.