I'm a constant critic of America, Americans, American foreign policy, American politics, etc. these days, but really, that's a rather disengenuous comment you just made. There is indeed censorship on the airwaves, and even on cable "bad language" is removed so as to not offend anyone, but there is still a stark contrast between predominantly Muslim nations and America.
In America, you can get fired, censured, and or fined for saying the wrong thing on public airwaves, but in the Muslim world(or not, you're really not safe anywhere), you can be executed, with support from the state, for expressing the wrong views: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie.
I'm an atheist, and frankly, anyone who supports jihads, fatwas, crusades, etc., can, well, fuck off.
That battle got won, like, five years ago, with video game ratings.
That's a very good point. Video game ratings are highly visible on all new games, and they're quite accurate, according to independant polls of other peoples' opinions. Unfortuneately, there are still many groups that want to ban outright, violence or sexuality in games, whether they're meant for children or not.
With all the talk of "freedom" in this country, you'd think more people would have a grasp of what, exactly, it means for people to have it. Freedom means that people will do things that you do not approve of, but you will do nothing to curb said things, because they are adults, and it is their intrinsic right to pursue happiness in any way they please, assuming they don't step on your right to do the same.
So, I have this to say about Jack Thompson and his ilk: Jack Thompson, and those like him, *hate* freedom.
That's pretty funny, considering the incident you refer to was an argument YOU STARTED with a KOffice developer, by completely talking out of your ass!
By all means, moderators, read the original thread CyricZ linked to.
I just fucking love how you subtly misrepresent the whole thing by implying it's a developer "publically insulting" a "long time" user, when really it was a developer simply refuting the *misinformation* posted by YOU.
Not as long as NTP is *legally* in the right, you will have no recourse except to demand your money back from RIM. Obviously, RIM cannot accomodate every customer in that way. For now, you're screwed, as is RIM.
I'd put more consideration into your neck wringing idea. I can't say what I'd do, where I in your situation... for fear of prosecution.
Whether Sheridan is a crackpot or not, you have entirely dismissed the most compelling piece of evidence, questioned for chrissake, the DATE he cites, and refuted his statements with nothing but some silly ad hominem about aliens.
A bunch of dolphins, all with puncture wounds on thier necks in the exact same place, consistent with a small explosive detonation. That sure sounds fishy to me. Considering that the military has been working with dolphins for quite some time now... Whether his information regarding that has any merit at all, the military does acknowledge training dolphins... I can't think of any other explanation other than an aborted U.S. military project.
Considering the cost of the device, that's still a pretty damn high margin. I think it's pretty negligent and shitty of them to use such a cheap plastic.
Shut up. Noone cares. And please just say "bullshit" like normal people.
Something harder than the plastic is needed to scratch it. Geology 101.
There's plenty of shit in dirt found everywhere that can scratch plastic. Devices such as these need to be made of plastic that doesn't scratch so easily. I find it extremely hard to believe that there'd be so much discussion of the topic going on if they didn't scratch particularly easy.
I keep my cellphone in the same pocket as my work keys. Sure, it's got some minor scratching. Nothing particularly bad. I kept my previous phone in the same pocket with the same keys, and it had an exposed screen. After almost 4 years, the paint had all been chipped / scratched off(silly painted cellphone...), and the screen, while scratched up a bit, was still perfectly readable.
From the pictures I see of the Nano, it looks like a piece of shit to me. It must be made of some pretty soft plastic to scratch so easily.
Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time is one of the best games I've played in years. Half-Life 2 - Sure, it's "just" an FPS, but there's nothing else like it out there. Fable - Like it or loathe it, there's nothing quite like it. Nothing noteworthy is comparable to the GTA series, and Rockstar isn't resting on its laurels either with games like Bully, and even the luke-warm received Manhunt attempting to deliver an experience that no other games do.
And if you didn't play those games, then you've no right to comment. I'm in agreement with the OP; jingoism has no place in this discussion - STFU.
Indeed you are correct. And I don't see why that should be any different for Google Print, ie. they technically have complete copies of the books, just as with web pages in their index, but the courts have already ruled that in the case of web pages, even though they have full copies, even for commercial purposes, that the purpose behind having those full copies is not exploitative and constitutes fair use.
They have a monstrous database. Guess what that database contains? Almost all the data from every site they have indexed. You could probably make a pretty rough approximation of a website with access to google's database.
But, you're wrong anyway. They cache pages, and they also store enough of every page they index to return an appropriate excerpt of the page in your search results.
If it's reference works you're concerned about, then that's a moot point anyway. Really now! Such brevity of information is always going to fall under fair use. Who buys such works for one small bit anyway? If someone has no use for the larger body of work as a whole, one uses the fucking library, and perhaps photocopies the couple of pages they need.
How is Google any different, other than being obscenely more efficient and more accessible, especially for people with disabilities?
And you don't have to pay the author for that snippet of information!
*Snippets* of information are considered fair use in free societies!
Libraries allow users to read the entire text of a book; not the entire text of a copy of a book. That *is* the difference. They still have the original book.
Libraries have the original manuscript?!!!
Ok, I guess that's not fair. I know what you meant. They *own* their own copy of the book. But that's really not the issue here. The issue is whether or not a search engine company has the right to index written texts the same way they index the web.
It *is* the same thing, by the way. Just because one wasn't originally digital information makes no difference. Search engines still do indeed have to make full copies of the web pages they index. And they don't, obviously, have to purchase a copy of websites before indexing them:P
I agree with you to some extent, but it's not the Author's Guild's responsibility to provide free information to everyone in the world, even if that were desirable. They've also got to look after their members interests. I'll bet a large proportion of their members aren't *that* greedy and self-interested; nevertheless, they are doing a job, they require compensation, and to some extent that's always going to restrict the flow of information.
Well, certainly, but this service provided by Google can only help the authors. They're not giving away entire books, only snippets. They allow people to find the books they need, and they also provide links for people to purchase the books once found.
Google is certainly not giving away more information than is generally legally allowed, AFAIK. The only question, IMO, is whether or not Google should be allowed to have complete digital copies of the books in their database.
If Google cannot be allowed to do this under current law, and indeed, any other company wishing to do similar, then it's just a matter of crufty copyright law stupidity.
The authors want to be consulted on how their copyrighted text is used. And that is absolutely their right.
No, it's not. There are a myriad of things a person can do with a book without the permission of the copyright holder. Reading it being first and foremost among said things. The *only* thing copyright gives them *any* control over is, well, copying. But it certainly doesn't give them complete control. Fair use can be stretched pretty far in some cases.
What Google is doing is rather unique. They are essentially indexing books the same way search engines index the web. One could argue that they are making complete copies for commercial purposes, which can't be considered fair use, but the same could be argued for the entirety of the web. Making something available, whether it be text on paper, digital media, or analog video and audio does not imply the right to copy. So the argument that putting something on the web implicitly gives search engines the right to index is false. But search engine indexing, which creates and permanently stores complete copies by its very nature, has survived the courts so far.
In the U.S. now, due to the Patriot Act, the federal government can detain anyone for any reason for any length of time and pretty much do to them anything they want. Therefore, if a company operating in the U.S. receives a court order to turn over information, they should refuse, otherwise they may be unknowingly complicit in violating someone's civil rights.
I really, really doubt the police in China told Yahoo what the investigation was about; you know, police are like that. They just demand information, and the law compels you to obey.
Perhaps we should have a trade embargo against China? That is, logically, the only way to go following your logic. If you operate in China, you have to follow the law. If you don't follow the law, you can't operate in China. The law, in your opinion(and mine too, certainly), violates the peoples' civil rights.
So, how about we stop all trade with China. Seems to be working just wonderfully for the people in Cuba...
Look, Yahoo isn't personally accountable for the actions of the Chinese government. The authorities demanded information and Yahoo obeyed the law. Did they even know what the investigation was about? It's not like the executives at Yahoo said, "No let's see. Who's civil rights can we violate today?" Give us a fucking break.
This is a political matter that deserves attention. When we have some politicians that aren't mouth breathing shit eaters, maybe it can be properly addressed. And perhaps when we damand the same of ourselves that we demand of others, we won't look like fucking hypocrites.
What is to stop someone from impersonating a merchant? Hell, even if it's non-trivial to swipe peoples' cards, what's to stop someone, just for "fun," from impersonating a merchant and draining everyones' account who walks by?
Until this stuff is reviewed by security gurus that I feel I can trust(hint: I don't trust the CC companies. Historically, they have been completely inept when it comes to security.), I will continue to question the sanity of this.
Because of risks of legal action, which is expensive.
Right... because lots of companies are in hot water over workers getting RSI syndrome...? The money made from the products they dropped would certainly compensate for any risk. Otherwise, the product wouldn't be worth keeping in the first place. So I submit that you're completely wrong. Either they wanted to put a spin on the dropping of a product that wasn't worth keeping to bolster their already excellent public image, or they really didn't want their factory workers getting RSI.
The B&J that makes money off making people fat and getting kids addicted to sugar, giving them diabetes and tooth decay. Yeah, hippies are all about making money on other people's misery.\
Right. Sugar, especially ice cream, is pure dagnasty evil. And it's their responsibility to parent all kids and make sure they don't eat too much ice cream... Hey, I got a brilliant fucking idea. Let's go lynch the ice cream man, dealer of diabetes and cavities! No, really...
Good show, though. That would make a great Power Point presentation. Bullet points. Tooth decay: check. Addiction: check. Diabetes: check. Making money on other people's misery: check.
Christ, man, have you no sense of reality? You really think you can make them sound like petty thugs? THEY MAKE AND SELL FUCKING ICE CREAM!
If they were real hippies, rather than sell-outs, they'd give 100%. But then they wouldn't be millionaires, which is what it's all about in the end.
Uhhh... they run an honest business and donate a large chunk of the profits to charity... Those bastards...
Damn, such harsh damaging criticism you came up with... I'll make sure never to piss you off, lest you make me look a fool.
Just who is starting this bullshit sterotype of hippies becoming corporate types? I hear this bullshit all the time. I've known plenty of former hippies... most of them are still hippies, just without the obsession with drugs and other silly shit. But this sterotype of hippies starting big companies I hear mostly from people who are on the opposite end of the political spectrum.
And regarding Ben & Jerry's... The same B&J that dropped a few products because making the product was giving the factory workers RSI? The B&J that started in a garage? The same B&J that donates 7.5% of its pre-tax profits to charities? The same B&J that's still doing this so many years later, even after having gone public and being acquired by a larger corporation? I don't know, maybe they have become corporate scum and should be hated by hippies, but I can't find any evidence of that after googling for a couple minutes. In fact, the only criticism of B&J's that I've found so far is by conservatives attacking their ideals. Forgive me if I'm a little skeptical of criticism of Ben & Jerry's coming from the fucking Cato Institute.
Fucking hell man, I don't even LIKE hippies. They're extremists, and they piss me off. But don't even try to call them out regarding their integrity... 'cause damn, most criticism directed their way is from people who have no goddamn legs to stand on.
It's about control. What this is describing is getting awful close to totalitarianism. Since when is government supposed to act as parents for its citizens. "It's for the children" is a copout. It doesn't matter how many children this saves. The price is simply too great. That price being the autonomy of individuals.
I agree with you about the U.S. But forms of totalitarianism get ushered in in many different ways. Look at history. This is no different. The Nazi party in Germany largely gained control of the population at large under the guise of safety and security. Don't be a fool.
I, personally, really like choices. What I don't like, however, is a simple registry setting being the most distinguishing feature between two "versions" of an operating system.
The gaming version of Vista will supposedly have "gaming optimizations." I can't think of a reason I should have to buy a more expensive version of the same operating system to get these supposed optimizations. It sounds to me like the other versions are deoptimized intentionally to get people to pay extra if they want to play games.
These different versions are going to be, IMHO, largely a farce.
What's Robinson's Mars series have to do with it? I haven't read the series, but it sounds good from the wikipedia entry. Would you recommend it? Yes/No and why?
Slashdot Mirror
In America, you can get fired, censured, and or fined for saying the wrong thing on public airwaves, but in the Muslim world(or not, you're really not safe anywhere), you can be executed, with support from the state, for expressing the wrong views: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie.
I'm an atheist, and frankly, anyone who supports jihads, fatwas, crusades, etc., can, well, fuck off.
That's a very good point. Video game ratings are highly visible on all new games, and they're quite accurate, according to independant polls of other peoples' opinions. Unfortuneately, there are still many groups that want to ban outright, violence or sexuality in games, whether they're meant for children or not.
With all the talk of "freedom" in this country, you'd think more people would have a grasp of what, exactly, it means for people to have it. Freedom means that people will do things that you do not approve of, but you will do nothing to curb said things, because they are adults, and it is their intrinsic right to pursue happiness in any way they please, assuming they don't step on your right to do the same.
So, I have this to say about Jack Thompson and his ilk: Jack Thompson, and those like him, *hate* freedom.
Cheers.
By all means, moderators, read the original thread CyricZ linked to.
I just fucking love how you subtly misrepresent the whole thing by implying it's a developer "publically insulting" a "long time" user, when really it was a developer simply refuting the *misinformation* posted by YOU.
I'd put more consideration into your neck wringing idea. I can't say what I'd do, where I in your situation... for fear of prosecution.
Seriously, I wish your wife the best.
Localroger is a shitty writer with delusions of grandeur. Noone worth a damn pays any attention to his juvenile whining.
A bunch of dolphins, all with puncture wounds on thier necks in the exact same place, consistent with a small explosive detonation. That sure sounds fishy to me. Considering that the military has been working with dolphins for quite some time now... Whether his information regarding that has any merit at all, the military does acknowledge training dolphins... I can't think of any other explanation other than an aborted U.S. military project.
Shut up. Noone cares. And please just say "bullshit" like normal people.
Something harder than the plastic is needed to scratch it. Geology 101.
There's plenty of shit in dirt found everywhere that can scratch plastic. Devices such as these need to be made of plastic that doesn't scratch so easily. I find it extremely hard to believe that there'd be so much discussion of the topic going on if they didn't scratch particularly easy.
I keep my cellphone in the same pocket as my work keys. Sure, it's got some minor scratching. Nothing particularly bad. I kept my previous phone in the same pocket with the same keys, and it had an exposed screen. After almost 4 years, the paint had all been chipped / scratched off(silly painted cellphone...), and the screen, while scratched up a bit, was still perfectly readable.
From the pictures I see of the Nano, it looks like a piece of shit to me. It must be made of some pretty soft plastic to scratch so easily.
And if you didn't play those games, then you've no right to comment. I'm in agreement with the OP; jingoism has no place in this discussion - STFU.
But, you're wrong anyway. They cache pages, and they also store enough of every page they index to return an appropriate excerpt of the page in your search results.
How is Google any different, other than being obscenely more efficient and more accessible, especially for people with disabilities?
*Snippets* of information are considered fair use in free societies!
Libraries allow users to read the entire text of a book; not the entire text of a copy of a book. That *is* the difference. They still have the original book.
Libraries have the original manuscript?!!!
Ok, I guess that's not fair. I know what you meant. They *own* their own copy of the book. But that's really not the issue here. The issue is whether or not a search engine company has the right to index written texts the same way they index the web.
It *is* the same thing, by the way. Just because one wasn't originally digital information makes no difference. Search engines still do indeed have to make full copies of the web pages they index. And they don't, obviously, have to purchase a copy of websites before indexing them :P
I agree with you to some extent, but it's not the Author's Guild's responsibility to provide free information to everyone in the world, even if that were desirable. They've also got to look after their members interests. I'll bet a large proportion of their members aren't *that* greedy and self-interested; nevertheless, they are doing a job, they require compensation, and to some extent that's always going to restrict the flow of information.
Well, certainly, but this service provided by Google can only help the authors. They're not giving away entire books, only snippets. They allow people to find the books they need, and they also provide links for people to purchase the books once found.
Google is certainly not giving away more information than is generally legally allowed, AFAIK. The only question, IMO, is whether or not Google should be allowed to have complete digital copies of the books in their database.
If Google cannot be allowed to do this under current law, and indeed, any other company wishing to do similar, then it's just a matter of crufty copyright law stupidity.
No, it's not. There are a myriad of things a person can do with a book without the permission of the copyright holder. Reading it being first and foremost among said things. The *only* thing copyright gives them *any* control over is, well, copying. But it certainly doesn't give them complete control. Fair use can be stretched pretty far in some cases.
What Google is doing is rather unique. They are essentially indexing books the same way search engines index the web. One could argue that they are making complete copies for commercial purposes, which can't be considered fair use, but the same could be argued for the entirety of the web. Making something available, whether it be text on paper, digital media, or analog video and audio does not imply the right to copy. So the argument that putting something on the web implicitly gives search engines the right to index is false. But search engine indexing, which creates and permanently stores complete copies by its very nature, has survived the courts so far.
I really, really doubt the police in China told Yahoo what the investigation was about; you know, police are like that. They just demand information, and the law compels you to obey.
Perhaps we should have a trade embargo against China? That is, logically, the only way to go following your logic. If you operate in China, you have to follow the law. If you don't follow the law, you can't operate in China. The law, in your opinion(and mine too, certainly), violates the peoples' civil rights.
So, how about we stop all trade with China. Seems to be working just wonderfully for the people in Cuba...
Look, Yahoo isn't personally accountable for the actions of the Chinese government. The authorities demanded information and Yahoo obeyed the law. Did they even know what the investigation was about? It's not like the executives at Yahoo said, "No let's see. Who's civil rights can we violate today?" Give us a fucking break.
This is a political matter that deserves attention. When we have some politicians that aren't mouth breathing shit eaters, maybe it can be properly addressed. And perhaps when we damand the same of ourselves that we demand of others, we won't look like fucking hypocrites.
People have been saying that for ever. Instead of really cool shit, we seem to perpetually just get the regular kind of shit.
Until this stuff is reviewed by security gurus that I feel I can trust(hint: I don't trust the CC companies. Historically, they have been completely inept when it comes to security.), I will continue to question the sanity of this.
Right... because lots of companies are in hot water over workers getting RSI syndrome...? The money made from the products they dropped would certainly compensate for any risk. Otherwise, the product wouldn't be worth keeping in the first place. So I submit that you're completely wrong. Either they wanted to put a spin on the dropping of a product that wasn't worth keeping to bolster their already excellent public image, or they really didn't want their factory workers getting RSI.
The B&J that makes money off making people fat and getting kids addicted to sugar, giving them diabetes and tooth decay. Yeah, hippies are all about making money on other people's misery.\
Right. Sugar, especially ice cream, is pure dagnasty evil. And it's their responsibility to parent all kids and make sure they don't eat too much ice cream... Hey, I got a brilliant fucking idea. Let's go lynch the ice cream man, dealer of diabetes and cavities! No, really...
Good show, though. That would make a great Power Point presentation. Bullet points. Tooth decay: check. Addiction: check. Diabetes: check. Making money on other people's misery: check.
Christ, man, have you no sense of reality? You really think you can make them sound like petty thugs? THEY MAKE AND SELL FUCKING ICE CREAM!
If they were real hippies, rather than sell-outs, they'd give 100%. But then they wouldn't be millionaires, which is what it's all about in the end.
Uhhh... they run an honest business and donate a large chunk of the profits to charity... Those bastards...
Damn, such harsh damaging criticism you came up with... I'll make sure never to piss you off, lest you make me look a fool.
And regarding Ben & Jerry's... The same B&J that dropped a few products because making the product was giving the factory workers RSI? The B&J that started in a garage? The same B&J that donates 7.5% of its pre-tax profits to charities? The same B&J that's still doing this so many years later, even after having gone public and being acquired by a larger corporation? I don't know, maybe they have become corporate scum and should be hated by hippies, but I can't find any evidence of that after googling for a couple minutes. In fact, the only criticism of B&J's that I've found so far is by conservatives attacking their ideals. Forgive me if I'm a little skeptical of criticism of Ben & Jerry's coming from the fucking Cato Institute.
Fucking hell man, I don't even LIKE hippies. They're extremists, and they piss me off. But don't even try to call them out regarding their integrity... 'cause damn, most criticism directed their way is from people who have no goddamn legs to stand on.
I agree with you about the U.S. But forms of totalitarianism get ushered in in many different ways. Look at history. This is no different. The Nazi party in Germany largely gained control of the population at large under the guise of safety and security. Don't be a fool.
The gaming version of Vista will supposedly have "gaming optimizations." I can't think of a reason I should have to buy a more expensive version of the same operating system to get these supposed optimizations. It sounds to me like the other versions are deoptimized intentionally to get people to pay extra if they want to play games.
These different versions are going to be, IMHO, largely a farce.
So much to read... so little time.