Of course.. you can't copy a beef jerky.. the only way for you to be handing out beef jerky is to acquire it yourself - and I very highly doubt you'd be able to give it away for free with no money exhanged somewhere somehow.
If I could download beef jerky from the internet, I would definitely give it away to anyone who asked for some.
1. She accidentally ordered a laptop with Ubuntu on it. Okay, when she calls Dell, they should have been much more helpful. Yes, we geeks of the world clearly understand the superiority of Linux to windows. However, the customer is always right... If she wants windows, Dell should have been much more accommodating and put windows on the laptop.
That's what I thought at first. But then I had to wonder if the real reason she stuck with ubuntu is that Dell told her that the price would go up if she bought windows and so she decided she didn't want to spend any more money.
to go outside and walk down the street naked, your rights to privacy vanish!
That is a dangerously authoritarian approach to the issue. If we were expected to give up all rights to privacy simply because we were no longer on our own land, we might as well have no privacy at all because only the invalid and the insane can be expected to live their lives without a significant, if not majority, of time spent outside of their own property.
The supreme court ruled, in Katz v US, that regardless of whether you are on public or private property, what matters is that you have a reasonable expectation to privacy whatever the location may be.
On the face of it, it sounds like he's proposing a "trusted" infection vector. A way to distributed code intended to patch holes to systems that want it. The obvious problem with such a system is the consequences of it being compromised. Then it becomes a way to distribute malicious code much more effectively than the way bot-nets infect new hosts now.
You should, because your display of poor reasoning ability and illogic in this thread has been sad. At least you can make a spelling flame though, that's one thing you can be proud of.
It should be equally obvious to even the most skeptical of readers that claiming credit for murdering thousands of American citizens isn't likely to prolong your life expectancy
You are clearly on the wrong side of the crazy line if you think that any significant number of americans would believe bin Laden if he were to deny the accusation.
That's exactly how I'm going to disregard it, given the fact that the SOB and members of his organization have admitted their involvement.
"Admitting involvement" is a far cry from "claiming credit" which is what "the SOB and members of his organization" have actually done. It should be obvious to even the most sceptical of readers that claiming credit for 9/11 is probably the most tactically valuable thing bin Laden could do, guilty or not.
While everyone is piling on about how pointless personality tests are, I figured I'd mention a related test - drug tests. Seems like all the big corps and too many of the smaller corps are now requiring "pre-employment drug-screening" for jobs in the mail room all the way up to, but not including, the board room.
Most of these tests are pointless. Never mind the whole "guilty until proven innocent" thing (what if there was a piss test for speeding or whoring or grand theft, would all the sheep take it too?). Instead, just think about the economics. Lets say you are a habitual drug user and that the job you are applying for is at least $30K/yr. Lets say that you really need the job and are prepared to do what it takes to get it. $3,000, just 10% of that yearly salary, is going to be more than enough to pay for a fake-id and some guy who is clean to go in and take the drug test for you. Maybe you have to get the money from a loan shark, but chances are that loan shark can also set you up with the guy who makes fake-ids and the guy who will pee in your place.
So, for even a fairly low paying job, there is enough financial incentive to completely circumvent the job. Factor in what most engineering and software development jobs pay and the reasons just get even stronger.
People that are too lazy to go get a converter box are suddenly going to take to the streets with torches and pitchforks? I find that highly unlikely.
Most people are like politicians - they won't get off their ass until AFTER something breaks. Then, when they do, they run around making a lot of noise and not getting one useful thing done.
For example, WHDH-DT is off in UHF neverland, but once the analog WHDH 7 goes away, WHDH-DT gets the 7 slot not just on the logical dial, but also the physical frequency space.
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/25.50.html Some *digital* reception will go black in February! <"Daniel P. B. Smith" <usenet2006@dpbsmith.com>> Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:03:41 -0500
I'm pretty sure I'm right about this, but I haven't succeeded in getting a clear answer from anyone. It isn't discussed in any FAQ I've seen.
On 17Feb 2009, some of the people most surprised by the transition will be those who carefully prepared in advance and are happily watching digital TV over the air with an "HDTV antenna." Because, on February 17th, some of the stations they are watching in _digital_ now will effectively go black.
The reason is that the antennas that have been sold for years as "HDTV antennas" or "digital antennas" are UHF-only antennas. This made sense, because VHF antennas are large, bulky, expensive, and difficult to install, and because _currently_ all digital television frequency assignments are in the UHF band.
The problem is that on 17 Feb 2009, when the transition occurs, some stations will be moving their signals from the UHF band to the VHF band, to take advantage of VHF spectrum that has been freed up by the cessation of analog broadcasting.
For example, according to antennaweb.org, WHDH-DT in Boston, which is currently broadcasting on UHF channel 42, will move to VHF channel 7.
However, you will not find any discussion of this on WHDH's website, which contains the stock DTV advice and says nothing about any special considerations in receiving WHDH-DT. Like other FAQs, it refers vaguely to antennas and does not emphasize any need to be sure that your antenna includes VHF capability if you want to receive all stations after February 17th.
Not very many people will be affected by this problem. Only those who actually prepared!
Another issue is that digital television receivers and converter boxes generally set themselves up automatically when first powered on, scanning through the channels and identifying and marking those where digital signals were found. It is a one-time process and people can forget that it ever took place. I wonder how many DTV receivers will handle the channel reassignments automatically and gracefully? I suspect many people, even if their antennas receive VHF, will simply lose the reassigned channels, perhaps for weeks... until they figure out that they need to initiate a manual rescan and can remember how to do it.
Okie dokie, so instead of just saying they exist, name a few.
I'm sorry, you are unclear. You want me to come up with examples that support your argument? Its unclear because your examples jump to conclusions and ignore the first principles I was talking about like "all men are created equal" and "the right to a fair trial."
Or, I can release it with restrictions and you're free to take it or leave it (as would happen with your special bottled air).... Air goes everywhere, and you have limited control over which air you're breathing at any given moment. Your mp3 player contains songs that you intentionally put there
You seem to lack an understanding of the word excludable. It isn't about the choice of the consumer, it is about the natural control of the creator. Its a common misunderstanding in such discussions, generally stemming from a lack of knowledge beyond econ 101. Seeing as how your entire argument is predicated on that error, I won't be replying any further.
I've seen the way these go, you will either try to dispute the indisputable, haggling about the definition of excludable like so: "copyright is enforced pretty wellon adaily basis" or try to apply some sort of moral justification lacking any firm root in first principles that the current law, despite all its costs and poor enforceability is "right." Been there, done that, horse to water and all. Good luck with the buggy whips.
What part of If the issuing bank gave a shit about customer privacy, it would "no fucking way" not "of course." is in contradiction to your interpretation of the OP?
of course Best Buy has access to your home address, via your credit card.
Of course? WTF? If the issuing bank gave a shit about customer privacy, it would "no fucking way" not "of course." When I go into Best Buy and pay with cash, they don't get my billing address, the same thing should apply when using a credit card. They certainly do not have a legitimate need to know my billing address without first asking for my permission.
Nonsense. Slavery is perfectly logical from the perspective of the enslavers, and was practiced by civilizations that lasted far longer than ours has (slavery-free) so far. We've outlawed it not because of logic, but because we find it morally repugnant, we feel it's wrong.
It is true that the law starts with a few basic principles. But do not make the nonsensical mistake of assuming that because a handful of principles are accepted on their own merit that the rest of the 99.999999% of the law is simply independent principles of "feeling" rather than logical derivatives of those original principles.
Can you really not see the difference here? And honestly, you're free to try to charge me for air from one of your trees. Simply place your trees into an air-tight container, feed carbon-dioxide into it, collect the oxygen they produce, and bottle it. I won't buy it of course, but you're welcome to try.
I can just see you struggling to get this analogy out without invoking the blindingly obvious comparison to simply not publishing a creative work.
Creative works don't simply float though the air and attach themselves to your MP3 player. You know pretty much where they came from, and who to credit with their creation. In short, your analogy == epic fail.
But, try as you might, you just could not figure out a way to word it to disguise the obvious, so you did the next best thing and admited up front that both air and creative works are non-excludable. But don't be so foolish as to think admitting the obvious lets you deny it.
Your declaration of "epic fail" notwithstanding, it is essentially impossible to enforce claims of ownership to ideas just as much as it is impossible to enforce claims of ownership of air. Examples are rampant, so called "copyright orphans" are a serious problem with the current system precisely because copyright ownership is not as obvious as you make it out to be. Credit for creation is one thing, but ownership of copyright is completely distinction from it.
When you get down to it, isn't that what most laws come down to? Murder is illegal because we feel it's wrong.
No, not really. Feelings and logic are two different things. The intent of the legal system is that it be based on logic and rationale evaluation of the consequences the law. That doesn't mean it isn't frequently abused by people with your attitude, but those abuses are in no way a justification to give up on the goals of the system.
As I've said before, if you want to use someone else's work, apparently you feel it has some value. If it didn't you wouldn't want to use it.
If you want to breath the oxygen produced by someone else's trees, then apparently you feel it has some value. If it didn't you wouldn't want to breathe it.
It's factually wrong that they've never made the claim. I never said anything at all about the validity of the claims
I point of distinction that is so trivial as to be meaningless.
Again: let's not guess. Let's get someone to actually review the information and either confirm or deny the claims.
You must mean review the "secret claims," because the public claims have all been easyily debunked. Either way, ain't no way any such review is going to happen unless people publicly dispute their claims, even the secret ones.
You're still in the realm of speculation: do you have evidence that every single public claim has been refuted?
Every single claim I've ever seen from them has been BS, but you are the one who has said that's "factually wrong" so, show me one that wasn't ultimately BS.
And then, what about claims that have not been released to the public?
Don't be dense. The point was that if the ones they brag about are failures, then is is highly unlikely that they would be keeping their successes secret - if they are smart enough to distinguish between the two, then they would obviously refrain from bragging about their failures in the first place.
Well, now you're just factually wrong: officials HAVE come out and said that such information has thwarted attacks.
And every single time they've done so, the details have not panned out. The point is that we get all the backslapping and public self-congratulation for the bullshit terrorists, but never for any real ones.
Like this - which oops turned out not to be about blowing up the plane (after all, he only had SOME parts of a bomb, not all parts, no detonator, and nothing to mix with the nitro in order to make it volatile) but about seeking revenge on some people at his destination. So, while the guy probably belongs in jail, his jailing was not part of the purview of stopping terrorist attacks on airplanes.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course.. you can't copy a beef jerky.. the only way for you to be handing out beef jerky is to acquire it yourself - and I very highly doubt you'd be able to give it away for free with no money exhanged somewhere somehow.
If I could download beef jerky from the internet, I would definitely give it away to anyone who asked for some.
1. She accidentally ordered a laptop with Ubuntu on it. Okay, when she calls Dell, they should have been much more helpful. Yes, we geeks of the world clearly understand the superiority of Linux to windows. However, the customer is always right... If she wants windows, Dell should have been much more accommodating and put windows on the laptop.
That's what I thought at first.
But then I had to wonder if the real reason she stuck with ubuntu is that Dell told her that the price would go up if she bought windows and so she decided she didn't want to spend any more money.
to go outside and walk down the street naked, your rights to privacy vanish!
That is a dangerously authoritarian approach to the issue. If we were expected to give up all rights to privacy simply because we were no longer on our own land, we might as well have no privacy at all because only the invalid and the insane can be expected to live their lives without a significant, if not majority, of time spent outside of their own property.
The supreme court ruled, in Katz v US, that regardless of whether you are on public or private property, what matters is that you have a reasonable expectation to privacy whatever the location may be.
On the face of it, it sounds like he's proposing a "trusted" infection vector. A way to distributed code intended to patch holes to systems that want it. The obvious problem with such a system is the consequences of it being compromised. Then it becomes a way to distribute malicious code much more effectively than the way bot-nets infect new hosts now.
I bow to your infinite wisdom
You should, because your display of poor reasoning ability and illogic in this thread has been sad. At least you can make a spelling flame though, that's one thing you can be proud of.
I hope they were as illuminating as your flamebait'ish sig
Trust me, they weren't even close. Glad you recognized your shame though.
Of course these videos won't make any sense until they are buffalaxed.
All along watching you pumping my retard!
And you are clearly on the wrong side of the crazy line if you think his hands are clean.
Never said I did. But thanks for playing. Your contributions were most illuminating.
It should be equally obvious to even the most skeptical of readers that claiming credit for murdering thousands of American citizens isn't likely to prolong your life expectancy
You are clearly on the wrong side of the crazy line if you think that any significant number of americans would believe bin Laden if he were to deny the accusation.
That's exactly how I'm going to disregard it, given the fact that the SOB and members of his organization have admitted their involvement.
"Admitting involvement" is a far cry from "claiming credit" which is what "the SOB and members of his organization" have actually done. It should be obvious to even the most sceptical of readers that claiming credit for 9/11 is probably the most tactically valuable thing bin Laden could do, guilty or not.
While everyone is piling on about how pointless personality tests are, I figured I'd mention a related test - drug tests.
Seems like all the big corps and too many of the smaller corps are now requiring "pre-employment drug-screening" for jobs in the mail room all the way up to, but not including, the board room.
Most of these tests are pointless. Never mind the whole "guilty until proven innocent" thing (what if there was a piss test for speeding or whoring or grand theft, would all the sheep take it too?). Instead, just think about the economics. Lets say you are a habitual drug user and that the job you are applying for is at least $30K/yr. Lets say that you really need the job and are prepared to do what it takes to get it. $3,000, just 10% of that yearly salary, is going to be more than enough to pay for a fake-id and some guy who is clean to go in and take the drug test for you. Maybe you have to get the money from a loan shark, but chances are that loan shark can also set you up with the guy who makes fake-ids and the guy who will pee in your place.
So, for even a fairly low paying job, there is enough financial incentive to completely circumvent the job. Factor in what most engineering and software development jobs pay and the reasons just get even stronger.
People that are too lazy to go get a converter box are suddenly going to take to the streets with torches and pitchforks? I find that highly unlikely.
Most people are like politicians - they won't get off their ass until AFTER something breaks. Then, when they do, they run around making a lot of noise and not getting one useful thing done.
For example, WHDH-DT is off in UHF neverland, but once the analog WHDH 7 goes away, WHDH-DT gets the 7 slot not just on the logical dial, but also the physical frequency space.
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/25.50.html
Some *digital* reception will go black in February!
<"Daniel P. B. Smith" <usenet2006@dpbsmith.com>>
Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:03:41 -0500
I'm pretty sure I'm right about this, but I haven't succeeded in getting a
clear answer from anyone. It isn't discussed in any FAQ I've seen.
On 17Feb 2009, some of the people most surprised by the transition will be
those who carefully prepared in advance and are happily watching digital TV
over the air with an "HDTV antenna." Because, on February 17th, some of the
stations they are watching in _digital_ now will effectively go black.
The reason is that the antennas that have been sold for years as "HDTV
antennas" or "digital antennas" are UHF-only antennas. This made sense,
because VHF antennas are large, bulky, expensive, and difficult to install,
and because _currently_ all digital television frequency assignments are in
the UHF band.
The problem is that on 17 Feb 2009, when the transition occurs, some
stations will be moving their signals from the UHF band to the VHF band, to
take advantage of VHF spectrum that has been freed up by the cessation of
analog broadcasting.
For example, according to antennaweb.org, WHDH-DT in Boston, which is
currently broadcasting on UHF channel 42, will move to VHF channel 7.
However, you will not find any discussion of this on WHDH's website, which
contains the stock DTV advice and says nothing about any special
considerations in receiving WHDH-DT. Like other FAQs, it refers vaguely to
antennas and does not emphasize any need to be sure that your antenna
includes VHF capability if you want to receive all stations after February
17th.
Not very many people will be affected by this problem. Only those who
actually prepared!
Another issue is that digital television receivers and converter boxes
generally set themselves up automatically when first powered on, scanning
through the channels and identifying and marking those where digital signals
were found. It is a one-time process and people can forget that it ever took
place. I wonder how many DTV receivers will handle the channel reassignments
automatically and gracefully? I suspect many people, even if their antennas
receive VHF, will simply lose the reassigned channels, perhaps for
weeks... until they figure out that they need to initiate a manual rescan
and can remember how to do it.
Okie dokie, so instead of just saying they exist, name a few.
I'm sorry, you are unclear. You want me to come up with examples that support your argument? Its unclear because your examples jump to conclusions and ignore the first principles I was talking about like "all men are created equal" and "the right to a fair trial."
Or, I can release it with restrictions and you're free to take it or leave it (as would happen with your special bottled air). ...
Air goes everywhere, and you have limited control over which air you're breathing at any given moment. Your mp3 player contains songs that you intentionally put there
You seem to lack an understanding of the word excludable. It isn't about the choice of the consumer, it is about the natural control of the creator. Its a common misunderstanding in such discussions, generally stemming from a lack of knowledge beyond econ 101. Seeing as how your entire argument is predicated on that error, I won't be replying any further.
I've seen the way these go, you will either try to dispute the indisputable, haggling about the definition of excludable like so: "copyright is enforced pretty well on a daily basis" or try to apply some sort of moral justification lacking any firm root in first principles that the current law, despite all its costs and poor enforceability is "right." Been there, done that, horse to water and all. Good luck with the buggy whips.
What part of If the issuing bank gave a shit about customer privacy, it would "no fucking way" not "of course." is in contradiction to your interpretation of the OP?
Or this case, which might possibly result in a SCOTUS ruling requiring cops to use their brains before using their cuffs.
of course Best Buy has access to your home address, via your credit card.
Of course? WTF? If the issuing bank gave a shit about customer privacy, it would "no fucking way" not "of course." When I go into Best Buy and pay with cash, they don't get my billing address, the same thing should apply when using a credit card. They certainly do not have a legitimate need to know my billing address without first asking for my permission.
Nonsense. Slavery is perfectly logical from the perspective of the enslavers, and was practiced by civilizations that lasted far longer than ours has (slavery-free) so far. We've outlawed it not because of logic, but because we find it morally repugnant, we feel it's wrong.
It is true that the law starts with a few basic principles. But do not make the nonsensical mistake of assuming that because a handful of principles are accepted on their own merit that the rest of the 99.999999% of the law is simply independent principles of "feeling" rather than logical derivatives of those original principles.
Can you really not see the difference here? And honestly, you're free to try to charge me for air from one of your trees. Simply place your trees into an air-tight container, feed carbon-dioxide into it, collect the oxygen they produce, and bottle it. I won't buy it of course, but you're welcome to try.
I can just see you struggling to get this analogy out without invoking the blindingly obvious comparison to simply not publishing a creative work.
Creative works don't simply float though the air and attach themselves to your MP3 player. You know pretty much where they came from, and who to credit with their creation. In short, your analogy == epic fail.
But, try as you might, you just could not figure out a way to word it to disguise the obvious, so you did the next best thing and admited up front that both air and creative works are non-excludable. But don't be so foolish as to think admitting the obvious lets you deny it.
Your declaration of "epic fail" notwithstanding, it is essentially impossible to enforce claims of ownership to ideas just as much as it is impossible to enforce claims of ownership of air. Examples are rampant, so called "copyright orphans" are a serious problem with the current system precisely because copyright ownership is not as obvious as you make it out to be. Credit for creation is one thing, but ownership of copyright is completely distinction from it.
When you get down to it, isn't that what most laws come down to? Murder is illegal because we feel it's wrong.
No, not really. Feelings and logic are two different things. The intent of the legal system is that it be based on logic and rationale evaluation of the consequences the law. That doesn't mean it isn't frequently abused by people with your attitude, but those abuses are in no way a justification to give up on the goals of the system.
As I've said before, if you want to use someone else's work, apparently you feel it has some value. If it didn't you wouldn't want to use it.
If you want to breath the oxygen produced by someone else's trees, then apparently you feel it has some value. If it didn't you wouldn't want to breathe it.
It's factually wrong that they've never made the claim. I never said anything at all about the validity of the claims
I point of distinction that is so trivial as to be meaningless.
Again: let's not guess. Let's get someone to actually review the information and either confirm or deny the claims.
You must mean review the "secret claims," because the public claims have all been easyily debunked.
Either way, ain't no way any such review is going to happen unless people publicly dispute their claims, even the secret ones.
You're still in the realm of speculation: do you have evidence that every single public claim has been refuted?
Every single claim I've ever seen from them has been BS, but you are the one who has said that's "factually wrong" so, show me one that wasn't ultimately BS.
And then, what about claims that have not been released to the public?
Don't be dense. The point was that if the ones they brag about are failures, then is is highly unlikely that they would be keeping their successes secret - if they are smart enough to distinguish between the two, then they would obviously refrain from bragging about their failures in the first place.
So, where's the best place to express our collective disappointment?
Does the guy need a senate confirmation for that job or does that only apply to the US AG?
WHat about that website Obama's been running? Does it have a way to mod this guy down?
first chink in the army
I think the word you were looking for is "armor", not "army".
Either that, or he thought Perrelli was Chinese...
So, it's all about you FEEL.
So, the first couple of hundred years of copyright law in the USA were unjust in your opinion?
Well, now you're just factually wrong: officials HAVE come out and said that such information has thwarted attacks.
And every single time they've done so, the details have not panned out. The point is that we get all the backslapping and public self-congratulation for the bullshit terrorists, but never for any real ones.
Like this - which oops turned out not to be about blowing up the plane (after all, he only had SOME parts of a bomb, not all parts, no detonator, and nothing to mix with the nitro in order to make it volatile) but about seeking revenge on some people at his destination. So, while the guy probably belongs in jail, his jailing was not part of the purview of stopping terrorist attacks on airplanes.