Oops, I didn't mean to come off as saying "they should be punished" but rather questioning whether or not the COULD be punished. I don't think they should be punished either, but it's still annoying not being able to absolutely control who has your email address.
email addresses? Such as those who are infected with a harvester. I know that is how my gmail address got out. I didn't receive any spam until I received a mass email inviting all the 200 people who were accepted to the University of Minnesota graduate program in CS to an orientation. At least one of the people who got that must have been infected with spyware that harvests addresses(I know they should know better since they are going to be CS grad students and yet....) and spam started regularly coming into my inbox. It isn't as bad as the 100 or so spams I day I received at my old university address(which I was careless with, but that was before spam became as huge a problem as it is today).
Should the offender be tracked and punished? After all, (s)he gave away my personal info without my consent. Not intentionally and didn't make any money, but its an interesting question nonetheless.
but the story is impossible to get back into the story and really know what is going on(it's hard enough if you don't stop). Tactics Ogre was the whole reason I bought a gba and it took me 3 years and 3 continents to finally beat it. I bought it in North America, took it with me and got to the boss while I was living in Japan, and then a year and a half later finally beat it when I was in Europe. Tried playing through again and well, I'm lost in the story again. I know you can replay all the events, but that is just annoying.
But how Wal-Mart treats employees can and does affect the tax payer. Case in point, Wal Mart got into a lot of trouble over stating that many of their workers in Maryland would be better off on the state's(tax payer funded) insurance than on Wal-Marts(Walton funded) insurance. Another even more reckless point is that Wal-Mart stated that inclimate weather is no longer an excuse for being late for work. How many white collar employees that weren't in critical(and thus usually better compensated compared to their peers) roles would accept this? It also puts everyone else in danger. While obviously there are exceptions, I would wager that more often than not Wal Mart employees tend to drive less reliable cars that are less likely to have snow tires and they are less likely to have (good) car insurance. So what happens if they are rushing to work after dropping the kids off in bad weather and they wreck because they were trying to satisfy Wal Mart's unreasonable demands. They may cause loss of life to themselves or others, they are more likely to cause significant property damage that they cannot pay to recompensate, traffic may get snarled, the police may have to spend money getting them out of there. Everyone BUT Wal-Mart loses, and yet it is Wal-Marts policy. They would rather see this happen than give someone an hour or two of overtime while they are covering a shift for someone who cannot make it into work. That is how Wal-Mart's policies towards employees hurt everyone.
How exactly would a placard with some lights on it even act as a bomb? I doubt terrorists would be so brazen in their advertising, not to mention why would they advertise a little alien guy? Unless they were the Raelians, but I don't think they are even smart enough to make a bomb.
Yeah, because coke money is "washed in blood". And I'm really not going to take moral lessons from a homophobe. You never answered the question, you received money from the University who receives money from copyright. You also never answered my question about working for a professor who published a book. My guess is you have and haven't screamed at the professor that he/she is evil for getting money from copyright. You are a hypocrite. You don't seem to mind benefiting from copyright but seem to think that others should not.
Maybe you are convinced that Hollywood is all "gay" and thus does not deserve money.
Well Ivan Zaigralin, email address: melikamp@math.bu.edu, you obviously have no qualms about taking funds from Boston University, an institution that, I'm sure like almost any other institution, derives some of its funding through copyright, usually via books published as well as other sources. Have you given back al the money that you have received indirectly from copyright? Have you ever worked with a professor who has published a book and thus benefited directly from copyright? Because if you have, then you are a hypocrite pure and simple. By the way, thats Ivan Zaigralin, who also uses the email address jplsp@yahoo.com in case you were wondering.
If an artist is so upset over the deal he gets with a record company then he doesn't have to sign the contract. Its not like someone is holding a gun up to his head and saying "sign or else". The two free entities signed into a contract with each other. Obviously each entity thinks that they are getting a good deal or else they wouldn't sign the contract. If they didn't read the thing before they signed it well then tough shit. Its that simple. Many artists such as Moby and a lot of the artists on sites such as cd baby are totally foregoing the record company route. They are going independent and holding on to the their copyrights. And if the artist would release the songs for free, more power to them. But ultimately they have control over their art.
In the case of your grandmother, why does she have to sign the rights to her book away at all? She doesn't, if she does well then that is her decision and thats that. Would you like it if a stranger came to your job and told you how you should do your job and handle your personal life? My guess is no, so why are you trying to dictate what artists do with theirs?
I think that copyright should exist for 14 years and 14 years renewable(if the owners are still alive), but saying the solution is to abolish all copyright is myopic at best.
Because everyone who thinks the world exists solely to entertain them keeps on ranting about how copyrighted works are not scarce since they can be copied at no cost. What they don't mention is that works that do not exist yet are infinitely scarce. Copyright is an attempt to bridge the infinitely scarce with the infinitely plenty. If it didn't exist then some of the greatest writers would have had to keep day jobs in order to stay alive and thus could not have put nearly as much effort into their work. We wouldn't have most sci-fi films because the cost of doing them would be prohibitive. It goes on. If you don't want to make copyrighted works, then that is your choice. But don't think that the rest of the world has to entertain you out of the goodness of their hearts.
You speak of arrogance and yet didn't even bother to read all my argument before responding. Note I mentioned the word "public domain" I don't believe a corporation should own a copyright forever. Read before responding with pseudo intellectual babble next time, k?
I know I am going against the groupthink here and will be modded accordingly, but how are you "giving" the culture to the company that created a movie/song/whatever? If you want to, you create the culture and give it away. If you don't want to or cannot, then don't complain that the culture is being "stolen". The world does not exist to entertain you, I know that is hard to swallow, but it is true. If you don't like the MPAA or RIAA then go outside to do something, read one of the huge number of public domain books, actually talk to other human beings instead of being glued to the screen cursing the same MPAA who finances the movies you like.
What is the proper size and scope of government? Where can government intervention improve on the market? Does a market failure necessarily mean that government intervention is warranted? Can intervention make things worse? If the government intervenes in a market, how should it intervene? To what extent is public ownership of assets and businesses warranted?
Yeah, good luck using the internet discussions to solve THAT problem.....
India and China certainly did. Their economies have been sustaining growth rates around 10%(and sometimes exceeding it in the case of China) for at least the past decade. That is an amazing growth rate, something the west hasn't seen in a long time. And how did they achieve this? It certainly because some white guy at MIT decided that he knew what was best for them. It wasn't philanthropy at all, it was greed, pure and simple. They started to privatize businesses and now more people have been lifted out of poverty in the past 20 years than probably ever before in recorded human history, and greed helped them, not charity.
In fact, Africa has probably received more charity than China or India and is doing much worse than those countries. There are a lot of other factors involved of course, but it shows that charity isn't some magic bullet that can solve all of societies ills. If a country wants to get out of poverty, they have to do it the same way every developed country in the world did, lift themselves up by their bootstraps. Anything else does more harm than good.
actually choose someone who came from one of these countries? Maybe someone who actually has firsthand knowledge of what is really needed as opposed to someone who probably never had to go hungry a day in her life. Meh, in my opinion this is just another example of the west's hubris, ie"we know what is best for you and will tell you what is best for you instead of letting you decide". It's failed before and will probably fail again.
I am helping a friend with her degree from the University of Maryland(they do a lot with the military community and I am a contractor and she is the wife of a soldier) and from what I have seen the program is pretty decent, if a bit light on programming. They actually do real discreet math for instance(they have to prove a lot of things), and I was surprised since before I held a pretty dim view of online programs. I still hold that view on most programs(University of Phoenix being among the chief offenders), but there are some decent ones that you can do while still keeping your job. Hell, the company might even pay for it. My advice would be to find a program that is associated with a good program in meatspace and see what the requirements are. Even if you can just do half the degree online, that can still save you a lot of time and money, two things pretty much everyone is short on.
You wanna know why some consider Linux evangelists to be elitist or sanctimonious? Its because of statements like this, Microsoft and Apple can match this devotion only in the ferocity with which they defend their control over their customers, in anti-trust trials and by imposing DRM.
Thanks for telling me that, I was an Apple user because I liked their products, but you Mr. Linux user have show me that I was just a dumb slave! Seriously, putting words into peoples mouths and basically calling anyone that doesn't use linux a "dumb slave"(while maybe not in those words, the insinuation is there) is why I don't like Linux fanboys. I use linux at work, but don't really consider ideology alone when making that decision. Maybe one day you will realize that your definition of freedom isn' the only definition.
Dude, that was like the first sentence of the summary! The link was the first word! Is it that hard to read even the first sentence of the FRIGGIN SUMMARY! I guess this is slashdot and that is asking a lot.
Slashdot Mirror
Oops, I didn't mean to come off as saying "they should be punished" but rather questioning whether or not the COULD be punished. I don't think they should be punished either, but it's still annoying not being able to absolutely control who has your email address.
email addresses? Such as those who are infected with a harvester. I know that is how my gmail address got out. I didn't receive any spam until I received a mass email inviting all the 200 people who were accepted to the University of Minnesota graduate program in CS to an orientation. At least one of the people who got that must have been infected with spyware that harvests addresses(I know they should know better since they are going to be CS grad students and yet....) and spam started regularly coming into my inbox. It isn't as bad as the 100 or so spams I day I received at my old university address(which I was careless with, but that was before spam became as huge a problem as it is today).
Should the offender be tracked and punished? After all, (s)he gave away my personal info without my consent. Not intentionally and didn't make any money, but its an interesting question nonetheless.
but the story is impossible to get back into the story and really know what is going on(it's hard enough if you don't stop). Tactics Ogre was the whole reason I bought a gba and it took me 3 years and 3 continents to finally beat it. I bought it in North America, took it with me and got to the boss while I was living in Japan, and then a year and a half later finally beat it when I was in Europe. Tried playing through again and well, I'm lost in the story again. I know you can replay all the events, but that is just annoying.
But how Wal-Mart treats employees can and does affect the tax payer. Case in point, Wal Mart got into a lot of trouble over stating that many of their workers in Maryland would be better off on the state's(tax payer funded) insurance than on Wal-Marts(Walton funded) insurance. Another even more reckless point is that Wal-Mart stated that inclimate weather is no longer an excuse for being late for work. How many white collar employees that weren't in critical(and thus usually better compensated compared to their peers) roles would accept this? It also puts everyone else in danger. While obviously there are exceptions, I would wager that more often than not Wal Mart employees tend to drive less reliable cars that are less likely to have snow tires and they are less likely to have (good) car insurance. So what happens if they are rushing to work after dropping the kids off in bad weather and they wreck because they were trying to satisfy Wal Mart's unreasonable demands. They may cause loss of life to themselves or others, they are more likely to cause significant property damage that they cannot pay to recompensate, traffic may get snarled, the police may have to spend money getting them out of there. Everyone BUT Wal-Mart loses, and yet it is Wal-Marts policy. They would rather see this happen than give someone an hour or two of overtime while they are covering a shift for someone who cannot make it into work. That is how Wal-Mart's policies towards employees hurt everyone.
How exactly would a placard with some lights on it even act as a bomb? I doubt terrorists would be so brazen in their advertising, not to mention why would they advertise a little alien guy? Unless they were the Raelians, but I don't think they are even smart enough to make a bomb.
Yeah, because coke money is "washed in blood". And I'm really not going to take moral lessons from a homophobe. You never answered the question, you received money from the University who receives money from copyright. You also never answered my question about working for a professor who published a book. My guess is you have and haven't screamed at the professor that he/she is evil for getting money from copyright. You are a hypocrite. You don't seem to mind benefiting from copyright but seem to think that others should not.
Maybe you are convinced that Hollywood is all "gay" and thus does not deserve money.
Well Ivan Zaigralin, email address: melikamp@math.bu.edu, you obviously have no qualms about taking funds from Boston University, an institution that, I'm sure like almost any other institution, derives some of its funding through copyright, usually via books published as well as other sources. Have you given back al the money that you have received indirectly from copyright? Have you ever worked with a professor who has published a book and thus benefited directly from copyright? Because if you have, then you are a hypocrite pure and simple. By the way, thats Ivan Zaigralin, who also uses the email address jplsp@yahoo.com in case you were wondering.
Cheers!
"never make it to the Wii"
That sounds like a painful medical problem.
If an artist is so upset over the deal he gets with a record company then he doesn't have to sign the contract. Its not like someone is holding a gun up to his head and saying "sign or else". The two free entities signed into a contract with each other. Obviously each entity thinks that they are getting a good deal or else they wouldn't sign the contract. If they didn't read the thing before they signed it well then tough shit. Its that simple. Many artists such as Moby and a lot of the artists on sites such as cd baby are totally foregoing the record company route. They are going independent and holding on to the their copyrights. And if the artist would release the songs for free, more power to them. But ultimately they have control over their art.
In the case of your grandmother, why does she have to sign the rights to her book away at all? She doesn't, if she does well then that is her decision and thats that. Would you like it if a stranger came to your job and told you how you should do your job and handle your personal life? My guess is no, so why are you trying to dictate what artists do with theirs?
I think that copyright should exist for 14 years and 14 years renewable(if the owners are still alive), but saying the solution is to abolish all copyright is myopic at best.
Because everyone who thinks the world exists solely to entertain them keeps on ranting about how copyrighted works are not scarce since they can be copied at no cost. What they don't mention is that works that do not exist yet are infinitely scarce. Copyright is an attempt to bridge the infinitely scarce with the infinitely plenty. If it didn't exist then some of the greatest writers would have had to keep day jobs in order to stay alive and thus could not have put nearly as much effort into their work. We wouldn't have most sci-fi films because the cost of doing them would be prohibitive. It goes on. If you don't want to make copyrighted works, then that is your choice. But don't think that the rest of the world has to entertain you out of the goodness of their hearts.
You speak of arrogance and yet didn't even bother to read all my argument before responding. Note I mentioned the word "public domain" I don't believe a corporation should own a copyright forever. Read before responding with pseudo intellectual babble next time, k?
I know I am going against the groupthink here and will be modded accordingly, but how are you "giving" the culture to the company that created a movie/song/whatever? If you want to, you create the culture and give it away. If you don't want to or cannot, then don't complain that the culture is being "stolen". The world does not exist to entertain you, I know that is hard to swallow, but it is true. If you don't like the MPAA or RIAA then go outside to do something, read one of the huge number of public domain books, actually talk to other human beings instead of being glued to the screen cursing the same MPAA who finances the movies you like.
To quote my English teacher: "Roman soldiers would screw anything that moved, and some things that didn't"
What is the proper size and scope of government? Where can government intervention improve on the market? Does a market failure necessarily mean that government intervention is warranted? Can intervention make things worse? If the government intervenes in a market, how should it intervene? To what extent is public ownership of assets and businesses warranted?
Yeah, good luck using the internet discussions to solve THAT problem.....
who thought of the grunt voice from Warcraft II when they read the headline.
Yeah, like no CowboyNeal option!
India and China certainly did. Their economies have been sustaining growth rates around 10%(and sometimes exceeding it in the case of China) for at least the past decade. That is an amazing growth rate, something the west hasn't seen in a long time. And how did they achieve this? It certainly because some white guy at MIT decided that he knew what was best for them. It wasn't philanthropy at all, it was greed, pure and simple. They started to privatize businesses and now more people have been lifted out of poverty in the past 20 years than probably ever before in recorded human history, and greed helped them, not charity.
In fact, Africa has probably received more charity than China or India and is doing much worse than those countries. There are a lot of other factors involved of course, but it shows that charity isn't some magic bullet that can solve all of societies ills. If a country wants to get out of poverty, they have to do it the same way every developed country in the world did, lift themselves up by their bootstraps. Anything else does more harm than good.
actually choose someone who came from one of these countries? Maybe someone who actually has firsthand knowledge of what is really needed as opposed to someone who probably never had to go hungry a day in her life. Meh, in my opinion this is just another example of the west's hubris, ie"we know what is best for you and will tell you what is best for you instead of letting you decide". It's failed before and will probably fail again.
I'm sure you can find plenty here *looks around nervously*
I am helping a friend with her degree from the University of Maryland(they do a lot with the military community and I am a contractor and she is the wife of a soldier) and from what I have seen the program is pretty decent, if a bit light on programming. They actually do real discreet math for instance(they have to prove a lot of things), and I was surprised since before I held a pretty dim view of online programs. I still hold that view on most programs(University of Phoenix being among the chief offenders), but there are some decent ones that you can do while still keeping your job. Hell, the company might even pay for it. My advice would be to find a program that is associated with a good program in meatspace and see what the requirements are. Even if you can just do half the degree online, that can still save you a lot of time and money, two things pretty much everyone is short on.
You wanna know why some consider Linux evangelists to be elitist or sanctimonious? Its because of statements like this, Microsoft and Apple can match this devotion only in the ferocity with which they defend their control over their customers, in anti-trust trials and by imposing DRM.
Thanks for telling me that, I was an Apple user because I liked their products, but you Mr. Linux user have show me that I was just a dumb slave! Seriously, putting words into peoples mouths and basically calling anyone that doesn't use linux a "dumb slave"(while maybe not in those words, the insinuation is there) is why I don't like Linux fanboys. I use linux at work, but don't really consider ideology alone when making that decision. Maybe one day you will realize that your definition of freedom isn' the only definition.
Dude, that was like the first sentence of the summary! The link was the first word! Is it that hard to read even the first sentence of the FRIGGIN SUMMARY! I guess this is slashdot and that is asking a lot.
"The hounourable Prime Minister Goatse man of the GNAUK Party wishes to have the floor"
Lengthy but well-reasoned and good reading.
Dude, what the hell is something like that doing on slashdot? I need more psuedo intellectual rants about how the RIAA is going to eat my first born!
Perish the thought!