Agreed. This merely shows the rest of us that not only CAN it be done, but that it HAS been done and certainly CAN be done in the future! Hiding the information just gives those who want to keep it all for themselves more time to do awful things.
Thank God you're not in control. You've obviously been infected with the "make all information free" meme, despite the fact that it's obvious to everyone else that there are situations when this is not true. The question is: can you rise above your programming and see reality?
A common misconception related to piracy, foss, etc (anything where you are not paying) is that not paying = reducing the number of jobs. In reality, money doesn't just disappear, but rather it is spent elsewhere. Pirating software or using FOSS instead might cut some jobs in the software industry, but, for example, I might spend the money on more/better food, thus creating jobs in the food industry.
Wait, what? How about this: instead of pirating software, you pay the software developer then the software developer "spends the money on more/better food, thus creating jobs in the food industry". In that context, how does piracy improve anything - given the fact that it allows you to spend more money and forcing the software developer to spend less money?
And given your setup, you could argue that all theft has no negative effects on the economy, because if I shoplift something instead of paying for it, then I have extra money in my pocket to spend on other things. Hey, I might "spend the money on more/better food, thus creating jobs in the food industry". Thus, the economy doesn't suffer from shoplifting.
Wait, what? Of course there aren't enough dollars in existence to pay the US government's debt. Money is really just an IOU anyway; it's just digits attached to a bank account. And there's only about $900 billion dollars in existence. The US hasn't had debt that low since the early 1980s. But the number of dollar bills in existence isn't really relevant anyway. You might as well say that American credit card debt or all the money Americans owe in mortgages can't be paid with all the money in existence. (Once you calculate the numbers, you realize that $900 billion in cash divided by 300 million Americans = only $3000 in cash for every American, which I'm guessing is lower than the average American's credit card debt or mortgage or student loans.)
I'm just glad the new Perry and Cain tax plans will solve the problem!
Oh shit. *BOTH* of their plans will eliminate capital gains taxes (i.e. taxes on money you earn in the stock market). Wait, don't the rich hold the vast majority of stocks? This means billionaires will see dramatically lower taxes. Warren Buffet, who was complaining that he was paying only 17% of his income in taxes (lower than everyone else he works with) will see his taxes drop to the low single-digits. GO REPUBLICANS!
Out of curiosity, to see if "The Daily Racist" was really used as a reference to the Daily Mail, I did some google searches.
Google: "The Daily Racist" "The Daily Mail" - About 1,160 results
Google: "The Daily Heil" "The Daily Mail" - About 68,200 results
Google: "The Hate Mail" "The Daily Mail" - About 257,000 results, although not all of them on topic
Google: "The Daily Fail" "The Daily Mail" - About 334,000 results, although not all of them on topic
Google: "The Daily Mail" - About 45,100,000 results
If I understand it correctly, one of the Quran's directives is to seek all knowledge. I hypocrisy is a human failing, not a religious one... but then again, religion is a human failing.
Yeah, well young earth creationists love science, too, it's just that they declare the parts they don't like (i.e. evolution) as fake science not "true science" -- in their view: evolution is necessarily false since it contradicts the holy teachings, it's a bunch of made-up information by people who don't want to believe in God, and it has as much validity as Freudian psychology or the four-humor theory of ancient medicine.
It was simple, the text simply said, "Charles Darwin, a renowned Scientist hypothesized in his theory that..." and then followed by "However, we as Muslims, believe that [insert relevant verses here]"
Let me get this straight: you were taught evolution in school, but it was with the caveat that it was "his theory" - as in the layman's definition of theory (i.e. a wild guess)? And what appeared in the [insert relevant verses here] section? From the way you setup the sentence, you're really making it sound like Darwinism is presented in school, but it's Darwin's "wild guess" and Muslims are instructed to believe something different. In the past, I've heard this same thing about evolution being taught in Islamic countries - i.e. evolution is "just a theory" but if you want to be a good muslim and believe what God says, then you'll believe something different. Could you clarify?
I strictly believe in a right to believe your religion in peace.
That depends on the belief. If (theoretically) your religion says germ theory of disease is bunk, all disease is caused by demons (Saint Augustine*) or is an illusion (Christian Scientist Church), then, we're not going to let you believe whatever you want. The facts are not negotiable.
* Saint Augustine taught that all diseases were caused by demons: "All diseases of Christians are to be ascribed to these demons; chiefly do they torment fresh-baptized Christians, yea, even the guiltless, newborn infants."
I see China is mastering the art of He said, she said.
Back in the day, the US would (correctly) accuse China of something and it would go unanswered, so everyone would assume it was true:
US: "China's doing bad things."
China: (silence)
Populace: "Yeah, I guess it's true."
Now, in the 21st century, it goes like this:
US: "China's doing bad things."
China: "The US is doing bad things."
Populace: "Well, both sides are accusing each other. I guess they're both equally bad. The truth lies somewhere in the middle, right?"
China: (Laughs maniacally, thinks "This is the best way to do public relations. We don't even have to change anything.")
Reminds me of how China would constantly get hit with human-rights abuses accusations, then they started writing up biased reports against everyone else. "See, everyone else in the world is just as bad!"
> "As long as the business side of content creation continues to load their side of the social bargain, neither side can claim the moral high ground."
Do you realize how many game companies either release their games for free after ten or fifteen years, or they sell them on GOG for $5? Sorry, you have no argument against the games industry - especially when they're not the ones making or lobbying for those laws.
Indeed. Because nobody has ever pirated anything if: it doesn't have DRM and is available for sale on the internet. That stuff never gets pirated. Seriously, when are we going to admit that either: Gabe doesn't actually know what he's talking about, or that Gabe is merely doing an elaborate song and dance to say whatever will make him most adored by the public?
Sorry, I don't really care that so many on Slashdot have a problem with this. If the sites are acting like scumbags, then I don't have a problem with these sites being taken down. The excuses seem pretty hollow:
"the US is forcing their laws on everyone else"? Seems that these sites are breaking laws agreed on internationally. It's not like copyright is a "only in the USA" thing. Most slashdotters seem to want the US to make a "great firewall of the USA" - and then they'd mock the US for having a "great firewall" and say that everybody will route around it anyway. As I've said for a long time: the internet, by its nature, is international which means that either copyright is enforced everywhere or copyright is nullified everywhere. I know many slashdotters prefer the latter, but at least recognize the inherent tension between these two options. When the piratebay can disregard copyright with total impunity, it means that everyone on the internet can disregard copyright with impunity.
"They should have the right to a trial"? Okay, but I'd like to see how well that works when people are in a different country. How long did it take before Roman Polanski was brought to justice again? Even worse, they're probably using registration-anonymizing services and it might be very well impossible to find out who these people really are. Let's say your site is breaking IP laws. You live off in Latvia or China or something. Here's your options: (a) ignore the US summons to appear in court and since you haven't had a trial your site stays up, or (b) book a ticket to the US, identify yourself to US authorities, have a trial. Who in their right mind is going to pick option "b"? Besides, it's not like the US is throwing them in prison or killing them.
> When dealing with an alcoholic, you dont buy them more booze and hope that they learn to drink less on their own.
So, according to your analogy, taxes = buying booze for alcoholics. I guess the solution is... everybody should stop paying taxes completely (i.e. everybody should stop buying booze for the alcoholic). Oh right - your analogy is worthless because "taxes = buying booze" analogy makes no sense and even you aren't willing to take it to its logical conclusion.
> And in the end, the taxes get raised, but the spending never actually gets cut, and so the Government just gets bigger and bigger and bigger.
Really? Because we have historically low tax rates right now. How do you think that happened if "the Government just gets bigger and bigger and bigger"?
> The Democrats were willing to cut spending a little and raise taxes a lot.
Nonsense. The Democrats were doing a lot of cutting. The problem was the Republican "not one more dime in increased taxes" mantra. I also caught enough clips on the news to see that the Republicans were outright LYING on television about the Democrat's willingness to cut spending. Whenever a Republican would appear on the news, they made it sound as if the Democrats were unwilling to cut a single dime from spending. Since I know something about the debate, I could see that the Republicans were outright LYING to the media. Ultimately, this turned it into a "he said she said" which confused the public and allowed the Republicans to escape blame for their stubborn unwillingness to compromise.
> Most of the Tea Party does NOT have a problem with increased taxes.
Oh really? Is that why you call yourself the "Taxed Enough Already" Party? If you think you're "taxed enough already" then you have zero appreciation (and apparently no knowledge at all) about historical tax rates, and how good you have it right now. It's absolutely bizarre that the TEA Party exists now, in this period of history considering how incredibly low taxes are compared to anytime in the US during the last 80 years. Of course, studies have shown that opinions about tax rates have more to do with the amount of propaganda being spent on convincing people that taxes are too high than actual tax rates.
Tea Party would be all over that candidate.
Yeah right.
But I think it's funny that you attack the Tea Party and Republicans, as out of touch. Are you really insinuating that the Democrats are not out of touch.
Can we have a bit more intellectual honesty here? The end result is that the committee was going to fail because both parties are toeing the party line in order for it to fail so no real change can occur. Both the Dems & Repubs are mostly focus on maintaining the beneficial status quo that keeps them in power.
What a bizarre claim to make right after you say "Can we have a bit more intellectual honesty here". We've seen how the Republicans have been unwilling to compromise recently. It's the same old story: the Republicans need it to be "their way or the highway" (I've seen them spin it as "unwilling to compromise on principles") then the Democrats either roll over and give Republicans everything they want or the Democrats refuse to accept the unfair deal and both parties get blamed. It's a game of chicken and the Republicans won't ever turn the steering wheel.
> Aren't the democrats just as uncompromising and extreme?
No. We've seen the last attempts at compromise. The Democrats offered to do big spending cuts and small tax increases (as I recall, their plan would involve deficit reduction by 80% spending cuts and 20% tax increases). The Republicans wouldn't play. They weren't willing for one penny in increased taxes, even though we have historically low tax rates and now the Republican tax plans (by Perry and Cain) will lower taxes even further, particularly on the rich. The Republicans make it pretty clear who they're working for - it's the rich people who believe that almost every dime they pay in taxes goes to poor good-for-nothing lazy bums.
> The content gives you something to sell, exactly what you do with it is the business model.
Except for the fact that the pay-for-content copyright-based business model is often the best business model when measured in revenue (especially for high-development-cost content). Sure, you can give your content away for free and attach ads, but then you're often making pennies on the dollar. That's why ad-based content has the cheapest development costs - because the profits can't support expensive development costs. (Interesting aside: the original Battlestar Galactica TV show was cancelled despite being very popular because the profits couldn't cover the expensive costs of creating the show. Star Wars succeeded because they were charging money for tickets.)
In that context "protecting the business model" really means "protecting a good business model".
Really? Because I read the article and she hardly said anything at all about copyright/patent/trademark law. Most of her comments were about nationalism versus the EU.
The only two paragraphs about copyright/patent/trademark law are:
“I’m also very interested in industrial rights, like, patent rights or design rights, trademarks. There’s an abundance of kind of side-initiatives, data exclusivity in the pharmaceutical industry being a good example, that also reinforce the ‘non-material’ economic position of companies in a way that is not always good for society,” she says.
and
“When national parliaments have been saying that they can’t do anything about ACTA, activists and media just kind of happily accept. What national parliaments could do, and should do, is obviously tell their national governments not to sign the agreements. That is and would be within their power,” she adds.
To be honest, it sounds more like you want to heap-on praise for a PP member, because I really don't see how you reached that conclusion at all from this article. How you got voted up, I'll never know - unless, of course, the Slashdot moderators are just really interested in praising Pirate Party members as being brilliant (which wouldn't surprise me considering a lot of Slashdot member's opinions on piracy).
As an EU citizen, I find US practices completely unacceptable.
Oh, ok. I find some European practices unacceptable. For example, I don't think european countries should ban religious symbols or headscarves. I also don't think Europe should be allowing piracy. I know everyone likes to get stuff for free, but pirates don't have a sustainable economic model for the creation of digital media - except for the cheapest kinds, like TV shows (paid for by commercials) and YouTube videos. I hate to see what the world will become if piracy were the norm. I think europeans are being jerks by allowing groups like the PirateBay to continue operating. (Which is not to say that I agree with SOPA, but I do agree that things need to change.)
They do what they have to do inside their country, but they have never tried to block or manipulate other countries to do the same.
See above.
Yet US has the balls and hypocrisy to accuse China about its censorship practices, as do most US citizens here on Slashdot.
Stoping piracy is not censorship and you will lose this argument if you claim that it is. And cracking down on political and religious dissent is not the same thing as enforcing copyright. If you're going to make that comparison, you might as well compare one country's jailing of political dissidents with the US' jailing of criminals. There are political dissidents in Chinese jails for the crime of speaking out against the Chinese government.
US is much worse than China.
This should be interesting. By the way, as much as I dislike some of the things going on in the US, I do not like the way you're providing political cover for Chinese policies.
They try to force their views and laws globally.
When you say "views" and "laws" - those are very broad terms, as if all US views and laws must be enforced globally, which obviously is not the case. Let's talk specifics.
They install their own law enforcement agents inside other countries in the name of "providing training" to manipulate.
Not even clear on what you're talking about here.
They revoke IP addresses and domains used by non-US people.
As much as I'd like to agree with you, the problem stems from the fact that the internet is global. What this means is that, either the world enforces copyright or there will be some country which doesn't and everyone in the world will be able to side-step all the copyright laws. What we're talking about here is that one of the two extremes will win-out. It doesn't help at all that the PirateBay was operating for years, serving up pirated material to the whole world while sendi
(sigh) Your response is not even close to being factual.
Even cops act like human beings, compared to the US mentality of shooting first, asking questions later.
Yeah, police in the US shoot people a good 80-90% of the time that they make routine traffic stops.
The only thing you cannot do is try to get a gathering of millions of people to riot on streets.
Really? That's the only thing you can't do in China? So, you're suggesting that you can criticize the Chinese government online and have no problems whatsoever? You'll also have no problems whatsoever if you get together a few thousand people for a peaceful demonstration? I'm sure the Chinese government would be happy to hear people protest for a Free Tibet or Falun Gong.
Do you honestly think such a thing would be good in China, with billions of people? It would turn the country in turmoil.
I'm not even sure what you're arguing here. What does "billions of people" have to do with it, since violent rioting isn't allowed anywhere. Of course, it doesn't matter because you started from a false premise anyway when you said, "millions of people to riot on streets".
And besides, it wouldn't be allowed in US either.
Violent rioting isn't allowed anywhere. But, like I said, that's not even the issue here since you seem to think the *only* thing you can't do in China is get "millions" of people together for a "riot".
Hell, in US you apparently get arrested for dancing
That's a stupid example. Apparently, there's some law against performance at the Jefferson memorial and dancing "stands out as a type of performance, creating its own center of attention and distracting from the atmosphere of solemn commemoration". It's a dumb law, but the way you wrote the sentence, you make it sound like dancing is, in general and in all places, illegal in the US.
Honestly, you sound like a paid agent of the Chinese government trying to put a good face on China's dismal record of political and religious crackdown. Let us know how much you get paid.
I can't see any reason why LEGO would have standing to sue Minecraft. They're not that similar. It actually takes quite a bit to successfully sue someone for infringing on their IP. I've also seen a lot of clones of games that seem to manage not getting sued. Heck, I play "Words With Friends", and that's pretty much a complete copy of Scrabble.
The actual article just says that they're looking at each others' work to build on one another to make more complex programs. That pretty much describes what any good programmer does. Unless you live in a bubble building all small projects solo, you're always going to be working together on a project with other programmers and designers.
If that's the goal, then I don't know why the teacher doesn't give them a generic set of code to build off of (written by a make-believe programmer whom they "work with" or that existed in a book) - and each student still works entirely independently of each other. Then, at least the teacher could grade each student individually instead of making wild guesses about which student did which work and whether a particular student did any work at all.
Re:Only "troubled" if you're not Lockheed Martin
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
In the book "Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army", they talk about how the Bush White House was very interested in doing a lot more outsourcing of combat operations to private companies. It sounded to me like they were big believers in the old libertarian mantra of "the private sector always does it better and more efficiently than the government" and then applying that principle to the US military. And, of course, private military contractors and the lobbyists are more than happy to reaffirm that belief. The fact that Blackwater's owner - who was both rich and politically active - had long-standing ties to the Republican party probably played a big role.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. This merely shows the rest of us that not only CAN it be done, but that it HAS been done and certainly CAN be done in the future! Hiding the information just gives those who want to keep it all for themselves more time to do awful things.
Thank God you're not in control. You've obviously been infected with the "make all information free" meme, despite the fact that it's obvious to everyone else that there are situations when this is not true. The question is: can you rise above your programming and see reality?
A common misconception related to piracy, foss, etc (anything where you are not paying) is that not paying = reducing the number of jobs. In reality, money doesn't just disappear, but rather it is spent elsewhere. Pirating software or using FOSS instead might cut some jobs in the software industry, but, for example, I might spend the money on more/better food, thus creating jobs in the food industry.
Wait, what? How about this: instead of pirating software, you pay the software developer then the software developer "spends the money on more/better food, thus creating jobs in the food industry". In that context, how does piracy improve anything - given the fact that it allows you to spend more money and forcing the software developer to spend less money?
And given your setup, you could argue that all theft has no negative effects on the economy, because if I shoplift something instead of paying for it, then I have extra money in my pocket to spend on other things. Hey, I might "spend the money on more/better food, thus creating jobs in the food industry". Thus, the economy doesn't suffer from shoplifting.
Wait, what? Of course there aren't enough dollars in existence to pay the US government's debt. Money is really just an IOU anyway; it's just digits attached to a bank account. And there's only about $900 billion dollars in existence. The US hasn't had debt that low since the early 1980s. But the number of dollar bills in existence isn't really relevant anyway. You might as well say that American credit card debt or all the money Americans owe in mortgages can't be paid with all the money in existence. (Once you calculate the numbers, you realize that $900 billion in cash divided by 300 million Americans = only $3000 in cash for every American, which I'm guessing is lower than the average American's credit card debt or mortgage or student loans.)
I'm just glad the new Perry and Cain tax plans will solve the problem!
Oh shit. *BOTH* of their plans will eliminate capital gains taxes (i.e. taxes on money you earn in the stock market). Wait, don't the rich hold the vast majority of stocks? This means billionaires will see dramatically lower taxes. Warren Buffet, who was complaining that he was paying only 17% of his income in taxes (lower than everyone else he works with) will see his taxes drop to the low single-digits. GO REPUBLICANS!
Out of curiosity, to see if "The Daily Racist" was really used as a reference to the Daily Mail, I did some google searches.
Google: "The Daily Racist" "The Daily Mail" - About 1,160 results
Google: "The Daily Heil" "The Daily Mail" - About 68,200 results
Google: "The Hate Mail" "The Daily Mail" - About 257,000 results, although not all of them on topic
Google: "The Daily Fail" "The Daily Mail" - About 334,000 results, although not all of them on topic
Google: "The Daily Mail" - About 45,100,000 results
Yeah, well young earth creationists love science, too, it's just that they declare the parts they don't like (i.e. evolution) as fake science not "true science" -- in their view: evolution is necessarily false since it contradicts the holy teachings, it's a bunch of made-up information by people who don't want to believe in God, and it has as much validity as Freudian psychology or the four-humor theory of ancient medicine.
Let me get this straight: you were taught evolution in school, but it was with the caveat that it was "his theory" - as in the layman's definition of theory (i.e. a wild guess)? And what appeared in the [insert relevant verses here] section? From the way you setup the sentence, you're really making it sound like Darwinism is presented in school, but it's Darwin's "wild guess" and Muslims are instructed to believe something different. In the past, I've heard this same thing about evolution being taught in Islamic countries - i.e. evolution is "just a theory" but if you want to be a good muslim and believe what God says, then you'll believe something different. Could you clarify?
That depends on the belief. If (theoretically) your religion says germ theory of disease is bunk, all disease is caused by demons (Saint Augustine*) or is an illusion (Christian Scientist Church), then, we're not going to let you believe whatever you want. The facts are not negotiable.
* Saint Augustine taught that all diseases were caused by demons: "All diseases of Christians are to be ascribed to these demons; chiefly do they torment fresh-baptized Christians, yea, even the guiltless, newborn infants."
I see China is mastering the art of He said, she said.
Back in the day, the US would (correctly) accuse China of something and it would go unanswered, so everyone would assume it was true:
US: "China's doing bad things."
China: (silence)
Populace: "Yeah, I guess it's true."
Now, in the 21st century, it goes like this:
US: "China's doing bad things."
China: "The US is doing bad things."
Populace: "Well, both sides are accusing each other. I guess they're both equally bad. The truth lies somewhere in the middle, right?"
China: (Laughs maniacally, thinks "This is the best way to do public relations. We don't even have to change anything.")
Reminds me of how China would constantly get hit with human-rights abuses accusations, then they started writing up biased reports against everyone else. "See, everyone else in the world is just as bad!"
> "As long as the business side of content creation continues to load their side of the social bargain, neither side can claim the moral high ground."
Do you realize how many game companies either release their games for free after ten or fifteen years, or they sell them on GOG for $5? Sorry, you have no argument against the games industry - especially when they're not the ones making or lobbying for those laws.
Indeed. Because nobody has ever pirated anything if: it doesn't have DRM and is available for sale on the internet. That stuff never gets pirated. Seriously, when are we going to admit that either: Gabe doesn't actually know what he's talking about, or that Gabe is merely doing an elaborate song and dance to say whatever will make him most adored by the public?
Sorry, I don't really care that so many on Slashdot have a problem with this. If the sites are acting like scumbags, then I don't have a problem with these sites being taken down. The excuses seem pretty hollow:
"the US is forcing their laws on everyone else"? Seems that these sites are breaking laws agreed on internationally. It's not like copyright is a "only in the USA" thing. Most slashdotters seem to want the US to make a "great firewall of the USA" - and then they'd mock the US for having a "great firewall" and say that everybody will route around it anyway. As I've said for a long time: the internet, by its nature, is international which means that either copyright is enforced everywhere or copyright is nullified everywhere. I know many slashdotters prefer the latter, but at least recognize the inherent tension between these two options. When the piratebay can disregard copyright with total impunity, it means that everyone on the internet can disregard copyright with impunity.
"They should have the right to a trial"? Okay, but I'd like to see how well that works when people are in a different country. How long did it take before Roman Polanski was brought to justice again? Even worse, they're probably using registration-anonymizing services and it might be very well impossible to find out who these people really are. Let's say your site is breaking IP laws. You live off in Latvia or China or something. Here's your options: (a) ignore the US summons to appear in court and since you haven't had a trial your site stays up, or (b) book a ticket to the US, identify yourself to US authorities, have a trial. Who in their right mind is going to pick option "b"? Besides, it's not like the US is throwing them in prison or killing them.
> When dealing with an alcoholic, you dont buy them more booze and hope that they learn to drink less on their own.
... everybody should stop paying taxes completely (i.e. everybody should stop buying booze for the alcoholic). Oh right - your analogy is worthless because "taxes = buying booze" analogy makes no sense and even you aren't willing to take it to its logical conclusion.
So, according to your analogy, taxes = buying booze for alcoholics. I guess the solution is
> And in the end, the taxes get raised, but the spending never actually gets cut, and so the Government just gets bigger and bigger and bigger.
Really? Because we have historically low tax rates right now. How do you think that happened if "the Government just gets bigger and bigger and bigger"?
You sound like a republican struggling to defend your party's indefensible actions by making up facts..
> The Democrats were willing to cut spending a little and raise taxes a lot.
Nonsense. The Democrats were doing a lot of cutting. The problem was the Republican "not one more dime in increased taxes" mantra. I also caught enough clips on the news to see that the Republicans were outright LYING on television about the Democrat's willingness to cut spending. Whenever a Republican would appear on the news, they made it sound as if the Democrats were unwilling to cut a single dime from spending. Since I know something about the debate, I could see that the Republicans were outright LYING to the media. Ultimately, this turned it into a "he said she said" which confused the public and allowed the Republicans to escape blame for their stubborn unwillingness to compromise.
> Most of the Tea Party does NOT have a problem with increased taxes.
Oh really? Is that why you call yourself the "Taxed Enough Already" Party? If you think you're "taxed enough already" then you have zero appreciation (and apparently no knowledge at all) about historical tax rates, and how good you have it right now. It's absolutely bizarre that the TEA Party exists now, in this period of history considering how incredibly low taxes are compared to anytime in the US during the last 80 years. Of course, studies have shown that opinions about tax rates have more to do with the amount of propaganda being spent on convincing people that taxes are too high than actual tax rates.
Tea Party would be all over that candidate.
Yeah right.
But I think it's funny that you attack the Tea Party and Republicans, as out of touch. Are you really insinuating that the Democrats are not out of touch.
The Republicans have gone straight to crazy town. http://nymag.com/news/politics/conservatives-david-frum-2011-11/
Can we have a bit more intellectual honesty here? The end result is that the committee was going to fail because both parties are toeing the party line in order for it to fail so no real change can occur. Both the Dems & Repubs are mostly focus on maintaining the beneficial status quo that keeps them in power.
What a bizarre claim to make right after you say "Can we have a bit more intellectual honesty here". We've seen how the Republicans have been unwilling to compromise recently. It's the same old story: the Republicans need it to be "their way or the highway" (I've seen them spin it as "unwilling to compromise on principles") then the Democrats either roll over and give Republicans everything they want or the Democrats refuse to accept the unfair deal and both parties get blamed. It's a game of chicken and the Republicans won't ever turn the steering wheel.
> Aren't the democrats just as uncompromising and extreme?
No. We've seen the last attempts at compromise. The Democrats offered to do big spending cuts and small tax increases (as I recall, their plan would involve deficit reduction by 80% spending cuts and 20% tax increases). The Republicans wouldn't play. They weren't willing for one penny in increased taxes, even though we have historically low tax rates and now the Republican tax plans (by Perry and Cain) will lower taxes even further, particularly on the rich. The Republicans make it pretty clear who they're working for - it's the rich people who believe that almost every dime they pay in taxes goes to poor good-for-nothing lazy bums.
> The content gives you something to sell, exactly what you do with it is the business model.
Except for the fact that the pay-for-content copyright-based business model is often the best business model when measured in revenue (especially for high-development-cost content). Sure, you can give your content away for free and attach ads, but then you're often making pennies on the dollar. That's why ad-based content has the cheapest development costs - because the profits can't support expensive development costs. (Interesting aside: the original Battlestar Galactica TV show was cancelled despite being very popular because the profits couldn't cover the expensive costs of creating the show. Star Wars succeeded because they were charging money for tickets.)
In that context "protecting the business model" really means "protecting a good business model".
Really? Because I read the article and she hardly said anything at all about copyright/patent/trademark law. Most of her comments were about nationalism versus the EU.
The only two paragraphs about copyright/patent/trademark law are:
“I’m also very interested in industrial rights, like, patent rights or design rights, trademarks. There’s an abundance of kind of side-initiatives, data exclusivity in the pharmaceutical industry being a good example, that also reinforce the ‘non-material’ economic position of companies in a way that is not always good for society,” she says.
and
“When national parliaments have been saying that they can’t do anything about ACTA, activists and media just kind of happily accept. What national parliaments could do, and should do, is obviously tell their national governments not to sign the agreements. That is and would be within their power,” she adds.
To be honest, it sounds more like you want to heap-on praise for a PP member, because I really don't see how you reached that conclusion at all from this article. How you got voted up, I'll never know - unless, of course, the Slashdot moderators are just really interested in praising Pirate Party members as being brilliant (which wouldn't surprise me considering a lot of Slashdot member's opinions on piracy).
Nice a-factual rant, you've got there.
As an EU citizen, I find US practices completely unacceptable.
Oh, ok. I find some European practices unacceptable. For example, I don't think european countries should ban religious symbols or headscarves. I also don't think Europe should be allowing piracy. I know everyone likes to get stuff for free, but pirates don't have a sustainable economic model for the creation of digital media - except for the cheapest kinds, like TV shows (paid for by commercials) and YouTube videos. I hate to see what the world will become if piracy were the norm. I think europeans are being jerks by allowing groups like the PirateBay to continue operating. (Which is not to say that I agree with SOPA, but I do agree that things need to change.)
Even China doesn't try to restrict other countries.
That's good. Oh wait, wasn't there a recent story about Chinese hackers trying to take down a Fulun Gong website that was located outside China?
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/238655/china_hacking_video_shows_glimpse_of_falun_gong_attack_tool.html
Say, wasn't it China that put pressure on the US and other countries to shut-out the Dali Lama?
China Warns U.S. on Dalai Lama Trip, October 16, 2007 - http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/16/world/asia/16cnd-china.html
China: Obama visit with Dalai Lama has 'harmed Sino-U.S. relations' - Jul 16, 2011 - http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/07/16/dalai.lama.white.house/index.html
China pushes Mongolia to cut short Dalai Lama lecture, Nov 08 2011 - http://mg.co.za/article/2011-11-08-china-pushes-mongolia-to-cut-short-dalai-lama-lecture/
They do what they have to do inside their country, but they have never tried to block or manipulate other countries to do the same.
See above.
Yet US has the balls and hypocrisy to accuse China about its censorship practices, as do most US citizens here on Slashdot.
Stoping piracy is not censorship and you will lose this argument if you claim that it is. And cracking down on political and religious dissent is not the same thing as enforcing copyright. If you're going to make that comparison, you might as well compare one country's jailing of political dissidents with the US' jailing of criminals. There are political dissidents in Chinese jails for the crime of speaking out against the Chinese government.
US is much worse than China.
This should be interesting. By the way, as much as I dislike some of the things going on in the US, I do not like the way you're providing political cover for Chinese policies.
They try to force their views and laws globally.
When you say "views" and "laws" - those are very broad terms, as if all US views and laws must be enforced globally, which obviously is not the case. Let's talk specifics.
They install their own law enforcement agents inside other countries in the name of "providing training" to manipulate.
Not even clear on what you're talking about here.
They revoke IP addresses and domains used by non-US people.
As much as I'd like to agree with you, the problem stems from the fact that the internet is global. What this means is that, either the world enforces copyright or there will be some country which doesn't and everyone in the world will be able to side-step all the copyright laws. What we're talking about here is that one of the two extremes will win-out. It doesn't help at all that the PirateBay was operating for years, serving up pirated material to the whole world while sendi
(sigh) Your response is not even close to being factual.
Even cops act like human beings, compared to the US mentality of shooting first, asking questions later.
Yeah, police in the US shoot people a good 80-90% of the time that they make routine traffic stops.
The only thing you cannot do is try to get a gathering of millions of people to riot on streets.
Really? That's the only thing you can't do in China? So, you're suggesting that you can criticize the Chinese government online and have no problems whatsoever? You'll also have no problems whatsoever if you get together a few thousand people for a peaceful demonstration? I'm sure the Chinese government would be happy to hear people protest for a Free Tibet or Falun Gong.
Do you honestly think such a thing would be good in China, with billions of people? It would turn the country in turmoil.
I'm not even sure what you're arguing here. What does "billions of people" have to do with it, since violent rioting isn't allowed anywhere. Of course, it doesn't matter because you started from a false premise anyway when you said, "millions of people to riot on streets".
And besides, it wouldn't be allowed in US either.
Violent rioting isn't allowed anywhere. But, like I said, that's not even the issue here since you seem to think the *only* thing you can't do in China is get "millions" of people together for a "riot".
Hell, in US you apparently get arrested for dancing
That's a stupid example. Apparently, there's some law against performance at the Jefferson memorial and dancing "stands out as a type of performance, creating its own center of attention and distracting from the atmosphere of solemn commemoration". It's a dumb law, but the way you wrote the sentence, you make it sound like dancing is, in general and in all places, illegal in the US.
Honestly, you sound like a paid agent of the Chinese government trying to put a good face on China's dismal record of political and religious crackdown. Let us know how much you get paid.
Funny, I was thinking the same thing.
The Devil: "I invented the TOS agreements. You ever say "yes" to those TOS agreements without reading it first? See you soon, buddy!"
http://www.hulu.com/watch/299647/saturday-night-live-weekend-update-the-devil-on-penn-state
I can't see any reason why LEGO would have standing to sue Minecraft. They're not that similar. It actually takes quite a bit to successfully sue someone for infringing on their IP. I've also seen a lot of clones of games that seem to manage not getting sued. Heck, I play "Words With Friends", and that's pretty much a complete copy of Scrabble.
If that's the goal, then I don't know why the teacher doesn't give them a generic set of code to build off of (written by a make-believe programmer whom they "work with" or that existed in a book) - and each student still works entirely independently of each other. Then, at least the teacher could grade each student individually instead of making wild guesses about which student did which work and whether a particular student did any work at all.
In the book "Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army", they talk about how the Bush White House was very interested in doing a lot more outsourcing of combat operations to private companies. It sounded to me like they were big believers in the old libertarian mantra of "the private sector always does it better and more efficiently than the government" and then applying that principle to the US military. And, of course, private military contractors and the lobbyists are more than happy to reaffirm that belief. The fact that Blackwater's owner - who was both rich and politically active - had long-standing ties to the Republican party probably played a big role.