The first response to that question is to point out that it is not the responsibility of the state or society at large to see that any industry remains profitable.
Except that we've decided that it is in society's interest "to promote the progress of science and useful arts." Equating copyright to buggy-whip subsidies is silly. Buggy-whip production ceased to be relevant to society. Science and useful arts have not.
Please look up "prior restraint." It's not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but it's well-established case law. Prior restraint is pretty much only allowed where national security (not mere "public safety" -- think launch codes, not Pentagon Papers) concerns come into play. I'm having a very difficult time imagining how scamming your way onto the Boston subway system for free could be considered a national security issue.
Insightful? The 14th Amendment was ratified 140 years ago. It says, in part, that Constitutional limits on the Federal government apply to states as well. So no, they don't have more power to restrict our freedom of speech just because it's a state assembly or city council or whatever doing it instead of the U.S. Congress.
You don't have to be genetically descended from members of a pioneering culture for that culture to have a lasting influence on subsequent version numbers thereof. The pilgrims were among the first European cultures to take hold in North America, so they were able to provide the framework of their laws and morals that later emigrants had to accept or, if able to, modify. Look at all the books of "crazy laws that are still in effect," from the obscure and unprosecuted ("It shall be a felony to tie an alligator over six feet long to a hitching post without special dispensation from the Sheriff") to the northeastern Blue Laws that nobody can muster any political will to overturn ("No alcohol over 15 proof shall be sold on Sundays between 4AM and 10AM")
You have no idea what you're talking about. As evidenced by your reference to "creative use of whitespace" and "web sidebars" (?!). Those things have exactly nothing to do with typography, they're hallmarks of the sorts of wankers who have "Web Designer" on their business cards. Actual good typography is very difficult to execute and ultimately invisible. No, you don't simply want the "maximum amount of words on a page," because that would be utterly fucking illegible. Packing those words in to a compact yet legible form is where the unappreciated artistry of typography does its invisible thing. Those pages of miniscule stock quotes in the newspaper? Why you can read them without going blind? That's because of typography.
I forgot to add that this applies to the U.S. system and maybe not France's, but since a previous poster had mentioned FDA requirements as they pertain to Reese's Peanut Butter Cups I figured this thread had already crossed the Atlantic.
I don't think you quite understand what "contractually" means. If you pump gas and don't pay for it, the legal action you'll face is a charge of petty larceny, not a suit for breach of contract. One is a criminal charge, the other is a civil matter. The OP wasn't saying "you can legally do whatever you want with anything you buy," he was referencing the doctrine of First Sale, which basically says that the seller's rights over an item dissipate upon sale, absent a contract, explicitly agreed to by both parties, granting the seller retention thereof. (Some rights, notably copyrights and patents, may be retained, but they apply to subsequent reproductions of the item in question, not the physical item itself.)
Making a distinction between restrictions imposed by the government (FDA mandated labels, age limits for alcohol, etc.) and restrictions unilaterally imposed by a seller is hardly petty, it's a prerequisite to understanding the issue at hand.
Read in absolute terms, the statement is utterly absurd, which is why I figured the author didn't literally mean "nothing" and "prevent." When a man says "Nothing is certain except death and taxes," or "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition," one doesn't take him to mean that gravity is iffy or that Torquemada spontaneously came into existence full-grown. Believe me, I'm all in favor of accuracy in language, but it isn't math.
Semantics. OP was saying you can't block a meaningful percentage of trojan vectors, not that there are no possible strategies to prevent them. Even in *nix, there's always the possibility of convincing a user to open an xterm and type "rm -rf ~/*", which, from the user's point of view, would be a lot more damaging than some suid malware chewing up cycles and bandwidth. You don't need root access in order to be a problem.
Original reporting takes significant resources: time, travel expenses, a network of contacts and sources, etc. It's not generally the sort of thing you can do properly in your spare time. Unless you're independently wealthy, you need to make money somehow from your reporting. Once you're doing original reporting for a living you are a professional journalist, not a "blogger."
The shift we're in the midst of is not from traditional journalism to blogging, it's from large organizations (e.g. AP) to independents. It's the publishing and distribution that have become dramatically cheaper, not the reporting.
Arguably a regular Ethernet cable will not work as well in place of it. An umbrella may be able to protect you against small thrown rocks, and a shield held over your head will keep you just as dry in the rain as an umbrella would. But when you go to the museum you'll notice there's no "Medieval Armor, Swords, and Umbrellas" section.
Not defending Denon's cable here, but analog vs. digital is not the distinction you seem to imagine. Not all digital transport protocols have error correction. Even with those that do, build a crappy cable that drops half your packets and then see if it doesn't make a difference because "it's digital."
The point is that the article title describes one possible use as if it were the primary intended use, which it is not. The thing is ridiculous and overpriced regardless, so there's no reason to misrepresent it except to stir up discussion. If it were in comments it would be considered flamebait.
Will it hold your pants up? If so, it is what just about everyone calls a "belt." Do you think the writeup's title would be more accurate as "Denon's $499 Belt"?
Given your premise, sure, but your premise is an unsupportable fantasy. In the real world, you cannot know that an attack is imminent AND that your prisoner has information about it AND that the prisoner will reveal it accurately in a timely manner AND that the information, once extracted, would allow you to prevent the attack. Given your lovingly detailed description of "interrogation," I suggest you go back to jerking off to your Saw and Hostel DVDs. Seek psychiatric help at your earliest convenience. Seriously.
Revealing classified information (e.g., the identity of a covert agent) is indeed a crime. Was Plame a covert agent? The CIA itself certainly thought so, as they were the entity that initially requested the investigation into the leak. The claim that she was merely a pencil-pushing analyst comes from Robert Novak, citing a "confidential source," most likely either Richard Armitage or Karl Rove. I'll take the CIA's word over a reporter trying to dodge indictment for repeating the same crime his source committed.
16:55 PDT, the mission crew look pretty happy. These blue polo shirts and khaki Dockers look a hell of a lot worse than the skinny ties they used to wear, though.
"Monopoly abuse" and "innocent" are specific legal terms. Like "insane," they may have different meanings in a legal context than in moral, medical, or everyday-language contexts. That's all well understood, but you can't conflate the meanings between contexts just so you can pick and choose which standard you want to run with. Is O.J. Simpson "innocent" because he was cleared in a criminal court, or is he "guilty" because he was found liable in civil court?
Neither the arguably disparaging neologism "Wintel" nor claims that the PPC architecture was superior to x86, however questionable in hindsight, even remotely translate to "Intel is evil." Asserting that (car analogy alert!) rotary engines are inherently superior to reciprocating-assembly engines cannot reasonably be construed as an assertion that "Volkswagen is evil."
The rest of your post re: iTunes/iPods is unadulterated speculation. I say this not as an Apple fanboy -- I've never bought anything from iTMS and I never will as long as it's saddled with DRM -- but, y'know, come on. Contracts with record labels are by definition not "internal." Lack of evidence is not in and of itself evidence. You've got nothing here.
Lastly, I want to thank you for refraining from flameage and instead making a cogent case for your position, even if it is one I happen to disagree with.
If no one owns something, how can it be stealing to take it?
Because when "no one" owns something, everyone owns it. No one owns the air, but if you somehow appropriated all the air for yourself, you'd certainly be stealing it.
Within structured human societies, private ownership provides the best opportunity for an individual.
This is a bludgeoning assertion, unless you really do mean an individual. Society doesn't exist to provide the best opportunities for Donald Trump, it exists to provide for everyone. Many (most?) people never have the wherewithal to take advantage of the opportunities afforded by private land ownership. As the population increases and the area of landmass doesn't, that proportion is only going to get bigger. It's odd that you use the metaphor of a seed landing on fertile soil, but elide what happens if there isn't any available soil to land on, or if the landlord decides to charge the seed a rapacious rent.
In your example the landowner is making active use of the land. I think what the GP is railing against is not so much honest homesteading farmers as much as parasitic speculators. I don't know where you live, but around here the latter vastly outnumber the former. Come to think of it, why doesn't "picking berries" (or hunting deer, or obtaining fresh water) count? By your reckoning a parking lot is "better" than a rainforest.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that we've decided that it is in society's interest "to promote the progress of science and useful arts." Equating copyright to buggy-whip subsidies is silly. Buggy-whip production ceased to be relevant to society. Science and useful arts have not.
Actually, many of us would love to be rid of Texas. Throw in Florida while you're at it.
Please look up "prior restraint." It's not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but it's well-established case law. Prior restraint is pretty much only allowed where national security (not mere "public safety" -- think launch codes, not Pentagon Papers) concerns come into play. I'm having a very difficult time imagining how scamming your way onto the Boston subway system for free could be considered a national security issue.
Insightful? The 14th Amendment was ratified 140 years ago. It says, in part, that Constitutional limits on the Federal government apply to states as well. So no, they don't have more power to restrict our freedom of speech just because it's a state assembly or city council or whatever doing it instead of the U.S. Congress.
Your friend is an asshole and you're an idiot. He's being sued, not prosecuted. "Crime" has nothing to do with it.
You don't have to be genetically descended from members of a pioneering culture for that culture to have a lasting influence on subsequent version numbers thereof. The pilgrims were among the first European cultures to take hold in North America, so they were able to provide the framework of their laws and morals that later emigrants had to accept or, if able to, modify. Look at all the books of "crazy laws that are still in effect," from the obscure and unprosecuted ("It shall be a felony to tie an alligator over six feet long to a hitching post without special dispensation from the Sheriff") to the northeastern Blue Laws that nobody can muster any political will to overturn ("No alcohol over 15 proof shall be sold on Sundays between 4AM and 10AM")
The Sangean someone linked to earlier has TOSlink out.
It's the Judicial branch's purpose to interpret law. And your second link is an example of the Judiciary doing just that, not the Legislature.
You have no idea what you're talking about. As evidenced by your reference to "creative use of whitespace" and "web sidebars" (?!). Those things have exactly nothing to do with typography, they're hallmarks of the sorts of wankers who have "Web Designer" on their business cards. Actual good typography is very difficult to execute and ultimately invisible. No, you don't simply want the "maximum amount of words on a page," because that would be utterly fucking illegible. Packing those words in to a compact yet legible form is where the unappreciated artistry of typography does its invisible thing. Those pages of miniscule stock quotes in the newspaper? Why you can read them without going blind? That's because of typography.
I forgot to add that this applies to the U.S. system and maybe not France's, but since a previous poster had mentioned FDA requirements as they pertain to Reese's Peanut Butter Cups I figured this thread had already crossed the Atlantic.
Making a distinction between restrictions imposed by the government (FDA mandated labels, age limits for alcohol, etc.) and restrictions unilaterally imposed by a seller is hardly petty, it's a prerequisite to understanding the issue at hand.
Read in absolute terms, the statement is utterly absurd, which is why I figured the author didn't literally mean "nothing" and "prevent." When a man says "Nothing is certain except death and taxes," or "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition," one doesn't take him to mean that gravity is iffy or that Torquemada spontaneously came into existence full-grown. Believe me, I'm all in favor of accuracy in language, but it isn't math.
Semantics. OP was saying you can't block a meaningful percentage of trojan vectors, not that there are no possible strategies to prevent them. Even in *nix, there's always the possibility of convincing a user to open an xterm and type "rm -rf ~/*", which, from the user's point of view, would be a lot more damaging than some suid malware chewing up cycles and bandwidth. You don't need root access in order to be a problem.
The shift we're in the midst of is not from traditional journalism to blogging, it's from large organizations (e.g. AP) to independents. It's the publishing and distribution that have become dramatically cheaper, not the reporting.
Arguably a regular Ethernet cable will not work as well in place of it. An umbrella may be able to protect you against small thrown rocks, and a shield held over your head will keep you just as dry in the rain as an umbrella would. But when you go to the museum you'll notice there's no "Medieval Armor, Swords, and Umbrellas" section.
Not defending Denon's cable here, but analog vs. digital is not the distinction you seem to imagine. Not all digital transport protocols have error correction. Even with those that do, build a crappy cable that drops half your packets and then see if it doesn't make a difference because "it's digital."
The point is that the article title describes one possible use as if it were the primary intended use, which it is not. The thing is ridiculous and overpriced regardless, so there's no reason to misrepresent it except to stir up discussion. If it were in comments it would be considered flamebait.
Will it hold your pants up? If so, it is what just about everyone calls a "belt." Do you think the writeup's title would be more accurate as "Denon's $499 Belt"?
Given your premise, sure, but your premise is an unsupportable fantasy. In the real world, you cannot know that an attack is imminent AND that your prisoner has information about it AND that the prisoner will reveal it accurately in a timely manner AND that the information, once extracted, would allow you to prevent the attack. Given your lovingly detailed description of "interrogation," I suggest you go back to jerking off to your Saw and Hostel DVDs. Seek psychiatric help at your earliest convenience. Seriously.
Revealing classified information (e.g., the identity of a covert agent) is indeed a crime. Was Plame a covert agent? The CIA itself certainly thought so, as they were the entity that initially requested the investigation into the leak. The claim that she was merely a pencil-pushing analyst comes from Robert Novak, citing a "confidential source," most likely either Richard Armitage or Karl Rove. I'll take the CIA's word over a reporter trying to dodge indictment for repeating the same crime his source committed.
16:55 PDT, the mission crew look pretty happy. These blue polo shirts and khaki Dockers look a hell of a lot worse than the skinny ties they used to wear, though.
You lose.
Neither the arguably disparaging neologism "Wintel" nor claims that the PPC architecture was superior to x86, however questionable in hindsight, even remotely translate to "Intel is evil." Asserting that (car analogy alert!) rotary engines are inherently superior to reciprocating-assembly engines cannot reasonably be construed as an assertion that "Volkswagen is evil."
The rest of your post re: iTunes/iPods is unadulterated speculation. I say this not as an Apple fanboy -- I've never bought anything from iTMS and I never will as long as it's saddled with DRM -- but, y'know, come on. Contracts with record labels are by definition not "internal." Lack of evidence is not in and of itself evidence. You've got nothing here.
Lastly, I want to thank you for refraining from flameage and instead making a cogent case for your position, even if it is one I happen to disagree with.
Because when "no one" owns something, everyone owns it. No one owns the air, but if you somehow appropriated all the air for yourself, you'd certainly be stealing it.
Within structured human societies, private ownership provides the best opportunity for an individual.
This is a bludgeoning assertion, unless you really do mean an individual. Society doesn't exist to provide the best opportunities for Donald Trump, it exists to provide for everyone. Many (most?) people never have the wherewithal to take advantage of the opportunities afforded by private land ownership. As the population increases and the area of landmass doesn't, that proportion is only going to get bigger. It's odd that you use the metaphor of a seed landing on fertile soil, but elide what happens if there isn't any available soil to land on, or if the landlord decides to charge the seed a rapacious rent.
In your example the landowner is making active use of the land. I think what the GP is railing against is not so much honest homesteading farmers as much as parasitic speculators. I don't know where you live, but around here the latter vastly outnumber the former. Come to think of it, why doesn't "picking berries" (or hunting deer, or obtaining fresh water) count? By your reckoning a parking lot is "better" than a rainforest.