It will end poverty. And you bastards will fight it tooth and nail.
So, where do the resources come from, to make the replicated products. Where do we store all these products? The Earth has finite resources and space, you know.
I'd be pretty pissed off if my home became a wasteland because of some greedy consumer sending out his clouds of replicating nanorobots, trashing the environment I live in, so he could have another car.
The ability to easily make stuff will never end poverty or war.
Where's "there"? Practically every library system in the world loans music on CD. Are you saying there are no libraries or Universities where you live?
Oh, and don't suggest I try things like 30 second previews. These are no where near enough to gauge a song. I suppose you're the type of person who pays for all his music, movies, games and software, yes?
Well, go into a record store and listen to the album in their headphone listening suites. Listen to the radio. Listen to a firend's music collection.
As long as the government pays the bills, the government can connect the dots about your medical history.
Actually, that's not the case. Most countries with public health care have anonymous STD clinics, where you do not need to give a name, and you do not get billed. The government still pays. It makes sense, because STDs left untreated actually increase costs for society.
Also, even if you go to a regular doctor, the government still doesn't know what you got treated for.
With a privcate system, you have to foot the bill, so it would be easier to connect the dots. You think US health care being privately run means they can't spy on your medical records. Especially with all this domestic spying and collusion with private companies. You must be pretty naive if you think the private sector protects you from this. Look at all those telecommunication companies in collusion with government spying.
Don't tell me the government can't end up with the private records of its enemies and get away with it. Bill Clinton had hundreds of FBI files of his political enemies illegally in the White House.
Not is you have a sane system, and allow anonymity. Do you think Clinton needed his spying targets to be using public health care or government services?
If I ever call Osama, they can tap my line. I'll be damned if I give them my medical history.
You don't get it, do you? In a public health care system, you don't go to a "government doctor." You do not give the government your medical records.
My HMO gives out my medical records, I sue the shit out of them.
Firstly, how would you know? Secondly, if like Bush's spying, it is deemed "in the national interest" you probably won't win in court.
Some government stooge looks at my medical records and leaks info out to smear me because they don't like me protesting them, what am I gonna do?
Uh, the same thing? You would still be seeing the same doctor, and they would be responsible for an illegal act by leaking your details to the government. The government agent would be committing an illegal act. With public health care, the government subsidises drugs and treatment - it still doesn't get to see your records.
Personally, I think you have it backwards. A more privately run system is much more prone to compromise - with insurance companies after your medical history. That's much more likely than a government-run conspiracy to see your medical records. And what's a little data-sharing between companies? It's all about the bottom line. Wheras, in rational systems, the public health and privacy would be put before profits.
On a serious side note, why are the people who are most afraid of the government snooping on their international phone calls to known terrorists the same people who are the most gungho for government managed health care?
What does one have to do with the other? Government managed health care is all about efficiency. America pays a lot more for health care than countries where it is government subsidised. Not only that, many people can't get the care they need, leading to a poor state of health as well as finances. Basically, the private system is ripping everybody off - except for the drug companies and other medical industries.
Having the government manage health care does not mean you lose your medical privacy. In those modern countries where there is public health care, your privacy is maintained, and politicians can't go accessing your medical history. We have also seen from the scams like "pretexting" in the HP case, that private companies are very willing to invade your privacy and give away details to anyone who asks. You'd probably be safer with a well-run government programme with privacy safeguards than with a private company.
Do we really need to state the obvious? In politics, people use whatever tools are at their disposal. Technology has always been one of those tools, whether it be the harvesting machine, the motor car, the television, or space craft.
So calling him a sexual predator, when he's basically hitting on high school seniors from a power position, isn't all that different from 5th year frat boys hitting on the incoming college freshman (many of whom are under 18.)
No, it's very different. Foley is in his 50s, and in a hufge position of power opver the pages. It's more like a University lecturer hitting on the freshmen, not older students hitting on freshmen.
He didn't actually have sex with any pages that we know of
That we know of... yet. I am sure this will come out. His IM logs make references to having been with the pages.
There are plenty of much, much worse sexual deviants out there doing damage on the streets today.
So, because there are worse criminals, that makes this man not a sexual predator? Even though his behavior is a textbook case of sexual predation? That's some funny logic. And you don't think that those much worse people start out doing things like Foley does?
And fer christ's sake - he is the one that goes around making laws that define people who do this over internet chat as predators and worse! His whole career was centered around demonizing and criminalizing people doing exactly what he was doing! So, he can get a taste of his own medicine.
I didn't say people didn't reverse roles, where did you get that from?
Where you wrote: "that role-reversal is widely believed to be a myth." If role-reversal is a myth, then that means it doesn't actually happen.
so I asked if you could provide some for your statements, because I'm genuinely interested in the topic.
Well, that's going to be pretty hard to obtain. My use of the word "often" does not imply a statistical percentage, just that I've observed that to be the case a fair number of times. I'd love to be able to give you figures, but I can't, sorry.
Wow, that's pretty incredible. You don't think that people can reverse roles? And you want statistical data? How would this data be obtained?
Why do you believe that people are stuck to one "role" in life, and can't change? It seems pretty obvious from observation. For example, those who are owtwardly prudish and obey strict rules, are frequently found to to be disobeying those rules in their private lives. Likewise, those who proclaim to be wild and non-conformist, often are quite rigid and "straight."
Fourthly, the "little boys" you are talking about were a) 16 years old, which meets the age of consent in a lot of states (but not all)
In those states where the legal age of consent is 16, is it still illegal for those much older than 16 to have sex or prey on them. It is only the legal age of consent for those within a few years of their age. Foley is in his 50s. You should do some more research. I'm not sure why you want to defend a sexual predator.
You see, that doesn't really matter. We are talking about trangression here. Often submissives are people who are strong, but want to give themselves up to another. Likewise, dominants are often people who are weak, but crave power. Sex is often about role-reversal. After all, Spock chooses to defer to a "Captain" who is much dumber than he is. Spock could make a much better Captain and lead Starfleet to glory, but he chooses to belong to a hierarchy where his skills are undervalued.
and the movie will most likely be a prequel featuring Kirk and Spock in their younger years
Kirk and Spock were young men with dreams of trvavelling the universe. As they tweaked the knobs on their prototype spacecraft, Kirk let out a sigh and said "Is it getting hot in here, Spock?" The nubile, yet distinguished young Vulcan replied "My temperature sensor does indeed indicate much wamrth and humidity." Kirk nodded coyly to Spock as he peeled off his lycra bodysuit. "That seems like a logical thing to do," noted Spock as he proceeded to do likewise, revealing his silky-skinned chest. Striking up a conversational mood, Spock enquired "What is this thing you humans call fisting? Is it a medical procedure?" Kirk winked and said "It's the way we calibrate the Warp Drive." Unaware of Kirk's subtext, Spock replied "Most interesting. Would you care to demonstrate these techniques in the interest of knowledge?" Kirk tried to subdue his enthusiasm. "Oh damn, I dropped my wrench. Could you bend over and pick it up for me?" Kirk could no longer control himself. "Engage! Engage like a pig!" he cried, as he set his thrusters to full.
Apple is a very intrusive company when it comes to DRM distribution and enforcement.
They are? What evidence do you have of this? They don't even use DRM on their Operating System and most applications - and they don't raise a finger in "enforcement." I get tons of threatening letters from the BSA on behalf of Adobe and Microsoft because I bought and registered their products. I don't get any of that from Apple. I can install my Apple applications on a multitude of computers with the same serial number, and Software Update never complains, and the system never "phones home." None of the Microsoft-like heavy-handed crap.
Apple negotiated against heavy DRM with the record companies, and that's the only area where there is any serious DRM, and that's because you the labels won't allow it to be sold with none.
So, what do you mean by Apple being "very intrusive"?
You don't like my anlge, but letting Apple off the hook just because you're a fanboy isn't insightful in my book.
No, it's not because of fandom, it's because of looking at reality. Don't let your anti-Apple negativity make you believe myths and distortions.
Even better, the pathetic CSS encryption on DVDs was very poor, and has been hacked.
So has Apple's Fairplay encryption. So, I guess that makes it OK, now?
But more importantly, to the common person, the "protection" on DVDs doesn't ever show up. A DVD is a physical item; you put it in a DVD player and you watch your movie.
Exactly how it is for iTunes purchases. People buy it from the store, and it works perfectly on their computer and iPod. I'm not sure how it not being on a physical medium makes any difference. By your logic, because Fairplay is inobtrusive, it is OK. That is NOT the argument of the protestors mentioned in the article.
Anyway, why do people have such a hyprocritical attitude about DVDs? Is it because you don't want to lose your precious DVDs, so you pretend there is no DRM on DVDs, while decrying other forms of DRM?
That's a bit of a pain now, but if iTunes goes out of business, you're screwed just as if you had bought the doomed DIVX format (the Circuit City one). After that point, your DRMed AAC files will only work as long as you use the same hardware.
Again, how many people are going to get this wrong? Apple allows burning to standard Audio CDs, so you can easily move your music, and use it on other players. DIVX did not allow such burning or backup, so it is nothing like that. DIVX also required a phone-home to play. iTunes/iPod does not.
How many ways is the dvd pie split? Do you really think that microsoft sells more copies of windows than apple sells itunes songs? Are you sure you're not the one pretending?
You are comparing bananas and kiwifruit. Why do you count individual iTunes songs costing $0.99 versus whole copies of Operating Systems and DVD discs costing $15 and up? You are delusional if you think Microsoft makes less money on Windows than Apple does on iTunes songs. Total income, or profits, is usually how the market determines "big," not unit sales. And many of those iTunes songs are purchased as part of an album.
Back to DVDs, at least the DVD format is not centrally controlled; DVDs will be playable on their original media even if their distributor goes out of business, or shuts down a devision of their company
So what? It is still DRMed. And what if they stop making DVD players? Your player will not work forever, eventually it will break.
If Apple at any time decides to shut down their iTunes devision all the music and videos you "bought" are now useless.
No they aren't, because Apple allows burning to standard Audio CD, unlike most DRM vendors. And do you really think tools won't be available to crack the DRM, just like tools are available for DVDs? They already are available, AFAIK.
The point to get accross is that if you buy ??-DRM, it is likely to be obsolete as by its nature it is non-standard, hidden format.
Then it's very strange to target Apple, because they allow burning to standard Audio CD, while most of the other DRM vendors do not. So the idea that you will lose your entire music collection or be locked into one player is inaccurate.
Sure its best not to get one with DRM, to avoid paying for an unwanted feature, but if you only use "standard/portable" formats, that ok too.
That may be your opinion, but I doubt that's how the "Defective by Design" people feel. Otherwise, why would they target the iPod? They feel that anything with DRM capability is tainted.
Apple is easily the biggest distributor of DRM material,
What a crock! Sales of DRMed DVDs dwarf sales on iTunes. And what about Windows and Microsoft's applications? They are DRMed. Why do people pretend that Apple is the biggest kid on the DRM block?
People see Apple being protested because of nasty DRM. So they think "Hmmm, I shouldn't buy an iPod. I'll buy something else." So, they go and buy a Sony player, or a Microsoft player with even worse DRM. Net result: more DRM-based units are sold. Great strategy!
How many portable MP3 players don't have some sort of DRM support? I doubt that people are going to go out of their way to find one. They'll just buy something other than Apple, thinking it has no DRM, because that's an "iPod thing."
And how do you propose the US government enforce the writ of habeas corpus for people living in countries outside US jurisdiction?
I propose they don't. Why should they?
While I may agree with you in spirit that everybody on the world possesses inalienable rights, it is simply not possible or practical for the US government to see that everybody outside US jurisdiction have those rights properly afforded to them.
That's not the point. The point is that the US should lead by example, and not take away these rights from anybody when enforcing its own laws and interests.
So anyways talking about inalienable human rights actually does NOT cover habeas corpus, since it is a privilege, not a right.
But it is stipulated that it can only be repealed if Public Safety requires it. I don't see any current situation where habeas corpus would be detrimental to the public safety. In fact, it's hard to imagine any scenario outside of fiction where habeas corpus would be dangerous to the people.
I call bullshit. We have not yet discovered intelligent life from other planets. This law removes habeas corpus from human beings from planet Earth. You know, the same people the US constitution claims to cover. The Constitution does not say that rights are only for US citizens.
It's in the politics section. And it's news. If you don't like political nerd news, then don't read the damn politics section. What kind of a nerd would miss the category heading?
Slashdot Mirror
No, you can register for iTunes with the code on a gift certificate or prepaid card.
So, where do the resources come from, to make the replicated products. Where do we store all these products? The Earth has finite resources and space, you know.
I'd be pretty pissed off if my home became a wasteland because of some greedy consumer sending out his clouds of replicating nanorobots, trashing the environment I live in, so he could have another car.
The ability to easily make stuff will never end poverty or war.
Where's "there"? Practically every library system in the world loans music on CD. Are you saying there are no libraries or Universities where you live?
Oh, and don't suggest I try things like 30 second previews. These are no where near enough to gauge a song. I suppose you're the type of person who pays for all his music, movies, games and software, yes?
Well, go into a record store and listen to the album in their headphone listening suites. Listen to the radio. Listen to a firend's music collection.
Actually, that's not the case. Most countries with public health care have anonymous STD clinics, where you do not need to give a name, and you do not get billed. The government still pays. It makes sense, because STDs left untreated actually increase costs for society.
Also, even if you go to a regular doctor, the government still doesn't know what you got treated for.
With a privcate system, you have to foot the bill, so it would be easier to connect the dots. You think US health care being privately run means they can't spy on your medical records. Especially with all this domestic spying and collusion with private companies. You must be pretty naive if you think the private sector protects you from this. Look at all those telecommunication companies in collusion with government spying.
Don't tell me the government can't end up with the private records of its enemies and get away with it. Bill Clinton had hundreds of FBI files of his political enemies illegally in the White House.
Not is you have a sane system, and allow anonymity. Do you think Clinton needed his spying targets to be using public health care or government services?
If I ever call Osama, they can tap my line. I'll be damned if I give them my medical history.
You don't get it, do you? In a public health care system, you don't go to a "government doctor." You do not give the government your medical records.
My HMO gives out my medical records, I sue the shit out of them.
Firstly, how would you know? Secondly, if like Bush's spying, it is deemed "in the national interest" you probably won't win in court.
Some government stooge looks at my medical records and leaks info out to smear me because they don't like me protesting them, what am I gonna do?
Uh, the same thing? You would still be seeing the same doctor, and they would be responsible for an illegal act by leaking your details to the government. The government agent would be committing an illegal act. With public health care, the government subsidises drugs and treatment - it still doesn't get to see your records.
Personally, I think you have it backwards. A more privately run system is much more prone to compromise - with insurance companies after your medical history. That's much more likely than a government-run conspiracy to see your medical records. And what's a little data-sharing between companies? It's all about the bottom line. Wheras, in rational systems, the public health and privacy would be put before profits.
What does one have to do with the other? Government managed health care is all about efficiency. America pays a lot more for health care than countries where it is government subsidised. Not only that, many people can't get the care they need, leading to a poor state of health as well as finances. Basically, the private system is ripping everybody off - except for the drug companies and other medical industries.
Having the government manage health care does not mean you lose your medical privacy. In those modern countries where there is public health care, your privacy is maintained, and politicians can't go accessing your medical history. We have also seen from the scams like "pretexting" in the HP case, that private companies are very willing to invade your privacy and give away details to anyone who asks. You'd probably be safer with a well-run government programme with privacy safeguards than with a private company.
For photos of hot probe-on-probe action.
Do we really need to state the obvious? In politics, people use whatever tools are at their disposal. Technology has always been one of those tools, whether it be the harvesting machine, the motor car, the television, or space craft.
No, it's very different. Foley is in his 50s, and in a hufge position of power opver the pages. It's more like a University lecturer hitting on the freshmen, not older students hitting on freshmen.
He didn't actually have sex with any pages that we know of
That we know of ... yet. I am sure this will come out. His IM logs make references to having been with the pages.
There are plenty of much, much worse sexual deviants out there doing damage on the streets today.
So, because there are worse criminals, that makes this man not a sexual predator? Even though his behavior is a textbook case of sexual predation? That's some funny logic. And you don't think that those much worse people start out doing things like Foley does?
And fer christ's sake - he is the one that goes around making laws that define people who do this over internet chat as predators and worse! His whole career was centered around demonizing and criminalizing people doing exactly what he was doing! So, he can get a taste of his own medicine.
Where you wrote: "that role-reversal is widely believed to be a myth." If role-reversal is a myth, then that means it doesn't actually happen.
so I asked if you could provide some for your statements, because I'm genuinely interested in the topic.
Well, that's going to be pretty hard to obtain. My use of the word "often" does not imply a statistical percentage, just that I've observed that to be the case a fair number of times. I'd love to be able to give you figures, but I can't, sorry.
Why do you believe that people are stuck to one "role" in life, and can't change? It seems pretty obvious from observation. For example, those who are owtwardly prudish and obey strict rules, are frequently found to to be disobeying those rules in their private lives. Likewise, those who proclaim to be wild and non-conformist, often are quite rigid and "straight."
In those states where the legal age of consent is 16, is it still illegal for those much older than 16 to have sex or prey on them. It is only the legal age of consent for those within a few years of their age. Foley is in his 50s. You should do some more research. I'm not sure why you want to defend a sexual predator.
You see, that doesn't really matter. We are talking about trangression here. Often submissives are people who are strong, but want to give themselves up to another. Likewise, dominants are often people who are weak, but crave power. Sex is often about role-reversal. After all, Spock chooses to defer to a "Captain" who is much dumber than he is. Spock could make a much better Captain and lead Starfleet to glory, but he chooses to belong to a hierarchy where his skills are undervalued.
Kirk and Spock were young men with dreams of trvavelling the universe. As they tweaked the knobs on their prototype spacecraft, Kirk let out a sigh and said "Is it getting hot in here, Spock?" The nubile, yet distinguished young Vulcan replied "My temperature sensor does indeed indicate much wamrth and humidity." Kirk nodded coyly to Spock as he peeled off his lycra bodysuit. "That seems like a logical thing to do," noted Spock as he proceeded to do likewise, revealing his silky-skinned chest. Striking up a conversational mood, Spock enquired "What is this thing you humans call fisting? Is it a medical procedure?" Kirk winked and said "It's the way we calibrate the Warp Drive." Unaware of Kirk's subtext, Spock replied "Most interesting. Would you care to demonstrate these techniques in the interest of knowledge?" Kirk tried to subdue his enthusiasm. "Oh damn, I dropped my wrench. Could you bend over and pick it up for me?" Kirk could no longer control himself. "Engage! Engage like a pig!" he cried, as he set his thrusters to full.
They are? What evidence do you have of this? They don't even use DRM on their Operating System and most applications - and they don't raise a finger in "enforcement." I get tons of threatening letters from the BSA on behalf of Adobe and Microsoft because I bought and registered their products. I don't get any of that from Apple. I can install my Apple applications on a multitude of computers with the same serial number, and Software Update never complains, and the system never "phones home." None of the Microsoft-like heavy-handed crap.
Apple negotiated against heavy DRM with the record companies, and that's the only area where there is any serious DRM, and that's because you the labels won't allow it to be sold with none.
So, what do you mean by Apple being "very intrusive"?
You don't like my anlge, but letting Apple off the hook just because you're a fanboy isn't insightful in my book.
No, it's not because of fandom, it's because of looking at reality. Don't let your anti-Apple negativity make you believe myths and distortions.
So has Apple's Fairplay encryption. So, I guess that makes it OK, now?
But more importantly, to the common person, the "protection" on DVDs doesn't ever show up. A DVD is a physical item; you put it in a DVD player and you watch your movie.
Exactly how it is for iTunes purchases. People buy it from the store, and it works perfectly on their computer and iPod. I'm not sure how it not being on a physical medium makes any difference. By your logic, because Fairplay is inobtrusive, it is OK. That is NOT the argument of the protestors mentioned in the article.
Anyway, why do people have such a hyprocritical attitude about DVDs? Is it because you don't want to lose your precious DVDs, so you pretend there is no DRM on DVDs, while decrying other forms of DRM?
That's a bit of a pain now, but if iTunes goes out of business, you're screwed just as if you had bought the doomed DIVX format (the Circuit City one). After that point, your DRMed AAC files will only work as long as you use the same hardware.
Again, how many people are going to get this wrong? Apple allows burning to standard Audio CDs, so you can easily move your music, and use it on other players. DIVX did not allow such burning or backup, so it is nothing like that. DIVX also required a phone-home to play. iTunes/iPod does not.
You are comparing bananas and kiwifruit. Why do you count individual iTunes songs costing $0.99 versus whole copies of Operating Systems and DVD discs costing $15 and up? You are delusional if you think Microsoft makes less money on Windows than Apple does on iTunes songs. Total income, or profits, is usually how the market determines "big," not unit sales. And many of those iTunes songs are purchased as part of an album.
Back to DVDs, at least the DVD format is not centrally controlled; DVDs will be playable on their original media even if their distributor goes out of business, or shuts down a devision of their company
So what? It is still DRMed. And what if they stop making DVD players? Your player will not work forever, eventually it will break.
If Apple at any time decides to shut down their iTunes devision all the music and videos you "bought" are now useless.
No they aren't, because Apple allows burning to standard Audio CD, unlike most DRM vendors. And do you really think tools won't be available to crack the DRM, just like tools are available for DVDs? They already are available, AFAIK.
Then it's very strange to target Apple, because they allow burning to standard Audio CD, while most of the other DRM vendors do not. So the idea that you will lose your entire music collection or be locked into one player is inaccurate.
Sure its best not to get one with DRM, to avoid paying for an unwanted feature, but if you only use "standard/portable" formats, that ok too.
That may be your opinion, but I doubt that's how the "Defective by Design" people feel. Otherwise, why would they target the iPod? They feel that anything with DRM capability is tainted.
What a crock! Sales of DRMed DVDs dwarf sales on iTunes. And what about Windows and Microsoft's applications? They are DRMed. Why do people pretend that Apple is the biggest kid on the DRM block?
People see Apple being protested because of nasty DRM. So they think "Hmmm, I shouldn't buy an iPod. I'll buy something else." So, they go and buy a Sony player, or a Microsoft player with even worse DRM. Net result: more DRM-based units are sold. Great strategy!
How many portable MP3 players don't have some sort of DRM support? I doubt that people are going to go out of their way to find one. They'll just buy something other than Apple, thinking it has no DRM, because that's an "iPod thing."
Back slowly away from the psychoactive drugs, these nice men want to have a little talk with you.
But corporations are people too! Won't somebody think of the corporations?
I propose they don't. Why should they?
While I may agree with you in spirit that everybody on the world possesses inalienable rights, it is simply not possible or practical for the US government to see that everybody outside US jurisdiction have those rights properly afforded to them.
That's not the point. The point is that the US should lead by example, and not take away these rights from anybody when enforcing its own laws and interests.
So anyways talking about inalienable human rights actually does NOT cover habeas corpus, since it is a privilege, not a right.
But it is stipulated that it can only be repealed if Public Safety requires it. I don't see any current situation where habeas corpus would be detrimental to the public safety. In fact, it's hard to imagine any scenario outside of fiction where habeas corpus would be dangerous to the people.
I call bullshit. We have not yet discovered intelligent life from other planets. This law removes habeas corpus from human beings from planet Earth. You know, the same people the US constitution claims to cover. The Constitution does not say that rights are only for US citizens.
But what's "left wing" about it? Shouldn't right wingers care about government failures too?
It's in the politics section. And it's news. If you don't like political nerd news, then don't read the damn politics section. What kind of a nerd would miss the category heading?