Three things. First, you think terrorists are only going to hijack planes with Americans on them? Or kill only the Americans on a plane? Second, Americans aren't that hard to spot. They're large, usually white, speak English with a recognizable accent, and are clearly identified as not Canadian by their behaviour. Third, what's the terrorist going to do, go up to everyone with a scanner? Cause that wouldn't alarm anyone in today's world.
I know terrorism is the new evil, but c'mon people, be reasonable here.
Actually, this works very well for wet paper. I know it was a joke, and a good one, but many time I've dried soaking wet tens and twenties in 30 seconds.
I tried this with Warcraft 3. Wouldn't recognize the disk. I'm sure I could have fiddled around and gotten it, but there was copy protection nero didn't wanna copy.
I have to disagree on that. The first thing new medical tech should be used on is to save lives. Curing colourblindness, while a good thing to do, is not first on my list of top priorites. How about getting rid of the genes that predispose people to breast and prostate cancer? Heart disese, obesity, diabetes, a dozen other common, live threatening diseses, I would say, get first dibs.
You think this doesn't happen now? Sex-specific abortions are nothing new, nor are abortions where the kid is likely to be born horribly deformed. Not saying these things should happen, just that they do.
I'm sorry, you need a refresher course in probability. Mutations with a 1 in 270 chance will most likely be in the sample of 269. You've got a valid point in that they missed some, but your numbers are way low. Think 1 in thousands chance.
leaving out the small matter that the people at Guantanamo were all captured on the battlefield against US soldiers, operating under the control of no nation, not signatories to any of the Geneva conventions, are not US citizens, and in many cases have been shown to have attended training events on terrorism tactics.
Your attitude disgusts me. They were caputred in their home country, fighting against soldiers that invaded (use liberated if it makes you feel better, though I bet it looks the same when you're on the business end of an assault rifle) their land. Under control of no nation? Of course not. The nation of Iraq has been destroyed. What would you do if your government was overthrown by a foreign state? Lie back and take it? Or maybe fight back, just as these people have. And yeah, you'd probably not be treated very well. The point is, you ought to be. Especially if the nation that invaded was one who continually spoke out against human rights violations, and believed itself to be the most moral nation on earth. And they're not US citizens? So what? So they deserve no rights? I thought some rights were supposed to be universal. Right to a fair trial? Within a reasonable time?
Here's the thing. If these people are terrorists, show the proof, lock them up. If they're not, if there isn't any proof, release them. There's a difference between the guy who learned how to use a rifle in case men with guns broke down his door and the guy who's plotting to blow up buildings. Keeping the latter locked up I'll accept. The former I will not.
Speaking of online music sales, I'm really looking forward to another price war. Come on guys, we need a legit iTunes competitor to drive down the prices!
Doesn't work like that. Apple isn't setting the prices for iTunes. The record labels are. And they'd love it even higher.
The reason I don't feel it's wrong is because it's an "everybody wins" type of situation. We (consumers) win by getting better access to information, copyright holders (I think so, anyway) win by getting more book sales and more publicity, google wins by getting serving ads. Yes, publishers should be able to opt out. I don't see why this is such a huge deal. Holders of the copyrights in question usually hold a lot of them, right? So, a single letter to google saying "don't index anything we own" should be simple enough, easy enough, and honestly, not that big a deal. Or make it opt in, and have some intern at google call/write all the major owners of copyrights and ask.
If I write a book and tell Amazon they can't sell it, they can't.
Hold on. You think if you write a book and get it printed, you decide who can and can't sell it? Since when? Ok, maybe you have control over who gets the books straight out of the printing house, but once they hit the secondhand market, you really think you can say "Nope, sorry, you can't sell my book."? Maybe amazon will humour you and honour it, but I seriuosly doubt they have to.
Because they're making a copy without the permission of the copyright holder, apparently without being covered by any exemption?
The point isn't that people won't get to read it, it's that they're making a copy at all. Think about this: if I borrow a DVD from a friend and make a copy of it, but not watch it and instead stick it in my desk, does that now make it ok because I'm not watching it? Well, maybe, depends on who you ask. But I don't think it makes it legal.
I honestly don't think there's anything wrong with what google is doing here, but I also think it is, technically, in violation of the copyright.
Slashdot Mirror
Who would buy something they can make with something already in their kitchen?
Oh sorry, we're talking about Americans. My bad.
Three things. First, you think terrorists are only going to hijack planes with Americans on them? Or kill only the Americans on a plane? Second, Americans aren't that hard to spot. They're large, usually white, speak English with a recognizable accent, and are clearly identified as not Canadian by their behaviour. Third, what's the terrorist going to do, go up to everyone with a scanner? Cause that wouldn't alarm anyone in today's world.
I know terrorism is the new evil, but c'mon people, be reasonable here.
Actually, this works very well for wet paper. I know it was a joke, and a good one, but many time I've dried soaking wet tens and twenties in 30 seconds.
That's false. ID can be tested (in the same way astronomy can be)
I either don't understand what you're saying, or you meant astrology. I think that's the fairer comparison.
Dear god man, you have the question???!!!???111one
I tried this with Warcraft 3. Wouldn't recognize the disk. I'm sure I could have fiddled around and gotten it, but there was copy protection nero didn't wanna copy.
I have to disagree on that. The first thing new medical tech should be used on is to save lives. Curing colourblindness, while a good thing to do, is not first on my list of top priorites. How about getting rid of the genes that predispose people to breast and prostate cancer? Heart disese, obesity, diabetes, a dozen other common, live threatening diseses, I would say, get first dibs.
That's a feature, not a bug. :)
Abortion and culling based on heredity.
You think this doesn't happen now? Sex-specific abortions are nothing new, nor are abortions where the kid is likely to be born horribly deformed. Not saying these things should happen, just that they do.
I'm sorry, you need a refresher course in probability. Mutations with a 1 in 270 chance will most likely be in the sample of 269. You've got a valid point in that they missed some, but your numbers are way low. Think 1 in thousands chance.
I went to high school with a guy with the surname Wood. He's currently in the army, hoping to get to Major sometime soon.
From the bottom of my heart, I genuinely thank you. It's been a crappy week, and somehow "cheese fetish" made me laugh so hard I cried. Thanks.
Errrr...not really. Uploading copyrighted works is still illegal. Not enforced much, but still illegal.
Hey, at least we got buttsex back from the Republicans.
Sir, I think you've found yourself a sig.
leaving out the small matter that the people at Guantanamo were all captured on the battlefield against US soldiers, operating under the control of no nation, not signatories to any of the Geneva conventions, are not US citizens, and in many cases have been shown to have attended training events on terrorism tactics.
Your attitude disgusts me. They were caputred in their home country, fighting against soldiers that invaded (use liberated if it makes you feel better, though I bet it looks the same when you're on the business end of an assault rifle) their land. Under control of no nation? Of course not. The nation of Iraq has been destroyed. What would you do if your government was overthrown by a foreign state? Lie back and take it? Or maybe fight back, just as these people have. And yeah, you'd probably not be treated very well. The point is, you ought to be. Especially if the nation that invaded was one who continually spoke out against human rights violations, and believed itself to be the most moral nation on earth. And they're not US citizens? So what? So they deserve no rights? I thought some rights were supposed to be universal. Right to a fair trial? Within a reasonable time?
Here's the thing. If these people are terrorists, show the proof, lock them up. If they're not, if there isn't any proof, release them. There's a difference between the guy who learned how to use a rifle in case men with guns broke down his door and the guy who's plotting to blow up buildings. Keeping the latter locked up I'll accept. The former I will not.
The Onion was secretly supporting the president.
Obviously. Check this out. http://www.theonion.com/content/node/31077/print/
Speaking of online music sales, I'm really looking forward to another price war. Come on guys, we need a legit iTunes competitor to drive down the prices!
Doesn't work like that. Apple isn't setting the prices for iTunes. The record labels are. And they'd love it even higher.
I, too, would love Princess Leia as my boss, but only if it was some job where she had to wear that gold bikini. Ohhhhhh yeahhhhh.
Well, it shows up here, with even awesomer graphics! Quite amusing, actually. http://starterupsteve.com/swf/8bitDandD.html
The reason I don't feel it's wrong is because it's an "everybody wins" type of situation. We (consumers) win by getting better access to information, copyright holders (I think so, anyway) win by getting more book sales and more publicity, google wins by getting serving ads. Yes, publishers should be able to opt out. I don't see why this is such a huge deal. Holders of the copyrights in question usually hold a lot of them, right? So, a single letter to google saying "don't index anything we own" should be simple enough, easy enough, and honestly, not that big a deal. Or make it opt in, and have some intern at google call/write all the major owners of copyrights and ask.
books should be free
/sarcasm
Good plan! And movies should be free, and haircuts, and beer, and food, and cars, and houses, and artwork, and puppies and flowers and...
It's the real world, where things take money to produce, and writers need to eat, just like everyone else. Think before you post.
Then I thought, "Huh? they didn't receive any money under the old way either -- when I visited the library to find my quotes."
Sure they did. The library bought the book with cold hard cash.
If I write a book and tell Amazon they can't sell it, they can't.
Hold on. You think if you write a book and get it printed, you decide who can and can't sell it? Since when? Ok, maybe you have control over who gets the books straight out of the printing house, but once they hit the secondhand market, you really think you can say "Nope, sorry, you can't sell my book."? Maybe amazon will humour you and honour it, but I seriuosly doubt they have to.
You didn't address what GP said at all.
Because they're making a copy without the permission of the copyright holder, apparently without being covered by any exemption?
The point isn't that people won't get to read it, it's that they're making a copy at all. Think about this: if I borrow a DVD from a friend and make a copy of it, but not watch it and instead stick it in my desk, does that now make it ok because I'm not watching it? Well, maybe, depends on who you ask. But I don't think it makes it legal.
I honestly don't think there's anything wrong with what google is doing here, but I also think it is, technically, in violation of the copyright.
If you buy a $2000 computer with a cheque you *know* will bounce, yeah, I'd say that's fraud.