And for those of us who don't really choose, but just take what we can get? Sure, some (maybe most) of your increase will go to people who have the choice, and who could probably pay for the whole damn thing themselves, but if you think that that's too much trouble to go through to help the people who actually need it, I think you need your moral compass checked out a bit.
I dunno about where you are, but the bars around my uni definitely allow minors to enter for most of the day, even though they can't be served alcohol.
And what is the problem with ending sentences with prepositions? It is perfectly valid, grammatically speaking, and, while it is true that it sometimes makes for more awkward sentences, it also avoids awkward sentences sometimes, such as with the GP.
Is Windows 7 significantly better than the almost 10-year old XP? Other than its new GUI, it has nothing to offer other than slow, bloatedness.
Actually, yes. I run a dual boot system, with Gentoo primary, and Windows secondary (mostly for gaming, but it can cover most of my daily needs for when I'm too lazy to reboot). I've been running XP for a good long while and, out of everybody I know, I've been the single most resistant to switch to a newer version. Eventually, I relented, and tried out 7, ready to hate it. I was shocked: it didn't totally suck. It actually was better than XP, finally integrating features that I can't live without in Linux. And here's the real kicker: a uniform performance boost. Yes, it takes up more space on my disk, and yes, I wish it didn't, but disk is cheap, so I can ignore that.
This isn't to say that 7 is without its flaws, but most of those exist in XP, as well.
I have to ask, in your black-and-white world without ambiguities, what do you say about hermaphrodites? That's only the easiest and most basic response to that mistaken notion.
Of course, your sig isn't much better. Narrowing the gap between classes and increasing the standard of living for lower classes both increase the standard of living (by pretty much any reasonable measure) for everyone in the society, including the wealthy. Of course, even ignoring that, I have to wonder in what world you live that the wealthy having a few extra bucks is more important than the life of a human being who just happened to be dealt a bad hand in life. Are you sure you're a man of God? Because you keep saying that name like it means something to you.
I'm going to jump on the anecdote bandwagon here and say I had good driver support on Super Windows 64 except my really old printer and my ultimately-unnecessary Nintendo wireless dongle. On the whole, I was very happy with XP64.
That said, I switched over to the 7 RTM and keep being pleasantly surprised by a lot of the features. This, in addition to the performance boost 7 gives me over XP, means I'll definitely be sticking with 7 from here on out.
I'm not sure where he starts counting, but it's easily over 5 minutes. If he's starting at installation, you can easily lose 15 minutes right there (though, fortunately, most well-designed installers are closer to 5, and usually even less than that). If he's counting from first boot, I usually have to go through all of the available options. Default graphics options are nowhere near as high as my system can comfortably handle, and most "automatically detect best settings" buttons fall short of what I can handle, too. The sound options usually default to low-quality stereo, so that needs boosting to high-quality surround. Minor gameplay changes, like enabling subtitles (seriously, why aren't they default?) and then going through and making sure the default controls don't suck, or changing them such that they don't. It's a lot of little things, but I find that they add up to about 5 minutes for most of my own installations.
"Stop spending them" doesn't work for me. I still get 15 every week or two. Of course, I never find anything to use them on until the day after they expire.
Re:Talk about getting your facts right!
on
Tetraktys
·
· Score: 1
I read Digital Fortress and I can't remember if I gave up on even pretending that it was accurate when he said "rotating cleartext" or "let's try the kanji" but, uh, "probably crazy inaccurate" only scratches the surface.
Silly me. Here I thought the point of playing a game was to have fun. I run a dungeon because it's fun, not to get some gear out of it. Then I buy my way out of the ones that I don't find fun.
If you prefer to just buy your way out of all of the dungeons, why are you even playing?
We understand, don't worry. Or, at least, the reasonable ones. However, there are two things to note: One, we're not the ones complaining about Wikipedia's photo quality here, the photographer is, so if he has a problem, he should fix it. Two, you state that you increase the base cost on a work for hire because you can never use that work in a portfolio. Not only would you be able to use a CC photo in a portfolio, but also you would already have your name attached to _every_ legal usage of it. if that legal usage was on Wikipedia, that's fairly significant exposure. Maybe you can't justify the cost from that exposure alone, but that the photographer needs to consider, rather than just writing it off as "more permissions == more moneys".
Actually, that's just strong agnosticism. Admittedly, I wish that were the only definition of agnosticism, but the "I don't know if there is a god or not" is weak agnosticism. Given this, I think the problem isn't too many declaring themselves agnostic but, in fact, quite the opposite. Anyone who asserts they do know for a fact is kidding themselves.
Of course, if people did realize this, weak agnosticism would become a vacuous truth and we would just be left with strong agnosticism as a meaningful declaration. Given that, I would have to agree with you.
I guess you're right, but not knowing whether or not there's a god doesn't necessarily make you agnostic.
Actually, it does. That's the very definition of weak agnosticism. To say that you're not is just kidding yourself and everybody else. The problem is that almost everyone who doesn't declare themselves agnostic are kidding themselves. Hell, even the diehards who insist that they aboslutely know there are no gods or the ones who insist that they absolutely know there are gods are kidding themselves, too, but in a different manner.
Now, strong agnosticism is something to which you can actually subscribe/not subscribe. It's a shame the general public doesn't seem to know this definition, though, and instead assume agnosticism:= weak agnosticism.
I don't even know where to begin here. I mean, okay, let's start at the beginning: I never got paid for the time my father was at work, despite him being gone for weeks at a time, so why should an author's son get paid for the same? That argument is weak at best.
Also, in Tolkien's case, he wasn't trying to support his family. He taught for that purpose. He wrote for the love of it, for the progress of the arts, basically. I don't know what his wishes were, exactly, regarding posthumous rights, but it's not as if he were relying on his writing to provide for his children. And, honestly, I don't think it should matter if he did. My employer has no facility to pay out to my family should I croak, so I still can't see the argument that copyright needs to act in this regard.
Everything seems to revolve around a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright. Copyright is *not* intended to "protect" the author. It's intended to protect the public domain!
The thing is, by US Constitution even, copyrights are established for a limited time to promote the progress of the arts. We grant you a _limited_time_ exclusive right to the work to encourage you to create and, in exchange the public gains this new work after your right to it expires.
Given this, I can see strong arguments both for and against inherited copyrights. Either way, I believe it is disingenuous to try to assert that backing the forfeit of copyright at death implies or is the same as backing the forfeit of any other property at death.
Like I said, I can see the argument in favor of inherited copyright in terms of providing for a family, but to use these arguments to say someone else's opinion to the contrary is misguided is rather stupid. I mean, if I build a chair and sell it, my family gets the money I made from selling the chair. Similarly, my family gets any money I made off of a copyright. However, when I die, they get nothing more from the chair but they get to ride my copyright until it expires or, more realistically, they die? Again, I'm not arguing either side here and I can see the merits of both sides, but to say it's misguided to think there's something wrong with that notion is rather misguided itself.
That's not exactly the question at hand. The issue isn't about Joe's Burger Shack calling themselves McDonalds. The question is whether Joe's Burger Shack should be allowed to buy advertising next to the listing for McDonalds and, quite frankly, I can't see why not.
Transformers and ID4 aren't exactly my goto movies that demonstrate great cinema. Sure, their graphics were the important bit, but that's because they weren't really spectacular on the whole.
Star Wars, while certainly state-of-the-art of the time, has proven that the necessary threshold for its special effects was hit in the 70s. We got Star Wars as George Lucas supposedly envisioned it with sufficiently advanced special effects and, you know what? We cried for our old beloved to return because the new stuff was ruining our childhoods.
The Matrix, I will grant you, but consider also that it would have been worthless if it only stood on its graphics. It was a work the required the fusion of a certain threshold of good special effects and superb writing. That is why we'll still look back fondly on The Matrix in 50 years after it looks dated, but we'll still be shamed by Revolutions, which uses the same great effects, but has terrible writing.
I'll admit that the original wording was nonoptimal, but I still insist that you are not taking enough context into your viewing.
For one, the first sentence specifies that this is a list of infringements as we believe the RIAA to view infringement, not necessarily as the law states. This bit of context, combined with those two sentences means that the original point was not that loaning or giving away books is infringement, but rather that copyright lobbyists would like to make it so with e-books.
Often, there are multiple ways of reading the same text with entirely different meanings. The use of context to decipher the proper meaning is an essential part of comprehension.
As much as I hate to be that guy who resorts to a xkcd comic, HFCS is a case where correlation may not imply causation, but it is waggling its eyebrows suggestively and and gesturing furtively while mouthing "look over there"....
Slashdot Mirror
And for those of us who don't really choose, but just take what we can get? Sure, some (maybe most) of your increase will go to people who have the choice, and who could probably pay for the whole damn thing themselves, but if you think that that's too much trouble to go through to help the people who actually need it, I think you need your moral compass checked out a bit.
I dunno about where you are, but the bars around my uni definitely allow minors to enter for most of the day, even though they can't be served alcohol.
Is my family the exception that proves the rule?
I don't think that means what you think it means....
And what is the problem with ending sentences with prepositions? It is perfectly valid, grammatically speaking, and, while it is true that it sometimes makes for more awkward sentences, it also avoids awkward sentences sometimes, such as with the GP.
Is Windows 7 significantly better than the almost 10-year old XP? Other than its new GUI, it has nothing to offer other than slow, bloatedness.
Actually, yes. I run a dual boot system, with Gentoo primary, and Windows secondary (mostly for gaming, but it can cover most of my daily needs for when I'm too lazy to reboot). I've been running XP for a good long while and, out of everybody I know, I've been the single most resistant to switch to a newer version. Eventually, I relented, and tried out 7, ready to hate it. I was shocked: it didn't totally suck. It actually was better than XP, finally integrating features that I can't live without in Linux. And here's the real kicker: a uniform performance boost. Yes, it takes up more space on my disk, and yes, I wish it didn't, but disk is cheap, so I can ignore that.
This isn't to say that 7 is without its flaws, but most of those exist in XP, as well.
I have to ask, in your black-and-white world without ambiguities, what do you say about hermaphrodites? That's only the easiest and most basic response to that mistaken notion.
Of course, your sig isn't much better. Narrowing the gap between classes and increasing the standard of living for lower classes both increase the standard of living (by pretty much any reasonable measure) for everyone in the society, including the wealthy. Of course, even ignoring that, I have to wonder in what world you live that the wealthy having a few extra bucks is more important than the life of a human being who just happened to be dealt a bad hand in life. Are you sure you're a man of God? Because you keep saying that name like it means something to you.
I'm going to jump on the anecdote bandwagon here and say I had good driver support on Super Windows 64 except my really old printer and my ultimately-unnecessary Nintendo wireless dongle. On the whole, I was very happy with XP64.
That said, I switched over to the 7 RTM and keep being pleasantly surprised by a lot of the features. This, in addition to the performance boost 7 gives me over XP, means I'll definitely be sticking with 7 from here on out.
I'm not sure where he starts counting, but it's easily over 5 minutes. If he's starting at installation, you can easily lose 15 minutes right there (though, fortunately, most well-designed installers are closer to 5, and usually even less than that). If he's counting from first boot, I usually have to go through all of the available options. Default graphics options are nowhere near as high as my system can comfortably handle, and most "automatically detect best settings" buttons fall short of what I can handle, too. The sound options usually default to low-quality stereo, so that needs boosting to high-quality surround. Minor gameplay changes, like enabling subtitles (seriously, why aren't they default?) and then going through and making sure the default controls don't suck, or changing them such that they don't. It's a lot of little things, but I find that they add up to about 5 minutes for most of my own installations.
"Stop spending them" doesn't work for me. I still get 15 every week or two. Of course, I never find anything to use them on until the day after they expire.
I read Digital Fortress and I can't remember if I gave up on even pretending that it was accurate when he said "rotating cleartext" or "let's try the kanji" but, uh, "probably crazy inaccurate" only scratches the surface.
Like swiss cheese?
Silly me. Here I thought the point of playing a game was to have fun. I run a dungeon because it's fun, not to get some gear out of it. Then I buy my way out of the ones that I don't find fun.
If you prefer to just buy your way out of all of the dungeons, why are you even playing?
We understand, don't worry. Or, at least, the reasonable ones. However, there are two things to note: One, we're not the ones complaining about Wikipedia's photo quality here, the photographer is, so if he has a problem, he should fix it. Two, you state that you increase the base cost on a work for hire because you can never use that work in a portfolio. Not only would you be able to use a CC photo in a portfolio, but also you would already have your name attached to _every_ legal usage of it. if that legal usage was on Wikipedia, that's fairly significant exposure. Maybe you can't justify the cost from that exposure alone, but that the photographer needs to consider, rather than just writing it off as "more permissions == more moneys".
Actually, that's just strong agnosticism. Admittedly, I wish that were the only definition of agnosticism, but the "I don't know if there is a god or not" is weak agnosticism. Given this, I think the problem isn't too many declaring themselves agnostic but, in fact, quite the opposite. Anyone who asserts they do know for a fact is kidding themselves.
Of course, if people did realize this, weak agnosticism would become a vacuous truth and we would just be left with strong agnosticism as a meaningful declaration. Given that, I would have to agree with you.
I guess you're right, but not knowing whether or not there's a god doesn't necessarily make you agnostic.
Actually, it does. That's the very definition of weak agnosticism. To say that you're not is just kidding yourself and everybody else. The problem is that almost everyone who doesn't declare themselves agnostic are kidding themselves. Hell, even the diehards who insist that they aboslutely know there are no gods or the ones who insist that they absolutely know there are gods are kidding themselves, too, but in a different manner.
Now, strong agnosticism is something to which you can actually subscribe/not subscribe. It's a shame the general public doesn't seem to know this definition, though, and instead assume agnosticism := weak agnosticism.
I don't even know where to begin here. I mean, okay, let's start at the beginning: I never got paid for the time my father was at work, despite him being gone for weeks at a time, so why should an author's son get paid for the same? That argument is weak at best.
Also, in Tolkien's case, he wasn't trying to support his family. He taught for that purpose. He wrote for the love of it, for the progress of the arts, basically. I don't know what his wishes were, exactly, regarding posthumous rights, but it's not as if he were relying on his writing to provide for his children. And, honestly, I don't think it should matter if he did. My employer has no facility to pay out to my family should I croak, so I still can't see the argument that copyright needs to act in this regard.
Everything seems to revolve around a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright. Copyright is *not* intended to "protect" the author. It's intended to protect the public domain!
The thing is, by US Constitution even, copyrights are established for a limited time to promote the progress of the arts. We grant you a _limited_time_ exclusive right to the work to encourage you to create and, in exchange the public gains this new work after your right to it expires.
Given this, I can see strong arguments both for and against inherited copyrights. Either way, I believe it is disingenuous to try to assert that backing the forfeit of copyright at death implies or is the same as backing the forfeit of any other property at death.
Like I said, I can see the argument in favor of inherited copyright in terms of providing for a family, but to use these arguments to say someone else's opinion to the contrary is misguided is rather stupid. I mean, if I build a chair and sell it, my family gets the money I made from selling the chair. Similarly, my family gets any money I made off of a copyright. However, when I die, they get nothing more from the chair but they get to ride my copyright until it expires or, more realistically, they die? Again, I'm not arguing either side here and I can see the merits of both sides, but to say it's misguided to think there's something wrong with that notion is rather misguided itself.
That's not exactly the question at hand. The issue isn't about Joe's Burger Shack calling themselves McDonalds. The question is whether Joe's Burger Shack should be allowed to buy advertising next to the listing for McDonalds and, quite frankly, I can't see why not.
Transformers and ID4 aren't exactly my goto movies that demonstrate great cinema. Sure, their graphics were the important bit, but that's because they weren't really spectacular on the whole.
Star Wars, while certainly state-of-the-art of the time, has proven that the necessary threshold for its special effects was hit in the 70s. We got Star Wars as George Lucas supposedly envisioned it with sufficiently advanced special effects and, you know what? We cried for our old beloved to return because the new stuff was ruining our childhoods.
The Matrix, I will grant you, but consider also that it would have been worthless if it only stood on its graphics. It was a work the required the fusion of a certain threshold of good special effects and superb writing. That is why we'll still look back fondly on The Matrix in 50 years after it looks dated, but we'll still be shamed by Revolutions, which uses the same great effects, but has terrible writing.
I absolutely would, thanks for asking.
I'll admit that the original wording was nonoptimal, but I still insist that you are not taking enough context into your viewing.
For one, the first sentence specifies that this is a list of infringements as we believe the RIAA to view infringement, not necessarily as the law states. This bit of context, combined with those two sentences means that the original point was not that loaning or giving away books is infringement, but rather that copyright lobbyists would like to make it so with e-books.
Often, there are multiple ways of reading the same text with entirely different meanings. The use of context to decipher the proper meaning is an essential part of comprehension.
I'm glad nobody's saying anything to the contrary, then. If you continued reading, you would have noted that it actually says:
Do you loan or give away books to friends? do you want to do that with e-books when they become ubiquitous?
Reading comprehension HO!
Incidentally, that's what we refer to as "fair use" in the US.
It seems like a perfect example of a paradox to me. It seems contradictory but, as you pointed out, it's not.
As much as I hate to be that guy who resorts to a xkcd comic, HFCS is a case where correlation may not imply causation, but it is waggling its eyebrows suggestively and and gesturing furtively while mouthing "look over there"....