...not Bluetooth. And even if it were Bluetooth, you'd still be able to use something like Salling Clicker to turn any Bluetooth-enabled phone or PDA into a remote, though this usually ends up sucking.
After a PowerBook goes into emergency sleep, there's still enough juice left in the battery to sustain sleep for a couple of days. If your "daily routine" doesn't include a power outlet at least every couple days, you're probably not the kind of person to care about your uptime.
You're the kind of soi-disant intellectual who would never, ever sink to sullying your pristine intellect by watching television (ugh, the mass media!), and the networks know it. That's why they don't give a shit about you. That's also why no one else gives a shit about you.
OK, how's "anti-gay" sound instead? It's probably more accurate a term, given that you oppose granting gay couples the same rights enjoyed by straight couples.
OK, using your terminology, an illness is nothing but an inconvenient set of "preferences" that the patient would rather not have. That's how so-called "disorders" are sometimes seen; they're only labeled disorders because they can get in the way of your doing what you want to do. Manic depression, as I'm sure you're aware if you've experienced it, has upsides to it that some of its sufferers don't want to do away with, and so they don't seek treatment. Same with AD(H)D and all the rest.
No need to invent your own personal lexicon when you could learn the appropriate words and concepts to minimize all the confusion and all the angst in this little flamewar here.
No, dude. Many regular passengers of the Concorde did, in fact, habitually take several flights a week--like I said, they were exactly the kinds of people whou would--and even so, the Concorde often flew less than half full, particularly towards the end. At these passenger loads, the Concorde wasn't profitable on its own. The justification for continuing supersonic flights was as a status symbol for the airliner, an advertisement for the rest of the fleet.
I wish you were right that this upcoming generation of supersonic airliners were for "the masses" like you and me, but it's just not going to happen like that. Supersonic flights will be advertised to and used by those for whom the expense is worth it, and by God the airlines are going to milk them for all they can. Your "LOT more than 20,000" business execs are going to be flying first- or business-class on regular subsonic jets.
Wouldn't they just have made duplicates for the cops instead of sending the originals around? No use in tipping you off to an ongoing investigation, if that were the case. You're probably just being paranoid.:)
"Commercial jets are basically giant bricks with massive engines attatched. If the engines were to fail there's no gliding down to a nice touchdown at some airfield, they'd basically fall like rocks."
The people who would take a flight like this, at least initially, would be the kinds of people who could be given a special pass to speed through security and baggage check: business executives, financiers, wealthy celebs, politicians (excepting senior senators from Massachusetts), and the like. In a world population of six and a half billion, there's only a few thousand of these people, maybe a couple tens of thousands at most, who would be using this flight as a speedier replacement for private or company jets. With this relatively miniscule customer base, it wouldn't be hard to prescreen them all.
Hell, airlines already have the apparatus in place with existing programs: "When they make the cut, Global Services members are issued a black Global Services card, a leather-bound welcome kit and phone numbers of agents trained to see after their needs. Then the fun begins. The chosen ones are escorted through the security line and ushered into secret waiting lounges..."
And besides, for some of these people, time is the most valuable asset they have. Shaving a few hours off a flight, even supposing they still have to endure the rubber gloved finger in the ass, is a priceless extra few hours they can spend with their families, their consorts, or whatever.
They're not advertising spec B at spec A prices; as long as there's still spec A in the pipeline, they're advertising spec A at spec A prices. Hence "at least equal, but possibly better" to the label. You spend $A to get A, and you might get a little extra as a bonus, maybe not. Why is this so difficult to deal with?
OK, so what do you call the category that includes all of copyright infringement, patent infringement, and trademark infringement, as well as theft of services, petty theft, and grand theft; and robbery, burglary, and shoplifting? Or does no such category exist in your mind? Do you insist on making distinctions between the different types of intellectual property theft (notice how easily that term slips off the tongue)? Do you insist on making distinctions between the different kinds of theft involving stolen physical property? I don't see how you can justify one but not the other.
I guess you're not aware that information is often considered a good, but as an even more general term, let me propose "wrongful appropriation of goods and services." How's that?
Or we could just drop the stupid argument and call it "theft." Your call.
What does that prove? I'm speaking colloquially, as are we all (I thought) here on Slashdot. The Supreme Court ruling you cite defines theft in a legal sense, and even so very narrowly: in the context of the (implied) applicability of the language in Title 18 U.S.C. 2314. Theft in this sense doesn't include what we know as "identity theft," for example, and I just don't see that it's useful to speak of theft in such terms unless you're in a black robe writing a court opinion.
How about let's not call it theft, and call it "wrongful appropriation of goods" instead? That should make everyone happy, legalists and colloquialists alike, right?
Re:This sort of thing...
on
RIAA Sues a Child
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
So by that same token, theft of services isn't theft unless the service was rendered for you, and you alone as an individual? That's so weak. Suppose your barber works for a chain and gets paid by the hour. He's not cutting your hair for "you specifically," and since he's paid either way, your running off doesn't mean "his time was spent for naught." But your running off without paying is still theft.
Now suppose a musician, a producer, a team of sound engineers, cover artists, a couple talent scouts, and the management to put them all together each contribute a little bit towards a great new album they expect you to pay for, but then you go and download it for free with LimeWire. How is that not theft, too?
Can I ask, unrelatedly, about your feelings toward the term "identity theft"?
Re:This sort of thing...
on
RIAA Sues a Child
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It's theft in the same way that declining to pay for, say, your haircut, is theft of services; and it is indeed illegal. Check section 2319 here, the bit titled "Criminal infringement of copyright."
"...a neutron star is about 1.5 times massive as the sun... but ONLY 12 miles in diameter. One can just imagine the gravitational force these things have."
Sure, so about 1.5 times the gravitational force of the sun?;-)
If you "avoid" the RIAA, you avoid paying the artists too, unless you're cutting them individual checks. So if I want to avoid all that stuff, why wouldn't I just fire up LimeWire?
Well, it's all varying weights of Helvetica on the map and the symbols, except for the R train symbol which is something else, and a couple stations in Brooklyn and the new PATH terminal use Myriad. I'd hesitate to call Helvetica a "look" unless the MTA's actually trying for '70s retro, which, if you remember, wasn't exactly the best of times for the agency.
You seem to know something about copyright law, but are you positive that's the case w.r.t. loss of copyright protection as a consequence of failure to enforce? Where did you hear this? I only ask because everything I've read about copyright (and trademark) law states that an author retains copyright protection even in the event he/she declines to enforce it, and I've just googled for half an hour without finding anything indicating otherwise. In a copyright suit, you can claim implied consent as a defense if the copyright owner's known about your actions for a while without doing anything, but this only applies to individual violators; a ruling for the defendant doesn't imply that the copyright owner's abandoned the privilege to defend ownership rights in the future. Have I got it right, or is there something I'm missing you can set me straight on?
Supposing the MTA were required to enforce its copyright on the map, there's still no reason they couldn't just have granted permission for its use, even having discovered the violation after the fact. At least if it were a trademark issue, as far as I'm aware, the courts would take this as an active assertion of ownership.
I'd really like to know what sort of bug the MTA has got up its butt. Possibly they're just thrilled at their new downtown digs--the rush of authority and all that.
The thing I don't really understand is Intel's choice to back HD-DVD. I thought Intel wanted desperately to be known as innovators with balls of steel--didn't they harp on that subject when Apple (a Blu-ray supporter, incidentally) announced the architecture switch? You know, the whole "Apple and Intel were made for each other" song and dance routine?
The Intel supporting HD-DVD is the same Intel that let AMD take the lead with its 64-bit extensions. It's too bad Intel missed this opportunity to promote Blu-Ray, a technically more daring standard. Is it just that whenever Microsoft jumps, Intel's all "how high"?
Don't get me wrong... I'm glad for you, and I wish I had a MythTV setup like yours, but IRQ conflicts? BIOS? IVTV drivers? Ye gods, man, I'm a Mac user! Sounds like I'll be waiting another couple years to give MythTV a whirl.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
...not Bluetooth. And even if it were Bluetooth, you'd still be able to use something like Salling Clicker to turn any Bluetooth-enabled phone or PDA into a remote, though this usually ends up sucking.
After a PowerBook goes into emergency sleep, there's still enough juice left in the battery to sustain sleep for a couple of days. If your "daily routine" doesn't include a power outlet at least every couple days, you're probably not the kind of person to care about your uptime.
You're the kind of soi-disant intellectual who would never, ever sink to sullying your pristine intellect by watching television (ugh, the mass media!), and the networks know it. That's why they don't give a shit about you. That's also why no one else gives a shit about you.
OK, how's "anti-gay" sound instead? It's probably more accurate a term, given that you oppose granting gay couples the same rights enjoyed by straight couples.
Then use a different adblocker, like SafariBlock.
OK, using your terminology, an illness is nothing but an inconvenient set of "preferences" that the patient would rather not have. That's how so-called "disorders" are sometimes seen; they're only labeled disorders because they can get in the way of your doing what you want to do. Manic depression, as I'm sure you're aware if you've experienced it, has upsides to it that some of its sufferers don't want to do away with, and so they don't seek treatment. Same with AD(H)D and all the rest.
No need to invent your own personal lexicon when you could learn the appropriate words and concepts to minimize all the confusion and all the angst in this little flamewar here.
No, dude. Many regular passengers of the Concorde did, in fact, habitually take several flights a week--like I said, they were exactly the kinds of people whou would--and even so, the Concorde often flew less than half full, particularly towards the end. At these passenger loads, the Concorde wasn't profitable on its own. The justification for continuing supersonic flights was as a status symbol for the airliner, an advertisement for the rest of the fleet.
I wish you were right that this upcoming generation of supersonic airliners were for "the masses" like you and me, but it's just not going to happen like that. Supersonic flights will be advertised to and used by those for whom the expense is worth it, and by God the airlines are going to milk them for all they can. Your "LOT more than 20,000" business execs are going to be flying first- or business-class on regular subsonic jets.
Wouldn't they just have made duplicates for the cops instead of sending the originals around? No use in tipping you off to an ongoing investigation, if that were the case. You're probably just being paranoid. :)
"Commercial jets are basically giant bricks with massive engines attatched. If the engines were to fail there's no gliding down to a nice touchdown at some airfield, they'd basically fall like rocks."
Well, not quite.
The people who would take a flight like this, at least initially, would be the kinds of people who could be given a special pass to speed through security and baggage check: business executives, financiers, wealthy celebs, politicians (excepting senior senators from Massachusetts), and the like. In a world population of six and a half billion, there's only a few thousand of these people, maybe a couple tens of thousands at most, who would be using this flight as a speedier replacement for private or company jets. With this relatively miniscule customer base, it wouldn't be hard to prescreen them all.
Hell, airlines already have the apparatus in place with existing programs: "When they make the cut, Global Services members are issued a black Global Services card, a leather-bound welcome kit and phone numbers of agents trained to see after their needs. Then the fun begins. The chosen ones are escorted through the security line and ushered into secret waiting lounges..."
And besides, for some of these people, time is the most valuable asset they have. Shaving a few hours off a flight, even supposing they still have to endure the rubber gloved finger in the ass, is a priceless extra few hours they can spend with their families, their consorts, or whatever.
Sure, but if all channels are delayed equally? I don't know if it would be unnoticeable, but it would definitely be much harder to tell.
"...$a_value for 'A' and $b_value for 'B'...
They're not advertising spec B at spec A prices; as long as there's still spec A in the pipeline, they're advertising spec A at spec A prices. Hence "at least equal, but possibly better" to the label. You spend $A to get A, and you might get a little extra as a bonus, maybe not. Why is this so difficult to deal with?
OK, so what do you call the category that includes all of copyright infringement, patent infringement, and trademark infringement, as well as theft of services, petty theft, and grand theft; and robbery, burglary, and shoplifting? Or does no such category exist in your mind? Do you insist on making distinctions between the different types of intellectual property theft (notice how easily that term slips off the tongue)? Do you insist on making distinctions between the different kinds of theft involving stolen physical property? I don't see how you can justify one but not the other.
I guess you're not aware that information is often considered a good, but as an even more general term, let me propose "wrongful appropriation of goods and services." How's that?
Or we could just drop the stupid argument and call it "theft." Your call.
What does that prove? I'm speaking colloquially, as are we all (I thought) here on Slashdot. The Supreme Court ruling you cite defines theft in a legal sense, and even so very narrowly: in the context of the (implied) applicability of the language in Title 18 U.S.C. 2314. Theft in this sense doesn't include what we know as "identity theft," for example, and I just don't see that it's useful to speak of theft in such terms unless you're in a black robe writing a court opinion.
How about let's not call it theft, and call it "wrongful appropriation of goods" instead? That should make everyone happy, legalists and colloquialists alike, right?
So by that same token, theft of services isn't theft unless the service was rendered for you, and you alone as an individual? That's so weak. Suppose your barber works for a chain and gets paid by the hour. He's not cutting your hair for "you specifically," and since he's paid either way, your running off doesn't mean "his time was spent for naught." But your running off without paying is still theft.
Now suppose a musician, a producer, a team of sound engineers, cover artists, a couple talent scouts, and the management to put them all together each contribute a little bit towards a great new album they expect you to pay for, but then you go and download it for free with LimeWire. How is that not theft, too?
Can I ask, unrelatedly, about your feelings toward the term "identity theft"?
It's theft in the same way that declining to pay for, say, your haircut, is theft of services; and it is indeed illegal. Check section 2319 here, the bit titled "Criminal infringement of copyright."
"...a neutron star is about 1.5 times massive as the sun ... but ONLY 12 miles in diameter. One can just imagine the gravitational force these things have."
;-)
Sure, so about 1.5 times the gravitational force of the sun?
If you "avoid" the RIAA, you avoid paying the artists too, unless you're cutting them individual checks. So if I want to avoid all that stuff, why wouldn't I just fire up LimeWire?
Don't forget pyromaniac firefighters!
Well, it's all varying weights of Helvetica on the map and the symbols, except for the R train symbol which is something else, and a couple stations in Brooklyn and the new PATH terminal use Myriad. I'd hesitate to call Helvetica a "look" unless the MTA's actually trying for '70s retro, which, if you remember, wasn't exactly the best of times for the agency.
You seem to know something about copyright law, but are you positive that's the case w.r.t. loss of copyright protection as a consequence of failure to enforce? Where did you hear this? I only ask because everything I've read about copyright (and trademark) law states that an author retains copyright protection even in the event he/she declines to enforce it, and I've just googled for half an hour without finding anything indicating otherwise. In a copyright suit, you can claim implied consent as a defense if the copyright owner's known about your actions for a while without doing anything, but this only applies to individual violators; a ruling for the defendant doesn't imply that the copyright owner's abandoned the privilege to defend ownership rights in the future. Have I got it right, or is there something I'm missing you can set me straight on?
Supposing the MTA were required to enforce its copyright on the map, there's still no reason they couldn't just have granted permission for its use, even having discovered the violation after the fact. At least if it were a trademark issue, as far as I'm aware, the courts would take this as an active assertion of ownership.
I'd really like to know what sort of bug the MTA has got up its butt. Possibly they're just thrilled at their new downtown digs--the rush of authority and all that.
Copyrights can be selectively enforced. You're thinking of trademarks, which can't. That said, I have no idea why the MTA's being so anal here.
The thing I don't really understand is Intel's choice to back HD-DVD. I thought Intel wanted desperately to be known as innovators with balls of steel--didn't they harp on that subject when Apple (a Blu-ray supporter, incidentally) announced the architecture switch? You know, the whole "Apple and Intel were made for each other" song and dance routine?
The Intel supporting HD-DVD is the same Intel that let AMD take the lead with its 64-bit extensions. It's too bad Intel missed this opportunity to promote Blu-Ray, a technically more daring standard. Is it just that whenever Microsoft jumps, Intel's all "how high"?
Don't get me wrong... I'm glad for you, and I wish I had a MythTV setup like yours, but IRQ conflicts? BIOS? IVTV drivers? Ye gods, man, I'm a Mac user! Sounds like I'll be waiting another couple years to give MythTV a whirl. :-)
Thanks for elaborating, though.
Hahaha! I just love how every reply so far goes out of its way to point out your "hello" fixation. Including this one. What's your damage, kid?