Contradictory fact - women also become suicide bombers.
The number of female suicide bombers is so small as to be a data anomaly.
Contradictory fact - Japanese Kamikazes.
You left out the first sentence of that section which frames the rest of the argument:
Suicide missions are not always religiously motivated, but according to Oxford University sociologist Diego Gambetta, editor of Making Sense of Suicide Missions, when religion is involved, the attackers are always Muslim.
And this article is full of junk science.
As I said, this excerpt from a future book is an accumulation of studies that have been out for a while.
Combined with polygamy, this gender imbalance creates a whole underclass of men who will likely never get married or even have sex over their entire lifetime. Promised 72 virgins by manipulative terrorist recruiters, they'd gladly give up a poor life that only offers celibacy.
Polygamy is only part of the problem with suicide bombers in Muslim societies. The gender ratios are already imbalanced because of the condoning of honor killing in those same societies. Combine these two problems and you end up with a large percentage of the male population in these countries who will never marry and likely never have sex. With the promise of 72 virgins in heaven or a lifetime of celibacy, the choice to become a suicide bomber becomes easier to make.
None of this is particularly new information. It's more of an accumulation of knowledge that's been out for a while. For those of you who want evidence, either wait for the book to come out or do an internet search for the original studies.
Bahrain - 134 males/100 females
Kuwait - 150 males/100 females
Oman - 126 males/100 females
Qatar - 203 males/100 females
Saudi Arabia - 122 males/100 females
United Arab Emirates - 210 males/100 females
Honor killings, condoned by Islam or not, is certainly performed in Muslim countries. It is not included in this article, but the killing of females certainly could further skew these numbers.
There was a reason this was included in the Sherman Antitrust Act, a piece of legislation designed to limit monopolies.
The fact is that there are certain goods which can not be substituted because the company that produces them has a monopoly in the market. That monopoly could be from the difficulty in producing the good, or an artificially induced monopoly due to intellectual property, copyright, and patent protectionism. In either case, you can not go around the manufacturer and buy an equivalent product.
This ruling combined with "free" trade policy which stops people from buying competing products, won't harm US businesses at all since they'll be able to gouge domestic consumers and dump the exact same product overseas for cheap.
This is effectively another form of protectionism for monopolistic business in the US.
I'm not sure about the long term effects. This opens up a whole can of worms that have been closed for so long that no one sees the negatives and why it was good we closed it in the first place.
Given that this decision weakens part of the Sherman Antitrust Act, designed to limit monopolies and encourage competition, we're going to end up with more monopoly behavior from business and less competition. This law was passed to limit the concentration of economic power in large corporations and in combinations of business concerns. The act was made to remove restraints of interstate and foreign trade and encourage competition. In other words, this act was designed to make trade free.
The Supreme Court just stepped in at the request of the Bush administration in order to re-establish those restraints to business and make trade not free. I find that particularly curious considering that this goes against the free trade concerns pushed by this administration for the last six years. I guess the lesson is that removing free trade is acceptable if it can help create big business monopolies.
Everyone for the free market should be howling about this.
You forget that "free" trade pacts are chock full of intellectual property, copyright, and patent protectionism which reduce competition. Products that are too close to the original will be shut out of our market due to these laws, even if they are made and sold cheaper in other countries. This won't harm US businesses at all since they'll be able to set a higher price here and sell the exact same product overseas for cheap.
There is no problem with self-regulation in the industry. The problem is that the industry is not allowed to self-regulate due to special interest groups and politicians' own greed and egos affecting the funding and legislative favoritism.
Those two sentences are mutually exclusive. Pick one.
Me: Every couple of years there's something new that they want to ban from adults due to "for the children" arguments.
You:...why was this not for the children? How do you know it's some form of nefarious purpose, hidden under "for the children" arguments, aimed at silencing adults?
There is a section of the American population who is not content with just living their own lives by their own morals. No, they work tirelessly to make everyone else live by their morals as well. No drinking, no drugs, no dancing, no grinding, no abortion, no "wardrobe malfunctions", no stripping, no porn, no sexual lyrics, no sexual movies, no sexual tv, no violent lyrics, no violent movies, no violent tv, no cursing on tv, no Dungeons and Dragons, no Harry Potter, no Doom, no 2 Live Crew, no Metallica, and no fun. Every couple of years, there's something else they want to ban.
The thinking is, "if we allow any of this for anyone in society, then our children could possibly find out and do this themselves, which risks their immortal souls! And we can't let that even possibly happen!" Of course, that means adults have to give up their freedoms, but that's nothing compared to protecting our children. Screw the Constitution if that means our children go to hell!
It's a Taliban style of thinking and acting to force the rest of society to follow their thoughts, morals, and actions. The main difference is that it's being done by people who call themselves Christians.
Not only have US leaders thought of this, but they've already tried putting it into practice. Does no one remember the Communications Decency Act which passed into law and was eventually shot down by the Supreme Court? Every couple of years there's something new that they want to ban from adults due to "for the children" arguments.
It's not a precedent if it's not a court case, which it wouldn't be if they settled. However, if Gateway loses their case, which looks likely, then it does become a precedent. That's when Tom, Dick and Harry would come with their lawsuits.
That only happens if they explicitly lose, which looks like will happen. If they settle, then they can require all parties to keep quiet about the settlement.
Exactly. He's already made Gateway spend money not only on his tech support calls, but on a lawyer who doesn't come cheap. At some point, it will be in Gateway's interest to just cut their losses and refund the money. The longer he holds out, the more likely that will happen.
Excerpts are not protected. Portions of works are just as protected the same as whole works. No book review or movie reviews or any other review can ever be legal without express permission.
Reverse engineering specifically is for patents, but the idea I'm presenting is similar. As I pointed out in another thread, a song is a human interpretation of written music, much like a binary is a computer translation of source code. The difference is that humans do not perform exactly what is written, while computers do translate exactly what is written. Further, other humans attempting to write down the music from the performance would also not transcribe the exact music as it was played. Human errors creep in at each point. So, like the old game of "telephone" with one person whispering to another person, to yet another person, and then trying to figure out the original message, no transcription of a performance is going to get you the music as it was originally written. You would have a parody of the original written music - similar, but not quite exact.
parody (pr'-d) n., pl. -dies.
3. Music. The practice of reworking an already established composition, especially the incorporation into the Mass of material borrowed from other works, such as motets or madrigals.
And of course, parody is protected under copyright law.
It's like, as I say elsewhere, writing down the script of a play. Or to be/.ish, decompiling the source code of a compiled program.
No, I don't buy it. Writing down the script of the play would give you the exact script. However, a song is a human interpretation of written music, much like a binary is a computer translation of source code. The difference is that humans do not perform exactly what is written, while computers do. Further, other humans attempting to reverse-engineer the written music from the performance would also not transcribe the exact music as it was played. So, like the old game of "telephone" with one person whispering to another person, to yet another person, and then trying to figure out the original message, no transcription of a performance is going to get you the music as it was originally written. You would have a parody of the original written music - similar, but not quite exact.
parody (pr'-d) n., pl. -dies.
3. Music. The practice of reworking an already established composition, especially the incorporation into the Mass of material borrowed from other works, such as motets or madrigals.
And of course, parody is protected under copyright law.
Ok shit-for-brains, does it matter? Pick any number greater than, say, a thousand. At some point you stop counting friends, stop counting acquaintances, and start counting truly random people.
If you gave it to five friends, and two of those each gave it to five friends each, which again gave it to.... and so on, the whole world could have copied your song in less than 25 generations, all lossless. Even assuming gracious download time, it should make it around the world in a day. It doesn't really matter how small it is as long as one copy spawns 1.1+ copies on average, like a fission bomb feeding itself. There's no need for the megapirate making one million copies.
Some people seem to think giving their songs to friends is fair use, but that is not the case
That is the case. What we've had in the last ten years are media companies attempting to exert new rights over recordings.
When I bought a record, a tape, or a CD, I could always make a copy. I could make bunch of copies and give them away to friends like candy. No one would sue me or come after me or send me to jail. I could go to the store and buy plenty of blank tapes or CDs, some from media companies themselves, such as Sony.
However, the one thing I couldn't do was turn around and sell any of my copies myself. I couldn't charge friends to listen to the recordings either. THAT was the right reserved for the record companies. And, IF I did try either of those, the police WOULD come after me.
...media industry has historically fought against even the existance of blank recording media and recorders.
Sony is certainly part of the media industry. They have sold blank recording media and recorders.
Selling used CD comes under fire often as well.
Yes... interesting how all the used CD stores are still open and conducting business.
Piracy, aka selling copied goods, is illegal and wrong. Making a mix tape and selling it is illegal and wrong. Pirates can be and are caught and punished.
However, I've never seen nor heard of anyone thrown in jail or sued for making a mix tape and giving it away to their friend.
Slashdot Mirror
Contradictory fact - women also become suicide bombers.
The number of female suicide bombers is so small as to be a data anomaly.
Contradictory fact - Japanese Kamikazes.
You left out the first sentence of that section which frames the rest of the argument:
Suicide missions are not always religiously motivated, but according to Oxford University sociologist Diego Gambetta, editor of Making Sense of Suicide Missions, when religion is involved, the attackers are always Muslim.
And this article is full of junk science.
As I said, this excerpt from a future book is an accumulation of studies that have been out for a while.
Honor killings, as I tried to say.
Combined with polygamy, this gender imbalance creates a whole underclass of men who will likely never get married or even have sex over their entire lifetime. Promised 72 virgins by manipulative terrorist recruiters, they'd gladly give up a poor life that only offers celibacy.
Stupid preview/submit buttons...
Polygamy is only part of the problem with suicide bombers in Muslim societies. The gender ratios are already imbalanced because of the condoning of honor killing in those same societies. Combine these two problems and you end up with a large percentage of the male population in these countries who will never marry and likely never have sex. With the promise of 72 virgins in heaven or a lifetime of celibacy, the choice to become a suicide bomber becomes easier to make.
None of this is particularly new information. It's more of an accumulation of knowledge that's been out for a while. For those of you who want evidence, either wait for the book to come out or do an internet search for the original studies.
That said, the claim that polygamy is only part of the problem of male/female in imbalance in Muslim countries:
Bahrain - 134 males/100 females
Kuwait - 150 males/100 females
Oman - 126 males/100 females
Qatar - 203 males/100 females
Saudi Arabia - 122 males/100 females
United Arab Emirates - 210 males/100 females
Honor killings, condoned by Islam or not, is certainly performed in Muslim countries. It is not included in this article, but the killing of females certainly could further skew these numbers.
There was a reason this was included in the Sherman Antitrust Act, a piece of legislation designed to limit monopolies.
The fact is that there are certain goods which can not be substituted because the company that produces them has a monopoly in the market. That monopoly could be from the difficulty in producing the good, or an artificially induced monopoly due to intellectual property, copyright, and patent protectionism. In either case, you can not go around the manufacturer and buy an equivalent product.
This ruling combined with "free" trade policy which stops people from buying competing products, won't harm US businesses at all since they'll be able to gouge domestic consumers and dump the exact same product overseas for cheap.
This is effectively another form of protectionism for monopolistic business in the US.
I'm not sure about the long term effects. This opens up a whole can of worms that have been closed for so long that no one sees the negatives and why it was good we closed it in the first place.
Given that this decision weakens part of the Sherman Antitrust Act, designed to limit monopolies and encourage competition, we're going to end up with more monopoly behavior from business and less competition. This law was passed to limit the concentration of economic power in large corporations and in combinations of business concerns. The act was made to remove restraints of interstate and foreign trade and encourage competition. In other words, this act was designed to make trade free.
The Supreme Court just stepped in at the request of the Bush administration in order to re-establish those restraints to business and make trade not free. I find that particularly curious considering that this goes against the free trade concerns pushed by this administration for the last six years. I guess the lesson is that removing free trade is acceptable if it can help create big business monopolies.
Everyone for the free market should be howling about this.
You forget that "free" trade pacts are chock full of intellectual property, copyright, and patent protectionism which reduce competition. Products that are too close to the original will be shut out of our market due to these laws, even if they are made and sold cheaper in other countries. This won't harm US businesses at all since they'll be able to set a higher price here and sell the exact same product overseas for cheap.
There is no problem with self-regulation in the industry. The problem is that the industry is not allowed to self-regulate due to special interest groups and politicians' own greed and egos affecting the funding and legislative favoritism.
Those two sentences are mutually exclusive. Pick one.
Right about what? Making Venezuela technologically independent by selling computers running open source software on Intel processors made in America?
Me: Every couple of years there's something new that they want to ban from adults due to "for the children" arguments. ...why was this not for the children? How do you know it's some form of nefarious purpose, hidden under "for the children" arguments, aimed at silencing adults?
You:
There is a section of the American population who is not content with just living their own lives by their own morals. No, they work tirelessly to make everyone else live by their morals as well. No drinking, no drugs, no dancing, no grinding, no abortion, no "wardrobe malfunctions", no stripping, no porn, no sexual lyrics, no sexual movies, no sexual tv, no violent lyrics, no violent movies, no violent tv, no cursing on tv, no Dungeons and Dragons, no Harry Potter, no Doom, no 2 Live Crew, no Metallica, and no fun. Every couple of years, there's something else they want to ban.
The thinking is, "if we allow any of this for anyone in society, then our children could possibly find out and do this themselves, which risks their immortal souls! And we can't let that even possibly happen!" Of course, that means adults have to give up their freedoms, but that's nothing compared to protecting our children. Screw the Constitution if that means our children go to hell!
It's a Taliban style of thinking and acting to force the rest of society to follow their thoughts, morals, and actions. The main difference is that it's being done by people who call themselves Christians.
Not only have US leaders thought of this, but they've already tried putting it into practice. Does no one remember the Communications Decency Act which passed into law and was eventually shot down by the Supreme Court? Every couple of years there's something new that they want to ban from adults due to "for the children" arguments.
It's not a precedent if it's not a court case, which it wouldn't be if they settled. However, if Gateway loses their case, which looks likely, then it does become a precedent. That's when Tom, Dick and Harry would come with their lawsuits.
That only happens if they explicitly lose, which looks like will happen. If they settle, then they can require all parties to keep quiet about the settlement.
They don't set any precedent if they settle. However, if they lose, which it looks like they will, that certainly will be a precedent.
Exactly. He's already made Gateway spend money not only on his tech support calls, but on a lawyer who doesn't come cheap. At some point, it will be in Gateway's interest to just cut their losses and refund the money. The longer he holds out, the more likely that will happen.
...reviews contain excerpts not the entire work
Excerpts are not protected. Portions of works are just as protected the same as whole works. No book review or movie reviews or any other review can ever be legal without express permission.
Reverse engineering specifically is for patents, but the idea I'm presenting is similar. As I pointed out in another thread, a song is a human interpretation of written music, much like a binary is a computer translation of source code. The difference is that humans do not perform exactly what is written, while computers do translate exactly what is written. Further, other humans attempting to write down the music from the performance would also not transcribe the exact music as it was played. Human errors creep in at each point. So, like the old game of "telephone" with one person whispering to another person, to yet another person, and then trying to figure out the original message, no transcription of a performance is going to get you the music as it was originally written. You would have a parody of the original written music - similar, but not quite exact.
parody (pr'-d) n., pl. -dies.
3. Music. The practice of reworking an already established composition, especially the incorporation into the Mass of material borrowed from other works, such as motets or madrigals.
And of course, parody is protected under copyright law.
It's like, as I say elsewhere, writing down the script of a play. Or to be /.ish, decompiling the source code of a compiled program.
No, I don't buy it. Writing down the script of the play would give you the exact script. However, a song is a human interpretation of written music, much like a binary is a computer translation of source code. The difference is that humans do not perform exactly what is written, while computers do. Further, other humans attempting to reverse-engineer the written music from the performance would also not transcribe the exact music as it was played. So, like the old game of "telephone" with one person whispering to another person, to yet another person, and then trying to figure out the original message, no transcription of a performance is going to get you the music as it was originally written. You would have a parody of the original written music - similar, but not quite exact.
parody (pr'-d) n., pl. -dies.
3. Music. The practice of reworking an already established composition, especially the incorporation into the Mass of material borrowed from other works, such as motets or madrigals.
And of course, parody is protected under copyright law.
They listened to the song and wrote down the notes for the separate instruments. That appears more like reverse engineering to me, which IS legal.
Ok shit-for-brains, does it matter? Pick any number greater than, say, a thousand. At some point you stop counting friends, stop counting acquaintances, and start counting truly random people.
If you gave it to five friends, and two of those each gave it to five friends each, which again gave it to.... and so on, the whole world could have copied your song in less than 25 generations, all lossless. Even assuming gracious download time, it should make it around the world in a day. It doesn't really matter how small it is as long as one copy spawns 1.1+ copies on average, like a fission bomb feeding itself. There's no need for the megapirate making one million copies.
So what? Your point?
Some people seem to think giving their songs to friends is fair use, but that is not the case
...media industry has historically fought against even the existance of blank recording media and recorders.
That is the case. What we've had in the last ten years are media companies attempting to exert new rights over recordings.
When I bought a record, a tape, or a CD, I could always make a copy. I could make bunch of copies and give them away to friends like candy. No one would sue me or come after me or send me to jail. I could go to the store and buy plenty of blank tapes or CDs, some from media companies themselves, such as Sony.
However, the one thing I couldn't do was turn around and sell any of my copies myself. I couldn't charge friends to listen to the recordings either. THAT was the right reserved for the record companies. And, IF I did try either of those, the police WOULD come after me.
Sony is certainly part of the media industry. They have sold blank recording media and recorders.
Selling used CD comes under fire often as well.
Yes... interesting how all the used CD stores are still open and conducting business.
Sony certainly is part of the RIAA. And they've also sold blank media and recording hardware.
If you don't know them, have never talked with them, don't even know about their existence, and vice versa, then they're not your friend.
Piracy, aka selling copied goods, is illegal and wrong. Making a mix tape and selling it is illegal and wrong. Pirates can be and are caught and punished.
However, I've never seen nor heard of anyone thrown in jail or sued for making a mix tape and giving it away to their friend.