I'm fond of the ones from Eddie Bauer, but make sure they have the "perma-crease" on the sleeves. Most non-iron shirts do not.
Also, from a "time is money" perspective, it's far cheaper to drop off your non-wrinkle-free shirts at the laundromat than it is to iron them yourself.
Well, why not apply the film to the interior walls as well, if you're not sure about their imperviousness? Nothing says it can only be applied to glass...
Hm, I never thought of Slashdot having original articles. It's an aggregator/meta site...
At any rate, I'd much rather have all the hype on one easily-avoidable story for people who are sick of it, instead of constantly.
Keep in mind though, that some people do want to see the iPhone stuff, and it's completely up to you whether or not you want to waste your time on them.
You bastard! What are the rest of us going to do now? And why did Apple only make one of them?
All joking aside, the way you phrased that says something interesting about how a lot of consumers view the iPhone. Not as a commodity (I bought a monitor) but as a singularity (I bought the iPhone). Maybe I'm reading into a bit too deeply, but it seems to me that it reflects a valuation of the iPhone as something more than a thing.
Would you rather have one meta-story with links to a multitude of articles, or would you rather have all the iPhone stories interspersed throughout the meaningful content all day? I prefer we throw the iPhone junkies a bone, but keep on with the regular content the rest of the day.
Also, if you don't want to read TFA, you don't have to. You could, you know, STFU & GBTW, as your comment's subject would suggest.
Also, I'd just like to note that, for the record, I watch little TV, and I have barely noticed the hype that everyone is freaking out about. Maybe it's because I know enough to tune it out (while recognizing that *sometimes* there's an informative or interesting piece about the iPhone), or maybe it's because I choose to avoid the hype factories of morning TV network 'news'.
At any rate, it only bothers you if you let it... so take a chill pill and ignore it.
In theory, I think so from what I understood of the statute. The problem would be getting the stations to sign on from what I've read about the issue -- if you're an independent artist, and you want play on the major channels, you have to work with SoundExchange. Doesn't seem like it would be a problem for independent or small broadcasters. IMO, it's illegal collusion by a cartel, but good luck getting Clearchannel to play your song if you don't work with SoundExchange...
But IANAL, so take this with a rathr large grain of salt.
Yes, shoot-to-injure is a great strategy in traditional warfare -- your enemy must expend resources on treating injured personnel, plus injured or disabled troops returning home are a great morale buster.
But you can have police states with lethal approaches too, and in fact, I'd argue that lethal approaches are more effective at countering civilians.
I disagree. If police can use lethal force, there is much more objection to the use of that force -- this leads to infrequent/unreliable enforcement, which lessens the disincentives to whatever behavior you are trying to curtail.
From the opposite angle, non-lethal force leads to increased use of force, since there are fewer objections to it (both by the public and by the people using the force). This means that it is more useful to a police state. Dead citizens may not repeat unwanted behavior, but killing of citizens leads to massive popular unrest. Note that this is assuming that we're discussing the descent into a police state; once the police state is in place, and media and the populations are controlled, who's going to rise up?
Just so you know, that's not money laundering. Money laundering is using legit businesses to make illicitly gained money seem licit -- that is, to make it seem like it came from a legal or unidentifiable but unsuspicious source.
I think what you're referring to is simply called corruption. Or profiteering.
Not exactly. Any Copyright owner can register a receiving agent with the Copyright Office. The DMCA included a provision that if no agent is registered by a copyright holder, the Copyright Office can assign one by default.
Not sure when the Library of Congress made the ruling, but they assigned SoundExchange as the default receiving agent sometime in the late 90s (1999?). This was likely due to SoundExchange being the most mature and capable of the receiving agencies out there at the time (which, in line with what you are saying, was likely due to funding/business from the RIAA member companies).
Sorry to comment on the moderation of the parent post, but I'd say that's hardly flamebait.
ShedPlant makes a valid point, though it's not to the liking of most people here.
The record industry is extremely wealthy and has the ear of the extremely powerful. Though it may seem obvious to us that their business model is outdated and is destined to fail, they have the political clout to make sure US legislators prop up their model for a long, long time. They also, via control (or association with those in control) of television media, continue to have the strongest marketing presence.
It's all fine and dandy to believe that the music industry of the future is just over the horizon, but I don't think it's in the immediate future -- there is simply too much political clout and capital invested in making sure that then status quo is maintained. I think back ten years, and people were saying that by now, we'd already have witnessed the restructuring of the music industry due to technological changes. Ten years from now, I think we'll look back at today, and be saying the same thing.
This isn't just Monday morning pessimism, the simple truth is that it will be another generation (or two!) before the people who really understand the future of media distribution are in the political power positions necessary to overcome the money being funneled into politics by the media companies. And that's if we're lucky.
It'd be much more secure to have the system be "Recognize a picture of your own genitalia" because at least then you only have to worry about former significant others...
Why do you hate nudists and porn stars?
...And hell, for this crowd, you don't even have to worry about that.
Speak for yourself, I'm quite positive that several hundred people have seen my genitalia. Though I'm not sure they got a good enough look to be able to identify me in the short time my trenchcoat was open.
They use them at the edge of the parking lots, like an electric fence, to keep homeless people from stealing the carts.
There's a grocery store in Hoboken NJ with a bar directly across from the parking lot. It's quite nice of the bar to have outside seating, we got there early to make sure we had a good view the day that they activated the boots at that grocery store.
Classic entertainment for hours, that was.
One thing I thought interesting, though, was that it wasn't the homeless who were taking the carts, nor the old people (who typically had their own little mini-cart thingies) -- it was the young and lazy. Very funny to see a pumped up 22-year-old who obviously spends hours each week sculpting his upper body get totally pwned by a shopping cart handle to the gut.
Isn't this what's been happening in most magazines now for years?
To a certain extent, yes. However, the distinction between editorial and advertising content must be made by the magazine in order for it to conform to postal regulations (and sales tax regulations for most states).
Typically, an editorial piece with heavy advertising content is labeled a 'special advertising section' in the magazine -- this is clearly written so as to not confuse the reader.
That said, product reviews fall within the editorial side of things -- and this is where a lot of publishers will choose to favor their heavy advertisers. Paid-for positive reviews, however, are a violation of postal regulations if they are labeled as editorial content in the TOC of a magazine.
The thing to remember is that writers and editors are people, and while objectivity would be nice, in reality most people have pet brands or a hint of fanboyism that will skew their editorial output. It's not always paid for, and good writers and editors will be aware of their personal preferences and work hard to make sure it does not taint their copy.
I'll also comment that this phenomenon is heaviest in the tech industry, where editorial staffs and writers (in my opinion) were not as influenced by the code of ethics that guides good magazine journalism.
Anything and everything CAN be used for a negative purpose and just because some, maybe most, people will use a product for that us, the problem lies in the users not the tool.
Look, I agree with you -- but the US courts do not. That is my point.
I'll clarify the important part here, which is intent -- when the stated purpose of the tool is to help users do something that is considered illegal in the US (to help them distribute copies to their friends untraceably), then the intent can clearly be interpreted as contributory infringement.
[The US] was the largest exporting nation by far, but production has slowed and many of the oil deposits have been exhausted. [snip] The reason the US isn't the old and "new Saudi Arabia for oil" isn't because of lack of oil
I see what you're getting at, but consumption is an entirely different kettle of fish from production. The truth of the matter, which I'm sure you are aware of, is that oil production in the US is far past its peak (production peaked in 1970), and reserves are low. This is regardless of the fact that even if we were able to produce 8.5 million barrels a day like the Saudis, we'd still be meeting less than half our consumption demand.
You can bet, if liquid fuel from coal gets cheap, our energy usage will go through the roof, and we'll use every last bit of it in record time, and quickly start importing it from other countries.
I'm not so sure it'd play out like that, as such fuel would not be priced according to production cost, but instead according to what the market would bear. There is no way that production would be high enough to flood the world fuel market, which is what would be required for prices to drop markedly. Once consumers have gotten used to paying high fuel prices (which we have), it's not likely for any seller to offer fuel at a significantly reduced price, particularly since there is a cartel in place. For the US to try and break the OPEC cartel by selling its fuel reserves cheap would be incredible short-sighted and wasteful. The trick is to get someone else to bust the cartel with their reserves (don't think the relatively untapped reserves in Iraq had nothing to do with making war on that country).
I digress, but another consideration is the high environmental impact of coal extraction. If (and it's a big if) the US government were to act wisely, the tax on liquid fuel produced from coal should be very high, so that the producers and consumers of the coal pay the full cost of extraction. Environmental status is a public good, and fuel companies get a big fat pass on paying for damage to it. I could go on, but I'm now getting way off track.
To sum up, I don't think fuel produced from coal would ever be cheap, and therefore I don't think usage would spike; after all, usage did not drop dramatically since liquid fuel prices have doubled over the past few years -- demand is relatively inelastic.
This file stripping does not facilitate file trading. You can already trade the file just as easily without stripping atoms which would identify you.
Yet it facilitates illegal file trading (i.e., infringement) by making the file all but untraceable -- note how it is marketed specifically for sharing music. This reduces the risk of being caught, hence facilitating infringement. The case CAN be made -- and thus it WILL be made, and I think it has a rather good chance of success.
I wholeheartedly disagree with how the US courts treat contributory infringement, but just as with Napster, there is non-infringing use -- yet the intent can easly be read as facilitating infringement.
Given that both Napster's site and this product result in increased infringement (I know, that has to be proven for this software), how does the mechanism make a difference when the result and the intent are the same in the eyes of the court?
Well, a previous responder took care of the deifnition for you... but just a thought on you getting moderated as a troll:
Did you know that your sig states that you're here to offend people?
I dont read/. to RTFA, I read/. to offend people in ignorance.
Reading that, I'm not sure if you mean to offend the ignorant, or if you offend people through your own ignorance. Either way, it seems like you purposely try to offend people, which is likely a very good reason to mod a potentially troll-ish post as a troll.
OK, normally I'd not nitpick any kind of typo, etc (I make enough of them myself), but this one just struck me as odd:
Also Open Source People tend to bereave in a more socialistic view that is more compatible with the democrats views so Linux and OSS People will be more likely to support Democrats.
What does that mean, that Open Source People believe in redistribution of grief? That Closed Source People tend to mourn in a capitalist manner?
Well, according to Netcraft, the libertarians, communists and independent parties's sites are all running Linux. The American Green party is running FreeBSD.
So... Netcraft confirms American democracy* is dead?
1. It's a french company, I'd hate to see American law used as justification for a company overseas to get destroyed.
2. It would further cement the undue influence the media cartels have over the US judicial system. It's a little more tenuous than Grokster, but a suit against Privatunes could be upheld, in which case there is further precedent for anyone connected in any way at all to copyright violations to be held liable.
One little step at a time, that's how we lost the rights to our property -- and how we'll lose the rights to our own sensatory experiences.
At the end of August, all user accounts will be deleted; just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it's not in the works.
Unless, of course, it was last summer's vacation spent on discussion2 and these other changes, in which case the deletion of user accounts may also take nine months to roll out.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm fond of the ones from Eddie Bauer, but make sure they have the "perma-crease" on the sleeves. Most non-iron shirts do not.
Also, from a "time is money" perspective, it's far cheaper to drop off your non-wrinkle-free shirts at the laundromat than it is to iron them yourself.
Well, why not apply the film to the interior walls as well, if you're not sure about their imperviousness? Nothing says it can only be applied to glass...
Also, please stop looking at me, I haven't had the chance to put my eye-patch on today.
Hm, I never thought of Slashdot having original articles. It's an aggregator/meta site...
At any rate, I'd much rather have all the hype on one easily-avoidable story for people who are sick of it, instead of constantly.
Keep in mind though, that some people do want to see the iPhone stuff, and it's completely up to you whether or not you want to waste your time on them.
All joking aside, the way you phrased that says something interesting about how a lot of consumers view the iPhone. Not as a commodity (I bought a monitor) but as a singularity (I bought the iPhone). Maybe I'm reading into a bit too deeply, but it seems to me that it reflects a valuation of the iPhone as something more than a thing.
Would you rather have one meta-story with links to a multitude of articles, or would you rather have all the iPhone stories interspersed throughout the meaningful content all day? I prefer we throw the iPhone junkies a bone, but keep on with the regular content the rest of the day.
Also, if you don't want to read TFA, you don't have to. You could, you know, STFU & GBTW, as your comment's subject would suggest.
Also, I'd just like to note that, for the record, I watch little TV, and I have barely noticed the hype that everyone is freaking out about. Maybe it's because I know enough to tune it out (while recognizing that *sometimes* there's an informative or interesting piece about the iPhone), or maybe it's because I choose to avoid the hype factories of morning TV network 'news'.
At any rate, it only bothers you if you let it... so take a chill pill and ignore it.
In theory, I think so from what I understood of the statute. The problem would be getting the stations to sign on from what I've read about the issue -- if you're an independent artist, and you want play on the major channels, you have to work with SoundExchange. Doesn't seem like it would be a problem for independent or small broadcasters. IMO, it's illegal collusion by a cartel, but good luck getting Clearchannel to play your song if you don't work with SoundExchange...
But IANAL, so take this with a rathr large grain of salt.
God went on a bender?
The hangover would explain the half-assed job he did with mankind.
I disagree. If police can use lethal force, there is much more objection to the use of that force -- this leads to infrequent/unreliable enforcement, which lessens the disincentives to whatever behavior you are trying to curtail.
From the opposite angle, non-lethal force leads to increased use of force, since there are fewer objections to it (both by the public and by the people using the force). This means that it is more useful to a police state. Dead citizens may not repeat unwanted behavior, but killing of citizens leads to massive popular unrest. Note that this is assuming that we're discussing the descent into a police state; once the police state is in place, and media and the populations are controlled, who's going to rise up?
Just so you know, that's not money laundering. Money laundering is using legit businesses to make illicitly gained money seem licit -- that is, to make it seem like it came from a legal or unidentifiable but unsuspicious source.
I think what you're referring to is simply called corruption. Or profiteering.
Not exactly. Any Copyright owner can register a receiving agent with the Copyright Office. The DMCA included a provision that if no agent is registered by a copyright holder, the Copyright Office can assign one by default.
Not sure when the Library of Congress made the ruling, but they assigned SoundExchange as the default receiving agent sometime in the late 90s (1999?). This was likely due to SoundExchange being the most mature and capable of the receiving agencies out there at the time (which, in line with what you are saying, was likely due to funding/business from the RIAA member companies).
Was entirely joking. Besides, wrt the genitalia of the slashdot multitudes, I thought we had all decided that security through obscurity was useless?
Yes, we get to blamne the DMCA again. See title 17 of the US Code, Section 114(f) 5A.
Section 114 allows the Copyright Office to designate a receiving agent for those who have not registered a receiving agent with the Copyright Office.
Sorry to comment on the moderation of the parent post, but I'd say that's hardly flamebait.
ShedPlant makes a valid point, though it's not to the liking of most people here.
The record industry is extremely wealthy and has the ear of the extremely powerful. Though it may seem obvious to us that their business model is outdated and is destined to fail, they have the political clout to make sure US legislators prop up their model for a long, long time. They also, via control (or association with those in control) of television media, continue to have the strongest marketing presence.
It's all fine and dandy to believe that the music industry of the future is just over the horizon, but I don't think it's in the immediate future -- there is simply too much political clout and capital invested in making sure that then status quo is maintained. I think back ten years, and people were saying that by now, we'd already have witnessed the restructuring of the music industry due to technological changes. Ten years from now, I think we'll look back at today, and be saying the same thing.
This isn't just Monday morning pessimism, the simple truth is that it will be another generation (or two!) before the people who really understand the future of media distribution are in the political power positions necessary to overcome the money being funneled into politics by the media companies. And that's if we're lucky.
Speak for yourself, I'm quite positive that several hundred people have seen my genitalia. Though I'm not sure they got a good enough look to be able to identify me in the short time my trenchcoat was open.
Classic entertainment for hours, that was.
One thing I thought interesting, though, was that it wasn't the homeless who were taking the carts, nor the old people (who typically had their own little mini-cart thingies) -- it was the young and lazy. Very funny to see a pumped up 22-year-old who obviously spends hours each week sculpting his upper body get totally pwned by a shopping cart handle to the gut.
Typically, an editorial piece with heavy advertising content is labeled a 'special advertising section' in the magazine -- this is clearly written so as to not confuse the reader.
That said, product reviews fall within the editorial side of things -- and this is where a lot of publishers will choose to favor their heavy advertisers. Paid-for positive reviews, however, are a violation of postal regulations if they are labeled as editorial content in the TOC of a magazine.
The thing to remember is that writers and editors are people, and while objectivity would be nice, in reality most people have pet brands or a hint of fanboyism that will skew their editorial output. It's not always paid for, and good writers and editors will be aware of their personal preferences and work hard to make sure it does not taint their copy.
I'll also comment that this phenomenon is heaviest in the tech industry, where editorial staffs and writers (in my opinion) were not as influenced by the code of ethics that guides good magazine journalism.
I'll clarify the important part here, which is intent -- when the stated purpose of the tool is to help users do something that is considered illegal in the US (to help them distribute copies to their friends untraceably), then the intent can clearly be interpreted as contributory infringement.
I'm not so sure it'd play out like that, as such fuel would not be priced according to production cost, but instead according to what the market would bear. There is no way that production would be high enough to flood the world fuel market, which is what would be required for prices to drop markedly. Once consumers have gotten used to paying high fuel prices (which we have), it's not likely for any seller to offer fuel at a significantly reduced price, particularly since there is a cartel in place. For the US to try and break the OPEC cartel by selling its fuel reserves cheap would be incredible short-sighted and wasteful. The trick is to get someone else to bust the cartel with their reserves (don't think the relatively untapped reserves in Iraq had nothing to do with making war on that country).
I digress, but another consideration is the high environmental impact of coal extraction. If (and it's a big if) the US government were to act wisely, the tax on liquid fuel produced from coal should be very high, so that the producers and consumers of the coal pay the full cost of extraction. Environmental status is a public good, and fuel companies get a big fat pass on paying for damage to it. I could go on, but I'm now getting way off track.
To sum up, I don't think fuel produced from coal would ever be cheap, and therefore I don't think usage would spike; after all, usage did not drop dramatically since liquid fuel prices have doubled over the past few years -- demand is relatively inelastic.
I wholeheartedly disagree with how the US courts treat contributory infringement, but just as with Napster, there is non-infringing use -- yet the intent can easly be read as facilitating infringement.
Given that both Napster's site and this product result in increased infringement (I know, that has to be proven for this software), how does the mechanism make a difference when the result and the intent are the same in the eyes of the court?
Did you know that your sig states that you're here to offend people?
Reading that, I'm not sure if you mean to offend the ignorant, or if you offend people through your own ignorance. Either way, it seems like you purposely try to offend people, which is likely a very good reason to mod a potentially troll-ish post as a troll.
*of the people, for the people, yada yada.
Well, two issues that I think are of concern:
1. It's a french company, I'd hate to see American law used as justification for a company overseas to get destroyed.
2. It would further cement the undue influence the media cartels have over the US judicial system. It's a little more tenuous than Grokster, but a suit against Privatunes could be upheld, in which case there is further precedent for anyone connected in any way at all to copyright violations to be held liable.
One little step at a time, that's how we lost the rights to our property -- and how we'll lose the rights to our own sensatory experiences.
Unless, of course, it was last summer's vacation spent on discussion2 and these other changes, in which case the deletion of user accounts may also take nine months to roll out.