This is the whole premise of the United States of America. The second paragraph (the first establishes why we feel it necessary to state the second) of the Declaration of Independence makes this claim explicit:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
My argument as a secular conservative is that we do not nbeed to refer to a Creator in order to hold these truths to be self-evident, that all [persons] are endowed with certain rights, and that governments are created by those people to protect those rights. The duties of a just government are to secure those rights which naturally reside in each individual. The rights do not come from the government. The whole law-creating and -changing mechanism spelled out in the U.S. Constitution is manifestly a process to alter the government when it becomes destructive of those rights rather than protective. Fair Use may not rank with the natural rights of man as alluded to in the Declaration of Independence and other documents, but neither is it some loophole we pikers have been hiding in. Fair Use is a right and should be defended as such. Fortunately, we have a mechanism to do that in the U.S. We just have to get off our dead asses and do something.
Without balancing the risk and the premium, it becomes just another program to shift money away from those who succeed into the hands of those who do not.
Even assuming that you are joking, this is a non-issue. The atmosphere and magnetosphere shield us from a metric butt-ton of solar radiation. Space is not pristine, and at risk of being damaged. Space is trying to kill us all, whether by pulling us atom from atom (vacuum), freezing us solid, radiating us 'til we're crispy, or throwing large rocks at us.
Just offa the top of my head, my guess is that you could probably fly through the location of a thermonuclear blast in space minutes after the event.
This strangely reminds me of Microsofts Desktop in Windows 95/98 and the resulting law suits. I am no programmer, but wouldn't the performance of a desktop system written to support java script etc. be lower than that of a regular written desktop? So, in the worst case it would slow down the whole system. Regarding speed, I don't think it's an issue.
First, all computers wait at the same speed, and presumably the point here is to accomplish something heavily dependent on the network. Even the best network (in my experience) winds up being the limiting factor.
Second, the applications are not likely to depend on the speed of the processor for much, in the user's experience. Now obviously, if we're using bloated software like Word to accomplish what notepad could do, we'll feel the hit. On the other hand, I'm consistently frustrated by the sloth of OO apps. So if FIrefox offers an equally slow solution that is better integrated, I say it's a winner.
You are making Jerf's point. You disregarded his(?) caveats about isolating the market from other forces, and he explicitly said it would take some judicious lawmaking, but implied that it would likely never happen.
The split infinitive rule is a holdover from tarting up English with Latin grammar in order to make the Vulgate seem less vulgar. In Latin, it is impossible to split an infinitive, therefore it was deemed impolite to do so. So this is a fairly soft rule of grammar, and one which you may freely disregard, if it makes your writing more readable. Using the wrong homophone, on the other hand, will get you a fatwa.
English is obviously your second language, so please excuse me if this sounds oversimplified: The Market is not perfect, but it is the most fair and efficient distribution system ever devised. It is also the only one which comes to us straight from nature. Good luck with that socialism thing you believe in; you'll need it.
Good catch. Nobody is selling multiple copies of what they only purchased once. This is like Ford suing Chevy for "pirating" the 64.5 Mustang into the Camaro.
I hope any printer manufacturer engaging in this sort of anti-competitive skullduggery is punished HARD in the marketplace. I do not want the manufacturer of anything I buy encrypting it so that I cannot use MY possession as I wish. With all due respect to the special problem of digitized Intellectual Property and other reproducibles, I do not want my car-maker to lock me into only using their strangely constructed non-interchangeable tires and wheels UNLESS as in the case of say, a Corvette or other exotic, there is a compelling QUALITY interest.
I bought an EPSON CX 5200 and it turned out to be a lemon. There was no fix, no refund, it just sucked after about a year. It was a hundred-dollar Jackson Pollock(sp?) machine, and the reason was that the experimental ink cartridge design was crap. My printer would work just fine if the business model were not to use cheap printers to lock you into expensive ink cartridges. My printer would print, if that were the goal of the printer-makers.
I will never buy another EPSON, and I'm glad to say so to so many people. Unless, of course, they were to come out against this encryption nonsense.
Solar Power is a Pipe Dream
on
ISS Goes Solar
·
· Score: 1
Idiots. What will the ISS do on a cloudy day? Didn't think of that, did they?
I would think that the difference is that of that group, only authors are expected to be literate. How many times have you seen an otherwise impressive performer or entertainer start spouting complete nonsense? Much like this artic--Oh. Nevermind.
How many times have we noticed with cell phones, and now blogs, that people are talking and communicating just to hear their own voice and don't contribute anything by their communication.
Working with our wholly-owned subsidiaries, who are of course exempt from paying royalties. What wholly-owned subsidiaries, you ask? Why, the very ones that the sustenance of this ruling has made possible.
Your made-up numbers are good enough for illustration.
If a singles album has ten songs on it and costs ten dollars, but only two of those songs are any good, then we are being charged ten dollars for two dollars worth of goods and being told we got our money's worth. This is somewhat like having a vacuum cleaner demonstrated at your house in order to receive "two hundred dollars worth of home furnishings", only to discover that they are giving you a cheap photocopy of a Norman Rockwell.
There's more. Even if every song on the album were solid gold, the fact is that it never cost any ten dollars to get it to the customer. Ninety cents on every dollar (say) goes to developing, promoting, and marketing no-talent "hormone bands" in the hope that they're the next New Kids on the Block. Or what-have-you.
Why should I have to pay twenty God-Damned dollars to listen to thirty year old music? I particularly like Procol Harum, but I would bet that their marginal profit hasn't gone up a cent. The record companies' certainly has, however. If I thought that the band members got a healthy cut, I wouldn't mind paying for such genius. But knowing that record companies use(d) die-hard fans like me to pay for such offensively vapid fare as fills the top 40 charts goes a long way toward easing my conscience about downloading files.
When the technology was firmly on the side of the RIAA, we felt the lash. Now, who's holding the leather? Suck it up, RIAA. It's your backlash--you've earned it.
Good luck selling songs one at a time. The rest of the world beat you to it.
Slashdot Mirror
At this point I think that you and I should agree that we have the right and that we should defend it.
My argument as a secular conservative is that we do not nbeed to refer to a Creator in order to hold these truths to be self-evident, that all [persons] are endowed with certain rights, and that governments are created by those people to protect those rights. The duties of a just government are to secure those rights which naturally reside in each individual. The rights do not come from the government.
The whole law-creating and -changing mechanism spelled out in the U.S. Constitution is manifestly a process to alter the government when it becomes destructive of those rights rather than protective.
Fair Use may not rank with the natural rights of man as alluded to in the Declaration of Independence and other documents, but neither is it some loophole we pikers have been hiding in. Fair Use is a right and should be defended as such. Fortunately, we have a mechanism to do that in the U.S. We just have to get off our dead asses and do something.
It didn't create sunspots and the Great Red Spot? I think these folks are not imaginative enough.
Now I know what the rock band Ram Jam was saying.
Whoo-oa black betty, bamalance!
Who-ooo-oa black betty ba,alance!
[repeats a lot]
Without balancing the risk and the premium, it becomes just another program to shift money away from those who succeed into the hands of those who do not.
Even assuming that you are joking, this is a non-issue. The atmosphere and magnetosphere shield us from a metric butt-ton of solar radiation. Space is not pristine, and at risk of being damaged. Space is trying to kill us all, whether by pulling us atom from atom (vacuum), freezing us solid, radiating us 'til we're crispy, or throwing large rocks at us. Just offa the top of my head, my guess is that you could probably fly through the location of a thermonuclear blast in space minutes after the event.
I would like to know what margin of error would be required in order for Apophis to hit Earth? not large, I'll bet.
Halloween, maybe.
First, all computers wait at the same speed, and presumably the point here is to accomplish something heavily dependent on the network. Even the best network (in my experience) winds up being the limiting factor.
Second, the applications are not likely to depend on the speed of the processor for much, in the user's experience. Now obviously, if we're using bloated software like Word to accomplish what notepad could do, we'll feel the hit. On the other hand, I'm consistently frustrated by the sloth of OO apps. So if FIrefox offers an equally slow solution that is better integrated, I say it's a winner.
Of course, I haven't RTFA, as it is FSD'ed.
You are making Jerf's point. You disregarded his(?) caveats about isolating the market from other forces, and he explicitly said it would take some judicious lawmaking, but implied that it would likely never happen.
The split infinitive rule is a holdover from tarting up English with Latin grammar in order to make the Vulgate seem less vulgar. In Latin, it is impossible to split an infinitive, therefore it was deemed impolite to do so. So this is a fairly soft rule of grammar, and one which you may freely disregard, if it makes your writing more readable. Using the wrong homophone, on the other hand, will get you a fatwa.
...to *boldly* rimshot
Of course, you should print out the e-mail *before* your network gets poofed.
English is obviously your second language, so please excuse me if this sounds oversimplified: The Market is not perfect, but it is the most fair and efficient distribution system ever devised. It is also the only one which comes to us straight from nature. Good luck with that socialism thing you believe in; you'll need it.
Good catch. Nobody is selling multiple copies of what they only purchased once. This is like Ford suing Chevy for "pirating" the 64.5 Mustang into the Camaro.
Fixed that for ya.
I hope any printer manufacturer engaging in this sort of anti-competitive skullduggery is punished HARD in the marketplace. I do not want the manufacturer of anything I buy encrypting it so that I cannot use MY possession as I wish. With all due respect to the special problem of digitized Intellectual Property and other reproducibles, I do not want my car-maker to lock me into only using their strangely constructed non-interchangeable tires and wheels UNLESS as in the case of say, a Corvette or other exotic, there is a compelling QUALITY interest.
I bought an EPSON CX 5200 and it turned out to be a lemon. There was no fix, no refund, it just sucked after about a year. It was a hundred-dollar Jackson Pollock(sp?) machine, and the reason was that the experimental ink cartridge design was crap. My printer would work just fine if the business model were not to use cheap printers to lock you into expensive ink cartridges. My printer would print, if that were the goal of the printer-makers.
I will never buy another EPSON, and I'm glad to say so to so many people. Unless, of course, they were to come out against this encryption nonsense.
Idiots. What will the ISS do on a cloudy day? Didn't think of that, did they?
I would think that the difference is that of that group, only authors are expected to be literate. How many times have you seen an otherwise impressive performer or entertainer start spouting complete nonsense? Much like this artic--Oh. Nevermind.
Nice sig, badc0ffee.
An anonymous reader from http://marketing.microsoft.com/Vista/PhaseII/Oh_S
Case in point.
Working with our wholly-owned subsidiaries, who are of course exempt from paying royalties. What wholly-owned subsidiaries, you ask? Why, the very ones that the sustenance of this ruling has made possible.
If a singles album has ten songs on it and costs ten dollars, but only two of those songs are any good, then we are being charged ten dollars for two dollars worth of goods and being told we got our money's worth. This is somewhat like having a vacuum cleaner demonstrated at your house in order to receive "two hundred dollars worth of home furnishings", only to discover that they are giving you a cheap photocopy of a Norman Rockwell.
There's more. Even if every song on the album were solid gold, the fact is that it never cost any ten dollars to get it to the customer. Ninety cents on every dollar (say) goes to developing, promoting, and marketing no-talent "hormone bands" in the hope that they're the next New Kids on the Block. Or what-have-you.
Why should I have to pay twenty God-Damned dollars to listen to thirty year old music? I particularly like Procol Harum, but I would bet that their marginal profit hasn't gone up a cent. The record companies' certainly has, however. If I thought that the band members got a healthy cut, I wouldn't mind paying for such genius. But knowing that record companies use(d) die-hard fans like me to pay for such offensively vapid fare as fills the top 40 charts goes a long way toward easing my conscience about downloading files.
When the technology was firmly on the side of the RIAA, we felt the lash. Now, who's holding the leather? Suck it up, RIAA. It's your backlash--you've earned it.
Good luck selling songs one at a time. The rest of the world beat you to it.
Actually, I would like to know what sort of counseling was made available to the NYPD Officers after wading through the indymedia feverswamps.