Justice will be served to the idiot Gizmodo guys who think they can ignore the law and hide behind the claim of being a news organization in hopes they will be given the same protection as a real news outlet.
This behavior just proves they are irresponsible, as if we didn't already know that after their trade show stunt. They whine and complain about not being taken seriously, well this is why. They are like a 13 year old kid who jumps up and down throwing a tantrum because they're not being treated as an adult.
The worst part is there ARE online journalists who are trying to do it right, and these jerks hurt their efforts and credibility.
Not where I live. There was an intersection on my way to work a couple years back where if I didn't count to three AFTER I saw a green, moving at a regular speed through the intersection, some idiot trying to turn would have plowed into me.
You are reading right, a full two to three seconds after they had a red people were STILL going through. What does this tell you about what they would do on a yellow?
That's why I liked the new law. Even if they said "well it was still yellow when I passed the line" the cop could still nail them.
It is this way in California due to a recent change in traffic law. It didn't used to be. Until recently you could enter the intersection if it was still yellow and you were good.
Now if you don't exit before it turns red, you technically ran the light.
The assumption is if you were paying attention you either should have been able to stop, or clear the intersection, one of the two. Pretty good assumption if you ask me.
The idiots who try and plow through at the last second and end up still in the intersection when my light turns green SHOULD get a ticket.
The idea that "sovereign states" still exist is kind of a farce. The federal government has been taking more and more power with each war we fight and each time they can incite fear in people to make it ok.
The last time a state tried to assert it's rights as a sovereign entity we had a civil war over the results.
How about beating people just for walking into buildings, justifying a war and the worst president in history because "god told him to."
Would you like news articles about child abuse in the name of god or brainwashing children to hate at an early age to create an "army of god"? How about terrorism over secular differences? Having the pledge of allegiance changed from agnostic to religious? How about the fact most news media outlets do not translate "Allah" to "God" as that might paint Christianity in a bad light, or more importantly people might realized Jews, Christians and Muslims all worship the same god?
Guess those ten commandments were more of a guideline than rules eh?
Shall I go on?
Fundamentalist Christians are just as bad as fundamentalist Muslims, they are just part of the popular religion in the western world so are excused in much the same way fundamentalist Muslims are in the middle east.
The fact this will get modded flaimbait just proves it as no one can stand their beliefs being called into question or can face the reality of the world.
If you are asking if a 75 year term on copyright is ok I would say absolutely not. Even if you had 75 years it should end pre-maturely when the creators are dead.
Should we have these laws to protect creators of content? Absolutely, it is very reasonable to provide a financial incentive to create in the content world the same as we have in the physical.
Is it reasonable for two generations to benefit from such a creation, be it physical or content? No. That takes away the financial incentive to help new artists to replenish these businesses stock and keep the creativity alive and evolving the same as technology and medicine are pushed forward by patent expiration.
Because it obviously is not worth it to you. Spend your money on things that are, and find cheaper ways to entertain yourself.
I do not buy blue ray disks at $30 a pop, it is not worth it to me. I buy them when they go on sail for $10-15 because they are worth that much to me. As a result I see more and more sales on blue ray because people show what they are willing to pay.
If you never buy anything, you cannot set it's value, and you are contributing to it's creation in no way. Would you do the work you do for free? No, I doubt it, so don't expect others to do so either. Merely set a reasonable price and let people figure out how to make money at that price.
If you owned the CD absolutely, having a copy of the mp3s is completely legitimate. If you had ripped them or got a friend who also owned the CD to do it for you, no problem.
The issue comes in the way bittorrent style p2p works if that is how you acquired it. In downloading it you have usually also uploaded it, which you have no right to do, and thus are breaking the law.
I also don't agree buying the CD is a license, you bought it, you own it, period.
The analogy you are trying to use to make this ok breaks down if you apply it to non digital media. How about art? Can I photocopy someone's painting without paying the artist and hang it on my wall?
I completely agree. If you have a copy of something you did not purchase (having an mp3 if you own a CD does NOT count no matter how much the RIAA wants it to) then the penalty should be similar to if you were found with a stolen CD. 54k is ridiculous, we won't even discuss what they were actually asking for.
I had not thought about it that way but when put in that context I completely agree, it's digital shoplifting basically and should have similar monetary penalties jail time is out of the question as no one actually lost property.
If you are caught distributing that's another matter, as that is the rough digital equivalent to copying a CD and selling it on a street corner.
The problem is most p2p file sharing of copyrighted material IS in violation of current laws. There is no fair use for downloading an entire song, movie or TV show. There is no justification that makes this ok.
Their claim of lost sales is bogus, we all know that, but so is the claim that it's not stealing since you wouldn't have bought it anyway. If you wouldn't have bought it anyway then simply don't listen to it or watch it.
That being said, your point regarding bringing the RIAA to heel is valid, they are abusing and violating the laws just as much themselves. That makes both parties wrong, and both parties subject to legal penalties.
In this particular case IMHO both parties need to change their behavior and work together to solve the problem. You can't have something for free, it costs money to produce and the people doing it need to be paid. The companies that make up the RIAA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_RIAA_member_labels need to realize that artists and their fans are changing and adapt, they cannot make money they way they did before and trying to is what causes the conflict.
You cannot enforce a business model yet you need to realize that entertainment IS a business, and an expensive one.
The only reason the U.S. is so in bed with China is that the Chinese own a large portion of the U.S. debt. Congress over spends by huge margins and then sells the loans to China, who then threatens to call it in if they don't get favorable trade deals.
It's a brilliant plan, interest on the money, control in government and every manufacturing contract and associated I.P. the U.S. has.
I can see an injunction taking the offending page down, that is completely legal and proper. Taking the SITE down is very much pushing even your well thought out argument, and I believe reason to investigate and/or remove this judge.
Judges are given very broad powers and expected to use them judiciously, not in sweeping strokes.
Always remember one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson etc were British terrorists and American heros.
Not saying your average terrorist stands up to this test, nor that terrorism is right in any way, but its an extreme example which illustrates how in many of these countries americans ARE the terrorists, even by our own definition, and those who fight us are not.
This being the case, why should they ask for the terrorists help in ridding them of those fighting the terrorists?
Never forget if someone hates you, there is likely a reason. May not be a true one, or a good one, but they always have one.
I agree with you but not for the reasons you would want.
I AM an IT guy and I hate the title being over used because most people given that title can't do my job. People with fancier titles think they can, and I have spent plenty of time fixing things engineers who were "smarter than IT guys" did. It gets even worse the more someone whines about their education and title, they are the ones cause the biggest problems as far as system administration goes. This is a generalization of course, not a stereotype.
Though you are correct that you should not be called an IT guy, you are insulting in your reasons for it. Most reports say you need about 1:25 ratio for IT, and I have maintained 60-70 people on my own. I am quite good at what I do and for a "mere" manager to be called an IT guy is indeed insulting, but not to you, to me:)
Ok maybe not, but you get the point. Yes, your post was full of unwarranted ego. Tone that down and you might get somewhere, don't, and your screwed the next time you have a problem and need us lowly IT guys to fix it. Remember everyone has their place, and their role to fill, a job to do. Thinking you are above anyone else usually means less useful, not more. I have been told "that's not my job" before and had the employee escorted out of the building as I assumed that was a resignation. I then filed it as such with HR so they would get no benefit for being fired, they quit.
23andMe, a US company who has been collecting samples for two-three years now has had two rounds of layoffs in the last six months, the second of which was a third of the company. I think this should be a real concern for the customers of any of these companies, Navigenics, Pathways, deCODE, 23andMe etc.
You got very lucky then. Join the UU newcomers mailing list and listen to the stories of all the people who either left or were forced out of the JW church.
What I said had a lot of base in experience working to help these people come to terms with what happened to them. The fact you alone had a decent experience does not make theirs crap.
Not picking on mormons, I am more than certain were a similar inquiry into the catholic church, politically viable it would go the same, just refuting your claims:)
Slashdot Mirror
Those numbers are about 6 years old... get new ones you want to make such a statement.
Adobe is not suicidal, they have a huge market on OS X which has no desire to be forced onto windows.
No business will open the door to a market for potential competition when they can hang on to it.
No you are a moron who can't read. $20 + $5 wallet = $25, under the $100 requirement.
If you found $150 then yes, you are a thief according to the law. You may disagree with the law, that is your right, but you're still a thief.
Justice will be served to the idiot Gizmodo guys who think they can ignore the law and hide behind the claim of being a news organization in hopes they will be given the same protection as a real news outlet.
This behavior just proves they are irresponsible, as if we didn't already know that after their trade show stunt. They whine and complain about not being taken seriously, well this is why. They are like a 13 year old kid who jumps up and down throwing a tantrum because they're not being treated as an adult.
The worst part is there ARE online journalists who are trying to do it right, and these jerks hurt their efforts and credibility.
Not where I live. There was an intersection on my way to work a couple years back where if I didn't count to three AFTER I saw a green, moving at a regular speed through the intersection, some idiot trying to turn would have plowed into me.
You are reading right, a full two to three seconds after they had a red people were STILL going through. What does this tell you about what they would do on a yellow?
That's why I liked the new law. Even if they said "well it was still yellow when I passed the line" the cop could still nail them.
It is this way in California due to a recent change in traffic law. It didn't used to be. Until recently you could enter the intersection if it was still yellow and you were good.
Now if you don't exit before it turns red, you technically ran the light.
The assumption is if you were paying attention you either should have been able to stop, or clear the intersection, one of the two. Pretty good assumption if you ask me.
The idiots who try and plow through at the last second and end up still in the intersection when my light turns green SHOULD get a ticket.
The idea that "sovereign states" still exist is kind of a farce. The federal government has been taking more and more power with each war we fight and each time they can incite fear in people to make it ok.
The last time a state tried to assert it's rights as a sovereign entity we had a civil war over the results.
I wonder if Xerox lawyers used Google Patent Search to find their info. Gotta be easier than digging through paperwork.
Nice :)
How about beating people just for walking into buildings, justifying a war and the worst president in history because "god told him to."
Would you like news articles about child abuse in the name of god or brainwashing children to hate at an early age to create an "army of god"? How about terrorism over secular differences? Having the pledge of allegiance changed from agnostic to religious? How about the fact most news media outlets do not translate "Allah" to "God" as that might paint Christianity in a bad light, or more importantly people might realized Jews, Christians and Muslims all worship the same god?
Guess those ten commandments were more of a guideline than rules eh?
Shall I go on?
Fundamentalist Christians are just as bad as fundamentalist Muslims, they are just part of the popular religion in the western world so are excused in much the same way fundamentalist Muslims are in the middle east.
The fact this will get modded flaimbait just proves it as no one can stand their beliefs being called into question or can face the reality of the world.
If you are asking if a 75 year term on copyright is ok I would say absolutely not. Even if you had 75 years it should end pre-maturely when the creators are dead.
Should we have these laws to protect creators of content? Absolutely, it is very reasonable to provide a financial incentive to create in the content world the same as we have in the physical.
Is it reasonable for two generations to benefit from such a creation, be it physical or content? No. That takes away the financial incentive to help new artists to replenish these businesses stock and keep the creativity alive and evolving the same as technology and medicine are pushed forward by patent expiration.
Because it obviously is not worth it to you. Spend your money on things that are, and find cheaper ways to entertain yourself.
I do not buy blue ray disks at $30 a pop, it is not worth it to me. I buy them when they go on sail for $10-15 because they are worth that much to me. As a result I see more and more sales on blue ray because people show what they are willing to pay.
If you never buy anything, you cannot set it's value, and you are contributing to it's creation in no way. Would you do the work you do for free? No, I doubt it, so don't expect others to do so either. Merely set a reasonable price and let people figure out how to make money at that price.
If you owned the CD absolutely, having a copy of the mp3s is completely legitimate. If you had ripped them or got a friend who also owned the CD to do it for you, no problem.
The issue comes in the way bittorrent style p2p works if that is how you acquired it. In downloading it you have usually also uploaded it, which you have no right to do, and thus are breaking the law.
I also don't agree buying the CD is a license, you bought it, you own it, period.
The analogy you are trying to use to make this ok breaks down if you apply it to non digital media. How about art? Can I photocopy someone's painting without paying the artist and hang it on my wall?
I completely agree. If you have a copy of something you did not purchase (having an mp3 if you own a CD does NOT count no matter how much the RIAA wants it to) then the penalty should be similar to if you were found with a stolen CD. 54k is ridiculous, we won't even discuss what they were actually asking for.
I had not thought about it that way but when put in that context I completely agree, it's digital shoplifting basically and should have similar monetary penalties jail time is out of the question as no one actually lost property.
If you are caught distributing that's another matter, as that is the rough digital equivalent to copying a CD and selling it on a street corner.
The problem is most p2p file sharing of copyrighted material IS in violation of current laws. There is no fair use for downloading an entire song, movie or TV show. There is no justification that makes this ok.
Their claim of lost sales is bogus, we all know that, but so is the claim that it's not stealing since you wouldn't have bought it anyway. If you wouldn't have bought it anyway then simply don't listen to it or watch it.
That being said, your point regarding bringing the RIAA to heel is valid, they are abusing and violating the laws just as much themselves. That makes both parties wrong, and both parties subject to legal penalties.
In this particular case IMHO both parties need to change their behavior and work together to solve the problem. You can't have something for free, it costs money to produce and the people doing it need to be paid. The companies that make up the RIAA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_RIAA_member_labels need to realize that artists and their fans are changing and adapt, they cannot make money they way they did before and trying to is what causes the conflict.
You cannot enforce a business model yet you need to realize that entertainment IS a business, and an expensive one.
Compromise people :)
What koolaid did you drink?
The only reason the U.S. is so in bed with China is that the Chinese own a large portion of the U.S. debt. Congress over spends by huge margins and then sells the loans to China, who then threatens to call it in if they don't get favorable trade deals.
It's a brilliant plan, interest on the money, control in government and every manufacturing contract and associated I.P. the U.S. has.
Oh we both know any geek would spend a clothing raise on gadgets and just continue getting button ups for $2 at good will lol :)
I can see an injunction taking the offending page down, that is completely legal and proper. Taking the SITE down is very much pushing even your well thought out argument, and I believe reason to investigate and/or remove this judge.
Judges are given very broad powers and expected to use them judiciously, not in sweeping strokes.
Always remember one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson etc were British terrorists and American heros.
Not saying your average terrorist stands up to this test, nor that terrorism is right in any way, but its an extreme example which illustrates how in many of these countries americans ARE the terrorists, even by our own definition, and those who fight us are not.
This being the case, why should they ask for the terrorists help in ridding them of those fighting the terrorists?
Never forget if someone hates you, there is likely a reason. May not be a true one, or a good one, but they always have one.
We call him a president, not a dictator, it sounds better.
Visual Studio $450 (cheapest legit license on CDW)
XCode $0
So yes, I consider the Mac more open :)
I agree with you but not for the reasons you would want.
I AM an IT guy and I hate the title being over used because most people given that title can't do my job.
People with fancier titles think they can, and I have spent plenty of time fixing things engineers who were "smarter than IT guys" did. It gets even worse the more someone whines about their education and title, they are the ones cause the biggest problems as far as system administration goes. This is a generalization of course, not a stereotype.
Though you are correct that you should not be called an IT guy, you are insulting in your reasons for it. Most reports say you need about 1:25 ratio for IT, and I have maintained 60-70 people on my own. I am quite good at what I do and for a "mere" manager to be called an IT guy is indeed insulting, but not to you, to me :)
Ok maybe not, but you get the point. Yes, your post was full of unwarranted ego. Tone that down and you might get somewhere, don't, and your screwed the next time you have a problem and need us lowly IT guys to fix it. Remember everyone has their place, and their role to fill, a job to do. Thinking you are above anyone else usually means less useful, not more. I have been told "that's not my job" before and had the employee escorted out of the building as I assumed that was a resignation. I then filed it as such with HR so they would get no benefit for being fired, they quit.
23andMe, a US company who has been collecting samples for two-three years now has had two rounds of layoffs in the last six months, the second of which was a third of the company. I think this should be a real concern for the customers of any of these companies, Navigenics, Pathways, deCODE, 23andMe etc.
You got very lucky then. Join the UU newcomers mailing list and listen to the stories of all the people who either left or were forced out of the JW church.
What I said had a lot of base in experience working to help these people come to terms with what happened to them. The fact you alone had a decent experience does not make theirs crap.
If it is not, how does the list of businesses on this page, owned and operated by the church, and the associated congressional hearing come to be?
http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon410.htm
Not picking on mormons, I am more than certain were a similar inquiry into the catholic church, politically viable it would go the same, just refuting your claims :)