You're missing something major, and I've pointed it out already more than once. Re-read it all and see if you can catch on. I'm through repeating myself to you.
If you honestly weren't aware that you were yelling in the parent to that comment, then you are even less intelligent than I initially suspected. You couldn't even respond without using an exclamation mark.
One thing you seem to have missed is that judicial != political when you are talking about conservatives versus liberals. Although it's true that most issues don't bring light to the difference, it is there. For instance, when it comes to abortion the political conservatives say you have no right to it, while the judicial conservatives agree that the Constitution doesn't guarantee any such right. The difference is that a judicial conservative would not say that the Constitution prohibits abortion, while a political conservative would make sure to pass laws that do just that.
Justice Scalia is very judicially conservative, and sometimes that conflicts with his political views. When faced with that choice, he chooses to be judicially conservative. Even Rehnquist, who is definitely a political conservative, is not nearly as judicially conservative as you would expect if you equated the two traits as one.
Of course, it is extremely rare to have a dichotomy on the liberal side of things, because political liberals want things to be a certain way and judicial liberals are really good at reading the Constitution to mean just what they want it to. You will rarely, if ever, find a politically liberal judicial conservative.
My personal hope is that Bush appoints someone who is judicially conservative and politically moderate. But he wouldn't do that any more than Kerry would have appointed Cheney to the bench.
Just because you didn't understand the advertisements, or anything that's been written on this thread, doesn't mean you should be using all-caps to make your entirely baseless point. Time-shifting is not the same as sharing. If you can't see the difference, then save some face and stop posting your ignorant comments. If you can see the difference and are still not convinced, then try to make your point in clear, rational English, because obviously everyone else (including the moderator who labeled you a troll) is missing something. DO NOT YELL AND ADD EXCLAMATION MARKS JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN'T COMMUNICATE OR THINK AT HIGHER THAN A THIRD-GRADE LEVEL!!!
I'm not arguing quantity at all. Sony never told you that you should go and share copyrighted material with anyone who would not already have a license to that material. Grokster specifically told you to share copyrighted material with people who have no license to it. Just because you focused on the "thousands of people" part instead of "movies... for free" part of my statement doesn't mean that I'm arguing quantity.
Not all on-air television programming is copyrighted, and recording the copyrighted stuff to view another time is fair use. Grokster created software with the intention that it be used to widely distribute copyrighted material, well beyond what fair use allows. If Sony's advertisements had said "With Betamax, you can record movies and send copies to thousands of people for free!", that case would have gone down a little bit differently.
What I said applies equally well to the civil arena, except that "arrested and charged with a crime" takes the form of "served a Complaint in federal court." And not all lawyers and lawmakers are on the side of the media conglomerates, so don't lose hope. The point is simply that this should be fought and won in Congress.
As to iTunes Music Store and fair use, I really think that it's pretty darn good. I bought a song from there at long last to try it all out, and I can use that song on 5 computers, any number of iPods, and any number of burned CDs that I want. "Fair use" is not a license to do whatever you want with someone else's copyrighted material - it's a license to do what it says - make fair use of material that you've licensed from the copyright holder. I think Apple has accomplished that.
I just want to know how to register a domain in all these new TLDs that come up. I don't want someone else to beat me to the punch on goatse.xxx, for instance. Can anyone help me out, here?
No. I said "intelligence," which I think most of us have a good deal of. However, literacy, memory lasting more than 10 hours, a sense of humor, common sense, ability to argue any way but ad hominem, and so on are other issues entirely.;)
The Supreme Court held that you cannot distribute technology with the deliberate intention that it be used to violate the copyrights of another. The decision was correctly made, in my opinion. I also agree that the falling cost of publishing may (see another top-level comment regarding the cost of creation) indicate decreased need for the protections of the copyright system. However, the Supreme Court is not where you should go to make policy, and since this is not a Constitutional ruling it is comparatively easy to change: go to Congress and get them to change the copyright laws on the books.
Yes, Congress is a cesspool of corruption; and yes, Congress gets more time in bed with the entertainment industry in a year than any of us will have with our wives in our entire lifetime. But Congress is the place to fix this, not only because it's the appropriate place but also because Congress is more attune to what people want and more able to make policy decisions. After all, the Supreme Court refers to Congress and the Executive as "the popular branches" for a reason.
Do some research, determine what changes need to be made, and push them through Congress. If it's a good enough idea, then enough people will subscribe to it to convince their legislators to fix the problem. But don't bitch at the Supreme Court for telling you not to break the law. And if you want to make a point about it by breaking the law as a form of civil disobedience, remember (unlike so many current-day protesters) that the hallmark of civil disobedience is being arrested and charged with a crime.
Even more amazing is that as smart a guy as he is, his social skills leave a lot to be desired
In what way is that amazing? I think that most of us here on Slashdot are in a reasonably high percentile when it comes to intelligence, and probably fewer than 10% of the members here have social skills any better than an 11-year-old girl's.
On a side note, I somehow doubt he's going to hang out at DevShed so much after your soon-to-be +5 comment generates traffic. Imagine the personal e-mail equivalent of a good, old-fashioned Slashdotting.;)
Yep, it's been 10 years since Java was officially introduced. It should come as no surprise that I was being turned down for jobs 2 years ago because the jobs in question required 10 years of Java experience. (And 5 years of C#/.NET experience as well. And I think at least one required post-doctoral work in Physics, Astrology, and Film.)
Others have commented on the important errors in what you wrote, so I am going to be the arrogant prick who points out that it should be "show-off" instead of "show off" and that you should not have capitalized the "A" in "A report for work." Additionally, you should have moved the punctuation around a bit and inserted a comma. "...or document that matters (i.e., a report for work)." would have been much better. Just because it's customary to do exactly what someone wishes you wouldn't in response to his Slashdot comments.:)
Why do you think that a corporation built on laissez-faire capitalism would hesitate for a moment to employ slave or child labor if it's cost-effective to do so? Bill Gates' philanthropy aside, Microsoft is in business to make money, and if it were not profitable to use slave and child labor, there would be no need for laws against the same.
I thought the exact same thing, but I didn't even get scared. The only reason I took the time to click on the comment link without even reading the blurb, much less TFA, was because I realized I read it wrong. Had it actually said "China," I would have just passed it off and gone on with my day. And that is scary.
It's not "officially" known as anything new. Duck Tape is just one brand name of duct tape. To paraphrase Dante in one of the cartoon episodes of Clerks, brand name dilution is probably the biggest problem facing society today.
I dare you to read Walden cover-to-cover in one week and come back to say that. Not only is reading Walden in one week not leisurely at all, but if you actually accomplish that feat your head will explode. It's a widely believed fact!
The fact that double negatives are required in some languages is precisely why I specified English for my joke. To be honest, I prefer neither set of rules and would rather have double negatives act as a positive, a la Homer Simpson: "I'm not not drinking." That is the logical way for them to work, and would be preferable despite what other replies have asserted about language not being mathematical or logical. Half the problems in the world can be attributed to misunderstandings (and the other half can be blamed on made-up statistics, no doubt), and reducing the difficulty of understanding a language for those who are entirely new to the language itself is one way to reduce the rate of misunderstandings.
Slashdot Mirror
You're missing something major, and I've pointed it out already more than once. Re-read it all and see if you can catch on. I'm through repeating myself to you.
If you honestly weren't aware that you were yelling in the parent to that comment, then you are even less intelligent than I initially suspected. You couldn't even respond without using an exclamation mark.
One thing you seem to have missed is that judicial != political when you are talking about conservatives versus liberals. Although it's true that most issues don't bring light to the difference, it is there. For instance, when it comes to abortion the political conservatives say you have no right to it, while the judicial conservatives agree that the Constitution doesn't guarantee any such right. The difference is that a judicial conservative would not say that the Constitution prohibits abortion, while a political conservative would make sure to pass laws that do just that.
Justice Scalia is very judicially conservative, and sometimes that conflicts with his political views. When faced with that choice, he chooses to be judicially conservative. Even Rehnquist, who is definitely a political conservative, is not nearly as judicially conservative as you would expect if you equated the two traits as one.
Of course, it is extremely rare to have a dichotomy on the liberal side of things, because political liberals want things to be a certain way and judicial liberals are really good at reading the Constitution to mean just what they want it to. You will rarely, if ever, find a politically liberal judicial conservative.
My personal hope is that Bush appoints someone who is judicially conservative and politically moderate. But he wouldn't do that any more than Kerry would have appointed Cheney to the bench.
Just because you didn't understand the advertisements, or anything that's been written on this thread, doesn't mean you should be using all-caps to make your entirely baseless point. Time-shifting is not the same as sharing. If you can't see the difference, then save some face and stop posting your ignorant comments. If you can see the difference and are still not convinced, then try to make your point in clear, rational English, because obviously everyone else (including the moderator who labeled you a troll) is missing something. DO NOT YELL AND ADD EXCLAMATION MARKS JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN'T COMMUNICATE OR THINK AT HIGHER THAN A THIRD-GRADE LEVEL!!!
I'm not arguing quantity at all. Sony never told you that you should go and share copyrighted material with anyone who would not already have a license to that material. Grokster specifically told you to share copyrighted material with people who have no license to it. Just because you focused on the "thousands of people" part instead of "movies ... for free" part of my statement doesn't mean that I'm arguing quantity.
Not all on-air television programming is copyrighted, and recording the copyrighted stuff to view another time is fair use. Grokster created software with the intention that it be used to widely distribute copyrighted material, well beyond what fair use allows. If Sony's advertisements had said "With Betamax, you can record movies and send copies to thousands of people for free!", that case would have gone down a little bit differently.
Haven't you seen Star Wars? :P
What I said applies equally well to the civil arena, except that "arrested and charged with a crime" takes the form of "served a Complaint in federal court." And not all lawyers and lawmakers are on the side of the media conglomerates, so don't lose hope. The point is simply that this should be fought and won in Congress.
As to iTunes Music Store and fair use, I really think that it's pretty darn good. I bought a song from there at long last to try it all out, and I can use that song on 5 computers, any number of iPods, and any number of burned CDs that I want. "Fair use" is not a license to do whatever you want with someone else's copyrighted material - it's a license to do what it says - make fair use of material that you've licensed from the copyright holder. I think Apple has accomplished that.
I just want to know how to register a domain in all these new TLDs that come up. I don't want someone else to beat me to the punch on goatse.xxx, for instance. Can anyone help me out, here?
No. I said "intelligence," which I think most of us have a good deal of. However, literacy, memory lasting more than 10 hours, a sense of humor, common sense, ability to argue any way but ad hominem, and so on are other issues entirely. ;)
The Supreme Court held that you cannot distribute technology with the deliberate intention that it be used to violate the copyrights of another. The decision was correctly made, in my opinion. I also agree that the falling cost of publishing may (see another top-level comment regarding the cost of creation) indicate decreased need for the protections of the copyright system. However, the Supreme Court is not where you should go to make policy, and since this is not a Constitutional ruling it is comparatively easy to change: go to Congress and get them to change the copyright laws on the books.
Yes, Congress is a cesspool of corruption; and yes, Congress gets more time in bed with the entertainment industry in a year than any of us will have with our wives in our entire lifetime. But Congress is the place to fix this, not only because it's the appropriate place but also because Congress is more attune to what people want and more able to make policy decisions. After all, the Supreme Court refers to Congress and the Executive as "the popular branches" for a reason.
Do some research, determine what changes need to be made, and push them through Congress. If it's a good enough idea, then enough people will subscribe to it to convince their legislators to fix the problem. But don't bitch at the Supreme Court for telling you not to break the law. And if you want to make a point about it by breaking the law as a form of civil disobedience, remember (unlike so many current-day protesters) that the hallmark of civil disobedience is being arrested and charged with a crime.
Not stupid at all. It's just that you lack social skills like the rest of us. As we've shown, the two are mutually exclusive. ;)
I agree with you 100%. The problem is that you've just epitomized "poor social skills" quite succinctly.
Even more amazing is that as smart a guy as he is, his social skills leave a lot to be desired
;)
In what way is that amazing? I think that most of us here on Slashdot are in a reasonably high percentile when it comes to intelligence, and probably fewer than 10% of the members here have social skills any better than an 11-year-old girl's.
On a side note, I somehow doubt he's going to hang out at DevShed so much after your soon-to-be +5 comment generates traffic. Imagine the personal e-mail equivalent of a good, old-fashioned Slashdotting.
Yep, it's been 10 years since Java was officially introduced. It should come as no surprise that I was being turned down for jobs 2 years ago because the jobs in question required 10 years of Java experience. (And 5 years of C#/.NET experience as well. And I think at least one required post-doctoral work in Physics, Astrology, and Film.)
Others have commented on the important errors in what you wrote, so I am going to be the arrogant prick who points out that it should be "show-off" instead of "show off" and that you should not have capitalized the "A" in "A report for work." Additionally, you should have moved the punctuation around a bit and inserted a comma. "...or document that matters (i.e., a report for work)." would have been much better. Just because it's customary to do exactly what someone wishes you wouldn't in response to his Slashdot comments. :)
Actually, it's your'e. The Q is silent.
has the author been Rip Van Winkling?
Maybe he's been too busy verbing proper nouns to notice.
Why do you think that a corporation built on laissez-faire capitalism would hesitate for a moment to employ slave or child labor if it's cost-effective to do so? Bill Gates' philanthropy aside, Microsoft is in business to make money, and if it were not profitable to use slave and child labor, there would be no need for laws against the same.
I thought the exact same thing, but I didn't even get scared. The only reason I took the time to click on the comment link without even reading the blurb, much less TFA, was because I realized I read it wrong. Had it actually said "China," I would have just passed it off and gone on with my day. And that is scary.
It's not "officially" known as anything new. Duck Tape is just one brand name of duct tape. To paraphrase Dante in one of the cartoon episodes of Clerks, brand name dilution is probably the biggest problem facing society today.
He probably has a 13" TV.
I dare you to read Walden cover-to-cover in one week and come back to say that. Not only is reading Walden in one week not leisurely at all, but if you actually accomplish that feat your head will explode. It's a widely believed fact!
The fact that double negatives are required in some languages is precisely why I specified English for my joke. To be honest, I prefer neither set of rules and would rather have double negatives act as a positive, a la Homer Simpson: "I'm not not drinking." That is the logical way for them to work, and would be preferable despite what other replies have asserted about language not being mathematical or logical. Half the problems in the world can be attributed to misunderstandings (and the other half can be blamed on made-up statistics, no doubt), and reducing the difficulty of understanding a language for those who are entirely new to the language itself is one way to reduce the rate of misunderstandings.
Evidently, nothing is sacred anymore. Not even grammatical rules against double negatives in the English language.