wars, what is the expected outcome? Given any purported defense, threat or desired conquest, what would stop deployment. We have trouble with control now.
The imposition of one's will over others or the destruction of their lives in any form without the possibility of cost to one's own life is not something I am comfortable with, given history as a guide.
Military operation and, the other shoe, civilian law enforcement should not be given costless and automated imposition, until we become more tolerant, fair, accurate and less dominating. (At which time the necessity will be less?)
A bit interesting but I think the author is deliberately ignoring that fact that he disproves his own theory. The person is deliberately missing (or rather ignoring or evading) the point. I author probably really wants to absolve the person of any wrongdoing...probably the author's "innate goodness:.
I think he deserves the "missed it by that much" award.
They are collecting people, groups, and businesses that are willing to knuckle-under, given a signal to do so. The fact that the action is partially indiscriminate and lacks the expectation of lasting success within the purported cause, shows that the collection can be useful in the future.
If you want to have a buisiness that sells an internet explorer or a media player -- it sucks -- it does.
Nowdays I dont need people to make more media players !!
Windows Media Player
Creative Media MediaSource Player
Real Player
QuickTime
ITunes
The thing that came with your non-Ipod MP3 Player
DVD Player
...
I dont want everyone making a media player -- I have more than I need already. There are plenty I dont want to install already. How big a loss was it? What are the chances I would buy a media player?
While I dont like monopolies and abusive business practices:
Why doesn't every country fine Microsoft? Think of the money.
Governments easily make laws and without Microsofts agreement (Dont say its in my country/on my land or dems the laws -- thats not my point -- its the EUs).
After you extradite the CEOs to the EU, will you then sent them to every other country that asks for them as well?
Be unpopular with other CEOs, pay the fine quickly.
If a government wants something, be responsive and do whatever is asked quickly, thoroughly and to their satisfaction...and maybe they will ask you to do something again.
Will the money be used to pay damaged businesses? Fines are usually consumed by the government.
...???...Profit.
Something like -- Linux -- comes with a lot of stuff if you buy one of those distros. And the price...undercutting. Is microsoft that far from having any competition -- that they dont have to worry? They dont need to create a value package?
Yet, I have noticed that once people go into buisiness, they think it is ok to do anything:
Use abusive and anticompetitive buisiness practices. It never loses its shine -- does it?
Reduce the quality of coworkers lives -- because you can and have a higher position -- some imposed form of hierarchical superiority.
Dump toxic waste into the environment.
Knowingly sell drugs that will kill or impair the health of those that take them, and refuse to disclose information concerning these facts.
Use unsafe food processing practices that will sicken those that eat it or will cause a recall that will destroy valuable resouces.
Produce products that cause more pollution, waste and environmental destruction than comperable products and yet provide no greater benefit.
Endlessly produce new products, most of which arent any better than the previous.
Produce low quality product that will cost the your company and your customers money -- without any real reason.
Some people didnt like the signs -- didnt like them at all -- but they didnt want the expense, probable failure, negative PR, lack of bite, an straightforward-ness of some sort of an indecency or illegal advertising suit. (or no suit at all because of they, themselves, had no claim).
The government is a perfect front.
Turner didnt fight the suit. Terrorism wasnt one of the reasons -- too easy to show a lack of intent (of terrorism or a hoax terrorism). Similar advertising campains can probably be shown. With precedence, there would be a lack of uniqueness and unexpectedness for a professional organization such as the City of Boston. Companies are well known for fighing all manner of lawsuits with vigor. It is reasonable to assume that Turner had other reasons for not fighing the suit.
Note, Turner also dropped a dime on their CEO. Once Turner decided to roll-over, the bomb stare stunt now becomes the perfect reason for such an action. The club was passed to them and willingly used it.
I have the idea that once you buy something, you should be able to do what you want with the item you purchased. This includes copying, backing up, and if you want altering.
You should also be able to sell the unaltered original whereupon you should destroy all the copies or altered versions you have.
To uphold copyrights, the government cannot allow someone to make money producing an alteration or derivative work without the artists involvement.
For the most part, I support copyrights. If you dont, then chances are good that you dont really like the artists that produced the work. (Yes, music and movies cost too much and their representatives seem to make quite a noise.)
If the altered version was made available for free, it could work.
For example, I have entertained the idea that it would be nice for example to obtain foreign films, with the region code removed and English subtitles added.
I however, want the translation to be as close to the original language in meaning as possible.
This brings us to the issue of alteration.
If you are an artist, then you are preparing work by yourself and are presented to your audience. Outside alteration is interference.
The essential quality of most censors is that the censor performs his actions on unwilling participants - the source of the work and audience.
I suppose the other kind of censor, it one that performs its actions for willing participants.
I feel uncompelled to help either kind of censor.
They do feel compelled to alter others works. Obviously their audience might not want to feel left out.
These people could try to produce their own movies and then see which one the audience likes better.
If this kind of alteration is allowed later then get rid of DMCA for every owner.
First, it should be clear that this law would apply to most games.
Action, FPS, RTS, Strategy, some adventure games, and platforming games.
Planes, cars and tie fighters contain humans but for now they can't be seen to well.
If these are gone then what is left? It will make a big impact on gaming.
Ok, why is this legislation being proposed? Social Behavior.
Social behavior consists of alphas (leaders of packs or herds) controlling and manipulating its constituency (the betas).
For the alphas, this provides benefits but this controlling behavior also becomes a part of the alphas' identity. Furthermore, this behavior becomes a goal and a reward within the alpha.
An established alpha thoroughly believes and insists that all others in the group are betas. They also believe that other groups and those otherwise outside the group are harmful and a danger. There aren't many alphas that have escaped this idea.
This social behavior causes discomfort for many of us. The ability we have to understand, think, and make decision for ourselves places us at odds with those that need to control to maintain their sense of identity.
People with the desire to control others have adapted to democracy. They manipulate the process so enforced laws are written. Once laws are written, they are rarely taken off the books. Many laws are written without the citizens actually calling for them. Further, opinion manipulation can cause a low majority to allow laws to be written (and/or be generally agreed with) that infringe and restrict the actions of others that are in a minority or do don't have a lobbying operation in place. They bank on the instilled idea that a majority always has the right to do anything to anyone. The result is that laws are inflicted based not on real need but on feelings of people that often have little involvement with the issue. The trick is to generate a vauge but strong feeling that something needs be done.
Vagueness is often needed because be they don't want to argue the facts -- they want their generated opinions counted and to see an effect on you.
We can affect you. We can force you. You must pay attention to us. You have to respond. We won't be ignored.
They will never be satisfied with a response like "If you don't like violent video games or movies or television dont buy or watch them," because that doesnt let them be who they are.
When one manipulation has completed, they will be one to the next. They need satisfaction. Keep tightening the ropes on the same issue or switch to another issue -- maybe with a different minority. Hell, maybe you'll agree with them this time.
Additionally, I think that violence is something they feel a little uncomfortable with because they realize many don't want to be controlled and will be frustrated. They don't you to develop a "Give me liberty or give you death" policy. They know they aren't going to.
Children dont have to buy GTA and if they do, no-one is forcing them to play any part of the game they dont want.
The right wants to live thier life and yours too.
The issue with GTA and the Sims is a "push".
They want people to think there is a need to regulate and control the games they can buy and play on thier computers.
Once they introduce legislation to stop games from being developed -- without the game developers constantly thinking what they think/want, it will never go back to being free.
Steam comes out of a kettle; it doesnt go back in.
Once there is one fence, more are built. Fences are not removed.
They simply tap into the idea that more control is good. Elaboration on existing ideas is good -- it validates.
They want the same thing that most people you see in the news. They want...demand attention; people must pay attention to them -- even if they dont want to -- or there will be consequences. The right use policemen and prisons; others use bombs.
Isnt Hilary the wife of Bill... wasnt he in the news awhile back.
Slashdot Mirror
wars, what is the expected outcome? Given any purported defense, threat or desired conquest, what would stop deployment. We have trouble with control now.
The imposition of one's will over others or the destruction of their lives in any form without the possibility of cost to one's own life is not something I am comfortable with, given history as a guide.
Military operation and, the other shoe, civilian law enforcement should not be given costless and automated imposition, until we become more tolerant, fair, accurate and less dominating. (At which time the necessity will be less?)
A bit interesting but I think the author is deliberately ignoring that fact that he disproves his own theory. The person is deliberately missing (or rather ignoring or evading) the point. I author probably really wants to absolve the person of any wrongdoing...probably the author's "innate goodness:.
I think he deserves the "missed it by that much" award.
They are collecting people, groups, and businesses that are willing to knuckle-under, given a signal to do so. The fact that the action is partially indiscriminate and lacks the expectation of lasting success within the purported cause, shows that the collection can be useful in the future.
All citizens are required to install, pay for and utilize, the manatory national comcast system -- for your protection
You are James Rudolph, a teacher at Middlefield.
... Its all very important, isnt it.
You know theres a law that says that you can contradict Evolution, and you can present other ideas about the creation of life.
Lets talk about that. All those children, God
And you, you are very important and what you do is important.
- Windows Media Player
- Creative Media MediaSource Player
- Real Player
- QuickTime
- ITunes
- The thing that came with your non-Ipod MP3 Player
- DVD Player
- ...
I dont want everyone making a media player -- I have more than I need already. There are plenty I dont want to install already. How big a loss was it? What are the chances I would buy a media player?- Why doesn't every country fine Microsoft? Think of the money.
- Governments easily make laws and without Microsofts agreement (Dont say its in my country/on my land or dems the laws -- thats not my point -- its the EUs).
- After you extradite the CEOs to the EU, will you then sent them to every other country that asks for them as well?
- Be unpopular with other CEOs, pay the fine quickly.
- If a government wants something, be responsive and do whatever is asked quickly, thoroughly and to their satisfaction...and maybe they will ask you to do something again.
- Will the money be used to pay damaged businesses? Fines are usually consumed by the government.
- ...???...Profit.
- Something like -- Linux -- comes with a lot of stuff if you buy one of those distros. And the price...undercutting. Is microsoft that far from having any competition -- that they dont have to worry? They dont need to create a value package?
Yet, I have noticed that once people go into buisiness, they think it is ok to do anything:Some people didnt like the signs -- didnt like them at all -- but they didnt want the expense, probable failure, negative PR, lack of bite, an straightforward-ness of some sort of an indecency or illegal advertising suit. (or no suit at all because of they, themselves, had no claim).
The government is a perfect front.
Turner didnt fight the suit. Terrorism wasnt one of the reasons -- too easy to show a lack of intent (of terrorism or a hoax terrorism). Similar advertising campains can probably be shown. With precedence, there would be a lack of uniqueness and unexpectedness for a professional organization such as the City of Boston. Companies are well known for fighing all manner of lawsuits with vigor. It is reasonable to assume that Turner had other reasons for not fighing the suit.
Note, Turner also dropped a dime on their CEO. Once Turner decided to roll-over, the bomb stare stunt now becomes the perfect reason for such an action. The club was passed to them and willingly used it.
clear the neutron blaster for firing.
Why dont ISPs allow provide a configurable firewall service so most of this stuff isnt even sent down the wire?
Yes, I dont want to buy a router or a new DSL modem with firewall capabilities.
I also dont want another * thing to plug into the wall.
One could even allow users to select/join a non-configurable firewall service -- as long as it isnt too restrictive.
There is way to much junk being sent to most users.
These days you hear of arrests and extraditions...
Isn't there someone somewhere that thinks you have done something wrong.
Can't he write it down.
How can he tolerate that you are not punished?
Isn't there a bad guy that should be extradited somewhere.
Is there anyone without a reason.
Sit back, decide what you want and dislike.
Your opinions need not be limited as such.
Apply, apply, apply, apply....
No-one else can.
The article does pick out some important points.
I have the idea that once you buy something, you should be able to do what you want with the item you purchased. This includes copying, backing up, and if you want altering.
You should also be able to sell the unaltered original whereupon you should destroy all the copies or altered versions you have.
To uphold copyrights, the government cannot allow someone to make money producing an alteration or derivative work without the artists involvement.
For the most part, I support copyrights. If you dont, then chances are good that you dont really like the artists that produced the work. (Yes, music and movies cost too much and their representatives seem to make quite a noise.)
If the altered version was made available for free, it could work.
For example, I have entertained the idea that it would be nice for example to obtain foreign films, with the region code removed and English subtitles added.
I however, want the translation to be as close to the original language in meaning as possible.
This brings us to the issue of alteration.
If you are an artist, then you are preparing work by yourself and are presented to your audience. Outside alteration is interference.
The essential quality of most censors is that the censor performs his actions on unwilling participants - the source of the work and audience.
I suppose the other kind of censor, it one that performs its actions for willing participants.
I feel uncompelled to help either kind of censor.
They do feel compelled to alter others works. Obviously their audience might not want to feel left out.
These people could try to produce their own movies and then see which one the audience likes better.
If this kind of alteration is allowed later then get rid of DMCA for every owner.
First, it should be clear that this law would apply to most games.
Action, FPS, RTS, Strategy, some adventure games, and platforming games.
Planes, cars and tie fighters contain humans but for now they can't be seen to well.
If these are gone then what is left? It will make a big impact on gaming.
Ok, why is this legislation being proposed? Social Behavior.
Social behavior consists of alphas (leaders of packs or herds) controlling and manipulating its constituency (the betas).
For the alphas, this provides benefits but this controlling behavior also becomes a part of the alphas' identity. Furthermore, this behavior becomes a goal and a reward within the alpha.
An established alpha thoroughly believes and insists that all others in the group are betas. They also believe that other groups and those otherwise outside the group are harmful and a danger. There aren't many alphas that have escaped this idea.
This social behavior causes discomfort for many of us. The ability we have to understand, think, and make decision for ourselves places us at odds with those that need to control to maintain their sense of identity.
People with the desire to control others have adapted to democracy. They manipulate the process so enforced laws are written. Once laws are written, they are rarely taken off the books. Many laws are written without the citizens actually calling for them. Further, opinion manipulation can cause a low majority to allow laws to be written (and/or be generally agreed with) that infringe and restrict the actions of others that are in a minority or do don't have a lobbying operation in place. They bank on the instilled idea that a majority always has the right to do anything to anyone. The result is that laws are inflicted based not on real need but on feelings of people that often have little involvement with the issue. The trick is to generate a vauge but strong feeling that something needs be done.
Vagueness is often needed because be they don't want to argue the facts -- they want their generated opinions counted and to see an effect on you.
We can affect you. We can force you. You must pay attention to us. You have to respond. We won't be ignored.
They will never be satisfied with a response like "If you don't like violent video games or movies or television dont buy or watch them," because that doesnt let them be who they are.
When one manipulation has completed, they will be one to the next. They need satisfaction. Keep tightening the ropes on the same issue or switch to another issue -- maybe with a different minority. Hell, maybe you'll agree with them this time.
Additionally, I think that violence is something they feel a little uncomfortable with because they realize many don't want to be controlled and will be frustrated. They don't you to develop a "Give me liberty or give you death" policy. They know they aren't going to.
Children dont have to buy GTA and if they do, no-one is forcing them to play any part of the game they dont want.
... wasnt he in the news awhile back.
The right wants to live thier life and yours too.
The issue with GTA and the Sims is a "push".
They want people to think there is a need to regulate and control the games they can buy and play on thier computers.
Once they introduce legislation to stop games from being developed -- without the game developers constantly thinking what they think/want, it will never go back to being free.
Steam comes out of a kettle; it doesnt go back in.
Once there is one fence, more are built. Fences are not removed.
They simply tap into the idea that more control is good. Elaboration on existing ideas is good -- it validates.
They want the same thing that most people you see in the news. They want...demand attention; people must pay attention to them -- even if they dont want to -- or there will be consequences. The right use policemen and prisons; others use bombs.
Isnt Hilary the wife of Bill
Set-up.