bilingualism increases cognitive and memory skills (it does)
Is this proven at all? It would seem obvious to me that those with better cognitive and memory skills are more likely as a result to be bilingual... but if there is evidence that bilingualism causes better cognition and memory I'm happy to be proven wrong.
The Pirate Bay would have the snot knocked out of them in any real, civilized country
Claiming Sweden is neither real(?!) nor civilised is trolling. Do you really believe that this is an insightful opinion, that people are marking troll because it differs from their POV?
Re:Sorry, but I have to consider the source
on
UN Attacks Free Speech
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
People should be allowed to practice whatever religion they ascribe to. I should be allowed to hate those religions and what they stand for, and talk about it, if I want to.
It's that simple. Those who claim christians should not be allowed to practice are wrong IMO, and are themselves violating a whole host of free speech issues. Those who claim I should not be allowed to hate an ethos a particular religion stands for, and speak about it, are also wrong IMO.
Re:Sorry, but I have to consider the source
on
UN Attacks Free Speech
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I didn't say I believed that statement. However, my point was that religions should not be sacred*. The law currently discriminates on personal beliefs, depending on whether they are religious or not. If you're not ascribing your beliefs to a religion, you've got a lot less rights. If someone turned up to a job interview saying that voices in his head told him he was right for the job, employers would run a mile. That is, as long as it was not religiously inspired : George W Bush claimed that god chose him, and he got a decent job.
What about "Don't hire people who believe in an omnipotent guy in the sky because there's obviously a big fucking flaw in their logical thinking". Would that qualify as hate speech?
I see you've posted many times in this thread defending outlawing hatred. It may be offensive to you, but I hate religion, and any law restricting my right to say that is wrong. I am already living under these laws, introduced by new labour in the UK, and I have already broken the law earlier in this discussion, technically.
I reserve my right to hate any religion and say what I want about it. I'll keep encouraging people to hate religion. I reserve my right to discriminate between religions if I believe one is more harmful than another.
I know of no countries which have laws against "defaming" entities or beliefs such as "religions".
Try most of the western world, seriously. Most of Europe has laws protecting religions, not directly from defamation, but by other laws. For example, claiming "all Muslims are terrorist bombers" would contravene loads of laws in different parts of Europe, none of them defamation. In the UK, it would fall under "incitement to religious hatred".
The point is it shouldn't be illegal. As I have previously said, I _do_ hate organised religions, and encourage others to too. That should not be against the law.
Re:Sorry, but I have to consider the source
on
UN Attacks Free Speech
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Is there? I personally hate organised religion in all it's forms, and encourage others to do the same. I hate christianty, judaism, islam, and all the others equally. If I encourage others to hate any organised religion in my country (the UK), I'm committing an offence (incitement to relgious hatred).
There is _not_ a whole world of difference. I am _now_ asking people to hate religions, including but not limited to christianity, judaism, and islam. By doing that I am breaking the law. That law is wrong on so many levels.
Waiting a year is fine if you live in a vacuum. However, when your friends are all talking about the last episode of Lost or Dr Who that aired the night before, don't you feel a little left out?
Just about all current video cards use DVI afaik, so carry no sound. However, DVI to HDMI cables are common and cheap, because of the underlying similarities. You've got to set up your sound separately, but that's generally no problem either, depending on your TV's sound inputs (or you can run straight from your PC to an amp or whatever).
You paid to possess it? What the hell is this all about? So when you go and buy a game... wait, I should rephrase. So when you go and pay cash to a retail outlet for a plastic box and DVD with code on, you are just paying to own the physical medium? So if the code on the DVD is flawed, and will not run at all on hardware it should, you have no right to return, since you only paid to possess it, not use it. I don't want to live in your world.
Personally I find it hilarious that you are actually suggesting we use a highly sophisticated machine to control a suit which turns the person inside into a meat shield to protect someone else. Surely by the time we've actually invented this amazing device we can figure out something else to put between the speeding bullet and the president rather than another fucking human being!:).
I think you're confused. I could do a completely randomised survey which concludes there is a statistically significant link between people who have long hair, and people who have given birth. However, growing your hair long does not make you more likely to give birth. That is the correlation is not causation argument.
This experiment actually showed _no_ correlation between violence and enjoyment. That was the result. So there's nothing to cause in the first place. The correlation is not causation argument is completely irrelevant to the results of this experiment.
Hrm... crap analogy. Rome took over most of the then known world militarily, ie. with brute force. Rome was basically all-conquering for longer than the US has been in existance.
You NEVER purchase a copyright of a work. You purchase the use of that work as stated on that license.
I buy a book, I am not allowed to produce a movie based upon that book without the author's permission.
Wait... what? What license did I sign up to when I bought my last book? Erm, that's right... no license. I'm obviously bound by copyright law, but that is it. All of your examples fall foul of copyright law, licenses do not have to come into it at all. The last book I bought actually trys to forbid me from "reproducing [it] in any form by any means", which would forbid me from reading it to my child (if I had one). Fuck that.
I download an MP3 or a movie, and my rights may only include using it on my iPod, but not on my Zune.
Seriously, do you want to bend over some more? If you want a song, you have to buy it for your CD player, each of your computers, your ipod and your zune seperately? Would you really pay four or more times over for one song? Sorry, fuck that again.
Anyway, licenses depend on contract law, which _requires_ both parties to know exactly what they are entering into prior to acceptal. Good luck showing that
A software license requires that both parties know what they are signing up to prior to money changing hands. I'd wager in over 99% of iphone purchases customers have not read and/or understood the legalese, and thus the software licenses are not valid. Without a lawyer, many people would not understand the many possible ramifications of the legalese either. The contracts are also generally invalid because they contain a clause claiming one party (guess which) can change the terms of the contract at any time. If Apple decided to levy a $10000 surcharge on all users with a change in the contract, do you really think that would hold up in a court?
Basically, software licenses aimed at individuals that require consumers to read pages of smallprint prior to purchase are not valid.
And when you buy a Windows game you can only play it on windows? Last I heard, WINE is perfectly legal, and running games with WINE is also perfectly legal. Also, running a PS2 game in a PC PS2 emulator seems to be perfectly legal too. Console makers actually make their money primarily from games licensing, and often sell the actual console at a loss. Good luck finding a PS3 or Xbox360 emulator though...
WTF is this OT thread about? Not funny, not insightful. Diabetes happens more often if you are fat.
On topic : You're not going to get many institutions, whoever they are, allowing anyone to run any software off of a USB drive. Honestly, it's just not going to happen, and neither should it. Any institution allowing users to run stuff not centrally ok'd is asking for trouble.
You might have noticed the global slowdown and other countries blaming the U.S. They are correct, the U.S. people are officially tapped out, spent, broke, going back to basics and saving their money. And the rest of the world is livid about it.
You might not have noticed, but the EU is a larger economy than the US, it imports a lot more (Germany, the UK and France alone import more than the US by most estimates), and is all but militarily a bigger player than the US. Sorry to burst your bubble.
We pretty much agree (as a society, though perhaps not as Slashdotters) that it is immoral to willfully violate a just law.
The current copyright laws are _far_ from just. To claim so is just weird. They are so far from the original intention of compensating authors for their work. 100 years plus is way, way too long for copyright to last. Personally I believe allowing tranferral of copyright is working against the original intention of copyright too, but that's a different matter.
it still deprives someone of something -- it deprives someone of compensation for their work.
No, no it doesn't. There is absolutely nothing I have pirated that I would have bought if I had not pirated it. There are _many_ things that I have bought as a result of pirating it first. My pirating led to an increase in the amount I have purchased, not a decrease.
This argument is very simple to understand, yet I hear blanket statements like yours absolutely denying it is possible. I'm sorry, you're just wrong, at least in my case. There may be freeloaders out there that do just try and pirate instead of buying, but I am not one of them. I do exist.
But that's no excuse for copying a work just because "I wouldn't have bought it anyway."
No the excuse for copying a work, if you are not going to buy it anyway is that you are doing 0 harm to anyone. What on earth is the difference between not owning something and owning an illegal copy of something, in terms of author's revenue?
Slashdot Mirror
bilingualism increases cognitive and memory skills (it does)
Is this proven at all? It would seem obvious to me that those with better cognitive and memory skills are more likely as a result to be bilingual... but if there is evidence that bilingualism causes better cognition and memory I'm happy to be proven wrong.
The Pirate Bay would have the snot knocked out of them in any real, civilized country
Claiming Sweden is neither real(?!) nor civilised is trolling. Do you really believe that this is an insightful opinion, that people are marking troll because it differs from their POV?
People should be allowed to practice whatever religion they ascribe to. I should be allowed to hate those religions and what they stand for, and talk about it, if I want to.
It's that simple. Those who claim christians should not be allowed to practice are wrong IMO, and are themselves violating a whole host of free speech issues. Those who claim I should not be allowed to hate an ethos a particular religion stands for, and speak about it, are also wrong IMO.
I didn't say I believed that statement. However, my point was that religions should not be sacred*. The law currently discriminates on personal beliefs, depending on whether they are religious or not. If you're not ascribing your beliefs to a religion, you've got a lot less rights. If someone turned up to a job interview saying that voices in his head told him he was right for the job, employers would run a mile. That is, as long as it was not religiously inspired : George W Bush claimed that god chose him, and he got a decent job.
What about "Don't hire people who believe in an omnipotent guy in the sky because there's obviously a big fucking flaw in their logical thinking". Would that qualify as hate speech?
I see you've posted many times in this thread defending outlawing hatred. It may be offensive to you, but I hate religion, and any law restricting my right to say that is wrong. I am already living under these laws, introduced by new labour in the UK, and I have already broken the law earlier in this discussion, technically.
I reserve my right to hate any religion and say what I want about it. I'll keep encouraging people to hate religion. I reserve my right to discriminate between religions if I believe one is more harmful than another.
Atheists just talk in 1's and 0's anyway, so they don't need an OS.
You do know that predominately Islamic countries were the ones that were doing the scientific research during the last "dark ages", right?
I know of no countries which have laws against "defaming" entities or beliefs such as "religions".
Try most of the western world, seriously. Most of Europe has laws protecting religions, not directly from defamation, but by other laws. For example, claiming "all Muslims are terrorist bombers" would contravene loads of laws in different parts of Europe, none of them defamation. In the UK, it would fall under "incitement to religious hatred".
The point is it shouldn't be illegal. As I have previously said, I _do_ hate organised religions, and encourage others to too. That should not be against the law.
Is there? I personally hate organised religion in all it's forms, and encourage others to do the same. I hate christianty, judaism, islam, and all the others equally. If I encourage others to hate any organised religion in my country (the UK), I'm committing an offence (incitement to relgious hatred).
There is _not_ a whole world of difference. I am _now_ asking people to hate religions, including but not limited to christianity, judaism, and islam. By doing that I am breaking the law. That law is wrong on so many levels.
Waiting a year is fine if you live in a vacuum. However, when your friends are all talking about the last episode of Lost or Dr Who that aired the night before, don't you feel a little left out?
Just about all current video cards use DVI afaik, so carry no sound. However, DVI to HDMI cables are common and cheap, because of the underlying similarities. You've got to set up your sound separately, but that's generally no problem either, depending on your TV's sound inputs (or you can run straight from your PC to an amp or whatever).
You paid to possess it? What the hell is this all about? So when you go and buy a game... wait, I should rephrase. So when you go and pay cash to a retail outlet for a plastic box and DVD with code on, you are just paying to own the physical medium? So if the code on the DVD is flawed, and will not run at all on hardware it should, you have no right to return, since you only paid to possess it, not use it. I don't want to live in your world.
Personally I find it hilarious that you are actually suggesting we use a highly sophisticated machine to control a suit which turns the person inside into a meat shield to protect someone else. Surely by the time we've actually invented this amazing device we can figure out something else to put between the speeding bullet and the president rather than another fucking human being! :).
I think you're confused. I could do a completely randomised survey which concludes there is a statistically significant link between people who have long hair, and people who have given birth. However, growing your hair long does not make you more likely to give birth. That is the correlation is not causation argument.
This experiment actually showed _no_ correlation between violence and enjoyment. That was the result. So there's nothing to cause in the first place. The correlation is not causation argument is completely irrelevant to the results of this experiment.
Hrm... crap analogy. Rome took over most of the then known world militarily, ie. with brute force. Rome was basically all-conquering for longer than the US has been in existance.
You NEVER purchase a copyright of a work. You purchase the use of that work as stated on that license.
I buy a book, I am not allowed to produce a movie based upon that book without the author's permission.
Wait... what? What license did I sign up to when I bought my last book? Erm, that's right... no license. I'm obviously bound by copyright law, but that is it. All of your examples fall foul of copyright law, licenses do not have to come into it at all. The last book I bought actually trys to forbid me from "reproducing [it] in any form by any means", which would forbid me from reading it to my child (if I had one). Fuck that.
I download an MP3 or a movie, and my rights may only include using it on my iPod, but not on my Zune.
Seriously, do you want to bend over some more? If you want a song, you have to buy it for your CD player, each of your computers, your ipod and your zune seperately? Would you really pay four or more times over for one song? Sorry, fuck that again.
Anyway, licenses depend on contract law, which _requires_ both parties to know exactly what they are entering into prior to acceptal. Good luck showing that
A software license requires that both parties know what they are signing up to prior to money changing hands. I'd wager in over 99% of iphone purchases customers have not read and/or understood the legalese, and thus the software licenses are not valid. Without a lawyer, many people would not understand the many possible ramifications of the legalese either. The contracts are also generally invalid because they contain a clause claiming one party (guess which) can change the terms of the contract at any time. If Apple decided to levy a $10000 surcharge on all users with a change in the contract, do you really think that would hold up in a court?
Basically, software licenses aimed at individuals that require consumers to read pages of smallprint prior to purchase are not valid.
And when you buy a Windows game you can only play it on windows? Last I heard, WINE is perfectly legal, and running games with WINE is also perfectly legal. Also, running a PS2 game in a PC PS2 emulator seems to be perfectly legal too. Console makers actually make their money primarily from games licensing, and often sell the actual console at a loss. Good luck finding a PS3 or Xbox360 emulator though...
WTF is this OT thread about? Not funny, not insightful. Diabetes happens more often if you are fat.
On topic : You're not going to get many institutions, whoever they are, allowing anyone to run any software off of a USB drive. Honestly, it's just not going to happen, and neither should it. Any institution allowing users to run stuff not centrally ok'd is asking for trouble.
You might have noticed the global slowdown and other countries blaming the U.S. They are correct, the U.S. people are officially tapped out, spent, broke, going back to basics and saving their money. And the rest of the world is livid about it.
You might not have noticed, but the EU is a larger economy than the US, it imports a lot more (Germany, the UK and France alone import more than the US by most estimates), and is all but militarily a bigger player than the US. Sorry to burst your bubble.
We pretty much agree (as a society, though perhaps not as Slashdotters) that it is immoral to willfully violate a just law.
The current copyright laws are _far_ from just. To claim so is just weird. They are so far from the original intention of compensating authors for their work. 100 years plus is way, way too long for copyright to last. Personally I believe allowing tranferral of copyright is working against the original intention of copyright too, but that's a different matter.
it still deprives someone of something -- it deprives someone of compensation for their work.
No, no it doesn't. There is absolutely nothing I have pirated that I would have bought if I had not pirated it. There are _many_ things that I have bought as a result of pirating it first. My pirating led to an increase in the amount I have purchased, not a decrease.
This argument is very simple to understand, yet I hear blanket statements like yours absolutely denying it is possible. I'm sorry, you're just wrong, at least in my case. There may be freeloaders out there that do just try and pirate instead of buying, but I am not one of them. I do exist.
But that's no excuse for copying a work just because "I wouldn't have bought it anyway."
No the excuse for copying a work, if you are not going to buy it anyway is that you are doing 0 harm to anyone. What on earth is the difference between not owning something and owning an illegal copy of something, in terms of author's revenue?
I guess for things women put up with everyday... glass ceiling, mammograms, and childbirth....
Wait.... they do all this EVERY DAY?!
Ha! I'll just duct tape over the screen then. The camera wouldn't be able to see me then, would it?