Why is it that someone hasn't proposed a reasonable alternative to DRM.
The record companies want to make money, people want to control their stuff. So instead of bitching about it, then bending over and taking it, why doesn't someone come up with an alternative.
It seems like the extremes of this discussion are all I ever hear anymore. What is being proposed by people who see a business opportunity in a good compromise that satisfies everybody? Is there such a thing?
Congratulations!!!! You're literate. Now, so I can properly apologize, qute the exact place where I attribute that phrase to YOU. I'll wait...
"I don't understand"
You'd have been better off stopping there, as it really says it all.
Re:Lightweight idea
on
Space Lichens
·
· Score: 5, Informative
"Organisms in small asteroids would be incinerated in earth's atmosphere"
No, you're wrong.
"As it falls through 80 km, it loses 3 to 6 mm of surface mass per second through ablation. The melted material and metal, heated to over 1800 C, is being swept away from the meteoroid, carrying away the accumulating surface heat so efficiently that the interior remains cool."
That was from meteorlab.com. Look it up so that next time you won't be spreading incorrect information.
"The rioting didn't start on account of that, it started on account of two youths getting killed and the police blamed, and a government official making incendiary remarks."
I'd like to ask you a serious question.
Why is it that you're not laying blame with the people who actually caused the riots? The cops didn't do it, the two kids didn't do it. The cops didn't burn cars, the kids didn't attack anyone, and the official didn't do any of those things either.
The morons who started the fires, and fired the shots, and destroyed the buildings did it. The people who "started the riot" are the people who did those things, and as far as I can tell none of them are mentioned in your post.
Why aren't you holding accountable the people who are actually engaging in the behavior that is defined as a "riot"? Why do you give them a pass?
Yay! You managed to insult me several times, yet completely failed to explain this statement
"by definition if you are not free to do what you want, you are simply not free"
I gave you an example, which fit into your criteria, and instead of acting like an adult, you threw a fit. We all know why, because you can't refute me. You said it, now explain it.
"Look, stupid, when I talk about political freedom" Great, but you didn't qualify it till I called you on it. You didn't say "political" freedom until it was obvious to you that you'd said something completely indefensible. You got caught overstating your position, and rather than own up, you attacked. You must be a Bush family member.
"Moron."
Well, at least you were man enough to sign your post.
Lastly, how do you think your dead mom would feel about you blindly attacking people you don't know because you're embarrassed about making a fool of yourself?
"Oh, and a last thing: you mix up african and north-african (arabic) culture. The vast majority of post-immigrants are from an arabic culture, and are not africans."
Ok, I have to ask, how can someone be from Africa, but not be African? Isn't that the only criteria to be African?
"Part of the trouble in France is that the government is prohibited from keeping any race/ethnicity related statistics."
You
"Youch. I wasn't aware of that. It's chilling that a government would legally bind itself to stick its head in the sand."
You didn't know something. You ADMITTED not knowing it. You were ignorant.
"What's really chilling is that people will claim someone else is ignorant, without bothering to point out where they are incorrect or ignorant"
I wasn't making a "you are ignorant" comment, I was making a "what the hell were the idiot mods thinking" comment. Whether you think it's worth posting or not is your business, but I suspect your just being an ass because you thought I was insulting you.
"J00 R IGNORANT is not a comment even worth making"
I agree. And it's a good thing I didn't say that.
Now, a pointed question to you.
Why be a dick about it? You were ignorant, you got the facts, and I made a comment that was about THE MODS. Why did you rush to display your ability to be snide, and take things personally? Why can't you be civil, and take into account the possibility that you didn't have all the facts before trying so hard to say something snippy, but deniable? Because we both know that's what you did.
I mean, you've already demonstrated that you'll post without having all of the information, so why not try to avoid that instead of running headlong into it like you just did?
"we're questioning the validity of the law itself."
No we're not.
If there's anything the slashdot culture has drilled into me, it's that I need to keep my ignorant American ideas out of other country's politics.
So, no, I'm not questioning the laws of other countries anymore. I have simply been chided too many times for being a jingoist, racist, imperialist, war monger, and have now seen the error of my ways.
Far be it from me to try to foist my simplistic, puerile American opinions on the freedom loving French citizens.
"And the accent is not a matter of speaking a certain way."
No, in fact that is exactly what an accent is. More importantly, language schools teach accents too (yes they do, I've been to one that does) so this is an excuse, just like all the other so called "reasons" for shooting at firemen and lighting old ladies on fire (no, I didn't make that up, both of those things happened during these riots).
"It's called "abandoning your post," much like the LAPD did in 1992 (with similar results). "Pandering" would have involved setting up a special, independent, immigrant-only police force to patrol these areas."
You really have no idea what's going on. It's obvious from the first mistake you made.
"It's called "abandoning your post,"
Completely wrong. The French police let these areas become no law zones long before these riots began.
"Pandering" would have involved setting up a special, independent, immigrant-only police force to patrol these areas."
What, you don't think "allowing them to break the law with impunity" is pandering?
Let's look it up, shall we?
Pandering- "To cater to the lower tastes and desires of others"
Hmm, so allowing them to break the law unchecked, it seems, WOULD BE THE EXACT DEFINITION of pandering.
"Is a parent that abandons their child said to be pandering to them?"
If they abandon them because the child want to shoplift, and the parent knows it is going to happen, and leaves them to avoid dealing with it, then YES.
If you plan to use comparisons, try to be more accurate.
No, it was even worse than that, he admitted it. No conviciton was necessary, because he openly admitted what he'd done, then pleaded guilty.
"And since he's a French citizen, France will not extradite him to the USA (which I think is understandable - would the USA extradite a US citizen to France?)."
We would, and have. Just google it instead of engaging in (incorrect) speculation.
"Everyone deserves to be treated fairly, even an alleged child abuser (although whether a 13-year old can still be considered a "child" is unclear to me; teen abuser"
Ok, I get it now. You don't have a problem with 13, apparently.
If I were you, I'd stop putting myself next to admitted rapists and child molesters.
With the Freanch constantly trumpeting the superiority of their social policies, it's not necessary to rub their noses in it when those very same policies explode in their faces.
"And besides, I'm not sure about you, but if I heard that my government is shooting and killing people instead of - say - trying to incapacitate them and arrest them so they can receive a trial, then I'd be more than upset, too"
You left out that these people are burning cars and buildings, shooting at innocent bystanders and each other, and attacking anyone who tries to slow them down.
I'm not advocating one solution over another, but if you plan to discuss this, don't leave out what are by far the most important elements of the story.
Seriously, these idiots are attacking firemen. What could a fireman possibly do that anyone could be upset about? And you do realize, that you're advocating for these people. You're suggesting that they are somehow right to attack firemen.
How dare they try to save your life! How dare those dirty firemen save your home, your children, your family, and your little dog too!!!
"Pointing out that Iraq didn't have WMD and banning Muslims from wearing headscarves in school qualifies as "pandering to Islamists" does it?"
How sad is it that you can't discuss France and Islam without feeling the need to blather on about Iraq and WMD's. Could we possibly try to stay on the subject, that is failed immigration and integration policies, and poor planning? Could we please not inject our own irrelevant drivel into the conversation?
The FACT is, French police allowed many of these areas to become "no law" zones.
I don't care what your political bent is, I don't care that you have a bug up your butt about Bush and the US, the only thing that matters is THEY ALLOWED THESE AREAS TO BECOME NO LAW ZONES.
If that's not pandering to them, then they need to change the definition of pandering.
"Not just him, but the whole administration... If terrorists truly are the enemy of the state, then this administration has committed treason, as defined in Article III, section 3 [cornell.edu] of the US constitution, Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."
I would be very careful how you choose to broaden that definition. It would be very easy to make the case that speaking out against the government is "giving them aid and comfort". Don't think it can't happen.
Please stop trying to twist the law to do something which is better done through informed debate and the ballot box (and please save your "voting doesn't work garbage, we've all heard it, we know what you're going to say, we don't agree, so save yourself the trouble). That's not what it's for.
"A 22 year old with no significant resources can't afford to fight for a settlement."
This is most certainly NOT insightful, but in fact, a lie that has been accepted as fact. Just look at the moderation of the comment, and you'll realize how sheep-like some of the people are here.
Why do you think repeating the same "you'll get sued into bankruptcy" tripe makes it true?
EFF is one possibility. My university has FREE legal service to students, but you didn't know that did you? MANY law offices do their own pro bono work, and MANY companies would be willing to back someone just to have this trademark fight with MS.
All it takes is someone who hasn't accepted an inaccurate meme as fact. Since you do not fit the bill, someone more driven and imaginitive must do it.
If the best argument you can make is that it would cost too much (which is the best argument you made, and the only one) you need to ask yourself why you believe that, when I've demonstrated it to be false.
Slashdot Mirror
"If the microsoft engineers are so great why do their products suck so much?"
Because they have to make the products marketable, which can mean making compromises.
But you knew that, you just wanted to show off your anti-MS bias.
Why is it that someone hasn't proposed a reasonable alternative to DRM.
The record companies want to make money, people want to control their stuff. So instead of bitching about it, then bending over and taking it, why doesn't someone come up with an alternative.
It seems like the extremes of this discussion are all I ever hear anymore. What is being proposed by people who see a business opportunity in a good compromise that satisfies everybody? Is there such a thing?
Congratulations!!!! You're literate. Now, so I can properly apologize, qute the exact place where I attribute that phrase to YOU. I'll wait...
"I don't understand"
You'd have been better off stopping there, as it really says it all.
"Organisms in small asteroids would be incinerated in earth's atmosphere"
No, you're wrong.
"As it falls through 80 km, it loses 3 to 6 mm of surface mass per second through ablation. The melted material and metal, heated to over 1800 C, is being swept away from the meteoroid, carrying away the accumulating surface heat so efficiently that the interior remains cool."
That was from meteorlab.com. Look it up so that next time you won't be spreading incorrect information.
The seemingly displaced voices in their head. Seriously.
You've obviously never heard the term "proof of concept".
"The rioting didn't start on account of that, it started on account of two youths getting killed and the police blamed, and a government official making incendiary remarks."
I'd like to ask you a serious question.
Why is it that you're not laying blame with the people who actually caused the riots? The cops didn't do it, the two kids didn't do it. The cops didn't burn cars, the kids didn't attack anyone, and the official didn't do any of those things either.
The morons who started the fires, and fired the shots, and destroyed the buildings did it. The people who "started the riot" are the people who did those things, and as far as I can tell none of them are mentioned in your post.
Why aren't you holding accountable the people who are actually engaging in the behavior that is defined as a "riot"? Why do you give them a pass?
Yay! You managed to insult me several times, yet completely failed to explain this statement
"by definition if you are not free to do what you want, you are simply not free"
I gave you an example, which fit into your criteria, and instead of acting like an adult, you threw a fit. We all know why, because you can't refute me. You said it, now explain it.
"Look, stupid, when I talk about political freedom"
Great, but you didn't qualify it till I called you on it. You didn't say "political" freedom until it was obvious to you that you'd said something completely indefensible. You got caught overstating your position, and rather than own up, you attacked. You must be a Bush family member.
"Moron."
Well, at least you were man enough to sign your post.
Lastly, how do you think your dead mom would feel about you blindly attacking people you don't know because you're embarrassed about making a fool of yourself?
"Oh, and a last thing: you mix up african and north-african (arabic) culture. The vast majority of post-immigrants are from an arabic culture, and are not africans."
Ok, I have to ask, how can someone be from Africa, but not be African? Isn't that the only criteria to be African?
Other guy
"Part of the trouble in France is that the government is prohibited from keeping any race/ethnicity related statistics."
You
"Youch. I wasn't aware of that. It's chilling that a government would legally bind itself to stick its head in the sand."
You didn't know something. You ADMITTED not knowing it. You were ignorant.
"What's really chilling is that people will claim someone else is ignorant, without bothering to point out where they are incorrect or ignorant"
I wasn't making a "you are ignorant" comment, I was making a "what the hell were the idiot mods thinking" comment. Whether you think it's worth posting or not is your business, but I suspect your just being an ass because you thought I was insulting you.
"J00 R IGNORANT is not a comment even worth making"
I agree. And it's a good thing I didn't say that.
Now, a pointed question to you.
Why be a dick about it? You were ignorant, you got the facts, and I made a comment that was about THE MODS. Why did you rush to display your ability to be snide, and take things personally? Why can't you be civil, and take into account the possibility that you didn't have all the facts before trying so hard to say something snippy, but deniable? Because we both know that's what you did.
I mean, you've already demonstrated that you'll post without having all of the information, so why not try to avoid that instead of running headlong into it like you just did?
PS, be civil please.
"Did i in anyway try to excuse these events?"
Did I say you did?
Get a grip Mr. Over-Sensitive
"Sorry, but when was the last time 'the French' constantly 'trumpeted' the superiority of their social policies?"
You're kidding right? The correct question is "when was the last time the French didn't trumpet their supposedly superior social policies?"
Nice try at the troll though.
"we're questioning the validity of the law itself."
No we're not.
If there's anything the slashdot culture has drilled into me, it's that I need to keep my ignorant American ideas out of other country's politics.
So, no, I'm not questioning the laws of other countries anymore. I have simply been chided too many times for being a jingoist, racist, imperialist, war monger, and have now seen the error of my ways.
Far be it from me to try to foist my simplistic, puerile American opinions on the freedom loving French citizens.
"And the accent is not a matter of speaking a certain way."
No, in fact that is exactly what an accent is. More importantly, language schools teach accents too (yes they do, I've been to one that does) so this is an excuse, just like all the other so called "reasons" for shooting at firemen and lighting old ladies on fire (no, I didn't make that up, both of those things happened during these riots).
What was racial about those riots?
It's even more chilling that you got modded insightful when you're clearly ignorant about the situation.
PS mods ignorant can mean doesn't know, it doesn't have to be an insult.
"It's called "abandoning your post," much like the LAPD did in 1992 (with similar results). "Pandering" would have involved setting up a special, independent, immigrant-only police force to patrol these areas."
You really have no idea what's going on. It's obvious from the first mistake you made.
"It's called "abandoning your post,"
Completely wrong. The French police let these areas become no law zones long before these riots began.
"Pandering" would have involved setting up a special, independent, immigrant-only police force to patrol these areas."
What, you don't think "allowing them to break the law with impunity" is pandering?
Let's look it up, shall we?
Pandering- "To cater to the lower tastes and desires of others"
Hmm, so allowing them to break the law unchecked, it seems, WOULD BE THE EXACT DEFINITION of pandering.
"Is a parent that abandons their child said to be pandering to them?"
If they abandon them because the child want to shoplift, and the parent knows it is going to happen, and leaves them to avoid dealing with it, then YES.
If you plan to use comparisons, try to be more accurate.
"Roman Polanski was not convicted"
No, it was even worse than that, he admitted it. No conviciton was necessary, because he openly admitted what he'd done, then pleaded guilty.
"And since he's a French citizen, France will not extradite him to the USA (which I think is understandable - would the USA extradite a US citizen to France?)."
We would, and have. Just google it instead of engaging in (incorrect) speculation.
"Everyone deserves to be treated fairly, even an alleged child abuser (although whether a 13-year old can still be considered a "child" is unclear to me; teen abuser"
Ok, I get it now. You don't have a problem with 13, apparently.
If I were you, I'd stop putting myself next to admitted rapists and child molesters.
I haven't. To be honest, there's no reason to.
With the Freanch constantly trumpeting the superiority of their social policies, it's not necessary to rub their noses in it when those very same policies explode in their faces.
It is what's known as taking the high road.
Maybe they should crack down on the rioters first?
"And besides, I'm not sure about you, but if I heard that my government is shooting and killing people instead of - say - trying to incapacitate them and arrest them so they can receive a trial, then I'd be more than upset, too"
You left out that these people are burning cars and buildings, shooting at innocent bystanders and each other, and attacking anyone who tries to slow them down.
I'm not advocating one solution over another, but if you plan to discuss this, don't leave out what are by far the most important elements of the story.
Seriously, these idiots are attacking firemen. What could a fireman possibly do that anyone could be upset about? And you do realize, that you're advocating for these people. You're suggesting that they are somehow right to attack firemen.
How dare they try to save your life! How dare those dirty firemen save your home, your children, your family, and your little dog too!!!
Get some fucking perspective.
"Pointing out that Iraq didn't have WMD and banning Muslims from wearing headscarves in school qualifies as "pandering to Islamists" does it?"
How sad is it that you can't discuss France and Islam without feeling the need to blather on about Iraq and WMD's. Could we possibly try to stay on the subject, that is failed immigration and integration policies, and poor planning? Could we please not inject our own irrelevant drivel into the conversation?
The FACT is, French police allowed many of these areas to become "no law" zones.
I don't care what your political bent is, I don't care that you have a bug up your butt about Bush and the US, the only thing that matters is THEY ALLOWED THESE AREAS TO BECOME NO LAW ZONES.
If that's not pandering to them, then they need to change the definition of pandering.
"Not just him, but the whole administration... If terrorists truly are the enemy of the state, then this administration has committed treason, as defined in Article III, section 3 [cornell.edu] of the US constitution, Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."
I would be very careful how you choose to broaden that definition. It would be very easy to make the case that speaking out against the government is "giving them aid and comfort". Don't think it can't happen.
Please stop trying to twist the law to do something which is better done through informed debate and the ballot box (and please save your "voting doesn't work garbage, we've all heard it, we know what you're going to say, we don't agree, so save yourself the trouble). That's not what it's for.
"since by definition if you are not free to do what you want"
I would like to jam a steel-toed boot in your mom's cornhole.
What, I'm not free to do that? THEN I'M NOT FREE DAMMIT!!!
So, the question is, do you really believe what you said (in which case, I need your mom's number) or are you simply blowing smoke.
I beleive we all know the answer.
"A 22 year old with no significant resources can't afford to fight for a settlement."
This is most certainly NOT insightful, but in fact, a lie that has been accepted as fact. Just look at the moderation of the comment, and you'll realize how sheep-like some of the people are here.
Why do you think repeating the same "you'll get sued into bankruptcy" tripe makes it true?
EFF is one possibility. My university has FREE legal service to students, but you didn't know that did you? MANY law offices do their own pro bono work, and MANY companies would be willing to back someone just to have this trademark fight with MS.
All it takes is someone who hasn't accepted an inaccurate meme as fact. Since you do not fit the bill, someone more driven and imaginitive must do it.
If the best argument you can make is that it would cost too much (which is the best argument you made, and the only one) you need to ask yourself why you believe that, when I've demonstrated it to be false.