Privacy Controls: - Turn on/off your activity broadcasts - Select who can see your activity feed - Select what others see when you've viewed their profile - Select who can see your connections - Change your profile photo & visibility - Show/hide "Viewers of this profile also viewed" box
In particular:
Select what others see when you've viewed their profile: [ ] Your name and headline (Recommended) [ ] Anonymous profile characteristics such as industry and title
Note: Selecting this option will disable Profile Stats. Whenever you switch to anonymous, your viewer history gets erased. [*] You will be totally anonymous.
Note: Selecting this option will disable Profile Stats. Whenever you switch to anonymous, your viewer history gets erased.
In terms of corporations investing millions of dollars to fund a project it's a little harder to recoup those costs. A low budget film these days costs over a million, sub-million dollar movies are now considered "micro" budgets. There needs to be a way to serve both interests without making the consumer a target for litigation/jail/internet cutoff.
No, there isn't. A corporation does not have an inherent right to make a profit.
That said, the experience of watching a movie on a big theater screen is not easily duplicated at home.
I believe people should be able to recoup their invested time/money and some form of copy protection is needed for that but the current laws are doing it to the detriment of society.
And I believe that the idea of copyright itself is a detriment to society. A doctor, an electrician, a plumber, a firefighter -- neither of them holds any kind of monopoly over their work. If content creator cannot secure compensation for his efforts then he should look for a different kind of work. And before you say that no new content will be created without monopolistic protection, I submit that quite a lot of it was in fact created before the advent of copyright.
Why is this argument any more or less valid when speaking about a physical object rather than a virtual one?
Because physical objects cannot normally be owned/used simultaneously by several people. If I take your physical object, I deprive you of it. If I copy your object (physical or virtual), you still got the original. Is the difference that hard to grasp?
Its distracted driving in any case. I for one don't want my life in the hands of random poor multi-taskers. In case you've missed out on countless tragic stories, check out http://focusdriven.org/
Then I suggest you start campaigning for banning radios, conversations and small children in cars.
we can't masturbate with just our hands remotely as easily as a guy
Erm. You're doing it wrong.
I'd offer to demonstrate, but I'm posting anonymously because frankly I can do without the hatemail.
There is no "right" or "wrong" here. Since most of it is in the mind, it shouldn't be surprising that different people have different turn-ons and react differently to different kinds of stimulation.
No, it doesn't. "Begging the question" is a fallacy in which a proposition that requires proof is assumed tobe true without any proof. It is a form of circular reasoning. You meant to say "raises the question".
We believe that the [...] government should have broad authorities to investigate terrorism and espionage, and that it is possible to aggressively pursue terrorists
I am in agreement with that statement, as long as the government never gets do define the meaning of "terrorism", "espionage" and "terrorists".
Those of you who experienced the Red Scare will understand my sentiment.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't let you block people, and it lets people know when you've visited their profile.
Not quite. The privacy/security settings are quite comprehensive:
Privacy Controls:
- Turn on/off your activity broadcasts
- Select who can see your activity feed
- Select what others see when you've viewed their profile
- Select who can see your connections
- Change your profile photo & visibility
- Show/hide "Viewers of this profile also viewed" box
In particular:
Select what others see when you've viewed their profile:
[ ] Your name and headline (Recommended)
[ ] Anonymous profile characteristics such as industry and title
Note: Selecting this option will disable Profile Stats. Whenever you switch to anonymous, your viewer history gets erased.
[*] You will be totally anonymous.
Note: Selecting this option will disable Profile Stats. Whenever you switch to anonymous, your viewer history gets erased.
You were saying?
What prevents an opposition party from promising to revoke that law if they win the elections?
In terms of corporations investing millions of dollars to fund a project it's a little harder to recoup those costs. A low budget film these days costs over a million, sub-million dollar movies are now considered "micro" budgets. There needs to be a way to serve both interests without making the consumer a target for litigation/jail/internet cutoff.
No, there isn't. A corporation does not have an inherent right to make a profit.
That said, the experience of watching a movie on a big theater screen is not easily duplicated at home.
I believe people should be able to recoup their invested time/money and some form of copy protection is needed for that but the current laws are doing it to the detriment of society.
And I believe that the idea of copyright itself is a detriment to society.
A doctor, an electrician, a plumber, a firefighter -- neither of them holds any kind of monopoly over their work.
If content creator cannot secure compensation for his efforts then he should look for a different kind of work.
And before you say that no new content will be created without monopolistic protection, I submit that quite a lot of it was in fact created before the advent of copyright.
Why is this argument any more or less valid when speaking about a physical object rather than a virtual one?
Because physical objects cannot normally be owned/used simultaneously by several people.
If I take your physical object, I deprive you of it. If I copy your object (physical or virtual), you still got the original. Is the difference that hard to grasp?
It's not as though someone suffering from diarrhea could use internet access to gain knowledge about the causes and treatments for diarrhea.
How do you use the Internet without electricity?
It's not like they could even use the internet to locate a hospital or aid station that could help them in anyway.
How do you contact a hospital when there aren't any in your area?
Context is everything.
What you consider to be "home remedies" may not be available in 3rd world homes.
MSFT donates, on average $1 million worth of software to non profits every day.
Not a MSFT haterm but a couple of things need to be pointed out:
1) Once the software is written, the cost of additional copies is asymptotically zero. "$X worth of software" is nonsensical.
2) Donating your own software is akin to creating a captive market.
MSFT offers training programs and career opportunities in economically disadvantaged countries.
See point #2 above.
I don't know if it is better, but one fundamantal thing I don't like about the current US democracy is it is basically a 2 party system.
That is a common misconception.
It is actually a one party system.
Its distracted driving in any case. I for one don't want my life in the hands of random poor multi-taskers. In case you've missed out on countless tragic stories, check out http://focusdriven.org/
Then I suggest you start campaigning for banning radios, conversations and small children in cars.
we can't masturbate with just our hands remotely as easily as a guy
Erm. You're doing it wrong.
I'd offer to demonstrate, but I'm posting anonymously because frankly I can do without the hatemail.
There is no "right" or "wrong" here.
Since most of it is in the mind, it shouldn't be surprising that different people have different turn-ons and react differently to different kinds of stimulation.
Which begs the question
No, it doesn't. "Begging the question" is a fallacy in which a proposition that requires proof is assumed tobe true without any proof. It is a form of circular reasoning. You meant to say "raises the question".
I think he could care less.
Apparently a simple change
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=854467
You start your own business.
Ah, such an easy answer!
And there isn't one now.
We believe that the [...] government should have broad authorities to investigate terrorism and espionage, and that it is possible to aggressively pursue terrorists
I am in agreement with that statement, as long as the government never gets do define the meaning of "terrorism", "espionage" and "terrorists".
Those of you who experienced the Red Scare will understand my sentiment.
Achieving this goal depends not just on secret courts and secret congressional hearings
What's the goal -- having a police state? There NO place for secret courts and secret Congressional hearings in a free society.
Since there is no "free society", the question becomes academic.
This government official needs to be brought up on charges of making verbal threats and abuse of power.
Since when where's personal accountability for government officials?
Have I missed the memo?
How can we improve our government so that it genuinely works for the interests of its own people, rather than for the elite few?
Nuke it from orbit and hope that the next species to evolve intelligence will do a better job.
No such thing "freedom from" is just a weaselly of saying "prevention of"
Freedom from persecution?
That's like saying Hitler won the fucking nobel peace prize.
Hitler didn't, but Arafat did.
Gott mit uns.
One can be pro-Israel without being Jewish.
Also, one can also be Jewish and anti-Israel. Things can be complicated.
people also have a right to protect their content, period.
The content is not "theirs", period.
While you may not like copyright, its a law, and breaking the law is breaking the law.
Tell that to this bunch of criminals.
Also, Sophocles would like to have a word with you.
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." -- Cardinal Richilieu
Why do I get the feeling that nowadays said hanging applies only to "the most honest of men", while the crooked go scott free?