I just ran a quick compare between CL Toronto and Kijiji Toronto comparing the number of for-sale/wanted ads featuring the word "Nokia" (chosen on a whim to make the search more targeted) posted between Dec 6 and now.
CL: 205 posts. Kijiji: 212 posts.
From my personal experience, most items that I am searching for are advertised on both lists.
The FBI bait sites are awesome, because they don't care how downloaded the image, just that you made the request. So, people have found out what the bait images are, apparently, and like to "FBI Roll" people by either linking to them directly, or even better, putting them as a 1x1 image hidden somewhere on an innocuous page. That way you never even see it, but it's in your browser cache now, so when the FBI comes knocking after your download, it'll be there. Somebody needs to step this program up a notch, and start FBI rolling every major newscaster, reporter, media executive, and politician (big and small). Until that happens, nobody gives a shit.
Everybody complains but nobody wants to be that "somebody". So my guess is that will never happen on a large enough scale to get the attention of your overlords. In the case that isolated incidents do happen, the ruling class will either use the opportunity to prune its ranks and provide some scapegoats, or just sweep it under the rug (after all, laws *are* selectively enforced).
You can argue whether or not such intangibles as expressions and ideas should "naturally" be called property, but in the United States at least, copyright *is* a legal property right.
No, it is not. It grants certain exclusive rights but in now way it is equal to property.
The Constitution states "The Congress shall have Power . . . to promote the Progress of Science . . . , by securing for limited Times to Authors . . . the exclusive Right to their respective Writings . . .."
If I give you an exclusive right to use a parking space for 10 years, it does not magically become your property.
While I agree with the intent and wisdom in Jefferson's statements, an "exclusive Right" sounds like property to me.
Only because you are not a lawyer specializing in this sort of things.
Additionally, copying of another's idea does deprive them of things such as the opportunity to extract as much commercial value out of the idea as they might have otherwise.
So does competition or, for that matter, innovation. There is no inherent right "to extract as much commercial value out of an idea".
You might argue that the commercial value and incentives created by a system that creates a property right in ideas is outweighed by the benefits that would arise in a system of free idea exchange, but to say that it isn't property is wrong.
I say both. Unrestricted idea exchange is beneficial *and* ideas are not property.
He is not a troll and he is not missing the point. He voiced an unpopular opinion.
However, when push comes to shove, the overwhelming majority of the human population on this planet will do exactly what he suggested. If it was otherwise, this topic would not be newsworthy.
Let's try a poll. How many slashdotters can honestly claim to have done something similar (with citations to prove it)? How many of us stand for our rights when we know that there's a good chance we will be smacked down for it, hard?
The problem is that nobody likes a mirror shoved in front of their face, so we grandstand and call him a coward and moderate him down to make us feel better about ourselves.
I feel like a parrot because I post this so often:
If you live in the UK don't buy CFLs. Phone your energy supplier and ask them how you can save electric. [...] They have to do this. It is the law. A certain amount of profit has to be given away for energy saving measures. Everyone qualifies, not just new customers.
While Canada may be better than the UK in that respect, it is more paranoid than some other countries.
Before I emigrated to Canada, it seemed normal to me that children would play outside -- even after dark -- without adult supervision. I remember that when I was in elementary school, we would often go out to play in "unsafe" environments like woods (and sometimes genuinely unsafe ones like construction sites) without cell phones or anything more than a promise to be back by a certain hour.
A generation later and a continent away, I do not let my younger children go out unsupervised because I am scared -- not of child molesters but of various Children Aid Societies.
Anti-gambling advocates would claim that telling customers "you can win" is itself fraud.
Why? There are always winners and losers in such games. It is just that the house edge makes sure that, over time, the total sum of player wins is somewhat less that the total sum of player losses.
So it is a fact is that you _can_ win. Another fact, which is unfortunately rarely mentioned, is that if you are playing against the house, statistically you are more likely to lose.
I don't know about the brick & mortar establishments, but the online casinos usually publish the odds for the games that they offer. For example, the slots machine games for a certain company (that I would not name here) were programmed for a return rate of between 95% and 97.5% (depending on the game) and that was advertised on the site, not to mention audited by licensing agencies as well as statistically analyzed by independent "critics".
On the other hand, you have games like poker where skill plays a much bigger role than luck and the room just takes a small rake for providing the environment to play in. In that case, not only you _can_ win, some people do it consistently.
Yes. There is no accountability in either situation. No way to prove the fairness of online gambling and no way to track all the bookies accounts (who most likely is 1-overing everyone).
The solution for that is, as usual, legalize, regulate (and tax).
For now, I suggest you avoid the small fly-by-night outfits. The larger operators have a lot to lose to allegations of fraud so they are very diligent to not give any excuse, they are also under a lot more scrutiny (including statistical analysis) and some of them actively work with regulatory organizations to be licensed in their respective countries. For example, the largest online poker room, PokerStars, is licensed both by the Isle of Man Gambling Supervision Commission, and the Italian Amministrazione Autonoma dei Monopoli di Stato.
Making the immune system attack (only) the cancerous cells seems to be a popular research subject these days.
Another company called Immunovative is taking a slightly different approach which does not require an implant. They are currently running human clinical trials in Israel and California. More information here.
Disclaimer: A close friend of mine is participating in the clinical trial in Carlsbad.
That's what military tribunals are for. The idea of putting them in civilian courts is insanity. These are not criminals, they're enemy soldiers. Treat them as such.
But that would mean treating them according to the Geneva Convention, which the US administration finds inconvenient.
I respectfully disagree, it would have strengthened it. If the Liberals ran a goat in my riding, it would get elected. With an MMP system, people could give their vote to a party of their choice and another one to an individual. Decoupling is good.
Slashdot Mirror
Unofficial, unscientific, anecdotal stats coming up:
I just ran a quick compare between CL Toronto and Kijiji Toronto comparing the number of for-sale/wanted ads featuring the word "Nokia" (chosen on a whim to make the search more targeted) posted between Dec 6 and now.
CL: 205 posts.
Kijiji: 212 posts.
From my personal experience, most items that I am searching for are advertised on both lists.
Everybody complains but nobody wants to be that "somebody". So my guess is that will never happen on a large enough scale to get the attention of your overlords.
In the case that isolated incidents do happen, the ruling class will either use the opportunity to prune its ranks and provide some scapegoats, or just sweep it under the rug (after all, laws *are* selectively enforced).
The system works as intended.
No, it is not. It grants certain exclusive rights but in now way it is equal to property.
If I give you an exclusive right to use a parking space for 10 years, it does not magically become your property.
Only because you are not a lawyer specializing in this sort of things.
So does competition or, for that matter, innovation. There is no inherent right "to extract as much commercial value out of an idea".
I say both. Unrestricted idea exchange is beneficial *and* ideas are not property.
Non-authoritative and all that but still useful:
1. Radio waves are part of the electromagnetic spectrum with wavelengths longer than infrared light. That is over 300 micrometers.
2. Microwaves are electromagnetic waves with wavelengths ranging from as long as one meter to as short as one millimeter.
The parent article is definitely not a troll.
I despise moderators pursuing an agenda.
The parent article is not a troll.
I despise moderators pursuing an agenda.
The parent article is not a troll by any definition.
I despise moderators pursuing an agenda.
Actually, the doctrine of first sale ensures your right to resell the refrigerator.
Why would you want to prevent Carol from reselling a movie but not from reselling a refrigerator?
Yes, most people are very glad when $SOMEONE_ELSE is not so cowardly.
He is not a troll and he is not missing the point.
He voiced an unpopular opinion.
However, when push comes to shove, the overwhelming majority of the human population on this planet will do exactly what he suggested. If it was otherwise, this topic would not be newsworthy.
Let's try a poll. How many slashdotters can honestly claim to have done something similar (with citations to prove it)? How many of us stand for our rights when we know that there's a good chance we will be smacked down for it, hard?
The problem is that nobody likes a mirror shoved in front of their face, so we grandstand and call him a coward and moderate him down to make us feel better about ourselves.
How will it work for ?
I always suspected there was something this "wife" thing was good for.
Interesting. Anything similar in Ontario?
I guess you are not a parent.
It did not flip over so I'd say the stalk works.
While Canada may be better than the UK in that respect, it is more paranoid than some other countries.
Before I emigrated to Canada, it seemed normal to me that children would play outside -- even after dark -- without adult supervision. I remember that when I was in elementary school, we would often go out to play in "unsafe" environments like woods (and sometimes genuinely unsafe ones like construction sites) without cell phones or anything more than a promise to be back by a certain hour.
A generation later and a continent away, I do not let my younger children go out unsupervised because I am scared -- not of child molesters but of various Children Aid Societies.
Gaak! Sorry for the Digg link.
Here is the actual article.
Why?
There are always winners and losers in such games. It is just that the house edge makes sure that, over time, the total sum of player wins is somewhat less that the total sum of player losses.
So it is a fact is that you _can_ win. Another fact, which is unfortunately rarely mentioned, is that if you are playing against the house, statistically you are more likely to lose.
I don't know about the brick & mortar establishments, but the online casinos usually publish the odds for the games that they offer. For example, the slots machine games for a certain company (that I would not name here) were programmed for a return rate of between 95% and 97.5% (depending on the game) and that was advertised on the site, not to mention audited by licensing agencies as well as statistically analyzed by independent "critics".
On the other hand, you have games like poker where skill plays a much bigger role than luck and the room just takes a small rake for providing the environment to play in. In that case, not only you _can_ win, some people do it consistently.
The solution for that is, as usual, legalize, regulate (and tax).
For now, I suggest you avoid the small fly-by-night outfits. The larger operators have a lot to lose to allegations of fraud so they are very diligent to not give any excuse, they are also under a lot more scrutiny (including statistical analysis) and some of them actively work with regulatory organizations to be licensed in their respective countries.
For example, the largest online poker room, PokerStars, is licensed both by the Isle of Man Gambling Supervision Commission, and the Italian Amministrazione Autonoma dei Monopoli di Stato.
Making the immune system attack (only) the cancerous cells seems to be a popular research subject these days.
Another company called Immunovative is taking a slightly different approach which does not require an implant.
They are currently running human clinical trials in Israel and California. More information here.
Disclaimer: A close friend of mine is participating in the clinical trial in Carlsbad.
Probably never.
But that would mean treating them according to the Geneva Convention, which the US administration finds inconvenient.
You have a funny definition of nearly passing
I respectfully disagree, it would have strengthened it.
If the Liberals ran a goat in my riding, it would get elected. With an MMP system, people could give their vote to a party of their choice and another one to an individual. Decoupling is good.
When you go into the voting booth, do you mark a person's name or a party's?