No, it hasn't. It's had a referendum on leaving the EU, but there are still some legislative steps that would have to be taken. First, Parliament would have to vote on it, and like in the US, they're a lot of people with varying interests, some of them monetary. They could say, "Let's have another referendum, because the people voted wrong" or they could say, "No you stupid people, we're not going to do what you want".
This is the UK. They have a long history of ignoring what people want. Throw the cosmopolitan financial interests of the elite into the mix, and there's going to be a lot of pressure to ignore this vote. If they try to do that, though, it's going to get very ugly. Even uglier than it already has.
The bloodbath in the UK is not over, by a long shot.
But at least one Scottish lady has a clear head about things:
Real communication is about getting past talking points and ad hominem attacks, of course. About questioning our own beliefs and those of our fellow human beings, and building compromises that drive society forward. About questioning our own biases and being able to work with those whose biases are different.
Maybe you took a wrong turn on your way to utopianfantasy.com, but this is Slashdot. We don't question our bias in these parts, and we damn sure don't build compromise. What, are you some kinda liberal fruit?
I'd like to see how much the senators on this committee received in donations from Comcast and AT&T. And not just to their own campaigns, but to super pacs too.
That's only because he doesn't show any fiscal responsibility. He's always giving his money away to the poor and lepers, getting in trouble with the law, etc.
When I'm president, we'll have smart messiahs, not stupid, loser messiahs. Tremendous, tremendous messiahs, on the classiest crosses.
Why in tech must we call everything old "legacy" and then assume it should go away?
We shouldn't.
This article is just Apple's PR machine gearing up to fight the righteous anger of people who would like to be able to make their own choices. I imagine we're going to hear a lot more about how "You're stupid for wanting to use those earbuds that you love on iPhones. You don't like progress and are not doing technology right if you don't replace your excellent $15 earbuds with some $200 fancy shit that you buy at the Apple store. If you don't want a thinner iPhone, than fuck you, go back to your Razr flip phone, luddite."
This article stinks of Apple marketing. It shows they're starting to get a little desperate.
You can always remove/disable the device driver. More fun would be to create a virtual ALSA input that synthesizes random noises or just speaks out random numbers.
Or transmits continuous death metal. I'm thinking maybe the "None So Vile" album by Cryptopsy.
Skype for Business is very commonly used, and it can be too easy to mash the wrong button, and wind up with people finding out that I drink ice tea instead of coffee.
I see. Kind of a thought experiment. Wouldn't it be interesting if in Intellectual Property the rights of the consumer were given the same weight as the rights of the producer? Especially since the consumers are the ones actually paying for everything.
It reminds me a little bit of the writings on economics by the French mutualist philosopher Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who posited that profits are really just a tax on productivity. It flies in the face of our trickle-down, supply side oligarchy, but it created new insight into the transactions that make up society. That the social contract goes two ways and it's always worth viewing such things from both perspectives and maybe the perspective of the people at the bottom of the pyramid might actually be even worth more? We're conditioned to see everything through the viewpoint of ownership, wealth and power, because it's ownership, wealth and power that control the narrative.
How about we just make it so that if a copyrighted work already existed when you were born, you have free license to use it and immunity to prosecution for doing so?
I don't get it. If I was born the week after the Beatles recorded the White Album then I should not be bound to respect the copyright?
Why not just let copyright die after 25 years, or even 40 years, so the artist can make some dough? The notion that copyright should exist until the last grandchild dies does not conform to the reason copyright was created in the first place. IP is not really property, it's a cultural subsidy.
The rationale behind the present "life of grandchildren" copyright term [pineight.com] is that those descendants who knew the composer personally would be in the best position to carry out the composer's will in commercially exploiting them.
Well, isn't that a bunch of happy horseshit. The assumptions in that rationale are amazing. First, who's to say that a work that old should be exploited commercially at all?
Intellectual property isn't really property. It's a fiction created to encourage creativity and the public good. Having grandchildren live off the creativity of such distant ancestors does neither.
I agree. People buying non-voting shares and are suddenly unhappy about how Zuck runs the company are suckers.
Well, see, here's what happened in the case of Facebook. People bought voting shares. The board votes to create bunch of new shares that have greater voting power and gift those shares to themselves and Zuckerberg, thus diluting the voting rights of the original shareholders. So, it's not just the non-voting shareholders who get screwed.
I'm happy with artists/publishers being in total control over new songs, just as long as they also agree to laws that make the music revert to public domain after a reasonable time, say 10 years
This. I'm thinking more along the lines of 25 years, for the musicians and composers out on the "long tail" so they can make a few bucks too.
But there is absolutely no reason why the Frank Sinatra/Tommy Dorsey records that were recorded in the 1940s, and were written even earlier than that should not be in the Public Domain. That's how crazy it's gotten. There are IP protections for artistic works where everyone involved in their creation are long dead. Now how does that help culture?
Slashdot Mirror
No, it hasn't. It's had a referendum on leaving the EU, but there are still some legislative steps that would have to be taken. First, Parliament would have to vote on it, and like in the US, they're a lot of people with varying interests, some of them monetary. They could say, "Let's have another referendum, because the people voted wrong" or they could say, "No you stupid people, we're not going to do what you want".
This is the UK. They have a long history of ignoring what people want. Throw the cosmopolitan financial interests of the elite into the mix, and there's going to be a lot of pressure to ignore this vote. If they try to do that, though, it's going to get very ugly. Even uglier than it already has.
The bloodbath in the UK is not over, by a long shot.
But at least one Scottish lady has a clear head about things:
https://i.redditmedia.com/7rCc...
We're all in deep shit unless we get right with God.
https://youtu.be/i_9aTfGgF0c
My guess is that you're not an Apple user, since you enjoyed oral sex from a girl.
How do you prove damage to public relations and reputation just because Facebook didn't put you on its front page?
Good luck with that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There's already a conservative social network. It's called stormfront.org.
Maybe you took a wrong turn on your way to utopianfantasy.com, but this is Slashdot. We don't question our bias in these parts, and we damn sure don't build compromise. What, are you some kinda liberal fruit?
What damage would those be, you stupid fuck?
I'd like to see how much the senators on this committee received in donations from Comcast and AT&T. And not just to their own campaigns, but to super pacs too.
When I'm president, we'll have smart messiahs, not stupid, loser messiahs. Tremendous, tremendous messiahs, on the classiest crosses.
#CrookedJesus.
Maybe Canada has fewer goofballs with drones who think their hobby takes precedence over people's lives and property.
http://www.deseretnews.com/art...
We shouldn't.
This article is just Apple's PR machine gearing up to fight the righteous anger of people who would like to be able to make their own choices. I imagine we're going to hear a lot more about how "You're stupid for wanting to use those earbuds that you love on iPhones. You don't like progress and are not doing technology right if you don't replace your excellent $15 earbuds with some $200 fancy shit that you buy at the Apple store. If you don't want a thinner iPhone, than fuck you, go back to your Razr flip phone, luddite."
This article stinks of Apple marketing. It shows they're starting to get a little desperate.
Or transmits continuous death metal. I'm thinking maybe the "None So Vile" album by Cryptopsy.
Or in my case, Maker's Mark at 10:30am.
I skip the middleman and just put tape over my mouth and nipples.
Hey, I knew someone who had an 80's Toyota Dolphin. I could see him falling for a scam.
Donald Trump is the political equivalent of a Craigslist scammer.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
I see. Kind of a thought experiment. Wouldn't it be interesting if in Intellectual Property the rights of the consumer were given the same weight as the rights of the producer? Especially since the consumers are the ones actually paying for everything.
It reminds me a little bit of the writings on economics by the French mutualist philosopher Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who posited that profits are really just a tax on productivity. It flies in the face of our trickle-down, supply side oligarchy, but it created new insight into the transactions that make up society. That the social contract goes two ways and it's always worth viewing such things from both perspectives and maybe the perspective of the people at the bottom of the pyramid might actually be even worth more? We're conditioned to see everything through the viewpoint of ownership, wealth and power, because it's ownership, wealth and power that control the narrative.
Thanks for giving me something to think about.
I don't get it. If I was born the week after the Beatles recorded the White Album then I should not be bound to respect the copyright?
Why not just let copyright die after 25 years, or even 40 years, so the artist can make some dough? The notion that copyright should exist until the last grandchild dies does not conform to the reason copyright was created in the first place. IP is not really property, it's a cultural subsidy.
Well, isn't that a bunch of happy horseshit. The assumptions in that rationale are amazing. First, who's to say that a work that old should be exploited commercially at all?
Intellectual property isn't really property. It's a fiction created to encourage creativity and the public good. Having grandchildren live off the creativity of such distant ancestors does neither.
Well, see, here's what happened in the case of Facebook. People bought voting shares. The board votes to create bunch of new shares that have greater voting power and gift those shares to themselves and Zuckerberg, thus diluting the voting rights of the original shareholders. So, it's not just the non-voting shareholders who get screwed.
I'm just going to leave this here:
https://broadly.vice.com/en_us...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/0...
This. I'm thinking more along the lines of 25 years, for the musicians and composers out on the "long tail" so they can make a few bucks too.
But there is absolutely no reason why the Frank Sinatra/Tommy Dorsey records that were recorded in the 1940s, and were written even earlier than that should not be in the Public Domain. That's how crazy it's gotten. There are IP protections for artistic works where everyone involved in their creation are long dead. Now how does that help culture?
Trump 2016
You just explained why it's bad that these billionaire CEOs all sit on each others' boards of directors.
http://www.investopedia.com/ar...