Really, governments don't have policies aimed at starving their populations? There are literally dozens of examples, but how about you just try to counter one: good old friend of the leftists of the world, Josef Stalin. His FORCED and PLANNED famine in the Ukraine killed over 7 million people. Go to the Ukraine, talk to some of the old folks left there, and you'll find out the truth...
But no, it's a lot safer and a lot less challenging to your world view ("Conservatives are teh sux0r!") to sit behind your computer screen, posting as an Anonymous Asshat for the world to see. When your ignorance is fully displayed, after all, it won't PERSONALLY affect you.
So, put up or shut up. You going to say that Stalin really didn't mean to starve millions in the Ukraine? That no one would do that on purpose?
And I suppose you'll also say that Mugabe is really doing the best he can, forcing people to sell products at below cost "for the good of the nation"...
Interesting little factoid... If you look at the German Eastern front in WWII, and Poland and Russia, more troops rode on the back of a horse in WWII than rode in a vehicle!
It's still true... Please see my other post about everyone living in Texas alone, and being fed AND provided with water from just the US.
Starvation is NOT a resource issue - it is a purely political issue. And unless and until we're willing to solve that, throwing more resources into sh*tholes like Zimbabwe and Sudan is just flushing it down the the toilet.
Ask Mugabe how, in 15 short years, he can turn Zimbabwe from a massive exporter of food to the pit of dispair it has become. Ask the Sudanese rebels where the millions of pounds of food end up. Ask the Somali warlords how many bags of food actually got to the population - not their gangs - when we tried feeding that place.
The REAL solution is called nation building, but that's not acceptable to most on the political left. You want to feed Africa? A few well-placed bullets would solve 95% of the problem.
And yes, I put my money - and my life - where my mouth is. I've been to Kenya, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Burundi, Haiti, Cambodia, Bangladesh, and other places to work in humanitarian efforts. The biggest issues we faced? Trying to get aid and supplies to the people, without losing it all in bribes to the local thugs running the place...
The US - directly from its government and directly from private charities - sends tens of billions of dollars to Africa every year. Africa used to grow tons of food; Zimbabwe used to be the breadbasket of Africa, being a major exporter of food to the rest of Africa.
What happened? Dictators and murderers like Mugabe seized power. Farms were stolen from the farmers, and given to political cronies. Aid is taken from the masses and given to the elite.
The solution? Go in, kill the bastards, and rebuild the country. Of course, the US did that in Iraq and look at the grief received for doing so... And when we decide to do nothing - like in Sudan - we're condemned for sitting on the sidelines.
So you tell me - what should the EU or US do? What would YOUR solution be? Mine would be pretty radical for most around here, so what would your politically correct solution be, and how would it differ from the current situation other than in magnitude of aid sent and redirected to bastards who have destroyed Africa.
You do know that, if the US chose to - we could grow enough food to feed every single person on this earth. And provide them all with hundreds of gallons of fresh water every day. And not need a single extra acre of farmland.
Starvation in Africa is a political - not resource - problem. Starvation ANYWHERE is a political problem. Food is there, it can be grown, it could be delivered. But some tyrants prefer to starve their population...
If you moved every single person in the world to the land area within Texas, we'd have less population density than New York City (cites: NYC, land area of Texas, world population).
The water outflow of the Columbia River would provide each and every person with nearly 26 gallons of fresh water per day (cites: Columbia River).
We could feed all those people - about 500 square meters per person - with the existing farmland within the US (cites: vegan food estimates, farmland in the US).
Essentially, we could live mid-density, and feed and provide potable water for every single person on the face of the earth, and not require a single person living outside of Texas - no one on the other 6 continents, the oceans, or any other State. No one in Canada or Mexico.
We could feed everyone without a single acre converted from farmland - wouldn't need to touch a single acre of forest, nor city, nor ocean, nor park.
The earth can support a LOT of people; the problem is distribution of the resources. And that is a purely political issue. Concerns about too many people on earth are demonstrably false.
Sir, your calm demeanor and carefully set forth logic are a wonder to behold. Let's go through this one at a time, shall we?
We shall!
I understand the law as written as well. You are a simpleton because you do not ask the rather obvious questions "Why is the law written this way?" and "Is this law right and just?"
I see. So in this case you are agitating to break the law because you disagree with it. In this story, the government of Sweden is acting to uphold the law, and we were discussing the legal rights of copyright holders. The "morality" of the law is obviously open to interpretation as you'll find people on both sides of the issue. But the actual existence - and concrete language - of the law should not be in doubt.
You could simply have searched for the terms "RIAA price fixing" and you would have received numerous hits, but I guess you were too busy having your apoplectic fit.
See, if you actually could follow your OWN LINKS to their parents, and look up the original lawsuit you would find that the RIAA is not named as a defendant. It's not the RIAA. Your original statement is provably false. Maybe being able to read and follow the links Google provides would do better than just throwing three words into Google? Maybe you don't understand the legal system of the US, but if the RIAA was found guilty, then they had to be named. Not named, not guilty.
If you will actually bother to read what I wrote, I called you a shill or a troll because of the terminology you were using. You were talking about rights holders rather than artists. Also, the "others [who] think otherwise" are generally members of groups like the RIAA and others who stand to profit from eternal copyright.
Many artists are copyright holders. Many artists sell their copyrights for cash, to other companies who manage the copyrights. Others turn their copyrights over to the public domain. Talking of the copyright holder is the correct statement as it encompasses all these people - whoever holds the copyright has the legal right to pursue violations of the copyright. Artist, label, museum, collector.
Copyright is a fiction, albeit a useful one if done properly. The purpose of copyright is to give a person legal rights for a limited time in exchange for the product of their creativity becoming publicly available after the time has passed. Or, to put it another way, instead of having artistic and inventive works be kept secret, the government grants legal rights so as to foster the developments of the creative arts. Again, the reason I called you a simpleton is because, while you may understand the law as written, you do not seem to begin to grasp *why* the law is there in the first place.
Oh, I fully understand the law! I hold several registered copyrights trademarks, as well as patents. And I also understand that currently the government has decided that - in exchange for releasing your works to the public - you get the right to exclude others from copying it for a given duration. And that duration changes depending upon the status of the work, when it was first created/claimed/published, and/or the death of the original author. Apparently you do not like the duration; that's fine. But I guess you're OK with the fundamental principle of copyrights? If so, then you simply disagree on a fine point of duration, not the right.
Again, if you will actually bother to read what I wrote, I did not say that there is something inherently wrong with copyright itself. The problems are (at least with the RIAA and possibly will be with its Swedish counterpart) (1) how long should those rights last? and (2) how should one be allowed to prosecute infringers?
So your problem - as you believe - is that the term is too long, and that the copyright holder can legally sue you for violating th
I see. I am a simpleton. Because I understand the law AS WRITTEN, and believe that the owners of property should have the right to use, sell or license their property as they see fit?
When was the RIAA convicted of "price fixing"? I know that 5 labels were found guilty of colluding with three store chains to set a MAP, but that's not the RIAA.
You don't think copyright should be as long as it is; others think otherwise. In your oh-so-enlightened mind, that makes you God almighty correct and the rest of us simply simpletons who go along with the sheep. And if we don't agree with you we MUST be shills or trolls! Heaven forbid anyone disagree with such a towering intellect as yourself!
So, other than your PERSONAL feelings that copyright should be considerably shortened, what exactly is wrong with Sweden enforcing IP rights? What is wrong with the owners of the copyright enforcing their LEGAL rights?
The "cost" of distributing "n" copies of music is now almost ZERO. Why do you insist people still have to pay $15-$20 for a "CD" or $.99 for a "song"?
Because it's NOT YOUR SONG. Why do you get the right to decide what someone else should charge for their works? Do I get to decide how much you can charge for your labor?
Don't buy it if you don't like the price. But you have ZERO RIGHT to tell the owners of the copyright how much to charge for the use of the copyrighted work.
Well, why even wear clothes in space? Why not just go naked? I mean, it's not like the miniskirt-dresses that Yeoman Barrows or the barely-there outfit of Slave Drusilla wore really covered all that much to start with...
I use the Eleksen Bluetooth roll-up keyboard. Full sized, pretty easy to use (not as fast as a full keyboard, but I'm as fast on it as I am on a friend's EeePC), and connects to my Samsun i760 SmartPhone via bluetooth.
I think the Eee hits a pretty small niche - not quite laptop status (too limited to be a main computer), and a bit bigger than a SmartPhone (bigger screen, bigger keyboard). Kind of like an oversized PDA.
Personally, I prefer my i760 and Eleksen for quick checks (i760 browses nicely over broadband wireless, whipping out the keyboard for longer e-mails is simple, and the combination is VERY small and lasts for 6+ hours of browsing/e-mail on a single charge), and a decent laptop to serve as my main computer.
EeePCs and the like really are targeted at a small niche; folks expecting it to take over the low-cost end of the laptop market are missing the point of a laptop - it's a replacement for a full blown computer, and usually serves as a person's main computer. The EeePC comes up short in that regard.
I used to work at Sundstrand Data Control way back in the day (yes, dating myself). I can still remember repacking the foil recorders - nothing like a few thousand feet of razor-tape! But man was it reliable, and pretty much impervious to heat, cold, or vibration. Only penetration would affect it.
I'm reading this on my Samsung i760 Windows Mobile smart phone, reading it through the MiniOpera Java-based browser, and using Skype to talk to a friend in China.
Maybe Apple could learn a thing or two from Microsoft about how to make mobile communication devices with open software platforms?
Hey, when there's 6 orders of magnitude increase then we can talk... Right now, worrying about chemicals on the order of 1 part per trillion is, simply put, asinine.
Imagine hiking up into the woods, and coming across a pristine lake. The lake is 6 meters deep, and 170 meters in diameter. Into this lake you toss a single, 100 milligram aspirin tablet.
You have now polluted the lake with aspirin at 1 part per trillion.
This is fear-mongering at its finest. Why, we have DRUGS and COMPOUNDS and CHEMICALS in our water! We simply MUST pass MORE LAWS and INCREASE TAXES to purify your drinking water! You could be getting LETHAL DOSES of DRUGS if we don't do SOMETHING! And for those of you living on private property, well we HAVE TO CONTROL what you can do on your property EVEN BEYOND what's done now, because you could be polluting the aquifer by simply dropping a single aspirin tablet on to your lawn!
Never mind you'd have to drink a few million liters of water to even get 1 milligram of the drug...
Then you really should re-take your driver's test. The proper way to use a merge lane is to use the merge lane to reach the same speed as traffic, and use as much of the merge lane length to position and enter traffic. You are NOT supposed to cut in at the very first opportunity, nor force an opportunity at the beginning of the merge lane.
This pretty much the standard recommendation from DOTs and State Patrols across the US, and is also recommended in most overseas countries, too...
No, the issue is people waiting to actually prepare for departure until they are on the plane. Then they stand in the aisle, taking off their jackets and sweaters (which could have been done in the airport gate area), or putting away their cell phones into their carry on baggage (why didn't they do it when they started boarding?), or digging out their MP3 player and books that they want to read (rather than pulling them out in the board area).
The problem is people simply not thinking ahead, and rare fliers forgetting (or not caring?) that the center aisle is essentially a one-at-a-time space, and if you're in it, no one gets by you...
I fly at least once a week, often twice (last year I logged 86 flights). I fly first class - not because I pay for it, but because I am a member of several mileage plans, and get free upgrades 90% of the time.
My experience has been that rarely does first class hold things up; yes, we get seated first, but how often do you have someone in the aisle, taking off their jacket, their sweater, cell phone out to put in the jacket, put their bags above, dig out their laptop, then sit down?
When I have to fly what I actually paid for - coach - 90% of the delays are people not prepared. They stand in the aisle, digging through bags to get out MP3 players, or their laptop. They decide they want to take of their jacket once they're on the plane, rather than in the airport.
Too many who fly simply don't understand that it's a cooperative effort. Bag overhead, get in your seat, buckle up. Wait until you're up above 10,000 feet before you stand up to dig out your laptop or MP3 player (you can't run it until that point, anyway). Take your jacket off before you board the plane. If you have an aisle seat, wait until near the end of your section/group is called since you'll have to get up anyway to let the window seat in; if you're a window seat, queue up first in our group.
It's not surprising that first class usually contains heavy fliers, who understand these basic facts; it's usually the novice - or very infrequent - flier who is constantly being told to buckle up, put your bag under the seat in front of you or overhead (no you can't keep it on your lap), raise your seatback before we push back, no you cannot use the head as we're taxiing, turn off your cellphone NOW, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Posting about the use of horses against the Nazis brings out the grammar Nazis...:)
But no, it's a lot safer and a lot less challenging to your world view ("Conservatives are teh sux0r!") to sit behind your computer screen, posting as an Anonymous Asshat for the world to see. When your ignorance is fully displayed, after all, it won't PERSONALLY affect you.
So, put up or shut up. You going to say that Stalin really didn't mean to starve millions in the Ukraine? That no one would do that on purpose?
And I suppose you'll also say that Mugabe is really doing the best he can, forcing people to sell products at below cost "for the good of the nation"...
Interesting little factoid... If you look at the German Eastern front in WWII, and Poland and Russia, more troops rode on the back of a horse in WWII than rode in a vehicle!
Starvation is NOT a resource issue - it is a purely political issue. And unless and until we're willing to solve that, throwing more resources into sh*tholes like Zimbabwe and Sudan is just flushing it down the the toilet.
Ask Mugabe how, in 15 short years, he can turn Zimbabwe from a massive exporter of food to the pit of dispair it has become. Ask the Sudanese rebels where the millions of pounds of food end up. Ask the Somali warlords how many bags of food actually got to the population - not their gangs - when we tried feeding that place.
The REAL solution is called nation building, but that's not acceptable to most on the political left. You want to feed Africa? A few well-placed bullets would solve 95% of the problem.
And yes, I put my money - and my life - where my mouth is. I've been to Kenya, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Burundi, Haiti, Cambodia, Bangladesh, and other places to work in humanitarian efforts. The biggest issues we faced? Trying to get aid and supplies to the people, without losing it all in bribes to the local thugs running the place...
What happened? Dictators and murderers like Mugabe seized power. Farms were stolen from the farmers, and given to political cronies. Aid is taken from the masses and given to the elite.
The solution? Go in, kill the bastards, and rebuild the country. Of course, the US did that in Iraq and look at the grief received for doing so... And when we decide to do nothing - like in Sudan - we're condemned for sitting on the sidelines.
So you tell me - what should the EU or US do? What would YOUR solution be? Mine would be pretty radical for most around here, so what would your politically correct solution be, and how would it differ from the current situation other than in magnitude of aid sent and redirected to bastards who have destroyed Africa.
Starvation in Africa is a political - not resource - problem. Starvation ANYWHERE is a political problem. Food is there, it can be grown, it could be delivered. But some tyrants prefer to starve their population...
Note that NYC is over 25K/square mile. Shanghai, Tokyo, Hong Kong, London all push beyond that. You have to think UP - vertically...:)
The water outflow of the Columbia River would provide each and every person with nearly 26 gallons of fresh water per day (cites: Columbia River).
We could feed all those people - about 500 square meters per person - with the existing farmland within the US (cites: vegan food estimates, farmland in the US).
Essentially, we could live mid-density, and feed and provide potable water for every single person on the face of the earth, and not require a single person living outside of Texas - no one on the other 6 continents, the oceans, or any other State. No one in Canada or Mexico.
We could feed everyone without a single acre converted from farmland - wouldn't need to touch a single acre of forest, nor city, nor ocean, nor park.
The earth can support a LOT of people; the problem is distribution of the resources. And that is a purely political issue. Concerns about too many people on earth are demonstrably false.
We shall!
I understand the law as written as well. You are a simpleton because you do not ask the rather obvious questions "Why is the law written this way?" and "Is this law right and just?"
I see. So in this case you are agitating to break the law because you disagree with it. In this story, the government of Sweden is acting to uphold the law, and we were discussing the legal rights of copyright holders. The "morality" of the law is obviously open to interpretation as you'll find people on both sides of the issue. But the actual existence - and concrete language - of the law should not be in doubt.
You could simply have searched for the terms "RIAA price fixing" and you would have received numerous hits, but I guess you were too busy having your apoplectic fit.
See, if you actually could follow your OWN LINKS to their parents, and look up the original lawsuit you would find that the RIAA is not named as a defendant. It's not the RIAA. Your original statement is provably false. Maybe being able to read and follow the links Google provides would do better than just throwing three words into Google? Maybe you don't understand the legal system of the US, but if the RIAA was found guilty, then they had to be named. Not named, not guilty.
If you will actually bother to read what I wrote, I called you a shill or a troll because of the terminology you were using. You were talking about rights holders rather than artists. Also, the "others [who] think otherwise" are generally members of groups like the RIAA and others who stand to profit from eternal copyright.
Many artists are copyright holders. Many artists sell their copyrights for cash, to other companies who manage the copyrights. Others turn their copyrights over to the public domain. Talking of the copyright holder is the correct statement as it encompasses all these people - whoever holds the copyright has the legal right to pursue violations of the copyright. Artist, label, museum, collector.
Copyright is a fiction, albeit a useful one if done properly. The purpose of copyright is to give a person legal rights for a limited time in exchange for the product of their creativity becoming publicly available after the time has passed. Or, to put it another way, instead of having artistic and inventive works be kept secret, the government grants legal rights so as to foster the developments of the creative arts. Again, the reason I called you a simpleton is because, while you may understand the law as written, you do not seem to begin to grasp *why* the law is there in the first place.
Oh, I fully understand the law! I hold several registered copyrights trademarks, as well as patents. And I also understand that currently the government has decided that - in exchange for releasing your works to the public - you get the right to exclude others from copying it for a given duration. And that duration changes depending upon the status of the work, when it was first created/claimed/published, and/or the death of the original author. Apparently you do not like the duration; that's fine. But I guess you're OK with the fundamental principle of copyrights? If so, then you simply disagree on a fine point of duration, not the right.
Again, if you will actually bother to read what I wrote, I did not say that there is something inherently wrong with copyright itself. The problems are (at least with the RIAA and possibly will be with its Swedish counterpart) (1) how long should those rights last? and (2) how should one be allowed to prosecute infringers?
So your problem - as you believe - is that the term is too long, and that the copyright holder can legally sue you for violating th
When was the RIAA convicted of "price fixing"? I know that 5 labels were found guilty of colluding with three store chains to set a MAP, but that's not the RIAA.
You don't think copyright should be as long as it is; others think otherwise. In your oh-so-enlightened mind, that makes you God almighty correct and the rest of us simply simpletons who go along with the sheep. And if we don't agree with you we MUST be shills or trolls! Heaven forbid anyone disagree with such a towering intellect as yourself!
So, other than your PERSONAL feelings that copyright should be considerably shortened, what exactly is wrong with Sweden enforcing IP rights? What is wrong with the owners of the copyright enforcing their LEGAL rights?
Because it's NOT YOUR SONG. Why do you get the right to decide what someone else should charge for their works? Do I get to decide how much you can charge for your labor?
Don't buy it if you don't like the price. But you have ZERO RIGHT to tell the owners of the copyright how much to charge for the use of the copyrighted work.
Well, why even wear clothes in space? Why not just go naked? I mean, it's not like the miniskirt-dresses that Yeoman Barrows or the barely-there outfit of Slave Drusilla wore really covered all that much to start with...
Hello - EYECANDY! Dude, you are SO not a man...
I think the Eee hits a pretty small niche - not quite laptop status (too limited to be a main computer), and a bit bigger than a SmartPhone (bigger screen, bigger keyboard). Kind of like an oversized PDA.
Personally, I prefer my i760 and Eleksen for quick checks (i760 browses nicely over broadband wireless, whipping out the keyboard for longer e-mails is simple, and the combination is VERY small and lasts for 6+ hours of browsing/e-mail on a single charge), and a decent laptop to serve as my main computer.
EeePCs and the like really are targeted at a small niche; folks expecting it to take over the low-cost end of the laptop market are missing the point of a laptop - it's a replacement for a full blown computer, and usually serves as a person's main computer. The EeePC comes up short in that regard.
Forgive him - he's one of those Slashdot'ers who actually exercises, and won't get winded carrying a 6 pound laptop 30 feet...
I used to work at Sundstrand Data Control way back in the day (yes, dating myself). I can still remember repacking the foil recorders - nothing like a few thousand feet of razor-tape! But man was it reliable, and pretty much impervious to heat, cold, or vibration. Only penetration would affect it.
Maybe Apple could learn a thing or two from Microsoft about how to make mobile communication devices with open software platforms?
Hey, when there's 6 orders of magnitude increase then we can talk... Right now, worrying about chemicals on the order of 1 part per trillion is, simply put, asinine.
Imagine hiking up into the woods, and coming across a pristine lake. The lake is 6 meters deep, and 170 meters in diameter. Into this lake you toss a single, 100 milligram aspirin tablet.
You have now polluted the lake with aspirin at 1 part per trillion.
This is fear-mongering at its finest. Why, we have DRUGS and COMPOUNDS and CHEMICALS in our water! We simply MUST pass MORE LAWS and INCREASE TAXES to purify your drinking water! You could be getting LETHAL DOSES of DRUGS if we don't do SOMETHING! And for those of you living on private property, well we HAVE TO CONTROL what you can do on your property EVEN BEYOND what's done now, because you could be polluting the aquifer by simply dropping a single aspirin tablet on to your lawn!
Never mind you'd have to drink a few million liters of water to even get 1 milligram of the drug...
Wow, I didn't know that Pat Riley posts here!
I take it you're concerned about the wanton destruction you lay waste to bacteria, virii, and parasites on a per-second basis, too?
This pretty much the standard recommendation from DOTs and State Patrols across the US, and is also recommended in most overseas countries, too...
The problem is people simply not thinking ahead, and rare fliers forgetting (or not caring?) that the center aisle is essentially a one-at-a-time space, and if you're in it, no one gets by you...
My experience has been that rarely does first class hold things up; yes, we get seated first, but how often do you have someone in the aisle, taking off their jacket, their sweater, cell phone out to put in the jacket, put their bags above, dig out their laptop, then sit down?
When I have to fly what I actually paid for - coach - 90% of the delays are people not prepared. They stand in the aisle, digging through bags to get out MP3 players, or their laptop. They decide they want to take of their jacket once they're on the plane, rather than in the airport.
Too many who fly simply don't understand that it's a cooperative effort. Bag overhead, get in your seat, buckle up. Wait until you're up above 10,000 feet before you stand up to dig out your laptop or MP3 player (you can't run it until that point, anyway). Take your jacket off before you board the plane. If you have an aisle seat, wait until near the end of your section/group is called since you'll have to get up anyway to let the window seat in; if you're a window seat, queue up first in our group.
It's not surprising that first class usually contains heavy fliers, who understand these basic facts; it's usually the novice - or very infrequent - flier who is constantly being told to buckle up, put your bag under the seat in front of you or overhead (no you can't keep it on your lap), raise your seatback before we push back, no you cannot use the head as we're taxiing, turn off your cellphone NOW, etc.
Signed,
A "first class jerk"
Not me... I used white-out on my screen to blank out TFA!