Well... it was paypal. I'm pretty sure they just do deposits at this point. I'd say that the majority of people that have used paypal have gotten robbed by them at some time. We really need an alternative:/
Nope. DVD encryption key was the first online battle. That shit was embedded in song, flags and pictures across the net. It was available on MILLIONS of sites within days.
1) This could be done MUCH cheaper. Have cars beep when backing up just like trucks. Problem solved instantly for 1/1000th the price. If you want to be more technical use ladar to judge distance and beep if you are going to bump something. Cheaper still and slightly less annoying.
2) Saving lives could be done for a very very very small fraction of the cost if that is the goal. Think of almost anything that you think could save a life. And apply it everywhere. This costs somewhere between.5 and 10 million per life saved. If you can't think of a cheaper way to save lives, you are retarded.
8million cars are sold per year. Wiring + screen + camera = 100$? (assuming a screen is already in most cars.... Soooo 800,000,000/year to lessen the chance of 300 deaths. If it saves 50% of people the total is~ 5.3million/person...
I'd like them to focus on less obvious deaths. I bet you could spend a couple hundred grand in factories and save hundreds of lives (or 1000s of additional healthy years).
There are cheaper ways to save lives. $20 * 8,000,000(cars sold per year) to save 300 * 50%? lives isn't exactly the best we can do. It puts the value of a saved human life at 1 million USD. Guarantee it can be done more cheaply. If saving lives were honestly the only factor then they'd have done a study on 'how to save lives cheaply' rather than one about cars. I bet subsidizing condoms would save more lives. I bet there are a million things that could be done for 1/1000th the cost.
Finland? It is rated as one of the top countries in dozens of metrics and is one of the most socialist countries on the planet. Really ask yourself would living in Finland be so horrible?
My point was that in some parts of the states, fire departments are NOT a government service. I'm personally practically socialist so you're preaching to the choir on this point.
I was just correcting your point saying that "government provides services that aren't a right such as fire control" when they don't necessarily do so. You were disproving the idea that government is not always wrong by using fire fighting as an example. It wasn't clear whether you were aware that there are whole districts out there who would privatize the fire dept.
That isn't true! Sarah Palin is more guilty than most!
COURIC: And when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this — to stay informed and to understand the world?
PALIN: I’ve read most of them again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media —
COURIC: But what ones specifically? I’m curious.
PALIN: Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me over all these years.
COURIC: Can you name any of them?
PALIN: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news.
It isn't a right in the states. At least not all of them. Fire departments are controlled at a municipal level. And in many places fire fighters are pay to use. If you don't subscribe to the fire fighting service and you house catches fire they let it burn down.
It's no wonder our perception of human beauty is now diamonds, but does it blend? Have it your way. Just wondering, do you know where the hell matt is?
#3. We are giving authors the right to own this IP. Why shouldn't we talk about changing the conditions on the IP we the people are giving them? IP is not a natural right.
I agree. No copyright would be unfair. Life + 100 years is unfair. I would peg it at something like 3-5 years for music, 5-15 for books, 5 for software. Which may be lower than what you might think or higher. There is however some middle ground to be found between the two extremes.
And do you think if you told them that someone (likely not their children... more likely their publisher's children) would be profiting 100years after their books were published... would that increase their likeliness to write books? Even a little bit?
I think you've run into the flawed thinking process where you assume it is the right way because that is how it has always been. It is called the naturalistic fallacy.
In response to #2 you suggest that it isn't up to us to decide what to do with THEIR money. This isn't so. Naturally anyone would be able to freely copy their works. Even print and sell copies they made. We the people came together and decided that this was unfair. We all like creative works and thought we should have a system to encourage their further creation. So we set up patent rules. I'm simply arguing that we have gone to far and overcompensated.
The goal is to protect artists to the degree which produces the most amount of art for our consumption. If we lower copyright to LIFE we might lose.5% of works from artists who would no longer pursue their craft. However it would free up millions of works that would now be out of copyright free to enjoy. If we removed copyright entirely then a large number of works would never be made, this would be offset by the millions of works that would be freely available but it would likely not be worth the loss. So, the optimal level of copyright lies between those two laws. We are just arguing about where to set it.
As for #3. Artists could simply invest the money they made from the work in the market like everyone else. Writing a book is high risk and giving the top few writers, those who have likely already made it as a writer some more money is not a very well designed incentive package. If you wanted to incentivize writing you'd make money and grants available to new writers. Not a promise that your grand-children will make money well after your death if you happen to be very successful.
That would be rape if it were the case. He maintained friendly relations with the two women until weeks later they each learned that he was sleeping with the other women. At which point they decided it was rape.
Also, their story has changed several times from their initial story. He had no condom and it was consensual. Case dropped. Case restarted. Now he had a condom it broke and it wasn't consensual.
Slashdot Mirror
Well... it was paypal. I'm pretty sure they just do deposits at this point. I'd say that the majority of people that have used paypal have gotten robbed by them at some time. We really need an alternative :/
Nope. DVD encryption key was the first online battle. That shit was embedded in song, flags and pictures across the net. It was available on MILLIONS of sites within days.
1) This could be done MUCH cheaper. Have cars beep when backing up just like trucks. Problem solved instantly for 1/1000th the price. If you want to be more technical use ladar to judge distance and beep if you are going to bump something. Cheaper still and slightly less annoying.
.5 and 10 million per life saved. If you can't think of a cheaper way to save lives, you are retarded.
2) Saving lives could be done for a very very very small fraction of the cost if that is the goal. Think of almost anything that you think could save a life. And apply it everywhere. This costs somewhere between
8million cars are sold per year. Wiring + screen + camera = 100$? (assuming a screen is already in most cars.... Soooo 800,000,000/year to lessen the chance of 300 deaths. If it saves 50% of people the total is~ 5.3million/person...
I'd like them to focus on less obvious deaths. I bet you could spend a couple hundred grand in factories and save hundreds of lives (or 1000s of additional healthy years).
There are cheaper ways to save lives. $20 * 8,000,000(cars sold per year) to save 300 * 50%? lives isn't exactly the best we can do. It puts the value of a saved human life at 1 million USD. Guarantee it can be done more cheaply. If saving lives were honestly the only factor then they'd have done a study on 'how to save lives cheaply' rather than one about cars. I bet subsidizing condoms would save more lives. I bet there are a million things that could be done for 1/1000th the cost.
Finland? It is rated as one of the top countries in dozens of metrics and is one of the most socialist countries on the planet. Really ask yourself would living in Finland be so horrible?
My point was that in some parts of the states, fire departments are NOT a government service. I'm personally practically socialist so you're preaching to the choir on this point.
I was just correcting your point saying that "government provides services that aren't a right such as fire control" when they don't necessarily do so. You were disproving the idea that government is not always wrong by using fire fighting as an example. It wasn't clear whether you were aware that there are whole districts out there who would privatize the fire dept.
That isn't true! Sarah Palin is more guilty than most!
COURIC: And when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this — to stay informed and to understand the world?
PALIN: I’ve read most of them again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media —
COURIC: But what ones specifically? I’m curious.
PALIN: Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me over all these years.
COURIC: Can you name any of them?
PALIN: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news.
It isn't a right in the states. At least not all of them. Fire departments are controlled at a municipal level. And in many places fire fighters are pay to use. If you don't subscribe to the fire fighting service and you house catches fire they let it burn down.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Mises-Economics-Blog/2010/1017/Home-uninsured.-Firemen-let-it-burn.-Crazy-capitalism
The US gov doesn't need you to connect to their wifi for that... just fyi.
100million yen is 1 million dollars...That really isn't much money.
That said, the project is incredibly unrealistic, or at least the stated goal is.
Well said.
Advertising needs to become more interesting.
It's no wonder our perception of human beauty is now diamonds, but does it blend? Have it your way. Just wondering, do you know where the hell matt is?
#3. We are giving authors the right to own this IP. Why shouldn't we talk about changing the conditions on the IP we the people are giving them? IP is not a natural right.
"They completely ignore the fact that the public was part of the agreement too. "
Interesting take. But it was the people that handed over their rights. Even if it was wrong, taking it back now would be in quite poor taste.
I agree. No copyright would be unfair. Life + 100 years is unfair. I would peg it at something like 3-5 years for music, 5-15 for books, 5 for software. Which may be lower than what you might think or higher. There is however some middle ground to be found between the two extremes.
And do you think if you told them that someone (likely not their children... more likely their publisher's children) would be profiting 100years after their books were published... would that increase their likeliness to write books? Even a little bit?
I think you've run into the flawed thinking process where you assume it is the right way because that is how it has always been. It is called the naturalistic fallacy.
.5% of works from artists who would no longer pursue their craft. However it would free up millions of works that would now be out of copyright free to enjoy. If we removed copyright entirely then a large number of works would never be made, this would be offset by the millions of works that would be freely available but it would likely not be worth the loss. So, the optimal level of copyright lies between those two laws. We are just arguing about where to set it.
In response to #2 you suggest that it isn't up to us to decide what to do with THEIR money. This isn't so. Naturally anyone would be able to freely copy their works. Even print and sell copies they made. We the people came together and decided that this was unfair. We all like creative works and thought we should have a system to encourage their further creation. So we set up patent rules. I'm simply arguing that we have gone to far and overcompensated.
The goal is to protect artists to the degree which produces the most amount of art for our consumption. If we lower copyright to LIFE we might lose
As for #3. Artists could simply invest the money they made from the work in the market like everyone else. Writing a book is high risk and giving the top few writers, those who have likely already made it as a writer some more money is not a very well designed incentive package. If you wanted to incentivize writing you'd make money and grants available to new writers. Not a promise that your grand-children will make money well after your death if you happen to be very successful.
Probably he needs to have sex more often like most /.ers. Condoms do have an expiration date.
"imagine what John Stewart could do with 4 years of Palin? "
Suicide?
http://www.interpol.int/public/data/wanted/notices/data/2010/86/2010_52486.asp
Doesn't seem so.
Joking right?
Completely offtopic: I bet you could sell that account for a few hundred bucks.
Really? You guys are as brainwashed as the Chinese or North Koreans. I bet they are pissed someone is offending their masters.
That would be rape if it were the case. He maintained friendly relations with the two women until weeks later they each learned that he was sleeping with the other women. At which point they decided it was rape.
Also, their story has changed several times from their initial story. He had no condom and it was consensual. Case dropped. Case restarted. Now he had a condom it broke and it wasn't consensual.