Or we could just stop shilling for the copyright industry entirely, get rid of copyright, and go back to actually selling physical objects and considering information free. Worked for, what, ten thousand years? Funny that most of the truly famous music, literature, and art was created before copyright was even a thought.
Wow, so much misinformation on slashdot on this topic it is staggering. Chemistry education must really be slacking.
ANY water that is drinkable is essentially distilled. The difference between distilled and purified (and even tap, assuming not too much chlorine) is miniscule and is really only a concern in specialized situations. The problem of water intoxication only applies if you drink too much water (as in, far more than you naturally would imagine), or only drink water (which becomes more of an issue of starvation). Distilled water is not dangerous at all. You will not have "electrolyte depletion" from drinking it. If you think so, please do the world a favor and read a biology and/or chemistry textbook before spreading misinformation.
Data use keeps growing, though. Today's "high data users" are tomorrow's normal users. You can't survive without infrastructure. Too bad we have too many libertard types to actually properly regulate these businesses and require them to put some of their profits back in.
So, because I see problems in the US, I am in the same boat as "people here who'd like to see the whole thing burn down"? There couldn't possibly be a reasonable position which involves considering the US is less free than X other country other than an attempt at treason? I can see why you'd be perfectly fine with the censorship the US does.
Considering I live in the US, I think claiming i have "an axe to grind" is a little disingenuous. If I do, it is for good reason.
The freedom of the press in the US primarily applies to mass media. Over the last decade, free speech has been cut away for everyone else. Try video taping a public official or locating something embarrassing to the government/big business. At best you will have your camera/computer stolen, at worst you will end up in jail. Of course, the fact mass media still has freedom is meaningless, since they are owned by the same people who own the government. If you believe the US is freer than Europe, it is probably because you have listened to the official line, and not actually gone and figured out why the US might actually be ranked lower.
That's fine and good, until you have environmental regulations expiring in a divided congress. Just look at the debt shenanigans if you want to know why your suggestion would never work.
First, you cannot steal text without carrying off a book. To steal, you must deprive the other party of exactly the item you gain.
Second, Wikipedia is licensed under the GPL. It is not illegal in the slightest to copy it.
Whether or not these sites belong in the top Google rankings is not my point. If Wikipedia has the original information, it probably belongs at the top; but I primarily use DuckDuckGo, which often places Wikipedia at the top. What bothers me is that I am sick of seeing such mindless parroting of the MPAA/RIAA line by people who should know better (I include all slashdot in that group). Abusing "steal" and "theft" just weakens the actual crimes. Think of how odd it is to hear "piracy" applied to actually robbing ships at sea. That's where you're heading by accepting "copyright infringement = theft". Saying those sites are even committing copyright infringement further shows your ignorance in the matter.
You do need to hold control of a market. Lock-in, for example, would be one factor in being a monopoly. "Large" is not synonymous with "monopoly," nor is it even necessary to be large. Further, it is not illegal to be a monopoly, but to abuse a monopoly. I am not a fan of Google, but it's pretty obvious that they are doing nothing illegal.
The only people more stupid than the Bing marketing department in that analogy would be any users convinced by it. Is it a dickish move to whitelist your own ads? Certainly. It isn't going to even register as an issue for most users, though.
Anti-trust laws don't apply to you solely because you are a majority. It requires you are a monopoly. Google, currently, is not such by any standards in search.
The anonymous comment above this one was not mine, so I am posting non-anonymous. Please ignore this post, random people...
I rather abused the friend/foe feature for a while, but have more been removing people from the list lately when I see reasonable posts made by people I have as foes. Don't take it personally, I can't remember the reason and indeed, there may not have been any of particular note.
Anyway, I'm glad someone agrees with me, as at times I wonder if it is me or everyone else who is truly insane!
The founders were not saints. Most were tax evaders or smugglers angry about the British crackdowns on their activities. Almost all owned slaves. Many were womanizers. Once in office, they pretty much all abused power; the Alien and Sedition Acts were possibly worse than their modern counterparts, especially compared to what was actually possible in the day. My point is, they might have been perfectly fine with a lot of what is going on today. Indeed, they'd likely be more concerned about the Federal Reserve than with the rampant corruption and rights violations.
The reason these people can make their money is because the RIAA/MPAA has threatened the P2P peers for uploading. The problem of "profiteering" is entirely created by the copyright holders and I have zero sympathy for them.
The United States is a police state. If you faciliate communication in ways not approved by the military-industrial complex (including the media), you will be sent to the gulag for hard labor. When are we going to be liberated?
My god, you are a genius! We can get them to fight it out in ritual combat using swords and axes. Chris Dodd can head the US/Lawyer team, and Khamenei can head the Iran/Mullah team. If we put it on pay-per-view, we can probably pay off the US debt!
Actually, criminal court is better for them by far. It means there is actually a burden of proof and requirement of certainty beyond reasonable doubt. Civil court has been manipulated by the copyright industry into a rubber-stamping mill for million-dollar fines on grannies. In fact, and I am sure some lawyer here will jump at the chance to "correct" me, I don't think civil court has any business existing. What is the point of reasonable doubt and burden of proof when you can destroy the life of an entire family in civil court without dealing with either? We have a serious problem as long as that can go unquestioned.
Slashdot Mirror
Or we could just stop shilling for the copyright industry entirely, get rid of copyright, and go back to actually selling physical objects and considering information free. Worked for, what, ten thousand years? Funny that most of the truly famous music, literature, and art was created before copyright was even a thought.
Wow, so much misinformation on slashdot on this topic it is staggering. Chemistry education must really be slacking.
ANY water that is drinkable is essentially distilled. The difference between distilled and purified (and even tap, assuming not too much chlorine) is miniscule and is really only a concern in specialized situations. The problem of water intoxication only applies if you drink too much water (as in, far more than you naturally would imagine), or only drink water (which becomes more of an issue of starvation). Distilled water is not dangerous at all. You will not have "electrolyte depletion" from drinking it. If you think so, please do the world a favor and read a biology and/or chemistry textbook before spreading misinformation.
Most of the salts would be insoluble in oil, so if it works well enough, they could be put right back in.
Data use keeps growing, though. Today's "high data users" are tomorrow's normal users. You can't survive without infrastructure. Too bad we have too many libertard types to actually properly regulate these businesses and require them to put some of their profits back in.
So, because I see problems in the US, I am in the same boat as "people here who'd like to see the whole thing burn down"? There couldn't possibly be a reasonable position which involves considering the US is less free than X other country other than an attempt at treason? I can see why you'd be perfectly fine with the censorship the US does.
Considering I live in the US, I think claiming i have "an axe to grind" is a little disingenuous. If I do, it is for good reason.
The freedom of the press in the US primarily applies to mass media. Over the last decade, free speech has been cut away for everyone else. Try video taping a public official or locating something embarrassing to the government/big business. At best you will have your camera/computer stolen, at worst you will end up in jail. Of course, the fact mass media still has freedom is meaningless, since they are owned by the same people who own the government. If you believe the US is freer than Europe, it is probably because you have listened to the official line, and not actually gone and figured out why the US might actually be ranked lower.
Not really irony. They simply know where the slippery slope leads. Americans have forgotten why tyranny is bad.
Maybe we're a galactic wildlife preserve. Or maybe an experiment...
That's fine and good, until you have environmental regulations expiring in a divided congress. Just look at the debt shenanigans if you want to know why your suggestion would never work.
Not everyone can afford the alternative.
Got that right. A car would probably take a week on my internet connection!
"stolen the text from Wikipedia"
Sigh...
First, you cannot steal text without carrying off a book. To steal, you must deprive the other party of exactly the item you gain.
Second, Wikipedia is licensed under the GPL. It is not illegal in the slightest to copy it.
Whether or not these sites belong in the top Google rankings is not my point. If Wikipedia has the original information, it probably belongs at the top; but I primarily use DuckDuckGo, which often places Wikipedia at the top. What bothers me is that I am sick of seeing such mindless parroting of the MPAA/RIAA line by people who should know better (I include all slashdot in that group). Abusing "steal" and "theft" just weakens the actual crimes. Think of how odd it is to hear "piracy" applied to actually robbing ships at sea. That's where you're heading by accepting "copyright infringement = theft". Saying those sites are even committing copyright infringement further shows your ignorance in the matter.
You do need to hold control of a market. Lock-in, for example, would be one factor in being a monopoly. "Large" is not synonymous with "monopoly," nor is it even necessary to be large. Further, it is not illegal to be a monopoly, but to abuse a monopoly. I am not a fan of Google, but it's pretty obvious that they are doing nothing illegal.
The only people more stupid than the Bing marketing department in that analogy would be any users convinced by it. Is it a dickish move to whitelist your own ads? Certainly. It isn't going to even register as an issue for most users, though.
Anti-trust laws don't apply to you solely because you are a majority. It requires you are a monopoly. Google, currently, is not such by any standards in search.
The anonymous comment above this one was not mine, so I am posting non-anonymous. Please ignore this post, random people...
I rather abused the friend/foe feature for a while, but have more been removing people from the list lately when I see reasonable posts made by people I have as foes. Don't take it personally, I can't remember the reason and indeed, there may not have been any of particular note.
Anyway, I'm glad someone agrees with me, as at times I wonder if it is me or everyone else who is truly insane!
The founders were not saints. Most were tax evaders or smugglers angry about the British crackdowns on their activities. Almost all owned slaves. Many were womanizers. Once in office, they pretty much all abused power; the Alien and Sedition Acts were possibly worse than their modern counterparts, especially compared to what was actually possible in the day. My point is, they might have been perfectly fine with a lot of what is going on today. Indeed, they'd likely be more concerned about the Federal Reserve than with the rampant corruption and rights violations.
The first three seem to have gotten nowhere so far, with corruption at every level and candidates literally corrupted as part of assuming office.
Of course, they irradiate you and violate your civil rights as part of their job. Theft is rather inconsequential.
The reason these people can make their money is because the RIAA/MPAA has threatened the P2P peers for uploading. The problem of "profiteering" is entirely created by the copyright holders and I have zero sympathy for them.
The United States is a police state. If you faciliate communication in ways not approved by the military-industrial complex (including the media), you will be sent to the gulag for hard labor. When are we going to be liberated?
The idea has been modified for the good of humanity.
My god, you are a genius! We can get them to fight it out in ritual combat using swords and axes. Chris Dodd can head the US/Lawyer team, and Khamenei can head the Iran/Mullah team. If we put it on pay-per-view, we can probably pay off the US debt!
Actually, criminal court is better for them by far. It means there is actually a burden of proof and requirement of certainty beyond reasonable doubt. Civil court has been manipulated by the copyright industry into a rubber-stamping mill for million-dollar fines on grannies. In fact, and I am sure some lawyer here will jump at the chance to "correct" me, I don't think civil court has any business existing. What is the point of reasonable doubt and burden of proof when you can destroy the life of an entire family in civil court without dealing with either? We have a serious problem as long as that can go unquestioned.
They don't need them, but they sure as hell want them. Gotta have some way to censor the people you can't plant evidence on, after all.