I've already got limits to how much I can use the internet, pretty much everyone does. So why single out certain packets, just because those packets contain email?
Thats like going to the All you Can Eat Buffet, but having to pay extra for each oreo cookie you take.
There is a difference between wiping your ass with the HTML printout and republishing someone else's work. Just because they send it to you, doesn't mean you have the right to republish it.
Of course fair use says you can republish some of it, in certain circumstances.
Just because someone is a child pornographer, doesn't mean the person is wrong in everything he says and does. Are you also trying to say that libertarians are akin to child pornographers?
>There are things I can't say, that minorities can say.
What can a minority say, that you cannot? There may be things that are socially unacceptable for you to say, that is acceptable for a minority to say. But that doesn't mean you can't say them, or that your freedom of speech rights have been abridged.
Can we at least agree little old ladies and infants represent a small enough threat that we don't have to give them pat downs or full body scans?
No, we can't agree. Because they represent just as much of a threat as anyone else. Of course I agree NO ONE should be patted down. But once you stop patting one group of people down, you may as well stop patting EVERYONE down.
Let's face it, the reason people drag all their worldly possessions with them as carry-ons is because they are sick and tired of paying the stupid baggage fees.
There needs to be less "Us vs. Them" in American politics. There needs to be more "Right vs. Wrong".
How is that not "right vs wrong"? Most people feel they are right, and the other side is wrong. That is where the us vs them comes from. Most people don't go out there thinking... this is Wrong but I'm going to stand for it. Even the so called payouts come with something that makes the politician feel like they are doing the Right Thing. you know, like big business employing their constituents.
That said, I'm not sure why the politicians would make an issue of trying to reduce the number of phone books. Just treat it like any other junk mail: send it right to the trash. And you only have to do it once a year.
Perhaps because the government owns the landfill that has a bunch of worthless phone books in it.
Its obvious the phone books are not completely worthless. But they are to many people. Those people want them, so they go straight into the trash (or as you put it, they end up costing money through recycling) So rather than generate trash, just don't generate it. Give it to the people who want it.
No. No it doesn't. It only takes ONE person to speak. And that person doesn't have to be communicating to a consenting party. In fact when the person is communicating to a non consenting party is really the speech that is being protected. Or do you think the only speech that is protected is when you "preach to the choir?"
I'm failing to see how spam is not free speech? Just because you don't like it?
Of course just because it is free speech doesn't mean I have the right to use that delivery system.
The first amendment specifically refers to "the press" which usually is a corporation. Or are you saying newspapers shouldn't have the freedom of speech? Cause you know, they are a corporation?
He wasn't referring to the sign of the OP. He was posting about an alternative situation that is illegal but no one is ever prosecuted. So saying "I'll fine you" won't really do a lot of good.
Tossing it in the recycle/trash bin is less annoying and costs them more money, so I promote that option, since they want to be bastards about it.
I think the right thing to do, is round up all your neighbors. Get a bunch of phone books. Deliver them right in front of the front door of the phone company. It seems the court is saying that is ok
Now you as an audience member are free to ignore the speech.
Do you think I have a right to ignore the speech?
Do I have a right to tell the speaker, please don't enter my property and leave your trash?
Do I have a right to tell a third party to ask the speaker to not enter my property and leave their trash?
Now, could that third party be the city?
I don't see how the city is censoring anyone. They are just saying, "This person requested you not deliver your trash to their address"
I used one of those idiotic things once. Wheeled the cart out to the car. Emptied it, then tried to be a good citizen and wheel it back to the store. I am going BACK to the store. Got it about half way back, in the middle of the road, and it locked up. Guess I was supposed to keep going AWAY from the store.
The problem isn't software patents. The problem is patents given out for trivial and obvious things. I was watching a rerun of Shark Tank, where the guy had a patent for what amounted to a hole in the pocket (for the wires to go through) So the problem isn't just with software patents
Patents are used to stifle innovation and protect entrenched businesses, not to prevent corporations from stealing the little guy's ideas. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of patent-holders are corporations.
Patents aren't used to "stifle innovation" but they are used to protect entrenched business, as well as the little guy. Yes more corporations own patents, because they have more money to do R&D. But patents can still protect the little guy. But they aren't designed to protect the "little" guy. They are designed to protect the inventor, with the hopes that the inventor will invent, and invent more.
I'm playing EA's Simpson's Tapped Out right now. And the problem is the "micro" transactions, aren't exactly micro. The largest payout is $100 and lets you buy one of each of the special items. But if you buy it in smaller batches you can easily spent 150 or more. That is insane. Yet it is one of the top gross games on the iPad.
Slashdot Mirror
I've already got limits to how much I can use the internet, pretty much everyone does. So why single out certain packets, just because those packets contain email?
Thats like going to the All you Can Eat Buffet, but having to pay extra for each oreo cookie you take.
I'm just going to go out on a limb here, but I don't think screen readers read the screen by selecting the text.
There is a difference between wiping your ass with the HTML printout and republishing someone else's work. Just because they send it to you, doesn't mean you have the right to republish it.
Of course fair use says you can republish some of it, in certain circumstances.
Just because someone is a child pornographer, doesn't mean the person is wrong in everything he says and does. Are you also trying to say that libertarians are akin to child pornographers?
White males have less rights because there are less opportunities for financial aid and scholarships for white males.
What do financial aid ans scholarships have to do with rights?
>There are things I can't say, that minorities can say.
What can a minority say, that you cannot? There may be things that are socially unacceptable for you to say, that is acceptable for a minority to say. But that doesn't mean you can't say them, or that your freedom of speech rights have been abridged.
Uh.
What he did was really illegal.
Says who? That was what the trial was for, but it didn't happen.
Can we at least agree little old ladies and infants represent a small enough threat that we don't have to give them pat downs or full body scans?
No, we can't agree. Because they represent just as much of a threat as anyone else. Of course I agree NO ONE should be patted down. But once you stop patting one group of people down, you may as well stop patting EVERYONE down.
Let's face it, the reason people drag all their worldly possessions with them as carry-ons is because they are sick and tired of paying the stupid baggage fees.
There needs to be less "Us vs. Them" in American politics. There needs to be more "Right vs. Wrong".
How is that not "right vs wrong"? Most people feel they are right, and the other side is wrong. That is where the us vs them comes from. Most people don't go out there thinking... this is Wrong but I'm going to stand for it. Even the so called payouts come with something that makes the politician feel like they are doing the Right Thing. you know, like big business employing their constituents.
That said, I'm not sure why the politicians would make an issue of trying to reduce the number of phone books. Just treat it like any other junk mail: send it right to the trash. And you only have to do it once a year.
Perhaps because the government owns the landfill that has a bunch of worthless phone books in it.
Its obvious the phone books are not completely worthless. But they are to many people. Those people want them, so they go straight into the trash (or as you put it, they end up costing money through recycling) So rather than generate trash, just don't generate it. Give it to the people who want it.
No. No it doesn't. It only takes ONE person to speak. And that person doesn't have to be communicating to a consenting party. In fact when the person is communicating to a non consenting party is really the speech that is being protected. Or do you think the only speech that is protected is when you "preach to the choir?"
I'm failing to see how spam is not free speech? Just because you don't like it?
Of course just because it is free speech doesn't mean I have the right to use that delivery system.
The first amendment specifically refers to "the press" which usually is a corporation. Or are you saying newspapers shouldn't have the freedom of speech? Cause you know, they are a corporation?
He wasn't referring to the sign of the OP. He was posting about an alternative situation that is illegal but no one is ever prosecuted. So saying "I'll fine you" won't really do a lot of good.
Tossing it in the recycle/trash bin is less annoying and costs them more money, so I promote that option, since they want to be bastards about it.
I think the right thing to do, is round up all your neighbors. Get a bunch of phone books. Deliver them right in front of the front door of the phone company. It seems the court is saying that is ok
Now you as an audience member are free to ignore the speech.
Do you think I have a right to ignore the speech?
Do I have a right to tell the speaker, please don't enter my property and leave your trash?
Do I have a right to tell a third party to ask the speaker to not enter my property and leave their trash?
Now, could that third party be the city?
I don't see how the city is censoring anyone. They are just saying, "This person requested you not deliver your trash to their address"
So you are saying there are no cars on Top Gear?
Huh? What does eating asparagus have to do with riding a bike? What happens if you take your calories from asparagus AND ride the bus?
This is the Pacific Northwest you are talking about. We don't have any of those 100' tall columns around here.
That stuff is dangerous. It can kill you.
I've heard that stuff can even destroy rocks. ROCKS!
I used one of those idiotic things once. Wheeled the cart out to the car. Emptied it, then tried to be a good citizen and wheel it back to the store. I am going BACK to the store. Got it about half way back, in the middle of the road, and it locked up. Guess I was supposed to keep going AWAY from the store.
I understand geology textbooks can also work
The problem isn't software patents. The problem is patents given out for trivial and obvious things. I was watching a rerun of Shark Tank, where the guy had a patent for what amounted to a hole in the pocket (for the wires to go through) So the problem isn't just with software patents
Patents are used to stifle innovation and protect entrenched businesses, not to prevent corporations from stealing the little guy's ideas. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of patent-holders are corporations.
Patents aren't used to "stifle innovation" but they are used to protect entrenched business, as well as the little guy. Yes more corporations own patents, because they have more money to do R&D. But patents can still protect the little guy. But they aren't designed to protect the "little" guy. They are designed to protect the inventor, with the hopes that the inventor will invent, and invent more.
1) The cost is reasonable.
I'm playing EA's Simpson's Tapped Out right now. And the problem is the "micro" transactions, aren't exactly micro. The largest payout is $100 and lets you buy one of each of the special items. But if you buy it in smaller batches you can easily spent 150 or more. That is insane. Yet it is one of the top gross games on the iPad.