I'm not offended by the invasive nature of the screening. I am offended by the amount of time and money spent "keeping us safe." I'm offended by the illegal search of my body by the government.
Airport Screening doesn't work. I think there is enough evidence of that. And yet the government insists on spending my time and our money on trying to protect us. To protect us from the "extremely low-probability event." A lot of things we do in life could be potential targets of terrorists. Church, the mall, the sports stadium, the park, and yet none of these are protected as much as the airplane is.
A non invasive scanner isn't a nice solution. Concentrate on making it hard to hijack the plane.
A lot of people keep talk about limiting the length of copy rights. What is a good limit? 10-15 years? And yet which is copied more, stuff generated in the last decade or two, or stuff generated before then?
Why would someone have to pay a part of what they earn to spread the material? I don't get that part.
I don't steal. Stop making me pay because everyone else wants to steal.
I use my "blank media" (Hard drives, and SD cards) mostly for content that I generate, or that I pay for.
Yes you are right. If you can't beat them, join them.
While we are at it, lets legalize murder, rape, and theft. Then we no longer have to enforce anything. We can end the war on criminals, since there won't be any criminals.
Just because it is illegal to copy something, doesn't mean that it would require internet filtering and surveillance.
"You are doing it wrong" is the perpetual excuse of Agilists when you say that agile methods have not worked for you.
I'm not an Agilists, but they probably are doing it wrong. Almost everyone I've talked to who have said they are doing it the "agile" way, aren't. Most people don't understand the method, or they pick one or two things they think are Agile.
You like COBOL because its a nice verbose language. But you had verbose languages because you can't tell what stack you are pushing?
You love BASIC, but hate Visual Basic, I guess because there are no line numbers?
Make up your mind.
You know COBOL doesn't give you any more control of the underlying structure than C# does.
"We don't serve Niggers here" on a sign outside of a restaurant isn't protected. Nor is burning a cross on a public sidewalk in front of someone's house. Posting a sign on your front lawn with "Kikes should die" is protected.
Is it illegal to say "we don't serve Niggers here" or is it illegal to actually not serve them?
Is it illegal to burn a cross on a public sidewalk in front of someone's house. Or is it illegal to burn ANYTHING on the public sidewalk?
Reasonable in that these videos (and, yes, I went out and looked at a couple, I'm not going to say where), have no redeeming social value. They're strictly (a) war propaganda (b) pure hate speech and (c) active statements of intent to commit violence.
So YOU decided they have no redeeming social value?
Ahh I see right there between "freedom" and "speech" it mentions the speech has to have redeeming social values. I'm sure it doesn't say anything about redressing grievances.
I'm sure we are already going down the slippery slope. But the whole point of free speech is we can say what we want to say, not what someone else thinks we should be allowed to say.
3d is no more of a gimmick then sound or color. 3d does make them a lot of extra money.
"3D" is definitely more of a gimmick than sound or color. Because "3D" isn't real, while sound and color is.
If you had a BW movie, and handed out glasses that let people see the BW in "color" that would be a gimmick.
Actually it is sort of like handing out the glasses to let people see a BW movie in 256 color (you remember that?) At that point, I'd rather just watch it in BW.
This is the same, until it is TRUE 3D, just let me watch it in 2D.
Since facebook has no way for me to remove photos of me posted by other users. The best i can do is remove the tag, but not remove me from the photo or my name from the comments, or have the photo taken down entirely.
Other than its stupid?
Recently I was flying home. I flew through Amsterdam. I had a very short layover, and grabbed a Coke and a snack IN THE AIRPORT. Now keep in mind I had flown from another part of Europe, and was already in the airport, buying a drink from the store IN THE AIRPORT.
I got to my gate, faced the 20 questions, went to the ticket counter, and had to go through ANOTHER security scanner. They made my empty my water bottle, and throw away my bottle of coke (cause I guess it might spill)
It isn't the "couple of dollars" it is the principal. Why stop me from bringing soda on board?
He may not be insulting the US, but I sure do every time I stand in line and try to return home.
First they ask you 20 questions. Like "do you have anything that can be used as a weapon." Or "Do you have any electronic gear." Dude its 2010 of COURSE I have electronic gear.
But I'm a freaking American Citizen, I just want to go home, stop asking me stupid questions and searching my carry on... AGAIN. And insisting that I've got to put my chapstick in a plastic bag (when I'm already in the entryway)
Finally, a voice with power pointing out the obvious.
Unfortunately he is NOT pointing out the obvious. The obvious being it is a waste. He is just saying that paranoid USA requires stricter rules than anyone else, AND doesn't even necessarily follow them at all American airports.
TFA says "While nobody wanted lax airport security,..." Actually yes we do. IMHO laxer security is better than false security.
What is REALLY completely ridiculous is the security check procedure itself. So called "security" checks do little to stop someone who really wants to bring something into the airport.
Woodrow Wilson said "The bomber will always get through." And he is right. The security checks don't actually provide any security, they only provide an illusion of security. At a cost of time and money to everyone.
Actually it does affect the quality of the movie. Directors are always going for the "3d money shot" where something flies out of the screen.
AND the movie is out of focus half of the time.
And how do you call a 60 year technology an emerging technology?
Remember, you don't change laws in court, you change them in Congress.
If only more Americans understood this.
Actually yeah you can change laws in court. That is what the court is there for.
There are generally two ways to change a law. One is to go through the lawmakers (congress, city council, etc)
The other is to challenge the law in court. Both have their merits.
Yeah maybe if we got rid of the laws against theft, we would have no need to throw thieves in jail.
Every could just take anything they wanted, without have to worry about some absentee owner coming after them?
Maybe if ownership of something was an opt-in system. Perhaps the law is, if you want to keep it, lock it up. Otherwise it is fair game?
I'm not sure how this justification for stealing copyrighted works is marked as insightful.
Suppose I build a piece of art (maybe I'll call it a "movie") then build a room to display that art (lets call it a "theatre") Now I charge admission to people to enter the room and watch the art. You can't take it home with you, so you have to pay me everytime you want to watch it. Suppose you sneak it, and watch it. Sure the sneaking in could be considered breaking and entering. But some might argue that the watching it is "theft of services." While this isn't completely analogous to stealing copyrighted material by making an illegal copy, it is fairly close. Just because you don't deprive the owner of the work, the actual work, you do deprive the owner of the work a potential sale. AND you potentially lessen the value of the work (for the owner, and anyone else who purchased a copy)
Sure, you might really like it, and decide to buy a copy. But that is what demos are for, and is the right of the owner of the work to decide if he wants to give free demonstrations. Thats like walking down the street, spotting a corvette, and jumping in and taking it for a spin. When the cop pulls you over for Grand Theft Auto, you say "Ohh I was testing it out, to see if I wanted to buy it."
If you make an illegal copy, you are stealing that copy. Go figure.
The publication was been around for 19 years, and the work still isn't in public domain?
How is 20 somehow magically better than 50? Sure it is shorter, but why is that better? Better for YOU because now you can copy it for free. But if you want it, then it certainly isn't better for the creator/owner of that work.
Personally, I will not respect any copyright on a work made more than a quarter century ago. Most of us DON'T infringe copyright, even copyrights on works that should be in the public domain.
So, you will infringe on copyrights older than 25 years? What evidence do you have that most of us DON'T infringe copyright?
Why 20 years? Are you saying that if I wrote something in 1987, and I am still making money from it... You think you should be able to rip it off and start making money on it yourself?
Yes the current laws are kind of messed up, and a lot of it has to do with Mickey Mouse. But in the US, it looks like it is currently life of the author +75 years, or roughly 100 years after creation (95-120 actually)
Personally, if I create something of value, I'd like to think I can make money on it for more than 20 years.
but a young adult who downloads movies and music for his/her own use, full well knowing it's illicit. If we're going to defend file sharing, let's be honest and call things for what they are,
What would we call them? A bunch of greedy selfish bastards, who look after no interests but their own? And no I'm not talking about the RIAA or the music companies, but the thieves who steal the music.
The thing is EVERYONE here is greedy. The music company wants money, and people want to keep their money and get their music for free.
Meanwhile the poor starving artists just want to eat.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not offended by the invasive nature of the screening. I am offended by the amount of time and money spent "keeping us safe." I'm offended by the illegal search of my body by the government. Airport Screening doesn't work. I think there is enough evidence of that. And yet the government insists on spending my time and our money on trying to protect us. To protect us from the "extremely low-probability event." A lot of things we do in life could be potential targets of terrorists. Church, the mall, the sports stadium, the park, and yet none of these are protected as much as the airplane is. A non invasive scanner isn't a nice solution. Concentrate on making it hard to hijack the plane.
A lot of people keep talk about limiting the length of copy rights. What is a good limit? 10-15 years? And yet which is copied more, stuff generated in the last decade or two, or stuff generated before then? Why would someone have to pay a part of what they earn to spread the material? I don't get that part.
I don't steal. Stop making me pay because everyone else wants to steal. I use my "blank media" (Hard drives, and SD cards) mostly for content that I generate, or that I pay for.
Yes you are right. If you can't beat them, join them. While we are at it, lets legalize murder, rape, and theft. Then we no longer have to enforce anything. We can end the war on criminals, since there won't be any criminals. Just because it is illegal to copy something, doesn't mean that it would require internet filtering and surveillance.
But prior to 1997 you could still be held liable for monetary damages...
Software development is bloody hard, ...
And so few people truly understand this. And not only is it difficult, there are more programming jobs than good programmers.
"You are doing it wrong" is the perpetual excuse of Agilists when you say that agile methods have not worked for you.
I'm not an Agilists, but they probably are doing it wrong. Almost everyone I've talked to who have said they are doing it the "agile" way, aren't. Most people don't understand the method, or they pick one or two things they think are Agile.
You like COBOL because its a nice verbose language. But you had verbose languages because you can't tell what stack you are pushing? You love BASIC, but hate Visual Basic, I guess because there are no line numbers? Make up your mind. You know COBOL doesn't give you any more control of the underlying structure than C# does.
"We don't serve Niggers here" on a sign outside of a restaurant isn't protected. Nor is burning a cross on a public sidewalk in front of someone's house. Posting a sign on your front lawn with "Kikes should die" is protected.
Is it illegal to say "we don't serve Niggers here" or is it illegal to actually not serve them? Is it illegal to burn a cross on a public sidewalk in front of someone's house. Or is it illegal to burn ANYTHING on the public sidewalk?
Reasonable in that these videos (and, yes, I went out and looked at a couple, I'm not going to say where), have no redeeming social value. They're strictly (a) war propaganda (b) pure hate speech and (c) active statements of intent to commit violence.
So YOU decided they have no redeeming social value? Ahh I see right there between "freedom" and "speech" it mentions the speech has to have redeeming social values. I'm sure it doesn't say anything about redressing grievances. I'm sure we are already going down the slippery slope. But the whole point of free speech is we can say what we want to say, not what someone else thinks we should be allowed to say.
3d is no more of a gimmick then sound or color. 3d does make them a lot of extra money.
"3D" is definitely more of a gimmick than sound or color. Because "3D" isn't real, while sound and color is. If you had a BW movie, and handed out glasses that let people see the BW in "color" that would be a gimmick. Actually it is sort of like handing out the glasses to let people see a BW movie in 256 color (you remember that?) At that point, I'd rather just watch it in BW. This is the same, until it is TRUE 3D, just let me watch it in 2D.
Since facebook has no way for me to remove photos of me posted by other users.
This is obviously facebook's fault, since everything else on the internet (and the entire world) allows you to remove photos posted by other users.
Since facebook has no way for me to remove photos of me posted by other users. The best i can do is remove the tag, but not remove me from the photo or my name from the comments, or have the photo taken down entirely.
Other than its stupid? Recently I was flying home. I flew through Amsterdam. I had a very short layover, and grabbed a Coke and a snack IN THE AIRPORT. Now keep in mind I had flown from another part of Europe, and was already in the airport, buying a drink from the store IN THE AIRPORT. I got to my gate, faced the 20 questions, went to the ticket counter, and had to go through ANOTHER security scanner. They made my empty my water bottle, and throw away my bottle of coke (cause I guess it might spill) It isn't the "couple of dollars" it is the principal. Why stop me from bringing soda on board?
He may not be insulting the US, but I sure do every time I stand in line and try to return home. First they ask you 20 questions. Like "do you have anything that can be used as a weapon." Or "Do you have any electronic gear." Dude its 2010 of COURSE I have electronic gear. But I'm a freaking American Citizen, I just want to go home, stop asking me stupid questions and searching my carry on... AGAIN. And insisting that I've got to put my chapstick in a plastic bag (when I'm already in the entryway)
Finally, a voice with power pointing out the obvious.
Unfortunately he is NOT pointing out the obvious. The obvious being it is a waste. He is just saying that paranoid USA requires stricter rules than anyone else, AND doesn't even necessarily follow them at all American airports. TFA says "While nobody wanted lax airport security, ..." Actually yes we do. IMHO laxer security is better than false security.
What is REALLY completely ridiculous is the security check procedure itself. So called "security" checks do little to stop someone who really wants to bring something into the airport. Woodrow Wilson said "The bomber will always get through." And he is right. The security checks don't actually provide any security, they only provide an illusion of security. At a cost of time and money to everyone.
Actually it does affect the quality of the movie. Directors are always going for the "3d money shot" where something flies out of the screen. AND the movie is out of focus half of the time. And how do you call a 60 year technology an emerging technology?
Remember, you don't change laws in court, you change them in Congress.
If only more Americans understood this.
Actually yeah you can change laws in court. That is what the court is there for. There are generally two ways to change a law. One is to go through the lawmakers (congress, city council, etc) The other is to challenge the law in court. Both have their merits.
Yeah maybe if we got rid of the laws against theft, we would have no need to throw thieves in jail. Every could just take anything they wanted, without have to worry about some absentee owner coming after them? Maybe if ownership of something was an opt-in system. Perhaps the law is, if you want to keep it, lock it up. Otherwise it is fair game?
I'm not sure how this justification for stealing copyrighted works is marked as insightful. Suppose I build a piece of art (maybe I'll call it a "movie") then build a room to display that art (lets call it a "theatre") Now I charge admission to people to enter the room and watch the art. You can't take it home with you, so you have to pay me everytime you want to watch it. Suppose you sneak it, and watch it. Sure the sneaking in could be considered breaking and entering. But some might argue that the watching it is "theft of services." While this isn't completely analogous to stealing copyrighted material by making an illegal copy, it is fairly close. Just because you don't deprive the owner of the work, the actual work, you do deprive the owner of the work a potential sale. AND you potentially lessen the value of the work (for the owner, and anyone else who purchased a copy) Sure, you might really like it, and decide to buy a copy. But that is what demos are for, and is the right of the owner of the work to decide if he wants to give free demonstrations. Thats like walking down the street, spotting a corvette, and jumping in and taking it for a spin. When the cop pulls you over for Grand Theft Auto, you say "Ohh I was testing it out, to see if I wanted to buy it." If you make an illegal copy, you are stealing that copy. Go figure.
The publication was been around for 19 years, and the work still isn't in public domain? How is 20 somehow magically better than 50? Sure it is shorter, but why is that better? Better for YOU because now you can copy it for free. But if you want it, then it certainly isn't better for the creator/owner of that work.
Personally, I will not respect any copyright on a work made more than a quarter century ago. Most of us DON'T infringe copyright, even copyrights on works that should be in the public domain.
So, you will infringe on copyrights older than 25 years? What evidence do you have that most of us DON'T infringe copyright? Why 20 years? Are you saying that if I wrote something in 1987, and I am still making money from it... You think you should be able to rip it off and start making money on it yourself? Yes the current laws are kind of messed up, and a lot of it has to do with Mickey Mouse. But in the US, it looks like it is currently life of the author +75 years, or roughly 100 years after creation (95-120 actually) Personally, if I create something of value, I'd like to think I can make money on it for more than 20 years.
How is file-sharing even close to being fair use?
but a young adult who downloads movies and music for his/her own use, full well knowing it's illicit. If we're going to defend file sharing, let's be honest and call things for what they are,
What would we call them? A bunch of greedy selfish bastards, who look after no interests but their own? And no I'm not talking about the RIAA or the music companies, but the thieves who steal the music. The thing is EVERYONE here is greedy. The music company wants money, and people want to keep their money and get their music for free. Meanwhile the poor starving artists just want to eat.