Personally, I think you would have to pass an intelligence test before you should be allowed to have an Internet connection.
This reminds me of a post I saw on slashdot a while ago. It's a similar kind of argument. Certain potential Linux users don't deserve to use Linux. When I read this (it was too late to post), I felt like telling him that I didn't think that he deserved to use Linux, since Linux didn't need any more snobs.*
It isn't the idea that not everone is equal, I can accept that. It's not that computers and the internet can be abused by the less skilled, I can accept that. What I can't accept is that you are the one (as opposed to the many) who decides this law and enforces this law, and that you prefer to profile people instead of giving them a fair go. A single intelligence test is practically useless and doesn't count as a fair go.
*Apologies to the Linux community, who, 95% of the time, have been nothing but fantastically friendly and helpful to me
In case you don't realise, the main differences between a troll mod and an interesting or insightful mod are details, evidence, or at least some form of elaboration.
I'm impressed with the number of examples you could (be bothered to) recite, but the case of mp3s is complicated by the shift in medium from physical (limited extensively in convenience), to the intangible. It's different to all the other examples because of this. It can be transfered very quickly and fairly anonymously unlike physical media, which is limited to the speed and anonymity of the post.
Sorry to be so obvious.
However, I appreciate that the reason that the **AA complained in each case was at least slightly different, with each threat bigger than the last, and yet they still pulled through. The question is: is this change too large for the **AA to adapt to, or will they pull through as they have done before?
Or, maybe, instead of posting a video of him reading from a script, he could have just posted the script. Saves a lot of time and bandwidth for everyone involved.
A video holds much more clout. Anyone can post anonymous text.
Each of the WIPO treaties contains virtually identical language obligating member states to prevent circumvention of technological measures used to protect copyrighted works, and to prevent tampering with the integrity of copyright management information.
It seems to only applies to copyrighted works, not to the public domain.
I'm not on the RIAA's side here, but I don't think the decision was unfair.
Firstly, copyright infringement is not a criminal offence, it's a civil offence, so the punishment is compensation rather than a fine or jail term. Sending someone to jail for a week seems inconsistent with the nature of the case.
Secondly, the RIAA is out for compensation and the court was there to determine whether the RIAA's demands are fair. If the one definitive measure of file sharing activity is destroyed intentionally, then how can this happen?
Do we say to the RIAA (or anyone for that matter) "Good news and bad news. The bad news is that you don't get your compensation, since the defendant destroyed the evidence, but the good news is that justice is still served with a nice healthy week-long jail term!"?
I don't know too much about it, but I would imagine that the sword would clash with whatever hits it, and then automatically default back to the proper position.
The concept of truth really only exists in theory. The practical world is relative and biased. I'd say that the third edge would be some other guy's side that you haven't taken into consideration.
Forth by blocking evil use you are also blocking good use. Example all this extra features could be used to calculate the safest way to deploy food to 3rd world countries, increasing distribution and reducing risk to troops.
The patch doesn't specify the millitary explicitly, but specifies that the software is not to be used to harm people.
The question of whether or not we can overrule our nature is an old one. We can treat our neighbour courteously, we can protest instead of revolt, we can all piss in designated places. We can do any number of things, but we are usually denying our nature. That's society's purpose. If we followed our instincts, divided we fall. And we'd have to stop relying on cultural evolution and start relying on *gasp* biological evolution.
It's true that we have come a long way since then, but we haven't really changed biologically. All we've changed is our environment, which doesn't affect our hard-coded instincts. One of those instincts is to triumph over competition. We can ignore it, but it's still there.
A world without war is not possible in a world without weapons.
The last time I heard that from someone, I clawed his eyes out and stomped on his neck.
Seriously though, the only way we are going to prevent war (or any sort of conflict) is total isolation. Conflict is inherent in any human interaction.
It doesn't make the ideal any less important or valuable.
It does, however, have an impact on the freedoms of the millitary to use GPU. Sure, dream if you want to. But if you're planning to drag others down with you, stop right there.
People won't not buy the album because they can play the songs themselves.
However, people won't buy the official musical notation if they can play the songs themselves. The sheet music market is significant enough for the RIAA to pursue their interests in this market.
somehow showing somebody how to play a song will prevent people from writing new songs?
Point taken: the connection is a shakey one at best, but I think you're playing it a bit too dumb. People do actually get revenue from people purchasing scores, for buying performance rights, etc. I can understand the *ehem* logic behind this: that every person who views the site could have bought the official notation. Honestly though, I think sharing music is more like sharing lyrics than sharing recordings. You can whistle your favourite tune on the street just fine, even though it could technically be called an arrangement and public performance.
Why must they put DRM on it? CSS has already been proven not to be effective, so what are the Media Companies afraid of?
Sorry to be Capt. Obvious here, but it really is simple. They want to stop a legal market for DVD players that don't provide them with liscencing fees. Under the DMCA, hardware manufacturers are legally unable to play protected discs. Since a vast majority of discs are protected, every legal, commercially viable DVD player has to pay those liscencing fees. This business plan falls to pieces as soon as a significant number of unprotected discs enter the market.
Can you even grok what it would take to pull off a hoaxed moon landing? You need to fool the entire Federal government, thousands of engineers, the entire US Navy, and all the people at places like Lockheed _including their investors_. And throughout all of this, you have to make sure that possibly thousands of people who know "the secret" that they will never talk, even on their deathbeds.
And then you have to fool all the scientists with rocks that can't look like anything found on Earth.
I wonder how many of them are in on it, and how many are brainwashed/drugged/kept silent.
1) Download and install firefox 2) Bring up the options form and switch to the privacy tabs 3) Turn off cookies OR add google.com as an exception to the sites that can set cookies 4) Never ever use Internet Explorer (if you are doing so now)
the US cell phone market is so byzantine compared to the rest of the world
There's a reason for that. Most people value processing power, ease of use (keyboard anyone?), at least a semi-decent digital camera (or none at all), screen real estate, size of storage, reliability, etc over extreme portability. I know I'd prefer a 12" notebook over any phone.
That would be great if Microsoft wanted standards compliance. They don't. Windows has gone very far by riding completely on proprietary formats and software. By making sure that competitors can't touch them. Do you really think IE7 will be different?
And this particular one, is what is actually lying about some person to demean him/her
Lying? I don't see any lying. Slander, possibly. Misrepresentation definitely.
the owners of this firm need to be sued, and to hell that is, and should be expelled from public life
A little extreme, don't you think? I mean, it's not like they broke any laws or anything. They just produced some crappy little unfunny, unconvincing cartoon. Besides, even if we were to sue them into oblivion, we would have to sue every PR firm into oblivion, since they all are guilty.
It's not that I don't think that it's ethical (it isn't), or that I think that it shouldn't be slammed by the media (it should), but I think you're being a bit extreme. I say beat them at their own game. This is bad publicity, and it shows that they are incompetent.
I could point out issues like the oil companies are making only 9 cents per gallon of profit which would put them in lower area's of margin with industry but since the world as a whole is consuming record volume of oil that naturally they would achieve record profit.
Low profit margins do not make an industry any more acceptable/ethically responsible/not evil/whatever. The point is that they keep the world reliant on oil to keep their record profits, at the expense of certain inconvenient truths. I personally think that trying to squash potentially society-saving research for the sake of short term profits is unethical. Disagree?
"Big Oil" is pure evil because they make really good scapegoats in your world so go ahead and continue to villify them.
We will, don't you worry. Anything to free ourselves from complete dependence on a very limited resource.
Slashdot Mirror
It isn't the idea that not everone is equal, I can accept that. It's not that computers and the internet can be abused by the less skilled, I can accept that. What I can't accept is that you are the one (as opposed to the many) who decides this law and enforces this law, and that you prefer to profile people instead of giving them a fair go. A single intelligence test is practically useless and doesn't count as a fair go.
*Apologies to the Linux community, who, 95% of the time, have been nothing but fantastically friendly and helpful to me
Care to explain?
In case you don't realise, the main differences between a troll mod and an interesting or insightful mod are details, evidence, or at least some form of elaboration.
I'm impressed with the number of examples you could (be bothered to) recite, but the case of mp3s is complicated by the shift in medium from physical (limited extensively in convenience), to the intangible. It's different to all the other examples because of this. It can be transfered very quickly and fairly anonymously unlike physical media, which is limited to the speed and anonymity of the post.
Sorry to be so obvious.
However, I appreciate that the reason that the **AA complained in each case was at least slightly different, with each threat bigger than the last, and yet they still pulled through. The question is: is this change too large for the **AA to adapt to, or will they pull through as they have done before?
It seems to only applies to copyrighted works, not to the public domain.
I'm not on the RIAA's side here, but I don't think the decision was unfair.
Firstly, copyright infringement is not a criminal offence, it's a civil offence, so the punishment is compensation rather than a fine or jail term. Sending someone to jail for a week seems inconsistent with the nature of the case.
Secondly, the RIAA is out for compensation and the court was there to determine whether the RIAA's demands are fair. If the one definitive measure of file sharing activity is destroyed intentionally, then how can this happen?
Do we say to the RIAA (or anyone for that matter) "Good news and bad news. The bad news is that you don't get your compensation, since the defendant destroyed the evidence, but the good news is that justice is still served with a nice healthy week-long jail term!"?
I don't know too much about it, but I would imagine that the sword would clash with whatever hits it, and then automatically default back to the proper position.
The concept of truth really only exists in theory. The practical world is relative and biased. I'd say that the third edge would be some other guy's side that you haven't taken into consideration.
The question of whether or not we can overrule our nature is an old one. We can treat our neighbour courteously, we can protest instead of revolt, we can all piss in designated places. We can do any number of things, but we are usually denying our nature. That's society's purpose. If we followed our instincts, divided we fall. And we'd have to stop relying on cultural evolution and start relying on *gasp* biological evolution.
It's true that we have come a long way since then, but we haven't really changed biologically. All we've changed is our environment, which doesn't affect our hard-coded instincts. One of those instincts is to triumph over competition. We can ignore it, but it's still there.
Seriously though, the only way we are going to prevent war (or any sort of conflict) is total isolation. Conflict is inherent in any human interaction.
It does, however, have an impact on the freedoms of the millitary to use GPU. Sure, dream if you want to. But if you're planning to drag others down with you, stop right there.
However, people won't buy the official musical notation if they can play the songs themselves. The sheet music market is significant enough for the RIAA to pursue their interests in this market.
Point taken: the connection is a shakey one at best, but I think you're playing it a bit too dumb. People do actually get revenue from people purchasing scores, for buying performance rights, etc. I can understand the *ehem* logic behind this: that every person who views the site could have bought the official notation. Honestly though, I think sharing music is more like sharing lyrics than sharing recordings. You can whistle your favourite tune on the street just fine, even though it could technically be called an arrangement and public performance.
Sorry to be Capt. Obvious here, but it really is simple. They want to stop a legal market for DVD players that don't provide them with liscencing fees. Under the DMCA, hardware manufacturers are legally unable to play protected discs. Since a vast majority of discs are protected, every legal, commercially viable DVD player has to pay those liscencing fees. This business plan falls to pieces as soon as a significant number of unprotected discs enter the market.
Not to mention those who actually enjoy their music.
We considered it, but scare-the-shit-out-of-the-public-to-push-our-polit ical-agenda-o-meter was just too, lets say, unmemorable.
I wonder how many of them are in on it, and how many are brainwashed/drugged/kept silent.
1) Download and install firefox
2) Bring up the options form and switch to the privacy tabs
3) Turn off cookies OR add google.com as an exception to the sites that can set cookies
4) Never ever use Internet Explorer (if you are doing so now)
Simple.
There's a reason for that. Most people value processing power, ease of use (keyboard anyone?), at least a semi-decent digital camera (or none at all), screen real estate, size of storage, reliability, etc over extreme portability. I know I'd prefer a 12" notebook over any phone.
Y'know, 90% of what you just said EXACTLY matches my current position.
You're not alone.
That would be great if Microsoft wanted standards compliance. They don't. Windows has gone very far by riding completely on proprietary formats and software. By making sure that competitors can't touch them. Do you really think IE7 will be different?
Lying? I don't see any lying. Slander, possibly. Misrepresentation definitely.
A little extreme, don't you think? I mean, it's not like they broke any laws or anything. They just produced some crappy little unfunny, unconvincing cartoon. Besides, even if we were to sue them into oblivion, we would have to sue every PR firm into oblivion, since they all are guilty.
It's not that I don't think that it's ethical (it isn't), or that I think that it shouldn't be slammed by the media (it should), but I think you're being a bit extreme. I say beat them at their own game. This is bad publicity, and it shows that they are incompetent.
This is NOT anything to do with democracy.
Low profit margins do not make an industry any more acceptable/ethically responsible/not evil/whatever. The point is that they keep the world reliant on oil to keep their record profits, at the expense of certain inconvenient truths. I personally think that trying to squash potentially society-saving research for the sake of short term profits is unethical. Disagree?
We will, don't you worry. Anything to free ourselves from complete dependence on a very limited resource.