I took longer than that, but I didn't take a year off. I always made it a point to take an elective every semester that I wanted to - something outside the required classes, like art and music. I certainly don't regret it.
The problem is a lot of kids don't mind the mindless jobs that are paying even minimum wage if they're still living at home. When you're not paying rent or for food and utilities, it's a lot of extra money... and then when the year is up, they're accustomed to being buy their Xboxes and having a lot of free time outside of work that they wouldn't have in college. Some people (you) might be different... I worked while in college, as well as full time over summers, in menial jobs - but then I also knew in middle school that I'd become a computer programmer. A lot of people graduate and have no idea what they want... they start making money, even crap money, in a menial job, and it becomes comfortable and "good enough."
No, nobody forces anybody to be an illegal immigrant; I'm sorry if we can't "accommodate" everybody - blaming us for not wanting completely open borders (the only way to accommodate the number of people who want to immigrate) is absurd. Your view of the situation is baffling to me; yes, he shouldn't have threatened anything, but he's not ranting against poor people, people of "color," or anyone except the people that essentially set up a farmer's market in front of someone's home.
If you come from a wealthy family and travel the world for a year, it's probably a great way to decide what direction you want to take in life. If you come a not very wealthy family, you'll likely beach bum or play video games for a year, losing a lot of what you learned in high school, or get stuck in a rut, low-income job that is convenient to not quit (and make you less likely to actually go to college at all).
Yes - anyone with a brain can read the article posted and see he said nothing about low income people, or disparaging remarks against the poor or minorities - someone set up a stand in front of someone else's house, and his rant was "if that was my house..." And he was right to be annoyed. This was a hit piece against a wealthy white guy, that goes on to bemoan income disparity in tech fields with "low income workers and people of color." Their rant had nothing to do with his rant; he just ended up being a convenient target.
Not even... they apparently planted themselves in front of somebody else's house, and he said "if that was my house..." and ranted on. There's nothing there about income levels, or poor people ruining the neighborhood, or anything else... it's just another hit piece against a wealthy white guy.
You realize he doesn't mention the word "poor?" He's only ranting against an authorized vendor setting up and selling in front of someone's house? And his rant was "if that was my house...?" This is a hit piece on a wealthy white guy for being wealthy and white.... the article continues on about tech companies and income disparity - it's ridiculous. All this guy was saying was that he didn't want an unauthorized "farmers market" set up in front of his house. I live in a fairly cheap middle class neighborhood... and I wouldn't want that, either - no comment about the financial status of those involved, it's entirely meaningless.
The difference is you set up a lemonade stand, you know, in front of YOUR house. If you skip the hype and read what he wrote, he said "if that was my house..."
He specifically said "unauthorized." This, to me, is like being labeled as anti-immigrant when you complain about illegal immigration. People purposely conflate the issue to make you look bad. WTF? Where is he "railing against low income people?" For all we know, they are setting up stands on private property, and taking business away from, you know, licensed vendors. This is a hit piece against a rich white guy, clear and simple. And read the article - the unauthorized people set up in front of someone's house. It's right there, in the second line of his "rant."
Exactly...he didn't try to hide it, and it's easy enough to disable. Yes, I know these kinds of things should be opt-in, but the difference between Ubuntu and, for example, Windows, is your getting a polished OS at zero financial cost to you - and to add insult to injury, in after paying for Windows it's nearly impossible to stop all the spying on you (especially for an average to newer user)... And I say that as someone who actually likes Windows 10, too.
No, the problem with CEOs and Presidents making claims like "no back doors" is that he can't control every employee, and while an employee might suffer the repercussions of an indiscretion like leaving a back-door in a program, so does the CEO and the company.
I have - people steal IP because they can't do without their entertainment and then pass themselves off as some kind of social crusader. It's moronic. People disagree because they can't live without their pirated copy of Dumb and Dumber. Does that really require an argument to point out how wrong it is?
Of course there's distinction - I'll repeat it again; not getting the media content you want from the service you want at the prices you want to pay is NOT a violation of your civil rights, and therefore illegally copying it is NOT an act of civil disobedience. It's really just that simple.
I think you're wrong, here... I do not know the whole story, but are you really suggesting there's content that was pulled from Netflix that is NOT available legally by ANY means in Canada?
Actually, no - your posts indicate you actually know very little about copyright law. Just because you're paying for streaming doesn't grant you the right to torrent a movie.
But it's not merely my OPINION that people violating copyright are in the wrong. Your civil rights aren't being violated, so illegal copying is not an act of civil disobedience - it's merely theft of IP. You can continue to justify it to yourself it if helps you sleep at night, but if you were making a living off of providing content to people, I would wager you'd see it in a different light. I'm also not even suggesting copyright laws don't need fixing - just that illegal copying of something like Dumb and Dumber is not a political statement, nor does it help anything.
It's very simple - if the content provider doesn't want to let you try before you buy, then just don't buy it. Again, if people would act legally and morally, and just show some restraint, the content providers might actually acquiesce. But until we do, they have no incentive to stop, and we have no right to violate the law. Your civil rights aren't being violated, so illegal copying is NOT an act of civil disobedience.
More on topic, it's up to you if you want to violate copyright laws... the problem I'm having in this discussion is not only people violating copyright laws, but then justifying it, pretending they've done nothing wrong, and even acting like media Robin Hoods of the entertainment industry. All for the sake of (for example) not abstaining from listening to Kanye West? Just no.
No, no - there is a huge difference between having your rights violated by unjust laws, and not being able to watch Dumb and Dumber on your own terms because you don't like the way it's being made available to you.
I also agree that copyright law is broken, but since it's not violating your civil rights, then civil disobedience is not the answer. Try turning off the computer or TV instead of violating someone else's intellectual property. I realize it's not going to happen, but if we, en masse, just stopped watching the absolute dreg these companies are providing at ridiculous prices and terms, then the problem would clear up really quickly without the need to violate the law.
You're conflating copyright and patents, though. Dumb and Dumber isn't a trade secret; not because the company released it, but because it never was - it's a copyrighted work of "art." And, for the record, they are refusing to "distribute" via Netflix... unless you can name something pulled from Netflix that is not available through other means legally in Canada.
What's happening is that people want the convenience of one service at a price they are happy with. The problem is, neither the service nor the price is up to you. If you have to buy or rent something on DVD or BR because that's the only way legal way the provider is giving you access to it, then your ONLY reasonable choices are to buy or rent it, or NOT buy or rent it, it's never to violate their copyright.
Who said Netflix was the victim? The content providers and the other venues by which they distribute the content in Canada are the victims of people who simply don't like the terms - whose only legal option is to just not buy the content. Tell me one thing Netflix pulled that isn't available in Canada through other legal means.
Slashdot Mirror
I took longer than that, but I didn't take a year off. I always made it a point to take an elective every semester that I wanted to - something outside the required classes, like art and music. I certainly don't regret it.
The problem is a lot of kids don't mind the mindless jobs that are paying even minimum wage if they're still living at home. When you're not paying rent or for food and utilities, it's a lot of extra money... and then when the year is up, they're accustomed to being buy their Xboxes and having a lot of free time outside of work that they wouldn't have in college. Some people (you) might be different... I worked while in college, as well as full time over summers, in menial jobs - but then I also knew in middle school that I'd become a computer programmer. A lot of people graduate and have no idea what they want... they start making money, even crap money, in a menial job, and it becomes comfortable and "good enough."
No, nobody forces anybody to be an illegal immigrant; I'm sorry if we can't "accommodate" everybody - blaming us for not wanting completely open borders (the only way to accommodate the number of people who want to immigrate) is absurd. Your view of the situation is baffling to me; yes, he shouldn't have threatened anything, but he's not ranting against poor people, people of "color," or anyone except the people that essentially set up a farmer's market in front of someone's home.
If you come from a wealthy family and travel the world for a year, it's probably a great way to decide what direction you want to take in life. If you come a not very wealthy family, you'll likely beach bum or play video games for a year, losing a lot of what you learned in high school, or get stuck in a rut, low-income job that is convenient to not quit (and make you less likely to actually go to college at all).
Yes - anyone with a brain can read the article posted and see he said nothing about low income people, or disparaging remarks against the poor or minorities - someone set up a stand in front of someone else's house, and his rant was "if that was my house..." And he was right to be annoyed. This was a hit piece against a wealthy white guy, that goes on to bemoan income disparity in tech fields with "low income workers and people of color." Their rant had nothing to do with his rant; he just ended up being a convenient target.
Not even... they apparently planted themselves in front of somebody else's house, and he said "if that was my house..." and ranted on. There's nothing there about income levels, or poor people ruining the neighborhood, or anything else... it's just another hit piece against a wealthy white guy.
I agree, but the "rant" should be addressed on what was actually said in the rant, not making stuff up about hating poor people.
So you think "unauthorized" vendors aren't hurting "authorized" vendors who are following the law?
What does that have to do with this story? Oh, right... nothing at all.
We're discussing one right now, genius.
You realize he doesn't mention the word "poor?" He's only ranting against an authorized vendor setting up and selling in front of someone's house? And his rant was "if that was my house...?" This is a hit piece on a wealthy white guy for being wealthy and white.... the article continues on about tech companies and income disparity - it's ridiculous. All this guy was saying was that he didn't want an unauthorized "farmers market" set up in front of his house. I live in a fairly cheap middle class neighborhood... and I wouldn't want that, either - no comment about the financial status of those involved, it's entirely meaningless.
So the unlicensed, "unauthorized" vendor should feel free to go to the police.
The difference is you set up a lemonade stand, you know, in front of YOUR house. If you skip the hype and read what he wrote, he said "if that was my house..."
He specifically said "unauthorized." This, to me, is like being labeled as anti-immigrant when you complain about illegal immigration. People purposely conflate the issue to make you look bad. WTF? Where is he "railing against low income people?" For all we know, they are setting up stands on private property, and taking business away from, you know, licensed vendors. This is a hit piece against a rich white guy, clear and simple. And read the article - the unauthorized people set up in front of someone's house. It's right there, in the second line of his "rant."
Exactly...he didn't try to hide it, and it's easy enough to disable. Yes, I know these kinds of things should be opt-in, but the difference between Ubuntu and, for example, Windows, is your getting a polished OS at zero financial cost to you - and to add insult to injury, in after paying for Windows it's nearly impossible to stop all the spying on you (especially for an average to newer user)... And I say that as someone who actually likes Windows 10, too.
No, the problem with CEOs and Presidents making claims like "no back doors" is that he can't control every employee, and while an employee might suffer the repercussions of an indiscretion like leaving a back-door in a program, so does the CEO and the company.
I have - people steal IP because they can't do without their entertainment and then pass themselves off as some kind of social crusader. It's moronic. People disagree because they can't live without their pirated copy of Dumb and Dumber. Does that really require an argument to point out how wrong it is?
Really? Not even when you install it? When it asks, you know, that you accept certain permissions?
What was cut from Netflix that isn't available though other channels?
Of course there's distinction - I'll repeat it again; not getting the media content you want from the service you want at the prices you want to pay is NOT a violation of your civil rights, and therefore illegally copying it is NOT an act of civil disobedience. It's really just that simple.
I think you're wrong, here... I do not know the whole story, but are you really suggesting there's content that was pulled from Netflix that is NOT available legally by ANY means in Canada?
Actually, no - your posts indicate you actually know very little about copyright law. Just because you're paying for streaming doesn't grant you the right to torrent a movie.
But it's not merely my OPINION that people violating copyright are in the wrong. Your civil rights aren't being violated, so illegal copying is not an act of civil disobedience - it's merely theft of IP. You can continue to justify it to yourself it if helps you sleep at night, but if you were making a living off of providing content to people, I would wager you'd see it in a different light. I'm also not even suggesting copyright laws don't need fixing - just that illegal copying of something like Dumb and Dumber is not a political statement, nor does it help anything.
It's very simple - if the content provider doesn't want to let you try before you buy, then just don't buy it. Again, if people would act legally and morally, and just show some restraint, the content providers might actually acquiesce. But until we do, they have no incentive to stop, and we have no right to violate the law. Your civil rights aren't being violated, so illegal copying is NOT an act of civil disobedience.
More on topic, it's up to you if you want to violate copyright laws... the problem I'm having in this discussion is not only people violating copyright laws, but then justifying it, pretending they've done nothing wrong, and even acting like media Robin Hoods of the entertainment industry. All for the sake of (for example) not abstaining from listening to Kanye West? Just no.
No, no - there is a huge difference between having your rights violated by unjust laws, and not being able to watch Dumb and Dumber on your own terms because you don't like the way it's being made available to you.
I also agree that copyright law is broken, but since it's not violating your civil rights, then civil disobedience is not the answer. Try turning off the computer or TV instead of violating someone else's intellectual property. I realize it's not going to happen, but if we, en masse, just stopped watching the absolute dreg these companies are providing at ridiculous prices and terms, then the problem would clear up really quickly without the need to violate the law.
You're conflating copyright and patents, though. Dumb and Dumber isn't a trade secret; not because the company released it, but because it never was - it's a copyrighted work of "art." And, for the record, they are refusing to "distribute" via Netflix... unless you can name something pulled from Netflix that is not available through other means legally in Canada.
What's happening is that people want the convenience of one service at a price they are happy with. The problem is, neither the service nor the price is up to you. If you have to buy or rent something on DVD or BR because that's the only way legal way the provider is giving you access to it, then your ONLY reasonable choices are to buy or rent it, or NOT buy or rent it, it's never to violate their copyright.
Who said Netflix was the victim? The content providers and the other venues by which they distribute the content in Canada are the victims of people who simply don't like the terms - whose only legal option is to just not buy the content. Tell me one thing Netflix pulled that isn't available in Canada through other legal means.