Physics has a well-known liberal bias!
Very true. We know this because, if physics had a conservative bias, the ground would have made the apple pay to build a trampoline.
As in, "Well, that's settled then."
Actual meaning: all of us believe it, and per our usual begging-the-question fallacy/passive-aggressive attack, we are going to insist you believe it too and call you a bad person if you refuse.
It's a pathology. Leftism, I mean.
You DO realize you're basically doing the exact thing you're complaining about here right?
They propose to change (mostly commercial) streaming of stolen works from a misdemeanor to a felony. Nothing becomes illegal that's not already illegal. If you were allowed to stream it, you still are. Fair use isn't changed. The change is to treat streaming the same as downloading.
Except that it seems Youtube doesn't even seem to know what is legal and what is not. I don't post anything to Youtube myself but I know someone who posted a video capture their characters pvping in an mmo. A few weeks later they got an email saying it had been taken down due to copyright infringement.
I've heard of an even worse case where someone posted a homemade video taken outside somewhere and it got taken down for copyright infringement. In that case I believe it was the sounds of birds chirping in the background that did it.
Not a good argument at all. The purpose of copyright law, as stated in the Constitution, is NOT to 'prevent someone from making money off someone elses work', it is to promote creation of new works by giving the creators exclusive rights to their work.
Yes but wasn't it also supposed to be for a limited/reasonable amount of time? Couldn't copyright also be looked at as a kind of contract or agreement between content creators and society?
If so, it seems to me that this agreement has long since been broken and I don't think it was society that did so first.
I thought the deflector array was for the protection of the crew, not for the inhabitants of the destination.
In this case it might protect both. If all of the radiation and particles get deflected out of the path of the startship at warp then there wouldn't be anything to build up within the bubble (which protects the crew) and therefore also nothing to get expelled outwards when the ship leaves warp (which protects any nearby inhabitants).
Just like copying movies and music: NK haven't stolen anything. The US still has all the dollars it ever has. It isn't like stealing a car where that deprives the original owner of the car. It's more like *duplicating* the car while the original owner still has it.
.... and then selling the duplicate cars to try to put the car manufacturer out of business.
If you're going to do the analogy, at least make it complete.
So it's OK, according to Slashdot.
If you'll look back at some of the discussions about copyright on Slashdot I think you'll find that a lot of people do find this form of copyright infringement wrong, even if they have a different view of "non-profit" copyright infringement.
Just my two cents, which you are free to duplicate.
You want more money? Well you're either going to have to achieve it by taking it from somebody else or by creating new resources through mining, manufacturing or man-hours etc.
This is interesting to me, especially the man-hours bit. A friend of mine recently brought up this idea in a discussion we were having about what a viable economic system alternative would be if someone like Ron Paul was eventually elected. The system he described still had government creating money (i.e. not based on gold) but it would be used to pay for public works (road improvements, parks, interstate mass transit, etc). Taxes would still be collected but the money collected would either be taken out of circulation or used in foreign trade.
So basically, all new money created would have real world backing of public works projects (also creating jobs) instead of debt and would therefore be available for use by everyone. The value of the money isn't just created on the spot with nothing of real physical value behind it. There are no shortage of projects that could be created so your economy isn't necessarily chained down or prevented from growing. The money comes out of the system in the form of taxes and/or foreign trade.
Honestly I'm not even remotely an economist so I don't know if this could even work but I do think it is an interesting idea.
And I fully know that the Libertarian party can never garner enough support to do anything significant, that is why I am throwing my support on the Republicans
I know I mentioned Tactical Voting the other day in another article and I know some of the responses indicated it's a very effective tool. However, I still maintain that if everyone who felt like you do on this actually just voted for who they actually wanted to be president, we might end up with someone in office other than the mainstream Dem and Rep candidates we always end up with.
Food for thought.
Kids need to learn how to deal with bullies not have some one intervene all the time. If your kid killed themselves, then YOU were just a bad parent.
1) Politicians don't often win elections by reminding people that they have a share of the responsibility when something bad happens.
2) Teaching kids to expect someone to always intervene and to never rely on themselves is probably an awesome introductory lesson to always expecting the government to intervene and save them when they get older. Of course to do that, the government is going to need more money/power...
Should that matter in your decision on who to vote for though? Tactical Voting, I'm sure, doesn't help those better candidates increase their chances which is why it's pushed as the best option by some people. It's in the interest of both primary parties to encourage tactical voting because, even if you're voting for the rival party, you're still voting for one of the primary parties and NOT for a third party that could introduce unwanted variables into the political game.
Unfortunately, in some cases it's working. There are people I've met that either believe that third parties are fictitious or acknowledge they exist but still only vote for Rep or Dem because those are the only REAL parties and are therefore the only appropriate parties to vote for. They firmly believe that voting for anyone else is simply wasting a vote.
I want a DPS meter addon for wikipedia.
I think you mean an EPS meter.. or "Edits Per Second". I think that would take all of those cross-editing arguments on there to a whole new level.
I never quite understood the moral panic that seems to appear when this comes up. Asking people to pay for what they use doesn't seem like *that* radical a concept to me.
* If you run more appliances, your electric bill goes up * If you drive a longer distance, you need to buy more gas * If you make a lot of cell phone calls, your bill goes up * If you eat more, you pay more for the groceries
Why is Internet use seen differently?
Which one of those things is not like the other? The cell phone bill example, and imo its because its much more like the broadband issue we're discussing here than any of those other examples.
Drive until your gas tank is empty and that gas is completely gone forever.. it's a resource that can no longer be used by someone else. The same goes for food after being consumed and electricity.
Broadband is slightly different. If I use my current max (which is only the amount available that is not currently in use by others sharing the connection) for five or ten minutes to download a large file and then go back to my default level, that broadband is available for use by others. You could argue that those that use higher amounts more frequently are "hogging" the pipe but they WERE sold x amount of broadband per second with or without caps. It's not the consumers fault that the cable companies chose a model where they over-subscribe lines to save money. If they're paying for a resource they should be able to use it as advertised. Furthermore, are they really "hogging" it for extended periods of time? Most situations involving high bandwidth usage seem to be in bursts, such as downloading a file. I've never seen netflix use enough bandwidth to put a serious dent in what I've been paying for (10mb) and that, besides the occasional multiplayer game, are when I'm actually using substained bandwidth levels.
There is technology out there to increase bandwidth availability but upgrading and building infrastructure doesn't make them money so they don't want to do it. It makes far more business sense to yell at the top of their lungs that the sky is falling, that there is a shortage on bandwidth, so they should charge more.
That does not compute.