Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:why? (Score 1, Insightful) 401

All monopolies are creations of governments. They don't exist in a free market.

The U.S. government has had to step in many times to break up monopolies. If all monopolies are created by governments then why would they break them up?

Maybe you can explain how the U.S. created the Bell System (aka Ma Bell) and Standard Oil monopolies and then why they would dismantle what they created.

Comment Re:Salespeople making salespitch (Score 1) 387

While I agree with you and the GP, one thing I would say is that most of the world doesn't give a shit about cursive writing and I don't know why it is still taught in the US. Hand writing, joined up, legibly, sure. But cursive just seems like teaching Latin, maybe because of tradition or something.

I'm confused. You say you don't understand why cursive writing is still taught in the U.S. but it's OK to teach "hand writing, joined up, legibly".

You might not be aware of it but cursive writing and joined-up hand writing are the same thing.

Comment Re:protecting intellectual property is... theft?! (Score 1) 328

Yes, copyright infringement is stealing.

Factually incorrect.Copyright infringement and theft have completely different legal definitions and different laws apply to each.

You're starting off on a false premise, and using mathy-looking letter variables doesn't make your logic any less sloppy.

It might not have been clear but the person I was responding to said that copyright extensions were "stealing" society but copyright infringement wasn't stealing. I was merely pointing out their sloppy logic that if one of them was an act of theft then they were both an act of theft. I know legally that copy infringement is not theft however, the copyright holder makes less money as a result of the infringement which is why it has the appearance of theft. Of course how much money is lost is the great debate that no one can ever truly settle.

I'm sorry you found the "mathy-looking letter variables" overwhelming but they were simply used for conciseness. Here's a more wordy version that should be more to your liking.

I know logic probably escapes you but in both cases a person deprives another person of something. So if in one case it's stealing then it's stealing in both cases.

Comment Re:protecting intellectual property is... theft?! (Score 1) 328

I borrowed a book from a friend and read it. I got the use of something that costs money without paying for it. By your "logic"... I stole it?

Your "logic" sucks rather badly.

I was talking about copyright infringement not fair use (i.e. borrowing a book) which by definition is not copyright infringement so no, I'm not saying you stole it.

If you read my post and concluded that I equated copyright infringement with fair use then I think you have the problem with logic.

Comment Re:protecting intellectual property is... theft?! (Score 1, Interesting) 328

Copyright infringement isn't stealing - the legitimate holder of the copyright still has it and is still free to use it however they want, including using it to prosecute infringement. Extended copyright terms do in fact steal from society, using the proper definition of "steal" - members of society are deprived of the means to use those works to build upon them, or to preserve them.

Yes, copyright infringement is stealing. If you get the use or enjoyment of something that normally costs money then you have deprived the copyright holder of that money. So if depriving society of free access to movies due to copyright extensions is, by your own admission, stealing then depriving the current copyright holder of the fee required to view or use those very same works is also stealing.

I know logic probably escapes you but in both cases A deprives B of C. So if in one case it's stealing then it's stealing in both cases.

Comment Re: And who will watch it? (Score 1) 146

Technically, it isn't an internet (International Network) as it is only national.
It is a lot closer to an intranet than an internet

The "inter" part of "internet" stands for "interconnected" not "international". So North Korea does have an internet (interconnected network) but their internet is not connected to the Internet.

Comment Re:What happens when the government owns everythin (Score 1) 168

You are confusing Airbus with Airbus Defence and Space. Airbus is not involved at all in SpaceX decision.

You are correct, my mistake.

Airbus Group is not a Dutch multinational. It is simply registered in Netherlands for corporate tax-benefits.

Sorry, but regardless of the reason for being registered in the Netherlands it still makes it a Dutch multinational corporation. But I'll compromise and call it a Dutch registered, French headquartered multinational corporation.

Airbus Defence and Space is not a German subsidiary. It consists of independent companies from France, Germany, UK and other EU mignon-states. These companies like to pretend on paper they are unified. France has the largest share of ADS, then Germany, then UK.

Yeah, no. According to ADS's own website those companies were consolidated into ADS as a German based division (i.e. subsidiary) of AG.

And regardless of who owns the shares, government or otherwise, AG is still a publicly traded company that owns ADS.

So I will amend my original post to say that a French politician is complaining that the German division [wikipedia.org] of a Dutch registered, French headquartered multinational corporation [wikipedia.org] is choosing an American launch vehicle instead of one offered by the very same German division of that very same Dutch registered, French headquartered multinational corporation.

Feel better.

Comment Re:What happens when the government owns everythin (Score 4, Interesting) 168

Except that Airbus is not government owned and it's no more subsidized than any other aerospace firm.

It would be more accurate to say that a French politician is complaining that the French subsidiary of a Dutch multinational corporation is choosing an American launch vehicle instead of one offered by the German subsidiary of that very same Dutch multinational corporation.

Slashdot Top Deals

Wernher von Braun settled for a V-2 when he coulda had a V-8.

Working...