Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: IceWeasel, Online Gambling, GPU Folding, Evolution
The facts about Debian Iceweasel. john-da-luthrun writes, "Debian Firefox/XULrunner maintainer Mike Hommey reports on the Firefox/Iceweasel wrangle, correcting various assertions that have been made in the assorted trollfests/flamewars currently raging over the proposed Firefox rename. Hommey confirms that Firefox in Etch will be renamed 'Iceweasel,' but this will only be a renamed version of the vanilla Firefox, not the GNU Iceweasel fork — though the Debian and GNU Iceweasel teams may work together in future."
A closer look at Folding@home's GPU client. TheRaindog writes, "Slashdot recently covered some impressive client statistics for Stanford's Folding@home project, but they don't tell the whole story. The Tech Report has taken a closer look at the GPU client, running it on a Radeon X1900 XTX against the CPU client on a dual-core Opteron. The results are enlightening, especially considering how Stanford has chosen to award points GPU client work units. Power consumption is more interesting, with the GPU client apparently far more power-efficient than folding with a CPU."
David Brin need not lament — KidBasic. sproketboy writes, "I was thinking about the recent slashdot story David Brin Laments Absence of Programming For Kids, and after looking around I found KidBasic. KidBasic is quite good and teaches all the basics of programming. My 4 year old nephew and I have been able to get a few simple games programmed with it."
Online gambling ban may violate international law. An anonymous reader writes, "As Slashdot noted earlier, Congress has passed an effective ban on online gambling in the U.S. This may not be the end of the story, however. The law may be struck down by the World Trade Organization on the grounds that it violates the United States' international obligation not to discriminate in favor of domestic casinos. If the WTO strikes down this U.S. gambling ban, it would not be the first time. In November of 2004, the WTO struck down a U.S. anti-gambling law as illegally discriminating against the nation of Antigua."
Human species may do whatnow?. jamie writes, "'I might have believed this nonsense could come from some late 19th century eugenicist, but now? Is there any evidence...?' That's biologist PZ Myers's comment on the BBC story that claims the human species may split in two. It was posted on Slashdot as humor, but Myers's comments are a much-needed sober appraisal of this kind of pseudoscientific claim."
Another RIAA lawsuit dropped. skelator2821 writes, "Another RIAA lawsuit has been dropped against a defendant who had been accused of illegally sharing songs online, according to Ars Technica. Looks like the Mob tactics are not paying off for our good friends at the RIAA anymore."
I hope they make it run on other GPUs. Maybe, this will pressure gfx card manufacturers to make some sort of cross-compatible powerful scripting language to run any other embarrassingly parallel calculations... it would certainly be benificial
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Penny Smith's supposed solution to the Millenium problem (Navier Stokes) turned out to be wrong.
Since when does US care about international law?
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
> The law may be struck down by the World Trade Organization...
The WTO does not have the power to strike down any US law.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Unauthorized copying is not theft, nor is it even always illegal.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Debian is being stupid if they use the Iceweasel name knowing the it will be confused with a current, ongoing project.
And you wonder why Mozilla doesn't want them abusing their trademark...
I chose to use a Commodore 64 for educating my own son:
s s/archives/42
http://akaimbatman.intelligentblogger.com/wordpre
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
For the billionth time, this is more than the logo. Debian had an understanding that let them call the version in their repository "Firefox" if they used a different logo. The mozilla.com people say that isn't good enough anymore. To use the codebase and call it Firefox Debian must:
1. Submit all patches to mozilla.com for approval. This includes security patches.
2. Debian's policy is to stick with a version of a given package for a release and backport security and stability fixes only. Mozilla.com would rather have everyone running the latest version at all times.
Basically, the codebase ceases to be Open Source if any product compiled from it is to be called Firefox. Very few other projects engage in this sort of control freakery and branding. If all Open Source projects behaved as Mozilla does, we'd have a real problem on our hands.
To pin ALL blame for this on Debian shows no understanding of what the issues are.
When are we going to see the tag cloud that stories are tagged with? Is it possible to make sure that some words are not used when tagging stories? I would bet that the current tag cloud has the words yes, no, fud, notfud, notnotfud as the largest taxonomies. Whilst I'm sure some /.'ers couldn't care about those words being the dominant words they really don't add any substance to a tagged story. How about tagging stories with useful concept-oriented tags and blocking non-substance words like 'no' or 'yes'? Those words should be elaborated on in the comments not as a tag.
As much as I'd appreciate giving the WTO such a power in this particular case, I'm afraid the ability to strike down laws of sovereign nations is far too extreme to allow this organization.
Fortunately, it seems the WTO doesn't actually have this power. They can declare a law in violation of the WTO. They can convince the member nations to implement sanctions against countries which remain in violation. But they don't seem to have the power to "strike down" any laws.
O RLY? The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Congress can regulate wheat and marijuana production that does not cross state lines because they compete with products that do cross state lines. Wickard v. Filburn ; Gonzales v. Raich .
The rules of evolution (from Darwin) are such that all species eventually split into seperate species.
Huh? Nope. You need some reason for speciation to occur, some form of genetic isolation (which may or may not mean geographical isolation, either is possible) as well as environmental or lifestyle differences large enough to actually push the groups in different directions, for long enough time for the groups not to be able to merge again.
There is nothing inevitable about those conditions arising, and there is nothing that says this will result in two daughter species rather than one surviving group and another that just goes extinct (most niches anywhere are already fully populated after all; if "you" as a group is pushed into a new niche, you're competing with species already very well adapted to exploiting it).
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
But they don't seem to have the power to "strike down" any laws.
:-)
The only power that anyone ever really has is military power. The only way that the US government can enforce any law on its citizens is to threaten them with force. The only way to actually "strike down" any American law would be to use force against the US government. Or at least threaten to use force.
Because the WTO has no military force, the only thing they can do is put sanctions against the US. It is the same thing that the UN is planning on doing to North Korea. It could still work if they can work up the guts, and I hope they do.
Im an American, but these gambling laws are rediculous. If it takes crippling our own economy to show our rulers that they are out of line then its a small price to pay. If I lose my job I could always become a professional gambler
--
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
The rules of evolution (from Darwin) are such that all species eventually split into seperate species.
Where'd you get that idea?
Darwin's theory was beautiful because it was simple - Those specimens most fit to live in a given environment will prevale over specimens that are less fit for that environment. That's its only claim about the future of a species. We can infer that a species will, through natural selection, become more and more fit for its environment, but that's an inferrence. Mutation is a fickle mistress, and the vast majority of her works fail to produce viable specimens, let alone ones that are more fit than their predecessors.
Splitting isn't a necessity, but it is likely when (and only when) a population is isolated. In the absence of isolation, no speciation occurs since any viable mutations are folded back into the common gene pool. That's one of the many wonders of sexual reproduction. I believe you'll agree that if anything, isolation among human populations has nearly vanished in the past hundred years, and this trend looks (quite) likely to continue as we move into the future.
I'll grant that branching of our species is possible, but for the foreseeable future I think it's unlikely, and it's certainly not a foregone conclusion. If Darwin said otherwise, I'd love to hear about it.
You can't win, Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Do you even use Debian? When was the last time you contributed? What business should it be of yours that a group of volunteers choose to work together under a shared set of values? None of it, that's what.
If you don't want to allow distributions to make changes to software they redistribute to enhance system integration, user experience, and conform to distribution policies, perhaps you should instead spend your time petitioning the Mozilla project to consider going closed source.
And what is your problem with the DFSGs? They were influential in shaping what the very term Open Source means today.
They can only respond to complaints about unfair trading practices, ie they cannot go out & 'declare a law in violation' unless someone comes to them first.
Since that person came to them, the WTO doesn't have to convince anyone. The complaint wouldn't be made if the complainer wasn't seeking relief.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
Did anyone notice the link provided for the RIAA case simply discussed the Elektra v. Wilke case, which has already been posted here to /. and is actually the topic of the story "RIAA Drops Case in Chicago," under the related stories? ...or am I the only one here who RTFAs?
(no link, you can click over on your own)
Let's say I have a paper origami crane. My friend has a piece of paper and proceeds to make a paper origami crane with his piece of paper. The end result looks exactly like mine. Did my friend just steal something? If not, then why is it considered "stealing" when magnetic bits are manipulated to the same state on hard drives?
Isolation by hybridization. Check it out:
r i-bse061206.php
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-06/st
Wacky stuff. The parallels between butterfly attraction and pretty people are at least amusing.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
I appreciate your analogy, but I don't agree. One reason, as dopey as it sounds, is that your paper crane is not copyrighted, that music is.
Or I can go a different route and argue that you're not stealing something tangible such as a pattern of bits that is a song, but you are stealing a potential customer from the artist to whom they'd be able to sell their song. Let's go to the extreme.
If we decided to pass a law that it is not a crime to copy songs if you haven't bought them, and I can copy music without any worry of violating the law, I can't in good conscience convince myself that selling music would be profitable. Even with scarcity of artists following this crash, you can't really argue that the good old law of supply-demand will keep the music going in this case.
However, I do agree that there needs to be a balance of fair use such as being able to play music at a block party or make as many copies as I want on different mediums so that I can play my favorite music on my ipod, in my car, etc.
why run from Vincenzo?
Not really. Trademark enforcement is separate issue than whether something is open-sourced. See, many open-sourced products have trademarks that they don't want other people using. You think the Debian people would like it if someone else put out something called "Debian Linux" that was not made from the real/authorized Debian packages or codebase? Really, think about it. If I started distributing my own version of "Debian Linux", which was really a rebranded copy of Redhat with spyware installed, don't you think the Debian people would want me to stop using that name?
But if it's open-sourced, no matter what trademark issues there are, you can always take the code and rebrand it. You rebrand it with your own trademarks, which you can then protect or not. But keep in mind that if you don't protect your trademarks, you lose rights to them.
If they are developing on an older version it sounds like they have already forked and a dummy spit over a logo has just brought it to a head. Emacs forked over a trivial reason as well - although it took many months to find a new developer to actually do anything with the RMS fork when the existing developer starting including support for stuff like X windows which didn't benefit hurd in any way. Has RMS joined the debian board recently? What changes have their been recently which would make them more into a no compromise position? Remember here that firefox is not a Debian project and I think the mozilla conditions listed above are fine - although it would be nice to be allowed to backport patches I can see why they don't want it done. The above bold type "com" bit above by the previous poster I see as the sort of childish attitude we saw with the emacs split - the impurity of people getting paid to write software that is available to all under the GPL!
The problem we have here is an issue of semantics. Here's the crux of the problem: my origami crane is implicitly copyrighted. Thus my friend would be guilty of copyright infringement. If my friend took away my origami crane, that would be stealing because I no longer have the physical object. However, since he just made his own origami crane to look like mine, he's only infringing on my copyright of the crane. I still have my origami crane in my possession.
The issue here is that the RIAA/MPAA would like to have you believe that copyright infringement and stealing are the same thing when they are not. What they're trying to do is pound into the public that copyright infringement is stealing because, quite frankly, which term sounds worse? Stealing or copyright infringement?
If you're going to extrapolate, you can't just stop at an arbitrary point.
Ok, so the abolition of copyright has lead to destruction of the music industry. Only the very few art-for-art's sake type musicians still release music.
Is there still a demand for music? Yes? Then there is the potential for a market. Obviously the market won't operate on the basis of selling a single song many times cheaply due to copyright. What would the artist do? Demand money up-front. Instead of working "on-spec", the artist works on commission. Either a rich guy commissions a song/album, or a coalition of moderately wealthy people (fans) pool their money to commission an album. End result: artist gets paid, music gets made.
Such a scheme wouldn't work know - why would any consumer go to that length of trouble when they can go to the CD store and just buy an album for $25? But if the current distribution method died, the commission-based system would become attractive as the only way to get new music. That sort of shift would also have a noticable effect on the end product. In the current model, artists must write to please studios, so they can get in to the global distribution and publicity network the studios offer. In the commission-based model, artists must write to please their fans, or they're not going to get another commission after the first. It would probably also put commercial radio out of business.
As long as there is significant demand for music - and there has been throughout all recorded history - then music will be made. What changes is how, why and how much.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
In other words, the WTO has real teeth in terms of overruling actions of the U.S. Congress.
About the only thing that the WTO can't do is to override the U.S. Constitution, which in theory trumps even treaties (and a prime factor to consider with copyright treaties, for example). The problem here is that the current members of the U.S. Supreme Court seem very reluctant to even override treaties based on this provision, nor does Congress really fight back hard if they are told "No" by international groups like the WTO.
So there are really two approaches that can be done in this situation:
In short, this is a big deal in the current American legal system. Hopefully this is going to be something that will be publicized so much that Americans will finally realize how much of their soverignty has been given up to silly groups of "international law experts", answerable to nobody other than themselves. There certainly is no check or balance to allow a group like the U.S. Congress to impeach these WTO judges if they abuse their position, nor any direct citizen involvement in deciding who gets to make these decisions.
This is true, and no offense, but frankly I'm impressed that you are aware of this. It's a welcome relief from the overwhelmingly ignorant "globalization this" and "free trade that" rants that I often read on Slashdot. What you might not know, however, is that allowing the nation who petitioned the Dispute Settlement Body to choose the way in which they are to be compensated has had an unexpected political side-effect, at least in the U.S. It turns out that one of the best ways of putting pressure on lawmakers and even the President of the United States is to impose tariffs on goods that are made in certain politically volatile states.
For instance, let's say it's 3 years ago and you're, I dunno...Germany. You just won your DSB case because you successfully demonstrated that you were harmed because of let's say, an economic initiative by George Bush that involved giving domestic steel producers in the northeast an unfair subsidy. As Germany, you turn around and impose a heavy tariff against all oranges coming from the United States, knowing full well many of those oranges come from Florida. Then, the pressure is ramped up on Bush, because he must then explain to Florida orange growers (who have a powerful lobby, by the way) why it is that they're having trouble selling their oranges in certain European markets.
That's the theory, anyway.
Actually never -- if they did, they would be neglectful of their responsibilities as leaders to do the best thing for their country. However, sometimes it's best to forgo a short-term gain in favor of long term stability. In other words, by submitting to international law (or a body like the WTO), you preserve a system which you believe benefits you in the long run.
Being law abiding, whether on the individual or national level, is not self-sacrificial behavior. There are good and rational reasons for doing so. It only looks disadvantageous when you're using a very short or narrow perspective. I would argue that the main problem with U.S. foreign policy is that it sacrifices long-term goals for short-term advantages or gains. We probably have more to gain from a strong World Trade Organization than anyone; if we make it irrelevant, we hurt ourselves in the long run.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Thanks for the interesting article. I've read reports of species that are isolated purely by choice - that is, fully capable of producing viable offspring, but which choose not to based on subtle, aesthetic differences. There are species of grasshopper that inhabit the same area, but which only mate with grasshoppers that sing the right "song". I believe there are also some species of salamander that are genetically compatible, but which will only breed with mates of the right color. This is the first I'd heard of a hybrid species isolating itself, though. Really interesting stuff.
The parallels with humans are amusing, but TBH I think we're in a slightly different boat. First off, in my experience (take that for what it's worth), "beauty" in humans is more strongly related to nurturing rather than nature. I seem to run into absolutely beautiful women in every walk of life, and which are often enough the offspring of unattractive parents. With the advent of cosmetic surgery, genes become even less of a factor.
More importantly, I don't think the concept of beauty in humans is quite as uniform as the media might have us believe. I'm constantly shocked by the rift between what any two men find attractive... and for women, I think matters of physical attraction are even more variable. If we factor in women's sexual preferences, which add more weight to behavior and socio-economic factors, the speciation of "beautiful people" starts to sound really unlikely. Instead, I think we'll tend to see the average human become more "beautiful" as times goes on. Maybe that's just me.
Last, and I may be off base in this, but I think humans tend toward exogamy by nature. Most people I've talked to find "exotic" to be a beauty all its own, and that strikes me as a powerful mechanism working in the favor of species solidarity. Unlike those butterflies, most people seem to prefer a mate that's from a visibly dissimilar tribe, or at least think the idea's exciting.
Anyway, that's enough of my hobbyist-biology blabbering. Thanks again for the interesting article. Now when I seduce bonobos, I can claim that it's a scientific experiment.
You can't win, Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
I'd argue that a similar situation now exists with abortion and other reproductive and personal rights. Lots of things that many people take for granted rest on a series of court decisions -- Roe v. Wade chief among them -- which are rather delicate logical and jurisprudential constructs. Had Roe not been decided the way it was, political will might have developed in the 1970s to codify an actual right to privacy, rather than relying on the flawed concept of a "pneumbra." Unfortunately, the latter path was taken, and now a whole host of rights ride on a this concept. As soon as people began to take those rights for granted, the opportunity of actually having enough momentum to get an actual codified right disappeared. Today, if a handful of legal scholars can be convinced of the wrongness of Roe and the pneumbra concept, then not only abortion but the whole "right" to privacy could disappear.
Swallowing bad jurisprudence simply because it produces social good in the short term is almost always a bad idea, and it leads to less stability in the long run. It forces you to either run the risk of losing the social gains in order to overturn bad law (as in Roe), or in keeping the bad precedent and subsequent bad judgements in order to keep the social good (as with your example of Raich and civil rights).
"Rights" won on questionable legal arguments can hardly said to be 'won' at all -- they're the social-freedom versions of stock-market bubbles. Pleasant, ephemeral, but apt to cause chaos one way or another whether they burst or remain. Slow growth based on actual legislative action is far better in the long run, painful as it may be in the present. Sometimes extreme pain is what's required to motivate both the people and the Legislative branch into action.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Splitting isn't a necessity, but it is likely when (and only when) a population is isolated. In the absence of isolation, no speciation occurs since any viable mutations are folded back into the common gene pool. That's one of the many wonders of sexual reproduction. I believe you'll agree that if anything, isolation among human populations has nearly vanished in the past hundred years, and this trend looks (quite) likely to continue as we move into the future.
I see your point, but I don't completely agree. It might seem that isolation has vanished, but the accessibility that we have today may have the opposite effect. What I mean, is that if you lived 500 years ago in a village of 100 people, then your reproductive opportunities were limited. Isolation within that group would indeed be unlikely, as you say; there would indeed be a single gene pool in such a town. But in a city of 1 million, there are so many opportunities that any reproductive advantage may be intensified. It may well turn out the the taller, thinner, blonder (or whatever the more attractive traits are) part of the population have, say, 10% more children on average.
Now, given several generation of this, and you may well see two 'subpopulations' arise. As time goes on, they would be less and less likely to reproduce among each other. If, say, the 'attractive' subpopulation was also wealthy, and the other one not, this would be intensified (even today, how many people marry far outside of their 'class'?).
So, geographical proximity does not imply a common gene pool, and may in fact cause the opposite. Of course, this is very speculative. But who knows.
In any case, the crucial issue is sexual selection, which TFA doesn't consider, at least at the beginning ("Ignoring the fact that you cannot predict long-term evolutionary trends without knowing long-term environmental trends" - but sexual selection isn't necessarily environmentally driven). Some people think things like 'evolution doesn't apply to the human race; we have conquered disease, and we all have children', but this is again to ignore sexual selection. Current research shows that perhaps as many as 10% of children are raised by men who do not know that they are not biologically theirs. Other research shows that women are more attracted to high-testosterone men when they are most fertile. So there seems to be plenty of room for sexual selection to work, even today. And as I said before, living in a city of millions just gives the highly-attractive more opportunities to reproduce.
Civil rights legislation is justified by Amendment XIV, which provides for equal protection under the law. It gives Congress the authority to enforce civil rights laws, trumping states' rights.
Civil rights laws aren't based on the interstate commerce clause. All sorts of discrimination were legal before Amendment XIV was passed.
I didn't mean to imply that humans are going to hybridize, I meant to point out that things genetic are often even more interesting and mysterious than we think.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Yes it would.
Regular expressions are your friend:5 .8/lib/Pod/perlretut.html
http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/docs/ActivePerl/
To Copy from One is Plagiarism; To Copy from Many is Research.
Hmm, sounds like VisualBasic ;)
:)
Aaaanyway, what I'd recommend for his kid is IBOL: Icon Based Operation Language. Never heard of it? Try googling for 'ChipWits'
(Yes, this time I'm involved: am re-creating a freeware version of it for - gasp! shudder! - Windoze)
Ciao,
Klaus
Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
But according to yor logic I didn't do anything wrong. I didn't take any physical object from you. I didn't take away your ability to provide services to others. So you have no reason to be upset, right?
The Mozilla rules on using their tradmarks make a lot of sense (and are probably required legally in order to maintain the trademark). Without it, third parties could make thier own version of Firefox loaded with spyware and crap and distribute it under the Firefox name.
Now Mozilla can grant Debian (and Redhat, Suse, Ubuntu, etc) a license to use their logos and stuff. But they can't give a license to everyone who wants to make their own distro based off Debian. Now, Debian doesn't allow debian derivatives to use the official debian logo, so they could maybe add to that rule that you couldn't use the Firefox logo either. But either that didn't occur to them or they just didn't want to do it.
Sure, go ahead, piss off more people - but don't come crying to other countries.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Mr. Dowling is still guilty of it
Of course. The example would have pointless if he wasn't.
copyright infringment is still wrong
Agreed.
If you had said copyright infringment is rape or copyright infringment is murder, and someone replied saying "no it's not", would you jump to the conclusion that they were somehow saying copyright infringment was ok? Of course not. Or at least I assume not. Infringment is not theft rape or murder, and should not be thought of in terms of theft rape or murder.
Copyright is a good and usefull thing.
Copyright is not the same thing as property rights and it is not supposed to be the same as property rights. Copyright law is not the same as property law and it is not supposed to be the same as property law. You should not assume someone is "anti-copyright" when they object/reject the terms [theft steal property Intellectual_Property].
If someone supports copyright, then why the fuss over that sort of language? Because Copyright industry public relations push those terms on the public to create the impression and assumption that copyright = property and that copyright law = property law and that copyright law should equal property law, when in fact they are different and are supposed to be different for good reason. And more importantly because copyright industry lobbyists push those same terms in all dealings with legislators for the exact same reason... to create the incorrect assumption in their minds that copyright law is already the same as property law, and to create the expectation that the law should be the same as property law... so that when legislators come across the fact that copyright is treated differently than property and that copyright law is different than property law they come to the mistaken conclusion that there is something wrong with the law and that they obviously should "fix" that "problem".
For example DMCA is bad law. It is based on the invalid concepts that copyright is property and that encryption schemes are the owner's lock on his property, and that someone opening that lock is breaking the law and that someone selling a key to open that lock is breaking the law. To the extent we want to go with that property analogy, it is like someone selling me a home which of course includes a lock in the front door. Once I buy the house, I am not commiting a crime if I open that lock. I am not commiting a crime if I PICK that lock. And it is not a crime for someone to sell me a key or a drill to open that lock on my front door. A law prohibiting me from opening the lock on a house I bought is a bad law. A law criminalizing products that help me get into my own house is a bad law.
The copyright conflict is a conflict over the language and the basic public perception and understanding of copyright.
And look at how effective that public relations shaping of the issue has been: I'd be reasonably satisfied with the copyright law we had not ten years ago, defending good old traditional copyright, and you leapt to the conclusion that I think copyright infringment is OK and presumably that I want to abolish all copyright law.
The copyright lobby's agenda is to reshape the public perception of copyright and to push the notion that not passing new law somehow equals eliminating copyright and pushing the notion that anyone who dares object to new law wants to eliminate copyright.
There is almost no one actually arguing to eliminate copyright. Look back through this thread and you'll see that almost every post arguing against the "stealing" language in fact explicitly supports copyright. You (and others in this thread) are clearly arguing from the presumption that you are arguing with copyright opponents, when in fact you are arguing against copyright supporters.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.